Really? My point is, why have such good built-on classes to support the building of everything from simple animations to complex visualisations if it is practically impossible to do so?
On 24 November 2014 at 21:02, Tom Eugelink <t...@tbee.org> wrote: > I do not think that JavaFX is aiming at replacing flash, HTML and > javascript are doing a great job there, hence animations are not equally > important as they were for flash. > > Tom > > > > On 24-11-2014 10:46, Felix Bembrick wrote: > >> I am surprised more people have not expressed an opinion on this. To me, >> it seems absolutely *vital* to the long term (or any term) success of >> JavaFX. >> >> Haven't any of you ever programmed in Flash? Can you imagine trying to >> create any of those complex (or even the simple) animations and >> visualisations *without* a visual editor and by doing it code alone? It >> wouldn't have been practical (read possible) and similarly, and with >> JavaFX >> having even richer features, to do this "by hand". >> >> To me, this is the reason why we haven't seen any great >> animations/visualisations/applications using JavaFX and we probably never >> will until a visual animation editor is available. Specifying and >> controlling the motion and appearance of numerous complex objects and >> their >> transitions relying exclusively on code would not be possible for even the >> "gunnest" JFX coder... >> >> On 18 November 2014 at 02:48, Richard Bair <richard.b...@oracle.com> >> wrote: >> >> I’m afraid at this time there are no plans for adding an >>> animation/transition effect editor to Scene Builder, certainly not in the >>> short-term. >>> >>> Thanks >>> Richard >>> >>> On Nov 13, 2014, at 7:34 PM, Felix Bembrick <felix.bembr...@gmail.com> >>>> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Java applets were the first "programs" to run inside a web browser and >>>> >>> for >>> >>>> a (little) while they were flavour of the month. >>>> >>>> But then along came Flash which had several advantages such as faster >>>> >>> load >>> >>>> times, consistent loads and antialiased fonts/graphics and soon >>>> >>> completely >>> >>>> surpassed applets. >>>> >>>> But the MAIN reason why Flash was initially so successful and went on >>>> for >>>> years and years of domination is that the Flash tools had an >>>> Animation/Timeline Editor pretty much from the beginning. This enabled >>>> even a novice to drag images around and draw the path they wanted them >>>> to >>>> move along, add all sorts of bouncing effects and sounds and the result >>>> >>> was >>> >>>> the birth of the online greeting card company. >>>> >>>> But Flash soon went on to be so much more. As the Adobe tools improved, >>>> >>> so >>> >>>> did the SWFs and soon entire websites were written in Flash. >>>> >>>> Meanwhile, applet programmers had absolutely nothing remotely similar >>>> and >>>> had to try (and I stress try) to tediously hand code any animations and >>>> transitions and effects and I don't think it ever worked. >>>> >>>> Fast forward 15-20 years and now we have JavaFX which doesn't need to >>>> run >>>> in the browser, has even more features than Flash, uses hardware >>>> acceleration for superior performance, has a wide range of built-in >>>> animations, transitions and effects but STILL we have to hand code any >>>> animation/transitions. >>>> >>>> This is INCREDIBLY inefficient and unless Scene Builder incorporates a >>>> powerful, sophisticated animation/transition and effect editor VERY, >>>> VERY >>>> SOON I fear that the advanced graphics features are never going to be >>>> >>> used >>> >>>> to their full potential (much to the detriment of JavaFX itself). >>>> >>>> Does anyone know if one is in the pipeline? I see this as one of the >>>> >>> most >>> >>>> vital features for the JavaFX ecosystem to achieve more penetration and, >>>> eventually, survive. >>>> >>>> Felix >>>> >>> >>> >
