I actually have a bit of this in SnapCode - you can draw and configure arbitrary shapes with fills and effects, bring up the animation inspector and set the time slider to a new time and reconfigure attributes for that new key-frame (such as size, location, rotation, scale, skew, color), then save and launch to see the animation.
Here is a quick demo: SnapCode JavaFX Animation If you create a snap “WebPage” subclass by the same name, this JavaFX is automatically loaded into it and you have programatic access and control over it. I also have support for animation along a path and morphing animation, but that code hasn’t had much love recently. I wish I could get this stuff polished up and out to the real world faster, but I’m a little under-resourced. :-) jeff On Nov 24, 2014, at 6:37 AM, Tom Eugelink <t...@tbee.org> wrote: > Oh, you are right, if the JavaFX team does not need to make choices on where > to invest their precious time, then all possible usages could be implemented > immediately. Unfortunately they too have to place priorities and then the > most likely usage will get implemented first (since most usages already have > some existing platform, "alternative" or "replacement" for an that platform > comes to mind). > > Apparently it is not animations, personally I'm still hoping 3rd party > controls support in SceneBuilder will get higher on the list, but I'm not > getting my hopes up. But as Mike pointed out; it is a missing functionality, > go build it! ;-) > > Tom > > > On 24-11-2014 13:18, Felix Bembrick wrote: >> JavaFX should not be seen as a "replacement" for anything or an >> "alternative". It has characteristics of both Flash and Flex along with >> Silverlight and especially Qt, (not to mention even HTML5/CSS/JS), but is a >> separate and distinct product in its own class. >> >> Just because the Flash visual editor may have "got in the way" of your >> desire to code directly, that doesn't mean that JavaFX should not have such >> an editor for all the same reasons and use cases that Flash had one. >> >> Sure, for *your* purposes of "decorative effects", I am confident that >> coding would suffice but for *my* purposes (and anyone who has worked in the >> animation industry or worked creating visualisations) I really need a visual >> editor of the ilk I have described. >> >> Why just make one class of user happy but seriously limit the effectiveness >> of another (and in doing so possibly significantly limit the market of >> JavaFX)? >> >> I am sure at least one of the developers on the JavaFX team has at one point >> at least envisaged JavaFX being used for complex animations, visualisations >> or even non-trivial games. What they need to do now is make such use cases >> feasible. >> >> On 24 November 2014 at 22:04, Tom Eugelink <t...@tbee.org >> <mailto:t...@tbee.org>> wrote: >> >> I have no problems using JavaFX's animations for my purposes, which are >> decorative effects. I do not need an editor for that, forced me to use it >> and it probably will even get in my way. Which BTW was the case with the >> Flash coding that I have done; I hated that Flash EDI, it was way too much >> focussed on animation. Actually that is why Adobe created Flex, which >> basically was flash-for-developers (instead of animators). JavaFX is more a >> alternative for Flex than Flash. >> >> Tom >> >> >> >> On 24-11-2014 11:20, Felix Bembrick wrote: >>> 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 >>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >
