Re: [Flashcoders] mac vs pc
I run Windows XP both at home and work. For a short period, I worked on a Linux (Debian) box at work, because the machine I got happened to had Debian installed and my boss, a Linux fan, insisted that I should try it. At the time FlashDevelop was my main editor, so I had to run some Sun VM that booted a virtual windows. I also use the Flash IDE on a daily basis. Mostly for minor editing, but I need to run Flash almost every day. It was naturally slow and some shortcuts wouldn't work, which was a pain. I'd spend most of the time using Windows on the VM, so it made no sense and I soon gave up and installed Windows XP. I'm one of the retardeds using Flex Builder for AS coding ;). It has its pitfalls and I do miss some FD features, which I used almost exclusively for a long year. But now I can't live without a debugger that actually works, something I missed for years; and a passable profiler, which is not so great for measuring performance, IMO, but is invaluable when you're looking / testing for memory leaks. Once you learn to use it, the "profilers" that basically output System.totalMemory look like a bad joke. I hope some day they finally get around to add a GUI debugger to FD; having a nice profiler wouldn't hurt, either. But for now, I'd choose FB any day. Cheers Juan Pablo Califano 2009/8/11 Steven Sacks > My home computer is a Windows XP box. > > My last full-time job was a Mac-only shop. So, I used Mac every day, 5 > days a week, for 10 months. > > Within a few weeks, I realized I couldn't live without FlashDevelop. I > installed Parallels 3 with Windows XP and figured out how to use > FlashDevelop in my workflow there. > > I *love* Expose and Spaces. However, they are easier to live without than > FlashDevelop. FDT and FlexBuilder both suck ass as Actionscript editors > compared to FlashDevelop. > > I cannot live without FlashDevelop. Period. Anyone who has spent any > serious time with it knows that it isn't an option. The day they get it > working on the Mac is the day Flex Builder (ahem, Flash Builder) sales see a > significant drop. The only reason so many people buy Flex Builder for Mac > is because FlashDevelop is currently PC-only. > > Actionscript coding in Eclipse is retarded. It's slow, clunky and > basically, sucks. > > ___ > Flashcoders mailing list > Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] mac vs pc
I work on a mac at the office but I'd rather work on windows. If I had to choose between FlashDevelop and FlexBuilder, I'd have to go with FlexBuilder. FlashDevelop is really cool and all, it's main advantage I think is that it's super easy to setup a project and start coding compared to FlexBuilder. But FlashDevelop lacks the powerful refactoring features from FlexBuilder and it won't keep your import statements organized like FlexBuilder does. I've never used the Flex framework, I just use FlexBuilder to code for Flash. I know FlashBuilder 4 will have some new features like the ones that make FlashDevelop so nice. I hope they also make some improvements to the refactoring features.. > From: Steven Sacks > Reply-To: Flash Coders List > Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 15:40:19 -0700 > To: Flash Coders List > Subject: Re: [Flashcoders] mac vs pc > > My home computer is a Windows XP box. > > My last full-time job was a Mac-only shop. So, I used Mac every day, 5 days a > week, for 10 months. > > Within a few weeks, I realized I couldn't live without FlashDevelop. I > installed > Parallels 3 with Windows XP and figured out how to use FlashDevelop in my > workflow there. > > I *love* Expose and Spaces. However, they are easier to live without than > FlashDevelop. FDT and FlexBuilder both suck ass as Actionscript editors > compared to FlashDevelop. > > I cannot live without FlashDevelop. Period. Anyone who has spent any serious > time with it knows that it isn't an option. The day they get it working on > the > Mac is the day Flex Builder (ahem, Flash Builder) sales see a significant > drop. > The only reason so many people buy Flex Builder for Mac is because > FlashDevelop is currently PC-only. > > Actionscript coding in Eclipse is retarded. It's slow, clunky and basically, > sucks. > ___ > Flashcoders mailing list > Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders This e-mail is intended only for the named person or entity to which it is addressed and contains valuable business information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential and/or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you received this e-mail in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please notify us immediately of the error via e-mail to disclai...@tbwachiat.com and please delete the e-mail from your system, retaining no copies in any media. We appreciate your cooperation. ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] mac vs pc
My home computer is a Windows XP box. My last full-time job was a Mac-only shop. So, I used Mac every day, 5 days a week, for 10 months. Within a few weeks, I realized I couldn't live without FlashDevelop. I installed Parallels 3 with Windows XP and figured out how to use FlashDevelop in my workflow there. I *love* Expose and Spaces. However, they are easier to live without than FlashDevelop. FDT and FlexBuilder both suck ass as Actionscript editors compared to FlashDevelop. I cannot live without FlashDevelop. Period. Anyone who has spent any serious time with it knows that it isn't an option. The day they get it working on the Mac is the day Flex Builder (ahem, Flash Builder) sales see a significant drop. The only reason so many people buy Flex Builder for Mac is because FlashDevelop is currently PC-only. Actionscript coding in Eclipse is retarded. It's slow, clunky and basically, sucks. ___ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
Re: [Flashcoders] what is the current 3D best-practice?
Hey Sebastian, While Away started life as a PV3D branch, they're pretty diverged by now - while they do occasionally share code, they're certainly two distinct engines and will remain so. General consensus here is that PV tends to have more whizzy features and is the more 'bleeding-edge' engine, while Away has better stability and a nicer API. YMMV. I don't know if either supports morphing out of the box, but it should be relatively simple to hack either engine to do it /relatively/ being the active word here :-> It' not much hassle to get either working to a point where you can figure out which will be better suited to your needs; if you've got the time, I definitely recommend having a look at both. It's very much a question of personal taste and which engine has the better feature set for your project. Cheers, h. 2009/8/11 sebastian > Hello everyone, thank-you for your replies, very insightful. > > I have looked at some websites to get a feeling for what Away3D is compared > to PV3D. Am I correct that Away3D is an off-shoot that will become merged > into PV? If so, it would seem more sensible to stick with PV3D... right? > > This article in particular swayed me: > > http://blog.papervision3d.org/2007/05/16/papervision3d-to-merge-away3d-features/ > > I am hoping that I can find a way to have shapes merge between different > polygon configurations in PV; as the client wants geometric shapes with 8 > sides [diamond], 20 sided [big die], 12 sided etc. [think multi-sided Dice > sets] they need to spin, have images on each side, and when you click on a > side, opens the relative page in a light-box. > > The user will be able to switch dice shape [ploy-sides] with a click and I > need to have it morph. If there is really no way to have this done > dynamically; I suppose I can pre-render all possible variations [12 to 4, 12 > to 8, 12 to 20 etc] -- but then I have the issue of how it looks different > if in flash vs. how it would look from a 3d program... [and the only 3d > program I know well enough to crank out stuff fast is: Lightwave] > > Thanks for any further comment or insight, > > best regards, > > Sebastian. > > > On Aug 10, 2009, at 12:03 PM, Matt Gitchell wrote: > > PV3D's pretty good, tho there's a little bit of a curve to learning it. I >> haven't done any Away3D stuff but I've heard good reports about that >> too.You >> probably don't want to go down the custom road as once you start to deal >> with z-sorting and all that in earnest it balloons in complexity quickly. >> CS4's native 3D stuff is generally only good for planes, there's no native >> poly handling. I think the latest PV3D has been tweaked to take some >> advantage of the native FP10 3D stuff on the render side, but I didn't >> have >> that as an option on my last PV3D project and hence didn't explore it. >> As far as morphing shapes goes, you're probably going to have to do that >> in >> a dedicated 3D suite then export that animation to a Collada file. You can >> spin and move stuff (in PV3D), but actual manipulations of the >> shapes/polys >> in an object are going to be best handled in a more or less canned >> fashion, >> depending on the complexity you're looking for or if you want to write >> something that creates the polys dynamically, which is again easier in >> PV3D >> than "Pure" AS3. >> >> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 11:34 AM, Kerry Thompson > >wrote: >> >> Sebastian wrote: >>> >>> I was wondering if anyone had any feedback to my 3d inquiry? Because I have not received any input from the group. >>> >>> My guess is that not many of us work in 3D. I've had a look at >>> Papervision, >>> and, while it looks pretty good, I haven't explored it deeply enough to >>> help. >>> >>> Does it have to be Flash? The dominant player in the online 3D world is >>> still Director/Shockwave, and what you are describing could be done >>> easily >>> in Shockwave. If you're not familiar with Lingo, Director has an >>> implementation of JavaScript that is a lot closer to ActionScript. I >>> don't >>> know how much of its 3D capabilities are available through JavaScript, >>> but >>> it's worth a look. You can download a 30-day free trial. >>> >>> Another up-and-coming 3D program is Unity--they're making some serious >>> waves, and, from the reports I've heard, Unity is easier to work with >>> than >>> Director. Its main drawback is that it doesn't have the plugin >>> penetration >>> Shockwave has. >>> >>> HTH. >>> >>> Cordially, >>> >>> Kerry Thompson >>> >>> ___ >>> Flashcoders mailing list >>> Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com >>> http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders >>> >>> ___ >> Flashcoders mailing list >> Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com >> http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders >> > > ___ > Flashcoders mailing list > Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
