Re: Re[2]: [Flashcoders] External libraries
I fixed the delegate class. It was 'redefining a variable', so I just copied the source into my project's dir and used that (modified) instead of the mx.* one. Unfortunately, now I'm running into other problems. If I build my code using the Flash IDE it works correctly, but if I build it with MTASC it doesn't work. There seem to be a couple problems: 1) when built using the Flash IDE the coordinates (0, 0) on the root are at the center. When built using MTASC (0, 0) seems to be the upper left hand corner. Now, I like MTASC's way better, but since I'll be using the IDE for the final build for production this difference causes a problem. 2) When I build the code using MTASC the SWF seems incapable of resizing. When I use the IDE I can resize the window and the movie resizes. However, when I build using MTASC when I resize the window the movie never resizes. This is a problem as the movie I'm working on needs to be able to dynamically resize. If I can get around these problems I'll really like MTASC, as it lets me build without having the Flash IDE open all the time. But right now those are both show stoppers (I don't like the mx.* problem either, but I can work around that if I need to). -Andy On 1/23/07, Trevor Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: i seem to remember having to rework my Delegate class to run with mtasc - what's the error it's giving you? On 1/23/07, Andy Herrman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If I add the -mx parameter to MTASC (I'm working through FlashDevelop) > it removes the error, but the Delegate class doesn't work anymore > (Delegate.create returns undefined). > >-Andy > > On 1/23/07, Andy Herrman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hmm...I just tried building using MTASC and I'm getting an error in > > one of the mx classes. It's choking on mx.utils.Delegate (variables > > aren't typed). Is there a way to keep MTASC from being too strict on > > the built in mx classes? > > > >-Andy > > > > On 1/22/07, Francis Chary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > It's doesn't have to be that way. On the last project I did, I used > MTASC > > > for about 90% of the development, then switched to the Flash IDE > during the > > > last week. As long as you can start your application with the same > line of > > > code, it doesn't really matter which compiler you use. > > > > > > Basically, in FlashDevelop, I had a static main function that started > the > > > app thusly: > > > > > > var newMenu:MenuController = new MenuController(); > > > > > > In the Flash IDE, I used the same line of code, but I put it in frame > 1 > > > instead. It amounts to the same thing though. > > > > > > Francis > > > > > > On 1/22/07, Andy Herrman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > So, I actually use FlashDevelop to write my code, and just switch to > > > > the Flash IDE to build (I really dislike the IDE). > > > > > > > > The problem with using it has nothing to do with installing it or > > > > being able to run it on my machine. The problem is that MTASC would > > > > essentially be responsible for things that go into production. If > > > > Flash has some bug that causes problems the company could get > support, > > > > but it's not really the same with MTASC. > > > > > > > > That said, if things can be set up to use both at once then I > probably > > > > could use it during development, and just use Flash to do the final > > > > compile. I think I might try that. > > > > > > > > I know MTASC is stricter, which is actually a reason I want to use > it. > > > > Unfortunately the 2 big flash movies that I have been working on I > > > > inherited when the only guy in the company who knew flash quit (I > > > > mainly did Java with some C++), and they used just the Flash IDE, so > I > > > > have no idea how easy/hard it would be to get MTASC working with > > > > those. > > > > > > > > I might give it a try for the new project I'm working on though. If > I > > > > can get it working nicely with FD (not that I think that will be > hard) > > > > then it would make me happy. > > > > > > > > -Andy > > > > > > > > On 1/22/07, Steven Sacks | BLITZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I think you have a misconception about MTASC. It isn't a > replacement > > > > > for Flash (unless you're a G like Ben Jackson), it's a 3rd party > > > > > compiler for Flash. > > > > > > > > > > When Flash compiles, it recompresses all the media (graphics, > sound, > > > > > components) as it compiles. All MTASC does is injects code into > the > > > > > swf. So, you can update your classes and use MTASC to compile and > cut > > > > > your compile time down to less than a second where Flash can take > many > > > > > (some of my FLAs take over 30 seconds!). > > > > > > > > > > To use MTASC, you need to be writing AS2 classes, as any timeline > code > > > > > or #include code changes won't be updated using MTASC. FLASC is > an easy > > > > > to use GUI for MTASC that runs as a panel in the Flash IDE and > it's how > > > >
Re: Re[2]: [Flashcoders] External libraries
i seem to remember having to rework my Delegate class to run with mtasc - what's the error it's giving you? On 1/23/07, Andy Herrman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If I add the -mx parameter to MTASC (I'm working through FlashDevelop) it removes the error, but the Delegate class doesn't work anymore (Delegate.create returns undefined). -Andy On 1/23/07, Andy Herrman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hmm...I just tried building using MTASC and I'm getting an error in > one of the mx classes. It's choking on mx.utils.Delegate (variables > aren't typed). Is there a way to keep MTASC from being too strict on > the built in mx classes? > >-Andy > > On 1/22/07, Francis Chary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It's doesn't have to be that way. On the last project I did, I used MTASC > > for about 90% of the development, then switched to the Flash IDE during the > > last week. As long as you can start your application with the same line of > > code, it doesn't really matter which compiler you use. > > > > Basically, in FlashDevelop, I had a static main function that started the > > app thusly: > > > > var newMenu:MenuController = new MenuController(); > > > > In the Flash IDE, I used the same line of code, but I put it in frame 1 > > instead. It amounts to the same thing though. > > > > Francis > > > > On 1/22/07, Andy Herrman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > So, I actually use FlashDevelop to write my code, and just switch to > > > the Flash IDE to build (I really dislike the IDE). > > > > > > The problem with using it has nothing to do with installing it or > > > being able to run it on my machine. The problem is that MTASC would > > > essentially be responsible for things that go into production. If > > > Flash has some bug that causes problems the company could get support, > > > but it's not really the same with MTASC. > > > > > > That said, if things can be set up to use both at once then I probably > > > could use it during development, and just use Flash to do the final > > > compile. I think I might try that. > > > > > > I know MTASC is stricter, which is actually a reason I want to use it. > > > Unfortunately the 2 big flash movies that I have been working on I > > > inherited when the only guy in the company who knew flash quit (I > > > mainly did Java with some C++), and they used just the Flash IDE, so I > > > have no idea how easy/hard it would be to get MTASC working with > > > those. > > > > > > I might give it a try for the new project I'm working on though. If I > > > can get it working nicely with FD (not that I think that will be hard) > > > then it would make me happy. > > > > > > -Andy > > > > > > On 1/22/07, Steven Sacks | BLITZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I think you have a misconception about MTASC. It isn't a replacement > > > > for Flash (unless you're a G like Ben Jackson), it's a 3rd party > > > > compiler for Flash. > > > > > > > > When Flash compiles, it recompresses all the media (graphics, sound, > > > > components) as it compiles. All MTASC does is injects code into the > > > > swf. So, you can update your classes and use MTASC to compile and cut > > > > your compile time down to less than a second where Flash can take many > > > > (some of my FLAs take over 30 seconds!). > > > > > > > > To use MTASC, you need to be writing AS2 classes, as any timeline code > > > > or #include code changes won't be updated using MTASC. FLASC is an easy > > > > to use GUI for MTASC that runs as a panel in the Flash IDE and it's how > > > > I use MTASC (beats learning to write those long command lines). > > > > > > > > Using FLASC from the beginning of a project is ideal, because MTASC is > > > > stricter than the Flash IDE compiler. A benefit of its strictness is it > > > > forces you to be a better coder. If you jump into the middle of a > > > > project with FLASC, it will probably take you a bit to get it going. It > > > > will only really benefit you if your FLAs take more than a second or two > > > > to compile. If you're waiting 5-10 seconds every time you make a > > > > change, it might be worth your time to install FLASC. > > > > > > > > As far as your corporatation goes, you're still using Flash. FLASC is a > > > > panel inside of Flash. You'll have to get MTASC, which is just an > > > > executable that sits in your Program Files folder, but it doesn't > > > > require installation - you download it and put it there manually. No > > > > administrator access required. > > > > > > > > HTH, > > > > Steven > > > > ___ > > > > Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com > > > > To change your subscription options or search the archive: > > > > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > > > > > > > > Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software > > > > Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training > > > > http://www.figleaf.com > > > > http://training.figleaf.com > > > > > > > _
Re: Re[2]: [Flashcoders] External libraries
If I add the -mx parameter to MTASC (I'm working through FlashDevelop) it removes the error, but the Delegate class doesn't work anymore (Delegate.create returns undefined). -Andy On 1/23/07, Andy Herrman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hmm...I just tried building using MTASC and I'm getting an error in one of the mx classes. It's choking on mx.utils.Delegate (variables aren't typed). Is there a way to keep MTASC from being too strict on the built in mx classes? -Andy On 1/22/07, Francis Chary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's doesn't have to be that way. On the last project I did, I used MTASC > for about 90% of the development, then switched to the Flash IDE during the > last week. As long as you can start your application with the same line of > code, it doesn't really matter which compiler you use. > > Basically, in FlashDevelop, I had a static main function that started the > app thusly: > > var newMenu:MenuController = new MenuController(); > > In the Flash IDE, I used the same line of code, but I put it in frame 1 > instead. It amounts to the same thing though. > > Francis > > On 1/22/07, Andy Herrman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > So, I actually use FlashDevelop to write my code, and just switch to > > the Flash IDE to build (I really dislike the IDE). > > > > The problem with using it has nothing to do with installing it or > > being able to run it on my machine. The problem is that MTASC would > > essentially be responsible for things that go into production. If > > Flash has some bug that causes problems the company could get support, > > but it's not really the same with MTASC. > > > > That said, if things can be set up to use both at once then I probably > > could use it during development, and just use Flash to do the final > > compile. I think I might try that. > > > > I know MTASC is stricter, which is actually a reason I want to use it. > > Unfortunately the 2 big flash movies that I have been working on I > > inherited when the only guy in the company who knew flash quit (I > > mainly did Java with some C++), and they used just the Flash IDE, so I > > have no idea how easy/hard it would be to get MTASC working with > > those. > > > > I might give it a try for the new project I'm working on though. If I > > can get it working nicely with FD (not that I think that will be hard) > > then it would make me happy. > > > > -Andy > > > > On 1/22/07, Steven Sacks | BLITZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I think you have a misconception about MTASC. It isn't a replacement > > > for Flash (unless you're a G like Ben Jackson), it's a 3rd party > > > compiler for Flash. > > > > > > When Flash compiles, it recompresses all the media (graphics, sound, > > > components) as it compiles. All MTASC does is injects code into the > > > swf. So, you can update your classes and use MTASC to compile and cut > > > your compile time down to less than a second where Flash can take many > > > (some of my FLAs take over 30 seconds!). > > > > > > To use MTASC, you need to be writing AS2 classes, as any timeline code > > > or #include code changes won't be updated using MTASC. FLASC is an easy > > > to use GUI for MTASC that runs as a panel in the Flash IDE and it's how > > > I use MTASC (beats learning to write those long command lines). > > > > > > Using FLASC from the beginning of a project is ideal, because MTASC is > > > stricter than the Flash IDE compiler. A benefit of its strictness is it > > > forces you to be a better coder. If you jump into the middle of a > > > project with FLASC, it will probably take you a bit to get it going. It > > > will only really benefit you if your FLAs take more than a second or two > > > to compile. If you're waiting 5-10 seconds every time you make a > > > change, it might be worth your time to install FLASC. > > > > > > As far as your corporatation goes, you're still using Flash. FLASC is a > > > panel inside of Flash. You'll have to get MTASC, which is just an > > > executable that sits in your Program Files folder, but it doesn't > > > require installation - you download it and put it there manually. No > > > administrator access required. > > > > > > HTH, > > > Steven > > > ___ > > > Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com > > > To change your subscription options or search the archive: > > > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > > > > > > Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software > > > Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training > > > http://www.figleaf.com > > > http://training.figleaf.com > > > > > ___ > > Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com > > To change your subscription options or search the archive: > > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > > > > Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software > > Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training > > http://www.figleaf.com > > http://training.figleaf.com > > > _
Re: Re[2]: [Flashcoders] External libraries
Hmm...I just tried building using MTASC and I'm getting an error in one of the mx classes. It's choking on mx.utils.Delegate (variables aren't typed). Is there a way to keep MTASC from being too strict on the built in mx classes? -Andy On 1/22/07, Francis Chary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It's doesn't have to be that way. On the last project I did, I used MTASC for about 90% of the development, then switched to the Flash IDE during the last week. As long as you can start your application with the same line of code, it doesn't really matter which compiler you use. Basically, in FlashDevelop, I had a static main function that started the app thusly: var newMenu:MenuController = new MenuController(); In the Flash IDE, I used the same line of code, but I put it in frame 1 instead. It amounts to the same thing though. Francis On 1/22/07, Andy Herrman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So, I actually use FlashDevelop to write my code, and just switch to > the Flash IDE to build (I really dislike the IDE). > > The problem with using it has nothing to do with installing it or > being able to run it on my machine. The problem is that MTASC would > essentially be responsible for things that go into production. If > Flash has some bug that causes problems the company could get support, > but it's not really the same with MTASC. > > That said, if things can be set up to use both at once then I probably > could use it during development, and just use Flash to do the final > compile. I think I might try that. > > I know MTASC is stricter, which is actually a reason I want to use it. > Unfortunately the 2 big flash movies that I have been working on I > inherited when the only guy in the company who knew flash quit (I > mainly did Java with some C++), and they used just the Flash IDE, so I > have no idea how easy/hard it would be to get MTASC working with > those. > > I might give it a try for the new project I'm working on though. If I > can get it working nicely with FD (not that I think that will be hard) > then it would make me happy. > > -Andy > > On 1/22/07, Steven Sacks | BLITZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think you have a misconception about MTASC. It isn't a replacement > > for Flash (unless you're a G like Ben Jackson), it's a 3rd party > > compiler for Flash. > > > > When Flash compiles, it recompresses all the media (graphics, sound, > > components) as it compiles. All MTASC does is injects code into the > > swf. So, you can update your classes and use MTASC to compile and cut > > your compile time down to less than a second where Flash can take many > > (some of my FLAs take over 30 seconds!). > > > > To use MTASC, you need to be writing AS2 classes, as any timeline code > > or #include code changes won't be updated using MTASC. FLASC is an easy > > to use GUI for MTASC that runs as a panel in the Flash IDE and it's how > > I use MTASC (beats learning to write those long command lines). > > > > Using FLASC from the beginning of a project is ideal, because MTASC is > > stricter than the Flash IDE compiler. A benefit of its strictness is it > > forces you to be a better coder. If you jump into the middle of a > > project with FLASC, it will probably take you a bit to get it going. It > > will only really benefit you if your FLAs take more than a second or two > > to compile. If you're waiting 5-10 seconds every time you make a > > change, it might be worth your time to install FLASC. > > > > As far as your corporatation goes, you're still using Flash. FLASC is a > > panel inside of Flash. You'll have to get MTASC, which is just an > > executable that sits in your Program Files folder, but it doesn't > > require installation - you download it and put it there manually. No > > administrator access required. > > > > HTH, > > Steven > > ___ > > Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com > > To change your subscription options or search the archive: > > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > > > > Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software > > Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training > > http://www.figleaf.com > > http://training.figleaf.com > > > ___ > Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com > To change your subscription options or search the archive: > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > > Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software > Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training > http://www.figleaf.com > http://training.figleaf.com > ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscripti
Re: Re[2]: [Flashcoders] External libraries
It's doesn't have to be that way. On the last project I did, I used MTASC for about 90% of the development, then switched to the Flash IDE during the last week. As long as you can start your application with the same line of code, it doesn't really matter which compiler you use. Basically, in FlashDevelop, I had a static main function that started the app thusly: var newMenu:MenuController = new MenuController(); In the Flash IDE, I used the same line of code, but I put it in frame 1 instead. It amounts to the same thing though. Francis On 1/22/07, Andy Herrman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So, I actually use FlashDevelop to write my code, and just switch to the Flash IDE to build (I really dislike the IDE). The problem with using it has nothing to do with installing it or being able to run it on my machine. The problem is that MTASC would essentially be responsible for things that go into production. If Flash has some bug that causes problems the company could get support, but it's not really the same with MTASC. That said, if things can be set up to use both at once then I probably could use it during development, and just use Flash to do the final compile. I think I might try that. I know MTASC is stricter, which is actually a reason I want to use it. Unfortunately the 2 big flash movies that I have been working on I inherited when the only guy in the company who knew flash quit (I mainly did Java with some C++), and they used just the Flash IDE, so I have no idea how easy/hard it would be to get MTASC working with those. I might give it a try for the new project I'm working on though. If I can get it working nicely with FD (not that I think that will be hard) then it would make me happy. -Andy On 1/22/07, Steven Sacks | BLITZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think you have a misconception about MTASC. It isn't a replacement > for Flash (unless you're a G like Ben Jackson), it's a 3rd party > compiler for Flash. > > When Flash compiles, it recompresses all the media (graphics, sound, > components) as it compiles. All MTASC does is injects code into the > swf. So, you can update your classes and use MTASC to compile and cut > your compile time down to less than a second where Flash can take many > (some of my FLAs take over 30 seconds!). > > To use MTASC, you need to be writing AS2 classes, as any timeline code > or #include code changes won't be updated using MTASC. FLASC is an easy > to use GUI for MTASC that runs as a panel in the Flash IDE and it's how > I use MTASC (beats learning to write those long command lines). > > Using FLASC from the beginning of a project is ideal, because MTASC is > stricter than the Flash IDE compiler. A benefit of its strictness is it > forces you to be a better coder. If you jump into the middle of a > project with FLASC, it will probably take you a bit to get it going. It > will only really benefit you if your FLAs take more than a second or two > to compile. If you're waiting 5-10 seconds every time you make a > change, it might be worth your time to install FLASC. > > As far as your corporatation goes, you're still using Flash. FLASC is a > panel inside of Flash. You'll have to get MTASC, which is just an > executable that sits in your Program Files folder, but it doesn't > require installation - you download it and put it there manually. No > administrator access required. > > HTH, > Steven > ___ > Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com > To change your subscription options or search the archive: > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > > Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software > Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training > http://www.figleaf.com > http://training.figleaf.com > ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: Re[2]: [Flashcoders] External libraries
So, I actually use FlashDevelop to write my code, and just switch to the Flash IDE to build (I really dislike the IDE). The problem with using it has nothing to do with installing it or being able to run it on my machine. The problem is that MTASC would essentially be responsible for things that go into production. If Flash has some bug that causes problems the company could get support, but it's not really the same with MTASC. That said, if things can be set up to use both at once then I probably could use it during development, and just use Flash to do the final compile. I think I might try that. I know MTASC is stricter, which is actually a reason I want to use it. Unfortunately the 2 big flash movies that I have been working on I inherited when the only guy in the company who knew flash quit (I mainly did Java with some C++), and they used just the Flash IDE, so I have no idea how easy/hard it would be to get MTASC working with those. I might give it a try for the new project I'm working on though. If I can get it working nicely with FD (not that I think that will be hard) then it would make me happy. -Andy On 1/22/07, Steven Sacks | BLITZ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think you have a misconception about MTASC. It isn't a replacement for Flash (unless you're a G like Ben Jackson), it's a 3rd party compiler for Flash. When Flash compiles, it recompresses all the media (graphics, sound, components) as it compiles. All MTASC does is injects code into the swf. So, you can update your classes and use MTASC to compile and cut your compile time down to less than a second where Flash can take many (some of my FLAs take over 30 seconds!). To use MTASC, you need to be writing AS2 classes, as any timeline code or #include code changes won't be updated using MTASC. FLASC is an easy to use GUI for MTASC that runs as a panel in the Flash IDE and it's how I use MTASC (beats learning to write those long command lines). Using FLASC from the beginning of a project is ideal, because MTASC is stricter than the Flash IDE compiler. A benefit of its strictness is it forces you to be a better coder. If you jump into the middle of a project with FLASC, it will probably take you a bit to get it going. It will only really benefit you if your FLAs take more than a second or two to compile. If you're waiting 5-10 seconds every time you make a change, it might be worth your time to install FLASC. As far as your corporatation goes, you're still using Flash. FLASC is a panel inside of Flash. You'll have to get MTASC, which is just an executable that sits in your Program Files folder, but it doesn't require installation - you download it and put it there manually. No administrator access required. HTH, Steven ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
RE: Re[2]: [Flashcoders] External libraries
I think you have a misconception about MTASC. It isn't a replacement for Flash (unless you're a G like Ben Jackson), it's a 3rd party compiler for Flash. When Flash compiles, it recompresses all the media (graphics, sound, components) as it compiles. All MTASC does is injects code into the swf. So, you can update your classes and use MTASC to compile and cut your compile time down to less than a second where Flash can take many (some of my FLAs take over 30 seconds!). To use MTASC, you need to be writing AS2 classes, as any timeline code or #include code changes won't be updated using MTASC. FLASC is an easy to use GUI for MTASC that runs as a panel in the Flash IDE and it's how I use MTASC (beats learning to write those long command lines). Using FLASC from the beginning of a project is ideal, because MTASC is stricter than the Flash IDE compiler. A benefit of its strictness is it forces you to be a better coder. If you jump into the middle of a project with FLASC, it will probably take you a bit to get it going. It will only really benefit you if your FLAs take more than a second or two to compile. If you're waiting 5-10 seconds every time you make a change, it might be worth your time to install FLASC. As far as your corporatation goes, you're still using Flash. FLASC is a panel inside of Flash. You'll have to get MTASC, which is just an executable that sits in your Program Files folder, but it doesn't require installation - you download it and put it there manually. No administrator access required. HTH, Steven ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: Re[2]: [Flashcoders] External libraries
Hi, you might reach a point (at least I think a lot of us including me reached that point), in which the only hope to finish a project in time is using Mtasc and say flasc or flashdevelop (or some same kind of other tool). Switching might be easy or difficult, depending on your project (setup). For example do you use a lot of mx classes/components etc. And it's not one or the other, you can setup your projects in a way which allows you to either open it up in the flash ide and compile it there, or open it up in the Flash IDE and compile it through Flasc(which uses mtasc), or you could compile it from flashdevelop (which uses mtasc as well), or through a batch file, etc,etc. Lot of options, there is bound to be one that fits your needs/workflow. greetz JC On 1/22/07, Andy Herrman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It's the "hope that he/she will not screw up your movie at all" that I worry about. @Steven I work for a very large corporation, and they're pretty anal about what we do and don't use. I hear good things about MTASC, so I'd like to try and use it, but given where we are with the current projects we don't really have time to switch now, and even if we did it would probably be hard to get them to let me change it. It's in the back of my mind, and since the thing I'm starting on now is new I might be able to switch to it, but then we'd have some projects using it and some not using it, which they may not like. On that note, how hard is it to switch from a project that uses the Flash IDE to build everything (and includes a lot of stuff in the FLA) to something that uses MTASC? -Andy On 1/22/07, Rákos Attila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > AH> The main reason I don't want to do that is that I won't have control > AH> of the 'brand.swf' versions. I just worry someone might put something > AH> on the canvas in brand.swf by mistake. If I was able to put my stuff > AH> on root or another MC then I could just hide the uiResources MC, so it > AH> wouldn't matter if someone put something on it, but this way I'll have > AH> to leave it visible. > > You can hide anything in the loaded swf by creating a solid movieclip > on its main timeline. However I don't think that it is a real problem, > since beside visual elements the loaded swf can contain scripts, which > can behave even more "harmful" to your application than a simple > visual object and these scripts cannot be eliminated. So you have to > trust in the creator of brand.swf to some extent and hope that he/she > will not screw up your movie at all :) > > Attila > > ___ > Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com > To change your subscription options or search the archive: > http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders > > Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software > Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training > http://www.figleaf.com > http://training.figleaf.com > ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re: Re[2]: [Flashcoders] External libraries
It's the "hope that he/she will not screw up your movie at all" that I worry about. @Steven I work for a very large corporation, and they're pretty anal about what we do and don't use. I hear good things about MTASC, so I'd like to try and use it, but given where we are with the current projects we don't really have time to switch now, and even if we did it would probably be hard to get them to let me change it. It's in the back of my mind, and since the thing I'm starting on now is new I might be able to switch to it, but then we'd have some projects using it and some not using it, which they may not like. On that note, how hard is it to switch from a project that uses the Flash IDE to build everything (and includes a lot of stuff in the FLA) to something that uses MTASC? -Andy On 1/22/07, Rákos Attila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: AH> The main reason I don't want to do that is that I won't have control AH> of the 'brand.swf' versions. I just worry someone might put something AH> on the canvas in brand.swf by mistake. If I was able to put my stuff AH> on root or another MC then I could just hide the uiResources MC, so it AH> wouldn't matter if someone put something on it, but this way I'll have AH> to leave it visible. You can hide anything in the loaded swf by creating a solid movieclip on its main timeline. However I don't think that it is a real problem, since beside visual elements the loaded swf can contain scripts, which can behave even more "harmful" to your application than a simple visual object and these scripts cannot be eliminated. So you have to trust in the creator of brand.swf to some extent and hope that he/she will not screw up your movie at all :) Attila ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
Re[2]: [Flashcoders] External libraries
AH> The main reason I don't want to do that is that I won't have control AH> of the 'brand.swf' versions. I just worry someone might put something AH> on the canvas in brand.swf by mistake. If I was able to put my stuff AH> on root or another MC then I could just hide the uiResources MC, so it AH> wouldn't matter if someone put something on it, but this way I'll have AH> to leave it visible. You can hide anything in the loaded swf by creating a solid movieclip on its main timeline. However I don't think that it is a real problem, since beside visual elements the loaded swf can contain scripts, which can behave even more "harmful" to your application than a simple visual object and these scripts cannot be eliminated. So you have to trust in the creator of brand.swf to some extent and hope that he/she will not screw up your movie at all :) Attila ___ Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com To change your subscription options or search the archive: http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders Brought to you by Fig Leaf Software Premier Authorized Adobe Consulting and Training http://www.figleaf.com http://training.figleaf.com
