[flexcoders] Re: shadow lighting
Yeah Hank! Nice responses. I agree that there is a tradeoff between performance and value. Used sparingly, bitmap filters can come in handy. Like if you wanted to apply a dropshadow to the title text of a panel. This isn't possible in Flex using stock CSS. So if this is a desired style, you have to get creative. I can live with the 1/20 of a second cost here. In fact, I'm currently doing just that and haven't noticed any difference. Hopefully we can all agree that if you eat ice cream responsibly, you won't gain that much weight. -TH --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, "hank williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 6/30/06, Michael Schmalle <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > Hi Tim, > > > > Vectors will always be faster than bitmap caching in the Flash player. > > > > > This is not true. It just depends on what you are drawing. Flash 8 achieved > huge performance gains by caching bitmaps instead of drawing stuff, where > the drawings required lots of calls. That was the *PURPOSE* of bitmap > caching. They wanted to increase performance of the player. Why do you think > the introduced it - to slow performance down?! The point here is that > vectors *can* be faster, but so can bitmaps. It just depends. Filter > performance is primarily driven by memory bandwidth issues. In other words > there is a fixed amount of time it takes to create a bitmap and move it onto > or off the display. This varies by platform, for example I believe that on > the Mac, flash uses openGL which uses hardware acceleration for these > things. In any case, the larger the bitmap the more information must be > moved. This must be compared against the performance of the underlying > actionscript code. > > > It has nothing to do with Flex really. If you are doing the things that Flex > > is doing, try and use vectors and custom skins and not bitmap filters. > > > > See the thing is, Flex is all about recursion. You think just becasue > > there is no fancy math in a container, there are not some insane calcs going > > on? When a container measures itself it calls measure on EVERYONE of it's > > children, there is hardcore math going on. > > > > Floating point processors do this kind of math in a single instruction > cycle i.e. approx 10^-9 of a second. Any potential performance issues around > flex, bitmaps and filtering have *nothing* to do with math. You mentioned > something in your other email about things being exponential because the > algorithm is recursive. But this is a missunderstanding of the mathematical > implication of recursion. There is nothing exponential going on. > Hierarchical tree, yes.Exponential, no. It is a simple order n problem not > even n log n. As explained above the problem is memory bandwidth not math. > The filter has to be copied into a buffer modified, and replaced. This is > more expensive if done over a large area and repeatedly. > > Where BitmapFilters fit into the equation is, every frame it's taking a > > snapshot, this just adds to the tremendous load at render time each > > framepass. > > > > > I am not sure what you are trying to imply here, but, just to be clear > bitmaps are built once, when the screen is constructed.This generally means, > if a screen is static (as flex screens generally are) this all happens at > the initial render. Which still, can be slower, but only at initial render. > This kind of stuff is rarely noticable in an app type environment where > there is just not that much going on. Access to the server and loading the > flex swf will have much more of an effect on performance than rendering > time. > > Tim, as I said it's like "Can I eat Ice cream all the time, no you are > > going to get fat", same thing applies here. You can use bitmap filters > > whenever you want but, you ARE going to get fat! > > > > To michaels larger point that filters are bad, I think you cannot make the > kind of blanket statement he makes. I would agree that it would not be wise > for adobe to build the entire component system on filters and to apply all > styling with filters. This would be a lot of square inches of bitmap > creation that would be un-necessary. However, I do not think that its > appropriate to say that filters are never a good solution or that you are > guaranteed to have a slow app. In most circumstances applying a filter to a > movieclip is totally un-noticable. To achieve a noticable effect you would > have to do it a lot. On the other end of the spectrum if you create a > component which you use in dozens of places *perhaps* it would effect > performance in a way that would be noticeable. I would be curious to see > where the actual line is between noticable and un-noticable. But the point > is there *is* a line. It is not a given that using filters = slow user > experience. More importantly, creating a whole skin is *far* more > complicated than applying a filter. In the real world the time
Re: [flexcoders] Re: shadow lighting
On 6/30/06, Michael Schmalle <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: Hi Tim, Vectors will always be faster than bitmap caching in the Flash player. This is not true. It just depends on what you are drawing. Flash 8 achieved huge performance gains by caching bitmaps instead of drawing stuff, where the drawings required lots of calls. That was the *PURPOSE* of bitmap caching. They wanted to increase performance of the player. Why do you think the introduced it - to slow performance down?! The point here is that vectors *can* be faster, but so can bitmaps. It just depends. Filter performance is primarily driven by memory bandwidth issues. In other words there is a fixed amount of time it takes to create a bitmap and move it onto or off the display. This varies by platform, for example I believe that on the Mac, flash uses openGL which uses hardware acceleration for these things. In any case, the larger the bitmap the more information must be moved. This must be compared against the performance of the underlying actionscript code. It has nothing to do with Flex really. If you are doing the things that Flex is doing, try and use vectors and custom skins and not bitmap filters. See the thing is, Flex is all about recursion. You think just becasue there is no fancy math in a container, there are not some insane calcs going on? When a container measures itself it calls measure on EVERYONE of it's children, there is hardcore math going on.Floating point processors do this kind of math in a single instruction cycle i.e. approx 10^-9 of a second. Any potential performance issues around flex, bitmaps and filtering have *nothing* to do with math. You mentioned something in your other email about things being exponential because the algorithm is recursive. But this is a missunderstanding of the mathematical implication of recursion. There is nothing exponential going on. Hierarchical tree, yes.Exponential, no. It is a simple order n problem not even n log n. As explained above the problem is memory bandwidth not math. The filter has to be copied into a buffer modified, and replaced. This is more expensive if done over a large area and repeatedly. Where BitmapFilters fit into the equation is, every frame it's taking a snapshot, this just adds to the tremendous load at render time each framepass.I am not sure what you are trying to imply here, but, just to be clear bitmaps are built once, when the screen is constructed.This generally means, if a screen is static (as flex screens generally are) this all happens at the initial render. Which still, can be slower, but only at initial render. This kind of stuff is rarely noticable in an app type environment where there is just not that much going on. Access to the server and loading the flex swf will have much more of an effect on performance than rendering time. Tim, as I said it's like "Can I eat Ice cream all the time, no you are going to get fat", same thing applies here. You can use bitmap filters whenever you want but, you ARE going to get fat!To michaels larger point that filters are bad, I think you cannot make the kind of blanket statement he makes. I would agree that it would not be wise for adobe to build the entire component system on filters and to apply all styling with filters. This would be a lot of square inches of bitmap creation that would be un-necessary. However, I do not think that its appropriate to say that filters are never a good solution or that you are guaranteed to have a slow app. In most circumstances applying a filter to a movieclip is totally un-noticable. To achieve a noticable effect you would have to do it a lot. On the other end of the spectrum if you create a component which you use in dozens of places *perhaps* it would effect performance in a way that would be noticeable. I would be curious to see where the actual line is between noticable and un-noticable. But the point is there *is* a line. It is not a given that using filters = slow user experience. More importantly, creating a whole skin is *far* more complicated than applying a filter. In the real world the time value of money is such that spending days designing a skin where you could apply a filter in a few minutes to save1/20 of a second when constructing a screen seems like not much of a choice at all. The bottom line is filters were introduced because they do things that either cant be done or are too complex to do manually. IMHO to suggest never to use them in Flex, to me, is not good strategy. RegardsHank Peace, MikeOn 6/30/06, Tim Hoff < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ok, since this is still going. :) Mike, would you also apply the same reasoning for using filters on symbols, text and images, in Flash 8? Or, is a Flex swf different? -TH --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Schmalle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > hehe, > > I just have to keep replying to this because I am bored. > > Fancy math; I don't know what you consi
[flexcoders] Re: shadow lighting
I hear you Mike, Yes, I know that vector graphics require less player resources than bitmaps. What I wasn't sure of, is that Flex uses/creates bitmaps for rendering. Still learning. Glad that there are guys like you here to help us developers understand the more technical aspects. Thanks, Tim But I like ice cream. :) --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Schmalle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Tim, > > Vectors will always be faster than bitmap caching in the Flash player. It > has nothing to do with Flex really. If you are doing the things that Flex is > doing, try and use vectors and custom skins and not bitmap filters. > > See the thing is, Flex is all about recursion. You think just becasue there > is no fancy math in a container, there are not some insane calcs going on? > When a container measures itself it calls measure on EVERYONE of it's > children, there is hardcore math going on. > > Where BitmapFilters fit into the equation is, every frame it's taking a > snapshot, this just adds to the tremendous load at render time each > framepass. > > Questioning this logic just means you don't have a firm understanding of how > the FlashPlayer renders bitmaps verses vectors. I am not going into detail > here there are plenty of places to get a hold of this info. > > Tim, as I said it's like "Can I eat Ice cream all the time, no you are going > to get fat", same thing applies here. You can use bitmap filters whenever > you want but, you ARE going to get fat! > > Peace, Mike > > On 6/30/06, Tim Hoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Ok, since this is still going. :) > > > > Mike, would you also apply the same reasoning for using filters on > > symbols, text and images, in Flash 8? Or, is a Flex swf different? > > > > -TH > > > > --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com , "Michael > > Schmalle" > > > > wrote: > > > > > > hehe, > > > > > > I just have to keep replying to this because I am bored. > > > > > > Fancy math; I don't know what you consider fancy math but, since > > you 'know' > > > what I am talking about.. you have also looked into the AS3 class > > Flex > > > right? You see those loops, there is fancy math, just becasue it > > dosn't have > > > a bitwise operator in it dosn't mean it's not fancy Math, > > Exponentialy > > > multiply those loops with all containers in your app, then add > > bitmap > > > cahcing, you will soon see when they decided to use the native > > vecotrs over > > > bitmap filters. > > > > > > done > > > > > > Peace, Mike > > > > > > On 6/30/06, Michael Schmalle wrote: > > > > > > > > By the way, when I am talking about math, I am also speaking of > > the > > > > Players bitmap caching alogorithms(fancy math)... I hope you get > > your > > > > question answered. > > > > > > > > Peace, Mike > > > > > > > > On 6/30/06, Michael Schmalle wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Ok, well I heard it from the engineers mouth right in front of > > my face. > > > > > So, I hope an engineer tells you instead of me. > > > > > > > > > > Peace, Mike > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 6/30/06, hank williams < hank777@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > That may have been their reasoning (I'd like to hear it > > from them) > > > > > > but I dont buy that the logic (not really much math) > > involved in calculating > > > > > > container positioning would interact with filters much. By > > any reasonable > > > > > > measure, there is not much fancy math in flex. And the > > logic, while cool, is > > > > > > not exactly taxing to the cpu, particularly in the new 10x > > VM. > > > > > > > > > > > > Hank > > > > > > > > > > > > On 6/30/06, Michael Schmalle wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ha, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only reason they 'don't' use this stuff for containers > > is the > > > > > > > layout algos and they wanted to squeeze every bit of > > performance from the > > > > > > > player when rendering the containers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You have to look at it this way, containers are Flex, they > > hold > > > > > > > everything and having filters on these things would slow > > down the players > > > > > > > rendering. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Use them for animation, Flex containers are not animation > > they are > > > > > > > logical mass amounts of mathematical checks and balances. > > You want every bit > > > > > > > of cpu power to make it look like os containers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Peace, Mike > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 6/30/06, Tim Hoff < TimHoff@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the tip Mike. Without digging into the > > API's, for > > > > > > > > what > > > > > > > > appears to be something simple (like this), there's no > > way for the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > average developer to know these things. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -TH > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com > 40yahoogroups.com>, > > > > > > > > > > "hank williams" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
Re: [flexcoders] Re: shadow lighting
Hi Tim, Vectors will always be faster than bitmap caching in the Flash player. It has nothing to do with Flex really. If you are doing the things that Flex is doing, try and use vectors and custom skins and not bitmap filters. See the thing is, Flex is all about recursion. You think just becasue there is no fancy math in a container, there are not some insane calcs going on? When a container measures itself it calls measure on EVERYONE of it's children, there is hardcore math going on. Where BitmapFilters fit into the equation is, every frame it's taking a snapshot, this just adds to the tremendous load at render time each framepass. Questioning this logic just means you don't have a firm understanding of how the FlashPlayer renders bitmaps verses vectors. I am not going into detail here there are plenty of places to get a hold of this info. Tim, as I said it's like "Can I eat Ice cream all the time, no you are going to get fat", same thing applies here. You can use bitmap filters whenever you want but, you ARE going to get fat! Peace, MikeOn 6/30/06, Tim Hoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ok, since this is still going. :) Mike, would you also apply the same reasoning for using filters on symbols, text and images, in Flash 8? Or, is a Flex swf different? -TH --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Schmalle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > hehe, > > I just have to keep replying to this because I am bored. > > Fancy math; I don't know what you consider fancy math but, since you 'know' > what I am talking about.. you have also looked into the AS3 class Flex > right? You see those loops, there is fancy math, just becasue it dosn't have > a bitwise operator in it dosn't mean it's not fancy Math, Exponentialy > multiply those loops with all containers in your app, then add bitmap > cahcing, you will soon see when they decided to use the native vecotrs over > bitmap filters. > > done > > Peace, Mike > > On 6/30/06, Michael Schmalle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > By the way, when I am talking about math, I am also speaking of the > > Players bitmap caching alogorithms(fancy math)... I hope you get your > > question answered. > > > > Peace, Mike > > > > On 6/30/06, Michael Schmalle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Ok, well I heard it from the engineers mouth right in front of my face. > > > So, I hope an engineer tells you instead of me. > > > > > > Peace, Mike > > > > > > > > > On 6/30/06, hank williams < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > >That may have been their reasoning (I'd like to hear it from them) > > > > but I dont buy that the logic (not really much math) involved in calculating > > > > container positioning would interact with filters much. By any reasonable > > > > measure, there is not much fancy math in flex. And the logic, while cool, is > > > > not exactly taxing to the cpu, particularly in the new 10x VM. > > > > > > > > Hank > > > > > > > > On 6/30/06, Michael Schmalle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Ha, > > > > > > > > > > The only reason they 'don't' use this stuff for containers is the > > > > > layout algos and they wanted to squeeze every bit of performance from the > > > > > player when rendering the containers. > > > > > > > > > > You have to look at it this way, containers are Flex, they hold > > > > > everything and having filters on these things would slow down the players > > > > > rendering. > > > > > > > > > > Use them for animation, Flex containers are not animation they are > > > > > logical mass amounts of mathematical checks and balances. You want every bit > > > > > of cpu power to make it look like os containers. > > > > > > > > > > Peace, Mike > > > > > > > > > > On 6/30/06, Tim Hoff < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >Thanks for the tip Mike. Without digging into the API's, for > > > > > > what > > > > > > appears to be something simple (like this), there's no way for the > > > > > > > > > > > > average developer to know these things. > > > > > > > > > > > > -TH > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com 40yahoogroups.com>, > > > > > > "hank williams" > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hmm... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Doesnt make much sense. They encourage using filters in flash > > > > > > for > > > > > > animation > > > > > > > and effects but its too slow for a static flex container? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems to me if performance is an issue flex is the last place > > > > > > > > > > > > that that > > > > > > > would be of concern since there is little animation. I dont get > > > > > > how this > > > > > > > would be a serious impediment for most flex users. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hank > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 6/30/06, Michael Schmalle wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The following method gives you a little more control over > > > > > > drop > > > > > > shadow > > > >
Re: [flexcoders] Re: shadow lighting
Ok, well I heard it from the engineers mouth right in front of my face. So, I hope an engineer tells you instead of me. Peace, MikeOn 6/30/06, hank williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: That may have been their reasoning (I'd like to hear it from them) but I dont buy that the logic (not really much math) involved in calculating container positioning would interact with filters much. By any reasonable measure, there is not much fancy math in flex. And the logic, while cool, is not exactly taxing to the cpu, particularly in the new 10x VM. HankOn 6/30/06, Michael Schmalle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ha, The only reason they 'don't' use this stuff for containers is the layout algos and they wanted to squeeze every bit of performance from the player when rendering the containers. You have to look at it this way, containers are Flex, they hold everything and having filters on these things would slow down the players rendering. Use them for animation, Flex containers are not animation they are logical mass amounts of mathematical checks and balances. You want every bit of cpu power to make it look like os containers. Peace, MikeOn 6/30/06, Tim Hoff < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Thanks for the tip Mike. Without digging into the API's, for what appears to be something simple (like this), there's no way for the average developer to know these things. -TH --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, "hank williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hmm... > > Doesnt make much sense. They encourage using filters in flash for animation > and effects but its too slow for a static flex container? > > It seems to me if performance is an issue flex is the last place that that > would be of concern since there is little animation. I dont get how this > would be a serious impediment for most flex users. > > Hank > > On 6/30/06, Michael Schmalle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > The following method gives you a little more control over drop shadow > > than the shadow style properties > > > > There is a reason they didn't use the DropShadow filter for panels and > > containers. It is VERY expensive on processing. If you are not worried about > > that then it dosn't matter. > > > > That is why the dropShadow style is actually a programmatic skin shape. > > > > Peace, Mike > > > > On 6/30/06, hank williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >Thanks Tim. That is EXACTLY what I was looking for. That is so cool. > > > > > > Hank > > > > > > > > > On 6/30/06, Tim Hoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Hank, > > > > > > > > You can use any of the available Flash filters, for simple > > > > control/container skinning, by setting the filters property. The > > > > following method gives you a little more control over drop shadow than the > > > > shadow style properties. Check the docs for the syntax of the other > > > > available filters. > > > > > > > > -TH > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Schmalle" > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I would sayif you know what you are going after, > > > > > > > > > > EVERYTHING in Flex can be skinned with your custom styles and > > > > layers. > > > > > > > > > > Make custom skin sets. If you read what Adobe has said quite a bit, > > > > they > > > > > designed these components for extensibility and thus, some things > > > > are not > > > > > implemented and are left up to the developer to extend. > > > > > > > > > > Which when you get deeper into the years with Flex, you will thank > > > > Adobe for > > > > > taking that path. > > > > > > > > > > Peace, Mike > > > > > > > > > > On 6/30/06, hank williams hank777@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > when applying shadowing to an object, if the lighting source is to > > > > the > > > > > > top left of the object, then the shadow will be on the bottom and > > > > the > > > > > > right. Typically there is also a white or light band across the > > > > top > > > > > > and down the left side. > > > > > > > > > > > > I am wondering how you do this in flex. I see it in the > > > > application > > > > > > bar and so I am thinking that I should be able to style a canvas > > > > to do > > > > > > it, but I cant seem to do it with the shadow related settings. I > > > > > > believe I was able to do this kind of things with movie clips in > > > > > > flash. > > > > > > > > > > > > I guess a second question is whether it is possible to do any of > > > > those > > > > > > cool flash 8 effects on containers/canvases in flex. > > > > > > > > > > > > Hank > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > What goes up, does come down. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > What goes up, does come down. > > > -- What goes up, does come down. -- What goes up, does com
[flexcoders] Re: shadow lighting
Ok, since this is still going. :) Mike, would you also apply the same reasoning for using filters on symbols, text and images, in Flash 8? Or, is a Flex swf different? -TH --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Schmalle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > hehe, > > I just have to keep replying to this because I am bored. > > Fancy math; I don't know what you consider fancy math but, since you 'know' > what I am talking about.. you have also looked into the AS3 class Flex > right? You see those loops, there is fancy math, just becasue it dosn't have > a bitwise operator in it dosn't mean it's not fancy Math, Exponentialy > multiply those loops with all containers in your app, then add bitmap > cahcing, you will soon see when they decided to use the native vecotrs over > bitmap filters. > > done > > Peace, Mike > > On 6/30/06, Michael Schmalle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > By the way, when I am talking about math, I am also speaking of the > > Players bitmap caching alogorithms(fancy math)... I hope you get your > > question answered. > > > > Peace, Mike > > > > On 6/30/06, Michael Schmalle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Ok, well I heard it from the engineers mouth right in front of my face. > > > So, I hope an engineer tells you instead of me. > > > > > > Peace, Mike > > > > > > > > > On 6/30/06, hank williams < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > >That may have been their reasoning (I'd like to hear it from them) > > > > but I dont buy that the logic (not really much math) involved in calculating > > > > container positioning would interact with filters much. By any reasonable > > > > measure, there is not much fancy math in flex. And the logic, while cool, is > > > > not exactly taxing to the cpu, particularly in the new 10x VM. > > > > > > > > Hank > > > > > > > > On 6/30/06, Michael Schmalle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Ha, > > > > > > > > > > The only reason they 'don't' use this stuff for containers is the > > > > > layout algos and they wanted to squeeze every bit of performance from the > > > > > player when rendering the containers. > > > > > > > > > > You have to look at it this way, containers are Flex, they hold > > > > > everything and having filters on these things would slow down the players > > > > > rendering. > > > > > > > > > > Use them for animation, Flex containers are not animation they are > > > > > logical mass amounts of mathematical checks and balances. You want every bit > > > > > of cpu power to make it look like os containers. > > > > > > > > > > Peace, Mike > > > > > > > > > > On 6/30/06, Tim Hoff < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >Thanks for the tip Mike. Without digging into the API's, for > > > > > > what > > > > > > appears to be something simple (like this), there's no way for the > > > > > > > > > > > > average developer to know these things. > > > > > > > > > > > > -TH > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com , > > > > > > "hank williams" > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hmm... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Doesnt make much sense. They encourage using filters in flash > > > > > > for > > > > > > animation > > > > > > > and effects but its too slow for a static flex container? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems to me if performance is an issue flex is the last place > > > > > > > > > > > > that that > > > > > > > would be of concern since there is little animation. I dont get > > > > > > how this > > > > > > > would be a serious impediment for most flex users. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hank > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 6/30/06, Michael Schmalle wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The following method gives you a little more control over > > > > > > drop > > > > > > shadow > > > > > > > > than the shadow style properties > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is a reason they didn't use the DropShadow filter for > > > > > > panels and > > > > > > > > containers. It is VERY expensive on processing. If you are not > > > > > > > > > > > > worried about > > > > > > > > that then it dosn't matter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is why the dropShadow style is actually a programmatic > > > > > > skin > > > > > > shape. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Peace, Mike > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 6/30/06, hank williams wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Tim. That is EXACTLY what I was looking for. That is > > > > > > so cool. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hank > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 6/30/06, Tim Hoff wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Hank, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You can use any of the available Flash filters, for simple > > > > > > > > > > control/container skinning, by setting the filters > > > > > > property. The > > > > > > > > > > following method gives you a little more control over drop > > > > > > > > > > > > shadow than the >
Re: [flexcoders] Re: shadow lighting
hehe, I just have to keep replying to this because I am bored. Fancy math; I don't know what you consider fancy math but, since you 'know' what I am talking about.. you have also looked into the AS3 class Flex right? You see those loops, there is fancy math, just becasue it dosn't have a bitwise operator in it dosn't mean it's not fancy Math, Exponentialy multiply those loops with all containers in your app, then add bitmap cahcing, you will soon see when they decided to use the native vecotrs over bitmap filters. done Peace, MikeOn 6/30/06, Michael Schmalle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: By the way, when I am talking about math, I am also speaking of the Players bitmap caching alogorithms(fancy math)... I hope you get your question answered. Peace, MikeOn 6/30/06, Michael Schmalle < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ok, well I heard it from the engineers mouth right in front of my face. So, I hope an engineer tells you instead of me. Peace, MikeOn 6/30/06, hank williams < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: That may have been their reasoning (I'd like to hear it from them) but I dont buy that the logic (not really much math) involved in calculating container positioning would interact with filters much. By any reasonable measure, there is not much fancy math in flex. And the logic, while cool, is not exactly taxing to the cpu, particularly in the new 10x VM. HankOn 6/30/06, Michael Schmalle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ha, The only reason they 'don't' use this stuff for containers is the layout algos and they wanted to squeeze every bit of performance from the player when rendering the containers. You have to look at it this way, containers are Flex, they hold everything and having filters on these things would slow down the players rendering. Use them for animation, Flex containers are not animation they are logical mass amounts of mathematical checks and balances. You want every bit of cpu power to make it look like os containers. Peace, MikeOn 6/30/06, Tim Hoff < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Thanks for the tip Mike. Without digging into the API's, for what appears to be something simple (like this), there's no way for the average developer to know these things. -TH --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, "hank williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hmm... > > Doesnt make much sense. They encourage using filters in flash for animation > and effects but its too slow for a static flex container? > > It seems to me if performance is an issue flex is the last place that that > would be of concern since there is little animation. I dont get how this > would be a serious impediment for most flex users. > > Hank > > On 6/30/06, Michael Schmalle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > The following method gives you a little more control over drop shadow > > than the shadow style properties > > > > There is a reason they didn't use the DropShadow filter for panels and > > containers. It is VERY expensive on processing. If you are not worried about > > that then it dosn't matter. > > > > That is why the dropShadow style is actually a programmatic skin shape. > > > > Peace, Mike > > > > On 6/30/06, hank williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >Thanks Tim. That is EXACTLY what I was looking for. That is so cool. > > > > > > Hank > > > > > > > > > On 6/30/06, Tim Hoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Hank, > > > > > > > > You can use any of the available Flash filters, for simple > > > > control/container skinning, by setting the filters property. The > > > > following method gives you a little more control over drop shadow than the > > > > shadow style properties. Check the docs for the syntax of the other > > > > available filters. > > > > > > > > -TH > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Schmalle" > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I would sayif you know what you are going after, > > > > > > > > > > EVERYTHING in Flex can be skinned with your custom styles and > > > > layers. > > > > > > > > > > Make custom skin sets. If you read what Adobe has said quite a bit, > > > > they > > > > > designed these components for extensibility and thus, some things > > > > are not > > > > > implemented and are left up to the developer to extend. > > > > > > > > > > Which when you get deeper into the years with Flex, you will thank > > > > Adobe for > > > > > taking that path. > > > > > > > > > > Peace, Mike > > > > > > > > > > On 6/30/06, hank williams hank777@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > when applying shadowing to an object, if the lighting source is to > > > > the > > > > > > top left of the object, then the shadow will be on the bottom and > > > > the > > > > > > right. Typically there is also a white or light band across the > > > > top > > > > > > and down the left side. > > > > > > > > > > > > I am wondering how you do thi
Re: [flexcoders] Re: shadow lighting
By the way, when I am talking about math, I am also speaking of the Players bitmap caching alogorithms(fancy math)... I hope you get your question answered. Peace, MikeOn 6/30/06, Michael Schmalle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ok, well I heard it from the engineers mouth right in front of my face. So, I hope an engineer tells you instead of me. Peace, MikeOn 6/30/06, hank williams < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: That may have been their reasoning (I'd like to hear it from them) but I dont buy that the logic (not really much math) involved in calculating container positioning would interact with filters much. By any reasonable measure, there is not much fancy math in flex. And the logic, while cool, is not exactly taxing to the cpu, particularly in the new 10x VM. HankOn 6/30/06, Michael Schmalle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ha, The only reason they 'don't' use this stuff for containers is the layout algos and they wanted to squeeze every bit of performance from the player when rendering the containers. You have to look at it this way, containers are Flex, they hold everything and having filters on these things would slow down the players rendering. Use them for animation, Flex containers are not animation they are logical mass amounts of mathematical checks and balances. You want every bit of cpu power to make it look like os containers. Peace, MikeOn 6/30/06, Tim Hoff < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Thanks for the tip Mike. Without digging into the API's, for what appears to be something simple (like this), there's no way for the average developer to know these things. -TH --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, "hank williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hmm... > > Doesnt make much sense. They encourage using filters in flash for animation > and effects but its too slow for a static flex container? > > It seems to me if performance is an issue flex is the last place that that > would be of concern since there is little animation. I dont get how this > would be a serious impediment for most flex users. > > Hank > > On 6/30/06, Michael Schmalle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > The following method gives you a little more control over drop shadow > > than the shadow style properties > > > > There is a reason they didn't use the DropShadow filter for panels and > > containers. It is VERY expensive on processing. If you are not worried about > > that then it dosn't matter. > > > > That is why the dropShadow style is actually a programmatic skin shape. > > > > Peace, Mike > > > > On 6/30/06, hank williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >Thanks Tim. That is EXACTLY what I was looking for. That is so cool. > > > > > > Hank > > > > > > > > > On 6/30/06, Tim Hoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Hank, > > > > > > > > You can use any of the available Flash filters, for simple > > > > control/container skinning, by setting the filters property. The > > > > following method gives you a little more control over drop shadow than the > > > > shadow style properties. Check the docs for the syntax of the other > > > > available filters. > > > > > > > > -TH > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Schmalle" > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I would sayif you know what you are going after, > > > > > > > > > > EVERYTHING in Flex can be skinned with your custom styles and > > > > layers. > > > > > > > > > > Make custom skin sets. If you read what Adobe has said quite a bit, > > > > they > > > > > designed these components for extensibility and thus, some things > > > > are not > > > > > implemented and are left up to the developer to extend. > > > > > > > > > > Which when you get deeper into the years with Flex, you will thank > > > > Adobe for > > > > > taking that path. > > > > > > > > > > Peace, Mike > > > > > > > > > > On 6/30/06, hank williams hank777@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > when applying shadowing to an object, if the lighting source is to > > > > the > > > > > > top left of the object, then the shadow will be on the bottom and > > > > the > > > > > > right. Typically there is also a white or light band across the > > > > top > > > > > > and down the left side. > > > > > > > > > > > > I am wondering how you do this in flex. I see it in the > > > > application > > > > > > bar and so I am thinking that I should be able to style a canvas > > > > to do > > > > > > it, but I cant seem to do it with the shadow related settings. I > > > > > > believe I was able to do this kind of things with movie clips in > > > > > > flash. > > > > > > > > > > > > I guess a second question is whether it is possible to do any of > > > > those > > > > > > cool flash 8 effects on containers/canvases in flex. > > > > > > > > > > > > Hank > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > What goes up
Re: [flexcoders] Re: shadow lighting
That may have been their reasoning (I'd like to hear it from them) but I dont buy that the logic (not really much math) involved in calculating container positioning would interact with filters much. By any reasonable measure, there is not much fancy math in flex. And the logic, while cool, is not exactly taxing to the cpu, particularly in the new 10x VM. HankOn 6/30/06, Michael Schmalle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Ha, The only reason they 'don't' use this stuff for containers is the layout algos and they wanted to squeeze every bit of performance from the player when rendering the containers. You have to look at it this way, containers are Flex, they hold everything and having filters on these things would slow down the players rendering. Use them for animation, Flex containers are not animation they are logical mass amounts of mathematical checks and balances. You want every bit of cpu power to make it look like os containers. Peace, MikeOn 6/30/06, Tim Hoff < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Thanks for the tip Mike. Without digging into the API's, for what appears to be something simple (like this), there's no way for the average developer to know these things. -TH --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, "hank williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hmm... > > Doesnt make much sense. They encourage using filters in flash for animation > and effects but its too slow for a static flex container? > > It seems to me if performance is an issue flex is the last place that that > would be of concern since there is little animation. I dont get how this > would be a serious impediment for most flex users. > > Hank > > On 6/30/06, Michael Schmalle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > The following method gives you a little more control over drop shadow > > than the shadow style properties > > > > There is a reason they didn't use the DropShadow filter for panels and > > containers. It is VERY expensive on processing. If you are not worried about > > that then it dosn't matter. > > > > That is why the dropShadow style is actually a programmatic skin shape. > > > > Peace, Mike > > > > On 6/30/06, hank williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >Thanks Tim. That is EXACTLY what I was looking for. That is so cool. > > > > > > Hank > > > > > > > > > On 6/30/06, Tim Hoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Hank, > > > > > > > > You can use any of the available Flash filters, for simple > > > > control/container skinning, by setting the filters property. The > > > > following method gives you a little more control over drop shadow than the > > > > shadow style properties. Check the docs for the syntax of the other > > > > available filters. > > > > > > > > -TH > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Schmalle" > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I would sayif you know what you are going after, > > > > > > > > > > EVERYTHING in Flex can be skinned with your custom styles and > > > > layers. > > > > > > > > > > Make custom skin sets. If you read what Adobe has said quite a bit, > > > > they > > > > > designed these components for extensibility and thus, some things > > > > are not > > > > > implemented and are left up to the developer to extend. > > > > > > > > > > Which when you get deeper into the years with Flex, you will thank > > > > Adobe for > > > > > taking that path. > > > > > > > > > > Peace, Mike > > > > > > > > > > On 6/30/06, hank williams hank777@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > when applying shadowing to an object, if the lighting source is to > > > > the > > > > > > top left of the object, then the shadow will be on the bottom and > > > > the > > > > > > right. Typically there is also a white or light band across the > > > > top > > > > > > and down the left side. > > > > > > > > > > > > I am wondering how you do this in flex. I see it in the > > > > application > > > > > > bar and so I am thinking that I should be able to style a canvas > > > > to do > > > > > > it, but I cant seem to do it with the shadow related settings. I > > > > > > believe I was able to do this kind of things with movie clips in > > > > > > flash. > > > > > > > > > > > > I guess a second question is whether it is possible to do any of > > > > those > > > > > > cool flash 8 effects on containers/canvases in flex. > > > > > > > > > > > > Hank > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > What goes up, does come down. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > What goes up, does come down. > > > -- What goes up, does come down. __._,_.___ -- Flexcoders Mailing List FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt Search Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com SPONSORED LINKS
Re: [flexcoders] Re: shadow lighting
Ha, The only reason they 'don't' use this stuff for containers is the layout algos and they wanted to squeeze every bit of performance from the player when rendering the containers. You have to look at it this way, containers are Flex, they hold everything and having filters on these things would slow down the players rendering. Use them for animation, Flex containers are not animation they are logical mass amounts of mathematical checks and balances. You want every bit of cpu power to make it look like os containers. Peace, MikeOn 6/30/06, Tim Hoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Thanks for the tip Mike. Without digging into the API's, for what appears to be something simple (like this), there's no way for the average developer to know these things. -TH --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, "hank williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hmm... > > Doesnt make much sense. They encourage using filters in flash for animation > and effects but its too slow for a static flex container? > > It seems to me if performance is an issue flex is the last place that that > would be of concern since there is little animation. I dont get how this > would be a serious impediment for most flex users. > > Hank > > On 6/30/06, Michael Schmalle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > The following method gives you a little more control over drop shadow > > than the shadow style properties > > > > There is a reason they didn't use the DropShadow filter for panels and > > containers. It is VERY expensive on processing. If you are not worried about > > that then it dosn't matter. > > > > That is why the dropShadow style is actually a programmatic skin shape. > > > > Peace, Mike > > > > On 6/30/06, hank williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >Thanks Tim. That is EXACTLY what I was looking for. That is so cool. > > > > > > Hank > > > > > > > > > On 6/30/06, Tim Hoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Hank, > > > > > > > > You can use any of the available Flash filters, for simple > > > > control/container skinning, by setting the filters property. The > > > > following method gives you a little more control over drop shadow than the > > > > shadow style properties. Check the docs for the syntax of the other > > > > available filters. > > > > > > > > -TH > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Schmalle" > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I would sayif you know what you are going after, > > > > > > > > > > EVERYTHING in Flex can be skinned with your custom styles and > > > > layers. > > > > > > > > > > Make custom skin sets. If you read what Adobe has said quite a bit, > > > > they > > > > > designed these components for extensibility and thus, some things > > > > are not > > > > > implemented and are left up to the developer to extend. > > > > > > > > > > Which when you get deeper into the years with Flex, you will thank > > > > Adobe for > > > > > taking that path. > > > > > > > > > > Peace, Mike > > > > > > > > > > On 6/30/06, hank williams hank777@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > when applying shadowing to an object, if the lighting source is to > > > > the > > > > > > top left of the object, then the shadow will be on the bottom and > > > > the > > > > > > right. Typically there is also a white or light band across the > > > > top > > > > > > and down the left side. > > > > > > > > > > > > I am wondering how you do this in flex. I see it in the > > > > application > > > > > > bar and so I am thinking that I should be able to style a canvas > > > > to do > > > > > > it, but I cant seem to do it with the shadow related settings. I > > > > > > believe I was able to do this kind of things with movie clips in > > > > > > flash. > > > > > > > > > > > > I guess a second question is whether it is possible to do any of > > > > those > > > > > > cool flash 8 effects on containers/canvases in flex. > > > > > > > > > > > > Hank > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > What goes up, does come down. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > What goes up, does come down. > > > -- What goes up, does come down. __._,_.___ -- Flexcoders Mailing List FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt Search Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com SPONSORED LINKS Web site design development Computer software development Software design and development Macromedia flex Software development best practice YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your gro
[flexcoders] Re: shadow lighting
Thanks for the tip Mike. Without digging into the API's, for what appears to be something simple (like this), there's no way for the average developer to know these things. -TH --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, "hank williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hmm... > > Doesnt make much sense. They encourage using filters in flash for animation > and effects but its too slow for a static flex container? > > It seems to me if performance is an issue flex is the last place that that > would be of concern since there is little animation. I dont get how this > would be a serious impediment for most flex users. > > Hank > > On 6/30/06, Michael Schmalle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > The following method gives you a little more control over drop shadow > > than the shadow style properties > > > > There is a reason they didn't use the DropShadow filter for panels and > > containers. It is VERY expensive on processing. If you are not worried about > > that then it dosn't matter. > > > > That is why the dropShadow style is actually a programmatic skin shape. > > > > Peace, Mike > > > > On 6/30/06, hank williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >Thanks Tim. That is EXACTLY what I was looking for. That is so cool. > > > > > > Hank > > > > > > > > > On 6/30/06, Tim Hoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Hank, > > > > > > > > You can use any of the available Flash filters, for simple > > > > control/container skinning, by setting the filters property. The > > > > following method gives you a little more control over drop shadow than the > > > > shadow style properties. Check the docs for the syntax of the other > > > > available filters. > > > > > > > > -TH > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Schmalle" > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I would sayif you know what you are going after, > > > > > > > > > > EVERYTHING in Flex can be skinned with your custom styles and > > > > layers. > > > > > > > > > > Make custom skin sets. If you read what Adobe has said quite a bit, > > > > they > > > > > designed these components for extensibility and thus, some things > > > > are not > > > > > implemented and are left up to the developer to extend. > > > > > > > > > > Which when you get deeper into the years with Flex, you will thank > > > > Adobe for > > > > > taking that path. > > > > > > > > > > Peace, Mike > > > > > > > > > > On 6/30/06, hank williams hank777@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > when applying shadowing to an object, if the lighting source is to > > > > the > > > > > > top left of the object, then the shadow will be on the bottom and > > > > the > > > > > > right. Typically there is also a white or light band across the > > > > top > > > > > > and down the left side. > > > > > > > > > > > > I am wondering how you do this in flex. I see it in the > > > > application > > > > > > bar and so I am thinking that I should be able to style a canvas > > > > to do > > > > > > it, but I cant seem to do it with the shadow related settings. I > > > > > > believe I was able to do this kind of things with movie clips in > > > > > > flash. > > > > > > > > > > > > I guess a second question is whether it is possible to do any of > > > > those > > > > > > cool flash 8 effects on containers/canvases in flex. > > > > > > > > > > > > Hank > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > What goes up, does come down. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > What goes up, does come down. > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~--> Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/TISQkA/hOaOAA/yQLSAA/nhFolB/TM ~-> -- Flexcoders Mailing List FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt Search Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [flexcoders] Re: shadow lighting
Hmm...Doesnt make much sense. They encourage using filters in flash for animation and effects but its too slow for a static flex container?It seems to me if performance is an issue flex is the last place that that would be of concern since there is little animation. I dont get how this would be a serious impediment for most flex users. HankOn 6/30/06, Michael Schmalle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The following method gives you a little more control over drop shadow than the shadow style properties There is a reason they didn't use the DropShadow filter for panels and containers. It is VERY expensive on processing. If you are not worried about that then it dosn't matter. That is why the dropShadow style is actually a programmatic skin shape. Peace, Mike On 6/30/06, hank williams < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Thanks Tim. That is EXACTLY what I was looking for. That is so cool.HankOn 6/30/06, Tim Hoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: Hi Hank, You can use any of the available Flash filters, for simple control/container skinning, by setting the filters property. The following method gives you a little more control over drop shadow than the shadow style properties. Check the docs for the syntax of the other available filters. -TH --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Schmalle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> I would sayif you know what you are going after,> > EVERYTHING in Flex can be skinned with your custom styles and layers. > > Make custom skin sets. If you read what Adobe has said quite a bit, they> designed these components for extensibility and thus, some things are not> implemented and are left up to the developer to extend. > > Which when you get deeper into the years with Flex, you will thank Adobe for> taking that path.> > Peace, Mike> > On 6/30/06, hank williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:> >> > when applying shadowing to an object, if the lighting source is to the> > top left of the object, then the shadow will be on the bottom and the > > right. Typically there is also a white or light band across the top> > and down the left side.> >> > I am wondering how you do this in flex. I see it in the application> > bar and so I am thinking that I should be able to style a canvas to do > > it, but I cant seem to do it with the shadow related settings. I> > believe I was able to do this kind of things with movie clips in> > flash.> >> > I guess a second question is whether it is possible to do any of those > > cool flash 8 effects on containers/canvases in flex.> >> > Hank> > > >> > > > -- > What goes up, does come down.> -- What goes up, does come down. __._,_.___ -- Flexcoders Mailing List FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt Search Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com SPONSORED LINKS Web site design development Computer software development Software design and development Macromedia flex Software development best practice YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "flexcoders" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
Re: [flexcoders] Re: shadow lighting
> The following method gives you a little more control over drop shadow than the shadow style properties There is a reason they didn't use the DropShadow filter for panels and containers. It is VERY expensive on processing. If you are not worried about that then it dosn't matter. That is why the dropShadow style is actually a programmatic skin shape. Peace, Mike On 6/30/06, hank williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Thanks Tim. That is EXACTLY what I was looking for. That is so cool.HankOn 6/30/06, Tim Hoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: Hi Hank, You can use any of the available Flash filters, for simple control/container skinning, by setting the filters property. The following method gives you a little more control over drop shadow than the shadow style properties. Check the docs for the syntax of the other available filters. -TH --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Schmalle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> I would sayif you know what you are going after,> > EVERYTHING in Flex can be skinned with your custom styles and layers. > > Make custom skin sets. If you read what Adobe has said quite a bit, they> designed these components for extensibility and thus, some things are not> implemented and are left up to the developer to extend. > > Which when you get deeper into the years with Flex, you will thank Adobe for> taking that path.> > Peace, Mike> > On 6/30/06, hank williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:> >> > when applying shadowing to an object, if the lighting source is to the> > top left of the object, then the shadow will be on the bottom and the > > right. Typically there is also a white or light band across the top> > and down the left side.> >> > I am wondering how you do this in flex. I see it in the application> > bar and so I am thinking that I should be able to style a canvas to do > > it, but I cant seem to do it with the shadow related settings. I> > believe I was able to do this kind of things with movie clips in> > flash.> >> > I guess a second question is whether it is possible to do any of those > > cool flash 8 effects on containers/canvases in flex.> >> > Hank> > > >> > > > -- > What goes up, does come down.> -- What goes up, does come down. __._,_.___ -- Flexcoders Mailing List FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt Search Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com SPONSORED LINKS Web site design development Computer software development Software design and development Macromedia flex Software development best practice YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "flexcoders" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
Re: [flexcoders] Re: shadow lighting
Thanks Tim. That is EXACTLY what I was looking for. That is so cool.HankOn 6/30/06, Tim Hoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: Hi Hank, You can use any of the available Flash filters, for simple control/container skinning, by setting the filters property. The following method gives you a little more control over drop shadow than the shadow style properties. Check the docs for the syntax of the other available filters. -TH --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Schmalle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> I would sayif you know what you are going after,> > EVERYTHING in Flex can be skinned with your custom styles and layers. > > Make custom skin sets. If you read what Adobe has said quite a bit, they> designed these components for extensibility and thus, some things are not> implemented and are left up to the developer to extend. > > Which when you get deeper into the years with Flex, you will thank Adobe for> taking that path.> > Peace, Mike> > On 6/30/06, hank williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:> >> > when applying shadowing to an object, if the lighting source is to the> > top left of the object, then the shadow will be on the bottom and the > > right. Typically there is also a white or light band across the top> > and down the left side.> >> > I am wondering how you do this in flex. I see it in the application> > bar and so I am thinking that I should be able to style a canvas to do > > it, but I cant seem to do it with the shadow related settings. I> > believe I was able to do this kind of things with movie clips in> > flash.> >> > I guess a second question is whether it is possible to do any of those > > cool flash 8 effects on containers/canvases in flex.> >> > Hank> > > >> > > > -- > What goes up, does come down.> __._,_.___ -- Flexcoders Mailing List FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt Search Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com SPONSORED LINKS Web site design development Computer software development Software design and development Macromedia flex Software development best practice YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "flexcoders" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
[flexcoders] Re: shadow lighting
Hi Hank, You can use any of the available Flash filters, for simple control/container skinning, by setting the filters property. The following method gives you a little more control over drop shadow than the shadow style properties. Check the docs for the syntax of the other available filters. -TH --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Schmalle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:>> I would sayif you know what you are going after,> > EVERYTHING in Flex can be skinned with your custom styles and layers.> > Make custom skin sets. If you read what Adobe has said quite a bit, they> designed these components for extensibility and thus, some things are not> implemented and are left up to the developer to extend.> > Which when you get deeper into the years with Flex, you will thank Adobe for> taking that path.> > Peace, Mike> > On 6/30/06, hank williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:> >> > when applying shadowing to an object, if the lighting source is to the> > top left of the object, then the shadow will be on the bottom and the> > right. Typically there is also a white or light band across the top> > and down the left side.> >> > I am wondering how you do this in flex. I see it in the application> > bar and so I am thinking that I should be able to style a canvas to do> > it, but I cant seem to do it with the shadow related settings. I> > believe I was able to do this kind of things with movie clips in> > flash.> >> > I guess a second question is whether it is possible to do any of those> > cool flash 8 effects on containers/canvases in flex.> >> > Hank> > > >> > > > -- > What goes up, does come down.> __._,_.___ -- Flexcoders Mailing List FAQ: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/files/flexcodersFAQ.txt Search Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "flexcoders" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___
