Quicktime Multimedia Authoring - Nearly Dead?
In my quest for finding the ultimate multimedia authoring tool, I've come to the tentative conclusion that QuickTime, (as far as an authoring platform is concerned), is falling so far behind that it could soon be considered "dead". Apple, the very folks who should be promoting solutions for interactive QuickTime haven't done anything, themselves, for years. The two applications that I find to be the most advanced QuickTime authoring solutions, (LiveStage and VideoClix), haven't done anything to make their packages attractive to new authors, not in years, either. Visiting the LiveStage website reveals that they are now focusing on being content providers, themselves, rather than offering an authoring solution for others. When emailing the VideoClix people for some technical answers, I get no response at all. So, it looks to me like Flash authoring, for the present, is the only viable, practical and timely solution for the kind of interactive authoring I need to perform. Also, for the Mac, there is only one thorough solution. And, though I hate supporting these corporate monsters, I went ahead and purchased the Macromedia Authoring Studio, for the total lack of finding anything comparable elsewhere, at any price. Very sad. Greg Smit ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Multimedia Software and Required Players
One thing that seems to be a rule is that the less expensive the multimedia software is, the more likely you will need a "player" application to run the files. Only the most expensive software seems to allow building true executables. Out of all of the QuickTime authoring software I've had the pleasure to investigate, MovieWorks is the best value, but the QuickTime movies it generates are not interactive. The "player" documents that it generates are interactive, very much so, but they do require both a player application and QuickTime to work. And I don't think there is any way to copy protect these "applications". I also have no idea how you would integrate an e-commerce solution from within. Ezedia produces similar results with similar limitations. Anybody have specific experiences with either of these apps? Greg Smith ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
How about an E-Sellerate plug-in?
Does anyone know about any development along these lines? Thanks, Greg Smith ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Status of the Kagi KRM plug-in?
-- Just curious about projected release dates. This is a big one for me. Everyone should implement Kagi's instantaneous purchasing hook. Any release date projected for this plug-in? Thanks, Greg Smith ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Comparison of Multimedia Prowess - Director and Revolution
-- -- I'm still looking for the friendliest programming or non-programming environment for multimedia development. There does not exist a non-programmer's solution, so here I am. Recent exploration has revealed that Director no longer is pursuing a verbose programming solution, (Lingo), but has switched entirely over to javascript. Can someone please tell me how the black hole that is javascript came to be so influential in our galaxy? I know it was written by aliens, but how did they get so much universal power? So, as far as a verbose, English-like solution, there isn't anything else other than Revolution that I would even consider trying to tackle. But my application goals are entirely in the realm of multimedia production. I don't see many multimedia or game oriented programs being written in Transcript, but that could just be due to lack of interest among the Revolution community. I've casually investigated Malte's arcade engine, but that is not exactly everything I would need to emulate some of Director's "built-in" functionality. I know that Revolution doesn't supply these kinds of templates, but, as regards overall functionality and prowess in multimedia, can someone with experience of both environments comment on similarities, differences and strengths of both development platforms? Also, Director supports, probably the largest set of graphic and video formats; how does Revolution compare in this area? Thanks, Greg Smith ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Revolution Media Presentation Viewable on Web?
I've been intimidated by the full blown Revolution package and now feel a little more comfortable, especially in the area of the pocket book, since "Revolution Media" has been introduced. I'm mainly interested in using this product to produce educational training material that features a lot of slideshow material and captured QuickTime sessions with software demonstration. Of course, the more interactivity, the better. But, is deployment through the Runtime "player" the only method for viewing and distribution? Can a website equipped with a plug-in manage to demonstrate some of the interactive content that I intend to produce with Revolution Media? Thanks, Greg Smith ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
How About a Forum, I'll Supply the Space?
I agree with Dan Shafer in both of his opinions - the community is too small already and that a mailing list is the worst possible vehicle for facilitating the Revolution Community at large. A forum would provide for all of the possible areas of discussion by segregating the general topic categories, accordingly. The mailing list requires reading through too much "quoted" material and too many "re: . . . ." topic headings. It is a snap to find those topics you are particularly interested in reading about and responding to, using the forum format. I've got quite a bit of room on my service, and wouldn't mind supplying the forum basics, since the "raw" forum format is provided by my web hosting service. I'm not using it, so maybe the Revolution Community could benefit from this, instead. The "moderators" could remain the moderators. It would be an enormous convenience to me, a new Revolution learner. I also strongly suggest refraining from using the "Yahoo Groups" format, it is nowhere near as friendly as the "standard" kind. Let me know if I can help, Sincerely, Greg Smith ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Creating a Visual Working Environment with and For Revolution
Richard Gaskin and Janis: There seems to be enough interest in creating a tool that allows people to create serious, engaging and funny software products that are primarily visual in nature, yet require the user to solve problems. It is the hope of many that this tool would be also visual in nature, not requiring the user to engage in any large quantity of coding. Nearly every product that has been created to provide a visual solution always seems to have, as an alterior motive, the intention of dragging the user back into the realm of learning to code using some traditional programming language. Why not create a very powerful tool that can really produce real software, focused on the type that is visual in nature - interactive graphical applications and games - that does not have, as part of its goal, teaching the user how to program with traditional languages? A specialized and fun tool, yet not frivolous and childish in design. When developers go about the task of producing products like this, they usually resort to one analogy and not several - like only flowchart logic design, or purely drag and drop iconic systems. I think the whole problem can be addressed by making a "construction system" that parallels what a person would use if trying to create the same system in the real world. I recently visited several sites where folks are completely obsessed and spending lots of money and time building extremely complex and interactive physical systems, on a par with any high tech factory, all out of lego parts. If you push this switch, this set of behaviors ensues - if this object touches that object, this whole circuit of activity takes place, and so on. These physical demonstrations show cause and effect reactions, random behavior, physics, timed behavior and loops - all the things that make up most entertaining games. What this also demonstrated to me was that very complex systems, that are interactive, can be made of many smaller, non-complex parts - simple parts. If the problem of developing a visual programming tool were addressed in a way that it would specifically parallel a physical construction system, capable of creating incredibly complex interactions and environments - all in 3D - yet, any person of any skill level could begin to build with such a system, and new subsystems could be built on these elementary building skills, until, finally a complex system would emerge from the sum of the parts - we would have a really winning creation tool. It would be conceivable to create things like robots demonstrating A.I., as well as gaming systems with characters that demonstrated A.I., and environments that react intelligently with encounters, therein. Such a graphical development system would have the added advantage of having a set of capabilities and functions that are not easily reproduceable in the real world, parallel system. And, the parts would not have to be as restrictive as a lego set, but could take many shapes, suitable for creating nearly any graphical, interactive situation. And the best part about all of it is that it would be fun - the process of making things would be fun and the process of "playing" the completed project would also be fun. Fun for the whole family! If the underlying constructs of the whole system were based in a language like Revolution, which is, at least approachable to most people, modifications and extensions could then be accessible to everyone with programming skills. I'm sure that not everything can be made to specifically resemble a "part" in the parallel real world system, and that is where some other form of logic connectivity would need to enter in. But, I think, even that could take the form of "electric wires" or "logic rays", that network everything together. Think of it . . . , a living, moving, interactive development environment that makes sense - All In Glorious 3D! But, I'm afraid it would be up to guys like Richard Gaskin, etc. to lay the initial framework for such a thing, at least. I'd be happy to assist, as I'm sure others would be, with any kind of 3D or 2D graphic and animation work, and to test any new "inventions" that are part of the development process. A project like this might even help a great many people, like me, to come to grips with Transcript in a tangible way. Then we would have the best of all possible worlds. What do you guys think? Greg Smith ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Visual Programming, mTropolis, Chipwits and Revolution
That reminds me of another one, but PC only: Alice, from Carnegie Mellon University. It looks full of potential, to me, but I can't figure out how to get animated 3D characters into it without owning a copy of Maya or Max. You could, however, always use sprites made from 3D animated characters and paste them onto billboards, I suppose. What is nice about Alice is that it is drag and drop programming in the fashion and order of real programming, minus the requirement of syntax awareness and mastery. Once your game is complete, you can generate an actual Python code representation of it. Still, everything seems to keep dragging people back to those horrid programming languages that make brains ache and stomachs bleed. Take a look at Alice: http://www.alice.org Greg Smith ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Visual Programming, mTropolis, Chipwits and Revolution
I actually owned mTropolis when it first was released. It was my next big project, trying to understand how to make interactive things with it. Then I loaned it to a friend and never saw it again. Oh, well. Of all of the drag and drop past solutions out there, that Chipwits thing really hits home, for me. I am convinced that visually oriented people are never going to buy into textual, (with lots of abbreviations), representations of visual things. Or, rather, they may buy into it, but they will hate every moment of it. Programming is an exhausting pastime, and an even more exhausting occupation. Just look at some of these guys after 30 years of it, if they last that long. (Please post your photos, here). Making graphic things move and behave in predictable and unpredictable ways is, I believe, at the root of all modern game enjoyment. There is a small segment of the playing population that couldn't care less about aesthetics and eye candy, but rather thrive on puzzle solving, but I don't think they are in the majority. And, I believe, if ever the graphically creative people, enmasse, are to become creators of games, including the logic part of it, the process of creating, itself, will have to be a lot of fun, and have a fast development cycle. It is part of the personality type. I never had the priveledge to play Chipwits, but I wish I had. Ando Sonenblick has developed a somewhat visual authoring environment called SpriteStudio. It is cheap and does a lot. Unfortunately, for game type interactivity, one must wrap his brain around Lua - and the documentation set for SpriteStudio features only one game sample. You might take a look at it: http://www.spritec.com And, if you like what you see, you could learn to program in Lua with "Game Development with Lua", available at you local bookstore. Did anybody like AxelEdge from Mindavenue? Greg Smith ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Visual Programming Using Revolution
It is my obsession to take the very simple things I do with code and "encapsulate" them inside a graphic for drag and drop usage later. I know that not everything can be represented by a graphic, but certainly, if one uses the "noun" / "verb" analogy of programming with some form of language, the same analogy can be brought a step further by assigning many lines of code that describe a tangible "object" or behavior that is visual in nature, and assign that "thing" or that "action" in a descriptive picture. It is just more pleasant and gratifying and much more compact. This would help programming to become the instantly addictive thing that will keep new users interested. Especially with visually rich applications, it makes sense to program or build such an application with visual elements as the building blocks rather than many many, relatively non-descriptive words and phrases. Even Transcript, with its very English like syntax is not that compact or pleasing to use for creating a primarily visual application. Having spouted all of this, I must confess that I am an artist and not a programmer. I'm trying to find a language that helps me create visual things like games, visually, not symbolically. I have investigated nearly every solution currently available, and find them lacking. The closest thing I ever came upon was AxelEdge by Mindavenue. Every interactive thing that could be done, in 3D, could be done visually. And the examples were quite complex and intriguing, as well as very entertaining. Unfortunately, like most visual solutions, it was too expensive and did not fly. Now they are in the category of "legacy" software, having been swallowed up by a large Canadian cabinet making software company. For a quick reference, look at some of the examples over at http://www.mindavenue.com My question is whether Revolution would be a good solution for developing a programming system that allowed users to encapsulate any piece of code inside a graphic, for drag and drop method assembly and, ultimately, the creation of more software. By the way, if anyone is interested, AxelEdge 1.5 can be acquired for around $35. Version 2.0 can be acquired for around $135. I'd like to know what everyone thinks about Revolution for this kind of application, and also what they think of Mindavenue's approach to creating interactive experiences without programming. Thanks, Greg Smith ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Learn Programming in Ten Years
Ain't that the truth. I think those of us, (me), who hope to find easier solutions to the problems of computing and creating with a computer are really just victims of the Apple marketing department. Greg Smith ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Thinking Graphically or Thinking Symbolically
Jim Ault: Precisely. Richard Gaskin: The Ambrosia product is "out of business" as far as I can tell. Which brings an interesting point to bear on this subject: I've purchased more than a few "off of the shelf" products that have since ceased being supported. What a slap on the back of the neck with a sand-filled sock that is. Especially if you spent quite a bit of time learning the thing. Maybe, that, in and of itself, is a good reason to learn to code, though I don't think it realistic that I would ever have the expertise to recode software of the advanced nature that I have been using. And, you know, I never spent much time solving puzzles. Programming does seem to be for people who really like that sort of thing. Greg Smith ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Either You Think Graphically or You Don't
Pierre: Very inspiring. I'll have to look into it. Thank you, Greg Smith ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
You Either Think Graphically or You Don't
I really don't want to stir up a debate, but I feel lost in today's world of application creation. What kind of application do you want to make? What kind of appication like you want to make is already out there by the dozens? Why make a duplicate of an application that exists and already does most of what you want? Why spend months/years learning to develop something that you could buy for relatively little money from someone else? Is your idea really that much better than one that has already been put into code? Why "code" at all? Has the wheel really been invented over and over again? Why is it so hard to make an application without re-inventing something that has already been made thousands of times? With all of this talk about object oriented, reusable code, why does it still take so long to produce anything really useful or unique? Why does everyone keep inventing new database software? Why don't game creators usually finish what they start? Why don't more people use Revolution to develop modern style games? Why can't most artists learn to code? Why don't most artists even want to try to learn to code? I'm an artist and an animator who wants to make his art "do something", but I loathe programming, what can I do, anyway? Can Revolution help me? How come I can't think like a machine? Well, there it is. Greg Smith ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
