On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 09:49:11 +0000 John Sullivan <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thursday, January 27, 2011, 5:07:32 AM, Chris Pugh wrote: > >>John Sullivan <[email protected]> wrote: > >> [.put on an .swf creates a new movieclip] > >> .put on an image doesn't, which means the three cherries are > >> then not independently placeable. > > If that were strictly true, then surely something like this: > >[snip code] shouldn't work? But it does. > > But it doesn't ;-) I think you misunderstood me slightly there John. What I said was that it *SHOULDN'T* work, i.e. it doesn't really make sense. An swf is a movieclip. An image isn't, and thus when .put is used on the latter the result is an Object embedded inside a movieclip, in this case _root. ._x and ._y and other properties work on movieclips not objects. I see only two ways of making them act independently.. 1. Stick with swfc script, in which case you can use the .del command to remove the objects and replace them in different positions beofre re-putting. The actionscript 'delete' doesn't work on the .put objects, nor does the alternative boolean form compile swfc. 2. Do the usual actionscript thing, and load the images into dynamically created clips, which can then be manipulated independently. > Not only that but moving a movieclip has the effect of moving > all child movieclips relative to it.. >.. While that is for the most part true, the converse isn't. The movieclips apparently constrained by the outer clip, or relative to it, can move independently. See attached example: squares.bz2 Regards, Chris. -- Chris <[email protected]>
squares.bz2
Description: Binary data
