The Flash MX 2004 Updater corrected an impressive number of issues with the software. Here are some things still left to watch out for.
(This content appears courtesy of a reader. He assures us all the bugs listed have since been submitted to Macromedia.)
- Illustrator 10 files that make use of gradients appear to be imported supporting only 256 colors. Resulting gradients are choppy and low quality. Rasterizing the import supports more colors, although it is still choppy.
Trace Bitmap
- On both PNGs, JPEGs, bitmaps, and imported Illustrator files, Trace Bitmap is unable to successfully convert many colors.
- Generally, the more times you publish a SWF file, the longer it takes. The publish time can increase by as much as 10 fold. Restarting Flash or your computer will bring the publish time back down.
- Compiler cache clear error. Sometimes when changing an AS file and republishing a swf that imports it, has no effect. Subsequent changes may also result in no effect. The error seems to occur at random. Using trace statements may force the cache to clear, although not always. A more effective solution, is to clear the AS file except for the class declaration and republish the file without error. Then reinsert the original code and republish.
- Pressing F1 when editing an AS file with no text highlighted does not trigger Help menu. Selecting any text that does not happen to be in the Help system and pressing F1 also does not result in the Help Menu opening. This occurs only when the Help Menu has not been otherwise opened.
- When clicking on a shape in the IDE with the color mixer open, it's fill settings are not loaded into
the color mixer panel. To load the settings, open the properties panel, choose the fill color, click the color preview of color picker.
- When testing a swf in the IDE, If a executing method causes the "script running slowly" prompt to appear and you press "No", the same method will be re-executed instead of continuing where it left off.
- When editing the actions of a frame on an FLA and then switching to an AS file,
the Actions Panel does not auto collapse. Separate settings should be kept for FLA's and AS files.
Replies: 30 comments
1) Recap:
1) Saying "I saw this" is helpful, but not as helpful as telling an engineer how they can reliably see it too. (Recipes trump descriptions.)
2) Getting an actionable change-request to the dev team is a necessary step in implementing it, but not sufficient... after that you have to balance against things like whether others would hate the change, whether it would break other things, whether it's so deep you have to re-architect, etc.
Summary: Software, like anything on this planet, ain't perfect. Figuring out what you want to change is a useful step, but beware polarizing dichotomies.
Regards,
John Dowdell
Macromedia Support
posted by John Dowdell (), 11/17/2003 12:11 PM CST
2) Just to add to John's comments, we at Macromedia really do appreciate well-researched, well-thought out feedback like this list, and we are reading the community forums regularly and listening to your feedback so that we can do what is best for the Flash product. Please keep up this great work!
I will definitely pass this list of issues on to our internal Quality Assurance team, so that the engineering team can understand them and track them.
We strive for a very high level of quality in our product. It is, as John mentions, the nature of software that some bugs slip through the cracks, because software is a very complex beast... an application of Flash's complexity is a machine with ten thousand moving parts!
It's very important to us that customers have a successful experience with the product. I think with the newly released Updater, we are at a point where customers can achieve solid results with the product and have a good user experience. There are some remaining bugs, yes, and we will endeavor to squash them when it is possible for us to do so. On the Flash team, we have to strike a balance between releasing updates and actually making headway on the next major release of Flash. If we did nothing but release updaters, then we would never evolve Flash significantly, because we would have no time to work on the new features that customers are requesting. I think it is a good sign that a lot of the bugs above have workarounds, and some are arguably minor.
Just to reiterate, we are listening to feedback like this, and we do take it very seriously, and Macromedia is committed to working together with the Flash community to build the best possible Flash.
Gary Grossman
Director of Engineering
Macromedia Flash Team
posted by Gary Grossman (), 11/17/2003 01:35 PM CST
3) Wow, I just was reading this and saw that these bugs were already submitted: "This content appears courtesy of a reader. He assures us all the bugs listed have since been submitted to Macromedia."
No reason to say your product isnt perfect, they are just bringing up in a public forum information on some pretty major bugs (if they are verifieable).
posted by Mr. Potato (), 11/17/2003 03:31 PM CST
4) Please Macromedia, make an update for Compiler cache clear error bug, that's like pain in the ass to work with this bug. :/
thanx in advance !
posted by Francis Bourre (), 11/17/2003 05:06 PM CST
5) I've had a couple of strange problems rear their ugly heads ... wondering if anyone else has:
- had their working .fla disappear (aka be deleted) while working on it within FMX 2004?
I've had it happen twice. And I don't think it was user error ....
I'm saving the .fla on a remote network share, so maybe it is in fact a windows/network related issue ...
- had a file lockup while working with it in FMX 2004?
I was recently working on a .fla that loaded an xml file, and had it lockup so I could not edit the xml file until I quit entirely out of FMX 2004.
No other programs were running (that I could tell) and the exported .swf that loaded the XML file was NOT running within FMX 2004 at the time ...
I closed out of everything within FMX 2004 and it still seemed to have a exclusive lock on the file ... very strange ...
--I'm runing Windows XP, FMX 2004 Pro, with the latest updater 1.
posted by Scott Janousek (), 11/17/2003 05:15 PM CST
6) Kudos to Gary Grossman for his thoughtful response. It's a refreshing change of tone! :)
posted by John (), 11/17/2003 06:17 PM CST
7) Its scary and pathetic how much MM has placed on the version of Flash. Anytime there is criticism of it 20 MM hanchos pop out of the woodwork to defend it (happend on FlashKit boards too). Its too bad its a version that was clearly DOA and even an update (unheard of for flash) cant revive it. All this and designers were totally ignored in this version. I'll pass on this one. 3 years of Flash MX doesn't seem too bad in comparison.
posted by Space Cadet (), 11/17/2003 07:23 PM CST
8) The components I have tested all have the same initialization bug. Namely, if you add a component at run time (or a MC that contains a component), you do not have accesss to that components properties for some arbitrary number of cycles.
here's an example...
ScrollPane has been dragged onto the stage of a MC linked out as testMC and labeled myScrollPane.
_root.attachMovie("testMC", "testMC", 0);
trace(_root.testMC.myScrollPane); //looks like it's there
trace(_root.testMC.myScrollPane.setSize)// returns undefined so, really, it's not there
So, clearly, the component is starting a new thread as it loads but the code following the attachMovie() call carries forth (assuming that the component has been attached and is ready for business). The only way around this is to sit in an enterFrame event method waiting for a member of the newly instantiated component's typeof to become != "undefined".
It would seem that if the component takes long enough to load and initialize to warrant its own thread, then it warrants its own callback event, as well, so that one can not try to use it until it has fired an onLoad.
I have reported this bug to Macromedia but have not heard back from them, so perhaps they will find it on this board and make a note of it.
posted by Dr.Dre'del (), 11/17/2003 08:15 PM CST
9) I really appreciate Gary Grossman's response. It carries a polite, reassuring and non-dismissive tone. I do agree that software cannot be 100% bug-free; we just have to live with some minor bugs. And despite the letdown in FMX04 (or because of it) I am actually looking forward to the next major release of Flash.
However...
"If we did nothing but release updaters, then we would never evolve Flash significantly, because we would have no time to work on the new features that customers are requesting..."
Pardon me, but if a software requires updating, then you should. If you end up "doing nothing but release updaters", it is only because it is necessary and your customers will appreciate it. While the author of the buglist did mention workarounds, I believe he did it only to highlight the inconvenience caused. It is not meant to dismiss the importance or severity of the bugs. My fear is that unless the next major release is a "write-from-scratch" release, chances are it is going to inherit the problems in the current release. The last thing we need is another feature-rich-and-bug-filled major release of Flash. If that is the case, I can't see how exciting FMX05 can be (anyway FMX04 WAS exciting).
posted by Dave (), 11/17/2003 11:30 PM CST
10) First thing I'd like to say, is John... you're an a$$. Software ain't perfect... if we're going to release updates all the time we can't move on... wtf.. you make a crap piece of software and you're whining about making updates to bugs that you created? You want to move on to the next version? Why not make the current version actually work properly.
To Gary's comment on striving for high quality... that makes me laugh. Especially when you have moron's like John on your side telling people to lay off the FlashMX2004 as you're trying to get to the next version of Flash... god knows how buggy that version will be. If you were truly looking to make a high quality piece of software, you wouldn't have put out FlashMX2004 in such a shoddy state.
Until I see some true movement and a better attitude towards people who are only trying to help I'll be sticking to FlashMX. It works, very rarely buggy and I can get my work done.
Good luck MM... I'm sure you're watching your stocks and sales very carefully on this one.
posted by Steve (), 11/18/2003 12:28 AM CST
11) Uh, Steve, these aren't the droids you're looking for...
posted by John (), 11/18/2003 12:48 AM CST
12) ..does Flash MX 2004 need alot more work...yes...Is Flash as a development Tool still remarkable and amazing..Hell Yah!
Just stick with Flash MX. It works fine :)
posted by Matty (), 11/18/2003 03:07 AM CST
13) Ok, its true that this version comes a LITLE buggy, and sometimes its dificult to work with it, but, I really apreciate the close contact that MM haves with the comunity, I dont see Micro$oft doin the same.
Gary:
quote "(...)If we did nothing but release updaters,(...)"
Thats a true that isnt suppose to get public(politics), everyone that develops software feels the same, but the costumer dont like to ear that and he really doesnt have to accept it, next time he have to buy MM software we will think twice cause he had a bad experience. Making updates its the same as making an apoligie, its not good but its better than not to. In my homeland we say "dont ask for apologies, just avoid them..."
P.S.Sorry for english
posted by Tiago Janz Torre do Vale (), 11/18/2003 05:12 AM CST
14) the dot edition updater was release quite soon, so we can expect more updates following. However that was a good move from macromedia not to make people pay for their update ( like for macromedia director or more recently Mac OS X )
Plus if you feel cheated with MX 2004 you should have stayed with MX, the MX 2004 is truly a big advance when compared with flash 5 or MX.
posted by dvhh (), 11/18/2003 09:48 AM CST
15) dvhh... you probably don't know your facts when you compare FMX04 with Mac OS X. Don't mistake Mac OS X dot releases as updates. They are new versions with new features. Mac just want to reuse the 'X' in their new OS. How can you compare this with the FMX04 Updater which fixes bugs, not provide new features? Your comment that FMX04 is "truly a big advance" is also truly a joke.
posted by Dave (), 11/18/2003 10:03 AM CST
16) I've had the same problem as Scott Janousek:
had a file lockup while working with it in FMX 2004?
Once the FLA has been previewed, any dynamic file (html,php,txt etc.) that is set to load into the SWF is locked ('cannot save, file is in use'). The preview SWF and in most of my cases the original FLA has had to be closed and in cases of uploading the dynamic file to a server I've had to close Flash down all together!
For someone who uses dynamic content in most of my Flash work this is the most painful bug I've found.
The bug has been reported and I had hoped it had been spotted and fixed in the update but to no avail :[
Like Scott Janousek I'm running MX Pro on WindowsXP with the update.
posted by Marcus Maher (), 11/18/2003 10:03 AM CST
17) I was about to purchase FMX 2004. But I read this thread and changed my mind. I will wait for the finished product. I have no time to be a free macromedia beta tester.
posted by Jay The Sea (), 11/18/2003 10:24 AM CST
18) Great, I ran the updater, and it looks like all went well. Then I try to actually run Flash:
Runtime Error!
Program: C:\....\Flash.exe
This application has requested the Runtime to terminate in an unusual way.
Please contact the application's suport team for more informatin.
Good job on testing the updater. Now I can spend valuable time uninstalling and reinstalling my app and setting it back up. Oh yeah!
posted by Pat (), 11/18/2003 11:40 AM CST
19) If you are having problems with flash, contact Macromedia support so that they can address your issues. You might be having an issue with your environment (windows xp) and not the program itself. Macromedia is far from perfect, and I do have to say I am disapointed in Gary Grossman's comments but I dont think this should be a dumping ground for everyone's minute problems that might be arising from running the software on an unstable system.
I guess once again I am concerned with their attitude and would like to focus on that rather than an individual problem. Flash isnt a toy, it isnt a game. It is an authoring application. I would say that any crashing problems or problems with the debugger would be a high priority. I have had crashing issues with Flash ever since it came out, and it does seem unstable for an application I paid over 400 USD for. Macromedia has been rather lackluster in providing updates to the previous versions and I hope that providing the latest patch is more of a trend rather than the exception. Maybe Macromedia needs a more robust sustaining engineering team for Flash.
posted by Mr. Potato (), 11/18/2003 02:53 PM CST
20) That is bunch of crap Grossman ... You guys "owe" it to your customers and users to strive towards a perfect product. If you need help there is country in an Asia called India ... look into it.
posted by Christian (), 11/18/2003 05:23 PM CST
21) I like flash. But this version is a monster. Too many complicate things. You end by having too many files and folders all around your applications. The dataBinding is a monster of itself. And if u add few components it s deadly slow.
We ll see.
Shirley65
posted by shirley65 (), 11/19/2003 06:35 AM CST
22) Mr. Potato:
I might point out that a developer's machine (and, maybe to a lesser extent, a designer's machine, too) tends toward instability, simply due to the fact that we're the ones that are (hopefully!) trying to push the envelope of what's possible. _Some_ of that may be factored into the equation, but that only makes it all that more important that a company like MM make their product as rock-solid as possible. They need to test on stable systems, but they need to do even more strenuous tests on instable systems, loaded to the gills with other tools, with other apps running that might draw on the same resources as Flash, and tweak the sucker until it runs maximally well on both types of systems. I should be able to run MySQL, PHP, Apache or IIS, Photoshop and Flash simultaneously without experiencing anything more inconveniencing than the likely event of a slower system. Slow-downs I can live with; rampant crashing or flake-out IDE behavior (disappearing panels, dysfunctional debugger windows, etc) make me look at alternatives.
I'm not saying it's easy, and you can't compensate for some things (like older processors, low amounts of diskspace or RAM, etc), but hell, if I went to my boss with a list of issues that my customers have reported with my code, and told him, "It works fine on my machine" I'd be laughed out of the office and handed a pinkslip shortly thereafter.
posted by Jason M. Batchelor / mori57 (), 11/19/2003 10:34 AM CST
23) Ever since we upgraded to 7.0.1 we cant use any key-commands containing the option key (on 5 different Macs, all with up to date software, licensed copies of MX 2004 Pro)...
Not only was the release version exceptionally buggy, the updater just left us with another (extremely fu**ing frustrating usability bug). We have paid (5 copies) and we have the right to complain (and we have) via email, via phone... Flash MX 2004 issues need to be resolved before anybody at MM even whispers about future releases, the above post is nothing less that pathetic.
We are about a week or so away from clearing all the MM software off of our drives and recommending alternate solutions to our clients and students. (and returning the upgrades, stepping back). MM needs to spend some more time with designers and illustrators who depend on flash daily as a tool, speed and dependability is the biggest feature flash had, it's not in this version.
Least MM could do is to post (accurate) lists of known issues, i'm getting sick of listening to everybody here (in the studio) complain. Scouring the net to see if others are having the same problem. I applaud this thread...
posted by matthew (), 11/19/2003 08:12 PM CST
24) "First thing I'd like to say, is John... you're an a$$... Especially when you have moron's like John on your side telling people to lay off the FlashMX2004 as you're trying to get to the next version of Flash."
I will freely admit to being an *******, as well as part-time idiot, but I do draw the line at "moron"; that is factually inaccurate, as well as being a misattributed quote.... ;-)
As Gary alludes, telling others how they can see a problem too is a necessary, and yet insufficient, step to producing a change in a common codebase. The initial post here says what someone saw, which is not at issue, but which is insufficient in itself to allow someone else to see the same problem.
Reading is a cost. It precludes other activity. You can increase your chances of being heard by writing for the listener's benefit. Good recipes sent to the wishlist are extremely effective, and greatly appreciated.
jd/mm
posted by John Dowdell (), 11/21/2003 11:51 PM CST
25) And do you know this one :
**Error** D:\cvsroot\Xnexo\webApplication\AS2Classes\uiComponents\uiObject.as: Line 16: The name of this class, 'uiComponents.uiObject', conflicts with the name of another class that was loaded, 'uiComponents.uiObject'.
(
??????
I try to delete the "aso" folder but nothing seems to works..
Have any Infos...it'll help a lot !
posted by Yome (), 11/24/2003 06:44 AM CST
26) Hello,
Just a quick note in response to item:
When clicking on a shape in the IDE with the color mixer open, it's fill settings are not loaded into
the color mixer panel. To load the settings, open the properties panel, choose the fill color, click the color preview of color picker.
This was put in during Flash MX, as a feature/bug fix, to solve a customer complaint that was introduced in Flash 5. The complaint was that after customizing a color in the Flash 5 mixer, then selecting an item to apply the color to, the mixer would change from the custom color to that of the select item's. (As would the fill color chip in the toolbar, which was different than how it worked in Flash 4.) To solve this problem, the behavior changed in Flash MX to more closely resemble Flash 4. The Property Inspector now displays the color properties of the selection whereas the other color chips retain their settings unless the user changes them.
I hope this helps clear up some of the confusion surrounding this feature.
Thank you,
Sharon Selden
Macromedia Flash Quality Assurance Engineer
Feature requests, enhancements or bugs can be submitted directly to the development team at:
http://www.macromedia.com/support/email/wishform/?6213=9.
posted by Sharon Selden (), 11/24/2003 04:50 PM CST
27) i'm just very sad to see the chopping block (matthew post#23) being that pissed off as i am a big fan of their work with flash (they might be giants for instance)..
posted by zenzizi (), 11/27/2003 12:41 PM CST
28) the Ctrl+V (paste) doesnt work!
posted by la puta (), 12/02/2003 03:10 PM CST
29) Well... it seemes to me that upgrades are part of MM's strategy.
I have MX 2004 at work, and wanted to try Flash MX Pro at home. I found the .dll crack easily enough, but the upgrade to version 7.0.1 overwrites the .dll, preventing the app from running.
Thus to keep up-to-date with upgrades requires either cracking each version, or actually purchasing the product. Or, running the buggy version.
A good strategy, which will certainly cut down on piracy.
posted by Anon (), 12/03/2003 03:49 AM CST
30) ...unless you (annon) are not a very good cracker
m joking a bit!
Rather amused yesterday to read Tom Muck at http://www.flash-remoting.com/articles/oopsacrilege.cfm.
The last one to talk clearly about his disapointment with the last version of Flash. He even mentions the limitation of the updater, with reference to the fact that the documentation doesnt keep the pace with it.
Altogether he is right. And for those like me who only few months ago bought his books it s already time to put them away. Macromedia, their hurry, and their policy of no backward full compatibility, devalued valuable books and codes in one single go!!!
shirley65
posted by shirley65 (), 12/03/2003 05:41 AM CST
![[Valid RSS]](http://www.actionscript.com/archives/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}
