There are many aspects of LiveMotion 1.0 that I think are a tremendous improvement over the user interface that Flash 4.0 provides: it is so much clearer when it comes to assigning changes to object attributes, for example, and easier to insert or relocate 'keyframes' in the timeline.
Where it really falls on its face comes with publishing the .swf file(s). Because LiveMotion cannot emulate the Flash symbol or instance of symbol feature, all the bitmaps become accumulative, and the file size skyrockets. It's not unusual to see 1.5 to 2 Megabytes for 200 frames or less----even after optimizing the graphics with Fireworks or ImageReady.
In a 'perfect' world, new apps. would implement all the finest features of their predecessors: in the world as we know it, proprietary standards are the norm, and litigation a result of "software plagarizing" methodology. Heavy sigh.
For the life of "LiveMotion", I can't understand how one is supposed to use this software while it is publishing huge download bottlenecks with every movie creation.
Does anyone else have a fresh insight on this?
Where it really falls on its face comes with publishing the .swf file(s). Because LiveMotion cannot emulate the Flash symbol or instance of symbol feature, all the bitmaps become accumulative, and the file size skyrockets. It's not unusual to see 1.5 to 2 Megabytes for 200 frames or less----even after optimizing the graphics with Fireworks or ImageReady.
In a 'perfect' world, new apps. would implement all the finest features of their predecessors: in the world as we know it, proprietary standards are the norm, and litigation a result of "software plagarizing" methodology. Heavy sigh.
For the life of "LiveMotion", I can't understand how one is supposed to use this software while it is publishing huge download bottlenecks with every movie creation.
Does anyone else have a fresh insight on this?
