Questions about Rev/Transcript vs. other toolkits

[Troy Rollins]

On Aug 11, 2004, at 9:36 PM, Trevor DeVore wrote:

> What I mean by a multimedia application is a program that looks and 
> acts like most software that runs on your computer (multiple windows, 
> menus, native interface elements, etc.) but uses media as a central 
> piece of the application.  In my experience when you write a program 
> in Director it looks like you created in in Director if you know what 
> I mean.  Rev apps look like they belong on the system.  I chose 
> Revolution a few years back for this very reason.  The majority of the 
> apps I work on are primarily media based and Revolution has performed 
> excellently.  Now I haven't used the latest version of Director but if 
> I remember correctly you had to use some silly thing called MIAW in 
> Director anytime you wanted to create any windows besides the main 
> presentation window.  That always gave me headaches.  Rev makes it 
> easy and that makes me happy.

Multiple window applications under Director are a pain in the... 
anyway... oh yes, I agree, native interface elements and multiple 
windows are MUCH better in Rev.

>
> Now my projects don't have flashy vector graphics that spin all around 
> the screen and nauseate people but they use media just the same.

That is a bit of a stereotypic representation, I think. Tools are what 
the developer makes of them. You make it sound like the only thing 
people do with graphics handling power is meaningless garbage. I have a 
hard time believing that when you *were* using Director, you opted to 
make nauseating interfaces. If so, that would have been your choice I 
guess. One doesn't have to pull newbie spinning graphic stunts to 
appreciate interactive graphic manipulation power and speed. Certain 
audiences don't want native controls after all. Trade show environments 
are one. I think you know that, yet your characterization is 
particularly, and intentionally shallow.

In my case I use Director's graphics handling capabilities to make very 
beautiful and elegant dynamically generated animated menu systems which 
allow the user to navigate huge amounts of information... these menus 
are composited, animated and rendered in real-time based on reading 
database content and XML files. This is not nauseating spinning logo 
stuff, nor pointless and gratuitous, it is attractive, functional, 
effective and captivating - features demanded by the client and their 
audience.

The bottom line on that? Revolution was not the right tool to use for 
that project. Director has the functionality and capability required, 
Rev, at this point, does not. That doesn't make Rev a bad tool, and I 
never said it did, it simply is not the best tool for all projects.

> I use large bitmaps that have interactive portions, screens of media 
> elements that are generated from database data, navigational elements 
> that are generated from the db and animated onto the screen, and QT to 
> integrate most of the other things I want to do (the interactive 3D 
> stuff, instructive Flash animations, etc.).  I have been very pleased 
> with Rev's performance in all of these areas.

True, Rev can be OK when supported by QT and Flash. My whole point is, 
Rev is powerful to be sure, but it still has its weaker points. 
Graphics handling is one of them. But, why would I waste my time 
talking about it here? Because I'd LOVE to have the same capabilities 
in Rev that I do in Director, that's all. Not because I just want to 
prove that Director is "better." At certain aspects, it IS better, but 
it doesn't have to be that way for all time, does it?
--
Troy
RPSystems, Ltd.
http://www.rpsystems.net