Questions about Rev/Transcript vs. other toolkits

[Trevor DeVore]

On Aug 11, 2004, at 7:18 PM, Troy Rollins wrote:
> On Aug 11, 2004, at 9:36 PM, Trevor DeVore wrote:
>>
>> 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.

Troy,

It was a stereotypic generalization and was made in gest.  My point was 
simply that a multimedia application doesn't by default have to be 
capable of the things that Flash and Director are typically known for.  
Each project has different needs and some projects fit very nicely into 
Rev's currently capabilities.  Note that I'm not advocating that Rev 
needn't improve in these areas, just that it isn't necessary for all 
multimedia projects.

> 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.

See comment below.

>> 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?

My goal isn't to say we don't need improvements in this area in Rev, I 
just don't want people who browse the list to walk away thinking that 
they should ditch Rev if they start on a multimedia project because it 
isn't capable of doing what Director or Flash can do.  Rev is capable 
of quite a bit right now and I'm always finding that it can do things 
that I thought were previously out if it's reach.


-- 
Trevor DeVore
Blue Mango Multimedia
trevor at mangomultimedia.com