/ > /show/ > Thread 28853 Age: 77.03d Health: 0% Posters: 1 Posts: 1 Replies: 0 Files: 1+2
>> Anon 94910 [IMG] RFTTF_R1.swf (3.57 MiB) 400.05x300.05, Compressed (Deflate). 13661 frames, 12 fps (18:58). Ver6, AS1/AS2. Network access: Text: Yes. Bitmaps: Yes. Audio: Yes. Video: [find in archive]

File: Flash to the Future.swf-(3.56 MB, 400x300, Other)
[_] Can't do this in html5 Anon 3267847 Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anon 3267855 lol Teen Wolf reference in there.
>> [_] Anon 3267857 Oh yeah, it's ~19 minutes for the whole thing.
>> [_] Anon 3267952 this must have taken weeks to complete
>> [_] Anon 3267968 > Can't do this in html5 If this was done *properly* in HTML5: - it wouldn't fucking freeze when you rightclick - it wouldn't show content outside the intended viewport in widescreen - it would run faster (proper hardware acceleration all the way) - it would probably take less space (assuming same shit audio quality) Granted, achieving some of these (mostly the smaller filesize part) would require actual expertise in the technologies involved and a lot of effort instead of just using whatever shitty GUI editor and/or bloated libraries you google up.
>> [_] Anon 3267972 >># >*properly* what did he mean by this?
>> [_] welp 3267973 >># That's a good thing.
>> [_] Anon 3267974 >># >it would run faster (proper hardware acceleration all the way) Hm. A library for easily doing hardware accelerated "Flash-like" vector animation on a HTML5 canvas would actually go a long way towards replacing the need for Flash. >># >what did he mean by this? Not just using a (large) VP9 video. >># >That's a good thing. Why?
>> [_] welp 3267975 >># >Why? That flash is boring and way too long. I didn't like it. Sorry, Anon.
>> [_] Anon 3267976 >># >># so how convoluted is html5 on a scale from 1 to ArchLinux?
>> [_] Anon 3267978 >># >Hm. A library for easily doing hardware accelerated "Flash-like" vector animation on a HTML5 canvas would actually go a long way towards replacing the need for Flash. Adobe Flash outputs HTML5 now.
>> [_] Anon 3267979 >># Less than Flash.
>> [_] Anon 3267981 >># I'm not really a JS person, so I'm not the right person to answer that properly. I'd imagine it's currently harder, and will get easier as tools develop. But that's just guessing. >># >Adobe Flash outputs HTML5 now. So I've heard. I'd be curious how good of a job it does, and whether that pushes people towards releasing in HTML5.
>> [_] Anon 3267983 >># >whether that pushes people towards releasing in HTML5. There's no equivalent of .swf for flash, so no more upload boards like this sadly.
>> [_] Anon 3267985 >># >- it wouldn't fucking freeze when you rightclick It doesn't in Flash, even on a dinosaur like my PC. What the fuck? >- it wouldn't show content outside the intended viewport in widescreen Flash creator didn't apply a universal mask. It would be easy as shit to do so. >- it would run faster (proper hardware acceleration all the way) Not if the assets are uncompressed garbage or rely on a shitload of 3rd party framework. >- it would probably take less space (assuming same shit audio quality) This isn't true. SWF outperforms HTML5 solutions consistently on size, even given the same raw assets. Why are you pretending your commentary is informed or relevant?
>> [_] Anon 3267986 >># HTML5/CSS3 for websites are less convoluted than their older versions and nowadays browsers actually follow standards, can you fucking believe that? (Except Chrome, which is trying to do the IE thing again - abusing its position as the market leader to push nonstandard crap) If you tried web design in the 90s like most of us, it's much better nowadays. HTML5 canvas specifically as flash-like vector graphics replacement? That's tough. It's way lower level than shitting out flash animations and as far as I know there are no libraries that would sufficiently abstract the process of producing flash-like vector animation. You can do fucking anything on a canvas, including programming your own shaders. So it takes expertise. A game renderer/engine programmer would be at home. If you're a tech illiterate who just uses GUI tools to draw flashes, forget everything you read here and see if your tools already support HTML5. Also: actionscript is just a dialect of ecmascript. Same as javascript. Therefore flash programmers are already familiar with the scripting language and its event-driven nature. Accessing HTML DOM with JS is kind of shitty, but you don't have to worry about that when working on just one DOM element, your canvas.
>> [_] Anon 3267990 Fairly easy to reimplement this, actually. In fact, it would be easier under HTML5. The overlay interlacing can be done trivially with an SVG texture that is on top of a Canvas element. This pushes the hard part on to the renderer to manage. The rest, the vector animation, can easily be done in the Canvas. Both of them, implementation-wise, are exactly the same thing. The major difference is Canvas lacks some of the in-built stuff in Flash, but you can easily add those back in with polyfills. I added stuff like Final Fantasy-like text boxes years back. Rounded rectangles, triangular cornered rectangles, etc. Fairly easy to add new things. Audio is just any HTML5-supported audio file, or a webm if you want. Then just split the file up in to discrete binary blobs and play them whenever you need them. The HTML5 system gives you more control over what to do, with the major downside being ease of actually doing it. As was said in the sticky, delivering the media can be done as a zip for the sake of file size, which will be roughly comparable to a typical flash file. Or you can use 7zip, KGB, etc. You aren't stuck with Adobe decisions.
>> [_] Anon 3267991 >># >There's no equivalent of .swf for flash, so no more upload boards like this sadly. All you would need is a container format.
>> [_] Anon 3267992 >># >What the fuck? Stupid cunt. Read the flash spec. I don't know what is wrong with your system, but flash is SUPPOSED TO PAUSE when you open the system menu (ie. rightclick) In HTML5 there is no bullshit like right-click system menu, you can bind it to whatever or just leave it as the browser's default action. That is an immense benefit. >This isn't true. SWF outperforms HTML5 solutions consistently on size, even given the same raw assets. Now that's just utter bullshit especially in the context of contemporary /f/ - shitty video rips. Other than those shitty 9.99MB video rips, file size was never an issue for flash. HTML5 solutions will have more overhead due to the vast freedom it presents to creators, but the same freedom also includes optimization hacks that had been impossible in strictly limited flash environment - this is why I said it requires expertise.
>> [_] Anon 3267993 >># >All you would need is a container format. What for? You can embed anything inside a single HTML file as JS binary blobs or base64 dataURI.
>> [_] Anon 3267994 >># > but flash is SUPPOSED TO PAUSE when you open the system menu I've never seen that happen on any system I've ever used, friends systems, school, college or anywhere. >># >binary blobs You can't embed binary blobs in to files. The parser fails it. You furthest I've been able to store data is base91.
>> [_] Anon 3267995 >># >you furthest kek, the furthest* rather. Tried typing 2 sentences at the same time and switched after the first word. But yeah, you can provide it all as one HTML file. Downside is you can't do certain things. You can base64/91 a 7zipped file, then convert it when the client runs the JS back to binary, extract the archive, then assign assets to variables.
>> [_] Anon 3267996 >># >Stupid cunt. Read the flash spec. I don't know what is wrong with your system, but flash is SUPPOSED TO PAUSE when you open the system menu (ie. rightclick) I get it, I get it, it was real in your mind, so on and so forth >HTML5 solutions will have more overhead due to the vast freedom it presents to creators, but So flash does, in fact, outperform HTML5 in filesize? But, in a strictly hypothetical scenario requiring magical "expertise", HTML5 can theoretically maybe provide smaller file-sizes than SWF can? I repeat, you have no clue what you're talking about, and you're not going to wheedle out of the ditch with jargon and maybes and certainly not with "you're right but I'm right-er-er".