File: Flash to the Future.swf-(3.56 MB, 400x300, Other)
[_] Can't do this in html5 Anonymous 07/30/17(Sun)00:08:43 No.3267847
Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anonymous 07/30/17(Sun)00:38:47 No.3267855
lol Teen Wolf reference in there.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/30/17(Sun)00:42:51 No.3267857
Oh yeah, it's ~19 minutes for the whole thing.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/30/17(Sun)07:40:21 No.3267952
this must have taken weeks to complete
>> [_] Anonymous 07/30/17(Sun)10:04:51 No.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.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/30/17(Sun)10:27:03 No.3267972
>>3267968
>*properly*
what did he mean by this?
>> [_] welp 07/30/17(Sun)10:28:20 No.3267973
>>3267847
That's a good thing.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/30/17(Sun)10:29:32 No.3267974
>>3267968
>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.
>>3267972
>what did he mean by this?
Not just using a (large) VP9 video.
>>3267973
>That's a good thing.
Why?
>> [_] welp 07/30/17(Sun)10:37:13 No.3267975
>>3267974
>Why?
That flash is boring and way too long. I didn't like it. Sorry, Anon.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/30/17(Sun)10:40:44 No.3267976
>>3267968
>>3267974
so how convoluted is html5 on a scale from 1 to ArchLinux?
>> [_] Anonymous 07/30/17(Sun)10:48:38 No.3267978
>>3267974
>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.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/30/17(Sun)10:49:42 No.3267979
>>3267976
Less than Flash.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/30/17(Sun)10:53:47 No.3267981
>>3267976
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.
>>3267978
>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.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/30/17(Sun)10:59:46 No.3267983
>>3267981
>whether that pushes people towards releasing in HTML5.
There's no equivalent of .swf for flash, so no more upload boards like this sadly.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/30/17(Sun)11:10:10 No.3267985
>>3267968
>- 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?
>> [_] Anonymous 07/30/17(Sun)11:10:54 No.3267986
>>3267976
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.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/30/17(Sun)11:22:30 No.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.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/30/17(Sun)11:23:38 No.3267991
>>3267983
>There's no equivalent of .swf for flash, so no more upload boards like this sadly.
All you would need is a container format.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/30/17(Sun)11:25:23 No.3267992
>>3267985
>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.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/30/17(Sun)11:27:11 No.3267993
>>3267991
>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.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/30/17(Sun)11:29:02 No.3267994
>>3267992
> 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.
>>3267993
>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.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/30/17(Sun)11:31:15 No.3267995
>>3267994
>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.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/30/17(Sun)11:34:01 No.3267996
>>3267992
>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".
