File: tamagunchi.swf-(1.55 MB, 800x500, Loop)
[_] Anonymous 01/21/23(Sat)02:26:35 No.3491682
Creating perfectly synchronized, seamless music loops in Flash is notoriously tricky.
The last time I posted this Ruffle didn't support audio playback position and the animation
didn't start, however some time in the laste year or so they added the support and Ruffle can now
play it.
However, Ruffle seems to update the sound position attribute only every 60-80 milliseconds which
causes the movement to appear jittery. The sliding backgrounds and wobbling animation should not
be affected.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/21/23(Sat)06:15:49 No.3491686
How many people here actually use Ruffle instead of just opening the file in Flash?
>> [_] Anonymous 01/21/23(Sat)07:09:32 No.3491692
>>3491682
the closest you can get to perfect sync is to set your flash to 120 FPS and use ActionScript 3 to
read the millisecond value of the seamless audio loop at the start of every frame and translate
that to gotoAndStop(frame).
maybe possible with AS2 as well, can't remember how well/reliable the audio position can be read
using AS2.
an easy way to achieve sync without ActionScript is to have your audio in the first frame's
properties using Sync Start (loop) and then have a second layer with a streaming silent audio.
that way the flash player will sync the visuals to the streaming audio (which is silent) and
since it started at the same time as the seamless looping audio it will be in good sync at least
until the main timeline repeats. it will get more out of sync the more repeats the main timeline
does though. needless to say the silent audio should have minimal bitrate so it doesn't bloat the
swf file.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/21/23(Sat)11:14:57 No.3491710
>>3491686
I seriously hope zero. Why would you use flash but not flash? Go to youtube instead.
>>3491682
I remember the Hues guys also using the X O X script trickery to sync visual events to certain
beats.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/21/23(Sat)11:30:21 No.3491714
>>3491686
As far as I'm aware nobody uses Ruffle with the obvious exception of people that do. The version
4chan uses for embeds is 1½ year out of date anyway.
>>3491692
>needless to say the silent audio should have minimal bitrate so it doesn't bloat the swf file
I wouldn't be shocked if some encoding hack let you generate hours of silence that fits into 64kB
or something. Another thing would be figuring out the logistics of injecting that to the .swf
file post-compilation, because Flash is guaranteed to re-encode any media you throw at it unless
you embed it in a ByteArray and decode at runtime which is already AS3 only and (I think?) runs
contrary to streaming audio.
The audio position reads pretty much the same in AS2 and AS3 alike. It is possible to make a full
blown rhythm game like OSU or DDR in AS2. But I don't know if anyone has been insane enough to
try.
Isn't 120 fps a myth, by the way? Every time I try it looks just like 60 fps. Even using the
getTimer() trick to see how much time has actually passed between calls to onEnterFrame (or
Event.ENTER_FRAME in AS3), anything above 60 just averages to ~16ms.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/22/23(Sun)12:11:39 No.3491755
>>3491714
>Isn't 120 fps a myth, by the way? Every time I try it looks just like 60 fps. Even using the
getTimer() trick to see how much time has actually passed between calls to onEnterFrame (or
Event.ENTER_FRAME in AS3), anything above 60 just averages to ~16ms.
is your monitor's refresh rate above 60hz? it might be limited by that
>> [_] Anonymous 01/22/23(Sun)14:05:30 No.3491761
>>3491755
That's what it was, thanks! I did some re-configuring of my displays and it sure looks like flash
player picks the lowest refresh rate out of the available monitors and automatically caps it at
that.
That makes me wonder, is it a hard cap enforced by the display drivers or could it possible to
arbitrarily bypass it with some hack?
>> [_] Anonymous 01/23/23(Mon)04:16:51 No.3491788
>>3491682
buy me an adobe and maybe i wuld
>> [_] Anonymous 01/23/23(Mon)07:37:57 No.3491792
>>3491788
>buy
Look for /f/lagship in the archive. You can thank me later.
>> [_] Anonymous 01/23/23(Mon)13:09:27 No.3491801
>>3491788
you wuld what? ò_____Ó
