Director vs Flash
in [Macromedia Director]
|
From: Shmooter on 6 Oct 2005 16:41 I am in the process of designing an application that i would like to load directly of cd. I am very familiar with flash but am very new to director. What i am trying to understand is the advantages of using Director over Flash. Flash provides me with all i need to create the application that i want to use. I can import video via FLV and animate transitions and have the learning modules play in what ever sequence i want or the user wants. Ultimatly i would need to use director to just deploy the application onto a cd for easy distribution. So obviously I dont know the advantages of Director or why one would opt to use it over flash for content production of the application. Can someone give me some idea on why Director is a better option. Is my method of creating in flash and deploying via director common? do you use director just for the 3D support? I just don't know if the time i will need to spend learning director can be justified if it seems to me that flash can do it all?? Am i missing something.??? Thanks in advance.
From: JB on 6 Oct 2005 21:17 Sounds like your committed enough to Flash that you wold like to not use Director at all if possible. One of the several commercial Flash players with added OS interaction capabilities might do the jjob for you http://www.flashants.com/root/fmprojector.shtml http://www.flashplayercontrol.com/dll/ There's anothe I can;t locate right now that provides both windows and Mac players.
From: Rob Dillon *TMM* on 7 Oct 2005 08:55 If you think that Flash can do everything that you need, then maybe it can. Flash is capable of a lot simple animation. It can play short video files in it's native video format, you can even build simple controls for the video and audio content. Director can incorporate bitmap images and animate them much better than Flash can. There are many more options for working with bitmap images in Director than there are in Flash. It's difficult to catalog the differences. Simple things like fading and dissolving a bitmap work well in Director, for instance. Director can play video of any format and any length. Director allows you to completely control the play of the video file. Director allows for more complex audio playback. Director can incorporate Flash movies. In Director you can control the loading of content into and out of memory. You can dynamically load content from the web or the user's computer during runtime from a projector, save files out to the web or the user's computer. It all comes down to a matter of design and functionality. If you can get your job done using Flash, then that's the tool to use. If you want to take advantage of a bigger, better, toolbox, then design your project to take advantage of the opportunities that Director brings. -- Rob _______ Rob Dillon Team Macromedia http://www.ddg-designs.com 412-243-9119 http://www.macromedia.com/software/trial/
From: IanD on 9 Oct 2005 20:34 Just in relation to this issue: the thing that infuriates me about Director is its absence of multiple scenes as in Flash. If I'm doing a complicated timeline thing, it's far easier in Flash to split it up into scenes which play sequentially. In Director, if I want to add frames, the whole timeline needs to shuffle up/along to accommodate this. But I'm a Director novice - is there a workaround for this?
From: Sean Wilson on 9 Oct 2005 21:26
> In Director, if I want to add frames, the whole timeline needs > to shuffle up/along to accommodate this... - is there > a workaround for this? Menu: Insert -> Frames (choose number of frames to add) seems too easy to warrant a workaround, but then perhaps it doesn't do what you want (ala Flash's approach being something akin to a "collapsible" timeline)? |