Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Live Motion vs Macromedia Flash

1 view
Skip to first unread message

David Burkholder

unread,
Jul 24, 2002, 10:32:47 PM7/24/02
to
Hi,

I work for a design studio and we are just getting into web design. I am responsible for heading that department and we are using the latest adobe web package. I am very impressed with GoLive 6.0 so far.

My boss has suggested getting Macromedia Flash and I would have to learn to use it as no one else knows how to since we are predominantly doing print design services. I would like to have a chance to learn LM much more fully.

My question is, are there any advantages to using one program above another? What are the differences between the two? Is MF a more powerful program overall? Pardon what may seem like a silly set of questions to some of you adobe power users. Hopefully I will get favorable reviews on LM especially since I am asking this at an adobe forum.



Thanks

Celeste Orrantia

unread,
Jul 25, 2002, 12:10:25 AM7/25/02
to
Hi David,
I am a relatively new user of LiveMotion. I had also been trying to learn to create SWF files with Macromedia's Flash at the same time I was learning LiveMotion. I personally prefer LiveMotion, as I was able to produce what I needed in a fairly short time, while I found Macromedia's product more difficult to use and I don't like their timeline structure. Just my 2 cents worth.

Dogbreath

unread,
Jul 25, 2002, 12:57:10 AM7/25/02
to
If you are new to it LM is the thing for you to get quick results and work fast.
The LM timeline is just great. With onle look you can see what happens when. The Flush timeline is more like working in Exel.
The over all appearence of LM is very logic and Adobe-like. Great to work with when you are familiar with other Adobe Apps. Also integation with AI and PS is great.

But there is one thing you should be aware of: The LM Workspace is now real vector workspace. Means: Exported it's vector, but while working on a file and zooming in you'll see pixels. And you can't positon object to coordinates like: x: 10.5 y: 100.2
That makes it sometimes hard to work very precise.

Another thing I personally like better about Flush is the Script Editor. The LM approach may be great, but I like it much better to see all my scripts in a single text window.

Also Flush 6 offers some new scripting stuff I don't want to miss and other features like video import.

My 0.02 Euro:
If you want to work fast and relaxed: No question! LM
If you need more precition, have lots of time to learn it (and neves of steel) and perhaps have to exchange files with other people: Flush.

Bob.

Jeremy Hendrickson

unread,
Jul 25, 2002, 2:40:18 AM7/25/02
to
David,

The only thing I'd add to the above comments is that if you've used other Adobe products for any length of time, you will be up and running much more quickly with LM. I originally tried using Flash; however, working with it felt so foreign to me that I never did get the hang of it. (I've been an Adobe die-hard for years now.) I almost gave up on the idea of getting into SWF authoring until I found out about LM. I gave it a try and was flying right off the bat with even complex animations.

The scripting side of either program is a bit deep if you've not done much with Javascript. However, if you're familiar with Javascript, that won't be a problem. And, even if you're new to Actionscripting, you can catch on fairly quickly if you're persistent.

I have a feeling I may have a better shot at using Flash now that I've come to understand the SWF format better, thanks to LM. However, I don't think I'll ever bother trying again because I'm very happy with LM and am pretty confident that Adobe will continue to develop this product to the point that it is no longer playing catch-up to Flash. Not that it's that far behind, though. But, since Macromedia is the one dictating the features of the format, it makes sense that they'll have the upper hand on being on the cutting-edge.

OK. Now you have six cents. :-)

Hope that helps.

Jeremy

David Burkholder

unread,
Jul 25, 2002, 5:59:31 AM7/25/02
to
Hi guys,

Thanks a million for your explanations. Very informative. I am going to pursue learning LM and I think it will serve our needs quite well. My boss had just seen a site with a cool Flash animation and wanted me to do it. I will be glad to attempt it in LM.

Dave

Jordan Chilcott

unread,
Jul 25, 2002, 9:03:08 AM7/25/02
to
I use both Flash MX and LIveMotion together. They both have their strengths and their weaknesses. LM is great for time-based animation stuff. For frame-based animations, Flash wins. A lot of my Flash work has a combination of the two types of animations. As well, if you are using embedded video, then Flash MX wins hands down.

If anything, I don't believe that Flash is as daunting to learn as what has been said here. However, I do believe that LiveMotion is easier to grasp.

jord

John Buchmann

unread,
Jul 25, 2002, 10:15:06 AM7/25/02
to
My thoughts are mostly the same as Jeremy's. I attempted to learn flash many times and failed every time... even with learning from books. After hearing Adobe had LM, i gave it a try and could immediately do things that i needed a manual to figure out in Flash. I previously had experience in 3D Studio Max, and LMs timeline works similarly, and it's very logical. I just can't stand Flashes timeline. I think it's the timeline that prevented me from learning it. If Flash had a timeline similar to LM, then i'm sure I'd love Flash.

Also what annoys me about Flash, is that when you draw a shape, and then move it ontop of another shape, it automatically merges together. It makes editing artwork painfully frustrating.

I love Macromedia's other products like Dreamweaver and Fireworks. So i'm very surprised that i don't like Flash.

John

Jon T

unread,
Jul 25, 2002, 11:36:07 AM7/25/02
to
Dreamweaver is a very good ( get going ) html editor. I have used it for years (v3.0), and even used HomeSite longer (v2.5). But when I look at GoLive 6, it is a little hard to get off the ground and moving, but my god, it is so much more powerful then any other WYSIWYG editor I have seen in some time.

I have never really looked at fireworks, IR comes with Photoshop, and it does a wonderful job. I know several designers though that swear to fireworks is the best, maybe some day I will look at it, when I have the time. ;-)

Regards,
Jon Thompson

LiveMotionCentral.com <http://www.livemotioncentral.com>
A Resource Site for Adobe® LiveMotionTM
Resources <http://www.livemotioncentral.com/resources.asp> | Sound F/X <http://www.livemotioncentral.com/files/soundfx.asp> - Loops <http://www.livemotioncentral.com/files/soundloops.asp> | News <http://www.livemotioncentral.com/newsletter/>

Jordan Chilcott

unread,
Jul 25, 2002, 12:02:38 PM7/25/02
to
Again, Flash's timeline is geared to frame based animation as well as time-based. You have to think frame-based. LiveMotion is fantastic for time-based animations (as well as scripting animations) and I use it heavily for that.

To be honest, I like Flash's timeline exactly as it is because it is easier to perform frame-based animations (such as rotoscoping video and cartoon-like animations, as well as various writing techniques). At this time, I more or less wish that LiveMotion lent itself a little easier to frame-based animations. However, I am not grunting about it because I can easily use the two packages together to create all of the results that I want with minimal problems. For me, it's about which is the better tool for the job at hand... not which is the better tool, period.

Flash also uses vector painting, which I find useful at times. It's not really annoying considering that if you were to do the same thing in Photoshop on the same layer, you'd get similar results.

I'm not knocking LiveMotion at all (I love it and use it a lot). However, knocking Flash is not going to make LiveMotion look good. They both have their strengths and weaknesses. Frankly I use them both to combine their strengths. They complement each other.

jord

John Buchmann

unread,
Jul 25, 2002, 12:25:22 PM7/25/02
to
The thing i really love about LM's timeline is that at a glance you can see what's happening with the scale, rotation, transform, opacity, etc, and easily tweek the settings. With my experience with Flash, i didn't think it was possible... maybe i'm wrong.

John

David Burkholder

unread,
Jul 25, 2002, 12:25:15 PM7/25/02
to
I am delighted with the responce I got here. I plan to get LM under my belt a bit more and do some cool sites with it and then explore MF and see how I like that program. Thanks for you responses.

Dave

Carl E. Olsen

unread,
Jul 26, 2002, 6:23:15 PM7/26/02
to
I just created a movie in Flash MX and GoLive 6 will not allow me to import the swf file into my site. The program crashes every time (the backup site feature is nice, because it allows me to recover from the crash). The error message says something about incompatibility. It's really disappointing.

Mike D

unread,
Jul 26, 2002, 6:45:05 PM7/26/02
to
I believe there is a fix for that now -service pack 1. Check the GL forum. -MD

Carl E. Olsen

unread,
Jul 26, 2002, 7:25:32 PM7/26/02
to
Yes, there is a service pack and it fixes the exact problem I'm having. That's great! Thank you for the helping me!

Carl E. Olsen

unread,
Jul 26, 2002, 7:41:35 PM7/26/02
to
Got it. Thank you. I'll install the Service Pack and try it again.

Mike D

unread,
Jul 26, 2002, 8:55:59 PM7/26/02
to
Hey, no problemo! Glad I could help :)

Carl E. Olsen

unread,
Jul 26, 2002, 9:00:53 PM7/26/02
to
Hey, it worked! It gave me an error message saying it could not update the file, but the program does not crash now and the Flash MX swf file works perfectly. I notice that the Flash MX swf file is huge compared to the ones I created with LiveMotion, but that might be because it has more bitmaps. You can see the finished example at: http://carl-olsen.com/mystiletto.html <http://carl-olsen.com/mystiletto.html>.
0 new messages