for(var i = 0; i< 10; i++){
var this["myMC" + i]:MovieClip = new MovieClip();
this["myMC" + i].x = 50;
this["myMC" + i].alpha = 80;
this.addChild(this["myMC" + i]);
}

thanks

David

It’s rough, though… going from being able to bend Flash to my will, to doing “Hello World” again.

One of the things that I love about Flash, is the speed at which I can complete projects. My deadlines are always ridiculously short and I am responsible for all of the art, animation, and code for the project. Most are due in one or two days.

I simply don’t have the time or patience to design a beautiful Class structure for these projects.

I write all my code in the timeline, and I really like that all of my code as well as all of my assets are right there.

A lot of developers think that timeline coders through code willy-nilly all over the place – place it on buttons, bury it deep into MovieClips, etc.

That simply isn’t the case. Every timeline coder that I know works like this:

All of my .swfs have just one frame. They generally have about 3 layers. The bottom layer is for the background elements, the middle layer is for the dynamic MovieClips that will be attached from the Library and get controlled by the code, and finally the top layer is where all the actionscript goes.

The only code that ever gets “buried” is a stop(); script in some of the MovieClips with multiple frames.

I would love to emulate this workflow in AS3. I’m also constantly building/tweaking both the code AND the graphics/animations at the same time. It’s so nice to test my .swf with Apple-Return. Tweak an animation then test. Tweak some code, then test. It’s such a nice responsive way to make quick adjustments.

Anyway, so here are my questions about AS3 that I would love to understand:

1. I love the idea of the Display List, but can I still place MovieClips on the Stage in the IDE? (I know I that can, but how do they fit in with the Display List?) Are they on a Display List? Can I move them up and down, swap them?

2. Instance names. They way that I code, I kind of feel like an orchestra conductor. I have 50 MovieClips on the stage, and every one has a name. For example, I can tell my_mc19._alpha = 50; I can tell one movieclip to rotate to a certain angle and when that happens, tell another movieclip to move to a certain _x coordinate.

Reading through the docs, it doesn’t seem like I can do this?
It does seem like I can do this:
var myMC:MovieClip = new MovieClip();
myMC.x = 50;
myMC.alpha = 80;
this.addChild(myMC);

So it seems like the variable name kind of like acts like an instance name?
However, I am constantly attaching MovieClips in a for loop. How can I give them an instance name in that situation? I assume something like this?:

for(var i = 0; i< 10; i++){
var this["myMC" + i]:MovieClip = new MovieClip();
this["myMC" + i].x = 50;
this["myMC" + i].alpha = 80;
this.addChild(this["myMC" + i]);
}

2b. Instance names that I type into the Property Inspector. If I drag an instance of a MovieClip onto the Stage, let’s say “score_mc”, and give it an instance name in the Property Inspector of “myScore”, can other MovieClips “talk” to it? None of the other MovieClips seem to have instance names anymore… Can other Movieclips still set myScore.text ?,

Instance names in AS3 are definitely confusing to me, especially since that is a cornerstone of the way that I work. I’m used to everything having a name that I can reference. I know in AS3 there is the “name” property, but that just seems like a property, not a reference to the actual object itself. If anyone could clear that up for me, that would be a big help.

3. Attaching and Removing MovieClips from the Library. Another cornerstone of my work process… I attach MovieClips to the Stage, give them a name, control them, and when I’m done, remove them. I know that removeMovieClip() is gone, what then is the way to do the above in AS3?

4. Paths. Because I work in one frame on the timeline, _root is a very tangible concept to me. All of my functions are on the _root. If a MovieClip needs to call a global function, it can always call _root.myFunction();
What is the concept of _root in AS3?

4b. _parent. MovieClips can of course have nested MovieClips within them. i.e. myMC.myNestedMC. It is nice that I have an easy reference to the nested MovieClip’s _parent. That way if I do something like a Tween on the nested clip, when that Tween is over, I can remove that clip’s _parent.

Those are the biggies for me:

1. Display List in regards to items placed directly on the Stage in the IDE.
2. Instance names and Instance names typed directly into the Properties Inspector
3. Attaching and Removing MovieClips.
4. _root and _parent.

Also, if you are someone who is already writing Classes in AS2, I don’t think it will be too hard to migrate to AS3.

I think that the actual truth is that most designer-coders are still using AS1. The ONLY thing that I personally use from AS2 is getNextHighestDepth();

So you say that I can still use the Timeline, but if I can’t attach and remove MovieClips, and none of my MovieClips will have proper instance names so I can control them, I don’t really know how to start into AS3…

And please know that I understand the beauty of Classes and OOP, I absolutely see the benefits for a big, complicated project, or for working with large teams, but I don’t work with any other programmers or artists, and my projects need to be completed and out the door usually in 6 hours or less.

Sorry for the long post, thanks for listening.

-Joe

there is also a link to the Adobe Migration Doc there,

We wanted to preserve our old application but allow it to take advantage of the new security features – so we have these two movies now connected using a LoacalConnection. A button on the AS2 one calls a method on the other to complete the download.

It also would be very nice to have an ActionScript for a simple login and also for a simple contact form in as3.

Hope to see this is in your cookbook and best regards,
Lenz

http://www.insideria.com/2008/01/actionscript-30-is-it-hard-or.html

That’s a link to which I usually send people.

Also, he did a presentation at FITC 2006 on introducing AS3 to people how at least understood AS2 concepts:

http://www.fitc.ca/streams.cfm?stream_id=5
or
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-2468935003205486599&q=fitc

The big suggestion I can make is offering an excellent explanation on why the EventDispatcher model is better than the old someClip.onRelease = function…

The AS2 method was a bit more direct and a little less typing, but usually once I explain the benefits of multiple listeners to a single event, which can be managed independently, most people tend to at least understand the change, if not accept it.

Also, I think a good explanation of how better error reporting is actually better. Less experienced developers tend to get frustrated when the compiler errors or the runtime errors pop up, even through either way they would have had a non-functioning program. Most people are quick to accept that yes, being told something is wrong is helpful. But understanding what is wrong is often difficult: the errors messages either need better descriptions, or there needs to be a nice cross-reference of errors and what they typically indicate and how to go about finding the actual problem.

Lastly, I think it’s important to understand that AS3 does NOT require OOP (Moock mentions this in the article in the first link). I hear this all too often. And with Flash CS3 or CS4, you don’t need to use any classes whatsoever. I strongly disagree that OOP is necessary for all projects. While I myself hardly ever go non-OOP, I hate it when people are told that AS3 requires OOP. There’s enough to learn without adding the complexities of classes and such.