Some of you might remember when a 3mb flash animation could pack in some 5 minutes of animation, with the more advanced ones even having chapter/scene selectors, which could also include clickable easter eggs and other kinds of interactions during the scenes.

  • insomniac_lemon@lemmy.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    17 hours ago

    You keep saying ‘better’ like if heavier solutions have no downsides, like saying raytracing or gaussian splatting make all older rendering tech obsolete.

    For individual animations sure data doesn’t seem to matter, but if you want to binge/download something like Homestar Runner at 1080p+ that data adds up when pre-rastered. The internet in the US isn’t always great (esp. rural, cost), even worse with upload speed.

    Flash also had frame animation, with bezier curves and vector blob drawing… both of which are the big thing missing from modern solutions. Alternatives in modern engines aren’t quite the same and must be intentionally sought out, and also I don’t think that’d even be well supported by platforms (itch doesn’t even have an animation section) unless you’re fine with it being in a games section.

    Newgrounds also still does Flash Forward jams. I wouldn’t say “better” things killed Flash, just that support was ripped away. There isn’t much of a choice. If you want Flash-style animation (and I don’t mean skeletal-only), it’s just Ruffle or maybe Wick Editor.

    the internet moving away from

    I see this as an implementation failure.

    WebGL doesn’t have a container format, and a vector video format could exist (on Youtube, or played with an HTML5 video player) but doesn’t. The internet “moved away” because the key players who killed Flash didn’t implement things that would bring HTML5 to closer parity with what Flash did.

    I could also see parallels made to other parts of life where the choice has been made for you many years ago.

    • squaresinger@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 hours ago

      A vector video format does exist: animated SVG. It has all the features you claim are missing.

      But nobody uses it because it is much more complicated to do than rasterized video and has no relevant advantages.

      You keep claiming that features don’t exist even though every single one of these features do exist but are just not used a lot because they are more complicated and have no relevant benefits.

      • insomniac_lemon@lemmy.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        9 hours ago

        A video has sound, can be exported from the animation software to a single file, and it can be played in a standard video player.

        Animated SVG does not sound like it does that, and needing new paid* software isn’t great for adoption either. And honestly, I’ve never even heard of animated SVG (I’m well aware of SVG and that it probably could be animated with CSS or JS but that alone does not make it a thing).

        The fact that vector works at resolutions (even if they don’t exist yet!) without the author even needing to think about it (let alone re-export) is an advantage. It can be great for many 2D aesthetics (many cartoons even used it!), the biggest complication is Adobe (and whoever is selling a subscription to what you mentioned).

        Also that people are still developing things with Flash (even if it has to be ran via Ruffle) tells me again that the issue isn’t vector, it’s that replacing a format with ingredients is not an effective strategy if you actually want people to use it.

        * yeah I know Flash was expensive as well (except y’know… other ways), but communities were already using it

        • squaresinger@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          20 minutes ago

          The fact that vector works at resolutions (even if they don’t exist yet!) without the author even needing to think about it (let alone re-export) is an advantage.

          That’s why I was talking about meaningful advantages. Today, stuff gets exported in 4k and that’s it. No need for anything more.

          That nobody uses animated SVG should give you a clue about how many people value vector graphics over rasterization. It has uses (mostly when you expect stuff to get zoomed a lot) but only in quite specific use cases.


          There’s ton of free software that exports to HTML5, including most major game engines. And people use that a lot. In fact, you can make VR games that fully run in a browser.

          Browser games still exist. They run on HTML5 now, not on Flash. Web video still exists. It runs on HTML5 players, not on Flash. Little animations in websites still exist. They run on HTML5/SVG/CSS, not on Flash. Flash really was just replaced by HTML5, because it’s plain better on every front.

      • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Spoken like someone who has never animated something in flash.

        Go ahead and try to make an animated music video in SVG. Tell me how easy it was. It’s it something a middle schooler could pick up easily after a couple hours?

        • squaresinger@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          17 minutes ago

          Ok, tell me: How many people make animated music videos and publish them on Youtube, versus how many people make animated music videos and publish them as Flash videos in 2025?

          How many people did that in 2015 in Youtube vs Flash videos?

          Nobody cares about Flash because it sucks. Even back in 2012 Flash sucked. It was a really bad tech and by 2015 it was mostly used by people to dumb to learn real programming languages and frameworks.