Motion Tweening not smooth. Why?

[Scott Witte]

Ah Flash Panorama. It bring back fond memories and frustrations of my programming days, too many years ago. But enough nostalgia, onto my problem:

I am attempting a motion tween that should be smooth but isn't.The motion is much longer than the specified 1 second and very jerky. Could some kind soul point out the error of my code? To experience the problem click on the light blue shaded hotspot. here: Entrance.html (http://www.scottwitte.com/temp/Flash_Test/Entrance.html)

XML File here: Entrance.xml (http://www.scottwitte.com/temp/Flash_Test/Entrance.xml)

I've already tried changing "segments", "qualityStatic" and "qualityMotion" with no benefit.

Also, since the timing is the same for zoom, pan and tilt change, shouldn't they all finish at the same time?

[cheathamlane]

You might try changing the pano quality during the tween -- something like "pano.qualityStatic=low". Make sure youir new panorama has its quality settings correct, though, or your setting will stay low.

[Scott Witte]

You might try changing the pano quality during the tween

Thanks, Patrick,

It took a while, but I finally figured out that this only works if "pano.qualityStatic=best" (or high or whatever) is in the <global onStart"... > parameter of the hotspot section. If "qualityStatic=best" is in the <Panorama><parameters> section it apparently can't be changed, at least not by a "pano.qualityStatic=low" parameter in the onClick parameter of a hotspot. Doesn't seem it should be that complicated, or hard to figure out.

Also, I found that qualityStatic automatically returns to "medium" after the new panorama loads. Not sure why, especially since you and Denis said it had to be switched back manually or it would stay in low but medium seems to work OK, so that saves me some hassle for now. But, if I wanted to return to best quality after loading a new pano, what would be the easiest or most efficient way of doing that?

[amonline]

I agree with Patrick and I think using nearly 1900 pixels is a little overkill. Most surfers use 1200px as the general maximum today. 95% of the net surfers are still in the 768px bracket; aside from use power browsers. :D

[Scott Witte]

I agree with Patrick and I think using nearly 1900 pixels is a little overkill.....
OK..... though I'm not sure what that has to do with motion tweening or how the qualityStatic parameter works. It would be a worthy subject for a separate thread. Unless I'm missing someting. :confused:

But if you are commenting about my specific pano, the group that tour will be targeted at is very picky visually and tend to have large monitors in the 1600/1920x1200 range. So perhaps larger is better in this instance. I will also suggest a smaller size be hosted for lower bandwidth visitors.

[amonline]

OK..... though I'm not sure what that has to do with motion tweening...
That will also depend on the end user's graphic card's capability. (not talking about your issue here as well... I realize this can be two seperate issues)
...the group that tour will be targeted at is very picky visually and tend to have large monitors in the 1600/1920x1200 range.
Exactly. That's why I said 1200px max. You're going nearly double. ;)

[Scott Witte]

Exactly. That's why I said 1200px max. You're going nearly double. ;)

Well, when viewed full screen on my 1600x1200 monitor, the center of the pano window is already at 80% image resolution at my default FOV, about 82 degrees. Of course, as you move to the edges the images is effectively "enlarged" to about 100%.

The upshot is that if I went with 1200px cubes the resulting pano would start to appear blurry for my target audience unless viewed at something like a 100 FOV. At my default the center of the pano would be 133% enlargement. And I know they will want to zoom in past 80 FOV so my panos, and I, would really look bad.

On a 1024x768 monitor it would be an entirely different story.

[amonline]

Don't get me wrong, I totally understand what you're saying. In a perfect world, we'd all have 1920x1200 minimum. ;)

Do you really believe your target audience is ALL at 1200pxv or larger? I really don't see the point of oversizing for the majority of surfers that will undoubtably be at the average 768pxv. This is probably a good 90% of the visitors or more.

I mean, to each his own. It's your bandwidth and visitor's time. If you want 2000pxv, then so be it. I was just hinting at a way to not task your visitor's visit so much and make them want to stick around a little longer... just not for loading time. ;)

Honestly, I don't think the "average" visitor does much zooming... now, us designers on the other hand... :D

[Scott Witte]

Do you really believe your target audience is ALL at 1200pxv or larger?

Not all but a majority, at least for the first target market, which is the ad and design industry. I am also suggesting a lower bandwidth version for more average visitors, so I do appreciate what you are saying :) Now I just have to get everything to work by next week!

[amonline]

By the way, I dug your website... very original and it really pulls a visitor in to check out your services and portfolios. Nice job. ;)

There are some interesting ways of describing/wording what you've done in there. :lol:

[Scott Witte]

There are some interesting ways of describing/wording what you've done in there. :lol:

Copywriters. Ya gotta love em ;)

Thanks for the compliment.