Shared publicly  - 
32
10
GAMES's profile photoAvi Kessner's profile photoJuan Delgado's profile photobruno baudry's profile photo
28 comments
 
For real! This current op codes should remain there and free. The new version and tools could be sold if they want, but it's unfair to take something away when so many projects depend on it. grumble
 
+Jonathan Dunlap I would add ALL op codes for the player should be free to use and not to be unlocked with some SWF signing. If they want to monetize toolchains no pb but not the core function...
 
O I agree... I was just saying "in the very least" this is what they should do :)
 
Yes definately add me on that list Bruno
 
Same here Bruno :-) add me to the list
 
Count me in. They will break "Beyond Reality Face" with this. That's just stupid.
 
Thanks everyone! Please spread the word. I really hope Adobe will change their mind this time or have at least an interim solution.
 
As +Joa Ebert managed to create this opcodes for apparat you guys can organize and create a translation tool from the old op codes to new ones, that way you can keep using old alchemy with new flashplayer....

I don't get this flex community behaviour... if you need something get it done. If adobe wanna sell alchemy it is fair, they made it.... if you don't like this make your own C+2as3 compiler...
 
+Marvin Froeder I do not disagree, the question is where are the new APIs? If you take something out, give us the alternative/better solution. I think it is fair practice.
 
+Marvin Froeder The problem here is not the Alchemy SDK, but the low level Alchemy opcode.
What Adobe have done here for example is to require a signed SWF to access domainmemory (which is needed by the old opcode), so even if you want roll out with your own solution you are out of luck.

Now you can imagine they introduce super fast new opcode used by Alchemy2 but burried into a signed SWF, what can we do to make your own tool ?
 
Did adobe buried new opcode used by Alchemy2 into a signed SWF?
 
You cannot fix it. +Marvin Froeder, they broke Apparat with that change. It is not backwards compatible. If Adobe wants to charge for their Alchemy C toolchain: fine. But they disabled some other stuff which is what worries me.
 
Of course the have the right to do it. Same as we have the right to go to some other platform.

It's simply that we don't think they are being smart in short or long term at the moment.

J
 
+Marvin Froeder yes they have the right to break backward compatibility and do stupid things such as pissing of their community, and I guess we also have the right to complain about it, so what's your point ?
 
there's long bitching thread in prerelease forums, and from last mike post there it seems they still have not decided what to do about it.
 
As I stated previously, we are working on a solution. I dont have any info to share right now. Keep in mind, that right now 11.2 is still a beta.
 
Please give us enough time to modify our SDKs. They are highly optimized with Apparat.
And there are clients building on them. I know it was a labs project, but we need it working properly.
Thanks +Mike Chambers for staying in contact with the community.
Add a comment...