"Bald Eagle" <cre### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> > wow, thank you very much. that presentation video is .. natty. :-)
> Well, yes. We all develop an individual style, and like they say - you should
> stick with what you're good at ;)
> I figured I needed to hammer something functional out that would illustrate the
> proof of concept, and I had like 20 minutes to do it...
visually v accomplished for a 20 minute "job".
there is one drawback, from my perspective, the lack of a second media which
interacts, otoh I now know that the animation related stuff can be taken care of
early, earlier than I thought.
> > looking at it all with an extra day's reflection, I now see that I ought to
> > learn walking before running. </sighs>
> Never any harm trying to hit the ground running, but sometimes if that doesn't
> work, a slow, methodical working up from first-principles seems to be the best
> way to achieve success.
> Slow is smooth, smooth is fast.
> You can't miss fast enough to win.
not familiar with that phrase. like: you can't win a race in the opening lap?
> > so, the next steps will be using your
> > and WF Pokorny's code as starting points for "re-construction" to "fit" my aims.
> > and this time it'll have to be systematic. :-)
> Sometimes the best thing to do is write a pseudocode / explanatory outline to
> lay out the flow of things.
I'm too old to work on-screen exclusively. :-) but an outline, no matter how
detailed, cannot compensate for lacking .. in the basics.
> It also helps identify sticky spots, clarify the
> order of operations, how things need to be defined, hierarchies, data
> structures, how layers should be constructed, etc.
> I can't tell you how many times I've answered my own question in the middle of
> typing up a post trying to explain what I'm failing at doing. :D
yes, as the follow-ups attest, not an uncommon occurrence. :-)
> I'm hoping to get some free time to play with this some more and make something
> a bit more refined ;)
like, two media?! ;-)
Post a reply to this message