Jump to content
GreenSock

Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

TimoStSauber last won the day on October 21 2014

TimoStSauber had the most liked content!

TimoStSauber

Members
  • Content Count

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

TimoStSauber last won the day on October 21 2014

TimoStSauber had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

10 Newbie

About TimoStSauber

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

1,668 profile views
  1. Thanks OSUblake, Yeah I agree completely. Collusion detection isn't that straightforward, and would be mega overkill for this application of buttonery. Looks like I'll be sticking with duplicate buttons as paths, on top of the other images + masks. I just need to animate the button paths with the image masks simultaneously, so they line up. Cheers,
  2. Hello fellow Greensockers! My conundrum is as follows: - I'm trying to layer several images on top of one another - Each image is masked with a curved / irregular shaped SVG mask (could be PNG or SVG Path or external SVG) - Each mask needs to animate - Now heres the kicker, each image needs to be clickable / interactive within the constraints of the mask area I forked Jonathan's example (http://codepen.io/jonathan/details/OyarJK), as it was already using an animated SVG/PNG mask which ticked off the 1st 3 points above. My fork is here - http://codepen.io/timostsauber/pen/zqzmK
  3. Thanks Carl, I might have a dodgy gif then? Or some weird code combination. I can't code pen the entire code as the work is not approved, but when it's approved I'll put it up for a fun diagnosis session. In the meantime I just replaced the gif with 2 pngs and created a faux animation with TweenLite / TimeLineLite. The next best thing, arguably better
  4. Has anyone noticed that animated gifs don't appear to like being set to force3D:true? In Chrome it's fine, but in Safari the gif appears to stop playing, and remains static on the 1st frame. I'll throw up a code pen here later, but in the interests of time I wanted to see if anyone had encountered this, or if it just my imagination?
  5. Thanks Carl, That's great. I know what you are saying, it's impossible to judge or predict performance with so many variables. Especially without a code pen example. But It's good to know I'm not missing any major best practice techniques for this kind of thing. I'm going to stick to TimeLineLite, coz it's the bomb. I managed to find the file size. And I'm switching from top / left to x / y, and adding force3D to all my Tweens. That in theory should provide the most bang for my buck on all browsers.
  6. Thanks Carl, That's a good tip with x/y. I've been using top/left but will change everything now to x/y. At what number of elements / tweens does force3D start having a negative effect? > 10 or more like > 100? And does it matter if it is tweening transparent pngs, rather than vector elements? Or it doesn't care. And for pure performance, in your opinion would it be better to have a TimeLineLite with 10 sequenced TweenLites inside, all using time offsets and frame label offsets. Versus 10 separate TweenLites simply using delays to stagger the animation. I had originally
  7. I'm testing force3D:true now, seems to be helping. If I'm using TweenLite with TimelineLite, do I need to define force3D:true for every TweenLite of an element? Or just the first? i.e. var tl = new TimelineLite(); tl .to(elem, 1, {left:"52px", ease:Power3.easeOut, force3D:true},"frame1") .to(elem, 1, {left:"32px", top:"10px", scale:0.75, rotation:15, ease:Power3.easeOut},"frame2") .to(elem, 1, {left:"15px", top:"84px", scale:0.8, rotation:17, ease:Power3.easeIn},"frame2+=1") .to(elem, 1, {left:"-102px", ease:Power3.easeIn},"frame4") Unfortunately I can't put a code pen up as the
  8. Hi Team, I'm building some banners, using transparent PNGs, and mostly position based tweens, with some alpha and scaling. i.e. TweenLite.to(mc, 1.5, {left:"26px", top:"30px", scale:1, rotation:-4, delay:5, ease:Power3.easeInOut}); I am using different eases, but mostly Power3.easeOut, and noticed that on Safari desktop it runs smooth as, but on Chrome it can be a little 'jerky' for lack of a better word. I'm wondering if this is the ease type, or the fact it is a png? I'm trying some other ease types now, but can anyone tell me what are the best performing (lowest cost) e
  9. Thanks Guys, Glad I could help! I've passed on your request for official confirmation and they are working out the nuts and bolts of the CDN setup. I'll PM you as soon as I get word And I'll post back any new info I get here in this thread.
  10. Hey Emmanuel, Actually not quite. I was advised by DoubleClick that we could use .gzip, but I had assumed this meant they would gzip it for me afterwards, since it's not possible to reference a gzip file through html i.e. blah.js.gz is a no go. But after much deliberation, it turned out that they couldn't (or wouldn't) gzip JS files on their end, but they were prepared to upload any GSAP lib files to their CDN. So they uploaded TweenLite, TimelineLite, CSSPlugin to their CDN, and provided links to use in the html. Obviously all JS files being served from their CDN will be compresse
  11. Ah cool. No worries. 20kb is still a massive saving - you'd think they would mention in their build guide that you could gzip files. I'll push them to mention this along with including your files in a CDN. I'm well happy now. I can have my TimeLine lite back yee-hah! Happy Tweening indeed!
  12. I just heard back from DCS support, and some good news. Their servers do support gzipping, so at least we can gzip the TweenLite & CSSPlugin - which would be a saving of around 40kb!! 55kb -> 15kb is awesome, which means I can now bring back the TimeLineLite magic. May I ask what gzip app you are using to get these to 14kb in total? I'm using Keka, and when I gzip each of them at full strength, they come to a combined 20kb. This is still awesome, and a saving of over 50%, but am curious how you got it down to 14kb?
  13. I wish i was kidding lol. https://support.google.com/richmedia/answer/2672512 This is a perfect example of their specs being out of touch with modern techniques. They obviously mean the main JS file shouldn't be minified, not the libraries, but its not specified so they could reject if they wanted too. This is in case they need to add tracking. This kind of makes sense in theory, but in reality if it halves the size of the file why wouldn't they want it minified. It's a win win for the client and the customer. But then they go and talk about libraries such as jQuery and Zepto
  14. Thanks Jack, I really appreciate you taking the time to write such a comprehensive reply The Gzip idea is a good one. I hadn't thought to ask DoubleClick if this was possible. I just sent them a support request asking if they will allow GZipped JS files. They don't even normally allow minified JS files, which is just crazy. If their web server is capable of serving GZIpped files, there is no reason why they shouldn't allow this, but I'll report back here once they let me know. We could really do with that additional ~20kb. I totally agree - they should have all of GSAP in
  15. Thanks Jack! It helps a bunch. Not for this particular project, as we are restricted to 100kb, but it will for future projects i'm sure. Whilst I'm here, have you made a lite version of the CSSPlugin by any chance? It's around ~33kb presently, and that's the minified version. It would be awesome if there was a version a tad smaller, perhaps with less features? And is there a TweenNano equivalent for JS? Or is TweenLite.min.js the smallest it goes (~25kb). Don't get me wrong, that it TINY!!! But when we work on banners every byte counts sometimes, I'm almost saddened to s
×