HI Pete, I am very interested in your FMS + Away 3d work on the multiplayer frame work. I am new to Away 3D and am currently investigating the feasibility of using it as a multiplayer 3D environment. Any info or examples that you could provide would be greatly appreciated.
thx, Ryan Clemens On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 8:34 PM, Sean McCracken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hey Pete, > > Sorry I didn't speak up sooner, but I'm actually working on a multiplayer > framework for Away as we speak. It's actually Flash Media Server centric, > but you could use it locally. > > I am putting my kids to bed right now, but give me an hour and I think I'll > be able to help you out. > > And are you sure you need multiple views to do depth sorting? Have tried > setting your ground plane pushback to true? > > Cheers, > Sean > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Nov 18, 2008, at 4:58 PM, buganamo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> I think I might have gotten more feedback on my last post if I had >> phrased it as a question rather than a suggestion. D'oh! >> >> I am trying to have a local 4-player game screen (split into >> quarters), or various configurations up to, so some Scene3D instances >> are shared among up to 4 View3D instances. With view3D.autoUpdate set >> to true, of course Scene3D throws a Debug error complaining about over >> updating the scene. But if I set autoUpdate to false, and even call >> scene3D.updateScene(); before calling view3D.render();, and it doesn't >> seem to update at the right time, because the scene.updatedSessions >> Dictionary is coming back as null in the AbstractRenderSession >> (presumably inside a SpriteRenderSession instance). >> >> Currently, I have a PlayerView class (one for each player) that takes >> a player's camera, and builds a layered set of View3Ds to minimize >> depth sorting (separating floor from game objs from backdrop, etc.), >> and the View3Ds hook into a set of corresponding Scene3Ds >> >> I don't want to cheat and go altering low level super-classes like >> AbstractRenderSession to fix this, because I know that will break the >> engine for other more common scenarios. How can I best implement my >> code to take advantage of this? >> >> Thanks! >> -Pete >
