We're working on it! ;)

Cheers
/R

On May 5, 11:17 am, "vinnie.vivace" <[email protected]> wrote:
> actually thats a REALLY good point. it would be awesome if there was a
> feature comparison chart somewhere.
>
> On May 5, 6:35 pm, Michael Iv <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I don't think there is , but you can just open the docs of the both and go
> > through packages . There you will be able clearly see the difference !
>
> > On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 9:25 AM, Shawn <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Thanks, that is what I thought. Still not sure if I can get away with
> > > the Lite version. Is there a feature comparison of the two somewhere.
> > > Google searches did not turn up anything (except this thread, funny
> > > enough). Or should I just continue comparing the docs for each?
>
> > > On May 4, 10:31 pm, Michael Iv <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > Also Lite can deal with much more geometry without noticeable 
> > > > performance
> > > > drop . BUT from the other side lite has very few features in comparison
> > > to
> > > > Away3D full version .
> > > > So if you really need it for complex development use Away3D , otherwise
> > > go
> > > > for Lite
>
> > > > On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 2:53 AM, Shawn <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
>
> > > > > I am brand new to Away3d and this group, so hopefully this is not a
> > > > > dumb question. I cannot find info about whether Away3D 3.5.0
> > > > > incorporates all of the Flash Player 10 native 3d stuff that Away3D
> > > > > Lite does.
>
> > > > > Is Lite still faster and able to handle more polys, or does 3.5.0 now
> > > > > use all of the same native Flash 3d stuff that Lite does?
>
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Shawn
>
> > > > --
> > > > Michael Ivanov ,Programmer
> > > > Neurotech Solutions Ltd.
> > > > Flex|Air |3D|Unity|www.neurotechresearch.com
> > > > Tel:054-4962254
> > > > [email protected]
> > > > [email protected]
>
> > --
> > Michael Ivanov ,Programmer
> > Neurotech Solutions Ltd.
> > Flex|Air |3D|Unity|www.neurotechresearch.com
> > Tel:054-4962254
> > [email protected]
> > [email protected]

Reply via email to