You can do a lot with little. I don't find it being a problem working or selling to clients flash 3d services as powerful/inferior they are.
I actually enjoy it. Reminds me of mid 90's. :) On Jul 30, 7:26 pm, Fabrice3D <[email protected]> wrote: > If you have a client who needs the kind of rendering you cannot do with flash > right now, > Adding $1500 to the bill for Unity should not be a problem considering the > time/money involved in most 3D projects. > If it is, either this client is to be avoided or the project is simply not > realistic. Or both :)) > > Fabrice > > On Jul 30, 2010, at 6:01 PM, Darcey Lloyd wrote: > > > > > Unity being nice and all, I don't think I will ever get to use it because > > it costs a fortune to develop for, something like $1500 for the web app, > > then they have different versions of it each with features turned off to > > make more money. Milking everything out of the developers they can. > > > Slap on another $1500 for android version and another £1500 for the iPhone > > version on the pro (full features) packages. > > > This to me is a joke. I personally will leave it to a select market. > > > Google are fully backing and pushing WebGL or something like that name, > > which should push adobe to keep up or get left behind. They have droped O3D > > for now and are going to make it JavaScript driven apparently. > > > Hopefully adobe will put a lot more effort and resource into the upcoming > > requirements on the flash player. Open GL ES has been on mobile phones for > > years, it's time they caught up. I don't expect much from adobe though, > > sadly.
