If I just fire up the benchmarks as presented by the links, I get almost the opposite result:
Away3D gives 21-31 fps while Flare3D gives 2-4 fps. Away3D produced a much better looking scene as well. Flare did use less memory. FWIW, I don't think of myself as having all that potent a machine--I'm using the onboard graphics from a mobo that is 3 years old! The two are quite different sizes by default, with Flare being bigger, so I agree, some care must be taken to compare apples to apples. I always hope for faster challengers because everyone rises to the higher bar and everyone therefore benfits, but in this case, I don't see the claimed advantage for Flair. I'll await your revised benchmarks and try again. Cheers, BW On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Michael Iv <[email protected]> wrote: > You have got a point , I will change it too look more professional tomorrow > :) > > > On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:14 PM, John Brookes <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Thats just the point. You cant benchmark when you have to eyeball the >> result. >> Also try movin the camera at 1fps, its fun. >> > > > > -- > Michael Ivanov ,Programmer > Neurotech Solutions Ltd. > Flex|Air |3D|Unity| > www.neurotechresearch.com > http://blog.alladvanced.net > Tel:054-4962254 > [email protected] > [email protected] > >
