Same here. The Flare3D version ran slower for me and didn't look as good.
On Jan 10, 4:44 pm, Bob Warfield <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]
