I am getting similar results to those of Darcey... On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:48 AM, Kevin Newman <[email protected]> wrote:
> Me too. Away3D was faster. > > Kevin N. > > > > On 1/10/11 11:14 PM, Kris Meister wrote: > >> Perhaps if its not using features required in away3d, then you should >> use away3dlite. >> >> As far as benchmarks go, its normal that they happen in any industry, >> especially in 3d - just look at graphics card reviews. >> Often times we spend weeks optimizing our projects for speed, its fair >> to say any developer wants to use the fastest library they can. >> Making the right benchmarks though, is where it gets too specific, as >> depending on any project or different machines you'll get different >> results. >> >> As for being free, plenty of times the free version is better than the >> pay one. Compare a for-profit encyclopedia to wikipedia, or the >> current state of content management systems. >> >> But I have a feeling that the new MoleHill plugin will completely >> change that playing field for 3D in Flash, and most projects will just >> use the easiest lib to develop in, and I'm really liking away3d for >> that. >> >> On Jan 10, 10:24 pm, abowman<[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> 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] >>>>> >>>> > -- Michael Ivanov ,Programmer Neurotech Solutions Ltd. Flex|Air |3D|Unity| www.neurotechresearch.com http://blog.alladvanced.net Tel:054-4962254 [email protected] [email protected]
