I'm sorry, just found out the Utils3D.projectVectors() Doesn't also draw stuff. But: Why does the Object3D class have to extend Sprite? Just for being possible to addChild() it to the scene? Wouldn't it be better to extend DisplayObject then?
-Declan On Mar 17, 8:42 pm, rctdeclan <[email protected]> wrote: > I just thought about the following, and I'd like your opinions on it: > > Away3D(lite)'s Object3D class extends Sprite. A simple defenition of a > Sprite instance is that it is something that you can see on the > screen. An Object3D doesn't necessarily need to be seen, right? > Looking at the class hierarchy in the flash.display package: Object <= > EventDispatcher <=DisplayObject <=InteractiveObject <= > DisplayObjectContainer <=Sprite, wouldn't it me more obvious for > Object3D to be called DisplayObject3D and inherit EventDispatcher and > like DisplayObject, implement IBitmapDrawable? > > Then, on the other hand, Camera3D extends Object3D. But Camera3D is > not something that you can see. Of course, it plays a part in the 3d > scene, but my opinion is that Camera3D is abstract; it should only > represent a 3d location with an orientation an focus, zoom, etc... > > Another thing; Why does Mesh render draw itself using the > Utils3D.projectVectors(); Shouldn't a Renderer be in the position of > drawing other objects? > > Don't get me wrong guys, I don't mean to condemn the engine, it's just > that I was wondering if it could be done better, or more logical. > > -Declan
