Peter, I'm just trying to understand how to make what you're communicating
here actionable, so let me make a suggestion:
Waiting is no problem. But, it's acknowledgement that will make the waiting
begin most easily.
"Yes, that does sound like a bug. Please submit it to the issues list."
Or:
"Not clear that's a bug, there is a lot that could be going on, have you
thought about X, Y, or Z?"
Or:
"No earthly idea what's going on from your description. You need to
make a small demo program so we can look at it."
Heck, even:
"That's definitely a bug, but we aren't going to fix it because that
code or feature is going away in 4.0."
It's silence that will have people trying to find some way to get some
attention. I know the driving reason the forum was being pushed was simply
a desire to get some kind of feedback on status.
RE 3.6 vs 4.0, it's okay to prioritize too. I know the team is not all that
large and there are day jobs to attend to. If the rumored 4.0 release by
end Q2 is correct, I am sure the team has their hands full trying to make
that deadline. I'm only pursuing 3.6 because the message I got was that it
was an important step to prepare for a logical migration to 4.0. If the
direction was that it wasn't a worthwhile migration because we don't have
time to make it so, and please stand by for 4.0, I'm cool with that too. I
also pursued it out of some sense that a bug in 3.6 may be a bug in 4.0, and
hence more urgent.
Lastly, I'm reasonably self-sufficient and only come forward when I hit the
proverbial brick wall. The app I'm building is quite large and ambitious.
CAD programs in Flash are not too common, LOL. If Buzzword is to word
processing for Flash then this is to CAD, at least the little niche market
of CAD it is in, and it's already getting quite a bit of attention with 800
Beta testers so far. I think it'll be a nice showpiece for the power of
Away3D in an area other than games. You can see more about it or download
the Beta if interested here: http://www.cnccookbook.com/CCGWizardE.html
Cheers,
BW
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Peter Kapelyan <flashn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I can hear you guys loud and clear. It's disappointing to me that bugs are
> going unanswered.
>
> There is really only 1 thing that can be done, and that is to add any bug
> to the official issue list. Repeating the same bug here doesn't seem to be
> getting anywhere, unfortunately. Please add very simple examples to the list
> so the bug can be recreated. Not saying anyone is doing it, but a bug and
> demands out of frustration (with no example or easy way to replicate) just
> will hang around longer.
>
> This is how things used to go: People add bugs to the issue list, they pile
> up, Rob and others try to clear them all out (usually in one fell swoop).
> Now that that isn't getting done for whatever reason, I can only suggest to
> wait. Maybe someone has the time to fix a bug and submit a patch, which
> usually worked before.
>
> Bugs in 3.6 aren't getting much attention, which is a shame since I
> personally think 3.6 is just as valuable as 4.0. I agree that a forum won't
> do much good to change this, although this group isn't the best way to find
> answers to questions either.
>
> And finally, yes away3d is BIG now, and there is a lot of demand and
> attention needed for it. So as the messages in this group pile up (even if
> it was a forum), the task to address all the issues is getting more
> daunting. The away3D devs have done a super job for us all, and it's all
> free! Donations are always welcome.
>
> Anyways my 2 cents. Hopefully with some patience things will turn out
> great.
>
> -Pete
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Bob Warfield <b...@thewarfields.com> wrote:
>
>> Stephen, you can see what you get for a Trident once its compiled here:
>>
>>
>> http://devluchadore.wordpress.com/2011/04/04/issues-converting-from-away3d-3-5-to-3-6/
>>
>> That shows a screenshot of both Tridents in my actual CAD/CAM application
>> so you can see what I'm trying to achieve (the 3.5 Trident) versus what I am
>> getting (the 3.6 Trident).
>>
>> So, if I understand this dot product issue, I should not be passing 0's,
>> but rather 0.001's in the upAxis vector? Instead of {0,0,-1} I need
>> {0.001,0.001,-1}? Since it was easy, I tried it. In fact I tried making
>> any 0 in sight 0.001. Didn't make a lick of difference.
>>
>> I went back and looked at the eulers/rotation of the camera. It's quite
>> different in 3.5 vs 3.6, as it would have to be:
>>
>> 3.5:
>>
>> 46.83172 -2.4E-06 -44.9983
>>
>> 3.6
>>
>> 41.3751 -24.258 -70.003
>>
>> Again, this sure looks like a 3.6 bug as I am feeding it exactly the same
>> parameters in both versions and getting a different answer.
>>
>> I don't see how a forum will tell you any more than the mailing list.
>> Just because somebody viewed the post doesn't mean it was somebody on the
>> team or that knew anything. The real issue is it takes a lot of pushing to
>> get answers to questions. This is my second thread started on this issue
>> before anyone responded at all.
>>
>> John, RE pure AS3, I don't know non-Flex, LOL. In any event, I don't
>> think there is much "Flexy" going on in that code other than the transparent
>> layer "hitArea". I debated whether to include it in the sample but did just
>> in case it might be the cause. It's there in the first place to deal with
>> another Away3D bug I could never get to the bottom of. My mouse events were
>> getting eaten if the mouse point touched any segment in any mesh.
>>
>> Still need help figuring this out. Sure looks like a bug to me!
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> BW
>> On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Stephen Hopkins <rentakni...@gmail.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Hard to say what you are trying to achieve/encountering since there is
>>> no compiled version, but the problem might be with the lookAt
>>> function. I and maybe a few others had trouble using the lookAt
>>> function.
>>>
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/away3d-dev/browse_thread/thread/97f7f439a321873/99323699b3fecfe6?lnk=gst&q=simple+camera+problem#99323699b3fecfe6
>>>
>>> I just wanted the camera to look directly downwards, or along a
>>> global axis, but the camera would would not rotate for some reason
>>> unless I skewed the vector away from the the unit axis vectors. (i.e.,
>>> instead of looking at (0, 0, 0), I made it look at (0, 0, 0.001) ).
>>> Never found a fix to it or why it was happening. Such a bug did not
>>> occur in Away 3.5 as I had many demos/projects that did such a thing.
>>> This is why we need a forum. I would post a new issue, but I just hate
>>> the fact that there's no way of telling if they have been reviewed. I
>>> already have two outstanding issues that I don't know whether they
>>> will be solved or addressed, or just fixed in away3d 4.0
>>>
>>> On Apr 7, 8:36 am, Bob Warfield <b...@thewarfields.com> wrote:
>>> > I have attached source code for a real simple demo. It does nothing
>>> other
>>> > than show the Trident. If you compile it with 3.5 libraries, the
>>> Trident is
>>> > correct. If you compile with 3.6, the Trident is cockeyed.
>>> >
>>> > There are 2 changes required to switch between the libraries:
>>> >
>>> > - Comment or uncomment the import of Number3D.
>>> > - Comment or uncomment the routines at the top that say "3.5 Version"
>>> or
>>> > "3.6 Version".
>>> >
>>> > There's not an awful lot that changes between the two versions other
>>> than
>>> > whether I user Number3D or Vector3D yet the two Tridents are very
>>> > different. That doesn't seem right.
>>> >
>>> > Can somebody please help?
>>> >
>>> > Best,
>>> >
>>> > BW
>>> >
>>> > GWAway3D.mxml
>>> > 1KViewDownload
>>> >
>>> > GWizCamDemo.as
>>> > 10KViewDownload
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> ___________________
>
> Actionscript 3.0 Flash 3D Graphics Engine
>
> HTTP://AWAY3D.COM <http://away3d.com/>
>
