Forgetting your argument for a second, these two lines are something I can't stand to hear:
"web developers MUST conform to" "i will never play a game in a browser because that's not what a browser is for" As a developer I can do what I like(within reason). As for browsers, they can do whatever you want them to do(again within reason). I'm always weary of people who are at either end of the scale on any particular thought. When I hear words like 'MUST', it puts me right off listening. Adrian -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andreas Rønning Sent: 25 January 2006 11:46 To: Flashcoders mailing list Subject: Re: SV: [Flashcoders] Microsoft Sparkle Sparkle doesn't supply decent 3d. xaml 3d is little more than vrml 2006. It's not even a step in the right direction, it's just an excuse to use directx online, and frankly, putting directx online is a shit idea that dilutes the web. Complete and utter cross platform compatibility is a simple absolute that web developers MUST conform to. MS have a history of introducing products that weaken the integrity of the web, and i'm in no way a fan of any sort. The average consumer dictates what technology makes money. This is another truth. It wasnt until recently that Flash became even remotely accepted by the average consumer, and we are only now beginning to reap the true benefits of that acceptance. Sparkle is another hurdle, more noise in the ether. Consumers don't need it, developers don't need it. The only party requiring Sparkle-type-content is the kind of bloated site Flash has been criticized the most for since its inception, and in that regard Sparkle, to me, looks like Flash 4 with polygons and an even more limited user base. The internet reads like a book. This is why it works with smartphones, this is why it works with Nokia series 40 phones, this is why it works with tablets, laptops, desktop computers, and why puretext browsers like lynx are an actual viability. This flat book structure isn't a brick of the establishment to be broken down and destroyed, it isn't a hampering factor, it is a unifying factor. As for games? We have decent 3d online NOW with Shockwave 3d. I've seen a working Unreal tournament in Shockwave with a great framerate and decent AI. It just hasn't taken off, and it probably won't anytime soon. Why? Because it's an aberration. It's an abnormality that confuses and destabilizes. As a gamer, i will never play a game in a browser because that's not what a browser is for. For that i'll hook up my gamecube or pick up my PSP. Putting a technological shove into online 3d is like designing a car that can double as a screwdriver. As much as i dig what MS did with the xbox, Sparkle and the whole 3d kajoozle is just another way for them to integrate the web tighter with their whole crazy Live idea, and it's an ugly thing that messes up for developers and users alike. And i'm not a mac user btw :P - Andreas Nick Weekes wrote: > David, > > I tend to agree with what your saying. Although Im definitely in the RIA > camp, it seems ridiculous to criticise the development of a technology such > as this simply because of what the 'average consumer' wants. > > How about using the games industry to make my point? If this technology is > successful (either for Adobe or MS), then browser based DirectX online > gaming isnt too far away. No 5Gb installs, just point to a URL and away you > go. > > Dismissing the idea of decent 3D is waaaay too short sighted. > > Cheers, > > Nick > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David > Skoglund > Sent: 25 January 2006 10:26 > To: 'Flashcoders mailing list' > Subject: SV: SV: [Flashcoders] Microsoft Sparkle > > OK, you maybe YOU don't care much for it, but a RIA-platform needs to be > flexible as possible and give the developers as much freedom as possible. > Content rules, but why restrict content to 2d? I'm not talking about wacky > 3d interfaces where they are clearly not needed, but games, simulations, > product presentations etc. > > As I see it Macromedia has always been making good tools for creating > interactive experiences but are now trying hard with Flex 2 to compete in > the corporate applications. Microsoft comes from the opposite side. They > already have most of the corporate developers, and are now trying to get the > designers attention. And looking at the feature lists they seem to beat > Macromedia on their own turf... I hope that Macromedia/Adobe can compete. > > Shockwave 3d has a very steep learning curve and it's just in the last > couple of years that people have really learned to create really nice games > with it. Look for example att my own first try on creating a shockwave > 3d-game: www.monsterland.se/snowwarfare > I wouldn't have been able to create this without the tutorials and helpful > communities that's been built up during the years. In my view Macromedia had > a good state of the art product, but threw it away since it didn't create > short term profit. > > Sparkle on the other side seems quite easy to get into. The 3d-functions are > well integrated into the IDE so you can navigate between 3d-models in a > scene as easily as you do between movie clips in flash. And there are lot's > of features beside this 3d-part. Intresting times ahead! > > /David > > -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- > Från: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] För Andreas Rønning > Skickat: den 25 januari 2006 10:58 > Till: Flashcoders mailing list > Ämne: Re: SV: [Flashcoders] Microsoft Sparkle > > I couldn't give less of a crap about putting 3d on the web, and i'm > pretty sure the average consumer agrees with me. Content rules. > I seem to recall Shockwave 3d not ever really taking off, and if 3d is > the only thing sparkle has over Flash it ain't gonna do much good as a > competitor. > > - Andreas > > David Skoglund wrote: > >>>so why does someone post it to this list ? >> >>Since it's going to be a direct competitor/alternative to Flash, and since >>it's pushed by Microsoft. Wether you like it or not you'll need to keep > > your > >>eyes on what happening over there. >>Personally I think it's great to finally see a promising new standard for >>creating web 3d. Hopefully Adobe can create a competitive 3d-solution to >>integrate i flash, but looking at Acrobat 3d I'm not impressed, and they >>stopped developing Shockwave 3d a long time ago (still the best solution >>despite lack of updates last 5 years). >>/David _______________________________________________ Flashcoders mailing list Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
