Yazel, David J. wrote: [...] > How many triangles java3d can render per > second should be near the bottom of the list of your priorities. It is > arrogant to say that you need that extra 10 percent speed to be > competative... thats a blatant falsehood and misconception. What you need > more than that 10 percent is to finish a fun, playable game! [...]
While I agree with you on most points, I think that you are a bit unfair here. Question is not about 10%. Question is about 20 times slower. Java3d IS NOT 20 times slower than direct opengl. But jdk1.0 was, maybe even more, slower than optimized C++ for mostly anything. Some people skipped over java back then and now are reevaluating it. I think that you will agree that even with better productivity etc, 20 times slower rendering would make creating games in java hard... I don't think that anybody sane is going to cry about 10-30% percent of lost performance. But it is not obvious that java3d, or generally java, is inside this area of other toolkits/languages. People hear that java is 20 times slower and want some kind of proof showing them otherwise. I don't think it is bad. Artur =========================================================================== To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "signoff JAVA3D-INTEREST". For general help, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
