i am not trying to flame you in the slightest :) LOL, i just think you presented something which is not definitive as fact, which is inacurate. you did answer the question correctly however.
On 8/1/07, Samuel Agesilas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > LOL... now are we getting a little touchy Johannes... I don't have to > prove anything... you can look up the results yourself. It is clear as day. > Look at how papervision handles mesh's for example and how papervision > handles materials. When you look at their respectively algorithms you can > clearly see why papervision has an advantage. I was merely correcting the > assumption that all of these 3d engines are the same. They clearly are not! > Just look at the code, it's nothing personal against the developers of > away3d and sandy I think they are doing wonderful contributions. But alas > when it comes right down to it... Papervision has the meat and potatoes to > surpass the other too engines. So before trying to flame me... download the > source code and objectively look at the routines yourself and you'll clearly > see the difference. But, if you just want a visual example ( unscientific > but ballpark )... look at the materials demo for away 3d and then compare > the performance with papervision materials or even texture mapping for that > matter. Also bear in mind that the real power of papervision is it's ability > to handle lot's of objects. In sandy for example the more objects are on the > screen the slower it get's. I also based on my previous experience with > sandy I found the api to be inefficient in the sense that it uses the gc way > too much and in some instances the flash player has to clean up stuff which > in turns slows down the animation. And if that does not marginally convince > you then ask yourself this... why aren't there any fullscreen demos for > Sandy or Away3d? I haven't seen any. However there are some nice ones for > Papervision that fully demonstrate the performance capabilities of > papervision. But as always the proof is in the code... so I urge you to > download and analyze the code and make your own proofs and report them here > instead of wasting everybody's time by me or anyone else for that matter > personally. > > Cheers, > Sam > > On Aug 1, 2007, at 11:18 AM, Johannes Nel wrote: > > i think as misguided as his "factual statements" are he touched on one > important point in relation to the question: > -which one of the three would add the LEAST amount of code for a simple > 'cube rotating' effect + -which one of the three has the smallest learning > curve (i have a tight deadline to meet)==> > means from whom can i copy and paste the easiest. and there is an example > cube rotating in pv3d's examples library and more people blog about it. > hence more vigarous copy-paste application. > > for the rest the statements carry as much relevance as creationism and he > can never offer sufficient proof of any of these claims. > > On 8/1/07, Mariano Cerrutti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Samuel: > > Same as Martin, please give some references for your comments. > > > > cheers to all > > Mariano > > > > On 8/1/07, Martin Wood-Mitrovski < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Samuel Agesilas wrote: > > > > no no no no!! This is not the case.... Papervision3d is far more > > > > superior than Sandy and away3d. Papervision performance competely > > > > blows away sandy and is much Much better than Away3d. > > > > > > > > To answer your question more directly. > > > > > > > > 1. Papervision - Why? The papervision API is really clean and > > > simple. > > > > Something like a rotating cube can be accomplished with very VERY > > > > little code ( even if you want to texture map the sides ) > > > > 2. Papervision - Why? It is the more mature of all 3 of those > > > > platforms. Papervision3d has a very small learning curve and there > > > > are lots of examples out there to analyze and learn from. > > > > > > can you give a bit more evidence to back up those claims? > > > > > > some code, some links, some benchmarks for example. > > > > > > you could well be right, but i want proof :) > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > Martin > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > osflash mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > osflash mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org > > > > > > > -- > j:pn > http://www.memorphic.com/news/ > _______________________________________________ > osflash mailing list > [email protected] > http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > osflash mailing list > [email protected] > http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org > > -- j:pn http://www.memorphic.com/news/
_______________________________________________ osflash mailing list [email protected] http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
