@Don: Let me just reiterate on a basic benchmark I mentioned earlier in the thread:
"Some early benchmarks show that a ~60000 triangle mesh in AWD is about 8% the size of a COLLADA containing nothing but the same mesh, and parses quicker." Hopefully that will be reason enough to get at least some people to switch over. :) Cheers /R On Feb 25, 4:11 pm, "Don Bloomfield" <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks - that makes a lot of sense. > > Don > Have a great day > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > > Behalf Of Fabrice3D > Sent: Saturday, 26 February 2011 12:39 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [away3d] Re: Away 4.0 and Away 3 issues > > Just because Collada can be seen a good exchange format by some vendors > doesn't mean its suitable for runtime content. > if you raytrace a scene for 3 hours, nobody cares if the model took 20 sec > to load/parse. > But on web/mobile size/loading/parsing speed are very important. Collada is > a verboze monster. > That's why we put efforts into a suitable format. > > Add to this, that this "standard" format fails totally at one thing: be a > standard. > > If you preffer to use Collada for runtime, that's entirely up to you. > You asked why we think this way... > > Fabrice > > On Feb 25, 2011, at 1:05 PM, Don Bloomfield wrote: > > > Can I ask why you say "COLLADA should never ever be used in the first > > place..."? > > > I'm just curious - I use newtek's lightwave, and they seem to be moving TO > > collada for scene files, and I was looking to move to collada for any > > animated objects in the future. > > > Don > > Have a great day
