Hi Declan wouldn't it me more obvious for > Object3D to be called DisplayObject3D and inherit EventDispatcher and > like DisplayObject, implement IBitmapDrawable? > good question, i plan to do this once for comparing speed/ram use for both only reason we need Sprite here is native add/remove child, should be not hard to redo this, may be you wan't to try? ;)
Camera3D extends Object3D. But Camera3D is not something that you can see. we need still need to move/rotate camera anyway, maybe you can rip this to at least DisplayObject or you need to implement all x,y,z,rotaion and else anyway if you extends only Object and again you can try rip nd give us (better?) result :) Another thing; Why does Mesh render draw itself using the > Utils3D.projectVectors(); Shouldn't a Renderer be in the position of > drawing other objects? as i remember result correctly, when i try to move Utils3D project method to core tenderer, it give me slower result so that's why i move it in each mesh instead, maybe you can try move it out and give me (better) result ;) Don't get me wrong guys, I don't mean to condemn the engine, it's just > that I was wondering if it could be done better, or more logical. please keep doing this, i implement away3dlite because i found that i can get better result/speed there some method maybe not make any sense, because sometime i skip it and plan to get back there later (and yes sometime i forget it ;p) so, it's really good (for me) that someone find something and then develop it! open source is working that way, and i really love to see your result and improvement feel free to input, any better result is really welcome! cheers On 18 March 2011 02:42, rctdeclan <[email protected]> wrote: > I just thought about the following, and I'd like your opinions on it: > > Away3D(lite)'s Object3D class extends Sprite. A simple defenition of a > Sprite instance is that it is something that you can see on the > screen. An Object3D doesn't necessarily need to be seen, right? > Looking at the class hierarchy in the flash.display package: Object <= > EventDispatcher <=DisplayObject <=InteractiveObject <= > DisplayObjectContainer <=Sprite, wouldn't it me more obvious for > Object3D to be called DisplayObject3D and inherit EventDispatcher and > like DisplayObject, implement IBitmapDrawable? > > Then, on the other hand, Camera3D extends Object3D. But Camera3D is > not something that you can see. Of course, it plays a part in the 3d > scene, but my opinion is that Camera3D is abstract; it should only > represent a 3d location with an orientation an focus, zoom, etc... > > Another thing; Why does Mesh render draw itself using the > Utils3D.projectVectors(); Shouldn't a Renderer be in the position of > drawing other objects? > > Don't get me wrong guys, I don't mean to condemn the engine, it's just > that I was wondering if it could be done better, or more logical. > > -Declan -- Regards ----------------------------------------------------------- Todsaporn Banjerdkit, katopz, http://sleepydesign.com Away3DLite and JigLibFlash Developer Team
