On Feb 6, 2007, at 2:45 AM, Danny Kodicek wrote:
>> I checked, and the html I'm using is the later
shorter one,
>> not the immensely long html from v1. I don't think
that
>> anyone here on a PC has managed to view the page
yet.
>
> Actually, I saw it - sorry I didn't chip in sooner.
Looks nice,
> although
> obviously something that could also have been done
easily in Director.
>
> Danny
This gets us back more into comparing products rather than
debugging
Unity, so I feel I should mention that the FG office thing
took me
zero lines of coding (though it does include a James Newton
class
"prefab" for the FPS camera control) and at least
I was able to create
the model in SketchUp, bring it in to Unity, and make
changes that get
saved. With Director as it stands I can only get models into
a DIR by
running Classic on one of my other Macs (doesn't work on
Intel Macs),
run Director 8.5, convert an OBJ export from SketchUp to
W3D, get that
over to my MacBook Pro, fail to run Director (because
currently it
crashes on startup), go back to another machine, get the W3D
into
Director, do all the Havok work needed to make the scene
work, and
throw in a James Newton class FPS behavior. Once I've done
all of that
I then get a few frames per second back on my MacBook Pro.
I do want Director to be able to do all these things for
itself,
because of course I can other abilities on top of that in
almost no
time. But right now there is a long list of reasons why
using Director
isn't practical.
For a tiny bit of balance in the argument, I'll mention that
Unity
doesn't allow two physics meshes to interact. There will be
plenty of
cases where Director would be better than Unity for a 3D
scene.
_______________________________________________
dirGames-L mailing list - dirGames-L nuttybar.drama.uga.edu
http://nuttybar.drama.uga.edu/mailman/listinfo/dirgames
-l
|
