Is Papervision3D really dead?

So I’ve noticed there hasn’t been too many updates on Papervision recently, and it’s understandable because there hasn’t been much out there to increase performance, even though I see away3d constantly getting updates. I don’t really care for Away3D. Away3D performance is poor, and I got started with Papervision, so I tend to stick with it. Not to mention the documentation that’s already out there. And now I see on the forums that the project has been pretty much abandoned, even with Molehill around the corner! What the hell guys? Do I really have to move to Away3d?

EDIT: Now that I’ve played with the Away3D Molehill demos, it looks like I’ll be switching to Away3D once Flash Player 11 is released. Until then, I’ll stick with Papervision because it can push more triangles in more DisplayObject3Ds. Papervision still draws faster than Away3DLite, so until Molehill is widely adopted, there’s no point in changing renderers. They’re very similar anyway, so the switch will be easy.

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “Is Papervision3D really dead?

  1. Well, I hope all the PV3D users can still work with the framework. I use both and I like PV3D more than Away3D (even with the new releases), just depends in what I’m looking for. If you just only use the 3D for games, then you should definitely try Unity3D even over Molehill. So, I guess we just have to continue using PV3D or Away3D for small 3D interaction on the web.

    • I recently got an email from the author of ND3D.

      “Hi Trent,
      I haven’t compared PV3D vs. ND3D recently, but I’m confident, that my engine is a bit faster for simple scenes … but it doesn’t support viewport layers 😦

      I have stopped developing on ND3D and I will leave it in the current stage. Since a few months I’m workind and converting the engine to the new Flashplayer Molehill release that will be available next year. When the beta of the player will be out, there will be a hardware accelerated ND3D version. Stay tuned!

      Cheers,
      Lars”

      Looks like this might be the way most 3d developers are going. Waiting for molehill to continue development. BAH!

  2. Seriously? Away3D has always been better than Papervison. I switched from PV to Away long ago and am very happy I did. They didn’t abandon it for no reason… it needed to die. Switch and be happy.

    • Depends on how you measure ‘better’. Currently, without Molehill, Papervision3D can push more triangles in multiple DisplayObjects. It’s the whole reason I keep flip flopping between the two APIs.

  3. My first impressions is that pv3d had many more interesting methods than away3d.
    It’s a shame I need to swtich 😦

    By the way, how to put the camera in front a rotated object:

    plane.rotationX=45;
    plane.rotationY=30;

    With pv3d, I do this and it works:

    camera.copyTransform(plane);
    camera.moveBackward(400);

    With away3d copyTransform doesn’t exist,so I do this but don’t work at all (‘:

    view.camera.clone(plane);
    view.camera.moveBackward(500);

    Best regards!

  4. I’ll admit it’s been 6 month or so since I used Away or PV3D but I always found that Away’s bitmap smoothing seemed horrid compared to PV3D. I liked Away in most regards but I never once finished a project in Away that I started in Away… I always moved halfway through to PV3D or to my own self made 3D engines because the bitmap textures looked like crap comparatively. I never understood why the bitmap smoothing looked poor in Away…it should be using the same native BitmapData stuff as PV…but it was always worse. I really hope that’s addressed as Away becomes the dominant engine.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s