will adobe molehill really replace shockwave ?
peel peel
- molehill doesn't seem to support ageia physx
- most of molehill's rendering pipeline needs to be managed by actionscript... in shockwave u can render a scene without any line of script
- molehill doesn't seem to include a native 3d file format... director 11.5 can generate w3d files
so i suspect that in most cases, the old shockwave3d engine will keep faster and more efficient than molehill... so adobe can carry on selling shockwave's updates
more, adobe announced an update of shockwave3d for 2012...
what's your opinion ?
Alex da Franca
On 10.11.2010, at 16:15, peel peel wrote:
> more, adobe announced an update of shockwave3d for 2012...
you mean after the predicted end of the world in 2012?
Where was that announced or are you teasing?
---------------------------
I would rather try to carry 10 over-loaded plastic bags in each hand
than take 2 trips to bring my groceries in.
|||
a¿ex
Emre Eldemir
Flash always announces the new version, but Director doesn't. Why?
Emre Eldemir
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Director Game Developer List" group.
To post to this group, send email to dirgame...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to dirgamedevlis...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/dirgamedevlist?hl=en.
--
-----------------------
Emre ELDEMIR
CC Chamberlin
On Nov 10, 2010, at 8:15 AM, peel peel wrote:
> I read adobes' notes about molehill and i'm not sure it will really replace shockwave3d.
>
> - molehill doesn't seem to support ageia physx
Hand-rolled physics tuned to gameplay will work fine in most Flash games. In fact, many game styles work better when the physics are custom-built. For those that need "true" physics, an Actionscript-based library will emerge. It won't be as fast as native, but it will be fast enough.
> - most of molehill's rendering pipeline needs to be managed by actionscript... in shockwave u can render a scene without any line of script
True, but it wouldn't do anything interesting. No matter what we do, we're going to be writing a lot of code to manage a 3D experience, so this doesn't bother me much.
What I do worry about is how "low-level" it is. Flash is going to have to position itself on the "easier" side of Unity, and that's going to be tough. If Molehill scripting is closer to raw OpenGL programming than Shockwave3D programming, it will drastically cut down its utility for most people. (Even if you have the programming chops in-house, that cuts into the RAD speed, which is key for many small shops and hobbyists.)
> - molehill doesn't seem to include a native 3d file format... director 11.5 can generate w3d files
In my opinion, the choice of having a native 3D file format for Director was one of the platform's biggest weaknesses. The 3D modeling programs you could use to reliably export .w3d files you could count on one hand (one finger?), because we had to rely on the modeler vendors to create exporters, and Adobe didn't do the legwork to get them to make and maintain those exporters. Nor did they provide any converters from popular formats to .w3d formats. As a result, we ended up dabbling in that strange voodoo of a 3d format chain, or trying to work around broken imports with code. Blech. I'd *much* rather it import and render industry-standard file formats.
> so i suspect that in most cases, the old shockwave3d engine will keep faster and more efficient than molehill... so adobe can carry on selling shockwave's updates
Yeah, because Adobe has done such a bang-up job keeping Shockwave3D on the cutting edge so far, right? Molehill, to me, looks like Adobe is working to *deprecate* Director, effectively if not intentionally by Adobe leadership. Once a successful, widely-adopted 3D presentation tech is in place, that's one less reason to not end-of-line Director.
Worse, they're further bloating up the Flash player with this. I'd *much* prefer a streamlined, standalone Molehill player (and a Director Xtra to go with it!) instead of cramming it into Flash Player, but then they'd have to compete with Unity on their relative merits, so I doubt the bean counters would allow that.
> more, adobe announced an update of shockwave3d for 2012...
2012? That soon? How will Unity possibly keep up?
CC
peel peel
Rasmus Keldorff
peel peel
i had a look to Molehill quake map demos, without gameplay (only display), it's significantly slower than quake maps displayed in showckave... because molehill seems to need actionscript to draw every triangle
add bones, physics, gameplay, IA, and this will be REALLY slow
so i'm really not sure shockwave plugin is dead...
i
peel peel
sorry but on the web unity doesn't rule
shockwave is still the standard 3d plugin on the web
have a look to unity games on shockwave.com, they have bad marks, few players, because unity 3d engine is a bit too modern for the shitty machines of people
i don't understand why everybody wants to kill director... maybe because u don't like old technologies... but the web likes old techologies ;)
Gaz Bushell
Baruch
I really think it's more easy to develop web games in shockwave than Unity.Looking at “silentbaystudios” and “xform” games You can see That quality is not dependent on technology.I have not seen so far any Unity webgame Approaching the quality of their games.Actually the combination of “Director” and “dpi” is great for none programers because It's write the code for them.
The
main problem is the inability of shockwave to
run on other platforms.
So if you want a
project to fit the Internet and cellular you
better start your project with unity.
Gaz Bushell
peel peel
peel peel
i'm talking about the web. i work for RIA, i don't care about offline
today, the 3d standard on the web is shockwave.
if tomorrow the 3d standard on the web is unity or molehill, i will work with unity or molehill (not a problem for me, i master acstionscript and c#)
but today the standard on the web is shockwave so i work with director
Bart Libert (EducaSoft)
Gaz > i know "good unity games are not on the web"...
i'm talking about the web. i work for RIA, i don't care about offline
today, the 3d standard on the web is shove.
if tomorrow the 3d standard on the web is unity or molehill, i will work with unity or molehill (not a problem for me, i master acstionscript and c#)
but today the standard on the web is shockwave so i work with director
--
Gaz Bushell
but disagree, we are mobilising towards unity on the web currently.
And i would agree that prevalence is not great. While I never saw much more than 50% prevalence on shockwave which knocked it back even at those figures with Unity you are looking at around 15% prevalence, but the adoption rate is pretty high and i expect it to start moving, especially if unity devs start bringing more of their "offline" content to the web.
But I also agree todays web 3d standard is not as we would have expected it to be 10 years ago.
besides i always thought the web would move more to the "online app" bit like the mac app store. or iTunes. That way plugins don't matter current day web speeds mean that the engine may as well be downloaded with the "doc". It made sense all those years ago when you would struggle to get a 500k or even a 200k online game down your pipe (well on UK bandwidth speed any way)
Ben Pitt
I don't hear of any new developers learning it or including it at all in their portfolios. I don't really hear of any agencies using it any more except for maintaining legacy software for clients. I don't hear of it being taught in academic environments. I don't see new shockwave games appearing on the web. I don't hear a buzz around shockwave development. The resources available for even learning about Shockwave on the web are evaporating as old sites dry up and developers move on. The ability to even export to Shockwave's 3d format is drying up.
There's certainly some contention as to what the 3d standard will become, but the condenders are Molehill, Unity and Web GL, and at the moment, Unity seems leaps and bounds ahead so far. Until Adobe actually update shockwave (which seems increasingly unlikely as each year ticks by!), Shockwave doesn't even really qualify for the race any more.
- Duck
- Ben
__________________
duck...@gmail.com
Gaz Bushell
Alexx
I wonder why you are all still talking about this...
Adobe have never showed to us any convincing will of maintaining Director and Shockwave. All they did was hiring crappy coders to do what I think is a really bad job... Just to give us some hope that they will give a future to our beloved software.
Director, as it is now, is dead. It needs a full rewrite to get rid of all of its problems. And I doubt Adobe will invest time and money in such a new application, when you can do pretty the same things with flex + air and soon molehill.
Maybe molehill is maybe "slow" now, but don't forget that this is still a beta software... and what I've seen is still faster with a far better visual quality than what's possible with shockwave 3D
Cheers ^^
Alexx
Mal
Mal
installation of MineCraft!
Noisecrime
Although one could argue SW3D still has a place, I can't imagine using
it on any new projects, its just too out of date. Indeed if I needed
to use Director for a project I'd probably lever Unity activeX to do
the 3D work instead of SW3D these days.
The real problem is going to be online, why use Shockwave, a
misunderstood plug-in, with dropping install base, when you can just
use Flash that is ubiquitous? Certainly that will be the opinion of
any of my clients.
As to performance i'm quite impressed with the zombie demo released
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrArtYuEkEI) granted the environment
looks low poly, but that might be a style choice or due to
multi-system development, plus the fact that there are 500 zombies
walking round too. The driving game demo'd before looked pretty good
too.
The only real question with molehill is how easy it will be to develop
with. Pretty much any API will put it above SW3D and even if it
doesn't have nice editor or asset pipeline those will quickly be
developed by the community. If it comes with that stuff it may even
challenge Unity!
As for SW3D in 2012 (rumour?) I know there was a 5 year plan, but I
never believed it will be at the end of 5 years that we'd get a 3D
update! Honestly a few devs working for 6 months could have leveraged
the intel SW3D into a modern usable engine that could have kept it
ticking over.
Trouble is if there is a SW3D 2 in 2012, its going to have to be as
good as or better than both Molehill and Unity to win back developers.
I wouldn't go as far as saying I would never use it, I still have a
lot of invested knowledge in Director that would still make it the
most efficient rapid development platform. However it would need to be
on par with Unity and rebuild trust that it wont be left to languish
again.
Honestly at this point it would appear that Directors main use is for
legacy support and doing simple stuff based on developers years of
built up libraries, meaning its the most efficient method. However I
doubt you can maintain or build a product that is used in such manor.
Noisecrime 2011
Gaz Bushell
lat time I played with an update was the physX update , you know when all havok stuff became obsolete on most computers as it wasn't supported any more.
personally I can't see how any shockwave developer that made a couple of projects in unity they wouldn't immediately fall in love with it. It seemed to me just like everything I wanted in director plus loads extra was already there. that might be down to people like Tom Higgins I dunno but after developing a bit and getting over my stubbornness I realised it was the natural step forward from shockwave.
Noisecrime
on the list, even if some/many have moved on from Director.
Despite switching development apps, the Director community is/was
still the best.
Nonoche
Le 25 févr. 2011 à 15:56, Noisecrime a écrit :
> Despite switching development apps, the Director community is/was still the best.
I know, right? What a disheartening waste...
Gaz Bushell
and that is exactly how i see shockwave, although to be honest every time i have to work with some old projects mainly installation stuff that i don't have time to rebuild it pains me as I want it remade in something better.
Daniel G. Blázquez
I'm happily surprised to see how many familiar Director devs are still on the list, even if some/many have moved on from Director.
Despite switching development apps, the Director community is/was still the best.
Pieter Albers
We’re still working in Shockwave. This year will see at least 3 new 3d games. No complaints from our side.
There are new features coming up and we’re happy J We’re at the GDC with 2 of our games and hopefully a small tech demo.
Pieter / Xform
CC Chamberlin
On Feb 25, 2011, at 3:42 AM, peel peel wrote:
> have a look to unity games on shockwave.com, they have bad marks, few players, because unity 3d engine is a bit too modern for the shitty machines of people
I think you're confusing bad *games* with bad *technologies*.
> i don't understand why everybody wants to kill director... maybe because u don't like old technologies... but the web likes old techologies ;)
I don't want to kill Director. Seriously. I would absolutely frickin' LOVE it if Adobe stepped up and returned Director to its former glory, if they came out with guns blazing and made it a serious contender against Unity. I still have a Director developer's site, and I still sell Director-based software products.
But I have to be realistic moving forward. Unity is eating Director's lunch. It is better from a technical perspective, a technical support perspective, a corporate support perspective, a device targeting perspective, a rendering perspective, an update frequency perspective, a feature perspective, a performance perspective, etc. There are still a very few areas where Director is better (diverse media integration comes to mind), but overall, there's just no comparison.
It's not even a matter of preference or opinion, either. Just yesterday in our studio, we were asked to make yet another project that is targeted for the web and iOS devices. This brings us up to four on the docket. Director simply CANNOT be used to do these jobs, because there's no iOS path from Director.
But I can use Unity.
Does anyone here think the next Director is going to include export paths for iOS (let alone Android, Wii, XBox 360, and PS3)? If so, I'd love to hear why you think that, because as far as I've seen, it's been crickets from Adobe on Director development. And even if it does have an iOS export path, well, after seeing how miserable the Flash iOS export performed, let's just say I'm not filled with confidence.
On Feb 25, 2011, at 7:48 AM, Noisecrime wrote:
> In my opinion, molehill will decimate Director with regards to 3D.
I agree. I really don't see Adobe cannibalizing itself between Molehill and Shockwave3D. My guess is all their 3D dev resources will go into Molehill, and IF WE'RE LUCKY, we'll get a Molehill Xtra for Director, probably six months to a year later. If we're not lucky, Director gets end-of-lined.
> The only real question with molehill is how easy it will be to develop with. Pretty much any API will put it above SW3D and even if it doesn't have nice editor or asset pipeline those will quickly be developed by the community. If it comes with that stuff it may even challenge Unity!
That's the hope. That's a pretty high target, though, what with Unity's IDE being so stellar. My guess is that they're going to go the ECMAScript route for the scripting engine to make it easy for existing ActionScript developers, which means that the scripting is going to be pretty similar to Unity. But unless they've managed to develop a kick-ass IDE like Unity has, something I just don't see happening in such a short time frame, there's no way they're going to overshadow Unity out of the gate from a tools perspective.
It seems to me the biggest thing Molehill has going for it is the size of the existing Flash user base. Molehill should be a standalone product - we don't need Flash bloated up any more than it already is - but they're going to shoehorn it into Flash anyway in order to get access to a lot of developers. This might save it even if it sucks compared to Unity.
> As for SW3D in 2012 (rumour?) I know there was a 5 year plan, but I never believed it will be at the end of 5 years that we'd get a 3D update! Honestly a few devs working for 6 months could have leveraged the intel SW3D into a modern usable engine that could have kept it ticking over.
Especially when Unity releases come so fast you can barely keep up with them. 5 years, seriously?
> Trouble is if there is a SW3D 2 in 2012, its going to have to be as good as or better than both Molehill and Unity to win back developers. I wouldn't go as far as saying I would never use it, I still have a lot of invested knowledge in Director that would still make it the most efficient rapid development platform. However it would need to be on par with Unity and rebuild trust that it wont be left to languish again.
Spot on. From what I can tell, Director's community is down to the die hard, longtime users. It hasn't attracted a significant number of new users for a long time, so Adobe needs to really knock it out of the park in order to overcome its reputation.
But even if it is awesome, there's still the history to consider. Years go by between updates. At this point, I'm not sure I want to hitch my horse to that wagon, even if they do manage to come out with a compelling update, because it might be ANOTHER five years before the next update. Or never. Who knows?
Unity has demonstrated that it has a vigorous response to its developer community, with regular updates, impressive new features, and much more openness about direction. They are a company solely focused on this one product, as opposed to the situation with Director where the corporate support is fleeting at best as their engineers are pulled off for other strategic projects. In order to go back to using Director, I need to not only be impressed with the technology, but I also need to have my faith restored in Adobe's corporate will to support Director. And as slim a chance as the former is, the latter just seems impossible at this point.
> I'm happily surprised to see how many familiar Director devs are still on the list, even if some/many have moved on from Director.
>
> Despite switching development apps, the Director community is/was still the best.
Agreed!
CC
Chris Evans
As for me, I'm supporting my existing Shockwave games. Thankfully Adobe has
been releasing fairly regular updates to the Shockwave player, so it's
staying compatible with modern browsers and OSs' even if it's a few steps
behind.
As games like Minecraft have shown, it's not always about technology, it's
about content and accessibility. A quality game that can be played on a wide
variety of machines will win out over a mediocre game that requires a
highend machine to see its splendor.
THAT SAID, all my new projects will be in Unity or Flash. There's just too
many structural problems with Adobe/Director that take it beyond a content
comparison.
- The 3D art pipeline for Shockwave is almost completely broken. You pretty
much need legacy software or a $3,000 software to get 3D animation into
Director. It makes it very hard to work with other artist.
- What attracted me to Director initially was the ability to export content
to all the major platforms of the day, PC, Mac, and Web. But the landscape
is much bigger now. You have mobile platforms like iPhone and Android, and
digital platforms such as XBL Arcade, Wii-ware and etc. As of now, Director
doesn't touch any of these new platforms. Whether you're doing client-based
or independent work, it's advantageous to have access to as many platforms
as possible.
- No visible support from Adobe. This is finally what broke my back. I can
no longer justify investing time and money with a product that Adobe
basically pretends doesn't exist. For years we've asked for more visibility
and communication, and aside from a few brief promises, it's mostly been met
with deafening silence. It's pretty clear they have Shockwave on status-quo
mode and with the limited size and resources of the Director team, they can
only add a couple of modest features per year, which usually go unannounced.
Has Molehill replaced Shockwave? Not yet. Will it? Absolutely. They can't
co-exist for obvious reasons and Adobe has shown zero inclination to find a
new place in the market for Director.
I just hope that Molehill will be able to import .W3D files at some point.
If they did that, it would help a lot of Director devs transition their 3D
content to Flash. But most Director developers have moved on long ago so
they may not see a need for this...
For web-based independent games, Shockwave3D is still viable if you have an
existing art pipeline and tools in place. But for client/freelance work,
Shockwave3D is completely dead.
- Chris
peel peel
UNDERdog
doing 3D.
We've moved over to unity too... But for some reason, I too think dir
games had better gameplay.
Lot's of our old games online still use dir and it's true... We get a
lot less plugin intall redirects or early exits from these pages.
We did and are doing some really cool bigger projects in unity now,
coudn't have done that and pulled it off in director I think.
As for molehill it must be the end for director... And because of
people trust in adobe, a BIG threat for unity3d too!
Guess we will no other option but to check it out, see what it's good
for and use it for that. Just like we still use director and unity...
More software is more power to the creators?
I hope at least this group survives!
:))
Gtz, Wim Wouters
------------------------
www.grin.be
www.UNDERdog.be
Mal
>and about unity ?
I would be pleasantly surprised if any of the other 3D browser
technologies ( Virtools / now 3DVia?, Unity 3D, Shiva 3D ) were over
5% - in fact, if any of them were over 2% I'd be impressed for generic
population installs.
If you see percentages for browser penetration, is that from the
generic population or from a gamer population? A portal site I was
speaking to at GDC a few years ago mentioned that over 90% of their
visitors had Shockwave installed, ie active casual gamers. The 30%
StatOwl figure reflects a realistic estimate of the generic population
( eg visitors to the bbc, google etc sites ), and not casual gamers (
eg visitors to shockwave.com or another gaming portal ). Of course,
if your target market is casual gamers... :)
Mal
Bart Libert (EducaSoft)
Baruch
http://www.shockwave.com/gamelanding/burning-blades-hockey.jsp
Bart Libert (EducaSoft)
Gene Endrody
Bart Libert (EducaSoft)
--
Lucas Meijer
Bye, Lucas
UNDERdog
http://blogs.unity3d.com/2011/02/27/unity-flash-3d-on-the-web/
End of conversation... let's have fun!
On 27 feb, 19:45, Lucas Meijer <lucas.mei...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey. Im at the flash games summit right now, and just made an announcement on our blog related to all of this: blogs.unity3d.com
>
> Im super excited about all this, if youre in SF come see us at our booth and say hi
>
> Bye, Lucas
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Only stats I know arehttp://unity3d.com/webplayer/hardware-statsfor unity.
> > Fact is that most people which really want to play/test a game are going to install a plugin if needed.
> > The unity webplayer plugin is not HUGE and it installs easily.
>
> > So indeed, flash has an almost perfect pentration rate and unity has not. I don't know if this will mean molehill will automatically be a succes.
>
> > I HOPE that molehill will be a succes since indeed for some smaller projects it would fit for us too and we use both flash and unity so I don't want to prefer the one above the other.
>
> > Flash currently lacks decent 3D support and Unity lacks decent 2D support.
>
> > Lets see who will be the first to fill the gap...
>
> > >and about unity ?
>
> > I would be pleasantly surprised if any of the other 3D browser
> > technologies ( Virtools / now 3DVia?, Unity 3D, Shiva 3D ) were over
> > 5% - in fact, if any of them were over 2% I'd be impressed for generic
> > population installs.
>
> > If you see percentages for browser penetration, is that from the
> > generic population or from a gamer population? A portal site I was
> > speaking to at GDC a few years ago mentioned that over 90% of their
> > visitors had Shockwave installed, ie active casual gamers. The 30%
> > StatOwl figure reflects a realistic estimate of the generic population
> > ( eg visitors to the bbc, google etc sites ), and not casual gamers (
> > eg visitors to shockwave.com or another gaming portal ). Of course,
> > if your target market is casual gamers... :)
>
> > Mal
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Director Game Developer List" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to dirgame...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to dirgamedevlis...@googlegroups.com.
Mal
> I just released Sherwood Dungeon 2.2 and Shockwave is still doing the job
> for me. Here is some pick up from the release:
Nice work on the 2.2 update! It would be *very* cool to see some tech
info on your diary at http://www.sherwooddungeon.com/diary.html
Mal
Ben Pitt
I often encounter two common misconceptions about Unity which have been brought up in the previous emails, so I thought I'd share my experiences so far relating to these issues. I'm probably going to come off as sounding like a "fanboy", but actually my opinions are based on a few years of solid real-world professional use of both Shockwave and Unity 3d.
____________________________________________
Misconception 1: Unity content is "too advanced" for people who don't have modern fast PCs.
Wrong. Unity does allow you to use complex modern 3d visual effects, but it *also* allows you to use extremely simple shaders (even simpler than those few which Director offers you).
This is one of the two main issues I see when clients are reluctant to use Unity, because there's this misconception that it's only suitable for users with high-end PCs. In fact, it's much easier to build a game which performs well across a range from low to high spec PCs in Unity than it is in Flash. Unity's features are very easily "downgradable", making it possible to produce low-spec-friendly games, while also catering for those who have new fast PCs.
Remember - Unity can publish to the iPhone - a *phone*! - and has been able to for quite a long time now. Many games have been published for even the old 3G model, and therefore Unity has a huge of range abilities in terms of optimising performance - all of which you can also make use of when you're targeting low-end desktop machines too. It's the same engine you're using when publishing to handheld devices as it is for web/standalone desktop, so optimised performance is something that runs through Unity's very core.
In fact, in all the Unity 3D games I've made so far, I've included an adaptive degradation system, which watches the frame rate, and actually switches down automatically through a few levels of quality. This means users of the slowest or oldest PCs actually get a game with with simple shaders, reduced visual effects (which looks similar to old Shockwave 3d games!), and users with faster newer PCs get the best that Unity offers - eg, realtime reflections, glow and bloom, specular/normal/parallax mapping, ambient occlusion, deferred renderring, realtime shadows, depth of field, bokeh, etc... I'll stop there :-)
I have now produced a significant amount of both Unity 3D and Shockwave content, and I haven't seen any evidence at all that shockwave out-performs Unity in real-world like-for-like content.
____________________________________________
Misconception 2: Plug-in penetration percentage matters
Wrong again. Although clients are often still hung up on this, what actually matters is penetration PLUS conversion. Your conversion rate is the percentage of users who arrive at your page without the required plug-in, but then go ahead and install it and experience your content.
If 70% of people who hit your game without the plugin go ahead and install it and play, that's exactly the same as having 70% penetration. And a 70% conversion rate is not unattainable, or even uncommon.
The reason for this is that users who visit a game on a web page are *already* incredibly likely to be predisposed to wanting to play a game. This skews your known demographic so far away from "the average web user" that penetration figures relating to the *entire internet* are next to worthless.
Also, the Unity plugin installs with no unnecessary questions, no ads or payloads (eg, "free virus scan!" "toolbar!"), and without requiring Admin priveliges on Windows. It also auto-updates "inline" once installed - i.e. with no subsequent download of a new exe file which needs to be run manually, and not even a browser restart (all of which just happened with Shockwave when I tried that hockey game!). So once a user makes their initial decision to begin the install, there are very few hurdles before they see the end content. Examples:
IE, Windows: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xD9z0dXzb3c
Firefox, Windows: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g016VO-EOTM
Safari, OSX: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxTpW827B-A
And, with Unity's recent announcement that they are introducing Flash as a build target (utilising molehill, of course), this argument looks to be completely dissolving away.
- Duck
Rasmus Keldorff
Gaz Bushell
Gaz Bushell
Gene Endrody
Gaz Bushell
http://molehill.zombietycoon.com/
gameplay varies on different machines of different performances. ie on my mac I cannot complete level 1 but on the pc its very smooth.
Ben Pitt
BTW, your criticism of the Shockwave plug-in installation process seems more reflective of how it was before the recent changes made to the install process by the Shockwave dev team. Did you really just install the Shockwave plug-in or was that a description of how you remembered it from six months ago?
Also, I sometimes get shockwave update messages in the corner of my screen when I'm not even using my web browser, which doesn't give a good impression!
Which changes have they made recently to the install process?
- Ben
Noisecrime
>
> http://blogs.unity3d.com/2011/02/27/unity-flash-3d-on-the-web/
>
> End of conversation... let's have fun!
Yep, if this pans out its going to be amazing.
Noisecrime 2011
Noisecrime
> http://blogs.unity3d.com/2011/02/27/unity-flash-3d-on-the-web/
>
> End of conversation... let's have fun!
It also gutting to think that Director/SW3D has had over a decade
headstart on Flash and several years over other competitors only to
squander it all.
Noisecrime 2011