I do: by indulging in an argument about the capabilities of THIS engine in a thread about another engine.

First: even though the guy who made the 167k or whatever terrain example said he'd like to see it kill other engines, it actually wouldn't. It's really not a big deal. And on his dual-graphics card PC (which is not absolute latest-gen but more than enough for any modern game [I'd say even Crysis on full settings, given I have ONE of those graphics cards and handle full-Crysis beautifully]) he raved about getting up to 40 fps AFTER adding LoD. 60 fps as a general rule is ideal for an actual release game (though in the PC world you obviously can't account for everyone's different specs).

So no, performance-wise, not amazing. Not something that will kill A7. The shadows are nice, the graphics are nice. Nice that they're built-in. Nice that they're easy to use. You complain about A7's lack of non-programmer features and art pipeline, fine (as long as you're in the appropriate thread for it), but don't complain about the engine itself, it's capabilities, and it's performance, because A7 is really good in those regards.

I do like the soft-particles example for Torque 3D. If I used that engine, that would probably be what I'd most be looking forward to -- even most current-gen games on PS3 or XBox 360 still suffer from edgy particles that lose the illusion of volume when they interact with other surfaces, but these look really awesome.

Jibb