did you actually read the blog? check my link above.
Of course I read it:
Omegadog, Have you run these same tests on a regular P4 2.2/2.6 with 1 9600GT or something near these specs ?
This comes before the post you mentioned. It was only then that he began simulating a lazier PC. He had already raved about the 40fps. And even afterwards he probably went back to his normal set-up.
Also, I don't care how few cores he simulated. He has hardly any entities on screen, only one animated character, it's really the graphics that're the main point to impress here.
At the moment I have exams, but next week I will try and see how much I can squeeze out of A7. That's not relevant, though.
For one thing: it says a lot about that guy's expectations when he began raving about how it should kill other engines when he only had one fortress and the terrain.
It is good performance, really, but it's not amazing.
That does involve 'comparing' 3DGS with other engines.
Yes, but obviously the argument had descended into "I've seen 3DGS do this -- Well I haven't -- Well I have" without talking about Torque 3D.
We're enjoying having a look and talk about features like soft-particles and all that, and then you come back and try to turn the thread back onto what you think A7
can't do.
Jibb
EDIT: Btw, my attitude doesn't come across very nicely in this post, I know. In real life I enjoy a good argument, and I'll do it light-heartedly and with a smile, but that doesn't translate to text very well (if I put in smileys but don't change the wording it'll probably look patronising). Sorry for that, that's something I'm working on when I'm online.
