I'm not sure what's more amusing, that so few people have any real 2D programming experience, or that languages like PB / DB etc inevitably help further create this situation.
Van,
Quote: "UW's demo may well have been tested in DBPro as well, but I think it's fair to say already without those tests that PlayBasic is faster and better for 2D than DBPro. "
Yep, there have been classic and pro versions (flat shaded) of the UW3D demo. The classic version was the original, but I've never been able to get it working in pro. Although, I haven't tried for quite some time now. At least a year i'd say.
In terms of performance, pro would certainly handle the geometry a lot better atm. While the majority of the rendering is via built in features in PB now though. Effectively their limited to video memory bandwidth, even so It's fairly safe to say the renders in PB would be quicker than native pro code could replicate, but ya never know !.
Anyway, I'd say that native pro version _would_ be quicker on the whole atm, as the geometry is quite a bottleneck for PB. That won't be the case post PB1.09 though..
Kevin Picone
[url]www.underwaredesign.com[/url]
Play Nice!
Play Basic (Release V1.073 Out Now)