Just grabbed all your branches from Github and included them in a test project I created in FlashBuilder.  All runs fine, but if I run any of the files from the ‘awayphysics-examples-fp11’ collection, I get this dreaded message,
http://i.imgur.com/A0pJR.jpg

I’ve searched here and on Google, with Away3D included, for this message, but nothing relevant came up, so I’m sorry if this is already a known issue.  Is this just something I’ve just got to accept if I want to use Away3D and AwayPhysics?

You are using the awayphysics. Adobe is coming with a new license model that if you use some functions of the flashplayer you have to get a license and pay money if you make more than 50k

I know about the licensing stuff, I was just surprised that that’s the only option you now have.  I’m sure that’s going to put a lot of people (100% me, anyway) off.  I’ve just switched to jiglibflash which plays very nicely with Away3D and is a 100% ported to Actionscript instead of the Alchemy approach.

Are there any plans to potentially have a flag, or such like, to turn Alchemy off and have it be AS only?  It’s a terrible shame what Adobe have done, considering the amount of work people put into getting great libraries into Flash, and then exciting everyone with the Stage3D stuff, only to then hammer them with a new model that kinda spoils the whole thing for a lot of people.

I love the work that’s been done here with Away3D and AwayPhysics looks brilliant too (never mind the work to pair up with Starling as well), it’s all amazing, but while there’s other options, I definitely won’t be using anything that causes that message to pop up.

you see this message because you use debug player
licence is for more bigger money game

You are very free, and encouraged, to use JigLib if the licensing model is not something you can work within. We can’t do anything about it, and as of yet we have no plans to create a AS3-only port of AwayPhysics, which would be a huge task.

Please do not blow the licensing model out of proportions though. It only applies to Flash Player (not AIR for mobile, for example), and the revenue sharing model only applies to money you make directly by selling your application/game. If you for example are contracted by an advertising agency to create a micro-site, the money you get paid by your client does not count towards the revenue sharing threshold.

So, the only scenario where you would have to share 9% of your revenue above 50k USD is if you build a game (or any other application) that will be running in the browser, and that users will have to pay to use.

And even if your game/app does meet those criteria, it’s only 9% over 50k. So if you make 60k USD, you’re paying 9% of 10k.

I too think it’s a pity that this licensing model has been introduced. It’s a minor hassle to deal with the license that wasn’t there before, and that is of course very annoying. But it’s not nearly as bad as some people want to make it sound like. Very few producers of Flash-based content will be subject to the licensing model, and of those only a few will actually need to pay anything (because many won’t make 50k.)

Ah no, I totally get your point Richard and overall, with the potential I saw with the Alchemy stuff, when I read about their new model, I really did think that once again, Adobe shot themselves in the foot.

I’m not blowing the stuff out of the water, but if you are actually a game developer, for a company, then that company will generally never be prepared to go with the option that will take a significant proportion of their profit if the game is a success, especially if there’s another option (fyi, that’s exactly my situation, hence why I bring it up ).  This is exactly why I asked the question, because for me, as soon as I see that watermark, I know that I’ll either have to dodge the packet that has the 3D (which isn’t an option), or the packet that references ApplicationDomain.domainMemory, which obviously means I’ll have to ditch AwayPhysics, which is something I don’t *want* to do.

And I absolutely know how big a task it is to create an AS only version of the physics library, I’ve been part of that process myself for one of our games.  Ah well, I thought this was probably going to be the reply, but seeing as how I hadn’t seen anyone else ask the question, I thought it was worth the thread.

So then, while we’re at it   If JigLib is encouraged, are any others recommended too?  Basically any of the AS Physics Libraries that play nice with Away3D, potentially Starling and don’t dip into the Alchemy / domainMemory space, other than JigLib, that is?

I’m not sure what your question is. JigLib is probably the best physics library if you can’t use domainMemory. Starling is a 2D rendering engine. If you want 2D physics I would probably use Box2D, not because I have a lot of experience with other physics engines but because it has been proven to work in a lot of applications.

JigLib is a great engine but you can quickly get on his knees.
box2d is build with alchemy and c++ is very fast we have also APE but is the same c++ now

Hey Richard, my question now is Alchemy/domainMemory-less, what’s the best 3D Physics engine for flash that plays nice with Away3D and potentially (but not necessarily) a game engine like Starling?

JigLib for 3D physics. I’m not sure about 2D physics, if there isn’t an AS3 port of Box2D.

Note that Starling is definitely not a game engine, just like Away3D is not a game engine. They are both rendering engines, for 2D and 3D respectively. You’ll have to build your own game engine (or use something like PushButton or Smash Engine.

box2d is on as3 but use some c++ to speed up engine like APE

Yes, and has been covered several times in this thread, the OP does not want to use anything that requires Alchemy, thus ruling out (that particular version of) Box2D.

Thanks guys, I’m just starting to dip my toe into this section of AS3 stuff and wanted to be sure of my options.  From what I’ve seen of JigLib, I’m more than happy with it right now and all the ideas I have at the moment are simple enough that I know won’t be stressing a Physics Engine out, so it should be all good.

The WCK guys I think did an AS3 only port of Box2D which I played around with a good while ago.

As for Starling not being a game engine, their homepage is a bit misleading then,
http://gamua.com/starling/

The Starling Framework
The Open Source Game Engine for Flash

Whoa!? They market Starling as a game engine? Unless I’ve missed something, Starling contains no game features. It just contains rendering features (and to be fair, some small animation features). Compare that with the list of features on Wikipedia that I personally at least think is much more reasonable for an actual game engine.

I haven’t delved deep enough into what they do, or don’t have (that’s step two ), but yeah, that’s what they say alright.

I’d say in a few weeks, I’ll be back to this thread and to totally agree with you and also criticise them for marketing themselves as a game engine, but I’ll try ‘em out first.

how can i hide this message? “content uses capabilities ...” ???
am i allowed to hide, when not earning 50k?