site_archiver@lists.apple.com Delivered-To: pro-apps-dev@lists.apple.com Hey Team. End of rant. Thanks. m _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Pro-apps-dev mailing list (Pro-apps-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/pro-apps-dev/site_archiver%40lists.ap... It looks like FxGenerators don't have access to the 3D API -- is this correct? The following has been our experience with Generators (vs. Plug-ins): We have several plug-ins that work more appropriately as Generators, but we keep having to back off from creating Generators because the feature sets for Generators aren't the same as for Plug-ins -- and they should be (from this developer's point of view). We think of Generators as Plug-ins without the need for an input layer. We need all of the features that plug-ins have to offer -- parameter interaction (we had to wait for that to work properly), preview Movies (which still aren't supported, from what I can tell), 3D API's, etc. In the past (and seemingly here as well), the feature set of Generators have taken some time to catch up to Plug-ins. This causes a perpetual cycle of "can't create a Generator because we need the new Plug-in feature." Maybe there aren't a lot of Generator developers out there, but all of our FxPlugs are Generators at heart -- and we hate telling the user to create a dummy layer just to use our Plug-in. This email sent to site_archiver@lists.apple.com