Re: Java2D versus Java3D

> Hi Maohai,
> 
> From some of your questions, I gather that you are using
> Java2D (DisplayImplJ2D) rather than Java3D (DisplayImplJ3D).
> 

Bill, that is correct. 

> I recommend Java3D, even for purely 2-D graphics. 

First a very basic question, is it possible to use Java3D
but not have the effect of 3D? that is to say, to make
the display flat just like the 2D, with a simple square
box with every thing projected on the X-Y plane
without foreshortening or the scales and their labels
all drawn with an angle w.r.t the XY plane.

I can't find a simple "switch" (something
like "GraphicsModeControlJ3D.setMode2D(true)" )
nor could I find any answer in the archive perhaps due to
not having the right key words.

People looking for a 2D graph just want something flat.

> It has
> better performance for user interactions, including 2-D
> panning and zooming. Much better in some cases. Furthermore,
> Java3D's texture mapping provides a reasonable way to render
> images remapped to non-rectangles, where Java2D does not
> (DisplayImplJ2D emulates texture mapping as lots of little
> triangles, with miserable performance).
> 
> Good 3-D graphics are becoming so cheap and ubiquitous
> that there is really no reason not to use them, even for
> 2-D graphics. This is especially true for projects like
> yours aimed at 2007 and beyond.
> 

I will keep this in mind. So far my priorities are this in 
descending order:
1) 2D x-y line plots
2) 2D contour plot of maps
3) 3D rendation of a 2D map
4) data of a function in 3D domain.


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com