[wowamit]

> I haven't tried complex coding tasks using Gemini 3.0 Pro Preview yet. I reckon it won't be materially different.

In my limited testing, I found that Gemini 3 Pro struggles with even simple coding tasks. Sure, I haven't tested complex scenarios yet and have only done so via Antigravity. But it is very difficult to do that with the limited quota it provides. Impressions here - https://dev.amitgawande.com/2025/antigravity-problem

[tyho]

Are we using different models? Here is a simulation of Chernobyl reactor 4 using research grade numerical modeling I made with it in a few days: https://rbmk-1000-simulator-162899759362.us-west1.run.app/

[wowamit]

That's impressive. Well, I was using the default Gemini 3 Pro. Based on my experience, I am surprised you did not hit the quota limit.

[terrywang]

Thanks for sharing, insightful.

Personally, I consider Antigravity was a positive & ambitious launch. Initial impression was that there are many rough edges to be smoothed out. I hit many errors like 1. communicating with Gemini (Model-as-a-Service) 2. Agent execution terminated due to errors, etc., but somehow it completed the task (verification/review UX is bad).

Pricing for paid plans with AI Pro or Workspace would be key for its adoption, when Gemini 3.x and Antigravity IDE are ready for serious work.

[wowamit]

Interesting. I did not face many issues while communicating with Gemini. But I believe these issues will iron themselves out -- Google does feel to have rushed the launch.