I'll jump in here, as I think Chris is busy (and doing things that involve my yearly review, which I'd prefer he keep working on! ;)
So I also don't know a lot about the ability to tie services together across AG machines, but I think I understand the basic functionality. In my understanding, the only difference between what AG allows and simply putting two computers in the venue is that with the AG, you're more clearly representing that the machines belong to only one logical "participant" or room. CXP will happily allow you to just setup two computers and put them each in the venue, both with a set of cameras attached, etc. However, there are no provisions for tying the two logically together, and we won't make the experience any easier or harder for you. For Derek, you can easily override the identity of the participant by one of two methods: * From the commandline/shortcut - e.g. "cxpclient.exe -e cli...@ms.com" * By adding this entry in the CXPClient.exe.config file, <add key="MSR.LST.ConferenceXP.Identity.Identifieroverride" value="another email address"/> I think that by just running the client separately on both machines & doing the Identifier Override as necessary will give a very similar experience to the way the AG makes the two machines "appear as one". Perhaps the only odd thing is that you'll see both/all machines in the venue, but you can make more clear by just setting the profile name field to be similar, such as "Argonne, Room 112, #1" and "Argonne, Room 112, #2". Please correct me if I'm wrong about the AG functionality. I'm not an experienced AG user. Thanks, Patrick -----Original Message----- From: owner-ag-t...@mcs.anl.gov [mailto:owner-ag-t...@mcs.anl.gov] On Behalf Of Todd Zimmerman Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 10:25 AM To: Chris Moffatt Cc: ag-t...@mcs.anl.gov Subject: Re: [AG-TECH] Conference XP vs AG Hi Chris, In our case, this capability is very important for a couple of reasons. First is the basic reason that has been described already - spreading the load. Our theatre node drives 4 displays and has three captures. While I may be able to pull that off with one machine, why would I do that when I can easily split the tasks to two machines? This frees up the display machine to possibly do other tasks also (running remote visualization software etc) without getting bogged down. Secondly, I think you are correct that currently the main purpose is the ability to 'tie a/v devices across multiple machines'; however, the nice part about the servicemanager/services infrastructure is that it is completely extensible. It doesn't have to be about typical a/v at all. Instead of having an audioservice or a videoservice, imagine having a 3D visualization service - which may require the control of a specialized display or a specialized set of devices etc. With this infrastructure, we are capable of building our own specific services that are controlled easily and centrally. Just my $0.02... (Actually, that's Canadian dollars too, so its probably only worth about a $0.015 to you... ;-) ) Todd -- Collaboration & Visualization Technician WestGrid - www.westgrid.ca IRMACS - www.irmacs.com Ph. 604.268.6979 Todd Zimmerman - to...@sfu.ca
