Hi All,
next round on the main thread.
On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 11:14 +0200, Marcus Roth wrote:
>
> Many people are starting there OpenSG projects by extending our tutorial
> applications. As a consequence they are using the SimpleSceneManager or
> SimpleMatierial. This is fine to get a running application in a short
> time. Unfortunately small applications tend to grow. And with the simple
> mechanisms we hide a lot of our key features like Window, Viewport,
> Camera, Beacons, Lights, Navigation and Picking. And if someone started
> with the simple code, in a short time they came to a point where the
> simple code is more pain than helpful. E.g. “do rendering to a tiled
> display” or “using complex materials” or “rendering in multiple
> viewports”. I think it would be very helpful to have a well documented
> example application that do not hide functionality with Simple-classes.
Let's split it.
SimpleSceneManager: I don't see a way around something like it. Without
it the shortest possible OpenSG problem gets ridiculously long, which is
very deterring for new users. But I agree, we should have an example
that shows how to do things without it. If possible it should use the
same callback structure, so it's easy to move stuff from one to the
other.
SimpleMaterials: I'm personally not a big fan of the ChunkMaterial. It
is fine for people with OpenGL background, but conceptually higher-level
Materials should be used. Therefore I don't mind people using the
SimpleMaterial, but adding chunks to it is something I'm not too excited
about. More complex Materials should be Material classes and not be
pieced together using ChunkMaterials.
> There are always features that some users like to see in OpenSG of which
> the core thinks they should not be part of the scene graph. Why not
> starting some daughter projects on Sourceforge. For example an editor or
> application framework bases on OpenSG and Qt or a simulation framework for
> particles, physics and collision detection. Most of the core team members
> are using OpenSG as a pure rendering backend. Navigation, manipulation and
> all kind of interaction is done completely without OpenSG. So you can’t
> expect them to provide features that they are not using. Other people who
> are interested in this functionality should start there own projects on
> sourceforge. I’m sure the core team is willing to support them for example
> with an integrated make system. For example we could setup an example
> project.
I'm totally behind that. If anybody wants to start some spinoff or
add-on project: let us know what you need, we'll support you as much as
we can.
> And a personal statement :-)
>
> OpenSG is a very good scene graph system. Andreas for example showed that
> it is possible to write commercial applications (www.vred.org) that can
> easily compete with other products. We have 270 users on our mailing list
> and 16 developers with cvs write access. A lot of our students where able
> to do nice projects based on OpenSG even with the current state of
> documentation. With 2.0 we will be able to use OpenSG on a Cave and on
> portable devices. Don’t be worried about the future of OpenSG.
>
> Don’t argue on missing documentation and features but try to contribute!!!!
Amen, brother! (I've been in the south too long already! ;)
On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 08:00 -0500, Allen Bierbaum wrote:
>
> The big argument I see for having an "examples" directory is that the code
> is then not hidden in the source tree when a new user downloads and uses
> OpenSG. Instead they can see "here is a directory of examples that I can
> look at". That is one thing that is very impressive about OpenSceneGraph
> when you first download it, there are a ton of examples sitting in a
> directory for you to use. OpenSG has just as many "test" examples, but
> people don't see them.
>
> I know it may be a little annoying to existing developers, but I think a
> separate example directory would help out users and help with promoting
> OpenSG.
>
> Anyone care to agree or disagree with me? :)
I see your argument. But I don't like it very much, as it heightens the
cost for writing examples. By a tiny bit, admitted. I guess I could live
with it.
On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 15:07 +0200, jan p. springer wrote:
>
> so i also agree with dirk that some "install magic" could gather the
> examples into a final location of its own.
Yeah, but Allen argues that people who just download the source won't
find them. There's not much we can do about that, except have them in a
common dir to begin with.
On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 17:33 +0200, Marcus Lindblom wrote:
>
> I agree.
>
> But since Dirk mentioned extracting those automatically, couldn't the
> dists just extract all examples from the source-tree? (just thinking out
> loud)
Dists yes, no problem. I'm just not sure if that's enough, as it omits
people that go for the svn. I don't know many those arwe. I know that
for me going to the cvs/svn is a last resort, I download dists if
possible.
I don't know if I agree with Allen about the normal user going for .tgz
instead of .rpm. Even old geezer me prefers rpms these days...
Dirk
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier
Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
Opensg-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensg-users
