Hi Jason, On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 8:53 PM, Jason Daly <[email protected]> wrote:
> As I said, I was just curious about the history behind it (I guess I'm > feeling nostalgic looking at all this Performer code). Was OSG always this > way, or did it evolve over time? > The OSG development path has typically been evolution, but like evolution it isn't a simple as a single strand nicely laid forward and back in time, rather it's a whole series of paths that are tied together, with possible junctions being followed or not based on either where it looks like the paths might lead, or perhaps just what path look better for that particular day from a very local perspective. Take the wrong path and you eventually find out and need to back track, or divert yourself back on to what looks like a better path. In the case of Euler angles the OSG has never had them, and din't need to as we got a quaternoin class pretty early on. This mean when it came to junctions where Euler angles were discussed we already had a solution that was more robust so it was easy to decide on the day that adding speicifc Euler angle code would not really help the overall quality of the project. Robert.
_______________________________________________ osg-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
