Robert,
I couldn't agree with you more. If we came up with this design in the past couple months, we certainly would have used the latest version, with VPBMaster and we probably wouldn't be having any problems. We're kind of victims of circumstance here, especially me since I knew nothing about any of this until 5 weeks ago, and this process has been "in place" for 2 years. We're trying to reach a deadline with a fixed amount of money, so my hands are tied by management, and theirs may be tied by the customer - I guess I'll find out real soon. If we do use this process in the future, I will make sure we upgrade our OSG version and get approval for verification testing with our process before agreeing to any set schedule. I completely understand that there's no support for 1.2 at this point, and I definitely appreciate what support has been given to me regardless of that fact! I'm sure I'll be in contact with the OSG community in the future, but hopefully with a more sturdy footing. :) Thanks again, Jake > Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 13:48:33 +0000 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [osg-users] Setting up VPBMaster > > Hi Jacob, > > I can't help too much with management decisions, but I would suggest > that OSG-1.2 is less mature, less robust, less supportable and would > not recommend that any new projects adopt it as a base - OSG-2.8.x is > far more mature, debugged and far better supported, not to mention far > better feature set. I would consider using OSG-1.2 over OSG-2.8 a > project liability, and one that you may well have to carry for a long > time going forward. > > I would further add that OSG-1.2 is no longer supported by myself or > members of the community. I haven't personally been anywhere near the > OSG-1.2 for several years. I like most of the OSG community are > working on the OSG-2.x branch now. If you want to use OSG-1.2 then > you are pretty well on your own w.r.t support/bug fixes. > > Moving from OSG-1.2 to OSG-2.x should be straight forward and will > reduce your project risks now and going forward. > > Robert. > > On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Jacob Armstrong <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks again to everyone for their help with these questions. I've got a > > much better understanding of what's going on based on your feedback and > > information that was just presented to me yesterday by management. It turns > > out that the process I'm trying to implement now was designed over 2 years > > ago (right about when we were supposed to be receiving the OpenFlight data > > from our customer). The design was based on OSG-1.2, and VPBMaster wasn't > > even a twinkle in OSG's eye, if you will. By the time we received the > > OpenFlight data (June of this year), the engineer-in-charge of the process > > picked his design back up and began modifying his conversion tool to match > > some unexpected input from the data. Part of this re-design was accounting a > > 1000 x 1000 km DB, when we were expecting it to be 500 x 500 km. > > Unfortunately, he didn't foresee the issues we're having with Process Time > > and Data Storage back then. Now we're paying for it with program dollars, > > and I'm paying for it with a few gray hairs. I think it's obvious that > > VBPMaster is the tool for this job, but I don't think it's likely that I > > will get approvable to upgrade our version of OSG, get VPBMaster, and then > > "test" our process using these new tools. It's just too "risky" of a move > > this late in the game. I'm presenting these issues to management today, and > > I believe they will make the decision to lower the resolution over the > > entire database and re-run the process. I guess I just work for an > > old-school-minded company that's afraid of drastic or sudden change :). > > Anyway, thanks again to everyone for your input! It's greatly appreciated! > > > > > > > > > >> Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 09:11:52 +0000 > >> From: [email protected] > >> To: [email protected] > >> Subject: Re: [osg-users] Setting up VPBMaster > >> > >> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Chris 'Xenon' Hanson > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > Well, I don't know that the "development team for OpenSceneGraph" is a > >> > clearly defined > >> > set. By volume, Robert is the author of the vast majority of the OSG > >> > source code, but > >> > there's a long list of other contributors as well. > >> > >> I'm not quite as prolific as Chris makes out ;-) I'm the lead author > >> of the of the core libosg, libosgUtil, osgDB, osgViewer and a few of > >> the NodeKits, but far this is far from the majority of the OSG source > >> code, the majority of the OSG code base is actually found in the > >> plugins which are predominantly work of the community and this is no > >> small feat. At last count we had 390 contributors, guess we might > >> even get to the big 400 contributors, before with hit 3.0. > >> > >> Robert. > >> _______________________________________________ > >> osg-users mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org > > > > ________________________________ > > Bing brings you maps, menus, and reviews organized in one place. Try it now. > > _______________________________________________ > > osg-users mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org > > > > > _______________________________________________ > osg-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft's powerful SPAM protection. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141664/direct/01/ http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/177141664/direct/01/
_______________________________________________ osg-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
