Things that attracted me to osg:
-Word of mouth. I work for a large coorporation on GIS apps and people noticed that a similar app built on osg outpreformed ours. You have a great set of libraries and their performance speaks for themselves.
-Active community. I have been subscribed to this mailing list for a while and it is great to see all the activity. I am also on a few competitors' mailing lists and they aren't nearly as active. To me less activity == less enthusiasm == worse product. Developers usually don't get fired up about tools that aren't good.
-Friendly community. Robert and others are great diplomats for osg. I don't see people getting flamed for asking newbie questions. I instantly steer clear of projects with a bad mailing list vibe.
-Windowing system agnostic / xplatform. Developers like to use their favorite tools on their favorite system.
Obstacles to my adoption:
-Another enthusiastic vote for a book.
-More extensive QT support. I think that QT is the best windowing toolkit out there. It is so easy to learn and I spend much less time programming gui's. It is xplatform, it works for open or closed source projects, it works on multiple dev enviroments etc etc. But most of all it has a very active enthusiastic community many of whom are working on graphics projects and looking for a scene graph. (Lots of osg misinformation on their mailing list.) The trolltech devs could even do some of the work for you the same way they have done w/ mysql plugins etc. Talk to the trolltech devs, they're usually very responsive. In their latest release they are including a light 2-d scene graph. They will eventually want a 3-d one as well but there is no reason to build it if they can just join w/ you. Posting a (more complex than the current example) QT osg app on their site (and this one) will show people that the two do play well together. Qmake can also take care of lots of IDE woes.
my .02,
-Willy
On 9/20/06, Robert Osfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Chris,On 9/20/06, Chris Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Robert Osfield wrote:
> Further to the integration story is that awkwardness of getting
> different types of viewers setup in the multitude of windowing libraries
> that exist today. Making it easier to build 3d viewers into your
> existing or new apps is something that I feel strongly about. This what
> the osgViewer library I've previously talked about is really about.
This is possibly the only item of the ones listed that I would be useful with. I've
been trying to modularize some of the osgviewer code so that more bits of it are publicly
accessible from applications built one osgviewer. I plan to continue this, and at some
point perhaps there will be guidance on how to make osgviewer more of a proper library.
This fits well with what my company's application requires so I'm easily able to
justify contributing to it.I would like to replace osgProducer::Viewer and osgGA with a set of classes that are more flexible and easier to integrate with other windowing libraries. The osgViewer::Viewer class would be need to do all the osgProducer::Viewer can do, but also encompass a much wider range of usage styles - such as multiple independent windows, multiple scenes, as well as multiple depdent and indepdent cameras that share these resources. The osgGA event system would also be part of this revamp.
Help in development of an osgViewer library would be great, but I'd need to get some basic code out before first. osgProducer::Viewer itself could be made more flexible, but there are real limits to its design and doesn't do the OSG or Producer real justice, so I'm inclined to not to continue too hard flogging this old horse.
Robert.
_______________________________________________
osg-users mailing list
osg[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://openscenegraph.net/mailman/listinfo/ osg-users
http://www.openscenegraph.org/
_______________________________________________ osg-users mailing list [email protected] http://openscenegraph.net/mailman/listinfo/osg-users http://www.openscenegraph.org/
