I did fix winrview as well as I could back then. It has a more
complete and smoothely working user interface than the NREL winrvu.
All that provided someone gets it to work with the current Radiance
release, of course.
As far as I am aware, there is no other standalone image viewer
available on Windows. Winimage will require some fixing though, my old
binaries seem to have trouble recognizing the magic scanline header
in the files. But I'm pretty sure that DR used to include a working
version, so that shouldn't be too hard.
Both have a native Windows-GUI, which can be seen as an advantage (no
thirdparty libraries required) or a disadvantage (not portable to other
systems).
Both of them could either find a new life as working programs in the
distribution, or later be scrapped again after all the useful parts have
been scavenged for reuse in other solutions. And don't worry, nobody
will be blaming you for either possible outcome... ;)
For the moment the repository would just be the most convenient place
for interested developers to access and fix the sources.
-schorsch
Am 2016-03-15 14:36, schrieb Gregory J. Ward:
Hi Georg,
I vaguely remember winrview as being somewhat buggy. Did you fix it
up? Does it offer advantages to Windows users over the current
qt-based interface? Similarly, is the winimage program superior to
what Windows folks are using now?
I don't want to welcome back something that's going to be more trouble
than it's worth, now that I've been told *we* developed it....
Cheers,
-Greg
From: Georg Mischler <[email protected]>
Subject: [Radiance-dev] Winrview and Winimage sources
Date: March 15, 2016 3:55:10 AM PDT
Am 2016-03-15 03:40, schrieb Gregory J. Ward:
The sources to both winrview and winimage are sitting here on my
disk. I don't think the DR team changed anything relevant after
my fixes.
Unfortunately, my old contract with LBNL does not cover
redistribution in source form. To make this possible, we'd need
some statement from them that those programs can be considered a
part of the normal Radiance distribution and fall under the
"Radiance open source license".
@Greg, are you entitled to make such a statement?
I think so. I'm generally the gatekeeper to the Radiance source
tree,
and can "welcome" new code that is offered. Since LBNL contracted
you
to develop it in the first place from what you say, this should not
present a problem.
Actually, it was developed by LBNL (or by other contractors for LBNL),
and licensed to me as part of "the computer program(s) described in
attached exhibit A and known as Radiance (LBNL reference number
CR-1266/1387/1667/1668/1669)".
But that only reinforces your point, so I'll go with your statement.
That brings us to the practical questions.
Should I just commit two new subdirectories to CVS?
But that would probably be the most "official" solution.
It's not production code at the moment, and most certainly won't even
compile with the current version of Radiance. I'd rather treat it as
a kind of rock quarry of concepts and ideas to use when doing it
right.
It won't interact with any of the build systems though, and maybe it
doesn't need to be included in the nightly HEAD downloads either.
-schorsch
PS: Darn, just started snowing again here...
_______________________________________________
Radiance-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.radiance-online.org/mailman/listinfo/radiance-dev
--
Georg Mischler -- simulations developer -- schorsch at schorsch com
+schorsch.com+ -- lighting design tools -- http://www.schorsch.com/
_______________________________________________
Radiance-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.radiance-online.org/mailman/listinfo/radiance-dev
