[osg-users] Setting up VPBMaster
robert.osfield at gmail.com
Wed Nov 4 05:48:33 PST 2009
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.
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Jacob Armstrong <jacob88 at hotmail.com> 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: robert.osfield at gmail.com
>> To: osg-users at lists.openscenegraph.org
>> Subject: Re: [osg-users] Setting up VPBMaster
>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Chris 'Xenon' Hanson
>> <xenon at alphapixel.com> 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.
>> osg-users mailing list
>> osg-users at lists.openscenegraph.org
> Bing brings you maps, menus, and reviews organized in one place. Try it now.
> osg-users mailing list
> osg-users at lists.openscenegraph.org
More information about the osg-users