Martin Spott writes: > Has this project already be mentioned on this list ? Unfortunately it > appears to compile with certain compilers only: > > http://www.opensg.org/
I can't say if it's been mentioned here or not, but I'm aware of it. If people are starting new projects from scratch it definitely bears consideration, plib is not the only game in town. Here's what I hear through the grape vine. In terms of fancy new whiz-bang cool features, OSG tends to try to track and support them quickly. However, they suffer from an API that changes quite often or without warning, making it harder or more work to support a longer term application that uses OSG. I've heard that their file readers and writers are on par (for good or for bad) with Plib's. This project started out as an sgi performer clone, so it matches performer bloat for bloat and complexity for complexity. It also suffers from a severe lack of documentation. Plib/ssg has a much more stable api, but also develops new features more slowly. It doesn't support a lot of the latest/greatest card tricks, but it does have call backs and the ability to derive new classes, so a motivated person can accomplish the same things if they want to dig in and figure the details out themselves. Plib/ssg is very well documented, especially compared to the average open source project. Plib/ssg is lean, mean, and fast. FlightGear is still commited to plib/ssg, and knowing what I know, I'd probably stick with plib/ssg even if there was no cost in switching to something else. However, people starting new projects should take a good look at OSG as well as plib, OSG just might offer exactly what you need. Regards, Curt. -- Curtis Olson IVLab / HumanFIRST Program FlightGear Project Twin Cities [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Minnesota http://www.menet.umn.edu/~curt http://www.flightgear.org _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
