HI Sukender.
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 11:18 AM, Sukender <suky0...@free.fr> wrote:
> You're absolutely right about the fact that OSG isn't a game engine. I
> personnaly think OSG should be considered as a good layer to create a game
> engine on. That explains what I said about "quick and dirty":
> 1. People code "quick and dirty" things in games (as often).
> 2. Some of this code is refactored to be included in the game engine
> (beceause general purpose enough for one or two games).
> 3. Some of this refactored code can be re-refactored to be included in OSG
> (beceause general purpose enough for OSG community, in the case OSG is a
> layer under a game engine).
> The code can thus "get down and be filtered to OSG", as rain is filtered in
> soil and finaly is cristal-clear and pure groundwater.
> After all, that's the same with any other software. :)
> I hope I'm a bit clearer.
Yep that's clearer. This is kinda what happens right now. People
code things themselves, see an opportunity for sharing the work and
propose it, it then gets evalutated/rejected/revised/worked-on
somemore/refactored or directly integrated in the core OSG.
> About the "fear of OSG", I saw multiple things (mainly in face to face
> meetings):
> - Some fear "too complex" code ("Pointers? Oh my god!") and are still coding
> the 1980's way. Nobody can do anything for them... except C++ training.
> - Some don't even know what is a scene graph.
> - Some don't see how they could use a scene graph in their game engine.
> - Some are sure of their technical superiority. They affirm their "home made"
> engine is far better suited than any other, and that building an engine on
> top of an existing code is a mistake (whereas they often simply do a XYZ-like
> game).
> - Some simply haven't got the time to create anything "low level" (= not
> gameplay code) and will simply buy licences of famous game engines. This
> behaviour is certainly pragmatic and well suited for some projects, IMHO.
> - And finally I saw some that fear that *any* open source software will also
> "open source" their code. They generally don't understand how business is
> posible with open source. I even heard things like "utopia", "anarchists" and
> "communism"... Consternating.
I do recognise a few of things attitudes. My hope that as time has
passed engineers will have gotten more used to open source, and less
obsessed by inventing every little detail themselves. In the early
days of OSG dev I saw far more resistance/disbelief of open source
being viable, it was seen as nutty, a parsing fad. In the proprietary
scene graph world the OSG was derided by it's competitors, but in the
end it was practically the only one left standing. These days it's
pretty rare that I have to convince engineers about open source these
days.
Understanding about scene graphs is something that needs articles
about scene graphs and users of scene graph and examples that are
relevant to people. There certainly lots left to do in getting the
word out about scene graphs.
> Hum... I'm sorry, but I don't understand. Do you mean create separate
> binaries archives/installers, like "Core OSG", "Standard plugins", etc.?
> Anyway, I'll wait for CPack results...
The packaging granularity discussion I started up a week or so ago.
The CPack work (now checked into svn/trunk) of Mattias is very much
the software answer to this problem.
Robert.
_______________________________________________
osg-users mailing list
osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org
http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
