I guess I understand why people do it, but I would rather that OSG kept the limited scope of being a scene graph, that is with the features just of doing 3d rendering. I think a more limited scope makes it more useful as a drop in component of a game engine.
physics and audio, while they are necessary in a game or simulation engine, they are not rendered, and I don't think they belong in a scene graph. In delta3d, we have, and are more and more trying to separate things such as drawing, physics, and audio from simulated objects (actors) so that actors can be composed of these features via componentization and messaging. We would eventually even like delta3d to have the ability to use different renderers. As technologies like raytracing become more prevalent, the scene graph may have change a fair bit, but that shouldn't affect the audio and physics systems. Originally we had wanted to work with Robert more closely to make delta3d have game engine features, and osg have the rendering features, but things didn't evolve that way. Either way, this is not a discussion for the osgPhysics list. I'm making dtPhysics, which appears to have nearly exactly the same goals as you have except that we intend to integrate with delta3d its component system. I email back and forth with Adrian Boeing a fair bit, and I have commit access to PAL, as I said before, so we would discuss the features and direction of PAL, as we see it. Perhaps PAL needs a mailing list, or maybe we need to do something more like a telecon to discuss things. I don't know where in the world you are. I'm on the east coast of the US. Adrian is, I think, in Australia. So, I'm not sure how practical that is. ------------------ Read this topic online here: http://osgforum.tevs.eu/viewtopic.php?p=4619#4619 _______________________________________________ osg-users mailing list osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
