On Dec 16, 2008, at 7:10 PM, Peter Quirk wrote: > Can you elaborate on the porting problems of Ogre to .NET? I see there
i don't know what probs exactly Jeroen was referring to, > is a now a Mogre project to replace OgreDotNet. Are there problems > with Mogre too? but Mogre has existed for quite a long time (at least 2 years, dunno if more) and has worked well for us in game prototyping where have had a .net & windows dependency for another reason. afaik the problem openviewer people had with it was that it's windows only, dunno what stops it from running on Mono if that's really the case. that's why they worked on ogredotnet instead of mogre, before switching away from .net to python-ogre (they use libomv over the python.net bridge which allows you to use .net libs from cpython). the difference is that mogre is managed, whereas ogredotnet is afaik not (but the openviewer guys said that using an unmanaged ogre from c# is not that bad, i don't have personal experience though). > Just interested to know as I haven't done any Ogre programming yet but > was considering doing some in C#. if you're on windows and like c# & .net Mogre is fine for that, the ogre api is nicely exposed there with .net properties etc, using a managed version is pleasant and we've had no stability nor other probs either. funnily enough our used-to-be c# codebase has turned out to be increasinly ironpython during the development once i embedded the interpreter first just for quick addition of a debug console, and the .net dependency is now gone so we'll probably go to python-ogre ourselves. one benefit there is having all the physics libs etc nicely wrapped and at hand. > -- Peter ~Toni > On Dec 16, 9:06 am, "Jeroen van Veen" <j.veen...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Good to hear. That will avoid the current c#-porting problem of the >> ogre-engine(among other libs). >> >> 2008/12/16 Ryan McDougall <sempu...@gmail.com> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 3:48 PM, Jeroen van Veen >>> <j.veen...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> Hi, >> >>>> Could you give some more details about the newly planned viewer? >>>> What i >>>> would like to know is: >>>> * Will the new viewer be based on libomv? >>>> if not: are there plans for a c++ libomv port? >>>> if so: then the new viewer will be written in c#? >> >>>> thanks, >> >>>> Jeroen van Veen >> >>> It is expected that the new viewer will be written in C++ with some >>> python where appropriate. It was decided not to complicate the matter >>> with 3 languages, so no libomv has been decided against. >> >>> We have two alternatives, an existing library in C called >>> funsl/funomv, and writing our own minimal C++ version. >> >>> Cheers,- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ this list: http://groups.google.com/group/realxtend realXtend home page: http://www.realxtend.org/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
