Re: [Opensg-users] From OpenSceneGraph to OpenSG: models and timing

2006-10-29 Thread Dirk Reiners
Hi Bart, Bart Kevelham wrote: > > Well, not a lot of info. Most of the "problems" were related to the > switch between OpenSceneGraph and OpenSG. They have similarities, but > some approaches are different, some names are different, etc. So no > major obstacles or annoyances just yet.

Re: [Opensg-users] Complex Scene

2006-10-29 Thread Dirk Reiners
Hi Dave, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi, > > Within the University of Brighton we have a cluster of 8 machines > driving 24 LCD monitors running OpenSG on Ubuntu. I was looking for a > complex scene to test the performance of the cluster but have been > having trouble finding somethin

Re: [Opensg-users] Demos, tutorials, exmaples: was: Re: RFC: Future of OpenSG plans

2006-10-29 Thread Dirk Reiners
Hi Allen, Allen Bierbaum wrote: > > That makes sense. But I would also say that demos may try to pack more > capabilities into a single application and in many cases provide an > interface for trying out different things. Agreed. Like the ATI demos. > For example, the nvidia demos l

Re: [Opensg-users] Future of OpenSG workflow

2006-10-29 Thread Dirk Reiners
Hi Marcus, Marcus Lindblom wrote: >> The roadmap page has a limit on who can edit it and it doesn't edit as a >> "full" wiki page. We can move it there if we want. I just thought we >> would want to allow everyone to edit the page and contribute ideas and >> that we may need a more

Re: [Opensg-users] OSG_VERSION: invalid octal digit

2006-10-29 Thread Carsten Neumann
Hi Akos, Akos Balazs wrote: > Hi all, > > there's a funny bug in the OSG_VERSION define in the current 1.x CVS: this > is currently defined as 010800 (for 1.8 I suppose) but as it's beginning > with a 0 the compiler assumes that it's an octal number and therefore > can't really have 8

[Opensg-users] OSG_VERSION: invalid octal digit

2006-10-29 Thread Akos Balazs
Hi all, there's a funny bug in the OSG_VERSION define in the current 1.x CVS: this is currently defined as 010800 (for 1.8 I suppose) but as it's beginning with a 0 the compiler assumes that it's an octal number and therefore can't really have 8 as digit... Maybe we should switch the number to