From: Pat Gatewood (pat++at++setd-ctl.nawcad.navy.mil)
Date: 12/05/2001 09:50:02
Allan Schaffer writes:
>
> Please evaluate the priority of all graphics APIs:
>
> * Which SGI graphics APIs do you currently use?
>
IrisGl, OpenGl, Performer
> * What SGI hardware do you use for these graphics APIs?
>
O2, Indy, Indigo Impact, Crimson, Onyx 1, Onyx 1 IR, Onyx 2, Octane
> * If not SGI hardware, then what do you use instead?
>
Intel dual processor Pentium 3 and Athelon, PC systems built in our lab.
> * Which SGI graphics API is most important to you in your work?
>
IrisGl, OpenGl, Performer
> * How do you use each SGI graphics API?
>
We use C and C++, primarily in applications written here but also in
some applications written elsewhere. You have seen our main
application. It is a bit like your space-to-face demo but with terrain
and moving models.
> * What versions are you currently working with?
>
Performer 1.2, Performer 2.2, Performer 2.4, Performer 2.5
too many versions of OpenGl to guess.
> * In the evaluation of a graphics API, which of the following factors
> are most important, and why?
>
> Price
> Overall performance
> Optimized performance on SGI hardware
> Support for additional platforms
> Features
>
This is a difficult question. On the SGI hardware we have, price is not
the most important feature but when we start to distribute our
applications to the fleet, the PC performer price will be a critical
question. We have discussed this with SGI enough to be confident that
we can come to some agreement.
Performance is always an important issue.
> * What features are critical for enhancements?
>
It seems that cliptexturing is critical for the application we are
developing for the fleet. That will go onto specially designed linux
boxes. We are trying to get our application to run under the 2.5 beta.
> * For how long have you been developing / using this graphics API?
>
IrisGl: 15 years
OpenGl: 5 years
Performer: 3 years
> * How could we make the product easier to run on SGI hardware?
>
Support for higher precision in Performer and OpenGl would greatly
simplify the problem for applications like ours which covers the whole
earth.
Anything that can be done to make Performer easier to use would be great.
> * Is the current method of distribution effective?
>
Yes.
> * Would you be willing to fill out an in-depth feature survey for any
> of the following APIs: OpenGL Performer, OpenGL Shader, OpenGL
> Volumizer?
>
No.
> * What could we do better?
>
Is this a corporate, hardware, or software question?
I would like to take a course covering Performer in depth. I don't see
any listed in your schedule.
Anything you can do to convincingly project a powerful future in the
industry would be good for SGI. I have heard lots of opinions that SGI
can't survive in the long term with the PC hardware coming along as it
is. While I personally hope this is not true, it is difficult to
convince anyone in my organization that they should consider buying SGI
hardware.
> * General Comments / Questions:
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> List Archives, Info, FAQ: http://www.sgi.com/software/performer/
> Open Development Project: http://oss.sgi.com/projects/performer/
> Submissions: info-performer++at++sgi.com
> Admin. requests: info-performer-request++at++sgi.com
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Dec 05 2001 - 09:49:10 PST