RE: The future of Performer

New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

Joseph R. Spann (jspann++at++gdesystems.com)
Tue, 23 Jun 1998 15:56:18 -0700


> > With Michael Jones departure it's not clear to me how committed
> > the "new" SGI is to Performer. Who all has left the
> Performer team and
> > are they being replaced?
>
> The notion that Michael Jones was the source of SGIs commitment
> to Visual Simulation is ridiculous.

I certainly in NO way implied that Michael Jones was the source of SGI's
commitment to VisSim. I'm not sure how you got that from my question.
But since YOU brought it up .... However the circumstances of his departure
suggest a change of commitment on SGI's part. That is why I asked.
I'm very glad to hear Sharon-Rose is still there. Exactly how many others
left?

The reason I'm asking is I'm starting new development and may opt to build
it all from the ground up with OpenGL if the tea leaves suggest Performer is
not going to be relevant in 3 years. Lets face it. The integration of
Performer,
Inventor, ImageVision etc. has dragged on for 3 years now. I thought that
was
Michael's "mission". A single scene graph and multi-API integration (my
words.)
That effort changed names more times than anyone cares to remember. Are
these
activities moving forward? The SGI strategic plan makes no mention of the
future
of the API's.

=======================================================================
List Archives, FAQ, FTP: http://www.sgi.com/Technology/Performer/
            Submissions: info-performer++at++sgi.com
        Admin. requests: info-performer-request++at++sgi.com


New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Mon Aug 10 1998 - 17:57:34 PDT

This message has been cleansed for anti-spam protection. Replace '++at++' in any mail addresses with the '@' symbol.