Re: More: Viskit, Pf and other 3d vissim softs

New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

Angus Dorbie (dorbie++at++sgi.com)
Wed, 09 Jun 1999 02:02:09 -0700

I don't think anyone here would be offended, but it is clear that this
kind of decision should be based on the detailed requirements of your
project. The justification for spending $ on equipment, software and
engineering usually depends on the return you expect from the features
they offer. So the value of an ONYX2 iR to someone at say the airforce
research lab developing state of the art training systems may be vastly
greater than it's value to someone developing a simple desktop part task
training system who's requirements might be met by lower cost option
like the SGI Visual Workstation 320. Naturally their purchasing
decisions are different.

Beyond that it seems off topic to subject our readership to machinations
over which API or platform, particularly considering how specific and
requirements driven any well considered decision should be. Roy Latham
did publish a survey of graphics software toolkits in his Real-Time
Graphics newsletter. It suffered from inevitable loose definitions and
ambiguous survey responses but at least it was an attempt to discern
some order from the chaos. Maybe you could start there on the toolkits
front. I'm not sure which issue, it was probably within this last 6
months though.
This is the URL, and there is a link to the RTGn there:
http://www.cgsd.com/

More general comments on what features you'd like in Performer are
always welcome.

Cheers,Angus.

Michael Boccara wrote:
>
> To help you answer my question about which software to choose for my new
> project, let me tell you more about this project :
> it involves fast kinematics of vehicles, to be visualised from an outside
> viewpoint, without high requirements about texture or material realism, but
> a slightly accurate geometry. I will also have to develop a good quality GUI
> in a separate window or in head-up-display.
>
> I tended to believe that Performer and other similar softs (Vega, VisKit,
> etc.) are more suited for kinematic simulation (like mine), whereas WTK for
> example is more suited for digital mock-up prototyping, or more
> confined/bounded virtual workspace. But it doesn't stand on a very solid
> argumentation.
>
> Mike

New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Wed Jun 09 1999 - 02:02:13 PDT

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