sg04@GTE.COM (Steven Gutfreund) (01/09/90)
Here are some of the replies that I have gotton on a experiences and opions on HOOPS vs. PHIGS/PHIGS+. For me, portability and ease of use are the main issues, I am not iterested in following standards for their own sake - especially in an evolving field and where the standard is a hodge-podge design by committee. o Simpler structure/ more familiar structure (UNIX tree) o Easer search/replace modify o Better modify performance o Easier naming conventions o Transparent portability o Clear tutuorial & manuals Basically, for me, an relative novice in 3D graphics, but a 22 year veteran of operating system, distributed sytem, and language design, I find HOOPS several orders of magnitude easier to understand and use. I have no connection with Hoops manufacturer, Ithaca Software, but for those interested in obtaining a nice tutorial manual and comparison papers you can contact: Ithaca Software, 902 W. Seneca St. Ithaca, NY 14850 | Gary Wayne 607-273-3690 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Date: Fri, 29 Dec 89 17:59:47 EST From: "Daniel P. Esmond" <esmonddp@ra.crd.ge.com> PHIGS and PHIGS+ has already been coded for the new scalable systems which are just now hitting the market. Any company with a serious commitment to computing, has or is working on PHIGS and PHIGS+. I've *NEVER* even heard of HOOPS. All our advanced graphics are done in PHIGS and will continue on that path. - Dan -=-=-=-= Date: Mon, 1 Jan 90 00:14:39 CST From: kelvin@cs.utexas.edu > Does anyone have useful opinions on the advantages of HOOPS vs. PHIGS. > Are there better packages than either. Which package is more likely > to suceed? I'm somewhat of a HOOPS partisan, since I've been using it for two years now -- almost as long as it's existed. I've never used PHIGS or Dore. A couple of things I've heard: [1] There are rumors that future releases of AutoCAD are going to use HOOPS as its graphics library. VersaCAD already uses HOOPS. [2] My understanding is that nobody is selling a portable version of PHIGS. So if somebody creates a new graphics workstation, they have to write PHIGS from the ground up for the machine. Source licenses are available for HOOPS, so they could get HOOPS going fairly easily. I've heard conflicting stories about the availability of Dore source. [3] As of last spring, Steve Jobs thought he was going to use an enhanced version of RenderMan for interactive 3D graphics on NeXT cubes. Others think Display RenderMan will be too slow for interactive graphics. Please post a summary of any responses you get! -- Kelvin Thompson, Lone Rider of the Apocalypse kelvin@cs.utexas.edu {...,uunet}!cs.utexas.edu!kelvin -=-=-=-=-=-= Date: Tue, 2 Jan 90 12:22:29 EST From: "Brett J. Kottmann" <bkottman%galaxy@afit-ab.arpa> I have been using HOOPS for a few months now and have found it to be an excellent package, as long as you have the time to spend on it. It takes a while to learn all of the ins and outs of it, as well as to write good I/O routines for users interaction. Another problem is parallel execution with other programs (it doesn't really work). If PHIGS+ can do these things better, yet still give you the 3D capabilities and object programming features of HOOPS, then PHIGS+ is probably the better way to go. On the other hand, the people at Ithaca Software (HOOPS) are really great with any problems you may have with HOOPS. They may have a good upgrade for HOOPS in the pipeline. Brett Kottmann demon@desire.wright.edu -=-=-=-=-= Date: Tue, 2 Jan 90 11:15:05 MST From: Doug Young <dmy@solbourne.com> In article <7951@bunny.GTE.COM> you write: >Does anyone have useful opinions on the advantages of HOOPS vs. PHIGS. >Are there better packages than either. Which package is more likely >to suceed? PHIGS. PHIGS has been adopted by the X Consortium as the 3D interface to X Windows. PEX (PHIGS Extensions to X) will include extended network protocol so that the 3D information can be stored and manipulated entirely within the X server. HOOPS only works on top of X windows. I must say that HOOPS is a good package (I have several Cornell buddies that work at Ithaca Software). But it will not have the industry-wide backing that PHIGS will have as a result of being shipped on the X distribution tape. Doug Young Solbourne Computer, Inc. dmy@solbourne.com 1900 Pike Road ...{boulder,sun}!stan!dmy Longmont, CO 80501 (303) 772-3400 ext 767 (303) 678-4767 (direct) (303) 447-2861 (Denver/Boulder) -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Yechezkal Shimon Gutfreund sgutfreund@gte.com GTE Laboratories, Waltham MA harvard!bunny!sgutfreund -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
gilmore@vax1.acs.udel.EDU (Scott Gilmore) (01/11/90)
In article <7977@bunny.GTE.COM> sg04@GTE.COM (Steven Gutfreund) writes: >Here are some of the replies that I have gotton on a experiences >and opions on HOOPS vs. PHIGS/PHIGS+. ... > >-=-=-=-= > >Date: Mon, 1 Jan 90 00:14:39 CST >From: kelvin@cs.utexas.edu > >... > > [2] My understanding is that nobody is selling a portable version > of PHIGS. So if somebody creates a new graphics workstation, > they have to write PHIGS from the ground up for the machine. > ... Template Graphics Software (TGS) sells their FIGARO+ (PHIGS+) product for just about every computing platform you can imagine. They also license the source to vendors, who can port it to their platforms if Template has not already done so. We use FIGARO on an Iris 3130, and Tektronix PLOT-10/PHIGS on a Tek 4336 workstation. PLOT-10/PHIGS is FIGARO ported to the Tek4336 and renamed. Both work fine. Std. disclaimer: no connection to TGS other than satisfied customer. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Scott Gilmore Research Assistant University of Delaware gilmore@vax1.acs.udel.edu Center for Composite Materials gilmore@oscar.ccm.udel.edu Dept. of Mechanical Engineering gilmore@minnie.me.udel.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------