peda@modesty.Stanford.EDU (Bill Codding) (11/15/90)
In article <4023@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> wave@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (Michael B. Johnson) writes: > First of all, the coarseness of the networks being built > hides an obvious lack - functional abstraction. Visual programming is a > wonderful prototyping environment, but when it comes time to use it to > build a large system, you really want the ability to "black-box" networks. > What begins to happen is that you want to functionally abstract certain > subnetworks into modules in a larger network. About a year ago, when we began looking at doing serious AVS work, I approached one of the AVS development heads about network abstraction in almost the same words as above. I was told that this was already being looked at for future AVS releases. I believe that 2 releases have gone by since, so I don't know what their timetable was (or is) for this. -Bill Codding ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bill Codding (415)493-3554 (w) Research Engineer (415)751-5484 (h) P.E.D.A. peda@simplicity.Stanford.EDU ------------------------------------------------------------------------
jim@baroque.Stanford.EDU (James Helman) (11/15/90)
I was told that this was already being looked at for future AVS releases. I believe that 2 releases have gone by since, so I don't know what their timetable was (or is) for this. How many AVS ports are available? Are the ports close to the same version as Stardent's current AVS or is there a substantial lag? It's a shame that Stardent apparently isn't in too much of a hurry to see AVS spread, at least not to SGIs. It would be their most important compatible platform. Alas, yet another software schism. Similarly, I've heard that Portable Dore is currently at version 2.2, while Stardents are running 4.0. That's a pretty big version delta. I hope that Stardent isn't trying to compete by becoming software proprietary. They're not big enough to survive using that strategy. Even when you are that big, it doesn't work forever, as two of the largest Massachusetts-based computer companies have found out. Besides, they've got some great software, and I want it. Jim Helman Department of Applied Physics Durand 012 Stanford University FAX: (415) 725-3377 (jim@KAOS.stanford.edu) Work: (415) 723-9127
slamont@network.ucsd.edu (Steve Lamont) (11/22/90)
In article <JIM.90Nov14115241@baroque.Stanford.EDU> jim@baroque.Stanford.EDU (James Helman) writes: >How many AVS ports are available? Are the ports close to the same >version as Stardent's current AVS or is there a substantial lag? It's >a shame that Stardent apparently isn't in too much of a hurry to see >AVS spread, at least not to SGIs. It would be their most important >compatible platform. Alas, yet another software schism. It (AVS) is available on an SGI platform (sort of). Convex supports it in a distributed mode, with a client running on a Convex box (or, I'd guess a Stardent, as well), and a server running on the SGI. The distributed version is (allegedly) supposed to use the SillyG graphics pipeline for rendering. I saw a demo a couple of days ago at Supercomputing `90 and it looked pretty good. spl (the p stands for pushing pixels for 0.5 decades) -- Steve Lamont, SciViGuy -- 1882p@cc.nps.navy.mil -- a guest on network.ucsd.edu NPS Confuser Center / Code 51 / Naval Postgraduate School / Monterey, CA 93943 What is truth and what is fable, where is Ruth and where is Mabel? - Director/producer John Amiel, heard on NPR
fsfacca@ZoSo.lerc.nasa.gov (Tony Facca) (11/24/90)
In article <4054@network.ucsd.edu> slamont@network.ucsd.edu (Steve Lamont) writes: > >It (AVS) is available on an SGI platform (sort of). > >Convex supports it in a distributed mode, with a client running on a Convex >box (or, I'd guess a Stardent, as well), and a server running on the SGI. The ^^^^^^^^ Maybe not. Convex actually diddled the AVS code to take advantage of DGL. I had heard that Stardent was reluctant to license AVS to SGI but Convex was able to get a license for both DGL and AVS, so they ended up doing the port to SGI. I saw it at AUTOFACT and it looked good. Convex also had an 8 bit X version running on the Iris. The rendering was done by the 220 and the bitmaps sent to the Iris. Not too-too shabby either. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tony Facca | fsfacca@avelon.lerc.nasa.gov | phone: 216-433-8318 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- You are at Witt's end. Passages lead off in *all* directions.
tttron@escher.lerc.nasa.gov (William Krauss) (11/29/90)
In article <1990Nov23.174301.24230@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> fsfacca@ZoSo.UUCP (Tony Facca) writes: >In article <4054@network.ucsd.edu> slamont@network.ucsd.edu (Steve Lamont) writes: >> >>It (AVS) is available on an SGI platform (sort of). >> >>Convex supports it in a distributed mode, with a client running on a Convex >>box (or, I'd guess a Stardent, as well), and a server running on the SGI. The > ^^^^^^^^ > >Maybe not. Convex actually diddled the AVS code to take advantage of DGL. I >had heard that Stardent was reluctant to license AVS to SGI but Convex was >able to get a license for both DGL and AVS, so they ended up doing the port to >SGI. I saw it at AUTOFACT and it looked good. Convex also had an 8 bit X >version running on the Iris. The rendering was done by the 220 and the bitmaps >sent to the Iris. Not too-too shabby either. > >-- >----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Tony Facca | fsfacca@avelon.lerc.nasa.gov | phone: 216-433-8318 >----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > You are at Witt's end. Passages lead off in *all* directions. > -- >>>>> William D. Krauss NASA Lewis Research Center <<<<< >>>>> tttron@escher.lerc.nasa.gov Cleveland, OH 44135 <<<<< >>>>> (216) 433-8720 (or -8798) U.S.A. Earth <<<<<
tttron@escher.lerc.nasa.gov (William Krauss) (11/29/90)
Newsgroups: comp.graphics.visualization Subject: Re: AVS Network Abstraction Summary: Expires: References: <PEDA.90Nov14110337@modesty.Stanford.EDU> <JIM.90Nov14115241@baroque.Stanford.EDU> <4054@network.ucsd.edu> <1990Nov23.174301.24230@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> Sender: Reply-To: tttron@escher.UUCP (William Krauss) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: NASA/Lewis Research Center, Cleveland Keywords: Sorry about that last post, folks! Take two: In article <1990Nov23.174301.24230@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> fsfacca@ZoSo.UUCP (Tony Facca) writes: >Maybe not. Convex actually diddled the AVS code to take advantage of DGL. I >had heard that Stardent was reluctant to license AVS to SGI but Convex was >able to get a license for both DGL and AVS, so they ended up doing the port to >SGI. I saw it at AUTOFACT and it looked good. Convex also had an 8 bit X >version running on the Iris. The rendering was done by the 220 and the bitmaps >sent to the Iris. Not too-too shabby either. It caught my eye (ouch!) at SIGGRAPH this year. We have DGL here running from a Convex 220 to an Iris that also has an UltraNet path, which allows us VERY high speed graphics data transfer (there is no distinction between a GL application running resident on an Iris versus a DGL application from the Convex to a server Iris - this of course also depends upon the application itself). The possibility of running AVS from the Convex to a server Iris via the UltraNet is very intriguing to us. Stay tuned... -- >>>>> William D. Krauss NASA Lewis Research Center <<<<< >>>>> tttron@escher.lerc.nasa.gov Cleveland, OH 44135 <<<<< >>>>> (216) 433-8720 (or -8798) U.S.A. Earth <<<<<