Hi Andreas.

My interest in JUN is to reduc my learning curve and building time. I can buy
books and manuals on OpenGL and I can find people who know it. This will help me
get up to speed on OpenGL. Someone previously described JUN as a bunch of
Smalltalk glue to the OpenGL dlls. This sounds easier for me to learn than
building a 3D library from scratch.

My goal is to get flight simulation up and going reasonably sometime, which will
require 3D graphics. If no one gets to it before I need it, I probably will try
to port JUN myself. Before I get that far in my project, I first need to build
fuzzy logic models and physical flight models. This is an after hours project,
so this will take some time for me to learn enough to build this.

Some folks here have a terrific goal of doing everything in open Smalltalk. I am
certainly excited about this approach and support it. I plan to release my fuzzy
logic and flight model stuff (which I hope someone else will find interesting).
I am looking forward to seeing all of the neat stuff coming out of the open
Smalltalk effort.

If someone builds some 3D graphic stuff in native Smalltalk before I start using
JUN, I would prefer to use that. It may already exist now in a useable form - I
just don't know about it. Time will tell.

Regards,
Shane

"Raab, Andreas" wrote:

> Shane, Richard,
>
> I'm just curious: Are you really talking about having OpenGL in Squeak or
> are you talking about a high speed immediate mode interface for 3D rendering
> - which might not necessarily use OpenGL?!
>
> Though I appreciate the power and simplicity of OpenGL (as opposed to say
> Direct3D) I *am* actually considering different versions of a 3D
> accellerated backends - depending on the platform and what is fastest and
> best supported on it. The abstraction layer (which has to be introduced
> anyways to actually interface with OpenGL or anything else) could give you
> the feeling of something like OpenGL (and the B3DRenderEngine interface is
> heavily influenced by OpenGL) without actually *using* OpenGL.
>
> The entire point of using OpenGL would be to have a uniquely defined (and
> actually verified; see the OpenGL conformance tests) behavior across all
> implementations. But while this is a nice thing to have I do not really care
> about whether 20 out of a million pixels have a slightly different color
> (don't laugh - if you look at the conformance tests run with Mesa 3.0 that's
> where they failed and they *do* work on it).
>
>   Andreas
> --
> +===== Andreas Raab ========= (andreasr at wdi.disney.com) ==+
> | Walt Disney Imagineering        Phone: +1 818 544 5016  I
> I Glendale, CA                    Fax:   +1 818 544 4544  I
> +======< http://isgwww.cs.uni-magdeburg.de/~raab >========+
>
> > ----------
> > From:         Shane Hayes
> > Reply To:     squeak at cs.uiuc.edu
> > Sent:         Monday, August 2, 1999 7:13 PM
> > To:   squeak at cs.uiuc.edu
> > Cc:   recipient list not shown
> > Subject:      Re: OpenGL (again?)
> >
> > I hope someone does. Right now I am working at learning fuzzy logic and
> > implementing it in Squeak. Once I get some helicopter flight control
> > software
> > written, I would like to create visual representations of the flying using
> > OpenGL.
> >
> > "Richard L. Peskin" wrote:
> >
> > > Is anyone looking at porting the Jun301 OpenGL interfaces to Squeak. I
> > > downloaded these for both Mac and Linux, and this is an impressive
> > addition
> > > to Smalltalk, albeit only for VW. It would be a great addition to
> > Squeak.
> > > --dick peskin
> > >
> > > =================================
> > > R. L. Peskin,  Rutgers Univ.
> > > ;<peskin at caip.rutgers.edu>;<http://www.caip.rutgers.edu/~peskin>
> > > RLP Consulting <rlpcon at sover.net>; <http://www.sover.net/~rlpcon>
> >
> >
> >