home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!shrike!flash
- From: flash@austin.lockheed.com (James W. Melton)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.sgi
- Subject: SGI Phigs implementation
- Keywords: Phigs, GL, X
- Message-ID: <1407@shrike.com>
- Date: 12 Dec 92 07:01:30 GMT
- Organization: "Lockheed Austin Division, 6800 Burleson Rd, Austin, TX 78744
- Lines: 33
-
-
- I was having a conversation today with the Product Manager of
- Lockheed's (SMS) mapping product about the future direction of the
- product. I had requested that they consider porting the underlying
- graphics kernel to GL (or OpenGL) so I can get better performance
- on my SGI workstations :-)
-
- She said that they had considered it, but that platform
- independence was a major consideration, so they were leaning toward
- implementing the kernel using Phigs (Figaro+ on SGI). I argued
- (somewhat ignorantly, I admit) that an X-based solution give a
- standard, but would not help the performance any.
-
- She said that
- 1) Phigs is built into X11R5 (true? if so, how about it
- SGI?)
- 2) Figaro+ (for the SGI) is actually built on top of GL.
- That I found hard to believe
-
- I have listened in on the various conversations around the net on
- Phigs and PEX and GL and OpenGL, and am not interested in reviving
- them here.
-
- However, I am curious if the SGI implementation of Phigs takes
- advantage of the CLEARLY SUPERIOR SGI graphics hardware, or is it
- as crippled as the X server?
-
- I presume that GL is the SGI answer for really hot graphics
- performance, but what about OpenGL on other platforms (S*n)? Will
- it out-perform an X-based application?
-
- Please email; post if you like. I can't always keep up with the
- volume.
-