[GRASS-dev] Re: grass-dev Digest, Vol 32, Issue 39

[Paul Kelly]

On Thu, 18 Dec 2008, Michael Barton wrote:

> On Dec 18, 2008, at 4:21 AM, <grass-dev-request at lists.osgeo.org> 
> <grass-dev-request at lists.osgeo.org> wrote:
>
>> Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 12:21:17 +0100
>> From: "Martin Landa" <landa.martin at gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: [GRASS-dev] 6.4rc1
>> To: Hamish <hamish_b at yahoo.com>
>> Cc: grass-dev <grass-dev at lists.osgeo.org>
>> Message-ID:
>> 	<f8fe65c40812180321x5f978efqda73bb9c9a67ea0f at mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> 2008/12/1 Martin Landa <landa.martin at gmail.com>:
>>> 2008/12/1 Hamish <hamish_b at yahoo.com>:
>>>> so what remains todo befor 6.4rc1? IMO lib API and module list should be
>>>> frozen at that point, which means creating releasebranch_6_4. No need to
>>> 
>>> I also added to the list nviz_cmd module. I am not sure about its
>>> name. Any ideas?
>>> 
>>> nviz.cmd
>> 
>> I remember votes for d.3d and votes again this proposal. Any consensus
>> before rc1? Personally I have nothing against d.3d. One of the options
>> would  to rename d.nviz to something else, e.g. d.nviz.fly and d.nviz
>> use for nviz_cmd(?)
>
> d.* commands produce a visualization in a display window. d.nviz seems the 
> obvious one, though I don't have any objections to d.3d either. The current 
> d.nviz is really intended to create a fly-through path for 
> nviz--interactively or non-interactively. It won't work interactively on 
> anything but an xterm, so d.nviz is kind of a misnomer. We don't have a 
> prefix for 3D modules, thought maybe we should think of one. Lacking that, 
> nviz.flythough is the most accurate description, or perhaps v.nviz.flythrough 
> since you set (sort of) vector points to create the path.

My only objection to that is that nviz is not at all obvious for a name 
for a 3-D visualisation module, historically standing for "New 
VIZualisation" (as a replacement for SG3d). The original 3-D display 
module from the '80s was called d.3d and now that it has been removed it 
seems a good time to re-use the name. Although the original d.3d did use 
the Raster drawing library and the new one wouldn't, so Glynn's objection 
still applies here.

Paulk