My impression was that ?standards? like ODF and Collada were made to do that.
Open GL had a very humble origin, it was a simple 2d graphics library made by IRIS.
The design was so good that it became an industry standard not by design but by choice. Now OpenGL have the ?Architecture Revision Board?, for which major players like SGI, Microsoft, IBM, Intel, AMD, Nvidea, ATI, and many others meet periodically to decide what the next direction will be. The board is open to the public, and any nom member company with vested interest in the field can participate in the discussions and even have a vote on the straw pools, as they call it. The only requirement is an application of participation in advance.
With physics now what I see is a proliferation of Wrappers over very specific libraries, and they are called standard but they are nothing but the brainchild of one or two people with and idea of how physics should be programmed.
dcoming wrote:What we hope to illicit now is what do physics programmers or physics engine developers use/want in terms of base structures, algorithms, and methods that could be hardware accelerated? Then we have to balance this against what can be accelerated efficiently on both GPU and CPU.[/i]
I see your group have a very healthy and ambitious plan.
Are you part of a large committee like opengl ARB? Or is there one in the process of been formed?
Are you working in coordination with Nvidea, ATI, Intel, AMD, and other hardware manufactures, so you can have their recommendation, and you can tell them your recommendations about how to make the hardware?
Are you working with the major physics library makers like Novodex, Havok, meqon, CmLab, Renderware? Have you invited then?
Did you get in contact with the smaller players like ODE, Bullet, Newton, Trueaxis, Tokamaka. I am guessing you have the blessing of ODE, and Bullet, but since this is an industry standard you are talking about, I assume it is for every body?
Have you created a stable physics solution that could be implemented on GPU, and PPU reliable, as fall back?
Have you written at least one commercial of free popular physics library that has been tested and prove be a large group of people other then your group?
I think those are very important factors to be considered for the formulation of a standard. Or I am getting this all-wrong.
My point is that OpenPL is a name with such a distinguish pedigree that it should be left alone, pick a different another name.
If your work is good than it will rise on its own merit.