{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/OSVR/OSVR-Core/issues/262","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/OSVR/OSVR-Core/issues/262/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/OSVR/OSVR-Core/issues/262/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/OSVR/OSVR-Core/issues/262/events","html_url":"https://github.com/OSVR/OSVR-Core/issues/262","id":115579349,"number":262,"title":"VRPN limits","user":{"login":"janoc","id":1032906,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1032906?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/janoc","html_url":"https://github.com/janoc","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/janoc/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/janoc/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/janoc/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/janoc/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/janoc/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/janoc/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/janoc/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/janoc/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/janoc/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"milestone":null,"comments":4,"created_at":"2015-11-06T20:17:03Z","updated_at":"2015-11-07T20:41:04Z","closed_at":null,"body":"VRPN has plenty of hardwired limits, such as max 1024 tracker sensors, 128 analogs, etc. I am hitting them when trying to send joint tracking quality information using analogs, because the osvrPoseState (and the underlying VRPN message) don't have provisions to do so. I need 150 analogs for a system that supports 6 users and 25 tracked joints on each, exceeding the limit. \r\n\r\nThese hardwired limits are going to pose problems for larger installations, especially when multiple plugins/devices are served by the same server."},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/OSVR/OSVR-Core/issues/comments/154750109","html_url":"https://github.com/OSVR/OSVR-Core/issues/262#issuecomment-154750109","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/OSVR/OSVR-Core/issues/262","id":154750109,"user":{"login":"JeroMiya","id":320332,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/320332?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/JeroMiya","html_url":"https://github.com/JeroMiya","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/JeroMiya/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/JeroMiya/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/JeroMiya/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/JeroMiya/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/JeroMiya/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/JeroMiya/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/JeroMiya/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/JeroMiya/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/JeroMiya/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2015-11-07T20:41:04Z","updated_at":"2015-11-07T20:41:04Z","body":"I think the removal of hard coded arbitrary limits is a good enough reason to make a breaking change to a protocol. This is especially true when there is already an application of the protocol that runs up against those limits, as is the case here. Does VRPN have a protocol version as part of the protocol?\r\n\r\nRegarding new device types, i would agree as long as we don't have multiple device types for the exact same data structure. We don't need multiple device types for single analog value streams, for example."}}