Hi guys,
I am doing a project where I want to use OpenVibe as a background task.
The idea is create my own interface in Java or C++ or C# (it will depends on the connectivity with the OpenVibe) that will be connected to the OpenVibe to receive the signals of the BCI and to an Unity environment.
In the end, my interface will be responsible for receiving the signal and show it to the user and control the Unity environment.
I did not find an example of using the OpenVibe with an different interface.
Thanks in advance!
OpenVibe as background task?
Re: OpenVibe as background task?
Hi,
currenly you can use OpenViBE as command line using the "--invisible" switch.
Note that this will still use a classical scenario file, so you will have to use some kind of network communication and/or file read/write to achieve what you are trying to do.
Cheers,
currenly you can use OpenViBE as command line using the "--invisible" switch.
Note that this will still use a classical scenario file, so you will have to use some kind of network communication and/or file read/write to achieve what you are trying to do.
Cheers,
-
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2017 2:46 pm
Re: OpenVibe as background task?
Thanks!
I will use VPRN to connect my application with the OpenVibe and I will do some tests with the --invisible command.
My real question is if I should use OpenVibe separated from my application or I should use the OpenVibe source code as a library/framework of my application.
I will use VPRN to connect my application with the OpenVibe and I will do some tests with the --invisible command.
My real question is if I should use OpenVibe separated from my application or I should use the OpenVibe source code as a library/framework of my application.
Re: OpenVibe as background task?
Hi,
I believe you should keep both separated. It's easier to debug that way (you can use designer for example).
It should also be quicker to develop if you already know how to interface OV with VRPN.
The only drawbrack will be that performance will be inferior as you have to transfer data over the network, but I believe it will be negligible in front of the actual computations.
Cheers,
I believe you should keep both separated. It's easier to debug that way (you can use designer for example).
It should also be quicker to develop if you already know how to interface OV with VRPN.
The only drawbrack will be that performance will be inferior as you have to transfer data over the network, but I believe it will be negligible in front of the actual computations.
Cheers,