Back to SISO Website
SISO Discussion Forums

Help for SAC-PSG-CIGI Discussion Forum List


SAC-PSG-CIGI Discussion Forum List

SAC-PSG-CIGI Discussion Forum List


SAC-PSG-CIGI@DISCUSSIONS.SISOSTDS.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

SISO Discussions Home

SISO Discussions Home

SAC-PSG-CIGI Home

SAC-PSG-CIGI Home

SAC-PSG-CIGI  December 2016

SAC-PSG-CIGI December 2016

Subject:

Re: Change to IG Control

From:

Roland Humphries <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

SAC-PSG-CIGI <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 22 Dec 2016 17:34:19 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (11 lines)

The implementation I already have seems to give a relatively stable host clock on the IG. The issue with NTP I understand is that it can take quite a long time to settle and PTP relies on NIC hardware timestamps which windows doesn't support (at least by default). My current implementation is however susceptible to network delays as it assumes transport delay between pushing the message on the host and receiving it on the IG is negligable (ok with UDP and low bandwidth but not so for TCP) and there is no compensation for that (i.e. it always assumes most recent is best).
For me a special case synchronised simulation clock makes more sense than relying on something like NTP / PTP as I doubt that is required for most systems (and a custom clock can resolve much quicker without worrying about affecting OS functions), all you need to know in the IG is how to calculate simulation time T for any given frame.
I have previously implemented a separate simple UDP based simulation clock sync to do this (which might still be the best approach) but was hoping it might be possible to account for most of the delay within the CIGI implementation itself (by adding the data age).

Should this discussion tend more towards deciding if this kind of feature should be within the scope of CIGI or in the best practice guide) and then what the best implementation (or range of implementations) could be?

########################################################################

To unsubscribe from the SAC-PSG-CIGI list, click the following link:
https://discussions.sisostds.org/index.htm?SUBED1=SAC-PSG-CIGI&A=1

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search SISO Discussions

Search SISO Discussions


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Discussion Forum List

September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
May 2016
February 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
March 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014

ATOM RSS1 RSS2