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:

Change to IG Control

From:

Roland Humphries <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 21 Dec 2016 11:04:17 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (17 lines)

I've recently been trying to improve the extrapolation when running an asynchronous IG setup and while I can determine latencies in the packet processing in the IG and I assume a fixed transport delay there is currently no way within the CIGI protocol to determine the age of the data from the host.
IG Control currently provides a timestamp that indicates the simulation time for the following data but without additional time synchronisation between the IG and host there is no way of determining the age of that timestamp on the IG, e.g.
- host calculates entity positions at time T
- host sends first part of CIGI message at time T+3ms
- IG receives first part of message at time T+3.1ms
- IG starts next frame at time T+14ms
- to determine simulation time for frame rendering the 14ms age needs to be determined, the 3ms part cannot be known by the IG unless part of the data transport

My current solution is to add an extension packet that only contains the host data age, this is placed immediately after the ig control message so I can calculate my position updates inline with the command processing. The way I'd prefer to do it would be to add the age directly to the IG control packet (there's already a 32-bit reserved hole available, we could encode a 16-bit value into 0.1ms units or something to reduce size) and update that part of the packet in the send buffer immediately before sending.

Apologies for the lengthy description, finally my question is: should the time of send / host age be something that we leave to the data transport (and therefore in the best practice guide) or added to IG Control such that any IG can correctly determine the timestamp age? Or do we ignore the whole thing and assume that everyone will implement some kind of high precision time service?

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

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

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