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 2019

SAC-PSG-CIGI December 2019

Subject:

PCR Status

From:

Curtis Schroeder <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Sat, 28 Dec 2019 13:28:32 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (111 lines)

Here is the current PCR status as of December 2019.

Approved PCRs
===========
PCR 027 rev A
Title: Typo in first bibliography entry

PCR 030 rev G
Title: Image Capture

PCR 031 rev B
Title: Using CIGI with additional coordinate systems

PCR 032 rev A
Title: Use SISO-REF-010-01v2-0 to register Extension Packet IDs

PCR 036 rev A
Title: Add material code to basic Line of Sight Response packet

Open PCRs
========
PCR 028 rev C
Title: Common Component Controls for Airport features

Status: Originally authored by Bill Phelps in 2015. Curt Schroeder has been working to bring this proposal to closure. It is the first attempt at creating a standardized component control set. It has been expanded to include more airport light systems and multiple airport code schemes. There are still a few minor issues regarding runway features that require input from the IG community to either clarify or recommend removal from the PCR. It may need to be tweaked by the v4.1 Drafting Group if PCR 038 is also approved.

Curt’s recommendation: Need to wrap up for the 2020 SIW for potential inclusion in v4.1.

PCR 029 rev D
Title: Cast light lobe definition and control

Status: Originally authored by Bill Phelps in 2015. Curt Schroeder has been working to bring this proposal to closure. General consensus from the reflector is this proposal has been overcome by events, i.e. physics based lighting now common, and not appropriate, i.e. light lobe definition should be handled at the IG level and then referenced via an identifier. There is also the suggestion that PCR 035 for entity attachment points should factor into the design.

Curt’s recommendation: Recommend – Disapprove

PCR 033 rev C
Title: State Notification

Status: This extension seeks to provide a means for clients to wait until an IG is in a scenario-specific stable state without having to use IG vendor specific interfaces. It introduces new request & response packets. In addition to Gamesim, Chas & Roland have expressed interest in this PCR. Packet descriptions need to be updated to the CIGI 4.0 format. Additionally, the description for the Notification State parameter implies it is a mask, so the sample values need some clean up to accurately reflect this OR change the definition to 1-bit state fields instead of a 16-bit integer mask.

Curt’s recommendation: Need to wrap up for the 2020 SIW for potential inclusion in v4.1.

PCR 034 rev A
Title: Move time-of-day controls from Celestial Sphere to new packet

Status: At the 2019 SIW it was pointed out there is potentially a less drastic change:
- Simply add a Time Zone Enable flag and a Time Zone parameter (float or signed integer?) to the existing Celestial Sphere Control and then define the new extension packet to contain the manual overrides.
- Extension packet would contain only the Sun & Moon override values and flags to enable them.
- Sun & Moon manual positions are applied if Continuous ToD Enable = false and the extension packet is sent to the IG with one or both flags enabled.
- What should the IG do if only one override flag is enabled, but both Sun & Moon are enabled in Celestial Sphere Control?

Also needing to be addressed is how do the manual Sun & Moon positions work with two or more views separated by a sizeable distance? Should a View ID or Entity ID be included to anchor the azimuth & elevation frame of reference?
Draper is also interested in this PCR, as it would be helpful to define arbitrary lighting conditions for testing image processing algorithms where the IG is providing simulated sensor content.

Mark was to take the lead working with Roland & Curt and the author, Kevin Hayes, to drive this PCR to closure.

Curt’s recommendation: Need to wrap up for the 2020 SIW for potential inclusion in v4.1.

PCR 035 rev A
Title: Add an entity position packet

Status: This PCR describes a proposal to add entity attachment points to an Entity Position. There are several issues that need to be addressed:
- As written, the analysis doesn't include the model format(s) that currently support this capability.
- Should a model Degree-Of-Freedom (DOF) node serve as an alternative if a dedicated attachment point node is not supported by a model format?
- Do we need to allocate an IG condition flag in SoF for the IG to set in response if the capability is not supported?
- Doesn't the host sim still need to know the offset for a smooth transition from attached child to detached top-level entity (e.g. missile launch)? Should this be included in PCR 041?

Roland & Paul Slade have expressed interest in addition to the author, Kevin Hayes.

Curt’s recommendation: Need to wrap up for the 2020 SIW for potential inclusion in v4.1.

PCR 038 rev A
Title: Extended Component Control

Status: It has been suggested that the need for new extension packets could be partially mitigated by a more robust Component Control capability. Also, many users of Component Control packets find they must break down their usage into multiple and effectively arbitrary six value packets to send the desired application data when one or more larger packets would make more sense from an implementation perspective. The basic premise of this PCR is to make the “long” component control packet variable length like many of the newer CIGI packets. A future major version of CIGI could do away with the Short Component Control packet altogether.
This could likely be accomplished by enhancing the current Component Control packet in a backward compatible format, instead of creating a new extension packet. A new extension packet may still be required if additional selection/instancing parameter(s) are desired to further increase the utility of this packet. Needs discussion on merits of additionally allocating the reserved 32-bit space as an additional data slot or using it for the afore mentioned additional selection parameter(s).

Curt & Paul Slade have expressed interest in addition to the author, Roland Humphries.

Curt’s recommendation: Now is the time to wrap this up for the 2020 SIW for potential inclusion in v4.1.

PCR 039 rev A
Title: Viewport Control

Status: Needs to be updated to support multi-PC broadcast/multicast use cases. In 2019 Curt implemented a four IG, eight projector dome display using CIGI; multi-PC use cases aren’t dead yet. Draper is currently working on an IG application that streams the rendered scene as the input to another PC in a hardware-in-the-loop simulation environment.

Curt & Chas have expressed interest in addition to the author, Roland Humphries.

Curt’s recommendation: Need to wrap up for the 2020 SIW for potential inclusion in v4.1.

PCR 040 rev A
Title: End of Message

Status: Needs discussion as to placement in the packet stream, i.e. special case to make it the second packet, but not fully populated until buffer is ready to be sent to IG. This would likely be handled transparently by the CIGI API library, but if so it needs to be specified in the standard to insure it is implemented and can be compliance tested.

Curt & Eric have expressed interest in addition to the author, Roland Humphries.

Curt’s recommendation: Now is the time to wrap this up for the 2020 SIW for potential inclusion in v4.1.

PCR 041 rev B
Title: Position Request with Entity ID

Status: The newest open PCR that received some discussion on the CIGI forum this past October, but has not generated any revisions to the PCR. It shares some synergy with PCR 035.

Curt’s recommendation: Needs to be worked in concert with PCR 035 and wrapped up for the 2020 SIW for potential inclusion in v4.1.

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

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