Randy et al:  According to most recent interpretation by the AMG (I am 
told), the reuse rationale for HLA is limited to the "reuse" of entity 
presence...not the reuse of software in any sense.  This sounds really 
strange to me, but was provided (when challenged) by an AMG member.  Tell me 
I'm wrong.  Please!  [log in to unmask]
=============================================At 1:05 PM -0700 5/4/98, Jerry Lucha wrote: 
>[snip]
>Now (yum yum).  The two 56K modem domains (Rockwell and US Robotics) are so 
>similar as to be almost identical.  This is not a good analogy to the 
>differences between communities in the M&S arena.  Furthermore, the 
>solution that Randy describes, (CCITT merging the two competing modems 
>(RTIs) together) into a single CCITT standard=v.90) is not what is being 
>proposed.
     
Well, I think I agree with you.  CCITT v.90 is not a standard that says 
all networks shall use 56K modems.  It says that if you think that 56K 
modems are the right answer for you, modems which follow the standard 
will interoperate regardless of supplier or technology.
     
I'm not proposing the 56K-"after the fact merger" algorithm.  In fact, 
it did not produce very high returns for the people who invested in 
it.  We might be better off to seek common ground before all the 
designs are set in cement.  However, I don't see the means to do that. 
Without a lot more effort, we're getting the 56K solution by default.
     
>
>Michael obviously has a mental simulation domain in his mind that is 
>homogeneous enough where it makes sense to think of them all agreeing on an 
>intercommunications standard where they cannot or will not agree on a 
>common RTI.  I think the M&S universe is in fact so broad that it includes 
>models that can not, should not and should not be made to intercommunicate 
>by any language or means.  Thus I get nervous when people start acting as 
>if they are going to create rules and regulations to force such 
>intercommunication.
     
Not to put words in Michael's mouth, but I don't think he says this. 
He doesn't say that all problems can be solved with one RTI, he says 
that different RTIs are a good thing.  He doesn't say all RTIs should 
communicate among their own kind using the same technology they use 
to communicate with RTIs of other kinds.  He only says that we need
a standard way for RTI's to talk to dissimilar RTIs.  Some sort of 
Esperanto that can be used by all in cases where a federation cannot 
find one RTI that fits all its needs.
     
The force for universal interoperation is cost savings through reuse, 
as directed in policy by Dr. Kaminski.  Neither Michael of I are the 
cause of these forces.  The cause is DoD management.
>
>Jerry Lucha
>SRI International
>(speaking for myself as I always do) 
>
>[snip]
     
/Randy Saunders
Raytheon Systems Company
(248) 619-8321
[log in to unmask]
     
     





To unsubscribe from the Z-ARCHIVE-SIW-CFI list, click the following link:
https://discussions.sisostds.org/index.htm?SUBED1=Z-ARCHIVE-SIW-CFI