Sent From: [log in to unmask]


John Shockley wrote: > The RPR-FOM, whether it is > a "reference," a "standard," or a "thing," it should enable those who > want to plug-n-play to do so. > I shudda known someone would invoke the RPR-FOM sooner or later. 1. Does the RPR-FOM specify the RTI to be used ? In the context of the ongoing discussion, I submit that it might not. It might enumerate what RTI versions may be used, but that ought not to prevent folks from adopting new RTI versions if, as, and when they need to do so. 2. Not being in the makeitallworktogether and being a skeptical supporter of plugandplay, I'd just like to say that if implementers design a system to be interoperable, they ought to make a handy dandy Reference FOM, so that they don't have to start from scratch all over again. Irrespective of what RTI systems are available to support their devices. RPR-FOM is NOT the universal answer to "plug and play". Assertions of that sort are more "DIS-centric" that even I aspire to be. I see lots of use for Reference FOMs that have nothing to do with platform level simulation. I also see uses for Reference FOMs that don't support real time simulation, but, well, you get the idea... We had this same discussion last fall. In order to discuss "RTI Interoperability" intelligibly, I think we have to parse out the different user and development community interests. Otherwise, the debate acquires too much baggage, and we end up talking about too many things all at once. It is a complex and interesting subject. I would suggest that a front end analysis be done to define the problem first, before anything else is attempted. Maybe that will help ward off the mysolutionsolvesallyourproblems crowd. Bill Riggs LNK Corporation, Inc. (301) 927-3223



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