A couple of points (brief only because it's late):
1. I think the power of HLA is pre-execution of the simulation run, i.e. - allowing for ontological negotation of model creation and integration. Just as SRI uses XML to pre-load the configuration of their tactical and logistical simulations, but relies on DIS during gameplay, HLA will allow disparate simulation and model types to work together - however imperfectly.
2. I know about SRI and LVC simulations because I'm reviewing their JTEP effort for LinuxWorld (along with Damage Studios and Butterfly.net). Keep in mind that they are letting the constructive (JCATS) sim drive most of the game. The live and virtual elements drive around and react to the JCATS rules. Now - I know what you're thinking - how can the "real" entities tie into the constructive part? Well, because they're cheating - they actually "see", fight and react with simulated and constructed enemies and friendlies through special HUDs.
Again, not necessarily rocket science, but according to John Shockley they're the first to do all three - at any scale.
3. While Linux is marginally successful, it is also new in the M&S world. I agree with your contention that cost is the primary driver (hence SOUTHCOM buying Dell's with Red Hat for their simulation center as opposed to SPARCs) for pushing Linux into this sphere.
But I also have in my memory (without some ready references) that in the 99-01 time frame that M&S vendors started talking about really communicating their state data so that they could win joint contracts - part of the cost/benefit trend that drives the Open Source model (but that can exist without it). I have also seen more and more IMPLEMENTATIONS of these protocols being done in Open Source software. What the cause and effect (if any) between these two is something I'm still investigation.
I would really appreciate a chance to throw my slides your way for a further reality check (and discussion) before I get pelted by tomatoes Tuesday;)
My email is cam@augmos.com - look forward to hearing from you...
Cam
All excellent points, and I argue none of them substantially. Even SRI admits that there is no great internal motivation to move away from DIS toward HLA (although they do admit that they might be required to).
Keep in mind, however, that HLA is not just about updating object state data during gameplay - it can also be used to setup of the initial rules regarding object interaction - something that becomes much more important when two (or more) completely different simulations are interacting.
And this leads me to the second point: while it is true that the SRI simulation used a small entity count, they were the first one to achieve integration between live, virtual, and constructive simulations - something that has (to my knowledge) evaded Millenium Challenge.
As a result, Linux is special (but not necessarily unique) because of lower initial cost, multiple platform capability, and because of the Open Source development support that surrounds it. So, while the straight assertion that Linux helps data compatability IS indeed non-sensical, I would argue that taking Linux in a slightly broader context (something that should have certainly been articulated better in the eetimes article) provides a better explanation about why Linux is being used alongside efforts to increase data compatibility.
Again, please forgive me for not being completely forthcoming. In the interest of accuracy and to protect myself from legal recrimination my attorney has recommended the following disclaimer be attached to all further correspondence:
"All information contained in this communication is intended to provide the following benefits to the author, including (but not limited to): higher social standing, better access to reproductive partners, higher perceived professional value, ego stroking, and an overall augmentation of personal vanity."
Better?;)
This is an excellent point, and I could have written my summary better to reflect my argument (as referenced in the article) that the culture of Open Source (as well as the lack of initial adoption cost) is playing an important role in the use of Linux in military and other simulations - especially as these simulations grow and connect to other systems.
I would argue that for civilian observers it already DOES look like Panzer General (think about the way MSNBC protrayed this latest conflict in the Gulf). Although the de-personalization such a system fosters seems intuitive - and repulsive - it is also a very effective method of dealing with significant quantities of data and making effective decisions. And being effective is the primary concern of any military commander.
Slashdot Mirror
A couple of points (brief only because it's late): 1. I think the power of HLA is pre-execution of the simulation run, i.e. - allowing for ontological negotation of model creation and integration. Just as SRI uses XML to pre-load the configuration of their tactical and logistical simulations, but relies on DIS during gameplay, HLA will allow disparate simulation and model types to work together - however imperfectly. 2. I know about SRI and LVC simulations because I'm reviewing their JTEP effort for LinuxWorld (along with Damage Studios and Butterfly.net). Keep in mind that they are letting the constructive (JCATS) sim drive most of the game. The live and virtual elements drive around and react to the JCATS rules. Now - I know what you're thinking - how can the "real" entities tie into the constructive part? Well, because they're cheating - they actually "see", fight and react with simulated and constructed enemies and friendlies through special HUDs. Again, not necessarily rocket science, but according to John Shockley they're the first to do all three - at any scale. 3. While Linux is marginally successful, it is also new in the M&S world. I agree with your contention that cost is the primary driver (hence SOUTHCOM buying Dell's with Red Hat for their simulation center as opposed to SPARCs) for pushing Linux into this sphere. But I also have in my memory (without some ready references) that in the 99-01 time frame that M&S vendors started talking about really communicating their state data so that they could win joint contracts - part of the cost/benefit trend that drives the Open Source model (but that can exist without it). I have also seen more and more IMPLEMENTATIONS of these protocols being done in Open Source software. What the cause and effect (if any) between these two is something I'm still investigation. I would really appreciate a chance to throw my slides your way for a further reality check (and discussion) before I get pelted by tomatoes Tuesday ;)
My email is cam@augmos.com - look forward to hearing from you...
Cam
All excellent points, and I argue none of them substantially. Even SRI admits that there is no great internal motivation to move away from DIS toward HLA (although they do admit that they might be required to). Keep in mind, however, that HLA is not just about updating object state data during gameplay - it can also be used to setup of the initial rules regarding object interaction - something that becomes much more important when two (or more) completely different simulations are interacting. And this leads me to the second point: while it is true that the SRI simulation used a small entity count, they were the first one to achieve integration between live, virtual, and constructive simulations - something that has (to my knowledge) evaded Millenium Challenge. As a result, Linux is special (but not necessarily unique) because of lower initial cost, multiple platform capability, and because of the Open Source development support that surrounds it. So, while the straight assertion that Linux helps data compatability IS indeed non-sensical, I would argue that taking Linux in a slightly broader context (something that should have certainly been articulated better in the eetimes article) provides a better explanation about why Linux is being used alongside efforts to increase data compatibility.
Again, please forgive me for not being completely forthcoming. In the interest of accuracy and to protect myself from legal recrimination my attorney has recommended the following disclaimer be attached to all further correspondence: "All information contained in this communication is intended to provide the following benefits to the author, including (but not limited to): higher social standing, better access to reproductive partners, higher perceived professional value, ego stroking, and an overall augmentation of personal vanity." Better? ;)
This is an excellent point, and I could have written my summary better to reflect my argument (as referenced in the article) that the culture of Open Source (as well as the lack of initial adoption cost) is playing an important role in the use of Linux in military and other simulations - especially as these simulations grow and connect to other systems.
I would argue that for civilian observers it already DOES look like Panzer General (think about the way MSNBC protrayed this latest conflict in the Gulf). Although the de-personalization such a system fosters seems intuitive - and repulsive - it is also a very effective method of dealing with significant quantities of data and making effective decisions. And being effective is the primary concern of any military commander.