Re: [certi-dev] FlightGear simulation latency

[Martin Spott]

"Gotthard, Petr" wrote:

> The ASN group is a bit enclosed. They ignore HLA enthusiasts like me.

I suspect this is a common habit among large standards groups - asking
SISO to adopt rare "missing" objects would probably yield similar
results  :-)

> The federates (players) don't have to understand all FOM parameters.
> This means we can develop a proprietary FOM extension that preserves a
> backward-compatibility with the native RPR/ASN federates. Of course,
> this will work only until the RPR/ASN decides to extend their FOM in a
> different way.

Well, the physical meanings of acceleration and velocity (of an
aircraft in particular) are pretty generic. So, if ASN are really going
to extend their FOM, the worst case would be (I suspect) that they're
going to call different keywords.
BTW, just for the sake of completeness, I understand that the RPR FOM
very well allows to represent flaps or landing gear and lots of other
stuff as an articulated part of an (aircraft) object - I think this is
a DIS heritage. Did I miss anything relevant ?

Cheers,
        Martin.
-- 
 Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
--------------------------------------------------------------------------