Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T11:13:37.182Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Interchanging simulation databases with third parties using SEDRIS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2016

R. Harris*
Affiliation:
Thales, Crawley, UK

Abstract

Successful, seamless interchange of simulation databases has long proved surprisingly difficult to achieve. Numerous technical difficulties, arising from the different environmental representations used by different simulation systems, have proved to be only one facet of this difficulty. Often such problems are in fact the result of more fundamental underlying issues, such as the mathematical relationships between different co-ordinate systems. Logistical issues, and collaborative aspects of database interchange between different groups or companies, also contribute to the problems.

Thales has encountered many of these issues over the years in generating a range of databases for its simulation systems. These databases are required to correlate closely with other sensor systems, in particular the visual, but it is often the case that these other systems are third party products, using databases modelled by companies other than Thales. In these circumstances, the strategy used by Thales to generate its databases has typically been to derive them directly from the visual database. This has involved directly processing the visual database, extracting relevant geometry and attribution and formatting it for use by the Thales simulation systems. Historically, such visual databases have been provided by third parties using the SIF/HDI interchange format and imported directly into the Thales database generation toolset. While generating such derived databases in this way has been achieved successfully, many interchange issues referred to above were encountered and needed to be addressed.

When the need arose to replace SIF/HDI, the opportunity was taken to seek a replacement that would not only provide better representational capabilities but also address many of the wider, non-technical issues as well. Analysis of a variety of formats was undertaken and SEDRIS emerged as by far the strongest contender. Not only did it provide the best all round support for existing data representation requirements, it also gave good support for addressing wider interchange issues and offered a variety of opportunities to enhance the database generation toolset, both during initial development and over time.

This paper will discuss experiences using SEDRIS in this context. It will examine the basic representational requirements that needed to be met and the interchange problems that were to be overcome. The ways in which SEDRIS was seen to address these problems will be considered, along with the other advantages SEDRIS offered. Experiences developing SEDRIS software and interchanging databases using SEDRIS will also be described, including some lessons learned concerning both the use of SEDRIS and database interchange in general.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2008 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Standard simulator data base (SSDB) interchange format (SIF), 17 June 1993, Design Standard, MIL-STD-1821.Google Scholar
2. SEDRIS — Part 1: Functional specification, May 2006, ISO/IEC 18023-1.Google Scholar
3. SEDRIS — Part 2: Abstract transmittal format, July 2006, ISO/IEC 18023-2.Google Scholar
4. SEDRIS — Part 3: Transmittal format binary encoding, July 2006, ISO/IEC 18023-3.Google Scholar
5. SEDRIS Language bindings — Part 4: C, May 2006, ISO/IEC 18024-4.Google Scholar
6. Environmental data coding specification (EDCS), June 2005, ISO/IEC 18025.Google Scholar
7. Spatial reference model (SRM), June 2006, ISO/IEC 18026.Google Scholar
8. EDCS language bindings — Part 4: C, July 2005, ISO/IEC 18041-4.Google Scholar
9. SRM language bindings — Part 4: C, August 2006, ISO/IEC 18042-4.Google Scholar
10. OpenFlight scene description database specification, November 2007, Version 16.3, Revision A.Google Scholar
11. ESRI Shapefile technical description, July 1998, ESRI White Paper.Google Scholar
12. SEDRIS standards website, http://standards.sedris.org. Google Scholar
14. The SEDRIS data representation model, SEDRIS technology documentation set, 4, (2).Google Scholar
15. SEDRIS transmittal access C++ API, Version 4.0.0.Google Scholar
16. SEDRIS tools, website, http://tools.sedris.org Google Scholar