High-level Architecture (HLA) versus Distributed Interactive Simulation (DIS)

Question

Is there a high-level overview of HLA versus DIS simulation frameworks? Can one host the other and vice-versa?

Answer 1

I currently (though only for another week or so) work in the simulation industry - I apologize in advance for any errors, I will correct them if I am remembering incorrect information.

DIS

• The standard specifies the layout of data on the wire, i.e. your packets/data PDUs are laid out exactly as defined in the DIS specifications

• Relies on best-effort networking (i.e. UDP protocol, broadcasting)

• Entities have to heartbeat at certain intervals (default: 5 seconds) to notify everyone else that it is still part of the exercise

• No central server managing the various applications joined to the exercise

• Simulation applications can join the simulation at any time, leave at any time

HLA

• Uses a central manager, called the RTI (Run Time Infrastructure), that receives data from various applications and sends them to other applications in the simulation (in the context of HLA, these are called Federates and a set of Federates is a Federation)

• All federates must join and leave the simulation by going through the RTI

• Unlike DIS, HLA specification does not specify the layout of data packets, but instead defines a set of API functionality that applications use. The RTI is what implements the API.

• HLA federates publish data according to a FOM (Federation Object Model) which defines what the data in a simulation represents. This allows people to create new FOMs that define new object and interaction types, unlike in DIS, where adding new types of data PDUs goes through a committee (SISO). For example, most simulations running under HLA utilize the RPR FOM, which pretty much mirrors the DIS standard entities and interactions.

• HLA adds additional features DIS does not support, such as Data Distribution Management (DDM), wherein federates notify the RTI that they are only interested in certain types of data.

• Supports subscription services, wherein federates notify the RTI that they are only interested in receiving certain object or interaction data (i.e. an application only wants data about ships)

• Supports the feature of ownership transfer, where objects under the control of one federate are given to another federate to manage.

Can DIS host HLA and Vice Versa?

Due to these fundamental differences, it should be clear that DIS and HLA can not host each other.

However, what this really means is that for simulations in DIS to interact with simulations in HLA is that you need some type of network broker that acts as an adapter between the two protocols. Examples of such brokers are MAK VR-Exchange or GMU Gateway.

For even further reading:

• http://www.mak.com/products/standards.php
• http://www.siaa.asn.au/get/2395379411.pdf
• http://dss.ll.mit.edu/dss.web/96.14.103.RTI.Introduction.html