 |
Simulation
Systems and
Applications,
Inc. |
| Info Engineering | ||||
| Company Info | Press Releases | Simulation Resources | Tampa Bay Links | |
I/ITSEC 1991 – 13TH
I/ITSEC
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
EXPERIENCES IN WRITING READABLE AND
UNDERSTANDABLE ADA
ADA
TYPES: THE CORNERSTONE OF SIMULATION
MODELS
THE
CHALLENGES OF DEVELOPING A REAL-TIME ENVIRONMENT IN ADA
DRLMS
TECHNOLOGY–A CRITICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE
STATE-OF-THE-ART
ACTIVE SONAR
CLASSIFICATION TRAINING USING RECORDED DATA
A
LOW-COST/HIGH PERFORMANCE SENSOR SIMULATION THE NEXT GENERATION
GUIDELINES
FOR EMBEDDED TRAINING DECISIONS
APPLICATION
OF A KNOWLEDGE COMPILATION MODEL OF INSTRUCTION TO EMBEDDED TRAINING
SPEECH
RECOGNITION IN REALTIME TRAINING METHODS OF RECOGNITION RECOVERY
VIRTUAL
REALITY–THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
FORWARD
LOOKING INFRARED SIMULATION FIDELITY IN AIRCREW TRAINING DEVICES
RAPID-RESPONSE
IMAGING SENSOR SIMULATION
TRAINING IN
BATTLEFIELD OBSCURANTS
APPLICATION
OF THE SIMNET UNIT PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT SYSTEM TO AFTER ACTION REVIEWS
OBJECT-ORIENTED
ANALYSIS–THE TRANSITION FROM REQUIREMENTS ANALYSIS TO DESIGN
SOFTWARE
RELIABILITY MEASUREMENT ON THE B-2 AIRCREW TRAINING DEVICE (ATD)
SOFTWARE
METRICS, ADA, AND THE B-2 ATD
ELECTROMAGNETIC
PROPAGATION MODELING FOR DISTRIBUTED SIMULATION
PACKETIZED
VOICE FOR SIMULATED COMMAND, CONTROL, AND COMMUNICATION
VOICE AND
DATA INTEGRATION IN REAL-TIME SIMULATION NETWORKS USING A MODIFIED FDDI
PROTOCOL
USING
PARALLEL ADA IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SIMULATION AND TRAINING SYSTEMS
EFFICIENCY
AS A PART OF SOUND SOFTWARE ENGINEERING DOES ADA NEED C?
DO YOU SEE
WHAT I SEE? INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES FOR TACTICAL DECISION MAKING TEAMS
INSTRUCTIONAL
DISPLAY DESIGN FOR SUBMARINE TACTICS TRAINING
TACTICS AS
DECISION MAKING–ISSUES IN TACTICAL TRAINING DEVELOPMENT
INTEGRATED
TRAINING AND REUSABLE SIMULATIONS
RECONFIGURABLE
SIMULATORS FOR SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES MISSION REHEARSAL
BATTLEFIELD
SMOKE–A NEW DIMENSION IN NETWORKED SIMULATION
ANTIALIASING
WITHOUT SUPERSAMPLING
AN
EVALUATION OF DOME DISPLAY SUITABILITY FOR SIDE-BY-SIDE CREWMEMBER VIEWING
A NEW CRT
PROJECTOR WITH ISOTROPIC EDGE-BLENDING AND DIGITAL CONVERGENCE
WHY
SIMULATORS DON’T FLY LIKE THE AIRPLANE – DATA
UTILIZING A
BLADE ELEMENT MODEL FOR HELICOPTER PILOT TRAINING
THE
CHALLENGES OF SIMULATING A HOVERCRAFT OCEAN ENVIRONMENT
ADVANTAGES
OF AN OBJECT-ORIENTED DESIGN APPROACH TO THE SIMULATION OF LEADSHIP EFFECTS
SEMI-AUTOMATED
FORCES–A BEHAVIORAL MODELING APPROACH
MODELING OF
THE INTELLIGENT THREAT IN A DENSE TACTICAL TRAINING ENVIRONMENT
12TH
I/ITSC-1990–SIMNET FIGHTER AIRCRAFT APPLICATION
AN OBJECTIVE
LOOK AT THE MODULARIZATION AND STANDARDIZATION OF TRAINING SYSTEMS
A MODEL FOR
COMPUTER-BASED TRAINING QUALITY ASSURANCE
U.S. ARMY
MATERIEL COMMAND’S INTELLIGENT TUTORING SYSTEM TECHNOLOGY BASE PLAN
A GENERIC
MODEL FOR RAPID ESTIMATION OF CBT DEVELOPMENT TIME
TRAINER TEST
AND EVALUATION PROCESS REVIEW
TODAY’S NEED
FOR VIABLE TRAINING MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS
EMBRACING
THE DEMONS OF TRAINING DEVICE ACCEPTANCE
TESTING–THE PROCESS IMPROVEMENT LEGACY
INTEGRATED
AIRCREW TRAINING MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS–AN ORGANIZATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
A
DISTRIBUTED TRAINING SYSTEM FOR LARGE TRAINING MANAGEMENT ENVIRONMENTS
THE
MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS OF THE MODULAR SIMULATOR CONCEPT
EMPOWERMENT–A
MODEL FOR MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTABILITY
THE
CHALLENGE OF DEVELOPING A COMPLEX TRAINING SYSTEM WITH AN INTERNATIONAL TEAM
STREAMLINED
SOURCE SELECTION or WRITE YOUR OWN SPEC!
CTASC-II
TRAINING – KEEPING PACE WITH AN NDI ACQUISITION
TRAINING
ANALYSIS–PANACEA OR PLACEBO? THE US ROYAL AIR FORCE EXPERIENCE
DESERT
STAARS–SUSTAINMENT TRAINING FOR ARMY AVIATION READINESS THROUGH SIMULATION
QUICK-RESPONSE
TRAINING SYSTEM MODIFICATION AND ITS IMPACT ON ARMY AVIATION SUSTAINMENT
TRAINING
TRAINING AND
MISSION REHEARSAL FOR DEPLOYED NAVY AND MARINE AVIATION
INVESTIGATING
THE SUITABILITY OF SPEECH RECOGNITION FOR TRAINING SYSTEMS
WATERFRONT
TRAINERS–LESSONS LEARNED FROM AN EXPERIMENT
IN REMOTE TRAINING DELIVERY
DOES THE FLIGHT
SIMULATOR USER KNOW WHAT HE HAS GOT?
AIR NATIONAL
GUARD PART TASK TRAINERS A FLEXIBLE,
COST-EFFECTIVE ADDITION TO FIGHTER PILOT TRAINING
INTEGRATING
A FORCE-LEVEL SIMULATION SYSTEM INTO SHIPBOARD COMBAT SYSTEMS
EMBEDDED
TRAINING FOR ARMORED SYSTEMS MODERNIZATION
ELECTRONIC
WAREFARE CONTINUUM ASSESSMENT PROGRAM FOR NAVAL AVIATION
THE USER’S
ROLE IN SOURCE SELECTION
TACTICAL
MISSION TRAINING DESIGNING THE VISUAL SYSTEM TO PILOT PERCEPTUAL REQUIREMENTS
EXPERIENCES IN WRITING READABLE AND
UNDERSTANDABLE ADA
John Glaize, Staff
Scientist CAE-Link Corporation A critical and much-publicized
advantage of the Ada programming language is the potential for producing more
reliable, maintainable software by enhancing program readability and
understandability. Many people in the
programming community have wondered just how well this potential would be
realized on a large-scale Ada project.
Is it really easier to read and understand Ada code? The CAE-Link Corporation, utilizing the
actual code developed on the B-2 Aircrew Training Device, has now been
afforded the opportunity to investigate this question. This paper presents some of the issues
raised and the results discovered by this investigation. A critical issue is the recommended naming
of language components such as packages, subprograms, parameters, types, and
objects, as well as how readability is affected by the various contexts in
which the components can appear.
Other issues are program formatting, renaming of components, and the
length and understandability of the Ada statements. The system architecture, which defines the relationship and
interconnection of program components, is very important for ensuring
understandability of the systems as a whole.
Finally, the paper addresses the training that is necessary to educate
engineers in the art of writing and of reading Ada programs. The conclusion is that Ada programs are
not inherently more readable and understandable, but that successful Ada
development in this area requires special awareness of the issues and unique
programming efforts. This paper is
available on the I/ITSEC Compendium CD-ROM. Order it from
I/ITSEC’s Website. ADA TYPES: THE CORNERSTONE OF SIMULATION MODELS
David
C. Gross and Lynn D. Stuckey, Jr. Boeing Defense and
Space Group Missiles and Space
Division System
simulation is the definition, control, and implementation of algorithmic
models that replicate a system’s real world behavior. Developing a useful simulation model
requires a clear abstraction of the system.
Software engineering supports abstraction by imposing a consistent
structure on objects. One structural
feature introduced by recent programming languages is strong [data] typing,
aiming at two benefits: clarification of the design and enhancement of model
verification. Strong typing clarifies
the design by controlling the characteristics of an object, and enhances
model verification by revealing errors early in the design cycle. Designers have traditionally viewed strong
typing only as over-restricting the mixture of data units (e.g., meter versus
degrees), an experience, which has left a bad taste in many mouths. However, strong typing is a multifaceted
tool, which can apply to a broad range of software design problems. Simulation model designers can use Ada
types to define, control, and implement models yielding: 1)
requirements
consistency and traceability, 2)
interface
definition/control, 3)
maintainability, 4)
reusability,
and 5)
portability. Because designers imagine and implement complex systems in parallel, projects can suffer from the fracturing effect of multiple visions of the final product. Strong typing can unify the system design; however, strong typing is only a tool – the availability of which does not ensure its correct application. The challenge is to successfully implement it. This paper examines the successful use of Ada types for the design of simulation models, and points out the pitfalls of extreme approaches such as no typing and over-typing |