Proceedings of the Winter Simulation Conference
DOI: 10.1109/wsc.2002.1166450
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The possible role of a backbone architecture in real-time control and emulation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 4 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The alternative next event request (NER) and flush queue request (FQR) are the basis of conservative eventdriven and optimistic protocols and could possibly form the basis of better performance. Indeed, other approaches such as the FAMAS backbone [4] may also yield better results. However, without the existence of the CSPE benchmark, it would be difficult to make an informed comparison as to which approach is best.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The alternative next event request (NER) and flush queue request (FQR) are the basis of conservative eventdriven and optimistic protocols and could possibly form the basis of better performance. Indeed, other approaches such as the FAMAS backbone [4] may also yield better results. However, without the existence of the CSPE benchmark, it would be difficult to make an informed comparison as to which approach is best.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One of the outputs of the forum is the classification of some of the interoperability requirements of COTS-based distributed simulation on the basis of interoperability reference models [3]. These are as follows: There have been various attempts to interoperate models and the COTS simulation packages in which they have been developed [4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. Most of these approaches deal with the interoperability problem of transferring an entity, or similar representation of a temporary model state, between models and their CSPs.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Full simulation involves lower costs; however, it may disregard some phenomena that are present in the real system, or it may contain additional factors that might influence the outcomes. Emulation and real-time control have the advantage in that they can be carried out in a cheaper way than full prototyping, they stay closer to reality, and they are, therefore, less time-consuming than full simulation (Verbraeck et al, 2000;Mueller, 2001;Boer et al, 2002).…”
Section: Emulation Of Container Terminalsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Full simulation involves lower costs, however, it may disregard some phenomena that are present in the real system, or it may contain additional factors that might influence the outcomes. Emulation and real-time control have the advantage in that they can be carried out in a cheaper way than full prototyping, they stay closer to reality, and they are, therefore, less time-consuming than full simulation (Verbraeck, Valentin, and Saanen 2000;Mueller 2001;Boer, Verbraeck, and Veeke 2002). Emulation of a container terminal (virtual representation of the container terminal and real TOS) acts as a real terminal, i.e.…”
Section: Emulation Of a Container Terminalmentioning
confidence: 99%