SWG RFC Resolution Categories Tracking Number: RFC 011-B06 Accepts Accepts with Modifications Evaluator Submission Requirement Section Criticality Document Type Number Accepts as Future Work Gregory Peele, Jr. / Rejects with Reasons Applied Research X RFC submission is a comment or question with no call Associates, Inc. Volume 1 15 2.1.5 for Candidate Standard modification RFC Comment as submitted by Evaluator OGC CDB SWG Response / Comment / Modifications / Reasons Yes, you are correct. CDB is meant to work across a range of systems If I interpret this correctly, it is not possible to omit intermediate LODs for example, to have data for LOD 0 – and simulators, and as such needs to support more than one use case. and LOD 6, but omit LODs 1-5. If correct, this would not be ideal for ground combat simulation and gaming use Greg’s email comment: *(Partially resolved) The comment sheet explains cases, where typically LOD 5-7 would be used for that I understood correctly, so that’s good. Can the language for Requirement views and LOD 0-1 might be appropriate for a map 15 be expanded to explain what means? Also, aside from level view, but the intermediate LODs are not always “complete” compatibility with the existing implementations, is this a requirement that useful to the client despite requiring disk space and terrain generation time. If I am misunderstanding the can be dropped in this version or the next version? requirement, clarification on what is meant by “complete” would be helpful. The evaluator interprets requirement 15 correctly; all tiles from the finest LOD provided by the modeler to the coarsest CDB LOD (i.e. LOD -10) must be provided. SWG RFC Resolution Categories Tracking Number: RFC 011-B07 X Accepts Accepts with Modifications Evaluator Submission Requirement Section Criticality Document Type Number Accepts as Future Work Gregory Peele, Jr. / Rejects with Reasons Applied Research RFC submission is a comment or question with no call Associates, Inc. for Candidate Standard modification Volume 1 38 3.2.5 Major
SWG RFC Resolution Categories Accepts Accepts with Modifications Accepts as Future Work Rejects with Reasons X RFC submission is a comment or question with no call for Candidate Standard modification Tracking Number: RFC 011-B06 Evaluator Submission Document Requirement Type Section Number Criticality Gregory Peele, Jr. / Applied Research Associates, Inc. Volume 1 15 2.1.5 RFC Comment as submitted by Evaluator OGC CDB SWG Response / Comment / Modifications / Reasons If I interpret this correctly, it is not possible to omit intermediate LODs – for example, to have data for LOD 0 and LOD 6, but omit LODs 1-5. If correct, this would not be ideal for ground combat simulation and gaming use cases, where typically LOD 5-7 would be used for views and LOD 0-1 might be appropriate for a map level view, but the intermediate LODs are not always useful to the client despite requiring disk space and terrain generation time. If I am misunderstanding the requirement, clarification on what is meant by “complete” would be helpful. Yes, you are correct. CDB is meant to work across a range of systems and simulators, and as such needs to support more than one use case. Greg’s email comment: *(Partially resolved) The comment sheet explains that I understood correctly, so that’s good. Can the language for Requirement 15 be expanded to explain what “complete” means? Also, aside from compatibility with the existing implementations, is this a requirement that can be dropped in this version or the next version? The evaluator interprets requirement 15 correctly; all tiles from the finest LOD provided by the modeler to the coarsest CDB LOD (i.e. LOD -10) must be provided. SWG RFC Resolution Categories X Accepts Accepts with Modifications Accepts as Future Work Rejects with Reasons RFC submission is a comment or question with no call for Candidate Standard modification Tracking Number: RFC 011-B07 Evaluator Submission Document Requirement Type Section Number Criticality Gregory Peele, Jr. / Applied Research Associates, Inc. Volume 1 38 3.2.5 Major
16-112_OGC_CDB_V1_0_2016_RFC_Resolution_Document_as_approved_in_Dublin_SWG_meeting.docx