skip to main content
10.1145/3200921.3200939acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagespadsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Honorable Mention

Comparing Dead Reckoning Algorithms for Distributed Car Simulations

Authors Info & Claims
Published:14 May 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Dead reckoning is an important technique used in distributed virtual environments (DVEs) to mitigate the bandwidth consumption of frequent state updates and the negative effects of network latency. This paper proposes a novel dead reckoning approach for common DVE applications such as multiplayer online games. Unlike traditional dead reckoning approaches that estimate the movements of remote entities with pure kinematic models, the new approach performs extrapolations with the considerations of environmental factors and human behaviours. We have performed experiments, based on a distributed car simulator, to compare the the new approach with representative existing dead reckoning approaches. The results show that the new approach gives more accurate predictions with an acceptable overhead.

References

  1. Richard Allan Bartle. 2003. Designing Virtual Worlds. New Riders Games. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Wymann Bernhard. 2001. torcs News. http://torcs.sourceforge.net/. (2001).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Wentong Cai, Francis Lee, and Lian Chen. 1999. An auto-adaptive dead reckoning algorithm for distributed interactive simulation. In Proceedings of the thirteenth workshop on Parallel and distributed simulation. IEEE Computer Society, 82--89. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. J. Calvin, A. Dickens, R. Gaines, P. Metzger, D. Miller, and D. Owen. 1993. The SIMNET Virtual World Architecture. In Proceedings of the IEEE Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium. 450--455. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. R.M. Fujimoto. 2000. Parallel and distributed simulation systems . Wiley. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Elvis S Liu and Georgios K Theodoropoulos. 2014. Interest management for distributed virtual environments: A survey. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 46, 4 (2014), 51. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Seamus C McLoone, Patrick J Walsh, and Tomas E Ward. 2012. An enhanced dead reckoning model for physics-aware multiplayer computer games. In Distributed Simulation and Real Time Applications (DS-RT), 2012 IEEE/ACM 16th International Symposium on. IEEE, 111--117. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. David L. Neyland. 1997. Virtual Combat: A Guide to Distributed Interactive Simulation. Stackpole Books. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Lothar Pantel and Lars C Wolf. 2002. On the suitability of dead reckoning schemes for games. In Proceedings of the 1st workshop on Network and system support for games. ACM, 79--84. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Dave Roberts, Rob Aspin, Damien Marshall, Seamus Mcloone, Declan Delaney, and Tomas Ward. 2008. Bounding Inconsistency Using a Novel Threshold Metric for Dead Reckoning Update Packet Generation. Simulation 84, 5 (May 2008), 239--256. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Sandeep K Singhal and David R Cheriton. 1994. Using a position history-based protocol for distributed object visualization. Technical Report. DTIC Document. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Jouni Smed, Timo Kaukoranta, and Harri Hakonen. 2002. A Review on Networking and Multiplayer Computer Games. Technical Report 454. Turku Centre for Computer Science.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Richard Stallman et al. 1991. Gnu general public license. Free Software Foundation, Inc., Tech. Rep (1991).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Samir Torki, Patrice Torguet, and Cédric Sanza. 2007. Adaptive Classifier System-Based Dead Reckoning.. In Proceedings of the 10th Immersive Projection Technology Workshop at the 13th Eurographics Symposium on Virtual Environments (IPT/EGVE 2007). 101--108. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Xiaoyu Zhang, Denis Graffanin, and Thomas P Duncan. 2004. Evaluation of a pre-reckoning algorithm for distributed virtual environments. In Parallel and Distributed Systems, 2004. ICPADS 2004. Proceedings. Tenth International Conference on. IEEE, 445--452. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Comparing Dead Reckoning Algorithms for Distributed Car Simulations

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        SIGSIM-PADS '18: Proceedings of the 2018 ACM SIGSIM Conference on Principles of Advanced Discrete Simulation
        May 2018
        224 pages
        ISBN:9781450350921
        DOI:10.1145/3200921

        Copyright © 2018 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 14 May 2018

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        SIGSIM-PADS '18 Paper Acceptance Rate15of46submissions,33%Overall Acceptance Rate398of779submissions,51%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader