skip to main content
10.1145/3093338.3093344acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagespearcConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Live Integrated Visualization Environment: An Experiment in Generalized Structured Frameworks for Visualization and Analysis

Published:09 July 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

Many immersive visualization systems require custom coding and specialized hardware and software to function properly. A number of commercial products provide some of this functionality, but lack fully immersive tracking and controls. Additionally, these environments have been traditionally limited to real time data feeds and analysis. The Live Integrated Visualization Environment is a framework developed to address these limitations, while allowing for best of breed integration of commercial products, government software, and open source software. By combining a custom developed messaging bus with a web service implementation, a dynamic, interactive immersive environment is provided across a number of platforms including CAVEs, touch tables, single wall displays, and desktops. We provide an architecture discussion including driver capabilities to enable quick development of additional data sources with existing visualization applications. We conclude with a discussion of several projects that successfully utilize the framework for real-time big data and geospatial applications for a range of tasks. We include a brief introduction to recent work for an open source and cross platform replacement of the framework.

References

  1. Defense Information Systems Agency. 2017. Global Command & Control System - Joint. http://www.disa.mil/Mission-Support/Command-and-Control/GCCS-J. (2017). Accessed: 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Air Land Sea Application Center. 2017. Introduction to Tactical Digital Information Link J and Quick Reference Guide. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/6-24-8/tadilj.pdf, Department of Defense (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Apache Corporation. 2017. ActiveMQ. http://activemq.apache.org. (2017). Accessed: 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Alphabet Corporation. 2017. Google Earth. https://www.google.com/earth. (2017). Accessed: 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Alphabet Corporation. 2017. Keyhole Markup Language. https://developers.google.com/kml/documentation/?csw=1. (2017). Accessed: 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. AGI Corporation. 2017. STK Components. http://www.agi.com/products/stk/modules/default.aspx/id/stk-components. (2017). Accessed: 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. AGI Corporation. 2017. Systems Toolkit. https://www.agi.com/products/stk/. (2017). Accessed: 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. FEI Corporation. 2017. Avizo XScreen. https://www.fei.com/software/avizo-3d-extensions/. (2017). Accessed: 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. IBM Corporation. 2017. i2 Analyst's Notebook. http://www-03.ibm.com/software/products/en/analysts-notebook. (2017). Accessed: 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Microsoft Corporation. 2017. Internet Information Services. https://www.iis.net. (2017). Accessed: 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Mechdyne Corporation. 2017. Mechdyne Conduit. https://www.mechdyne.com/software.aspx?name=Conduit. (2017). Accessed: 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Microsoft Corporation. 2017. .NET Remoting Overview. https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/kwdt6w2k(v=vs.71).aspx. (2017). Accessed: 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Microsoft Corporation. 2017. What is Windows Communication Foundation. https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms731082(v=vs.110).aspx. (2017). Accessed: 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Presagis Corporation. 2017. OpenFlight. http://www.presagis.com/products_services/standards/openflight/. (2017). Accessed: 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Presagis Corporation. 2017. Vega Prime. http://www.presagis.com/products_services/products/modeling-simulation/visualization/vega_prime/. (2017). Accessed: 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. TechViz Corporation. 2017. TechViz XScreen. http://www.techviz.net/techviz-xl. (2017). Accessed: 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Unity Corporation. 2017. Unity 3D. https://unity3d.com/. (2017). Accessed: 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Carolina Cruz-Neira, Daniel J. Sandin, Thomas A. DeFanti, Robert V. Kenyon, and John C. Hart. 1992. The CAVE: Audio Visual Experience Automatic Virtual Environment. Communication of the ACM 35, 6 (5 1992), 64--72. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Judith S Dahmann, Richard M Fujimoto, and Richard M Weatherly. 1997. The department of defense high level architecture. In Proceedings of the 29th conference on Winter simulation. IEEE Computer Society, 142--149. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Ronald C Hofer and Margaret L Loper. 1995. DIS today {Distributed interactive simulation}. Proc. IEEE 83, 8 (1995), 1124--1137.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Greg Humphreys, Matthew Eldridge, Ian Buck, Gordan Stoll, Matthew Everett, and Pat Hanrahan. 2001. WireGL: a scalable graphics system for clusters. In Proceedings of the 28th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques. ACM, 129--140. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Greg Humphreys, Mike Houston, Ren Ng, Randall Frank, Sean Ahern, Peter D Kirchner, and James T Klosowski. 2008. Chromium: a stream-processing framework for interactive rendering on clusters. In ACM SIGGRAPH ASIA 2008 courses. ACM, 43. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. iMatix. 2017. ZeroMQ. http://zeromq.org. (2017). Accessed: 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Kitware. 2017. Paraview. http://www.paraview.org. (2017). Accessed: 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Idaho National Laboratory. 2017. Idaho National Laboratory GitHub. https://github.com/idaholab. (2017). Accessed: 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Joseph J. LaViola, Prabhat, Andrew S. Forsberg, David H. Laidlaw, and Andries van Dam. 2009. Virtual reality-based interactive scientific visualization environments. Interactive Visualization: A State-of-the-Art Survey (2009), 225--250.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Gary E. McCown. The Over-the-Horizon Targeting (OTH-T) Program and the Reconfigurable Land-Based Test Site (RLBTS) Laboratory. (????).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. James H. Money. 2009. Appled Visualization: Enabling Long Term Strategy. Defense Technical Information Center (2009).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Department of Army. 2017. Distributed Common Grounds Systems - Army. https://dcgsa.army.mil. (2017). Accessed: 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. VideoLAN Organization. 2017. VideoLAN Client. http://www.videolan.org/vlc/index.html. (2017). Accessed: 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Dirk Rantzau, Karin Frank, Ulrich Lang, Daniela Rainer, and Uwe Wössner. 1998. COVISE in the CUBE: an environment for analyzing large and complex simulation data. In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Immersive Projection Technology, Vol. 2001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Doug Robbins. 2009. Unmanned Aircraft Operational Integration Using MITRE's Cursor on Target. http://www.mitre.org/news/the_edge/summer_07/robbins.html, MITRE's The Edge (2009).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. RP Schulze, Roland Niemeier, and Ulrich Lang. 2001. The perspective shear-warp algorithm in a virtual environment. In Visualization, 2001. VIS'01. Proceedings. IEEE, 207--213. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. American Forces Press Service. 2011. Empire Challenge Promotes Intelligence Interoperability. http://archive.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=64104. (2011). Accessed: 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Daniel R Snyder and Brendan Barsness. 2011. Constructive Engineering of Simulations. MODSIM World 2010 Conference and Expo (2011), 2--9.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Uncharted Software. 2017. Geotime. http://geotime.com. (2017). Accessed: 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. David J Zielinski, Ryan P McMahan, Solaiman Shokur, Edgard Morya, and Regis Kopper. 2014. Enabling closed-source applications for virtual reality via OpenGL intercept-based techniques. In Software Engineering and Architectures for Realtime Interactive Systems (SEARIS), 2014 IEEE 7th Workshop on. IEEE, 59--64.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Live Integrated Visualization Environment: An Experiment in Generalized Structured Frameworks for Visualization and Analysis

                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 Other conferences
                  PEARC '17: Proceedings of the Practice and Experience in Advanced Research Computing 2017 on Sustainability, Success and Impact
                  July 2017
                  451 pages
                  ISBN:9781450352727
                  DOI:10.1145/3093338
                  • General Chair:
                  • David Hart

                  Copyright © 2017 ACM

                  © 2017 Association for Computing Machinery. ACM acknowledges that this contribution was authored or co-authored by an employee, contractor or affiliate of the United States government. As such, the United States Government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free right to publish or reproduce this article, or to allow others to do so, for Government purposes only.

                  Publisher

                  Association for Computing Machinery

                  New York, NY, United States

                  Publication History

                  • Published: 9 July 2017

                  Permissions

                  Request permissions about this article.

                  Request Permissions

                  Check for updates

                  Qualifiers

                  • research-article
                  • Research
                  • Refereed limited

                  Acceptance Rates

                  PEARC '17 Paper Acceptance Rate54of79submissions,68%Overall Acceptance Rate133of202submissions,66%

                PDF Format

                View or Download as a PDF file.

                PDF

                eReader

                View online with eReader.

                eReader