Military simulators graphics capability.

[NutLoose]

I was reading that the new software used in Microsofts new flight sim is in a way a demonstration to military and other agencies as to the possibilities their software is capable off, a sort of a commercial advert as its real world/ full world modelled based on satellite imagery from bing, a lot of the buildings etc are AI generated at the moment unless where they have done areas by hand, but people are replacing them with real world structures, and they are testing VR at the moment I believe.
You can also dial in realtime weather and it will base that weather on met information in real time. A lot of the graphical capability is downloaded as you go s it needs a fast net connection (60 MB) but you can cache areas too
I watched something on the forces channel re the training on the Juno and the like and they were showing the simulators used and to be honest the graphical representation looked very basic. Does that tend to be the standard across the board? I just ask out of interest.

As a demo ( Not by me) this is the likes of the stuff MSFS currently runs

This is an MB399 doing mach loop

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol0U2iAN3tA

And this of the MB399 shows the graphical capability at high altitude etc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yhjxHK_MBM

[jayteeto]

Try watching standard TV on a 75 inch screen, it’s not brilliant. Graphics always look better on smaller screens, put them in a full size sim and not so good

[VariablePitchP]

Try watching standard TV on a 75 inch screen, it’s not brilliant. Graphics always look better on smaller screens, put them in a full size sim and not so good

I think you’re missing the point - the graphics here are a thousand times more detailed than most commercial grade simulators.

Most people don’t sit two feet from a 75 inch tv as they do a pc screen, so it looks the same if not better as it’s so far away.

I think the main reason is that 90% of the computing power for these sims will be given to the modelling. Take a 320 sim, every element of the flight model is accurately modelled in far greater fidelity than even the best consumer grade models. It is also running the motion simulation. Consumer wise they can dispense with most of this and pump 90% of the performance into the graphics as that’s what most people care about more.

[Chris Kebab]

The on-line Digital Land Mass is apparently two petabytes big, which I had to look up....petabyte - 10 to the 15 bytes!

[NutLoose]

I run it on 4K 55 inch screen and sit about 4 foot from it, the graphics are as you see on those clips, the clever bit is the graphical side of things is being partly downloaded as you go along, so the PC isn’t having to generate it as such. Hence the 2 petabytes that equates to 2,000,000 gigabytes of data online.

[F-16GUY]

I watched something on the forces channel re the training on the Juno and the like and they were showing the simulators used and to be honest the graphical representation looked very basic. Does that tend to be the standard across the board? I just ask out of interest.


NutLoose

From my experience graphics is not a high priority in military sims, as the purpose is to train the tactics, technics and procedures (fighters). Only place where good graphics is of importance, is in TGP images when practicing A/G work or during eyeball ID's in A/A. For A/G work our sims typically have designated TGT areas where the graphics are hi res.

[Less Hair]

MSFS is a game. It's no inspiration for any professional simulator and it is not promoting any unheard of breakthrough technologies that professional simulators are not aware of. Instructing using certified standards is quite different from the entertainment side of things. Professional simulation is looking for entirely different priorities compared to games. Especially eye candy is almost non relevant. But very precise data and technical systems backgrounds very much are.

Very simple simulators can be efficient training devices. Just look at the Link trainer and how it trained thousands of IFR pilots in WW2.

[NutLoose]

Agreed, it wasn’t that I was asking about, but simply the graphical capability considering I read MS are sort of using the game in a way to promote their capabilities to industry etc and I seem to remember military mentioned. I was just wondering if this is so good at projecting the world are military sims better as one assumes they would be.

[PPRuNeUser0211]

Agreed, it wasn’t that I was asking about, but simply the graphical capability considering I read MS are sort of using the game in a way to promote their capabilities to industry etc and I seem to remember military mentioned. I was just wondering if this is so good at projecting the world are military sims better as one assumes they would be.

I suppose the real question is, what use do you have for those graphics? If you're a fast jet driver, the weather details are nice but far from essential. The detail on the ground is overkill for what you need, for the most part, as the majority of work groundwards is going to be through the soda straw of a targeting pod.

If you're a rotary driver at 50', Microsoft doesn't bring anywhere enough detail to the party. Take a look at what DCS has had to do to their Syria mapping to get the low level quality up to scratch for low flying.

The most interesting bit is the ability to use photogrammetry and produce replicas of buildings, and drop that directly in to the sim (see mods that allow you to drop decent Google produced stuff in to Microsoft's limited Bing maps produced world). That would have utility in urban operations, particularly in mission rehearsal.

Detail has to have a purpose - eye candy for the sake of it sells consumer products, but as mentioned above, isn't worth spending money on for a training device unless it gives you a tangible outcome, particularly in these financially squeezed times.

[OldLurker]

Detail has to have a purpose - eye candy for the sake of it sells consumer products, but as mentioned above, isn't worth spending money on for a training device unless it gives you a tangible outcome, particularly in these financially squeezed times.Financially squeezed in the UK perhaps, but the US Air Force still spends about $150 billion a year. Maybe things are different nowadays, but eye candy for the sake of it has sold 'military' products to top brass, disregarding their more knowledgeable junior staff.

[tartare]

Sea wasn't that calm on the day of my jolly!!
The one thing they don't seem to be able to reproduce is that weird sensation of bobbing around like a light plane, even though the landscape is moving past at jet airliner speeds.
Would be good to be able to dial in some turbs - hell of a bumpy ride through there at times.
Nice MB339 repro too - brings back some RNZAF flight memories.

[Easy Street]

I agree with the argument that fidelity of flight model and systems has been more important than the visual scene in professional simulation, both civil and military. However with computing power going the way it is, the ‘hair shirt’ tendency should be resisted. Why not have all three? The drive for an ever-decreasing proportion of live flying at the front line and in the training system means that things like visual circuits, low flying, ACM and air refuelling will need to be simulated more realistically than has hitherto been the case. I also think that our simulation needs to up its game in regard to things like weather, ATC and other traffic to attain the levels of ‘immersion’ needed to properly replace live flying.

[SnowFella]

Might not be in a flying adaptation but way back in the day I had a fair bit of contact with VBS1 when it was rolled out for US and Australian forces. Bit from the development side but mostly beta testing modules with the full intent to "break" the realism it was intended for.
With the limitation of the commercial game engine it was built on lots of dodgy hacks had to be implemented in an attempt at simulating real life weapon systems.
Still have the full set of software gathering dust on a shelf.

[NutLoose]

I agree with the argument that fidelity of flight model and systems has been more important than the visual scene in professional simulation, both civil and military. However with computing power going the way it is, the ‘hair shirt’ tendency should be resisted. Why not have all three? The drive for an ever-decreasing proportion of live flying at the front line and in the training system means that things like visual circuits, low flying, ACM and air refuelling will need to be simulated more realistically than has hitherto been the case. I also think that our simulation needs to up its game in regard to things like weather, ATC and other traffic to attain the levels of ‘immersion’ needed to properly replace live flying.

Oddly enough they do live ATC add ons. Here is an example, they use real ATC that do it as a hobby apparently, she’s rather attractive too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZ8ZotfdUZI




[Timelord]

The importance of the graphics were probably at their highest for the Tornado GR4 1990 ish vintage sims. That one specified that LL visual navigation had to be possible using 500,000 maps and that visual IP to target runs had to be possible using 50,000 maps in certain high detail areas. As others have said, since then the importance of visual navigation has practically disappeared in the FJ world but I guess still vital in rotary and others.

it is one thing to produce a super detailed picture on a flat screen of course but quite another to project that scene on to a curved dome (12 ft radius in the case of the GR4 sim) whilst hiding the projectors!

We tried synthetic voice from other computer generated players but it was never very convincing . We ended up using lots of people in the console to play the various roles fighting over the limited number of microphones and headset jacks. Actually a better solution which is now possible is to link the AWCS, ship, tanker, red air , JTAC sims to achieve the required level of immersion

[Cornish Jack]

Visual to aerodynamic and motion reaction is difficult and demonstrated well in the differences between the first digital visuals on the VC10 sims at Brize and the 747-400s and later 777 s at Cranebank. On the VC10 tankers, with receiver in trail, closing the throttles and hitting airbrakes placed a receiver probe centre screen. The 'recovery time' for the hydraulic motion systems was a bit limiting too. The newer electric versions may be better but I have not experienced them. A few years back an inquiry into a United Airlines (?) engine breakup pointed out the discrepancy in experience of such, in the sim, as against in the real world, both visually and in sensation.

[Hot 'n' High]

........ Actually a better solution which is now possible is to link the AWCS, ship, tanker, red air , JTAC sims to achieve the required level of immersion

As you say Timelord, this is where a lot of effort (money) is going into these days with more and more net-centric solutions appearing, including in training - I was working for a short while a couple of years back where this was taking place. And, as you imply, we only provide, assuming people are playing the game, what the TNA (Training Needs Analysis) dictates is needed.

I was reading that the new software used in Microsofts new flight sim is in a way a demonstration to military and other agencies as to the possibilities their software is capable off, a sort of a commercial advert ........

However, as a concept, what NutLoose raises is also actually a sign of the times. I'm sure I'm teaching granny to suck eggs here but, out of WW2 and through the Cold War, Mil investment/technology tended to flow out into products in Civvy Street. Today that flow is working both ways with more and more Civvy stuff coming back into the Mil. COTS procurement is growing (as lamented on threads such as the MFTS Thread indicate :}) but, as consumer demand drives down costs/raises performance, where appropriate, defence Projects can utilise these gains, provided such reverse-flow is wisely applied (as noted repeatedly in the MFTS Thread!!).

That, plus the fact is that demographics are changing and the kids of today (the FJ Jocks of tomorrow) will be used to increasingly realistic immersive environments. Any self-respecting TNA should, amongst other things, consider what their Target Students expect as a norm and strike a balance as it is an important aspect of "learning". If MSFS-type programmes can seamlessly (and cheaply?) pan around in a high quality visual environment, then processing and projecting the same over 180 deg (even 360 deg) or, maybe via VR headsets, is probably not such a technological/financial hurdle.

Now, I wouldn't care to put figures to how far that's progressed, but that's how it's going. Certainly, back in the '90's when I was the Mil PM for some Mil Training Devices, I was most interested in what was being done in the world of Civvy Sims to see what I could "appropriately import" (and, hopefully, free up more of the budget up for the real bang/whoosh Mil aspects). My benchmark was "does it meet the requirements in the TNA?" plus all the usual cost-effectiveness, reliability, maintainability, supportability and expansion/interoperability etc etc etc requirements. The Airlines seemed to have some fairly impressive R&M requirements!!!!!! And penalty clauses if these were not met!!!!! :ok:

As Cornish Jack wisely notes there are always limitations to what a Sim can do but CJ also highlights some of the advances between the VC10 sims and B777 sims and that's how things will continue to go. With the rapid development in Neuroscience, who knows what will be going on in 50 years time when it comes to Sims. "Lay down on this couch Flt Lt Snodgrass. When you wake up you will have rehearsed your Top-Secret mission ........ to recover that nano-UAV we sent in to undertake a <<Classified Activity>>. Just put on this Neruo-helmet now and see you in an hour!!!! Oh, is it a NATO-std Coffee when you wake up?????" Better stop here before I get this Thread shifted to JB .... but it's most definitely a case of "never say never"! OK, well, maybe the Stude will have to get their own coffee!!!! Some things NEVER change!!!!! :}

Today? Well, maybe not.......... But tomorrow? ........................ :ok:

[NutLoose]

If I remember correctly the then gaming company DID who produced the EF2000 flight sim went on and produced the TIALD Jaguar ground training platform.
Found the link
http://www.raes-fsg.org.uk/uploads/081215053554_199706_From_Home_Entertainment.pdf

[NutLoose]

Sea wasn't that calm on the day of my jolly!!
The one thing they don't seem to be able to reproduce is that weird sensation of bobbing around like a light plane, even though the landscape is moving past at jet airliner speeds.
Would be good to be able to dial in some turbs - hell of a bumpy ride through there at times.
Nice MB339 repro too - brings back some RNZAF flight memories.

Turbulence is there and you can add winds etc, see

https://www.popsci.com/story/technology/microsoft-flight-simulator-2020-aerodynamics-realism/

[NutLoose]

I suppose the real question is, what use do you have for those graphics? If you're a fast jet driver, the weather details are nice but far from essential. The detail on the ground is overkill for what you need, for the most part, as the majority of work groundwards is going to be through the soda straw of a targeting pod.

If you're a rotary driver at 50', Microsoft doesn't bring anywhere enough detail to the party. Take a look at what DCS has had to do to their Syria mapping to get the low level quality up to scratch for low flying.

The most interesting bit is the ability to use photogrammetry and produce replicas of buildings, and drop that directly in to the sim (see mods that allow you to drop decent Google produced stuff in to Microsoft's limited Bing maps produced world). That would have utility in urban operations, particularly in mission rehearsal.



PBA take a look at from 4.0 to see whats possible. or even New York at the start.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6ETsI1TI94

real life approach to gatwick and game

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G76fpK688Ng

[PPRuNeUser0211]

PBA take a look at from 4.0 to see whats possible. or even New York at the start.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6ETsI1TI94

real life approach to gatwick and game

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G76fpK688Ng
Yeah absolutely agree, the problem is Bing's coverage (or what Microsoft have chosen to include?). You can get the SDK and import from Google pretty easily though to fill any specific gaps you want where coverage exists.

There's a good video on YouTube of someone doing Lincoln - the result is fairly convincing.

The issue with "low level" rotary style is always the limitations of texture from aerials - DCS infills with computer generated waving grass etc.

[Less Hair]

This is nicely detailed and everything but not needed for military simulations and instrument flying. And even commercial VR-glasses are so far off what (super expensive) military glasses can do, I see no technology trickling down from commercial entertainment to professional flight simulation.
Having said that the old MSFS got sold and converted to become Prepar3d used for basic mission training and rehearsal.

[aterpster]

Too bad MSFS 2020 is useless to serious pilots.

[ORAC]

It how accurate are the kangaroos and the missiles? ;)

[Hot 'n' High]

This is nicely detailed and everything but not needed for military simulations and instrument flying. And even commercial VR-glasses are so far off what (super expensive) military glasses can do, I see no technology trickling down from commercial entertainment to professional flight simulation.
Having said that the old MSFS got sold and converted to become Prepar3d used for basic mission training and rehearsal.

Agreed Less Hair - but only in some very, very, very limited cases. And it would be interesting to look at the where the bits for the "(super expensive) military glasses" come from. Yes, the end product may be better with specific mods for front line Mil use and, quite likely, some very specific components included but a lot of it would be made up of non-Mil bits. More and more items are taking, when appropriate, COTS parts to make up a Mil product even "(super expensive) military glasses" I'd wager.

But back to Simulators tho and I'm afraid your Mil Flight Sims are all COTS stuff - been that way for years! Provided an item meets FFF criteria, does it need to be capable of surviving a drop from the cockpit onto the hardstanding when the sim is only a couple of feet up from the platform or EMC protection from a nuclear strike? Nah! In the stuff I bought (and we are back in the early 90's) most of the controls, including sticks, switches, even quite complex control units and displays etc were all working replicas entirely using COTS parts but which looked/felt/operated exactly like the real thing ..... but at a fraction (and I mean a fraction) of the cost of the real thing! Even for several items (Control Panels and such like) where I thought GFE would be needed (ie would be the most cost-effective), the Supplier opted for a scratch-build as it was easier (= cheaper) for them to build it from scatch and integrate that rather than to interface with the real GFE panels (which also worried them on the reliability/maintainability front). Made our life easier as it turned out as we would have no "GFE! Not our problem!" arguments if a bit stopped working. They even took some GFE, stripped out the innards, and just used the shell with their gubbins inside! Graphics were projected thanks to a company who specialised in "entertainment, enterprise, and healthcare" according their blurb. Great projectors they were! The graphics cards? All bog standard kit!

Roll forward now to just 2 years ago and a Company I was working for were still taking requirements to all sorts of Subbies to provide kit for "Mil Sims". If a "Games Company" can provide the most cost effective solution - bingo! It will be there!!!! It will be rebadged with the Prime Contractors logo (and you'll be charged the Primes mark-up!!) but, if you look ever so closely, you'll see a Licence statement hidden away somewhere! Most of the stuff in the cockpit was scratch-built. Why? Cost - why have a certified bang seat (or anything else) which is never going to go... er, bang (or go flying)!

This is nicely detailed and everything but not needed for military simulations and instrument flying.

Again, agreed - for today - but, as prices drop and expectations (of the students - see my previous comment) rise...... Best analogy is probably in your pocket - your phone. Early days my mobile did what I wanted it to do and my requirements have changed little. It made phone calls! Endex! Today, while I can do some interwebby stuff on my phone and take snaps if out and about the main use as a phone is unchanged. Can you even buy a simple phone today? Not seen a basic phone for sale for ages. Even one for £12.99 has a camera!!!! I only want a phone damn-it!!!!!!! Extreme, but the point is, why spend money to provide low-res graphics from scratch when a games company could, in the future, provide high res graphics for a fraction of the cost? In the Air Defence world, what are the "Radar Screens" at Boulmer? Bog standard PC displays from a picture I saw recently - probably off the lowest bidder for a std x cm SVGA display! And that display is of that quality and for that price because of millions of PC Gamers and those who watch Videos on their PC! Not because of a handfull of steely Air Defence peeps!!!

What happens today is not what will happen tomorrow - and in the capability drive the Mil are an increasingly small player except in some niche areas! Anyway, just some thoughts! Cheers, H 'n' H

[NutLoose]

I found the article that started me thinking and resulted in this thread

https://www.aerosociety.com/news/10-reasons-why-microsoft-flight-simulator-is-a-complete-game-changer/

H'n'H fascinating insight, thanks, your replies have been informative and interesting reading.

[Hot 'n' High]

I found the article that started me thinking and resulted in this thread

https://www.aerosociety.com/news/10-reasons-why-microsoft-flight-simulator-is-a-complete-game-changer/

H'n'H fascinating insight, thanks, your replies have been informative and interesting reading.

No probs NutLoose and, Less Hair, I'm really not "having a go" at you if it sounds that way - I do apologise if it sounds like that. Not saying MSFS is suitable "as is" but the technology (and their software programming resources) should not be dismissed. And, for the benefit of future generations, we really should go "how may we use this in the future to improve things for them?" rather than closing things down. PS I hate MS with a vengeance and use Linux and LibreOffice - I only flash up Windows for one specific graphics package which won't run on Linux! :E

PS A very interesting article from a good source to comment. And I'll take my hat off to what sounds a great new (meaning "new") product. Particularly interesting "Although Microsoft has sold the licence for professional commercial usage of its previous sim, FSX to Lockheed Martin to develop into P3D, it in not hard to foresee that real-world aviators and aerospace industry could take advantage of this sim - whether is using it to brush up knowledge of VFR landmarks at a local flying club, licensing the Azure Cloud AI and graphics for another simulator, or using the amazing graphics to market airline livery designs or new aircraft concepts or renders of airports.".

Of course, it would probably be a small step to, under licence, overlay the "Mil" aspects of such an environment; so, for Typhoon, take the "cloud" world, mirror it onto the Secret "MoD Servers", add the overlays there and use the SLI to deliver the environment + overlays to the Sims at Conningsby or wherever! I must ring BAE Systems and offer my services!! :ok:

[Just a spotter]

They've come a long way ... (ignore the cropped reports either side of the main bit)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1pKtmJGS8o

JAS

[ivor toolbox]

Agreed, it wasn’t that I was asking about, but simply the graphical capability considering I read MS are sort of using the game in a way to promote their capabilities to industry etc and I seem to remember military mentioned. I was just wondering if this is so good at projecting the world are military sims better as one assumes they would be.


Well, they did sell the code to the last version ( before this) to Lockheed-Martin, who then developed it further and remarked it as Prepar3d

https://www.prepar3d.com/

So the possibilities are there

Ttfn