Military simulators graphics capability.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,891
Received 2,827 Likes
on
1,206 Posts
Military simulators graphics capability.
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
And this of the MB399 shows the graphical capability at high altitude etc
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
And this of the MB399 shows the graphical capability at high altitude etc
Last edited by NutLoose; 20th Oct 2020 at 16:56.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
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
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,891
Received 2,827 Likes
on
1,206 Posts
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.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Not lost, but slightly uncertain of position.
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Very simple simulators can be efficient training devices. Just look at the Link trainer and how it trained thousands of IFR pilots in WW2.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,891
Received 2,827 Likes
on
1,206 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,891
Received 2,827 Likes
on
1,206 Posts
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.
Spoiler
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
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
Last edited by Timelord; 21st Oct 2020 at 08:37.
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.
) 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!!!!!
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? ........................
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,891
Received 2,827 Likes
on
1,206 Posts
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/0...ertainment.pdf
Found the link
http://www.raes-fsg.org.uk/uploads/0...ertainment.pdf
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,891
Received 2,827 Likes
on
1,206 Posts
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.
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.
https://www.popsci.com/story/technol...amics-realism/
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,891
Received 2,827 Likes
on
1,206 Posts
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.
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.
real life approach to gatwick and game