Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Military simulators graphics capability.

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Military simulators graphics capability.

Old 20th Oct 2020, 16:29
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 18,192
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


Last edited by NutLoose; 20th Oct 2020 at 17:56.
NutLoose is online now  
Old 20th Oct 2020, 16:47
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 57
Posts: 2,014
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
jayteeto is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2020, 17:04
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: FLSomething
Posts: 153
Originally Posted by jayteeto View Post
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.
VariablePitchP is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2020, 17:26
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 650
The on-line Digital Land Mass is apparently two petabytes big, which I had to look up....petabyte - 10 to the 15 bytes!

Last edited by Chris Kebab; 20th Oct 2020 at 17:43.
Chris Kebab is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2020, 17:50
  #5 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 18,192
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.
NutLoose is online now  
Old 20th Oct 2020, 17:52
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Not lost, but slightly uncertain of position.
Posts: 10
Originally Posted by NutLoose View Post
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.
F-16GUY is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2020, 17:54
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: attitude is nominal
Posts: 1,061
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.
Less Hair is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2020, 18:08
  #8 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 18,192
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.
NutLoose is online now  
Old 20th Oct 2020, 19:01
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: england
Posts: 982
Originally Posted by NutLoose View Post
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.

pba_target is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2020, 21:13
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: England
Posts: 316
Originally Posted by pba_target View Post
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.
OldLurker is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2020, 22:47
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: A better place.
Posts: 1,740
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.
tartare is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2020, 23:08
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Wherever it is this month
Posts: 1,415
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.
Easy Street is online now  
Old 21st Oct 2020, 00:48
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Australia
Posts: 64
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.
SnowFella is offline  
Old 21st Oct 2020, 02:11
  #14 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 18,192
Originally Posted by Easy Street View Post
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.

Spoiler
 

NutLoose is online now  
Old 21st Oct 2020, 09:17
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 454
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

Last edited by Timelord; 21st Oct 2020 at 09:37.
Timelord is offline  
Old 21st Oct 2020, 10:41
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,388
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.
Cornish Jack is offline  
Old 21st Oct 2020, 11:25
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Here 'n' there!
Posts: 446
Originally Posted by Timelord View Post
........ 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.

Originally Posted by NutLoose View Post
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!!!!!

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? ........................
Hot 'n' High is offline  
Old 21st Oct 2020, 12:21
  #18 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 18,192
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
NutLoose is online now  
Old 21st Oct 2020, 12:29
  #19 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 18,192
Originally Posted by tartare View Post
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/technol...amics-realism/
NutLoose is online now  
Old 21st Oct 2020, 12:38
  #20 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 18,192
Originally Posted by pba_target View Post
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.


real life approach to gatwick and game

NutLoose is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.