True that.
I’m just trying to figure out a legitimate customer for “The Battle Simulator”. It will have to be small enough scope where L-3 sized companies do not want business. Probably in AETC / Guard. But outside of well established courses.
1 Like
I’ll be happy if anything of that stuff makes it to DCS, no doubt. But the way things are going I wouldn’t even bet a penny on it.
1 Like
Yeah,t he A-10C DTT was done for ANG
Well, most comments in this thread have been somewhat U.S. forces specific. I’m assuming TBS would be marketed to all kinds of countries with all kinds of requirements. To say it might not fit into the U.S. procurement system might be correct, but I’m sure there are all kinds of militaries all over the world that would like a system such as this.
I can certainly see the usefulness for say training a helo or fixed wing pilot about the geographic specific features around Bagram or similar so that they show up on Day 1 in theater they at least have some preliminary information. Depending on the resolution of the map elevation data, I could also see ground forces like tank platoons benefiting from seeing the landscape from different perspectives to allow for planning and tactics generation. I’m sure they have their own tools as well, but just because the military paid millions of dollars for a tool, doesn’t necessarily make it better. I’m getting ready to step into a multi-multi million dollar simulator in Dallas that has visuals that default FSX can beat.
When it comes to simulations visuals are not the most important feature. A point that most of the simulation community seems to have forgot.
2 Likes
Well, yes and no. And I’m only talking about real, full motion simulators here, but the visuals are fairly important in that we (well, FAR Part 121/135 people) are being evaluated on a pass/fail basis on things such as flying non-precision approaches to a circle to land. There are standards, that if exceeded, will result in you busting your checkride…and the better the visuals are in the actual sim, the better your chances of performing the maneuver to standards.
For instance every year (TWICE every year) for I think the past 17 years…I’ve shot a non-precision approach on my checkride to runway 4L at JFK, followed by a circle to land to 31R. The circling maneuver in the sim is one of the hardest things to accomplish for several reasons. The biggest reason is that the array of screens in front of you does not allow you to put the airport anywhere other than the forward hemisphere of the airplane. Actually, probably closer to around the forward 140 degrees or so. So if you lose sight of the airport due to it sliding off the screen, you technically have to miss the approach. There are bank limitations, and VSI limitations (no greater than 1000 fpm after leaving MDA). As well, a newly implemented rule a couple years ago makes it so that we have to land on the touchdown zone markers with a tolerance of no worse than -250’ to + 500’. What does this result in? Well, people driving the airplane onto the touchdown zone markers…finesse be damned!
And visuals play an important part of accomplishing all of this. While most of our maneuvers are spent in IMC in the simulator, those last few hundred feet are usually visual. And in the case of the circle and no-flap landing procedures, much of it is visual. The lack of textures on the ground, scale of buildings, cars, all of that, makes the sim ride more challenging (in my opinion) than real world flying. Fortunately (or unfortunately), they train you to the checkride, so you just fly the profiles and it all works out fine.
The problem is, the technology for better visuals is out there, but every sim has to be signed off as meeting certain criteria, and it isn’t as easy as just upgrading the graphics and calling it done. Apparently it is a very rigorous process that can take a long time.
Anyway…just wanted to provide a perspective from the real sim (that’s a funny term) world…
But to your specific point @weaponz248 - I agree, the visuals on our entertainment flight sims aren’t as important (to me) as gameplay and replayability. I still love EECH for the fun of the flying (dynamic campaign!) and Strike Fighters 2. Both are not graphically up to snuff…but they make up for it with the gameplay.
BeachAV8R
4 Likes
didnt Lockheed demo an amazing Flight sim a few months ago? 
There are a lot of aero companies that could use this software I think, there are private firms that could benifit from combat and non combat versions. I think the scope of what this could do, and who this could work for are being undersold here.
Like some of the stuff we know about, it doesnt have to be a full simulation like we are used to, it could be only one aspect. I think people are getting to hung up on the name.
Exactly. Procedures trainers are an extremely valuable tool, use a fraction of the resources, and are in use at civil side simulation facilities all over the world. Can’t speak to the military, but they are widely used in the facilities I’ve been to (SimuFlite, FlightSafety, and FlyRight).
LOL…OK, that’s officially worse than the Citation Ultra sim for sure.
Yeah, a bit of SMAA will buff that right out…
I believe BI still do Virtual Battle Space (VBS), so I guess there is a market at the desktop level for these sorts of things:
Looks to be a few European smaller forces do some things with it.
1 Like
While I agree that visual quality is an important aspect for a simulator, I think that it isn’t the most important thing.
I started a thread in the ED forums yesterday about that topic. It is a question list for @wagmatt, I hope he sees it and answers a few of the questions during his awesome livestreams. Unfortunately it was moved to the wishlist section for some reason. So if you missed it here it is:
New effects - DCS Core Wish List - ED Forums
Oh, and concerning real sims I also have a funny story to tell. When I was in the military we had an infantry simulator called AGSHP. It wasn’t bad at all, you had weapons that looked and almost handled like the real thing and a video wall to shoot at. But the graphics… Man, they looked about as good as Counterstrike 1 
The Eurofighter simulator can surely upgrade its Visual. Tipical CAE stuff…
FSX Accelerator beat it hands down, not to mention DCS.
Thing is it really ain’t necessary- at least in a Superiority Fighter sim, what’s most important is the fidelity.
And that’s pretty much spot on.
With regards to the visual vs depth mechanic…
I don’t think one is “more imprtant” than the other. A good sim needs both depth/intricacy as well as visuals in equal measure.
Our airbus sim visuals have improved dramatically over the years. As @BeachAV8R mentioned above. On the professional level it really is needed. Our licenses revolve on these rides and sometimes its hard to “get into character” when entering a sim. Better visuals and simple things like ground traffic, a modelled tug, ground crew that physically walk away then turn to you to show you the steering pin really do make a difference.
Not only that i swear our cloud visuals are greatly improved as well. That really helps into getting into the flow and also helps forget you are in a sim.
As for public simulators and i know not all share my sentiments, i can’t fly visually stunning flight games that have zero depth. In the same token i can’t fly falcon 4(despite all the wonderful things it has) because the visuals just make me shake my head.
I don’t wan’t to fly retro sims and block grahics, i don’t want “sims” with no intricacy/fidelity no matter how pretty the external model is. I want an up to date sim that does both and in todays times and technology, i can’t see a problem in asking for both.
1 Like