[HN Gopher] Lockheed Martin Prepar 3D
___________________________________________________________________
Lockheed Martin Prepar 3D
Author : doener
Score : 156 points
Date : 2022-07-11 13:54 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.prepar3d.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.prepar3d.com)
| adolph wrote:
| Wht a fascinating EULA stipulation:
|
| _Prepar3D is not to be used, offered, sold or distributed
| through markets or channels for use as a personal /consumer
| entertainment product._
|
| https://www.prepar3d.com/product-overview/prepar3d-license-c...
| Macha wrote:
| Microsoft sold off the rights to FSX to two parties. Lockheed
| got the rights to the "professional" version and Dovetail the
| rights to the "consumer" version. Same starting codebase,
| Lockheed released Prepar3d and Dovetail the somewhat successful
| Flight Simulator X Steam Edition and later the unsuccessful
| Flight Sim World.
|
| I'm sure this is a CYA clause to show they're not stepping on
| dovetail's license and little else.
| jaywalk wrote:
| Lockheed Martin just doesn't want to be in the "video game"
| business. They'll still gladly take your money, though.
| iggldiggl wrote:
| It might possibly also have been one of the contract
| stipulations when Microsoft licensed the FSX code to
| Lockheed.
| kube-system wrote:
| Its almost an obvious stipulation if you're intending on
| continuing the franchise.
| jaywalk wrote:
| Didn't even think about that angle, but it makes a lot of
| sense.
| joezydeco wrote:
| Funny thing is... they used to be.
|
| https://segaretro.org/Lockheed_Martin
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real3D
| codethief wrote:
| From https://prepar3d.com/product-overview/ :
|
| > Prepar3D (pronounced "prepared") is a visual simulation
| platform that allows users to create training scenarios across
| aviation, maritime and ground domains. Prepar3D engages users in
| immersive training through realistic environments.
| m0llusk wrote:
| For me the site slowed and then returned only database access
| errors. It seems they were not prepared.
| metadat wrote:
| Is there a way to run a demo version or otherwise try this out to
| make sure I want it before buying a full-fledged license?
|
| On a related note-
|
| Recent HN submission covering Geo-FS: a free, web-based, global
| satellite imagery flight simulator
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30345760
| armchairhacker wrote:
| Slightly off-tangent, but i really wish there was a good, freely
| available, decent-quality dataset of the world surface (like
| Google Earth but anyone can use it). I obviously don't expect
| everywhere to be fully mapped but even popular cities like Boston
| don't have very good models. And it would be _amazing_ to even
| have models of some of the more rural places.
|
| It would make a great scene for games and animated movies. The
| world is a beautiful place and seeing places you've been is
| nostalgic.
| mmaunder wrote:
| I wonder if the NGIA might release their radar mapping of the
| Earths surface at some point. Kind of like the mapping
| databases available from the census dept.
| dewey wrote:
| It always makes me a bit sad to see how much time, energy and
| money is wasted on mapping and 3D modelling the same place over
| and over again and everyone accumulating all this data in their
| own silos.
|
| Google Maps, OSM, Apple Maps, Bing Maps and all the work that
| Microsoft Flight Simulator is doing by building 3D models of
| every airport and city from scratch.
|
| MS at least have a good way of utilizing Bing maps in the game
| and probably have data flowing both ways in case they improve
| something but seems like a giant waste of resources.
| tgorgolione wrote:
| What's interesting about this is that they are using Microsoft's
| Flight Simulator X's codebase, and I think plugins that work in
| FSX will work in Prepar3D.
| akpa1 wrote:
| It's veeeeery hit and miss as to if an FSX add-on will work
| with P3D. One reason is that FSX is 32-bit only whereas P3D is
| 64-bit as of v4 - they've changed a lot of stuff.
| mm007emko wrote:
| Until Prepar3D version 3 it was somewhat true. Since V4 it is
| 64-bit and it broke the compatibility with most older plug-ins.
| IceHegel wrote:
| This looks about as good as heavily modded battlefield 1942.
| That's not saying it's bad sim software, but its look is behind
| the times.
| ramesh31 wrote:
| >This looks about as good as heavily modded battlefield 1942.
| That's not saying it's bad sim software, but its look is behind
| the times.
|
| It's a modified FSX engine. So yes, about the same vintage as
| BF1942.
| t0mas88 wrote:
| It's based on an old version of MS Flight Simulator from around
| 2009 or 2010 or so.
|
| The graphics aren't any worse than most multi-million dollar
| full flight simulators used for pilot training. Even better
| compared to some of the slightly older simulators.
| afterburner wrote:
| Thing about multi-million dollar full flight simulators used
| for pilot training is, I doubt they're as concerned about
| having the latest picture perfect beautiful graphics.
| kqr wrote:
| This is corroborated by research into training for
| expertise. Simulations don't need much visual fidelity to
| be useful. At no point do you need to be fooled into
| thinking you're doing the real thing.
|
| The important thing is that your mind and hands go through
| the right motions.
|
| (This is useful knowledge! I have trained system
| administrators with simulations that basically amount to
| pen-and-paper role-playing with some screenshots
| interspersed.)
| t0mas88 wrote:
| Indeed, in the older ones the graphics for any enroute
| flying are even completely missing. They'll by default get
| you into the clouds at 400 or 1000ft above ground level and
| come out at similar heights on landing. In between the
| front windows just turn white.
|
| That's fine for learning to fly a 737, by that time it
| doesn't matter much anymore. But for earlier training it's
| too easy, because in the real world partial visibility and
| light effects in clouds cause much more disorientation than
| zero visibility.
| akie wrote:
| Google cache:
| https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:cKimjW...
| johnohara wrote:
| The Warthog Project on YT is worth mentioning here as an example
| of what happens when passion meets technology. Been watching
| since the second vid. Never disappointed. [0]
|
| He uses Digital Combat Simulator (DCS) from Eagle Dynamics SA.
| They also sell commercial versions of their simulator software.
| [1]
|
| Getting the terrain right is one thing. Getting the cockpits
| right is another matter entirely. [2]
|
| [0]
| https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJq3cq9N6xYF0fAvTgpwoBg/vid...
| [1] https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/ [2]
| https://www.rferl.org/a/u-s-deports-russian-convicted-of-smu...
| dharmab wrote:
| Other cool related resources are OpenHornet and /r/HotasDIY
| fffobar wrote:
| With the successes of F-22/F-35, PAC/Patriot and HIMARS/M270
| (each is an obvious top of the shelf product in its category) -
| is Lockheed now going after Boeing's professional flight
| simulator supremacy?
| joezydeco wrote:
| Here's a YouTube livestream where someone hooked up Prepar3D to
| an ADS-B receiver and created a virtual planespotting system at
| LAX:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0GrpAgdBFI
| r212 wrote:
| Thats so cool
| illwrks wrote:
| That's brilliant! It took me a few minutes to understand what I
| was looking at... realtime data, hooked into a flight sim, live
| streamed.
| joezydeco wrote:
| It seems like there's of potential for synthetic displays
| like this in other areas or industries - the buzzword du jour
| being "digital twin" but that's more for simulation, maybe
| this is more augmented reality? But you need a really solid
| set of incoming data to make it happen. The openness of ADS-B
| is the huge advantage here.
| mmaunder wrote:
| On a related note, Foreflight integrates really well with MSFS
| and when you combine that with PilotEdge it's a great learning
| tool. Works with Prepar and X-Plane too.
| t0mas88 wrote:
| Yes, perfect for IFR and procedure training. The lack of
| control loading / feedback in home simulators makes it not a
| great choice for primary training. I've had to teach some
| simulator enthusiasts in real aircraft for primary training,
| there is a lot to unlearn. Especially in terms of trimming,
| fine gained control and looking outside.
|
| But for IFR training if you already know how it fly it's
| amazing what home sims can do. Add in Navigraph to get up to
| date data / procedures and Jeppesen charts and you get a
| better real world representation than some of the certified
| simulators used in flight training.
| dlojudice wrote:
| > Prepar3D furthers the development of Microsoft(r) ESP(tm) while
| maintaining compatibility with Microsoft Flight Simulator X,
| allowing many thousands of add-ons to be used within Prepar3D.
| [1]
|
| Interesting. Microsoft ESP? First time I hear about this
| Microsoft product. Furthermore the simulation is based on
| Microsoft Flight Simulator X, 2006 software.
|
| [1] https://www.prepar3d.com/product-overview/
| rburhum wrote:
| I worked on this product for a year back in the day. The cool
| thing about MS ESP was that we used the FSX Engine for the
| "1000 foot experience". Everything looked great from far above,
| but not close by. The solution to this was that MS Train
| Simulator 2 made tons of improvements for the "1 foot
| experience". The idea was to include a "world editor" with
| world-wide geospatial data, too.
| https://youtu.be/GXzE1Yb54xU?t=406 The physics models of the
| planes and the trains were great, but obviously to be a generic
| simulator you needed to include physics engines for other types
| of objects like Cars. So we grabbed the physics engine of Forza
| and included it there. These things combined were honestly
| beautiful - and add to that the backwards compatibility with
| all the 3rd party FSX plugins/adds ons. Bummer that this is
| exactly when the iPhone came out and the cloud-based strategies
| were taking over "classic" enterprise software. Re-org and bye
| bye FSX/TrainSim2/ESP. I had left before this happened, but was
| really a bummer not to see the full potential of ESP :-(
| mynameisvlad wrote:
| ESP seems to be the commercial platform based off Flight
| Simulator X:
|
| https://news.microsoft.com/2007/11/14/microsoft-esp-debuts-a...
| yodon wrote:
| ESP was an effort to turn Flight Simulator into a general
| purpose commercial and military sim. They assembled a great
| team to do that, then shut it all down in the aftermath of the
| 2008 crash. Balmer decided some part of Microsoft Game Studios
| needed to be shut down to save costs and the Flight Sim team
| had always been an outsider with the weakest political
| connections into the core of MGS, so even though the ESP
| business plan was much more sensible than most of the MGS
| products, it was the piece that ended up getting killed.
| com2kid wrote:
| > Balmer decided some part of Microsoft Game Studios needed
| to be shut down to save costs and the Flight Sim team had
| always been an outsider with the weakest political
| connections into the core of MGS, so even though the ESP
| business plan was much more sensible than most of the MGS
| products, it was the piece that ended up getting killed.
|
| Worse than that.
|
| This was relayed to me by someone who worked on the flight
| sim team.
|
| So flight sim wasn't actually part of Microsoft game studio,
| they were in the middle of transitioning over when the shit
| hit the fan. The head of the organization that they were a
| part of (I forget what it was called), blocked the transfer
| so he could keep the flight sim team around as that org's
| sacrificial lamb to be laid off.
| M3L0NM4N wrote:
| I play MSFS a lot with realistic add-on planes like the A32NX or
| the PMDG 737, even though the flight model isn't quite "as good"
| as XP or P3D, the visual dominance of MSFS adds so much to the
| immersion for me.
| mm007emko wrote:
| Well, I honestly put flight modelling over graphics every
| single day. X-Plane 11 might not be as good as MSFS in terms of
| graphics but everything else (i.e. the really important things)
| is.
| cardiffspaceman wrote:
| There was a "flight simulator" ported from SGI GL to
| OpenGL+Windows when Microsoft embraced OpenGL. There were a
| small variety of aircraft in this program. I could take off
| in the 747, kill the engines and glide to a safe landing.
| Considering I have no experience whatsoever with real
| aircraft, that's probably not realistic.
| blt wrote:
| I heard somewhere it can be counterproductive to learn stick
| and rudder skills in sim, that sim time is better spent
| learning how to use instruments, automation, fly complex
| procedures like DME arc, etc. So maybe the fidelity of
| aircraft system models (vs aerodynamics) is also really
| important?
| Macha wrote:
| There's some amount of the physical feedback you get in a
| real plane (from resistance in flight controls to actual
| physical sensation of the movement) is not something you
| can get without a lot more sophisticated sim setup than
| most people will have at home and then also as you mention
| the model of the flight characteristics not matching the
| real airplane
| M3L0NM4N wrote:
| For me, I am not a real pilot (yet) and can't really tell the
| difference in 99% of cases. Also, the fidelity of 3rd party
| addon planes in MSFS is just as good if not better than in
| XP.
| stby wrote:
| I think it should be noted that Prepar3D exists for 12 years now
| [1] and has been heavily used by flight sim enthusiasts after FSX
| development was stopped and before MSFS came to the market. It is
| somewhat unclear were exactly this is used for professional
| training. The US Air Force apparently uses it for their pilot
| training [2], and some sort of F-16 simulator seems to exist [3].
| I assume their F-35 simulators are also based on Prepar3D.
|
| [1]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Flight_Simulator#Loc...
|
| [2] https://youtu.be/NMLg7THwhAI?t=164
|
| [3] https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-
| martin/r...
| anarcticpuffin wrote:
| I believe Perpar3D powers the Redbird simulators [1] some of
| which are accepted by the FAA as AATDs (Advanced Aviation
| Training Device), meaning they can be used for a portion of the
| training requirements for the Private Pilots Cerficate (often
| called a license), Instrument Rating, etc. I've trained using
| one and while they're not perfect, they do save you some money
| and time with certain procedures. They're also great for more
| accurately simulating subtle systems failures.
|
| [1] https://simulators.redbirdflight.com/
| TimTheTinker wrote:
| I'm pretty sure RedBird is based on X-Plane. I flew one a few
| weeks ago and the functionality was very familiar.
| stby wrote:
| I wouldn't be surprised if they supported both, but the
| pictures on their website all show Prepar3D.
| billfruit wrote:
| Does it have crash/collision physics?
| Macha wrote:
| No, most modern flight sims refuse to implement them because
| they don't want to be branded a 9/11 simulator when someone
| would inevitably make a youtube video of them crashing into
| buildings.
|
| Also the ones that use real planes have licensing from
| manufacturers to deal with, who don't want their planes
| portrayed being destroyed (similar to limited damage modelling
| in modern driving games with licensed cars).
|
| You'll want a combat sim.
| choonway wrote:
| it's not implemented because it's a lot of work and doesn't
| add to training value.
|
| The time would be better spent on improving damage models
| gbraad wrote:
| They have flight simulator centers here in Beijing based on
| Prepar3d. Very impressive. My kids have flown a Cessna in those
| several times to teach them the basics.
| tra3 wrote:
| I would love to learn about the software development side of the
| US military/industrial complex. I read the Pentagon Wars [0] last
| year and it was fascinating. Read Skunk Works a while back [1].
|
| What I found really interesting about the Pentagon Wars, is how
| the incentives don't really parallel what I see in "normal
| businesses". I wonder if it's the same for software?
|
| Is there anything more recent with the focus on software? If not,
| I'd love to read more about the design/development/testing of
| hardware as well.
|
| [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon_Wars
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skunk_Works#cite_note-16
| anewpersonality wrote:
| > I would love to learn about the software development side of
| the US military/industrial complex. I read the Pentagon Wars
| [0] last year and it was fascinating. Read Skunk Works a while
| back [1].
|
| Judging by Ghidra, America's Army and BRL-CAD, it's amateur
| hour over there.
| it_was_cool wrote:
| I thought people were generally pleased with Ghidra. Is this
| not the case?
| jjoonathan wrote:
| I am enormously happy that Ghidra exists and usually can be
| made to do the job, but it is still quite rough around the
| edges. Polished with 10 grit sandpaper, as the saying goes.
| jacoblambda wrote:
| Ghidra and BRL-CAD are absolutely high quality pieces of
| software. They just don't have time put into shiny UI. The UX
| isn't really that bad once you learn them though.
|
| Also BRL-CAD's continued existence really should speak for
| it's quality considering it's the one of the oldest VCS
| tracked pieces of software and is the oldest public one. It's
| leagues ahead of a lot of gov and corporate tooling I've seen
| on both sides of the fence.
|
| But otherwise yes, the mil-industrial complex often leaves
| something to be desired with development practices. The money
| all goes towards feeding systems engineers, mechs, mats, and
| sparkies. Software is usually the last consideration and is
| for holding together all the stuff the teams couldn't figure
| out how to do without it.
|
| Things are getting better but it's a slow process and it
| almost entirely depends on software engineers sticking around
| long enough to get into leadership rather than leaving for
| better paying corporate or research jobs. While I'm on my way
| out now for a number of reasons, the industry is finally
| starting to get good at software practices and where it
| absolutely mattered they for a long time have tended to get
| it right.
| make3 wrote:
| are these bad? asking as someone who knows nothing of any of
| them
| ascagnel_ wrote:
| America's Army is one of a few video games the DoD has put
| out as recruitment tools. They're a little weird (both
| sides always see themselves as US troops, fighting an
| unspecified opposing force), but I'm not sure how
| successful they've been over the years.
|
| Another interesting one is what Bohemia Interactive does --
| they develop and commercially release simulation-style
| shooters in the ArmA series, and they developed the
| original Operation Flashpoint back in the early 00s. But
| Bohemia also has a product they sell to armed services
| around the globe. It's gotten them in trouble before -- a
| few developers were detained in Greece while gathering
| reference material for the fictional island of Altis in
| Arma 3.
| KineticLensman wrote:
| > Bohemia Interactive
|
| They develop Virtual Battlespace which is heavily used by
| the UK MOD amongst others. The underlying engine supports
| a wide range of tactical simulations and there is a huge
| array of available reusable assets (e.g. vehicle meshes,
| textures, and behaviour models) that create a good moat
| to new market entrants.
| jjoonathan wrote:
| One time I found a bug that doubled the size of the
| America's Army download, back when downloads like this
| took a day (* retries) on a typical DSL connection. I
| reported it to them so they banned me for hacking (they
| banned me from the forums, mind you, not the game) and
| didn't fix the issue. Lol.
| nullify88 wrote:
| I'm not sure how sucessful the games were as a recruiting
| tool, but Americas Army 2.x was a well received game.
| Pipeline and Bridge brings back some good memories. I
| believe theres still an active community for it.
|
| Its popularity tanked once Americas Army 3 was out.
| some_random wrote:
| Ghidra is fantastic, it has some issues and is obviously
| missing some still-classified components but even still
| it's competitive with IDA and Binary Ninja.
| [deleted]
| derefr wrote:
| Are the obvious omissions obvious enough to be able to
| name any of them? E.g. are there any languages that would
| be expected to have decompilation support, but don't? Or
| any static-analysis passes that are clearly relying on
| underpowered prebuilt datasets only supplied to make the
| pass function in a nominal sense, where there's clearly
| some much larger prebuilt dataset used in the classified
| version?
| [deleted]
| nibbleshifter wrote:
| A lot of the "type libraries" are missing (you can make
| your own).
|
| Some specific processors are noticeably unsupported (you
| can fix this yourself by writing definitions).
|
| The extensions for analysis of mobile applications and
| debugging mobile targets are missing.
|
| Parts of the debugger are still missing (eg: syncing
| debugger with disassembly/decompiler).
|
| Some features are extremely poorly documented (eg:
| importing source code).
|
| A lot of bits that otherwise seem missing are likely
| proprietary scripts and extensions/tools that probably
| can't be released due to either being classified or owned
| by a defense contractor.
| [deleted]
| thereddaikon wrote:
| You should be warned, Pentagon Wars is mostly fiction and
| written by a guy who had a serious bone to pick. He's a member
| of a troublesome ground known as the reformers who get an
| outsized share of the attention in popular media while being
| pariahs in the defense industry.
|
| Source, I used to work in the defense industry and people like
| Burton and Sprey are loathed.
| nostrademons wrote:
| Such is the nature of any sort of reformer and institution.
| You wouldn't be a "reformer" unless you thought the
| institution needs to be "reformed". That sets you up in
| opposition to everyone inside the institution, who are
| presumably _inside_ the institution because they believe in
| the goals, processes, and structures of the institution.
| thereddaikon wrote:
| The reformers actually weren't about reform at all really.
| They didn't have new, innovative ideas that were shunned
| for being dangerous.
|
| They were and are luddites who thought warfare hadn't moved
| on from the 1950's and investing in new technology and
| capabilities was a waste of time. They claimed the M1
| Abrams was less effective than previous tanks such as the
| M48 Patton. They though radar and guided missiles were
| useless to put on a plane and that the ideal fighter had
| more in common with the F-86 than the F-15. While at the
| same time claiming credit for designing the F-15 when they
| didn't have a thing to do with it.
| afterburner wrote:
| Having watched Russia completely fail to execute complex
| air combat operations in Ukraine of the sort we take
| completely for granted from the US, I think maybe you are
| underestimating US air combat performance?
|
| EDIT: Hmm I guess you edited out the part about saying the
| US has been losing for 60 years.
| nostrademons wrote:
| Yeah, I edited it out because I knew discussion would
| rathole on whether or not the U.S. military is effective,
| while the larger point I'm making is about _institutions_
| (in general) and their ability to change. Russia 's
| performance in the Ukraine war is a good example: they
| have all the war materials [1], but they suck at waging
| war because the institutions are so corrupt that they
| suck at waging war [2].
|
| [1] https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/03/world/infogra
| phic-uk...
|
| [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9i47sgi-V4
| onepointsixC wrote:
| The problem is that the "reformers" were trying to go back
| to the previous paradigm. They thought that putting in
| expensive electronics and radar into the F-16 was a waste
| and that instead it should rely on guns. They loathed the
| M-1 Abrams and instead called for a return to the M60's for
| which they could buy 3 for every one. They advocated for
| effectively a return to WW2 style of things, generally
| having a distaste for technological developments which have
| since arrived. The Gulf War with America's high tech
| superiority completely and utterly refuted their core
| thesis and they're basically considered jokes who in their
| late years would show up on Russia Today to spout the same
| nonsense they previously had against now battle proven
| systems but this time about the F-35.
| saiya-jin wrote:
| Well whistleblowers in banks are loathed too (and pharma,
| oil, government etc.), exposing and destroying a very finely
| balanced machinery of theft, corruption, bribery, massive
| egos, big cocaine/prostitute parties, you name it.
|
| That doesn't make them any less right, does it.
| thereddaikon wrote:
| Burton isn't loathed because he was a whistleblower. He is
| loathed because he is a liar and was difficult to work
| with.
| closewith wrote:
| Well, if the claims in _Pentagon Wars_ are even half true,
| the author would be loathed by the defence industry.
| onepointsixC wrote:
| The Pentagon Wars' claims are nearly entirely false and
| mostly self aggrandizing by Col. Burton.
| tra3 wrote:
| I did not know that. I thought the book was mostly factual,
| as far as these things go. The program he references though,
| are real programs. The budgets and overspending were also
| correct (where I checked). Do you have a link to any
| rebuttals? I will google myself, but if you have something
| that you find convincing I'd love to read it.
| onepointsixC wrote:
| > The budgets and overspending were also correct (where I
| checked)
|
| I haven't read the book, but in the movie, it claims that
| the army had spent $14 Bn at the time of the Congressional
| Committy on April 24th, 1987 where as it had only spent
| $8Bn out of the $12Bn allocated.[1]
|
| Beyond that simple fact check, sure the programs did exist
| but there are numerous other issues.
|
| The most significant were the subjects of the destructive
| tests, in which Col. James Burton insisted on destroying
| many fully functioning combat loaded Bradleys by firing
| RPG's at them from multiple different angles. The Army
| thought it would be worth while to do some tests but not to
| the extent which Burton demanded. The Army filled the ammo
| shells with sand and the fuel tanks with water as to be
| bale to measure damage done to them from sharp metal. That
| way you could actually account for the damage done.
|
| According to the Col, this was a bad faith cover up that
| the Bradley wouldn't survive and instead be a flaming
| wreck. A Bradley would indeed blow up and be turned into a
| flaming pile of melted aluminum from an AT weapon hit, but
| that was always known - it wasn't designed to be able to
| resist such weapons. Neither did the previous troop carrier
| it was replacing. Nor did the Russian equivalents do so
| either.
|
| [1]: Capability of the Bradley fighting vehicle : hearing
| before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of
| the Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of
| Representatives, One hundredth Congress, first session,
| April 24, 1987 (EBook version): https://play.google.com/boo
| ks/reader?id=6VhyQC11xEAC&pg=GBS....
| thereddaikon wrote:
| The Bradley program is real and Burton was briefly
| involved. That much is true. The sequence of events and the
| actions of the characters in his story are fictional.
|
| The oft referenced scene from the film where Army Generals
| keep sending the designer back to make stupid changes is
| completely fictitious. The book and film portray the
| Bradley as a victim of design by committee and the whims of
| out of touch generals.
|
| The couldn't be more far from the truth. You see, Burton
| thought the Bradley was a replacement for the M113, an
| armored personnel carrier. But it wasn't and was never
| supposed to be. It was supposed to be an Infantry Fighting
| Vehicle.
|
| This is a class of armored fighting vehicle that the
| Soviets introduced with the BMP-1. Instead of being a
| battle taxi that would drive the troops to the front and
| then leave like an APC, the IFV would stick around and
| fight with the troops. Adding more firepower.
|
| This is a good idea and the US Army wanted one of their
| own. They had several successive projects starting in the
| 1960's that culminated in the Bradley in the 80's. It was
| always meant to have a cannon and ATGMs. It was always
| going to carry fewer troops.
| viggity wrote:
| there is an old made-for-HBO movie called The Pentagon Wars...
| I presume it is accurate enough, although it was turned into a
| comedy so I'm sure they took some artistic license with it.
| Highly recommended. It's available for free on youtube.
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ir0FAa8P2MU
| some_random wrote:
| Both the movie and the book are complete BS, they're funny
| but not accurate reflections of reality.
| WrtCdEvrydy wrote:
| Yeah, that was a book adaptation.
| gamedna wrote:
| Am I missing something - what exactly makes this HN worthy? AFAIK
| Prepar3d has been around for a long time, and the headline is
| from 2021.
| theYipster wrote:
| When Microsoft shut down the old Flight Simulator development
| team and program (FS1 up to FS X, not including the new
| MSFS2020,) they licensed the commercial version of the platform
| to Lockheed Martin, who took over development and kept it going
| as Prepar3D. Lockheed's biggest contribution to the platform over
| their years of stewardship was to port the codebase to 64-bit and
| to modernize for DirectX 11.
|
| There is still a very rich library of add-on software for the old
| MSFS, including some very detailed simulations of airliners, that
| today are flown on Prepar3D.
|
| Since Lockheed Martin doesn't want to be seen as a video game
| company, the $60 license is an "academic license." However, this
| is what most people looking simply for a modernized FS X engine
| will buy for their home use.
| caycep wrote:
| How does it compare w/ the new MSFS, or the other big names w/
| commercial "gaming" development efforts behind them, i.e.
| Xplane, DCS, etc?
| mmaunder wrote:
| Those are games that can be used for training. Prepar is a
| military and civilian training tool that can be used (against
| its license terms) for gaming. It's the only direct to
| consumer product that Lockheed has - so it's basically their
| military trainer that they've been nice enough to make
| available to us. The motivation behind this was probably for
| the dev ecosystem it would bring. The non-entertainment term
| in the license is a legacy from their deal with MS when they
| bought it.
| hadlock wrote:
| Prepar3d uses the MSFS X engine, so 90%+ of mods/add-ons for
| MSFS X/10 work for Prepar3d.
|
| MSFS X is, like a lot of games, a warmed-over version of a
| previous game engine, with improved directx support and
| tweaked to run on the latest (at the time) version of
| windows. I forget if it has it's roots in MSFS 3.0, 4.0 or
| 2002, but it was a pretty old engine in 2006 and has gotten a
| few updates over the last decade but is pretty crufty and
| when you play it, unless you have $300 of after-market add-
| ons, is very obvious it's old, especially compared to x-plane
| etc
|
| As the other guy said, the people still heavily invested and
| running the modding scene for a 20 year old video game are...
| esoteric.
|
| Playing MSFS X as a newcomer at this point in time is mostly
| to inspect a historical artifact, but it's a very detailed
| simulator if you want to take off in a 747 from LAX and fly
| it to London or Moscow non-stop.
| Macha wrote:
| The base game is very very sparse compared to newer offerings
| like XPlane or MSFS.
|
| Due to its long history of development it has some of the
| most well received third party aircraft add-ons, but be
| warned, these will cost more than the sim itself.
|
| If you want a video game, you should get the new MSFS. If you
| want something more realistic you should get P3D + third
| party aircraft for airliners or XPlane for GA aircraft (+
| setup ortho scenery for XPlane), but much of the ecosystem is
| slowly releasing MSFS ports too.
|
| I am a little worried for what will happen to hobbyist flight
| sims after MSFS though. A large part of its appeal is the
| bing maps powered streaming of good terrain and other map
| features, and I suspect Microsoft won't maintain that
| forever. If they lose interest for a similar length as
| between FSX and Microsoft Flight or between Microsoft Flight
| and MSFS, that could be a bad time for the flight sim world
| if they've gotten too used to MSFS.
|
| ---
|
| If you do get into the P3D third party ecosystem, be warned
| that many of the developers are older hobbyists turned devs
| which have been in their own universe and so can have weird
| ideas from time to time. Like a support system that is a
| public forum where you must manually sign your real name at
| the end of each post or get banned (PMDG), or uploading the
| chrome username/password DB of suspected hackers based on a
| check for username (FlightSimLabs).
| Jemm wrote:
| My hope is that FS2020 will be the basis for many more real
| world sims as the technology improves.
|
| I imagine a ship, train sim would go over quite well. Would
| be great if they were all in the same in game session.
|
| Can also picture tycoon and enterprise type games doing
| well here.
|
| And of course eventually there will be weapons, it is bound
| to happen.
| Macha wrote:
| If you've ever flown really low in MSFS outside the
| specially crafted cities like SF you'll see that it's not
| really up for a ground level sim level of detail yet. I
| guess you could do with street view images what MS has
| down with satellite photos, but it's also exponentially
| more data.
| ahartmetz wrote:
| AFAIK the flight model of MSFS has always been trash, it's
| a bunch of lookup tables that kind of approximate a real
| plane in the most standard situations - there are no real
| aerodynamic calculations. MSFS _can_ be used for serious
| training in navigation, procedures, cockpit instruments and
| such.
| bedhead wrote:
| Pilot here. The MSFS flight model is so bad that I found
| it actually counterproductive. Also, the avionics are
| awful, they basically have a dozen of the most basic
| functions and that's about it. It's more like a game, not
| a sim. And yet, I do find myself using it still. Why? The
| graphics are insane. If I'm doing a flight to somewhere
| new, I like doing a simulated flight first in order to
| get a better understanding of the terrain and more
| importantly, layout of the arrival airport and visual
| cues. I still find it very useful for flight planning in
| that regard.
| kqr wrote:
| This is how basically every simulator before/other than
| X-Plane does it, though.
| dharmab wrote:
| Most modules for DCS use lookup tables computed in a
| similar way to X-Plane. (The lookup tables are
| essentially a computational cache of the element
| modeling.)
| bklaasen wrote:
| I recall Flight Unlimited[1] made a big deal of their
| flight model which incorporated "real-time computational
| fluid dynamics". I'm not a pilot but I found it very
| compelling. It was groundbreaking for its time.
|
| None of the rest of Looking Glass' flight sims used the
| first game's fluid dynamics model.
|
| [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_Unlimited
| cjbgkagh wrote:
| I'm sure you could make a deep learning model
| approximation of the computational fluid dynamics that
| would be much computationally efficient. Allowing form
| more detail and or faster execution.
| meheleventyone wrote:
| MSFS is actually improving this though:
| https://stormbirds.blog/2022/02/17/msfs-aerodynamics-
| takes-a...
| ahartmetz wrote:
| Can't edit anymore - I was actually thinking of the old
| MSFS, pre product cancellation and resurrection. I didn't
| know much about the new one except that the graphics are
| great.
| dotancohen wrote:
| > uploading the chrome username/password DB of suspected
| hackers
|
| This sounds like a serious bug in Chrome, not a problem
| with a specific website.
| Macha wrote:
| These addons are effectively desktop software running as
| your user, just like Chrome. If Chrome can extract your
| saved usernames/passwords, then another program can
| replicate that functionality. They could require a master
| password and encrypt, but then people would use it less.
| They could also push it to a cloud service and only pull
| down relevant passwords at usage time, but is that good
| for user control of data?
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| > A large part of its appeal is the bing maps powered
| streaming of good terrain and other map features, and I
| suspect Microsoft won't maintain that forever.
|
| There's a mod that makes it use Google Maps instead. In
| many places, it is better by leaps and bounds.
| jillesvangurp wrote:
| X-plane 12 is currently in Alpha and Looks pretty
| interesting. I think there's no need to worry about that
| going away. MSFS is of course looking pretty good; but in
| terms of rendering capabilities, X-plane 12 looks like a
| big update as well.
|
| I think when it comes to simulation fidelity, it still has
| a nice edge over the Microsoft ecosystem. Though that did
| improve with their latest version. In terms of third party
| aircraft, there are interesting products for both
| simulators. Probably more for MS; but there are a few nice
| ones for X-plane as well.
|
| P3D seems like it has served its purpose. It was a nice
| upgrade before MSFS 2020 became a thing for users stuck in
| the MS ecosystem without meaningful updates to their
| simulator for a decade or so. Now that they have released
| (and given how great it is), there probably still is a
| niche market for people with older setups that are happy to
| keep on using that; especially those that invested in third
| party aircraft. Of course, most relevant aircraft are
| probably also available for MSFS 2020 at this point and
| possibly in an improved or nicer version.
|
| Other than that, I don't see any good reasons for new users
| to want or need this. Correct me if I'm wrong.
| gigatexal wrote:
| Not to be used for fun? Aww dang it
| criticas wrote:
| If you've bought a license, who's going to know? "Developing
| Mission Scenarios" is indistinguishable from "Flying the Cessna
| under the Golden Gate Bridge".
|
| The question is more "Is it worth buying a Dev or Academic
| license"?
| caycep wrote:
| It's the new new economy when "Lockheed Martin" features a
| YouTuber to promote its commercial military software...
| altgans wrote:
| "Accurate topography with regionally and culturally appropriate
| textures"
|
| What does that mean?
| maxerickson wrote:
| Speculating, things like crops and building decorations (if
| they have 3d buildings anyway).
| KineticLensman wrote:
| > culturally appropriate textures
|
| 'Culture' in the sense of human artefacts (buildings, etc) laid
| down on an underlying terrain. Such culture will be specific to
| particular regions of the world.
| _fat_santa wrote:
| I would think things like roofs. If you're flying over Florida,
| make it "culturally appropriate" by making the roofs look like
| they are made of that tile rather than regular shingles.
|
| Edit: There's a Florida joke in there somewhere but I'm not
| going there.
| mmmpop wrote:
| That's no fun, especially when I don't really know where
| you're trying to go with this one?
| buildsjets wrote:
| They won't auto-generate thousands of replica KFC restaurants
| in rural Mongolia, as they did in Flight Sim 2004. If Google
| Image Search worked anymore, I'd link a screenshot.
|
| https://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/showthread.php?48720-Giant-ch...
| Aspos wrote:
| Does anyone have experience with its API? I use Microsoft AirSim
| for drone simulations, but it lacks fixed-wing aircraft physics.
| Having skimmed through Prepar3D SDK docs it is not clear if I can
| get images from the engine, not sure if it is possible to control
| aircraft from external code. Does anyone know if it is possible?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-07-11 23:00 UTC)