The future I'd like to see....

[Paco]

Everyone,

 

Just want to be clear since we are talking about two things. Creating a graphic simulation engine capable of FPS level of detail while at the same time creating a pilot-level of detail. That's one issue. I've seen this. Sidebar: One could even argue that a JTAC simulator wouldn't need FPS shooter detail. That arguement has merit. A level of detail similar to F4AF or TBS would suffice.

As far a a battle sim capable of simulating ALL aspects of joint fires from a Brigade to Corps level fight is an entirely different matter. I can't imgane the level complexity of that program and I'm not talking about if from a graphics/visual POV. More of a battle staffing POV. Simulating a BN or smaller echelon with specific exercises and training goals yes. But lager campaigns, tough.

Maybe I'm reading too much into it, remember I do this stuff for a living and I will tell you that Joint Fires integration from a planning and execution standpoint is complicated stuff.

Now having said all that, there are military simulation systems out there that dabble in what we are talking about, but not from a FPS aspect.

Anyway, good discussion.

/r,

Paco

[ShadowVonChadwick]

Am I the only old fart around hear who remembers flight sims with 16 colors and pyramids for mountains & ran of a 360k disk.

 

Though I must admit to the the possible collapse of the biosphere while its done

Edited April 19, 2010 by ShadowVonChadwick

[159th_Viper]

Am I the only old fart around hear who remembers flight sims with 16 colors and pyramids for mountains & ran of a 360k disk

 

Fond memories.....Spent week-ends on my Bud's PC playing this Gem:

 

[ShadowVonChadwick]

Fond memories.....Spent week-ends on my Bud's PC playing this Gem:

 

 

I think you got me on that one !! I can only remember F19 though I remember the hardware well.

 

No interpersonal skills what soever...why did the misses leave ??

Edited April 19, 2010 by ShadowVonChadwick

[JimMack]

Everyone,

 

Just want to be clear since we are talking about two things. Creating a graphic simulation engine capable of FPS level of detail while at the same time creating a pilot-level of detail. That's one issue. I've seen this. Sidebar: One could even argue that a JTAC simulator wouldn't need FPS shooter detail. That arguement has merit. A level of detail similar to F4AF or TBS would suffice.

As far a a battle sim capable of simulating ALL aspects of joint fires from a Brigade to Corps level fight is an entirely different matter. I can't imgane the level complexity of that program and I'm not talking about if from a graphics/visual POV. More of a battle staffing POV. Simulating a BN or smaller echelon with specific exercises and training goals yes. But lager campaigns, tough.

Maybe I'm reading too much into it, remember I do this stuff for a living and I will tell you that Joint Fires integration from a planning and execution standpoint is complicated stuff.

Now having said all that, there are military simulation systems out there that dabble in what we are talking about, but not from a FPS aspect.

Anyway, good discussion.

/r,

Paco

 

Hi Paco

I agree that simulating Joint Fires from a Brigade level is very complex. We can handle company level, typical in Afghanistan. I'll prepare a video and upload in downloads to http://www.thebattlesim.com later this week.

[AggiAggi]

Robmypro, i share your visions. Let's be optimistic and hope that what you describe will become reality eventually.

 

There is actually an international standard which defines the communication layer which is required to run distributed interdisciplinary simulations. It is called High Level Architecture (HLA) and was developed by the US DOD. It is currently an IEEE standard.

 

More information on it to be found here:

http://www.pitch.se/technology/about-hla

and here:

http://www.sisostds.org

 

Also on the semantic layer there has been standardisation by defining Federation Object Models (FOM) such as this:

http://www.sisostds.org/index.php?tg=fileman&idx=get&id=16&gr=Y&path=&file=Rpr2-d7.pdf

 

The question is not so much the technical side but the business side. If a win win situation between military and game developers can be created such complex projects might become possible. Actually military has benefited quite a lot from recent developments in the gaming industry.

 

A paper about this topic can be found here:

http://www.pitch.se/images//05f-siw-118.pdf

 

Actually ED should be interested in implementing HLA because it is required by their military customers.

[Paco]

Hi Paco

I agree that simulating Joint Fires from a Brigade level is very complex. We can handle company level, typical in Afghanistan. I'll prepare a video and upload in downloads to www.thebattlesim.com later this week.

 

I'll be watching. I'm at Fort Leavenworth this week, with an Army Brigade working on CAS integration. I'll take all the help I can.

 

Paco

[robmypro]

Robmypro, i share your visions. Let's be optimistic and hope that what you describe will become reality eventually.

 

There is actually an international standard which defines the communication layer which is required to run distributed interdisciplinary simulations. It is called High Level Architecture (HLA) and was developed by the US DOD. It is currently an IEEE standard.

 

More information on it to be found here:

http://www.pitch.se/technology/about-hla

and here:

http://www.sisostds.org

 

Also on the semantic layer there has been standardisation by defining Federation Object Models (FOM) such as this:

http://www.sisostds.org/index.php?tg=fileman&idx=get&id=16&gr=Y&path=&file=Rpr2-d7.pdf

 

The question is not so much the technical side but the business side. If a win win situation between military and game developers can be created such complex projects might become possible. Actually military has benefited quite a lot from recent developments in the gaming industry.

 

A paper about this topic can be found here:

http://www.pitch.se/images//05f-siw-118.pdf

 

Actually ED should be interested in implementing HLA because it is required by their military customers.

 

Good stuff Aggi! See I knew someone had to be thinking along this path. Let's hope this makes its way to us somewhere in the future. I think it could be a win win situation. The consumer gets a great battlefield simulator, and the military can have whatever region they need modeled. We can all agree or disagree about this, but ultimately it is going to happen.

 

It just makes too much sense.

[robmypro]

This is exactly what I was talking about.

 

What is HLA?

HLA (High-Level Architecture) is a standard for connecting several computer-based simulation systems so that they can run together and exchange information. Instead of building a big monolithic simulation system from scratch, the HLA allows you to combine existing simulation systems with new systems.

 

HLA enables you to reuse existing systems for new purposes. You can also mix different programming languages and operating systems. HLA supersedes several earlier standards such as DIS and ALSP.

[SUBS17]

Everyone,

 

Just want to be clear since we are talking about two things. Creating a graphic simulation engine capable of FPS level of detail while at the same time creating a pilot-level of detail. That's one issue. I've seen this. Sidebar: One could even argue that a JTAC simulator wouldn't need FPS shooter detail. That arguement has merit. A level of detail similar to F4AF or TBS would suffice.

As far a a battle sim capable of simulating ALL aspects of joint fires from a Brigade to Corps level fight is an entirely different matter. I can't imgane the level complexity of that program and I'm not talking about if from a graphics/visual POV. More of a battle staffing POV. Simulating a BN or smaller echelon with specific exercises and training goals yes. But lager campaigns, tough.

Maybe I'm reading too much into it, remember I do this stuff for a living and I will tell you that Joint Fires integration from a planning and execution standpoint is complicated stuff.

Now having said all that, there are military simulation systems out there that dabble in what we are talking about, but not from a FPS aspect.

Anyway, good discussion.

/r,

Paco

 

Its possible if ED releases an SDK because then people could make vehicle and ship mods and if the SDK has the ability to mod the player in FPS mode then FPs is also possible. There is little difference between alot of such vehicles as far as the interface is concerned. Just look at FSX people have modded that to quite a good level its not quite as good as DCS as far as combat is concerned but it does show what is possible. If you look at Arma and Arma 2 people have tried to do the opppsite by turning FPS vehicles and aircraft into more complex models. I think what would work is if Lockons aircraft level of detail were in Arma 2 of course the ultimate is DCS level.:thumbup:

[robmypro]

Just to be completely clear, I am not advocating or suggesting that anyone build a game engine that supports both a FPS and flight sim. I do not think this makes sense, since it forces everyone to develop in the same toolset. What I am suggesting is integration of data between sims. I'm talking about sims that can share data and communicate at a data layer between each other.

[AggiAggi]

FSX is a good example to show what is possible if you provide an open documented architecture. You can let the community and commercial addon developers do most of the developing work. There are even projects overwriting the standard FSX flight model, such as in the Dodosim helicopter simulation (http://www.dodosim.com/).

 

In one of the papers I listed above it is described how FS2002 was connected via HLA to a military simulation.

 

Unfortunately, FSX also shows, that the actual framework provider, Microsoft, did not see enough benefit from that business model and decided to abandon the product. However, it is also interesting to see, that it is a major military company (Lockheed Martin) that decided to buy the license from Microsoft (for ESP that is) and continue development on a professional level.

[AggiAggi]

I fully agree.

 

Just to be completely clear, I am not advocating or suggesting that anyone build a game engine that supports both a FPS and flight sim. I do not think this makes sense, since it forces everyone to develop in the same toolset. What I am suggesting is integration of data between sims. I'm talking about sims that can share data and communicate at a data layer between each other.

[SUBS17]

Just to be completely clear, I am not advocating or suggesting that anyone build a game engine that supports both a FPS and flight sim. I do not think this makes sense, since it forces everyone to develop in the same toolset. What I am suggesting is integration of data between sims. I'm talking about sims that can share data and communicate at a data layer between each other.

 

It makes sense to develop a future sim engine that supports an FPS mode as it is quite likely thats what I'd expect a next gen sim engine to have. :thumbup:

 

:joystick: Fighterops :thumbup:

[PedroTheGoat]

I don't know much about programming and such... But this is just such a WEIRD thread that I have been following for the past three days.

 

So we want to integrate FPS sim goodies along with Flight/Naval/Armor sim goodies...

 

As with most things that happen in the sim world... Wait until you see the military using such an architecture and it will eventually find it's way to our rigs.

 

I somehow think I would hate to be the guy on the ground with the M4 though... Lord knows the Black Shark peaking around that hill about 4km away is going to eat my lunch time and time again.

[159th_Viper]

......Lord knows the Black Shark peaking around that hill about 4km away is going to eat my lunch time and time again.

 

:megalol:

 

Aye - Gonna have entire Platoons Rage-Quitting after the second Gun-Run moaning about lack of Top-Cover.......:music_whistling:

 

No......Better off where we are me thinks :D

[PedroTheGoat]

:megalol:

 

Aye - Gonna have entire Platoons Rage-Quitting after the second Gun-Run moaning about lack of Top-Cover.......:music_whistling:

 

No......Better off where we are me thinks :D

 

Totally agreed. Then again, we might be an elite few if a cold start is REQUIRED. 99% of gamers would not have the fortitude to read 500+ pages of material to fly a helo... Or take the the time to learn through other channels...

 

God help them when I crank my 30mm at them. It would be like playing Call Of Duty when there are grenades going off every 3 meters of where you would be standing. Just no fun. And NO... Your stinger will be useless at the range I hit you. So have fun. :pilotfly:

[Feuerfalke]

It makes sense to develop a future sim engine that supports an FPS mode as it is quite likely thats what I'd expect a next gen sim engine to have. :thumbup:

 

:joystick: Fighterops :thumbup:

 

Actually robmypro says the exact opposite and I've got to agree with him. There is no such thing as a realistic flightsimulation in all aspects that also allows the player to play the game as a noteworthy ego-shooter.

 

If at all, it can be done with data sharing, but even that has a lot of problems, IMHO, because entertainment software is a completely different thing than military training. While the first has to run on a single medicore PC with good graphics, interface and editing abilities for an acceptable price, for the military simulator pricing is much more flexible, development can take place in a well picked environment and probably most important: These simulations don't have to be fitted with top-graphics, it may run on a render-farm controlled by several professionals and it is possible to even model a single aspect for each simulation.

Small example: The AC-130U is not a flightsimulation. It's a simulation from several of the AC-130U's interfaces, if you read the description closely.

 

IMHO the critical difference is that simulation is a very wide aspect. HLA for example, may be used to have a guy in front of a screen mark a target with a simulated laser on the westcoast and that data may be used for a flightsim-training on the eastcoast, but it does not mean that 30 people play a ground-combat simulation and 30 other people fly above in a flightsim connected to the same servers.

You can also verify that with the description of HLA. It says professional applications include controlling a single object and share data about that, connect e.g. a simulation of an airdefense UI and a simulated missile or program a robot from the other side of the world.

No matter how good this sounds, it's miles away from what PC-gamers expect of a flight- or groundcombat-simulation - at least at this moment.

[SUBS17]

You can do that in Arma, mark targets with laser designators and then have another player fly over and drop a laser guided bomb on the target(just so long as you remember the batterys for the laser designator:doh:) In Arma it can also be done by helicopters as well. The data sharing is one approach which is quicker and ideally you would use something along the lines of Arma2 with the ACE2 mod not some entertainment product like COD Modern warfare. :thumbup: Nowdays with multicore PCs its also possible to have the flight sim operate with 3-4 cores and use the FPs mode for the same sim(which of course has to be a separate program) idling in the background and once you climb out of the pit it then idles the flightsim and transition to the FPs mode. So the network between 2 sims(Arm2 and DCS) might sound workable but once you crash or eject you're no longer in the game. Now with a single sim it is more practical as when you crash land or eject yes you are still in the game or in the case of injury in ACEmod 1st aid is possible and evaced to the 1st aid tent etc. My own view of sims within Arma is it is better to put FC2 level aircraft within Arma2 to make Arma more practical. People often mention its better not to model aircraft detail in Arma as it is an FPS and that it has no place but from what I've seen it would greatly enhance game play. Maybe the next version of arma might have that ability such as the A-10 having workable Maverick display and F-15s with decent radar. With an SDK I think DCS could go as far as Naval warfare, armored warfare and possibly even submarines.:thumbup:

[SUBS17]

I don't know much about programming and such... But this is just such a WEIRD thread that I have been following for the past three days.

 

So we want to integrate FPS sim goodies along with Flight/Naval/Armor sim goodies...

 

As with most things that happen in the sim world... Wait until you see the military using such an architecture and it will eventually find it's way to our rigs.

 

I somehow think I would hate to be the guy on the ground with the M4 though... Lord knows the Black Shark peaking around that hill about 4km away is going to eat my lunch time and time again.

 

Get a copy of Arma or Arma2 (and Acemod) and you'll experience that but remember that its also possible to use Manpads against that helicopter or a rotary cannon on the back of an M113. BTW door gunners can be just as annoying as a KA50s gun.:doh:

[sweinhart3]

ED just needs to release the TBS sim to the public and everyone will be happy.

[Waldo_II]

ED just needs to release the TBS sim to the public and everyone will be happy.

 

ED is taking a gamble with TBS. They can sell it commercially and make a little dough from the small core of flight sim enthusiasts, or they can score a major military contract and roll around in vats of cash. Vats. Of. Cash. Giant, towering, deep vats of paper money. Diving board on the end, scuba gear at the ready. Imagine.

[sweinhart3]

Well why cant they just take out the classified stuff and sell to both markets? Did the military tell them that the explosions were a little too realistic for civilian useage? lol

[ZQuickSilverZ]

To me its not about having a vehicle location. I am sure heading, mark, speed, and altitude are easy enouph to communicate between graphic engines. The problem in my opinion is map size and physics.

 

Map Size

Obviously air units need large map sizes. Land vehicles need smaller sizes otherwise they are too spread out. Then you have naval units and thats a mixed bag. You need to be able to place your aircraft carriers anywhere in the water but, you don't want them so spread out that they can not engage each other, but you don't want them too close either otherwise they are just spamming each other. There are tricks to get around some mapping problems. For instance a tank could be "fenced in" so to speak. A ship really only needs to see the water and maybe a couple of miles inland. They don't need the whole world mapped, just the coast and under the water(for submarines). It would be interesting to see how they handled the water. For the naval sim player the ocean needs to be be moving. It needs to "look" like real water. To an aircraft what we have now is workable.

 

Physics

I think its pretty obvious that air physics, water physics and land physics are all very different. How do you translate the physics relationship a vehicle has with the ground to someone playing an air sim.

Edited June 13, 2011 by ZQuickSilverZ

[SAM77]

Physics

I think its pretty obvious that air physics, water physics and land physics are all very different.

 

I'm confused. Was taught that air(gas) and water(liquid) are both classed as fluids. Behave the same hence fluid dynamics covers aero and hydro???????