Another F16 entry coming "someday"?
-
Military contractors with contracts to develop military-standard simulations officially for any AirForce, don’t care to implement DCS or MSFS -level graphics in their training systems…;
-
@raptor army now invest in sim to avoid a very expensive training…
-
@raptor right? Nobody concerned with quality training and on a budget (every military ever) would see these beautiful beautiful graphics and say “that will give our pilots and edge”
-
@awmk1 said in Another F16 entry coming "someday"?:
@raptor right? Nobody concerned with quality training and on a budget (every military ever) would see these beautiful beautiful graphics and say “that will give our pilots and edge”
Yeah, but the higher fidelity means they can train on some more aspects involving visual identification outside the cockpit instruments, right? Like threat reaction from a SAM launch, or maybe even a merge into a dogfight? I assume they do IRL training for those things, but so much more safe and predictable in a simulator (and cheaper/easier to run multiple sessions). Obviously, I have no idea, just as curious myself.
-
@maxwaldorf
, by the way?
After having seen what is on their site and this clip too, I have to agree. There is nothing for us “common users” there, their aim must be found elsewhere.
And their speech (in that video) resembles more an open proposal to professional military training firms indeed, good catch.
Ah, yes. There could be something useful for us too.
Someday. In Falcon 5.99, perhaps, if that will be evaluated useful, I guess.
Have you given a look to thisWith best regards.
-
@jackal Now I have seen the Unreal Engine 5 Matrix demo…
Nothing beats it… -
-
The “launch video” indicates that the level of graphical realism is as good as anything out there. DCS level or better.
It’s based on Unreal Engine 5.
I was at the trade show where it was launched.
From what I heard, I do expect that this will be available to individuals, but perhaps not every module will be. Or modules may be available in both classified and unclassified versions. That was not explicitly addressed in my presence. -
You can always ask them if they will be a consumers version
Some of You say it’s not for commercial use,I agree at a point but then can you show me a military sim that US Air Force uses right now I mean a trailer or something? I mean that professional simulators have not trailers on the web or at least I am not aware of any ,for example if Dcs does military contracts and has pro modules I believe you will never see them and maybe you can’t afford them even if you find them.maybe this is the case with META , professional modules that you will never see
And public consumers version ,but again they have a nice
Communication form and you can ask what they intend to do.
And you can Inform us as wellThe market needs more companies to stop the arrogance of dcs or at least more choises
-
The USAF uses Lockheed-Martin’s Prepar3d simulation software as the basis for its portable mission simulators. Prepar3d is available for commercial and student usage, and they apparently don’t really track your usage very closely so you can get it if you want it. Unofficial use is not officially supported, of course.
As for Meta’s new offering, I have sent them a message asking specifically about individual usage and request for specifics. I will post the response I get, if I get one.
-
My question: How long until Zuckerberg sues them?
-
@buzzbomb said in Another F16 entry coming "someday"?:
The USAF uses Lockheed-Martin’s Prepar3d simulation software as the basis for its portable mission simulators. Prepar3d is available for commercial and student usage, and they apparently don’t really track your usage very closely so you can get it if you want it. Unofficial use is not officially supported, of course.
As for Meta’s new offering, I have sent them a message asking specifically about individual usage and request for specifics. I will post the response I get, if I get one.
Yes, they use Prepar3D for UPT 2.5 I believe. FWIW, at least the 355th Training Squadron also uses DCS with VR and PointCtrl, maybe all of the 355th Ops Group and other A-10 units. The updates they requested were the source of A-10C II update that ED released (and made you buy again). So overall, the USAF is embracing OTS VR sim solutions. This new simulator could be their next solution. Maybe it will trickle down to recreational simmers, much as Prepar3D did. But that was also because there was a vacuum in the civilian sim market with the period of time between MSFS versions (despite XPlane still being a good solution).
-
@maxwaldorf
So “something” to take care of in future of course, then?
What do you (all) think?With best regards.
-
@snake122 said in Another F16 entry coming "someday"?:
. But that was also because there was a vacuum in the civilian sim market with the period of time between MSFS versions (despite XPlane still being a good solution).
With regard to realism, immersion and system depth, XPlane 11 is still miles ahead of anything MSFS has to offer at the moment. If you take a peek at the xp12 preview screenshots I’d say it won’t be too far off from MSFS “good looks”.
Also, XPlane’s multi platform support is a godsend to those of us who haven’t booked a one way trip on the Microsoft bandwagon, looking for a viable alternative to an OS that gets ever more encroaching on the user’s privacy and control over his / her own hardware with every new “release”.
So calling the time between FS releases a “vacuum” is a wee bit off the mark IMHO, to say the least In the same vein please don’t forget “flightgear” either which has come along nicely in the last couple of years.
All the best,
Uwe
-
@icarus
lol nice one -
@hoover I agree completely Uwe! XPlane has always been my favorite civilian sim for many of the similar reasons BMS is over DCS. I meant vacuum in MS release sense only. But since it’s the bright and shiny object, it’s what people pay attention to. They wanted a release in-between to use their add-on etc. and somehow got LM to sell to individuals. I was always surprised the Prepar3D became the “professional grade” sim despite Austin pursuing his own FAA certified XPlane version. I think that comes down to LM vs. Austin ultimately. That vacuum did bring many more people to XPlane at least, I hope 12 makes some of them come back.
-
Very well.
All of us have discussed the topic and left his own opinion.
But it has to be back straight to “our” business now, I think.
Is, or which part of , it you like more, the new Unreal engine is fit for us? Maybe in the next future or in a very next version (4.38 or even 4.37)?
I realize that it really is a hard question to be answered at this present moment, but the same I would point out to the fact that our (simulated flight of any kind) world had to be expected to change significatively, or it would die due to the lack of purchases, thus of developing.
So it is. As always, gold mines appealed the most spending capable buyers, ad contractors consequently. it would not makes anyone to wonder that they have to be created instead of being unvealed only.Back to us: what’s for us of BMS?
With best regards.
-
@hoover I think exactly the opposite !
-
hmm, care to elaborate on your point of view a bit?
If I read my post above and go “exactly the opposite” on any point made, there isn’t a lot of sense left IMHO
All the best, Uwe
-
@hoover Hello Hoover
That’s very simple. I’ve tried everything that deals with flight simulation. There is no software that gave me the feeling of my past real life flights than MSFS
Cheers,
Radium
-
In my opinion, the sims that survive and the sims that will be left in the dust will be divided by a single factor: The terrain database. Specifically, a global terrain database that is derived from real world data, satellite imagery, and the like, and procedurally generated, as per the world in MSFS, and now in Meta’s NOR platform, will be an absolute requirement.
I’m TIRED of only flying around the Korean theater. I want to be able to pick a spot, any spot, and fly from it or to it or around it.
Porting over to Unreal Engine is probably also a really good idea since Meta’s NOR demo video has already shown that it’s easily capable of delivering near photorealistic imagery, easily equal to and superior to the best that BMS’s chief competitor, DCS, has to offer. Plus the support for UE is unmatched. VR is natively supported in UE, as well.
I’m certainly a BMS supporter, above all challengers, because of the simulation fidelity BMS promises and which is the cumulative work of 24 years of development. But it must be upgraded to technological currency in order to remain viable. A full world database coupled with a transition to the UE environment are the cornerstones of that necessary evolution.