Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Military Displays Build Hardware Technology

Russia's MiG Aircraft Company Develops 3D Flight Simulator 62

Posted by timothy
from the make-a-mig-do-a-4g-negative-dive dept.
Zothecula writes "Russian aircraft company MiG is best known for its fighter planes which have been used by the USSR, China, North Korea and North Vietnam since the beginning of WWII. These days, the former Government-owned RAC MiG is a publicly traded entity and competes on the open market with its technologies, having more than 1600 of its MiG-29 fighters in operation in 25 countries. Now MiG is claiming a major first in military aviation with the launch of a 3D flight simulator at the Dubai Air Show, providing volumetric visualization of beyond-the-cockpit space for trainee top guns. The simulator comes complete with the MiG-29's cockpit and actual control systems."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Russia's MiG Aircraft Company Develops 3D Flight Simulator

Comments Filter:
  • damn (Score:5, Insightful)

    by demonbug (309515) on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @01:51PM (#38062096) Journal

    I was hoping for a new entry in the PC sim arena. Oh well.

    Seems strange that this is big news (is it really?) - I'd think it would be obvious to apply 3D projection to flight simulators, and pretty damn easy to do. Digital projectors capable of high-resolution 3D are not exactly new, and neither are active shutter glasses. Somewhat expensive until fairly recently, but that's probably not a huge concern for military-grade (or aviation in general) flight simulators.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Asmodae (1155077)

      Check out Eagle Dynamics (http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com). Full KA-50 Blackshark (attack helicopter) and A-10C Warthog study sims. Absolutely mind-boggling levels of fidelity, (which you can tone down by turning on various assists, at least in blackshark). They also have a lower fidelity multi-aircraft package called Lock On: Modern Air Combat (with a Flaming Expansion). Currently Blackshark and Flaming Cliffs share multiplayer, and can play online together. There's some more expansions coming

      • I think we were hoping for 3D based on the summary, and unless I missed something those, while impressive, are still only 2D.

        It should be capable of 3D output with enough hardware, but I'm assuming the advance in this MiG simulator is optimizing the output. For example, things that are really far away don't need to be 3D, or even separated in the 3rd dimension.

        So you can set a limit, like modern open-air 3D games do these days. Everything over X feet away, whatever the limit of human vision is, gets a sta

        • by Asmodae (1155077)

          I was more addressing the implication in the OP that the PC sim market was faltering/missing in general rather than just stereoscopic 3D. I did miss that though, I read 3D and think, well we've had 3D since what.. quake3d? or earlier. :)

          I wonder what nVidia/AMD's stereoscopic 3D extrapolation tech would do with something like the ED flight sims.

    • by BitZtream (692029)

      http://www.x-plane.com/ [x-plane.com]

      Does everything this 'simulator' talks about being impressive ... oh, and it did it several years ago.

      3D, multiple renderer PCs, carrier landings, air-to-air refueling, formation flying, forest fire water pickups, space shuttle re-entrys (that one is hell btw, do a full reentry and survive)

      Its also FAA certified for training, though you do have to pay a small fortune to get the USB key that 'enables certification'

      • by EvanED (569694)

        Its also FAA certified for training, though you do have to pay a small fortune to get the USB key that 'enables certification'

        Well, to be fair, you also have to pay a small fortune to get the hardware that enables it as well. Your gaming PC won't cut it; there are fake plane controls to buy as well.

      • by syousef (465911)

        Still doesn't compare to FS2004. Nor does FSX which had more eyecandy and slightly improved feel, but more bugs and performance drains than you can poke a stick at. Pity....the addon community was the most vibrant I've ever seen!

  • Charlie's dying to know, and no one believes Maverick & Goose.
  • It would probably cost millions and I would probably never afford to own one.

    Wishful thinking:

    The make a "demilitarized" version of it - maybe without the weapon systems and the radar - some amusement park / arcade buys one these. I pay $ XX an hour and get as close to flying a supersonic fighter aircraft as I possibly can.

  • "...providing volumetric visualization of beyond-the-cockpit space..." In soviet russia planes fly the pilots.
  • Not really news (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ehud42 (314607) on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @02:02PM (#38062236) Homepage

    At least it shouldn't be. I mean, when guys are building [f15sim.com] fully collimated displays [youtube.com] in their garage, in their spare time, the big boys had better have holodecks.

    • neither of those links included simulators that were using stereoscopic 3D displays...

      2D warped displays give a good simulation of immersion, but not of depth...

      • by timeOday (582209)

        neither of those links included simulators that were using stereoscopic 3D displays...

        2D warped displays give a good simulation of immersion, but not of depth...

        Did the above really get modded to -1? I think it is correct.

  • You mean they were the "first to create a real 3D flight simulator?"

    Next thing you know, people will have them in their bedrooms [bornrich.com]

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Our triangulated sense of depth registers "infinity" a few hundred feet out. What do you see out the window of a plane that is less than a few hundred feet out? Maybe a little bit of the runway when you're landing, that's about it.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Pilots will argue they can register depth much further than normal people. Regardless, your point is why the USDOJ hasn't invested any extra $$$ in making their dome/capsule displays 3D. Except for inflight refueling using a basket line, there's really no need for depth. Everything else is indicator driven. Even carrier landings rely on on-deck and pilot HUD indicators that are set with a back and forth radar indicator on the ship and plane.

      I'm sure older pilots who had to actually dog fight and make de

      • by Wyatt Earp (1029)

        Lockheed, Boeing, Northrop , Martin and Grumman have been putting out "dog fighter based aircraft" since before WWII.

        MiG's first aircraft was in 1940.
        Boeing's first all metal fighter was in 1932
        Lockheed's first transport was in 1928 and first fighter flew in 1939
        Northrop's first aircraft was in 1932 and first fighter in 1942
        Grumman's first military aircraft was in 1932
        Martin's first military aircraft was in 1918.

        While Lockheed and Martin merged, as did Northrop and Grumman, their history of military aircraf

    • by Chuckstar (799005)

      If you RTFA...

      Flying in formation
      Aerial refueling
      Aircraft carrier landings

    • by phayes (202222)

      Why? I mean this is a flight simulator with most everything except for the plane itself far enough away to be indistinguishable from infinity. I'll admit that I've stopped going to 3D movies as they give me a headache & the bleed through & darkness that 3D adds just ruin the moviegoing experience for me.

      What exactly can 3D add to what is supposed to be a simulation of real-life? The split second of noticing the trees are closer to the ground before you impact? I don't see the point.

      • by b4dc0d3r (1268512)

        Just because it doesn't work for you means it works for no one? Or do you just base all of your real world input on theory and assumptions?

        As a result, pilots face problems in assessing the distance to the key virtual objects being monitored, as well as size of those objects, making it difficult to perform precisely when flying the virtual fighter in close proximity to other aircraft, in air refueling, or on the approach to a landing strip or aircraft carrier.

        That sounds like doing things that are not clas

        • by phayes (202222)

          The spiel is from someone actively trying to sell the system, not an appreciation from anyone who has tried to use it. Sorry, I don't believe used car salesmen either.

          Even according to the spiel, 3D is only useful for landing. True, it's one of the most dangerous parts of a flight but I remain skeptical of any major advantage of adding 3D to a flight simulator. You're still only affecting parallax & not depth of field & most of what pilots need to learn for landing are valid in 2D & even without

          • by EvanED (569694)

            Even according to the spiel, 3D is only useful for landing.

            You must have read a different spiel than the one your parent quoted, which gives two others: in-air refueling and flying close to other aircraft (i.e. in formation).

            • by phayes (202222)

              Formation flying?!? Only airshow pilots fly in formation close enough for 3D to be useful. AAR does look like a useful corner case but still doesn't merit the overstated "want" in the top post of this thread.

  • So whats the big deal?

    X-Plane has been capable of this for as long as I've known about it. Several versions at a minimum. Has all the settings built in to simulate 3d in multiple ways, goggles being the simplest, with some other people building in other neat systems like head positioning sensing instead of goggles (think Jason Lee's Wii demos).

    If you went the goggle route and X-Plane you could use multiple machines to render a full sphere around you (X-Plane has all the settings to do it already as well a

  • by Anonymous Coward

    ...out of your wallet? Haw!

    Does it use GeForce cards? Double haw!

The meat is rotten, but the booze is holding out. Computer translation of "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak."

Working...