Australian Defence Force Builds $1.7m Linux-Based Flight Simulator

scrubl writes "The Australian Defence Force (ADF) has revealed its latest flight simulator runs on SUSE Linux-based clusters of Opteron servers and uses an open source graphics platform. The Defence Science and Technology Organisation's (DSTO) Air Operations Simulation Centre in Melbourne creates virtual worlds that allow pilots to experience real-world combat situations without leaving the ground. The visuals software was written in OpenGL, using commercial and open source scene graph engines and making 'heavy use of OpenGL Shader Language programs.'"

Comments

Kangaroos

[Hognoxious]

Kangaroos with stinger missiles?

Re:Kangaroos

[hort_wort]

Maybe they'll be operating drones this time. It'll be sort of like Star Fox, all the bad guys'll be critters....

Re:Kangaroos

[jamstar7]

Kangaroos with stinger missiles?

Prior art I think. Though the Snopes article is funnier.

It's pretty much a given that they saved money

[BadAnalogyGuy]

Instead of going with a licensed OS like Windows or VxWorks, they saved tens of dollars. Smart thinking and good use of money in these tough economic times.

It would be nice to see other departments try to realize these types of gains.

Re:It's pretty much a given that they saved money

[TheRaven64]

Tens of dollars? The last military flight sim I played with cost £20m, which is about $32m (or $38m if we're talking Australian $) at the current exchange rate. Possibly costs have come down a lot since then, but they seem to have saved a lot of money somewhere. It was quite fun to fly - panoramic views through the simulated cockpit windows and hydraulic systems moving it in response to my actions - but it was even more fun to sit in the instructors' chair and add a flight in interceptors just as the pilot was coming up for mid-air refuelling.

Re:It's pretty much a given that they saved money

[BitZtream]

Which is why the cost savings on running Linux is funny.

Did you not hear the whoosh go by your head?

Spend millions of dollars on a project, and do stupid things like cut corners that save you statistically irrelevant amounts of money on the project and result in a far more difficult to support product.

And before someone starts screaming about how its better because its OSS, when you do a project like this, even Microsoft will give you source in order to get their name stamped on it.

Re:It's pretty much a given that they saved money

[Anonymous Coward]

Spend millions of dollars on a project, and do stupid things like cut corners that save you statistically irrelevant amounts of money on the project and result in a far more difficult to support product.

Agreed that in a project that size the direct cost of the operating system will be relatively small.

But there are many indirect costs resulting from the choice of operating system. There may be better or less expensive development tools available for Linux versus Windows. There may be more or better or less expensive graphics/rendering libraries and other software available for Linux as opposed to Windows. It may be that the software for turning a pile of Linux boxes into a rendering farm is free or less expensive or more efficient than the equivalent for Windows.

And if you are talking thousands or tens of thousands of licenses for a rendering farm, you are no longer talking about tens of dollars.

Re:It's pretty much a given that they saved money

[Tubal-Cain]

It may be that the software for turning a pile of Linux boxes into a rendering farm is free or less expensive or more efficient than the equivalent for Windows.

Indeed. It's not a coincidence that only 5 of Top500's list are pure Windows environments.

Re:It's pretty much a given that they saved money

[gbjbaanb]

Instead of going with a licensed OS like Windows...

They had to, Microsoft canned Flight Sim. Though I know of a load of unemployed guys who have some experience in writing this kind of software :)

Re:It's pretty much a given that they saved money

[Heir Of The Mess]

Traditionally this has been the realm of SGI boxes. So really there should be a comment somewhere about SGI being dead.

Re:It's pretty much a given that they saved money

[antirelic]

Sweet! A flight simulator. Now all they need is an air force! Now we know what they are saving money for!

Re:It's pretty much a given that they saved money

[visualight]

What makes you think price is why they chose open source? People that are doing high performance computing and visualization are almost exclusively linux. Microsoft has been trying to give it away to those people for years with little success.

Anyway, your comment was funny and worth a mod up, just wanted to point out that if they really wanted to save money they could have cut a deal with microsoft. I've seen how far they're willing to go to buy a customer in this market.

Re:It's pretty much a given that they saved money

[skingers6894]

Nowhere in the article did they mention that the price of O/S licensing was a consideration.

Considering the boffins at DSTO have been using Unix variants for many years for this type of work I doubt that they would have chosen Windows for this even if it were free.

Re:It's pretty much a given that they saved money

[Darkk]

Industrial Light & Magic (ILM) been using Linux for workstations and rendering farms for years. They said running the apps on linux ran 5 times faster than SGI workstation with the same spec'd hardware! The computer generated special effects on Pirates of the Caribbean were done almost entirely in linux.

Here is a nice write up article about it... http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6011

Re:It's pretty much a given that they saved money

[martin-boundary]

Fool! They chose Linux for purely technical reasons. Have you ever tried running a command line flight simulator on Windows? No? I didn't think so.

Re:It's pretty much a given that they saved money

[dbIII]

It also gets to use more than 2GB of memory and they also get to use nice available numerical processing libraries that may have never been ported to MS Windows. Also take a look at the summary. It mentions a cluster. Clustering on MS Windows is still in it's very early stages and is of little use apart from simple load spreading and high availability so the users don't notice that MS Exchange has crashed. Take another look at the summary - openGL - all the hard work on drawing the images is done on big machines in the server room and then exported to a display. MS Windows doesn't do that very well. That could be added to the application but you save a bit more than tens of dollars if it's already there. With respect, MS Windows is a pointless toy in such a situation. Don't nitpick about the 2GB per program, I know there are server versions of MS Windows that support the Pentium Pro and newer and there are the 64 bit versions. The typical toy that people use is 32 bit XP/Vista which has this problem solved over a decade ago by Microsoft among others.

Re:It's pretty much a given that they saved money

[dbIII]

How many Microsoft based clusters have you heard of? Solaris or a pile of others - yes, but this is the sort of platform that Microsoft have only recently become aware of so their software is not suitable.

Re:It's pretty much a given that they saved money

[mjwx]

even Microsoft will give you source in order to get their name stamped on it.

Microsoft has twice before refused to give the source code for Windows for Warships to the Australian Navy, what makes you think the RAAF will have any more luck. The US govt will block this as they have fears that this will be leaked to the soviets (throwback to some 1960's paranoia when Australia was being blamed for intel leaks caused by a CIA double agent)

Which is why the cost savings on running Linux is funny.

How, the chair is not just a copy of MS Flight simulator X on a big screen, it's a hydraulic control system that needs to make precise movements in real time to correspond with input, Windows cant even control a mechanical lathe with millimetre accuracy, that's why DOS is still popular in the assembly line. Besides the RAAF's biggest cost isn't in software or hardware, its in operational costs. To achieve similar results using Windows (.net and what not) you need to use more powerful HW, increasing the amount of power it needs, cooling requirements and above all else, maintenance. Windows breaks more often then Linux, so the RAAF would need to spend more time on maintenance with a windows based system.

Spend millions of dollars on a project, and do stupid things like cut corners that save you statistically irrelevant amounts of money on the project and result in a far more difficult to support product.

The RAAF would have evaluated all the options, Windows simply could not perform the job the RAAF asked of it. No corners were cut here. This didn't save "statistically irrelevant amounts of money", the project provided a machine that fits the specifications detailed by the RAAF.

Re:It's pretty much a given that they saved money

[joocemann]

I honestly don't understand how there is some difference between Windows and DOS that would permit a mechanical lathe to be adjusted sub-millimeter increments with accuracy.

I'm guessing wherever you're getting your thought from is a software flaw, not an OS flaw.

Re:It's pretty much a given that they saved money

[mjwx]

I honestly don't understand how there is some difference between Windows and DOS that would permit a mechanical lathe to be adjusted sub-millimeter increments with accuracy.

ROM Size and processor archs are also factors. Windows cannot provide the mm accuracy in the same ROM size that DOS can. Linux is hard pressed to do it. You could probably run the same DOS programs on Windows 3.1 or even 9x but the storage and processing components would increase dramatically.

A lot of mechanical lathes were programmed with DOS in the 1980's, seeing as these are non-networked there hasn't been any need to update from DOS when it can still do the job.

Re:It's pretty much a given that they saved money

[walshy007]

also, this is military stuff, armies like their independence from foreign nations, even if they are allies.

Re:It's pretty much a given that they saved money

[Nefarious Wheel]

There may be more or better or less expensive graphics/rendering libraries and other software available for Linux as opposed to Windows. It may be that the software for turning a pile of Linux boxes into a rendering farm is free or less expensive or more efficient than the equivalent for Windows.

I remember the keynote to the Queensland TechEd 2007 where they showed the some 600,000 rendered penguins (no, not Tux) in one scene for the animated film Happy Feet. Then I remembered the producer saying the render farm was several thousand Windows boxes running NT4. This in 2007, mind you.

Then I thought -- there's no way Microsoft would have known about the licenses for those thousands of servers, they were so old, and that many would have crippled their budget ...

So there you have it. The state of the art is undoubtedly Massively OverAge - Parallel Environments of Windows - Piratically Esourced Windows Servers (MOA-PEW-PEWS).

I suddenly have this ghastly urge to go roll a Horde character and chat in the Barrens. Soz, cya, bbl...

Re:It's pretty much a given that they saved money

[Alpha830RulZ]

Linux has had an in here for some years now, due to earlier 64 bit support, and better/earlier support for large numbers of files in a directory. I work for a division of a fortune 500 that does datamining/text mining. Windows lost us in about 2004 for these two reasons, and there hasn't been any reason to go back. Cost wasn't the original reason, but cost keeps us from changing. $800 a machine adds up when you are looking at dozens or hundreds of rendering/compute servers. Linux has also proven to be easier for command and control of the jobs. The one thing that I long for is the full featured user identification/authentication support that Active Directory has.

Re:It's pretty much a given that they saved money

[johannesg]

Instead of going with a licensed OS like Windows or VxWorks, they saved tens of dollars. Smart thinking and good use of money in these tough economic times.

It would be nice to see other departments try to realize these types of gains.

Vxworks is tens of thousands of dollars, not tens of dollars. Second, what exactly is the added value of vxworks in this? It is good if you need hard realtime operations, which typically implies a solution with hardware in the loop. If you don't have that (and a flightsim doesn't need it) you can use a non-realtime OS like Linux just fine.

Anyway, how is this news? Where I work we have been writing spacecraft simulators for years on Linux... In the past all that stuff used to run on Sun, but really, what's the point in getting a slow, expensive Sun machine if a cheap Dell box loaded with Suse will do the job faster and cheaper?

Re:It's pretty much a given that they saved money

[TapeCutter]

"Windows cannot provide the mm accuracy in the same ROM size that DOS can" is a very different claim to your original claim that "Windows cant even control a mechanical lathe with millimetre accuracy".

Windows drivers have access to 100 nanosecond timer ticks, accuracy is not a problem but like any general purpose O/S it is not well suited to embedded RT applications due to bloat and scheduling algorithms designed for ...well... general purpose use.

Re:It's pretty much a given that they saved money

[mjwx]

"Windows cannot provide the mm accuracy in the same ROM size that DOS can" is a very different claim to your original claim that "Windows cant even control a mechanical lathe with millimetre accuracy".

Windows drivers have access to 100 nanosecond timer ticks, accuracy is not a problem but like any general purpose O/S it is not well suited to embedded RT applications due to bloat and scheduling algorithms designed for ...well... general purpose use.

In theory, everything is the same in theory as it is in practice, in practice it isn't.

MS still sells DOS because no factory has been able to successfully run or wants to run automated machinery such as a lathe with Windows. Theoretically "Windows Drivers have access to 100 nanosecond timers" is a lot different to putting that into practice.

Re:It's pretty much a given that they saved money

[TapeCutter]

My point was not about the suitability of windows for a particular job, the GP and I are specifically disputing your first claim which was -"Windows cant even control a mechanical lathe with millimetre accuracy".

However the POINT of my post was that you ignored what the GP said and simply changed the claim to something completely different (ie: something that made sense).

In otherwords I agree with your second claim and disagree with your first but your post gives the impression you think there's only one claim.

I don't object to hyperbole (why would I come here if I did :). However when someone correctly calls you on said hyperbole (the GP who questioned you), I think it's only polite to fess up and acknowledge they're right when subsequently explaining the grain of truth behind the hyperbole. IMHO failing to do so makes you look like an arrogant arsehole.

Re:It's pretty much a given that they saved money

[TapeCutter]

You missed my point.

Re:It's pretty much a given that they saved money

[fractoid]

So there you have it. The state of the art is undoubtedly Massively OverAge - Parallel Environments of Windows - Piratically Esourced Windows Servers (MOA-PEW-PEWS).

I suddenly have this ghastly urge to go roll a Horde character and chat in the Barrens. Soz, cya, bbl...

You are simultaneously my hero, and a massive tool. I'm going to go and kill flagged lowbies near the battlemasters in Ironforge now. And it's ALL YOUR FAULT. :P

Re:It's pretty much a given that they saved money

[fractoid]

Windows cannot provide the mm accuracy in the same ROM size that DOS can. Linux is hard pressed to do it. You could probably run the same DOS programs on Windows 3.1 or even 9x but the storage and processing components would increase dramatically.

Um... what?

Re:It's pretty much a given that they saved money

[Anthony]

SGI is not dead. The "G" in SGI, however, just got buried again.

http://www.vizworld.com/2009/08/breaking-sgi-terminates-graphics-division/

Re:It's pretty much a given that they saved money

[Anonymous Coward]

Before we get all rapid anti-windows, is there any evidence that this system is any better than Flight Sim X on a PC?
Having worked for the govt, I wouldn't be surprised if the end result is pretty much the same only the govt $1.69 million too much for it

Re:It's pretty much a given that they saved money

[rtb61]

Of course they can share it with other allied countries, thus work on improving relationships, so democracy across FOSS borders. Other countries that choose to implement it will obviously want to work on the code and as a result will contribute to it so that Australian defence force are likely to save considerable amounts on future development.

So the savings can extend globally and add up to hundreds of millions of dollars (and over the years even billions of dollars), ouch, that has to really sting for closed sourced proprietary flight simulator developers.

Now of course you can also add in the underlying operating system, especially across a server based environment. Now if it will squeeze onto an end users desktop, well instead of America's Army you could have Australia's Airforce, it will certainly appeal to the geek audience with sufficient intellect to suit an air force career.

The only sure way to waste money on software, especially when you are talking multi million dollar investments, is on dead end closed source proprietary software licences, the product that never stops costing you more money and the only way to stop money going down the endless upgrade drain is to drop the product.

Re:It's pretty much a given that they saved money

[mcgrew]

I'm waiting for someone to make a Nomad clone for Linux. I learned Nomad on the mainframe about fifteen years ago, today's PCs are certainly up to the task.

Re:It's pretty much a given that they saved money

[boeroboy]

F/A-18 Hornet! 1994
Mac OS 7.1
25 MHZ, 8MB RAM, 4 floppies.
50 watt PSU

Now that's what I call saving money.
http://www.graphsim.com/games-fa18-oif.html

Re:It's pretty much a given that they saved money

[joocemann]

Yeah, but there is a difference between saying "It can't" and saying "It was never needed, so it was never done"

Deja Vu!

[InsertWittyNameHere]

I remember what happened last time they built a simulator.

Re:I want one!

[ae1294]

I want one! Where can I get myself a sweet flight sim like this?! :-o

In the Australian Defense Force?

X-plane pro?

[ducomputergeek]

I like flight sims. Only games I still play are Falcon 4.0: Allied Force and X-Plane. But If I'm not mistaken, there a professional version of X-plane that's FAA rated. Why not start there?

Not really news.

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to work for L3 Simulation - one of the biggest suppliers of flight simulation gear around the world. We used massive diskless Linux clusters for making flight simulator graphics systems - and have been doing it for maybe 10 years now. We used our own Linux distro, software written in C++ and using OpenGL for graphics with nVidia graphics cards. Pretty much every F16 pilot out there plus most US helicopter pilots train regularly on Linux-based flight simulators.

On a typical system, we'd either use a helmet-mounted display driven by two PC's or a dodecahedral "Simusphere" display with 9 rear-projected pentagonal panels surrounding the cockpit mockup. Each display would be driven by either 1 or 4 PC's with a hardware gizmo that combined four raster displays into a single video projector.

Additional Linux PC's were used to stream graphics data into the graphics PC's - more were used to draw the HUD and ancilliary displays within the plane.

The machines were diskless - booting from a central server over 1GHz ethernet. The reason for leaving off the disks on the 'slave' machines was to improve reliability. When you have 64 PC's - the reliability of all of those hard drives would result in more frequent failures than we could tolerate.

Neat stuff - but hardly new!

Re:Not really news.

[duguk]

Very cool, thanks! I was really impressed until you said "1GHz ethernet". That seems... unlikely =D

Re:Not really news.

[amn108]

The machines were diskless - booting from a central server over 1GHz ethernet

You mean 1 Gbps Ethernet, right?

Re:Not really news.

[dkf]

Very cool, thanks! I was really impressed until you said "1GHz ethernet". That seems... unlikely =D

He was probably mixing up his terms when referring to gigabit ether. It's not the fastest thing on the block, but it's still pretty nippy (and definitely beats what most people have deployed to desktop level) and the faster options (notably Infiniband) tend to only be used in specialist applications like tightly-coupled supercomputers.

Re:Not really news.

[boxxertrumps]

Maybe, but regular cat5 transmits with a frequency of 100mhz. When you're sinking that much money into a project like this special networking hardware can go a long way.

Re:Not really news.

[Hurricane78]

No. Because "When you have 64 PC his (hyphen) the reliability of all of those hard drives would result in more frequent failures than we could tolerate." :P

Re:Not really news.

[BitZtream]

Which is ... gigabit ethernet ... which is rather common, can you even buy a computer without it now?

Re:Not really news.

[BitZtream]

Quick, explain the difference.

Re:Not really news.

[BitZtream]

Most people have gigabit at the desktop now, its been standard for the last few years on desktop PCs

Re:Not really news.

[dkf]

Most people have gigabit at the desktop now, its been standard for the last few years on desktop PCs

That doesn't mean anything if you've not got a gigabit switch at the other end. And even if you've got that fancy switch, if your connection to the outside world is like most peoples', you'll only be able to use that bandwidth locally. Great for LAN parties, but not much point otherwise.

Re:Not really news.

[Sponge Bath]

And it can make the Kessel run in 12 parsecs.

Re:Not really news.

[swb]

So everybody should only have 1.5Mbit ethernet, because T1 speeds are some kind of standard outside the LAN?

Gig switches aren't fancy. The last one I bought was $50 and supported jumbo frames.

Re:Not really news.

[amn108]

I see. Does increasing frequency to 1Ghz increase bandwidth and/or latency? Has to be good for something, if they tweaked the standard like this.

Re:Not really news.

[mdwh2]

It always cracks me up when the PC-Gaming/DirectX/Direct3D crowd starts howling on about how abut how OpenGL is dead

Yet no one has done this in the entire thread - do you have a reference that you are referring to, or are you just trying to start a flamewar by making up a straw man?

Re:Not really news.

[mcgrew]

If yoiu're interested, I made mention (actually a bit more than a mention) of a 1972 C5-A flight simulator here. The building itself was the computer; rooms full of bookshelves holding not books but printed circuit boards. It was the coolest thing I'd ever seen im my life. Here's the relevant part:

By 1972 I was in the US Air Force as a driver, working on the flight line in the Aerospace Ground Equipment (AGE) unit. One cold, snowy night a half hour from the swing shift's quitting time, a call came in for two air conditioners way over on the other side of the base. My tractor had a top speed of about ten miles per hour - I was looking forward to a beer, and here I had to drag these damned air conditioners out. I was going to be working late. Hell!

A half an hour or so later I arrived at the facility, swearing, with air conditioners in tow. To my amazement there were two guys standing outside in the snow waiting for me.

"What the fuck do you need a God damned air conditioner in the snow for? I demanded.

"Oh, man," one replied excitedly, "this is so cool. You have to see it!" These guys were bouncing around like kids at a birthday party. One showed me around as the other hooked up the hoses from the air conditioners and turned them on.

Inside was what looked like a library. Every room was filled with rows and rows of what appeared to be bookshelves. However, instead of books, these shelves held printed circuit boards. There must have been thousands of them. I was duly impressed, and had nerdily forgotten about the beer I had wanted so badly.

"Cool. But what is it for?" I asked.

"Ahh," he said, "come in here," and led me to yet another room. This room was huge, and had little in it that I recognized. It was straight out of a science fiction movie, only less corny looking.

"Ok," I replied stupidly, "what is it?"

"It's a C5 simulator! Come on inside!"

And inside the contraption was the cockpit of a C-5A cargo plane, at the time the largest aircraft in the world. We had several C5s there at Dover, which was, of course, why they needed a C5 simulator. And two SUV sized air conditioners to cool the contraption's circuitry.

It was identical to a C5 cockpit, right down to the bolts and carpets. The only difference was that the windows were ground glass rather than clear, for projecting images on.

They let me "fly" it. It was incredible! It sat on hydraulics, so when you accelerated, it felt like acceleration. Likewise banking, diving, etc. You could even crash the thing! This was even cooler than the other computer I had seen back when I was 12.

Re:Not really news.

[AndrewNeo]

I just bought one for $20 after MIR from Amazon. They're rather common, now.

Simulating what, exactly?

[CarpetShark]

Given that air forces seem to be moving to unmanned drone fighters, it seems silly to build a new flight sim for traditional *pilot* training at this stage. I wonder if it's aimed at training remote drone "pilots" instead.

Re:Simulating what, exactly?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

There's still a lot of work for human pilots, and there probably will be for at least another generation. The first UAVs that can handle manned-aircraft combat tasks are just now being deployed, and in many ways they're Not There Yet. Are you suggesting that air forces should stop training pilots now on the assumption that drones will take up the slack?

Re:Simulating what, exactly?

[f0dder]

With pilots you don't have to worry about your drone asset getting hijacked by a rogue controller.

Re:Simulating what, exactly?

[AHuxley]

This is Australia, we will be loving the f111 long time :)

Re:Simulating what, exactly?

[Skillet5151]

Unmanned aircraft may be getting pretty good at firing missiles at buildings but I speculate that they're pretty far from being able to compare to the abilities of a real pilot in most situations. I'm sure Australia (like the US) coordinates its military to be prepared for a real war against another country as opposed to just the anti-insurgent potshot operations that UAVs are so good at.

Re:Simulating what, exactly?

[couchslug]

An immersive simulation environment will be quite useful when UAS sensors evolve sufficient to give an immersive operator environment.

One of the objections to UAS is that the "stovepipe" situational awareness is limiting. Increased operator situational awareness can improve safety as well as combat effectiveness. Instead of being a "scope dope", a UAS operator in an immersive environment could employ their system much more like a manned aircraft.

Re:Simulating what, exactly?

[Ocker3]

The Australian Air Force isn't going drone-only anytime soon. The Army has a number of UAVs in scout and recon roles, but we're still focused on piloted craft for ATA and ATG roles. Not even the USAF is going all-drone.

Re:Simulating what, exactly?

[maglor_83]

Actually we'll be retiring the F-111 next year. We will have a mix of Hornets, Super Hornets and JSF for some time, though.

Re:Simulating what, exactly?

[Anonymous Coward]

A rather rudimentary UAV should be able to outmaneouver anything that has got human (or any similarly sized mammal) inside of it. The performance limiter of fighter jets is the pilot. Put the pilot elsewhere, and suddenly doing a +10g pull followed by a -10g push becomes a no-brainer -- as long as the airframe can take it. Negative G's are no fun, unless getting a stroke is fun to you ;)

A lot of high-G maneouvers are designed around human limitations. Things get insanely more interesting without a human inside of the airframe.

Re:Simulating what, exactly?

[4D6963]

It's called a UCAV and it's being developed. It's being developed, it's not there yet.

Re:Simulating what, exactly?

[michaelhood]

There's still a lot of work for human pilots, and there probably will be for at least another generation. The first UAVs that can handle manned-aircraft combat tasks are just now being deployed, and in many ways they're Not There Yet. Are you suggesting that air forces should stop training pilots now on the assumption that drones will take up the slack?

It's also worth mentioning that current-generation UAVs like the Predator are fully human-controlled by remote.

Related, interesting link: http://www.military.com/news/article/human-error-cited-in-most-uav-crashes.html

Re:Simulating what, exactly?

[DragonWriter]

Given that air forces seem to be moving to unmanned drone fighters, it seems silly to build a new flight sim for traditional *pilot* training at this stage.

Why? Air forces may "seem to be moving toward unmanned drone fighters", but even in the most optimistic assessment of how fast that transition might occur they won't be dominated for several decades, and most unmanned drones used now operate mostly as RPVs, which require in the operators an understanding of flight dynamics and skill set that overlaps very heavily with in-the-cockpit piloting. So money spent training pilots is still important.

Re:I want one!

[Anonymous Coward]

In the Australian Defense Force?

No in the Australian Defence Force

Re:OOS should never be used for war

[FourthAge]

What about class warfare? Is it ok by you if I use free software to fight the evil of global capitalism?

Re:I want one!

[dmbasso]

sudo apt-get install oz-flight-simulator

Sign Me Up!

[curmudgeon99]

What a delight! Where do I order one? "Bandit on your six, Mate!"

The new normal IS to not leave the ground!

[sl149q]

The head article says "virtual words that allow pilots to experience real-world combat situations without leaving the ground"...

The new reality is that most combat pilots in the new air forces around the world will be piloting their aircraft from the ground. Far cheaper and far more effective.

This doesn't mean that simulators are not required. Its just that the difference between simulated combat and real combat may be just what screen you are looking at from your flight station.

1.7 million for virtual words? WTF!

[gamefaces]

The Defence Science and Technology Organisation's (DSTO) Air Operations Simulation Centre in Melbourne creates virtual words that allow pilots to experience real-world combat situations without leaving the ground.

I should be paying all of you for my virtual words I'm typing now.

Re:OOS should never be used for war

[PhunkySchtuff]

Yes, because remember kids, nothing good has ever come from military funded research. You know, like the internet...

Re:OOS should never be used for war

[John Hasler]

> What about class warfare? Is it ok by you if I use free software to fight the
> evil of global capitalism?

Of course. What he really wants is a political correctness clause. After all, what if someone were to use Free Software to design a coal-fired power plant? Develop a strain of genetically-engineered wheat? Design an SUV? Manage a bank? Run a "right-wing" political campaign?

Screenshots pls

[w0mprat]

Screenies or it didn't happen.

I'm a little disappointed the journalists couldn't ask nicely for some in-sim imagery. This thing must be pretty! I presume current generation military flight simulators have amazing detail like volumetric clouds, weather conditions and atmospheric effects that were traditionally the hardest to replicate in the past.

Re:Screenshots pls

[amn108]

The article that Slashot links to has an image on the top right corner of the page. It looks like something rendered in-game. Look at it, come back and tell me how it went.

Re:Screenshots pls

[chill]

Screenshots? How about a torrent!

Re:Screenshots pls

[techprophet]

I Like Your Thinking

Re:OOS should never be used for war

[spiffmastercow]

It's a disgrace for to kernel hackers everywhere to have their knowledge and sweat used to run the machine of war.

War is just another profit-making venture for the rich.

I'll bet you there's at least a few kernel hackers who don't mind a bit..

Re:OOS should never be used for war

[corychristison]

Yes, because remember kids, nothing good has ever come from military funded research. You know, like the internet...

I agree. The Internet is a horrible place. You should never go there.

Re:I want one!

[duguk]

That's an Americanism. We're talking about Australia. The summary even spells it Defence, and how could that be wrong!?

Even their website is defence.gov.au...

Okay

[ILongForDarkness]

we get it already Linux is used everywhere for all sorts of computing needs. Why is this news in 2009?

Re:Okay

[Eil]

Because it's damn cool, that's why.

Re:Okay

[GF678]

we get it already Linux is used everywhere for all sorts of computing needs. Why is this news in 2009?

Simple - the year of the desktop has been promised for god-knows how long and still hasn't taken hold in significant numbers, so some people need reassurance that Linux is being used in other areas to justify their faith in the platform.

Re:Okay

[joocemann]

lol.. i know... and i like linux.

Re:Okay

[mocoloco]

Here on /. we like Linux. Next try posting on hotchicksthatstarredintransformersmovies.com and asking why it's news when Megan Fox does *anything*.

Re:Okay

[ILongForDarkness]

The funny thing is I don't get why the "year of the desktop" is needed. I mean you take a UNIX like OS and judge it based on desktop market penetration? Why wouldn't you judge it based on how it replaces uses of UNIX which tend to be server and workstation uses? There it has done extremely well.

Anyways, IMHO Linux might have accidentally landed on the more important platform, mobile computing, not to mention "cloud" services. Desktop is becoming less and less important and that is the only place that Linux hasn't done well at.

The real question...

[AnonGCB]

Does it run lin--

Oh wait.

Re:OOS should never be used for war

[clarkkent09]

Not only that but I hear that the simulator in question uses images of dirty hippies as targets for the shooting practice. Disgrace!

Re:I want one!

[Hognoxious]

Hey fatty - you fail it.

$1.7m is dirt cheap! but missing something

[erroneus]

Flight simulators are good and all, but even the most expensive simulators are missing an important element -- gravity force feedback in some form or another. Not only do the controls need to feed back, but the cockpit should too. And when we are talking about military aircraft operations, that kind of simulation is quite likely impossible without putting the pilot into a centrifuge.

On the other hand, if this simulation system were for training people to control unmanned craft, then it's perfect I should think.

Now as for the $1.7m spent? That is an impressively inexpensive system if it matches or beats those that cost $10m or more.

Re:$1.7m is dirt cheap! but missing something

[RobVB]

Actually, the most expensive simulator has gravity force feedback.

Re:$1.7m is dirt cheap! but missing something

[Eil]

Flight simulators are good and all, but even the most expensive simulators are missing an important element -- gravity force feedback in some form or another. Not only do the controls need to feed back, but the cockpit should too. And when we are talking about military aircraft operations, that kind of simulation is quite likely impossible without putting the pilot into a centrifuge.

Military and commercial flight simulators do have gravity force feedback. They are mounted on a hydraulic platform so that when the pilot pitches or banks the simulator, the platform moves in accordance with the maneuver so that the pilot experiences a force on his/her body approximate to what they would feel in a real airplane. The computer takes all parameters into consideration so that a balanced turn, for example, would hold the platform perfectly vertical. But a slipping or sliding turn would bank the platform to one side or the other.

And when we are talking about military aircraft operations, that kind of simulation is quite likely impossible without putting the pilot into a centrifuge.

Well, this is a simulation after all. The hydraulic platforms can only approximate real G forces. To really experience flying, you have to take an actual plane up into the sky. And trust me, they do.

That said, simulators are an amazingly useful technology even if they don't recreate the entire experience with perfect precision. You can learn 90% or more of what you really need to know about flying without ever leaving the ground. That saves fuel, maintenance, the cost of a plane, and lives.

Re:$1.7m is dirt cheap! but missing something

[erroneus]

I'm aware of these rather expensive simulators, but they don't simulate 100% of g-forces in the most natural way. I've been in the one at the Mississippi Naval Air Station. It's cool but it feels like a simulator. You simply don't get the g-forces that you would in real jet flight.

Re:$1.7m is dirt cheap! but missing something

[wronskyMan]

Actually, many sims do not require force feedback. Pilots generally learn the "mechanics" of feel and how to control a plane in relatively inexpensive prop/jet trainers in basic pilot training. Much of what sims are used for is switchology - how to run checklists and operate all the complex electronic gear in a modern cockpit. With the more rote items committed to muscle memory, pilots can focus on the "feel" in the actual airplane since their flow/checks come automatically. In addition, very realistic emergency procedure training can be had since it is difficult to safely simulate many emergencies in the actual aircraft. Finally, for aircrew who are already proficient in the aircraft, new tactics/procedures can be tried much more quickly and easily than trying to schedule/fly an actual flight.

Re:$1.7m is dirt cheap! but missing something

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a common misconception by those who don't know anything about the *sensor* that records those.

The centrifuge is there for physiological conditioning/testing, it has nothing to do with your body using the G-forces for any sort of spatial orientation.

If you depend on your vestibular system and otoliths in an airplane, you will kill yourself. You can only depend on the instruments. Our inertial platform (vestibulum/otoliths) were not designed to be accurate over prolonged periods of time without visual frame of reference. Moreover, they get very much confused by G forces present during any maneouvering. People can't fly straight (wings/nose level) for a couple minutes when you take away the instrumentation and visual cues. During any maneouvering, it's mere seconds and you're lost.

Go fly with someone doing aerobatics, close your eyes, and try answering what attitude you are in, say every 10 seconds, while the pilot is maneouvering. Your second answer, and every subsequent one, will be as accurate as random guesses. BTDT.

Any sort of gravity force feedback is totally useless in a simulator. Heck, even moving platform is IMHO useless for anything but entertainment purposes. Your inertial platform can't integrate those inputs into your situational awareness (if it wins, you die), and whatever other inputs you have (seat-of-the-pants, visual cues, etc) are prone to be misinterpreted.

Heck, even reading the instruments is not all that cozy since G forces may induce nystagmus, which totally kills your visual acuity. During nystagmus, when eye position is essentially a sawtooth-shaped function of time, your visual system becomes a lowpass filter. This takes care of essentially removing any input from artificial horizon and HUD/EFIS. Your brain will play tricks on you and substitute expected values for everything that has high visual detail (all gages, all HUD/EFIS as currently designed, any glass cockpit displays with lettering/symbols, etc). This again will get you killed.

Glass cockpit design is, unfortunately, lagging some 20 years behind physiology, and this lag grows a year every year, with no end in sight. Those responsible should be summarily shot, IMHO.

so when do you think we'll see the source?

[v1]

I suppose it's possible, but seems very unlikely...

Re:so when do you think we'll see the source?

[darkeye]

yes, where's the code?

Re:so when do you think we'll see the source?

[RobertLTux]

well in full accordance with the GPL the packet with the manual has the source dvd included

Re:I want one!

[ae1294]

That's an Americanism. We're talking about Australia. The summary even spells it Defence

Did you not see the WOOOOSH?

Re:I want one!

[ae1294]

Hey fatty - you fail it.

Ahhh no son, apparently you should become An Hero...

Use OpenBSD instead

[chill]

But software which OpenBSD uses and redistributes must be free to all (be they people or companies) for any purpose they wish to use it, including modification, use, peeing on, or even integration into baby mulching machines or atomic bombs to be dropped on Australia.

--Theo de Raadt

http://www.monkey.org/openbsd/archive/source-changes/0105/msg01243.html

Free means free, not "free only if I approve of what you do/look like/think/etc.

Re:OOS should never be used for war

[Zontar The Mindless]

And if somebody throws you a left hook, you should let them. Better yet, make it really easy on them and just lean into it.

Just because the US turn the word "defence" into doublespeak doesn't mean that Australia shouldn't be able to defend itself if the need arises.

Re:I want one!

[duguk]

Since when is your deliberate miscorrection of spelling deserving of a wHooosh? Oh, and yeah. its wHoosh, not woosh...

*ironic woosh*

Re:OOS should never be used for war

[couchslug]

"It's a disgrace for to kernel hackers everywhere to have their knowledge and sweat used to run the machine of war.

War is just another profit-making venture for the rich.

Does that mean unquestionably defensive wars are unworthy of support and the only moral thing to do is surrender?

Re:I want one!

[RoFLKOPTr]

Ahhh no son, apparently you should become An Hero...

I see you've discovered 4chan. How is it? I haven't been there in about 3 years.

Re:I want one!

[Kratisto]

Doesn't SUSE come with Zypper and YaST?

Re:OOS should never be used for war

[FourthAge]

Yes. What on Earth has happened to people to make them imagine that this sort of thing is a good idea?

"Free speech should be restricted to things I agree with." "Free software should only be used for things I approve of."

It's just crazy.

Too stupid to buy a copy of X-Plane eh?

[BitZtream]

Since X-Plane runs on Linux at this point, I'd have to say spending 1.7m for a Linux flight sim just makes you fucking retarded.

www.x-plane.com

And before anyone says something stupid, its FAA certified for training and used by several aircraft manufactures for training of pilots, certification of their test pilots, and most importantly, design testing.

Hell Bell uses it to train thier pilots on military prototypes that are too expensive to actually put the pilot in and scaled composites uses it to test their designs and train pilots.

Re:Too stupid to buy a copy of X-Plane eh?

[ThePeices]

Well there you go, if Hell Bell is using it, then people who are not are just fools!

But, not to insult your obviously incredible intellect ( judging from your scornful post ), ever thought that maybe ( just *maybe* ) X-Plane doesnt fit their needs exactly?

Re:Too stupid to buy a copy of X-Plane eh?

[temojen]

'Cause training someone to fly exactly according to the flight plan, and never below 1000 feet except on approach is the same as training someone to fly in military situations...

Re:Too stupid to buy a copy of X-Plane eh?

[MrCreosote]

I must have missed the part on the x-plane website that shows how it can 'allow pilots to experience real-world combat situations' and 'is also configurable, which allows the evaluation of "novel systems and concepts"'

And where does it say that the AUD 1.7M is on software?

Re:Too stupid to buy a copy of X-Plane eh?

[BlackSmithNZ]

Fucking retarded?

Depends. Is the X-plane source code open?

If not, then maybe they wanted their own source so they could interface with their own hardware, aircraft models or other combat simulators?

I'm not saying that X-plane could not achieve exactly what they what, but generally a whole lot of research goes into seeing what is available COTS before deciding to roll there own. And often there is good reason; such as they have an integrated total combat simulation that incorporates drones, AWACS, ground-based units, naval units etc and they need a flight sim that allows pilots to exercise within a total environment.

Does X-Plane do that off the shelf?

And, who says they didn't start with some existing flight sim source code; maybe not X-plane, but there are others.

Re:Too stupid to buy a copy of X-Plane eh?

[4D6963]

Are you kidding? X-Plane can't even handle supersonic flight simulation properly. The flight model is seriously broken when it comes to supersonic flight, and it has no decent combat systems. It's a neat simulator for subsonic aircraft design, it's a good thing to use if you're a civil pilot, but it must fall short on so many things when it comes to what's needed here it's not even funny.

TL;DR : Way to talk out of your arse.

Re:Too stupid to buy a copy of X-Plane eh?

[earthforce_1]

I have a copy of X-Plane, and would love to get the networked air 2 air combat add on.

Re:I want one!

[BitZtream]

www.x-plane.com

Costs a lot less and has far more testing and time put into it as well.

Throw us a bone here

[arigram]

So, does that mean that the Linux community will be getting anything back or is it licenced in a way that we won't be seeing one line of code?

Re:OOS should never be used for war

[techprophet]

Here's one! It was a small patch, but yeah...

Re:OOS should never be used for war

[CarpetShark]

Well, nothing about wanting to make a particular move towards peace requires that you make every move possible all at once.

Re:I want one!

[mrops]

But does it run Linux?

Re:I want one!

[Tubal-Cain]

I got E: Could not get lock /var/lib/dpkg/lock - open (11: Resource temporarily unavailable) :-)

FTFA: Linux for real-time scheduling

[Zantetsuken]

FTFA:

All the nodes run Suse Linux. Unlike traditional Linux clusters, which focus on throughput, these systems are tuned for real-time performance - using features of the kernel such as memory locking, real-time scheduling and low-delay communication.

They didn't use Linux "just because it has zero licensing costs" - they used it because Windows isn't going to give them the real time performance on physics simulations that they wanted, to track every projectile and object within a given area takes power, but also has to be able to give the results instantly.

Re:FTFA: Linux for real-time scheduling

[drinkypoo]

Care to back that up at all? It's ridiculous that think that just about any modern platform can't carry out real time flight combat simulations.

NT doesn't have a realtime mode unless you buy one as a third party product. It is unquestionable that timer resolution &c are superior on Linux as compared to the NT that Microsoft will provide you. Sure, you can get realtime performance from NT, but you have to spend still more money on top of your client licenses, and your client access licenses...

It sounds like given what they wanted to accomplish, there were no advantages to using Windows, and numerous obvious drawbacks.

Re:FTFA: Linux for real-time scheduling

[shadowblaster]

But Australia owns NT and they can do whatever they want with it.

Re:FTFA: Linux for real-time scheduling

[houghi]

SUSE means SLE. If this is SLES or SLED, I do not know. These could have licensing costs. Otherwise it would be openSUSE.

Re:FTFA: Linux for real-time scheduling

[Attila Dimedici]

I would also guess that an important reason for using Linux is that when they build a new one in 10/15/20 years, they will be able they will be able to install the same OS on it and not have to worry about licenses not being available, or having to rewrite basic parts of the software that haven't changed in all that time because the current version no longer supports the function calls that were used. The fact that MS was in the middle of an OS change when they were working on this probably influenced the decision as well.

Re:OOS should never be used for war

[drizek]

I think we absolutely must ban open source software from being used in right wing political campaigns. Having something so poorly managed being associated with Linux could backfire on us. I can already see the Microsoft ads:

"John McCain ran his campaign on open source software. Price of Hardware: $76,000. Price of Software: $0. Total Cost of Ownership: Failure. "

Re:I want one!

[ae1294]

Since when is your deliberate miscorrection of spelling deserving of a wHooosh? Oh, and yeah. its wHoosh, not woosh...

You must be new here...

Re:I want one!

[ae1294]

I see you've discovered 4chan. How is it? I haven't been there in about 3 years.

I prefer 7chan....

Re:I want one!

[ae1294]

But does it run Linux?

Maybe you should RTFA or just assume no...

Free!

[SEWilco]

Australia wants to be free.

Re:OOS should never be used for war

[straponego]

It's only crazy if he's not infallible.

Re:OOS should never be used for war

[Darkk]

I'm safer when our troops use linux in their gear as opposed to waiting for "WinXP" to crash cuz the enemy waits for nobody.

Re:OOS should never be used for war

[CarpetShark]

You talk as if the GPL doesn't already draw a line. The GPL deliberately limits freedom to protect a wider, more important kind of freedom. We limit the use of GPL'd software to hurt people's rights and their liberty. By the same token, I think we should be limiting use of software to physically hurt others. Their software liberty is no use to them, if they're dead.

Re:OOS should never be used for war

[CarpetShark]

Whoever modded this troll is an idiot. The GNU site itself discusses this issue as a valid concern.

Re:I want one!

[Barny]

/me looks at the UIDs

Uh, you must be new here...

Re:I want one!

[ae1294]

/me looks at the UIDs
Uh, you must be new here...

/me looks at your sig... You must be Australian mate...

Re:OOS should never be used for war

[Toonol]

Huh. I'd be proud I was helping the Australian air force.

Re:OOS should never be used for war

[Toonol]

Make a license and start using it. Maybe it will catch on. I doubt it, though; I wouldn't use it. Hurting people is often justified, and occasionally the right thing to do.

Yeah, but can it run HALO2?

[darkonc]

Yep.. Didn't think so.

Useless waste of money, if you ask me .....

Re:OOS should never be used for war

[sumdumass]

Are you sure they are dirty hippies or just hippies that look dirty?

Re:I want one!

[lysergic.acid]

I'm not at all familiar with X-Plane? but is the FAA-certified version already used in science & industry (i.e. by NASA, Boeing, the NTSB, etc.)? In other words, is it accurate enough to actually simulate meaningful training exercises, like certain types of mechanical/electrical/software malfunctions? Can it accurately simulate jet wash, wind shear, microbursts, etc.? I've seen the multi-million-dolar flight simulators used by NASA and major aerospace companies. They seem to be a lot more robust that anything that could be run on a desktop PC. So I'm just wondering if X-Plane is actually of sufficient quality to be useful for something like crash investigation or military training.

Also, the website mentions extensibility and being able to "hack" the software to do more. Would the military be able to customize the software to add combat training capabilities a military flight sim would no doubt need? A military flight simulator probably has some very specific requirements that you aren't going to find in a consumer product. I'm guessing they probably chose to develop their own flight sim because either it's cheaper than licensing commercial solutions, or there are no available flight sims that fit their need. The short-term costs might be higher, but they would have full control of the source code and be able to tailor it to their specific needs (like integration with classified military systems).

Re:I want one!

[JackieBrown]

You forgot to *WOOOOOOSH* yourself this time

http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1352629&cid=29254797

no one said it yet...

[LazyAcer]

must be a slow day..

I for one welcome our (sigh) nnnn never mind

Uh, I'm New Here

[New Here]

Uh, I'm New Here

Re:OOS should never be used for war

[gone_bush]

Free speech should be restricted to things I agree with." "Free software should only be used for things I approve of.

And when I get elected dictator, that's exactly how it's going to be!

Re:I want one!

[russ1337]

http://www.fidelityflight.com/newdefense.htm
The flight simulator pictured was built for the Royal New Zealand Air Force as a P-3 Orion Flight Training Device.

It runs x-plane. Austin Meyers (the author of x-plane) worked with Fidelity Flight Simulation to add unique features required.

I was the acceptance test engineer.

Re:I want one!

[russ1337]

woops. No 's': Austin Meyer

Which open-source scene graph engine?

[SuperElectric]

Can anybody connected to the project comment on which open-source scene graph library was used?

Re:I want one!

[Nefarious Wheel]

Ahh, the fabled Lockheed P-3 O'Brian Subroutine Chasers like those out of FASOTRAGRABRUPAC. You can run, but you can't hide. Many is the touch and go I never successfully filtered out of my hearing from their flight path over the Oakwood in Mountain View. Years of it. And when the wife and I ran away to Australia together, there was one (just one, from a visit) buzzing the Wrest Point when we arrived in Tasmania.

Sometimes life imitates bad software. Truly you can run from a P-3, but you can't hide.

Re:NVIDIA != open

[4D6963]

Obvious troll is obvious (or a dumbass, I'm not sure). Obviously they mean the OpenGL-based engine, not the whole damn thing down to the smallest chip.

Kangaroos with - - Sidewinders?

[vortexau]

> > "Kangaroos with stinger missiles?"
Hardly! To quote Wikipedia: "The FIM-92 Stinger is a personal portable infrared homing surface-to-air missile developed in the United States and entered into service in 1981."

How could you postulate arming a 1946 Australian-designed fighter aircraft, the CAC CA-15, (that never went into production) with a Surface-to-Air shoulder-fired Infantry weapon?
( ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAC_CA-15 )
Oh, and, "although the CA-15 bore a superficial resemblance to the North American Mustang (P-51), the CAC design was not based directly on the US aircraft and had quite different performance objectives and dimensions . . . The sole prototype did not fly until March 4, 1946.[1] The CA-15's overall performance was clearly superior to existing single-engine, propeller-driven fighters. It was also faster than most first generation jet fighters."

Now, if you really meant the Sidewinder Air-to-Air missle . . . .

Re:Kangaroos with - - Sidewinders?

[Glonoinha]

I'm just speaking from memory here, but as I recall there was an air-to-air launch mount for the Stinger. A few early prototypes of the Apache were paired with it in an attempt to attach a larger number of air-to-air missiles to the AH-64 (not to mention Stingers are hella cheaper than Sidewinders.)

Unless of course that isn't common knowledge, in which case I just made the entire thing up.

Re:Kangaroos with - - Sidewinders?

[vortexau]

I'm just speaking from memory here, but as I recall there was an air-to-air launch mount for the Stinger. A few early prototypes of the Apache were paired with it in an attempt to attach a larger number of air-to-air missiles to the AH-64 (not to mention Stingers are hella cheaper than Sidewinders.)

Unless of course that isn't common knowledge, in which case I just made the entire thing up.

Ah - but did you notice the timeframe? The sole CA-15 first flew in March 1946! In any matter all moot really as the armament in most data lists is 6x .50in Guns.

Re:I want one!

[supernova_hq]

Yes, but is it open source?

Can you imagine it

[Dayofswords]

There must be a line to the front door to try that baby out!

Re:OOS should never be used for war

[CarpetShark]

If you'd read my original comment on this, the problem then is fragmentation of the community.

Re:I want one!

[ae1294]

You forgot to *WOOOOOOSH* yourself this time

No, cowboyneill never forgets....

wait you're not suppose to know my secret identity. i better make sure i press that cancel thingy...

Re:OOS should never be used for war

[CarpetShark]

And if you think hurting people is ever the right thing to do, we have little common understanding to base a discussion on, I'm sad to say, so it's best to just leave it here.

Re:I want one!

[ae1294]

Oh so you're a furfag

So you're asking me out then?

Re:Interjection

[mambodog]

Stallman is using AC, I see.

Re:I want one!

[Barny]

G'day!

Re:I want one!

[ozmanjusri]

Did you not see the WOOOOSH?

No.

Was it simulated or real?

Re:Interjection

[dbIII]

The GNU operating system is called HURD. A textbook will help you understand what an OS really is instead of taking the brain dead definition the judge rejected in the Microsoft vs Netscape trial some time ago. Cutting and pasting the text from a guy that is really into redefining words to fit his argument is somewhat of a waste of time and will only impress the newbies.

Re:I want one!

[ae1294]

Did you not see the WOOOOSH?

No.
Was it simulated or real?

Depends on where you live.

Re:I want one!

[fractoid]

Did you not see the WOOOOSH?

So that's the noise one of those Indian fighter jets makes?

It's like our defence force went "they're getting some sweet new planes, let us pretend that we do likewise!".

Re:I want one!

[houghi]

They run openSUSE: sudo zypper in oz-flight-simulator. Or they used the build server and did something like click here (Yes, that actually works when you run 11.1)

Re:Now to simulate some enemies!

[fractoid]

.

Damn new fangled stealth fighters.

Re:I want one!

[cbhacking]

Actually, since it's based on suse, that would be
sudo zypper in oz-flight-simulator
Well, I suppose you could use yum instead, but... why?

Re:Interjection

[cbhacking]

Please don't take the following as a direct support of the GP post; it is a refutation of the parent post and not a support fo the practice of copy/pasting quotes into largely unrelated discussions. If the parent hadn't been modded up, I wouldn't have bothered. Something like this really needs a response, though.

GNU (recursive acronym for "GNU's Not UNIX!") is an operating system. The only portion of the system that is called HURD is the kernel, which is certainly not an entire OS. It's quite possibly the most important of one, but does not constitute a complete operating system by any means.

As for "redefining words" you're doing more than a bit of that yourself. A kernel is "the central or most important part" and, in a computing context, "The essential part of Unix or other operating systems, responsible for resource allocation, low-level hardware interfaces, security etc." (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/kernel) Note the key word "part" that is present in both definitions. A kernel, such as Linux or HURD, is definitely only part of an operating system.

That said, "GNU slash Linux" or "GNU plus Linux" is a pretty silly name. Referring to an OS by its kernel is not a universal practice - OS X is almost never referred to by the name of its kernel (XNU, a derivative of Mach), although of Windows such as Vista or Windows 7 are occasionally referred to as "Windows NT" or even "NT" - but it suffices for the purposes of Linux. That said, it's understandable that Stallman and the GNU project in general would like acknowledgement of how much of the OS that most people call "Linux" was not written by, or in any conjunction with, Linus Torvalds.

Why do they need a cluster of computers?

[master_p]

Today's Air-Combat simulators run efficiently on a single Dual-Core Pentium machine with a good graphics card. Military Simulations barely need more than 5% of CPU time these days (disclaimer: I work in the field as a programmer). Why do they need a cluster of machines to run the simulator?

Thank you but I was not born yesterday

[dbIII]

With respect, the gnu tools do not make up a complete system either and most embedded versions of linux have no gnu tools or gnu C library at all. The GPL is a very fine thing but that is not enough to pretend that it is the operating system of Mr Stallman and the other people in gnu that also left some fine tools behind for others to work on so many years ago. IMHO there is no gnu linux until gnu bring out a distribution (which you would perhaps call an OS), after which they can call it whatever they like.
The gnu/linux thing is simply MIT staffroom politics that escaped into the wider world to stop taunting about how HURD was doing. It's the rather tasteless tradition of taking credit for the work of others made even worse by Mr Stallman's years of saying "Linux? Never heard of it" in every interview. Google LiGnuX from when it all started and you'll see just how silly the justification really is and you should find the gnu newsletters that baldly state that it was done to try to raise the public profile of gnu. It's irrelevant now because gnu has gone. We have the FSF which is a purely political body and we have a pile of independant projects. The prefix now is really just there to advertise Mr Stallman's past glory which is pointless since we've all heard of him by now and nobody else cares.

Re:Thank you but I was not born yesterday

[dbIII]

No. The gnu tools only make up a very small portion of a linux distribution. Also for the definition of an operating system see a textbook instead of the submission by Microsoft as rejected by the judge in the anti-trust trial some years ago. Applications such as a shell are applications and communicate with the underlying operating system.

Re:Thank you but I was not born yesterday

[dbIII]

If you cannot be bothered to use the same definitions for terms as others you should not be suprised when others disagree with you. I do not care about your personal definition just as you should not care about mine, it's the dictionary or textbook definition that matters.
I also disagree with your assumption that everything that touches something from gnu becomes gnu. As I said earlier, embedded linux based systems often have no gnu tools or gnu C library anyway. As for the others, I do not think something doesn't becomes a gnu system just because gnu "ls" is one of the applications. It's all very basic stuff - everything you are thinking of as the "gnu OS" is an application running on a different OS unless it is the real gnu OS which is called "hurd".

Re:I want one!

[Attila Dimedici]

While the spelling of the word as "defense" rather than "defence" is currently unique to America, it does not in my opinion truly qualify as an Americanism since according to the link you provided the American spelling has "greater antiquity".
My opinion is that an Americanism spelling would be one where the spelling was altered in America, as opposed to this case where it appears that the original spelling was retained in America and altered most(all?) other English speaking areas.

Earlier 64 bit support?

[Stele]

Linux has had an in here for some years now, due to earlier 64 bit support

We were running 64 bit Windows NT on Alpha chips in 1994. When did Linux first provide 64 bit support?

Re:Earlier 64 bit support?

[dargaud]

We were running 64 bit Windows NT on Alpha chips in 1994. When did Linux first provide 64 bit support?

The same day that Athlon64 processors came out, as if an obscure (albeit good, I've used it) processor without any software apps can count. When did Windows start supporting x86-64 fully ? Oh, yeah, they still don't to an extend (some drivers don't work and will never be updated).

Re:Earlier 64 bit support?

[AndrewNeo]

When did Windows start supporting x86-64 fully ? Oh, yeah, they still don't to an extend (some drivers don't work and will never be updated).

Windows started supporting x86-64 as soon as an x86-64 version was released. It's the hardware manufacturer's fault that their hardware doesn't work with or support x64, not Microsoft's.

Re:Earlier 64 bit support?

[Alpha830RulZ]

Windows server wouldn't run 64 bit Java in 2004, which is why we went to Linux. Whose fault that was, MSFT or Sun doesn't matter. Linux Just Worked.

Breaking news flash!!

[Twyst3d]

New Flight simulator not compatible with sound. Australia looks to open source community for help. Everyone looks away and ignores them. More news at 11.

How is that news?

[loufoque]

How is the fact that a flight simular for whatever government's defense is made of Linux and OpenGL news?
You'd have to be completely out of your mind to pick any other solution. Don't tell me in the US they use Microsoft Windows?

Crikey!

[bazorg]

Crikey! look at the size of that linux-based cluster of Opteron servers!

Re:I want one!

[AndrewNeo]

It was a training exercise. Nothing to see here!

Re:I want one!

[Hognoxious]

My opinion is that an Americanism spelling would be one where the spelling was altered in America, as opposed to this case where it appears that the original spelling was retained in America and altered most(all?) other English speaking areas.

Not really. I'd still say riding in horse-drawn carts is an Amishism, even if everybody used to do it, on the grounds that everyone else doesn't now.