Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Russia's MiG Aircraft Company Develops 3D Flight Simulator

Posted by timothy on 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."

41 of 62 comments (clear)

  1. damn by demonbug · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:damn by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Can you blow shit up with X-Plane? I don't see the point in flying around if you can't shoot at stuff.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    2. Re:damn by Asmodae · · Score: 3, Informative

      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 to bring all their sims into the multiplayer space, as well as an as yet unspecified jet fighter study sim.

      All in all, if you're a modern flight sim fan of any kind, you owe it to yourself to check them out.

    3. Re:damn by LifesABeach · · Score: 2

      Comrade! Why use X-Plane? With our 3D simulator you can imagine total air superiority! How would you like your Raptor? Skewered? or Smoked?

    4. Re:damn by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      http://www.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'

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    5. Re:damn by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      There have been combat plugins for X-Plane for several years. I'm not sure what the state of the current built-in combat handling is, but there were sufficiently complex add ons available from a simulation perspective, not all that visually appealing granted.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    6. Re:damn by EvanED · · Score: 1

      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.

    7. Re:damn by syousef · · Score: 1

      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!

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  2. But can it do a 4g inverted dive...? by NitzJaaron · · Score: 2

    Charlie's dying to know, and no one believes Maverick & Goose.

    1. Re:But can it do a 4g inverted dive...? by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      You can, but you have to operate it in Russian.

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  3. Would love to get me one of these. by monzie · · Score: 1
    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.

  4. yes.. i see... by g00mbasv · · Score: 1

    "...providing volumetric visualization of beyond-the-cockpit space..." In soviet russia planes fly the pilots.

    1. Re:yes.. i see... by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The RAF used to have a system where - believe it or not, the "plane" was simply a small camera which was "flown" over an actual physical model of the terrain complete with tiny trees and houses. Now that's 3D. This is all back in the day when building a real life model was far easier than even contemplating a computer simulation beyond the most basic wireframe.

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    2. Re:yes.. i see... by Olli_Niemitalo · · Score: 1

      So did the Russians: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BKFrxsSswM (fast forward to 3:10 to see the flight sim)

  5. Re:Let's go! by walkerp1 · · Score: 1
    Something looks fishy about your post...I think you must have Photoshopped Paul in.

    Bloomberg News Poll: Four-Way Republican Dead Heat in Iowa Caucuses - Cain 20%, *PAUL 19%*, Romney 18%, Gingrich 17%

  6. Not really news by ehud42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    --
    I'm in my right mind and I have the answer to everything!
    1. Re:Not really news by MichaelKristopeit421 · · Score: 1
      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...

    2. Re:Not really news by timeOday · · Score: 1

      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.

    3. Re:Not really news by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      That guys such a troll his comments show up at -1, not matter what he posts.

      --
      Is 1563649 a prime number?
    4. Re:Not really news by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 1

      That's why I reserve my moderation to "-1 overrated" these days.

    5. Re:Not really news by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I feel like I'm in an IRC warez channel

    6. Re:Not really news by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      You feel like pissing me off but it's impossible. Blather on oh lame one.

  7. What will they think of next???? by smitty777 · · Score: 1

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

    Next thing you know, people will have them in their bedrooms

    --
    "Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish"
    Albert Einstein
    1. Re:What will they think of next???? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      oh but they could!(build fighter planes without simulators. how? the test pilots were part of the development program. there's some pretty good mig documentaries out there. interesting documentaries to watch)

      but you know, jet fuel is fucking expensive - in Russia. they really need this.

      they used to have pretty mechanical simulators btw, in use far into the '90s. you know, where a camera zoomed on a paper "map", to make the landscape roll.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  8. Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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 depth based decisions would appreciate this trainer. MiG has been pumping out dog fighter based aircraft ever since WWII so it's no real surprise they're first with it. The American DOJ has been ordering missile platforms ever since tracking devices could fit inside a warheads.

      What's the difference between a pilot and God?
      God doesn't think he's a pilot.

    2. Re:Why? by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2

      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 aircraft predate MiG.

      While the US focused on missile platforms in the late 50s through mid 60s, so did the Soviets, MiG put out model after model that couldn't perform air combat maneuvering worth a damn, everything after MiG-17 until MiG-29 were designed to fly straight in a line with dog fighting as a distant second role.

      In the largest single fight of US and Soviet made fighters (roughly 150 vs 150), Lebanon in 1982, F-16, F-15s, F-4s and A-4s were responsable for between 82 and 85 MiG and Sukhoi kills with no Israeli air to air loses and one A-4 lost to a SAM.

    3. Re:Why? by Chuckstar · · Score: 1

      If you RTFA...

      Flying in formation
      Aerial refueling
      Aircraft carrier landings

  9. I think I speak for everyone when I say... by Dusty101 · · Score: 1

    Want.

    1. Re:I think I speak for everyone when I say... by phayes · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    2. Re:I think I speak for everyone when I say... by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 1

      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 classifiable as "far enough away to be indistinguishable from infinity."

      Having been in a plane, and with good vision, and enjoying 3D movies, I can tell you there's a huge difference between landing on a 2D flight sim and landing in reality, and that's just through those little windows they give you on a plane. I can't imagine the difference actually landing the plane. Especially with all of the very close visual cues you get one subtlety becomes important. You might get a nice "ooh look at the tre *splat* if you're crashing, but landing takes a bit longer than that.

    3. Re:I think I speak for everyone when I say... by phayes · · Score: 1

      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 any display at all.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    4. Re:I think I speak for everyone when I say... by EvanED · · Score: 1

      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).

    5. Re:I think I speak for everyone when I say... by phayes · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
  10. There were arcade games like that by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 2

    Physical arcade games where you drove a physical toy car over a looping belt. No computer needed.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  11. Re:damn - I think we were expecting 3D by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 1

    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 standard spacing and the "stereoscopic" image is just a copy of the original render. Everything inside the sphere gets a dual render and distance-shifted spacing like normal 3D. Making the jump between the two has to be seemless, or it will induce nausea. Tackling these is the tough part.

  12. Re:damn - I think we were expecting 3D by Asmodae · · Score: 1

    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.

  13. So? X-plane has done this for several years. by BitZtream · · Score: 1

    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 as people who have built 360 degree faux cockpits already using multiple renderers (havent' seen full 360 cd yet)

    Its a shame these guys went through all that effort to make software that they could buy for $100. Are developers THAT cheap in Russia?

    And yes, X-Plane is high enough quality, its FAA certified for training already.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  14. Re:The point being? by scheveningen · · Score: 1

    For refuelling this makes sense. That's also why this is not new. It exists for boom operators.

  15. Re:MiG since the beginning of WWII by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1

    well AC, you understood wrong. Ever heard of MiG-15? It's only like the most famous airplane in the Eastern bloc of all time, fighting the F-86 sabre in 1950 over Korea.

    There's also MiG-3 from 1941... they only built like 3 or 4 THOUSAND of them.

  16. How many g's does it pull... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...out of your wallet? Haw!

    Does it use GeForce cards? Double haw!