×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Russia's MiG Aircraft Company Develops 3D Flight Simulator

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the make-a-mig-do-a-4g-negative-dive dept.

The Military 62

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."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

62 comments

So.... how much? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38062066)

I've got my checkbook out. Take my money, dammit.

damn (4, Insightful)

demonbug (309515) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062096)

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:damn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38062350)

If you're looking for a PC flight sim, X-Plane 10 is due out for Christmas.
It looks great [x-plane.com].

Re:damn (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062866)

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

Re:damn (2)

LifesABeach (234436) | more than 2 years ago | (#38064400)

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

Re:damn (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 2 years ago | (#38066314)

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.

Re:damn (3, Informative)

Asmodae (1155077) | more than 2 years ago | (#38063384)

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.

Re:damn - I think we were expecting 3D (1)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | more than 2 years ago | (#38064138)

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.

Re:damn - I think we were expecting 3D (1)

Asmodae (1155077) | more than 2 years ago | (#38065050)

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.

Re:damn (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 2 years ago | (#38066288)

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'

Re:damn (1)

EvanED (569694) | more than 2 years ago | (#38066908)

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.

Re:damn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38070208)

You have to pay a small fortunate for the certification costs and their *LIABIILITY INSURANCE* in case you kill yourself doing something stupid.The FAA is full throttle on preventing safety improvements to general aviation; they've made them so epensive that theyr'e inaccessible. Yes, I'm a "rich" pilot with a $20K airplane. I can't afford $10K a pop for safety improvements, and $1200 to install a HID landing light and see the runway is just outrageous, but that's the FAA's way.

Re:damn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38070618)

I use to work for a company that owned and operated these sorts of aircraft (Not in the US), there was only one insurance company in the world who would insure our operations despite all the appropriate certifications, checks and endorsements by the best people in the country. With so many cowboys in the warbird industry, it's necessary.

Re:damn (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 2 years ago | (#38070546)

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!

Re:damn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38070160)

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

Me too. The idea of the precise Mig-29 simulation as only the factory can make it using actual and fictional combat operations would have made me a happy virtual pilot. Now, of the politics of the game, I'd like to kick some Fascist France, Puritan Militant (as in Cromwell at its worst) UK and Imperial Theocratic American ass while enjoying being kicked around with some aerial F22 vs. Mig 29 with realistic performance characteristics and reaction times, physics, adjustable cockpit and systems complexity and a killer AI and a free net play. Perhaps the Mig 29 flyer could represent the good guys for a change? And can I fly with the Israeli-Palestine Union forces against the Americans? ;)

Would love to get me one of these. (1)

monzie (729782) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062132)

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.

Let's go! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38062134)

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

Re:Let's go! (1)

walkerp1 (523460) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062226)

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%

what's the russian torrent site? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38062140)

I wants it.

yes.. i see... (1)

g00mbasv (2424710) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062210)

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

Re:yes.. i see... (4, Interesting)

History's Coming To (1059484) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062714)

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.

Re:yes.. i see... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38074890)

Yeah, so did the US and I believe the Germans as well during WWII

Not really news (4, Insightful)

ehud42 (314607) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062236)

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.

Re:Not really news (3)

MichaelKristopeit421 (2018882) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062706)

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...

Re:Not really news (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 2 years ago | (#38063208)

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.

Re:Not really news (1)

SleazyRidr (1563649) | more than 2 years ago | (#38063790)

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

Re:Not really news (0)

MichaelKristopeit423 (2018892) | more than 2 years ago | (#38065328)

ur mum's faces such a troll.

SleazyRidr is one of the spitefully vengeful ignorant hypocrites i'm speaking of.

cower in my shadow some more behind your chosen lacking of firmness based pseudonym, feeb.

you're completely pathetic.

Re:Not really news (1)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 2 years ago | (#38065670)

I feel like I'm in an IRC warez channel

Re:Not really news (0)

MichaelKristopeit424 (2018894) | more than 2 years ago | (#38066020)

i feel like you're an idiot.

cower in my shadow some more behind your chosen antiquated technology based pseudonym, feeb.

you're completely pathetic.

Re:Not really news (1)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 2 years ago | (#38068298)

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

Re:Not really news (1)

MichaelKristopeit425 (2018896) | more than 2 years ago | (#38068510)

you're an ignorant hypocrite.

ur mum's face feel like pissing you off.

you think you know what i feel? that is very telling.

you're an idiot.

cower in my shadow some more behind your chosen antiquated technology based pseudonym, feeb.

you're completely pathetic.

Re:Not really news (1)

MichaelKristopeit422 (2018884) | more than 2 years ago | (#38064064)

you should also question why the original post was moderated at the highest level of insight, even though it fails to address the differences with the new simulation platform... namely the stereoscopic 3D displays.

the individuals who have gamed the moderation system to take control of this internet web site chat room message board are idiots.

slashdot = stagnated

What will they think of next???? (1)

smitty777 (1612557) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062446)

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]

Re:What will they think of next???? (1)

MichaelKristopeit420 (2018880) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062660)

granted, this is not in any way new... but i can't believe they could develop the planes without developing simulators first.

that simulator in the bedroom is obviously using 2D screens to simulate a 3D environment... the MiG simulator is using stereoscopic 3D displays.

Re:What will they think of next???? (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#38063338)

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.

Re:What will they think of next???? (1)

MichaelKristopeit422 (2018884) | more than 2 years ago | (#38063736)

yes, i'm very familiar with chuck yeager and the history of aviation development... i also talked with the head of the DoD simulation department when they spoke at my university in the 90s... at the time, they had been developing their products for over 20 years, so i could only assume these simulation tools have been available since then.

generally though, if the wing looks good in the wind tunnel, and can withstand some stress tests, putting a gutsy pilot in it is a lot easier than programming a new simulation.

Why? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38062478)

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.

Re:Why? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38063090)

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.

Re:Why? (2)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 2 years ago | (#38063652)

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.

I think I speak for everyone when I say... (1)

Dusty101 (765661) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062580)

Want.

Re:I think I speak for everyone when I say... (1)

phayes (202222) | more than 2 years ago | (#38062880)

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.

Re:I think I speak for everyone when I say... (1)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | more than 2 years ago | (#38063920)

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.

Re:I think I speak for everyone when I say... (1)

phayes (202222) | more than 2 years ago | (#38065432)

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.

Re:I think I speak for everyone when I say... (1)

EvanED (569694) | more than 2 years ago | (#38066978)

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).

Re:I think I speak for everyone when I say... (1)

phayes (202222) | more than 2 years ago | (#38068448)

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.

If China can use it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38063464)

"providing volumetric visualization of beyond-the-cockpit space for trainee top guns."

They also used some scenes from Top Gun in the simulator.

The point being? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38063638)

Most things seen from the cockpit are for all (optical) intents and purposes "infinitely far away" i.e. they have no parallax.

A 3D sim with an on screen glass cockpit would be a useful innovation, but definitely something aimed at the cheaper end of the market.

I work for a company that builds flight sims BTW, so I guess I'm biased.

Not as useful as it sounds (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38065044)

having worked in the simulation industry, while this sounds good it doesn't actually work very well.
A key requirement for a flight simulator visual is the field of view, and especially for fighter jets you want as close to
a 360 degree view as you can get. The cheap 3D technology can't do 3D over a larger field of view, so it's not useful
for someone looking around trying to find an enemy aircraft, or even looking out over the wing to do formation flying.

In general nothing is ever close enough to the aircraft for 3D to make a significant different. As the article outlines
air-to-air refueling is probably the only case. It may be useful then if you are willing to build a separate simulator
just to train for the one task.

So? X-plane has done this for several years. (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 2 years ago | (#38066132)

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.

MiG since the beginning of WWII (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38068548)

Wow, maybe you can enlighten me as to what MiG fighters, were in WWII, as I understood it they arrived in the early 60's.

Re:MiG since the beginning of WWII (1)

Spy Handler (822350) | more than 2 years ago | (#38068742)

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.

Post me a link already. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38070316)

I will not buy one yet. May be I will wait for the cracked version.

How many g's does it pull... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38070790)

...out of your wallet? Haw!

Does it use GeForce cards? Double haw!

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...