I agree DCS really needs the competition. It will be better for all of us. I bet ED would release multithreading a month after this sim would get a consumer version XD
People really underestimate what it takes to make processes multi threading. If it would be that easy everyone would do it but it simply ain’t. One problem of running tasks on different threads is that you need to make sure they deliver the output at the same time when it is needed. A problem UE5 will not magically solve for you. Where Unreal5 is great though is to be able to deliver great geometry and texture detail especially for environments. But be aware this will have an impact on download size and DCS will appear small in comparison 😅
@ whatever it is, what we have now sucks, we have basically is module simulator, not combat one, ground war is non-existant, and air war is mostly dogfight without any electronic jamming, intelligence part.. its like 10 % of air war and 5 % of all war (ground and air)..
@ You need multi-threading (or more precisely: parallel computing) these days for most about anything "big" these days. CPUs have - since quite some time - stopped going up in frequencies, but started scaling horizontally. This trend has been completely slept through by ED (and many other companies). You are also correct in that it requires developers to have a clue what the benefits are, what the limits are, what to watch out for, etc. But seeing DCS and seeing the design choices that they still defend and not touch, like: - Missiles fired in multiplayer by player A are not simulated on the server, receiving guidance through update messages of player As plane through some sort of interface, no. They are simulated entirely on player As computer, everyone else does not get position updates, but they get their own predictive simulation (which then desyncs as little chaotic randomness effects sum up), .. and in the end you see a missile missing you on TacView, but because for player A it hit, you then magically detonate. Then take a look at how many weapon systems that are the same are implemented all over again on different aircraft (AGM-88) or AGM-65. These are fundamental indications at a design process that allows very bad design decisions to be signed off and be implemented. And this will add a huge technical debt to your code base. And we can tell that without knowing the actual code, just knowing that reacting to something that will have to be reacted on for the AGM-88 means they will have to do it in two implementations instead of one for example. There is something fundamentally wrong with how ED develops software, just as there is something fundamentally wrong with how ED interacts with and responds to it's paying customers. I sadly have no alternative, maybe Falcon BMS once VR support comes out, but I really, really don't wish ED all the best without a big restructuring, involving community managers and (lead) developers.
I’ve always wanted the “world”aspect to DCS. being able to simulate ground troops with a good level of detail and being able to get out of your cockpit or into it just because is something I’ve always wanted and hoped would come into DCS in the future. Seeing full simulated ground combat with even infantry not being ugly meshes of polygons is something that would sell me immediately if this new simulator came to market.
I've always felt that DCS totally missed the environment outside the cockpit and spent all their efforts inside. The atmosphere is just so sterile or at least it feels that way to me
DCS has always been on my computer but even as an ex air force pilot that instructed a lot of the techniques in this game I find it has always been missing something that keeps me playing. The multiplayer needs a ton of work at the world needs more attention. If they're only at the point where they can do either weapons mechanics or scenery but not both then definitely it has to be weapons mechanics. I'd just like some more polished missions and campaigns as well as some fresh new ideas for multiplayer which should evolve to being their main focus now. My dream is to have a massive combined arms game with dedicated communities in all 3 elements in a persistent map
@@MAYDAYSIMULATIONS Not exactly what I meant. I'm talking about a much larger scale with playable land and sea vehicles that can talk on datalink with everyone as well. With massive communities like world of warship or world of tanks but with first person vehicles as intricate as DCS aircraft. We're not quite there for computing power yet, I've played DCS combined arms and it's pretty meh
You said it; I've wished for some time that Arma/VBS and DCS and Command Modern Operations with Tac Tools and even Steel Beasts Pro PE could all be fused or made interoperable on a global scale, all of it with a superb AI. It's not about graphics either (Graphics are already more than good enough). What would be needed in such a game would be to leverage multi core CPUS with a virtual machine headless server on each thread so that a 16 core AMD CPU with 32 threads could have say 4 threads running the game and then the other 24 threads running headless servers that were purely there for strategy and tactics, each thread embodying a Hetman Artificial Commander to make the opponents responding to situations according to tactics straight from their known military doctrines. That would be wargame nirvana. I've seen it done on some of the more advanced clans' servers and it's results in Arma are amazing. Also, hearkening back to the old SPI wargames, more attention to the dictates of terrain so that you don't have forces racing through swamps, or forests or up and down 45 degree mountainsides in the same manner that they race across firm open ground.
I'm sceptical. While Unreal Engine 5 _might_ be do the trick, replicating the amount of functionality implemented by DCS, from airplane models to "tactical logic" would require an astronomical effort. If it works, however, it would mean it might be a good idea to "port" DCS to UE5.
We can only speculate how well DCS's Codebase and Assets would work in UE5. Presuming the Assets are easily portable, I'd say for the Sim it would take at best half the time of starting from scratch plus all the visual and weather stuff that just isn't written for unreal. Porting dcs would mean huge effort for no real benefit, and bringen DCS's Core engine up to the Hardware utilization standard of something like UE5 would very much me a simpler task. Any ED Engine Architects feel free to correct me :)
Way smaller local companies have been making sims and combat management for their respective countries' air force. If Metrea gets enough revenue from government contracts they probably can do it.
The issue here isn't about the game engine. It's about the abilities and resources the developer has. A game engine is just like literally any other software creation suite, like Windows Visual Studio (which is a programming suite). The program is designed to do anything you tell it to. It's the programmer's job to know how to tell it what to do.
If you ever wondered, why the focus of simulations is so much on "exterior rivets, chocks and modeling objects" instead of improving AI tactics, behavior, pathfinding, aerodynamic effects and systems modeling or bug fixing, just watch 18 minutes raving about visual fidelity to promote a potential competitor for flight simulators.
This whole thing strikes me as another Arma vs. VBS thing. If they are targetting the military training market, I have my doubts that this will be affordable to common users, or even available at all. It all sounds good, but I am highly doubtful this is going to be a game.
When I bought my first ever personal computer ZX Spectrum, that's back in 80s. My first software I got is Fighter Pilot by DI. A crude flight sim game. After a while I upgrade my computer to Atari XE then C64 then Amiga then at last to PC. All this is because I love Flight Sim. My quest is to try all kind of flight sim with this retro machine. At the end PC is the only best Computer to play Flight sim with a caveat that you needed to upgrade whenever the new Sim required a good spec. That's where I stopped doing this madness. My last flight sim is FS2004. I never ever try all this DSC like. In my opinion if you play flight sim on your PC it's still a game...no more not less. It's depend how you interpret this in your capabilities. I stopped long time ago because it's not worth it. Sorry this my opini
@@MHMajid-yi8iu No need to be sorry, but before judging DCS, especially based on your experience in good old sims and FS2004 at the latest, you probably want to get it for free (from ED website), grab a 2 week trial for any high fidelity module and then talk on how much of a game it is. You might be surprised.
@@tomaszwota1465 Thanks for the kind words, maybe I have to pass this. All that glory of DCS that's I has read and watching in YT is really mouth watering but, yeah that's it, it's all over for me now.
From the Meta website - "NOR platform brings the cutting edge technology and accessibility of commercial gaming engines to the high-end military training AND SIMULATION MARKET" ... I would translate from that, that they fully intend competing with DCS but are shooting in high hopes for a possible contract with military aviation as well. Their marketing strategist has worded this to entice the civilian into thinking that he is getting a superior flight simulator product because they read somewhere that it is somehow connected to "military." While the Military is reading that they are specifically targeted and therefore this is the one they should invest their time into.
Yeah you can read between the lines from both aspects really. Unfortunately though for now they have delivered on military contracts, and we as consumers don't even have a little demo :( Hopefully later down the line!
One huge difference is, DCS supports online public multiplayer. That’s vulnerable to hacking and such. If hacking is not a concern, the programming design considerations are tremendously different. You can make radically different design decisions that make it a lot easier to produce a performant game which supports much larger areas and regimes
...and as evident by the rather poor performance of DCS, it was spawned from a product for a military contractor as well (was it USAF or US National Guard or something? Either way somebody that wanted an A-10 sim afaik).
@@almightyIrie I played "DCS" back since the good old days of 2003 when it was known as "lock on modern air combat", it was definitely not a sim produced for the US military, the A-10C came years later. It is amazing to play DCS today and realize how much of it is still unchanged from those early days
That hose doesn’t look like an A/C cart to me. It looks like what we used to call a “huffer cart”. Basically a jet engine on wheels that could supply pressurized air for systems and engine starts if needed. 5:30
Auxiliary Power Unit (APU). As stated, it's a small jet engine pushing high pressure air to start jet engines in airliners/jets that either don't have their own APU, or there is an issue with their APU. I've used them many times in the past. They're scary as hell when the pilot doesn't 'crossfeed' in time, because they bloody vent the excess air through the wastegate, causing the bloody APU to bang loudly and jump around the apron! 😂😂
It looks to be a GPU that's integrated into the ramp seeing that it is surrounded by posts. I don't think this clip is showing Nellis though, those would be one helluva hazard on a busy flightline. In my USAF days in the 90's all we had were the portable, turbine powered -60's for power and hi-vol/low-press air (hot) for starting the old school planes or, more commonly, to use for operational checks when bleed air is needed. If this is supposed to be Nellis, which I doubt, I would guess it is down by Transient Alert which would be the most practical place to have it. It could be Luke AFB too. Still though, these units are most likely designed for the sim.
Of course, the trailer looks slick and full of detail. I bet, just like many a sim before, that when you actually get to use the sim and look at the detail, it will be dialled back.
God the $100s I’ve spent on DCS modules alone. Not including all the flight controls. Probably the most expensive sim-game to play. I really hope this puts them on notice and they incorporate new technology.
It's bad enough one almost needs a Super Computer to run DCS. I don't need to see caterpillars in the trees and ants on the ground. So while graphics are extremely important to most SIM Pilots, there is a point when the cost becomes prohibitive.
Maybe it’ll be a sim for ground crews too, like for running external checks, all the under the hood stuff for crew chief training or something - especially if it’s VR capable with walk around type stuff, could be good for training people without them needing to actually be on base or taking time away from staff legitimating serving jets. I can see your argument, but if they can make it look that detailed, they might as well, right? It doesn’t have to mean it’s being market for the gaming market. Though I’ll be very happy if you’re right.
Well the argument would be that having people do stuff out in the field for servicing is not actually expensive to train. And doig it in VR would be tricky given you would need a very large "game room", not to mention awkward VR gloves and stuff that probably won't work all the well. Just being out on the base would be super easy and simple though. So I'm not convinced about that. And with regards to "if they can make it look that detailed, they might as well, right?" - well, this would be painstaking man hours and modelling, which equals development time and money. Seems somewhat unnecessary. I'm just speculating of course :)
best way forwards is scalling, ground war to platoon level, but as you scale up(zoom out or whatever) you see basic units that move slower (as you progress with your platoon from 1 quadrant to anootehr-lets say quadrant would be 1 km2), so on bigger scale you see the tank units more and plattoon units move like DCS, but closer zoom (that air game wouldn't see) would move like CoD style..
Well if simulating for ground crew checks you wouldn't be using the bleed air hose directly as they try and avoid using that and putting wear and tear on the ECS system versus using the ground cooling carts. Perhaps that is something more seen in foreign militaries as the USAF doesn't have ground setups like that. I've seen those on Naval air stations though.
For not flying it's much easier to use real life hands on learning for ground crews. It's even cheaper to take apart actual jets to teach mechanics than to train them in VR.
Competition is great, yes! However, ED also do a great job. EDGE which with parallel processing just got an updated announcement today. Regardless, thinking that something will be even remotely as good as DCS when it isn't even released is just speculation. Until it happens, I hope it does, it can't be replied upon.
Imagine a combination of DCS and arma 3 or Escape from Tarkov for example. A fully detailed aviation simulation with all the physics and systems, damage simulations and hit boxes, AND fully simulated ground combat with all the weapons, attachments, tools and accessories, ballistics and health system. That's a true digital combat simulator .
Regarding the aircraft and vehicles looking "too good": keep in mind that these days, there are large libraries of 3d objects already built by freelance artists that can be bought instead of making a whole new low-detailed 3d asset for yourself. It might actually be CHEAPER to buy the high-quality asset. As to what you seem to think is low detail of terrain meshes at high altitude: I think this is more an artifact of the "cinematic" style of the trailer than actual failings of the terrain mesh. On most of the high altitude shots, the "camera focus" is on the aircraft, meaning the terrain is out-of-focus. On the very-low-altitude shots, the terrain is in focus, with the aircraft flying through the frame.
Came here to say something similar. Also AFAIK I believe UE5 can work with hi-poly assets and scale them appropriately, so it could indeed be the case that an existing hi-poly well textured asset was sourced and not built specifically by the NOR artists.
We've been waiting for a ridiculously long time for multi-threading in DCS. Competition might be good. I've invested FAR too much money into DCS to just abandon it overnight though.
"the future of military simulation" Ok so it looks amazing! But if they never thought they would release this for consumers why even show it for us? Sounds like a marketing scheme saying "no it's for military only" to create a 'demand' and then later say "due to popular demand we are selling it to consumers now". Well it worked on me. Hmmm..
Supposedly Eagle Dynamics is *working* on a Dynamic Campaign system akin to Falcon 4.0 for DCS - - But when or if we'll see it....who knows? But if Nor turns out to be a legit consumer product with study-sim fidelity. God I hope they bring a similar system. Still one of the greatest things about Falcon/BMS is the Dynamic Campaign.
BMS (falcon 4.0) dynamic campaign was good at the release, but it isn't golden standard these days. It is old, and simple. There's requirement for much more than what it delivers. But compared what DCS offers, BMS is totally superior.....
@@paristo It's not Gold Standard because it's hard to do. Falcon 4.0 (BMS or Not) is the only true Dynamic Campaign system I've seen. The guy who lead the development on Falcon 4.0's campaign was pretty much given a blank check to do whatever he needed to do. It was a huge undertaking. I don't think anyone else has attempted it since because it's just a massive amount of work. Still...I'd love to see a similar system come to DCS - - maybe one day. But I can't think of any other sim that has a dynamic campaign quite like Falcon's.
@@Getz2oo3 Yeah they claim to work on a dynamic campaign since KA-50 Beta came out. I remember that so well because I kept asking over and over again lol. That was more than 12 years ago. How long they took to implement multi-crew? 7, 8, 9 years? Something like that... It might take another decade or so lol. I'm afraid Star Citizen will be out before the dynamic campaign will be out 🤣 The missing campaign is the main issue I have with DCS, aside from false advertisement, lies, banning critical postings and accounts and incompetence they showed since they announced the KA-50.
Short answer. No it will not. Meta Aerospace/NOR has stated its a US Military Contracted Simulation and does not ever see a civilian application or release because the aircraft used in the simulator are current aircraft with current sensors and technology which are currently classified. Will they ever produce aircraft which have had their systems declassified, unlikely.
Well, perhaps. But I will say this: The amount of money I have invested into DCS is staggering (for a computer sim) and it will take a lot to get me to change over. And I am not talking about a few extra frame rates, a few cool eye candy features or any modest increase in any aspect. It will have to be a leap of magnitude. New to combat sim players may opt to go a non DCS route, but established simmers who have hundreds of dollars tied up in DCS will be a tough sell. And DCS is always improving, and with competition they will only get better. Not to mention having to learn a whole new system. Hell, just figuring out the editor in DCS is a monumental triumph of time and effort.
I have nearly every dcs module. Probably closer to thousands than hundreds at this point. I would jump to a different sim tomorrow if it offered a better built in campaign generator or better vr performance. I'm sick of using 3rd party apps to make decent missions. This isn't a cheap hobby, I've spent over $4k on my cockpit and PC, I'll gladly drop a few hundred more to get better software.
I certainly agree that competition drives inovation, that's severely lacking atm (DCS sits alone, with all the stagnation as a result). Something like NOR needs to happen, we need alternatives. With that said, we need to be careful with "wide as an ocean, deep as a puddle" being a possible reality. As I see it, eye-candy and respective performance advancements are just one part of the equation. Business model, costs, and hardware requirements are too. Physics, avionics, AI, gameplay and features are even more important, I'd argue. For example, you only have to look at Falcon BMS and how a 20+ year old platform can still feel as immersive and, perhaps, more accomplished than DCS in more than one aspect... (PS: can't wait for the promised major update!)
I really hope DCS will get a competitor. DCS needs to update the assets in game and optimize the game. Other than the old assets I think DCS looks great and for me I'm happy with it.
Likely exactly for reason that they are feeling pressure to remind payers that they too are caring about performance. That based from wording they used, and how much information they left out, telling us really nothing than praising themselves. ED had 10 years time to make multitasked game engine. Since dual core processors became quad core, v they should have already had engine supporting that. We are now 8-32 thread processors, and they offer one core performance for simulation, and other thread for audio. Just alone separating ground and air units from executing in same core would have been huge factor.
I think the biggest problem with this sim is that it probably contains military classified stuff, which makes it impossible to release to the public. They would have to "declassify" the sim by removing all the modern technology which is still classified before they could even think about releasing a public version. That's one of the reasons DCS doesn't contain the most modern airplanes.
@Skauber, why couldn't they just disable/exclude any classified functionality? E.g. on some of the DED pages, just show NOT IMPLEMENTED like DCS does? Yes it would be two different builds but ought to be managed by flags/asset packs.
@@anthonymoloney3671 I think they would have to do a similar approach as DCS, every airframe is a "module" and only the ones not containing classified systems, i.e. older airplanes could be released to public, same with weapons and missiles, take out the classified ones.
Nate is right. The box with the hose next to the aircraft? It's a huffer. For pneumatic starting the engine if the starter is down... Should be an external power box nearby too.
TWS, NOR, DCS 🤯 A lot players maybe wondering about the good graphics in trailers ..but it is the contemporary graphical Level for the 2020s. Graphics in DCS and IL2 are in some points outdated (not a critic at all, I like them). Interesting will be the physics, AI and strategical or tactical mechanics.
The reverse would happen. No way would they release the front line fighters of today such as the Typhoon, Rafale etc. You may as well just send the blueprints to your enemies if you did.
They have a long way to go just to catch up to DCS. There are a great deal of fixed and rotary wing aircraft that are simulated in detail nowadays. Bringing something to market with just one avionics/flight model won't be good enough no matter how shiny. On the other hand we as customers can only benefit.
Command T, you're very suceptible to just a trailer :) It looks awesome but it didn't show much gameplay. No multiplayer, no big combat, no ai... I think this will be another Star Citizen project, awesome but years away. Competition is good though.
i think the detail in wheel chocks may not point towards a gaming product, but just helps selling the product to military clients.. like, imagine hearing about all the (potentially) awesome features of the sim, then seeing perfect visuals in the presentation until you get to the wheel chocks.. they'd stick out too much making the whole visuals look faulty if they'd be done in lower res / less poly.. at least that's what i think - rather make sure the presentation is as perfect as you'd make the product appear when selling it (to whomever, hopefully not only military) EDIT: Tunguska detail might be because they got a JTAC sim in there as well? Or marketing, as my thoughts on wheel chocks
Just a note as a 3d artist regarding your comments on the level of detail incorporated into certain parts of the aircraft: Yes, every single detail you're seeing is technically modeled, but it is done so in the high poly version. The high poly is then re-topologized, and the high detail aspects are "baked down" onto the lower detail model for maximum performance using pbr workflows. So while it looks like one piece of the wheel might be in excess of 10,000 triangles, it actually isn't. It's just game engine sorcery. Obviously, technology is pushing those boundaries every single day, but we aren't to the point yet where we can render like 100 trillion triangle models all on screen at the same time (at least using reasonably affordable civilian tech). Give it another 10-20 years though, and you won't be able to distinguish games from reality (especially once AI starts taking over).
NOR seems to be an updated Prepar3D...which was also created for military and industrial use by Lockheed Martin, and taken over by simmers. With the technology increases from P3D to now, it seems logical. Also, as P3D was almost cost-prohibitive compared to FSX and X-Plane (at the time, over $200 for the "real version), if this comes to fruition, you can expect high cost of both the system AND your CPU/GPU system...with that kind of resolution, only the highest-end graphics cards will be able to handle it.
I think this is the future. I am surprised at how many people are saying “DCS sucks” because it is the best commercial product available, and Eagle Dynamics themselves (I don’t know their resources) have admitted that the processing engine needs upgrading and additionally they’ve been impacted by the Ukraine conflict.
I think the people saying "DCS sucks" are those who are burnt out on the breaking bugs and waiting forever for some fixes to take place. Also the people who see great potential for the sim to be more than a cockpit simulator. The DCS business model of pumping out new modules rather than fixing the base game may be required for financial stability, but is pissing off part of the player base. I've been playing a version of this SIM since LOMAC and find it hugely frustrating when things like the radar are often broken. Nothing is more immersion breaking than not even having a properly functioning radar. I mean have they even fixed the track file life bug for the F/A-18C yet? They also need to seriously fix their testing regime (not just expect the public to do their alpha testing). How can seriously breaking bugs not be picked up when all it takes is to load the sim and fly around for 5 mins? TLDR the sim doesn't suck but people have legit gripes with it. Ok, rant over.
So one of the peculiar misses on detail here is on a high level on the F-16. Yes they got a lot of small details but it is super odd that they would have taken a parked F-16 with a TGP on it and show it with the TGP sensors facing forward. The only time you see it looking like that is if it is in use. Even on but stowed the sensors are off to the side and not front facing to protect it from a bird strike. Fully shut down the TGP sensors aren't visible at all on the older TGP. Sniper is different of course.
i understand your point fully but as an engineer in the RAF, i would have to disagree with the argument about the chocks ect, during my engineering training we had to use sims for some of the bits and alot of the sims were from around 2005 and they were and currently are still looking for replacement software.
They're gonna need that level of detail if they've got ground force training integrated with combat flight perations. CAS & training with ground forces close by requires this level of realism on soldiers skins and object textures. The grass was waving in the wind in one shot; why waste CPU cycles on that unless ground forces will play in the dirt while pilots fly overhead? Textures are one thing that's required if it's gonna be sold as a procedures/tactics training sim since BDA checks, and close formation requires detail that allows the pilot to use markings on the jet (or on soldier's uniforms) for formation positioning, especially high-fidelity VR use. If used by FTUs for procedures and initial qual in the jet(s) then preflight walk-arounds could be modeled, although this seems superfluous when the real thing is sitting in a hangar or in a revetment. The boxes with hoses on the tarmac are Palouste air starting systems for the F-5s at Fallon. You hook the hose up to the jet, it spins the turbine blades to achieve enough RPM to start the engines.
That unit seen with the F-16 is almost certainly use to provide compressed air for jet engine starts. In the Navy (and presumably the Marine Corps) they're called huffers; I don't know if the Air Force has a different name for them. There are some cinematic things DCS has incorporated for the sake of "game play," even when in simulation mode, that are depicted in ways that don't follow reality (and I'm mostly not criticizing DCS for these things): Depth of field - Because our eyes focus so rapidly, we really don't notice depth of field in our interactions with the real world. Depth of field does in fact exist in eyesight, but our refocusing happens so quickly we don't notice it. I have depth of field turned off for that reason. Heat blur - The heat blur from aircraft afterburners is all wavy. In reality, the hot gasses are escaping so fast from the engines that there's really no blur. Lens flare - In human eyesight we do experience glare, but not lens flare, and there's a difference. Lens flare happens when light bounces between the various individual lens elements in a complete optical device lens, as seen by the polygonal ghost shapes (from the lens iris that changes the amount of light being admitted to the sensor or film) that move as the relationship to the light source changes. However, our eyes only have a single lens "element," and our irises aren't polygonal in shape. So while the lens flare looks nice in DCS, it's not accurate. Shadows - Similar to depth of field, our eyes, via our irises, quickly adjust to varying light levels. (It's not so quick in the middle of the night when you open the refrigerator and are blinded!) So for example, if we see an airplane in a dark hangar we see it properly, and when it's towed out we also see it properly in bright sunlight (although we won't see both properly at the same time). I noticed that near the end of this video an F-16 is exiting a pitch black hangar interior. Our eyes wouldn't perceive it that way, but it's cinematic and looks dramatic, just like in DCS. In some cases, DCS is really poor with shadows, like the shapes of those cast by objects, even including the shadows that are completely missing under a parked aircraft. One area DCS or NOR could really go overboard with detail is the modeling of of parasitic drag features. When I was first in the Navy I was amazed by how much "junk" there was that added drag, specifically the sealing compounds, that looked like a bad grouting job, used between rarely-opened panels, and the sandpaper-like non-skid surfaces that would see a lot of foot traffic on the aircraft skin, like on top of some jet engine intakes. Overall, I'm impressed with what DCS has accomplished although I'll always want more. I've done 3D modeling and animation (but not real-time) and I know the difficulties on optimizing 3D models for fast rendering. What we have now is bordering on miraculous. Pump up the end-user computer processing power beyond what we have now and the results could be absolutely stunning... although I'd rather be able to run complex missions with lots of assets - aircraft, ships, ground vehicles - and much, much better artificial intelligence, which sometimes isn't all that intelligent. I'd even be willing to trade realism boosters like clouds and wind in exchange for more flexibility in creating and running missions.
If there is a consumer version ever made then it will be a good competitor for DCS. It will definitely make each team work hard to make the best of their products. But until then DCS will remain top dog in the mil flight sim world.
I think your looking at it wrong, it appears they are going for a simulation of the entire battlefield and is probably why the detail is so good, not just a flight sim
After playing MSFS in VR, I now realize how behind DCS actually is. VR is a very fun experience, but even with a super powerful computer, you can only either have frames per second OR decent graphics. And even on the highest graphics settings, there is always a problem with shimmering which is really annoying.
Hey, NOR! With your incredible attention to detail you missed a bit... Where the vid is paused during the trailer at around the 3:55 mark, the F-16 appears to be sitting in a BPO/Pre-Flight config on the line with the NLG torque links connected but why is there a torque link pin still installed into the RH side of the NLG wheel axle as if it's getting ready to be towed? 🤔🤗 In case no one knows what I'm talking about. The pin used to connect the torque links that connect the upper and lower NLG strut doubles as a tow bar attachment point. So, before towing an F-16 one would disconnect the safety locking pin on the torque link pin then remove the pin from the torque links separating the lower strut from the steering actuator on the upper strut. That pin would then be inserted into the RH side of the NLG axle to facilitate the connection of said tow bar.
first of all, competition is good. anything that comes along that can even bump into DCS's market is very welcome. that said, i don't think people realize how much work goes into each DCS module, in terms of researching how each system works and trying to stay true to the real thing as much as possible. forget about 3D modeling, animation, and texture work for a second - i'm talking about thousands and thousands of hours of work dumped into things like hydraulic and electrical subsystems, targeting systems, damage modeling, and so on. to put it bluntly, any developer who intends to make a product that competes with DCS has a serious... *SERIOUS* amount of work ahead of them.
This doesn't seem like a competitor at all. If it's meant for pilot training then the models will all be developed with military information about systems and physics for current in service platforms. It will necessarily be more accurate than DCS. And that makes it unreleasable to the public.
This not an issue at all. Tweaking systems or models to avoid any classified material is not difficult. This exactly what ED do themselves for thee same modules we have in DCS and the ones they create for their military contracts.
If they are making modules of current generation technology in a true to life simulation there is no way we will be able to access that in the public domain. Classified information would be found everywhere! As for going the extra mile, polygon count on wheelchocks etc, well a contract to develop software to train Western Airforces could go for crazy amounts of money! So why not make it look good?
Because they get paid anyway and the military don't care..... more money for less work sounds more likely than more work for no reason other than it looks pretty
As you state throughout, there looks to be so much extraneous detail here to which you'd think a Military would be more concerned about what mission types and modelling they could run as exercises along with as accurate a flight / weather model and the all important systems modelling and how everything integrates together. Shadows on rocks and local fauna, along with ladders and toolboxes perhaps would not be high on the specification sheets. Unless these features were something the engine or Unreal could do very easily ( like, at the click of a few buttons to insert - easily Or generated by A.i ? ). It all kind of smacks as a very expensive demonstration reel.
All being said I would never B T C H about DCS because it is my go to game.. I have been gaming since 15 years or so and I am fed up playing the games that don't follow most the rules of physics(just mindless flexibility allowed in games like ARMA, Project reality,battlefield etc for flight dynamics) .This one game respects flying and is a replica of what it feels like to fly such fighters both technically and gives you a sense of accomplishment.. it's a aviation fan's game and it should never disappear .I wish Eagle Dynamics give us more and more content and not just loose focus..
Will it be available for public? No. Why? If it's designed for military it probably has classified data included. End of topic. Unless they would cut out all of that. For an example - if it's for military it should have accurate AMRAAM model (all the flight parameters, distance, maneuverability). Military would not be happy to share it to the public. Unless NOR is not as accurate, so it's just DCS for military with some better campaign and graphics... Right?
Ahhh so its DCS’s turn now. I remember how years ago there were all kinds of videos about how Arma needed a good competitor. And people starting drooling over videos of VBS, Titan Vangaurd, and Realtime Immersive. All of which are military applications. They did show off some insane things. Like a sub hunting helicopter. Where you actually sat in the back looking at the sonar screen, being able to use all the buttons. I think the best bet for something like this for commercial rather then military application. Is outerra sandbox, its on the microprose youtube channel. The outerra engine is capable of full fidelity aircraft. There used to be a free demo of a cesna which was pretty good.
As for the level of detail in NOR, if its indeed made with unreal engine. Then i think you are simply misunderstanding how that engine works. The whole point of Nanite in Ue5 is that artists can directly import thier blender creations. Without having to reduce the number of polygons. Without having to make several LOD’s of the same object. The lighting engine in UE5 means you wont have to do baking. You save lots of time and really only have to create the 3d model. And texture. The engine does the rest That tunguska could literally be a 30million polygon 3d asset purchased from a store, and it would run in UE5 because of the engines global illumination system, and the Nanite technology which creates LOD dynamically.
Well I think 'demise' is a bit hyperbolic, isn't it. It has quite a head start, and quite a lot of people using it, and enjoying it. Having said that, the potential competition will be good for ED.
I have worked in military simulation for many years. I have seen many products over the years that I have felt that would make fantastic consumer grade products, but the only one I have seen successfully transition between consumer grade to military grade is Bohemia Interactive's VBS. And they went from consumer to military grade. I cant think of a product that has gone from mil grade to consumer grade.
DCS is the best "monopoly" we could never have asked for. You look at other companies who have the corner market, and most of them abuse their "we are the only option" aspect. But DCS has been very generous. I can only imagine how compation will drive the industry.
NOR is to be used as a basis for military Flight Sims for training Military pilots, not for the civilian market. It will remain unavailable until it's being employed world wide by all military nations, At that time it will also become available for civilian sims for we the masses, as there is no advantage to keeping it restricted any longer.
If you render to a 4K screen, you really do not need more than one polygon per pixel. However, a typical 3D scene has hundred of thousands. The trick is to dynamically scale the detail of models and scenery to reduce the computational load and maximize fidelity. This is exactly what UE5 does with Nanite. Obviously you need to strike a balance; it would be pointless to take longer to dynamically scale detail than to render the original.
I don't see this coming to the consumer market. Sure the detail is incredible, but maybe they want to be as immersive as possible to train in a better atmosphere. Another thing is the highly classified systems that are run through these aircraft. They would never let us get our hands on them.
The classifieds systems is an easy solution for the broader sim market. ED run their versions of the A-10 for the USAF for like a decade now. The version we have just doesn't have any of the classified bits. Would be easy enough to take them out of the sim if needs be.
@@CommandT in theory, yes, but systems are tied to each other.. you can't just omit things out of the equation and expect things to still work. There's gonna be coding work to replace the things you will remove.
@@CommandT Some parts are easy, like just not including a weapon if it’s classified, or using unclassified ranges, etc. something like a radar, however, is tougher. I doubt DoD is going to help make it easier for our adversaries to dissect the radar capabilities of the F-35 or F-22. The version available for public sim use could still provide a lot of counter-intelligence value, and if not, it would be so neutered that hard core flight sim addicts would rather not fly it. Stealth is another tough one. It’s not just frontal cross section, a number that could easily be fudged. It’s also how easily the stealth aircraft can break lock while maneuvering, how easily it can defeat radar and IR missiles, what the countermeasure programs look like, etc, etc. The balance between realism and classification is pretty fascinating, and it could be a tactical advantage for Russia and China, who are undoubtedly completely close-lipped should ED come calling for details.
@@RobertsonDCCD Yeah but we are talking about the same platforms that are in DCS already... F-16, F-5 (and soon to be EF)... there's no issue leaving the classified parts out of a consumer game version. That is definitely not the real challenge in having a new player on the scene. Nobody is even asking for stealth simulation. Just basic 3/4th gen aircraft with mostly declassified systems and the elimination of those that are not declassified.
Of course they went overboard on the 3d level of detail in their trailer. They are spending a few hundred thousand to go after multi-million dollar contracts. Generals and politicians don't ask if this trailer is the current level of real-time 3d rendering. Also by the time this is bought and it's time to deliver the product, they will be at that level technology wise- i.e. both hardware and software capabilities.
So, 1, I do not think NOR will ever evolve into a consumer game. 2. The reason why I believe they chose Unreal engine 5 is because UE5 provides a lot of functions that scales beautifully with more powerful platforms like super computers. The military cares most about physics especially with flight sims and now they have a game engine capable of keeping up with their physics models and in turn, allows them to add even more detailed physics models later. Regarding the graphic details, it is not as hard with UE5. So fusing it with the military capabilities, I most definitely expect to see some overkill level of detail.
Competition is a healthy thing. But unless NOR is going to offer a similar slate of aircraft and the mission-making ability that DCS has, it'll likely remain a niche priduct. Kind of like a firearms manufacturer who only sells to government clients.
Competition is good for everyone and DCS would benefit from it as well. I have been flight simming for a long time, pretty much since the beginning of PC flight sims, and I have seen lots of "simulators" come and go. Some were just websites with a mission statement, some made it to the development stage, some actually made it to the public in a beta version and didn't last and some were major titles that for one reason or another didn't last. Right now this one is a dream with a bunch of pretty screenshots and videos. Until it actually makes it to the public I am not going to get excited. I wish them the best of luck.
I wanted DCS planes in something like ARMA with the ground pounders calling in strikes.real people operating the SAM sites. Using as real simulation of the items as possible.
@@Name-ps9fx it does to an extent. But there isn’t enough ground guys willing to play. ARMA is a ground shooter game, where flying is kind of secondary.
The short answer to he speculation is that NOR will not compete with DCS in a consumer market (more on this later). Metrea made it clear that the sim is for military and not consumer markets. They were set up at I/ITSEC 2022, in Orlando and the sim appears to be in relatively early stages. Sure anything is possible, and Metrea could dip its toes in the consumer market. Personally, I'm not holding my breath because we've been down this road before. Not naysaying, just being realistic. I do agree that the level of detail could be a marketing strategy and things may change once a contract is secured. The military personalizes sims based on training requirements. I had an opportunity to fly a Kiowa sim with realistic avionics, high end graphics, but a generic helo flight model. In my conversation with the engineer. He revealed that the graphics api and avionics received a lot of attention to detail because crew had to develop SA and learn how to operate the avionics in a combat environment. That was the purpose of the sim. The helo model was generic because the crew were already proficient and the focus was not flying but performance and ops. Frankly, I believe that Metrea developers are simply taking advantage of the Unreal engine, and "showing off" because the engine is very capable. That's a good thing, IMHO. There's nothing wrong in being able to enjoy the best of both worlds. High fidelity fm in a beautiful landscape. As consumers we would definitely love it and I think so will the military because being able to replicate a theater as close as possible to actual offers certain advantages. I also think Metrea dropped the trailer the way they did to boost interest. I think they are trying to push NOR as a COTS platform, which the military has been leaning towards in an effort to reduce costs. Speculation on my part but makes for good marketing. The military uses a specilized version of DCS and what better way to position NOR than to drop it in a way that it appears as a contender for DCS. The military does pay attention to the consumer simulation market. In summary, we will not see a consumer version of NOR (unless Metrea has a shift in strategy). The competition with DCS will be in the military sector. Personally, I think ED won't really be affected because of its foothold in the consumer market. Hopefully NOR will prompt ED to step up its development timeline and prompt them to deliver Vulkan API, which we've all been waiting for. At least we should be seeing multithreading implementation real soon (if ED delivers). FYI, NOR was demoed on high-end PC rigs that are likely outside some of our budgets, definitely surpassed my specs. 😂 At the end of the day, we can only hope. 😉
Falcon BMS is a clear alternative for people interested in a Combat Flight Simulator. Yes, I know it's F-16, but it is a clear alternative _for people interested in a Combat Flight Simulator_ even though yes, that means people won't be able to fly the F-14, Mig-21 or A-10. You kind of have to pick your poison. Fly just about any module in DCS or fly a Combat Flight Simulator in the F-16.
I thought about adding BMS to my video but decided it's not really a proper competitor to DCS at all just based on the fact that it's such a niche and limited simulation, although I'm aware it has incredible F-16 simulation and a brilliant dynamic campaign. This is true, but it's so far behind on visual fidelity that I think it's hard to say that it competes for the same space.
If it was easy to implement VR I would switch back to BMS. At least until DCS gets dynamic campaign. DCS needs to up their game with new engine, dynamic campaign.
@@CommandT I think it's fair to say that in the space of an attractive commercial product BMS does not compete. BMS is also very much a niche sim, but it _does_ offer the kind of indepth weapons and systems modelling people crave and not just in the F-16 itself but in the surrounding environment, partaking units, enemy opponents (air and ground), AI and ECM area.
I hope you’re right that this is gonna come to consumers but my worry is if it’s designed to run for military then computing power is less of an issue as they could design it to run on tipping top of the line computers cause the us will pay
It's definitely consideration but but it also doesn't really look any more demanding than any of the consumer gaming AAA titles. So hopefully it's a possibility.
@@CommandT true it doesn’t look far better than AAA but AAA has a huge budget to spend on the best optimizers around to ensure that the game will run smoothly with the best graphics they can (although idk how design really works this is just coming out of my ass)
They've gone to town on the internal and external aircraft modeling, and yes It may be better than DCS in some aspects and details (and not in others, like you mentioned, the leading edge of the wing did not have as much detail as the missiles) but as far as airport lights, terrain and clouds...it's not really any better than DCS and it's a few thousand leaps behind MSFS. The first person aspect is the most striking aspect of this game, but then again, it's a trailer, who knows how much of it is just made for the trailer. DCS's biggest draw back are the maps. Their details, graphics and content is just so bad after we've been spoiled with MSFS. Also, the Combined Arms and FPS are almost laughable. DCS has the right title name to actually be the best digital combat simulator, if it just had the world/terrain and weather of MSFS, the FPS and vehicles of Arma 3 and the Naval assets control of Cold Waters or upcoming Sea Power. Then, it'd be the "Star Citizen" of the real world.
If nor is what they say it is it will 100% not be competition because it will have classified information that they won’t allow the average consumer to see.
I really doubt some scenes are actual in game footage. It looks like it's rendered, just like DCS and everybody else in the game instrustry has been doing for a long time when new products are announced. Besides, what limits DCS is the amount of public data available for those military systems, which I believe NOR won't have access either. In the end, it's nice to see some competition but I won't set my expectations to any level much higher than what we have on DCS now.
You mentioned the crazy level of details and polygons. Unreal Engine 5 has a feature (Nanite) allowing an almost unlimited number of polygons for 3D assets. Creating a different level of geometry assets for the same object is what is the most time consuming in the development workflow. Talking about workflow for the development team, UE5's has been designed to ease open world game creation. I guess it would be a nice improvement for simulation games in general Ealier version of Unreal Engine 5 had issues with trees and is now patched allowing the same level of detail as any other type of objects. Love your content by the way ! Cheers !
Thanks! Yes. You're right about nanite. That's the sort of tech we need to improve ground terrain details without killing all performance! I wonder if they actually use nanite in NOR though. Not everything with UE5 uses nanite?
@@CommandT Nanite is a built-in feature. You can import almost any type of model from most of the modeling softwares, activate Nanite on the asset and UE5 takes care of the rest. Pretty neat. I would be curious to see Nanite's performance in another context than FPS.
when i look at this i just keep thinking about R6 and its E3 demo... Also, with that amount of detail I think you'll need a beast of a PC to just run this game. The cockpit of the typhoon looks really nice though.
DCS and ED are famous for starting projects without finishing them. Maybe if they actually followed through with things they begin years previous, their competition would be far slimmer.
