Slow and steady may just win the race for these guys. Congratulations!

 

Maybe this will push up more serious interest in the Sim community as well

 

http://www.tucsonembedded.com/Home/tabid/41/ctl/Detail/mid/432/xmid/175/xmfid/1/Default.aspx

 

Certainly an interesting development....

Reading the press release carefully, I doesn't state Outerra actually is being used in a US Army simulation program. It reads:

 

This demonstration included Outerra for real-world environment and flight simulation, WorldWind’s moving map...

 

Also the posted picture is captioned

 

Figure 5 - TES's Stephen Simi and Sean Mulholland demonstrating MIS and R2C2 program efforts

 

No reference to Outerra.

No reference to Outerra.

 

"This demonstration included Outerra for real-world environment and flight simulation, WorldWind’s moving map, Radiance’s WeaponsWatch for hostile fire detection, ESA’s SWORD for obstacle detection, the Navy’s PMA-209’s eTAWS for terrain detection, a simulated platform mission computer, simulated multi-function display (MFD) with warnings, cautions, and annunciations (WCA)."

 

Sounds like it's being used to me, but it looks like it's for the Navy not the Army!

 

Edit: Looks like the Army is using it as well!

 

Figure 6 - TES US Army Aviation Team, Stephen Simi, Tom Brixey, Tim Daniels, Steve Koester, Richard Zepeda, Bill Tanner, Robert Francis (Outerra), Chris Cox, Sean Mulholland, and Jeff Giese

Ok, now I am confused.

 

The full quite was: This demonstration included Outerra for real-world environment and flight simulation, WorldWind’s moving map, Radiance’s WeaponsWatch for hostile fire detection, ESA’s SWORD for obstacle detection, the Navy’s PMA-209’s eTAWS for terrain detection, a simulated platform mission computer, simulated multi-function display (MFD) with warnings, cautions, and annunciations (WCA).

 

And goes on: TES is contracted by the US Army to develop and deliver FACE-aligned software applications and APIs for the R2C2 and MIS programs. TES maintains ownership of its’ tools, but delivers all products to the Government with unlimited rights.

 

If Outerra is a part of the suite that has been contracted, then I am uncertain of your objection. There are 8 monitors visible in the picture being discussed, and 4 of them are showing Outerra.......

That's a big if!

If Outerra is a part of the suite that has been contracted...

 

That's a big if! It's not explicitly stated it is. Press releases always need to be read very carefully.

Well with a member of the Outerra team pictured in front of the TES company building with the TES Army Aviation Team, I am going to think of it as a bit of a smaller if.

That's a big if!

 

Hello Jerry

Not that big of an if!, why does it need to be explicitly stated.

 

This demonstration included Outerra for real-world environment and flight simulation, seems clear enough to me that Outerra was used as part of the suite.

Two screens actually show Outerra being used and finally the team members included Robert Francis (Outerra)

 

What more evidence do you need or are you just being argumentative for the sake of it as usual.

I worked for PMA209 (it's the Navy's common-avionics program that manages most of the gear used on more than one platform) for several years and still have a bunch of friends there. One of them may have sat in on the earlier June brief they mentioned here at Pax River. I'll ask around and see what I can find out. Sounds interesting, though.

 

Not that big of an if!, why does it need to be explicitly stated.

 

Because press releses are very good at not making explicit statements whil using wotds to to give impression that they have.

Because press releses are very good at not making explicit statements whil using wotds to to give impression that they have.

 

Hello jerry

You must be right,

I guess the pictures of Outerra running at the demonstration must have been faked and the Outerra representative photoshoped into the group shot.

Seems a lot of trouble for the army to go to though, and you have to wonder why they would pretend that Outerra was used.

I'be never suggested thta Outerra were not rrepresented.

 

What I am suggesting is that if TES were asked the direct question "Are you actually using Outerra in your current contract with the US Army?" it could honestl;y answer "No, we were just demonstrating how it might be used in future." That reply wou;d be perfectly consistent with what the press release actually said.

 

The reason for my skeptism is that I've been involved in drafting press releases.