In P3D's "simobject" folder, you'll notice 100's of objects related to the military eg. "Surface-to-air missile vehicle", "cruise_missile", "Ak-47", etc. etc.

It seems to me that P3D has what it takes to compete with DCS, arguably the developer which offer the most realistic military aircraft sim eg.(203) DCS A-10C II TANK KILLER - YouTube (this plane has a  700+ page manual the last time I checked). As far as I know DCS is a Russian company, but had the smarts to move their address to Switzerland before Putin went ballistic on Ukraine.   So why isn't P3D competing with DCS?

Edited September 9, 20232 yr by bofhlusr

The more relevant question is why doesn't DCS compete with Prepar3d. Lockheed Martin makes millions from implementing P3d simulators for the military and other government agencies. I suspect the answer lies in the respective base simulators and their intended functions. 

Prepar3d is a full world, space-to-ocean floor simulator. Its purpose and usage is not to be the most accurate simulator of any particular vehicle. Its purpose and usage is to simulate coordinated collaboration of multiple land-sea-air-space force units. Parenthetically, weapons systems that are classified can be created and used in the simulator without regard to the general public. And, indeed, this is one of the most common use cases for P3d. Additionally, P3d does not have to "compete" for realism. Most of its users have access and training on real world weapons that appear in the simulator. 

Never forget what the target market for Prepar3d is. DCS could never compete in that space.

 

 

Edited September 9, 20232 yr by hs118

Not to mention that DCS is rather limited in terms of World scenery coverage, and World representation / model which is still flat, as well as when it comes to weather simulation... 

DCS is a nice game, just as IL2, War Thunder... MFS might compete, not P3D whose main focus is Professional...

If the case has been made that P3D is primarily for use in government training contracts then I would very much like to see how that version of the platform compares visually to DCS. If it appears even remotely similar to the civilian P3D release, then all I have to say as an American taxpayer it would be another version of the infamous $800 toilet seat. DCS may very well be for entertainment but it sure looks pretty to me.

35 minutes ago, CW46 said:

If the case has been made that P3D is primarily for use in government training contracts then I would very much like to see how that version of the platform compares visually to DCS. If it appears even remotely similar to the civilian P3D release, then all I have to say as an American taxpayer it would be another version of the infamous $800 toilet seat. DCS may very well be for entertainment but it sure looks pretty to me.

Ever seen a Level III simulator? The use case and functionality of them is not designed to be primarily visual. The same is true of Prepar3d. 

Edited September 10, 20232 yr by hs118

On 9/9/2023 at 6:43 PM, bofhlusr said:

So why isn't P3D competing with DCS?

These assets together with the actual training tools (and for example the dynamic weapons simulation) are only functional in the Professional Plus version ($2750 per license)

Edited September 10, 20232 yr by Lorby_SI

8 hours ago, CW46 said:

If the case has been made that P3D is primarily for use in government training contracts then I would very much like to see how that version of the platform compares visually to DCS. If it appears even remotely similar to the civilian P3D release, then all I have to say as an American taxpayer it would be another version of the infamous $800 toilet seat. DCS may very well be for entertainment but it sure looks pretty to me.

The training simulators LM put together look like the pic below.

Note though, there is more than just that in the pic, as they are typically whole of training packages intended to get a novice pilot up to speed in a cost effective manor and ready for actual flight.

And given P3D supports the use of CIGI (Common Image Generator interface) the view out the screen doesn't have to be that of the P3D default.

e.g. here's one CIGI system available.

Cheers

On 9/9/2023 at 8:32 PM, hs118 said:

The more relevant question is why doesn't DCS compete with Prepar3d. Lockheed Martin makes millions from implementing P3d simulators for the military and other government agencies. I suspect the answer lies in the respective base simulators and their intended functions. 

Prepar3d is a full world, space-to-ocean floor simulator. Its purpose and usage is not to be the most accurate simulator of any particular vehicle. Its purpose and usage is to simulate coordinated collaboration of multiple land-sea-air-space force units. Parenthetically, weapons systems that are classified can be created and used in the simulator without regard to the general public. And, indeed, this is one of the most common use cases for P3d. Additionally, P3d does not have to "compete" for realism. Most of its users have access and training on real world weapons that appear in the simulator. 

Never forget what the target market for Prepar3d is. DCS could never compete in that space.

 

 

How is that a relevant question?

A Russian company to sign contracts with the military and government? Same company who even had an employee trying to steal information and provide it to Russia?

There is a very obvious reason why, even if they wanted to..

10 hours ago, hs118 said:

Ever seen a Level III simulator? The use case and functionality of them is not designed to be primarily visual. The same is true of Prepar3d. 

Right on. The first time I was in Level D sim (SW 737-700) I looked out the windscreen and thought I flying FS2. "Looking pretty" scenery doesn't count when you're learning to fly the real thing.

As I remember, ED used to have some US military project back in the A10C days, some part of A10C and AC130 sensor system simulator if I remember correctly.

12 hours ago, CW46 said:

DCS may very well be for entertainment but it sure looks pretty to me.

To anyone who might be curious about how P3D compares to DCS, perhaps now might be a good time to do so (Big DCS sale - up to 60% off until Sept 17. - The Bargain Hunter's Shack - The AVSIM Community).

I don't know if DCS does work for the US military (hard to imagine Russian programmers coding US classified material) but their simulation of how missiles and radar function is probably "as real as it gets".

 

7 hours ago, Lorby_SI said:

These assets together with the actual training tools (and for example the dynamic weapons simulation) are only functional in the Professional Plus version ($2750 per license)

This is interesting. This likely explains the lack of hobbyist add-ons.  Thank you.

On 9/10/2023 at 9:38 AM, hs118 said:

Ever seen a Level III simulator? The use case and functionality of them is not designed to be primarily visual. The same is true of Prepar3d. 

Yes, many years as a client and the last 4 years of my career as a Level D sim instructor. The majority of training is for normal, emergency procedures and systems training and I am well aware of that. Most training was at night or in instrument conditions with very little day VFR because the visual quality was frankly mediocre at best. Hopefully newer sim systems have upgraded the visuals to more replicate a real world view. The benefit would be substantial, on the civilian side many of us would be faced with a circle to land procedure on a regular basis. Having a good visual system in the simulator would allow to train clients for their needs at specific airports. I would be shocked if the current state of simulation has not yet achieved that which can be displayed in entertainment software.

49 minutes ago, CW46 said:

Yes, many years as a client and the last 4 years of my career as a Level D sim instructor. The majority of training is for normal, emergency procedures and systems training and I am well aware of that. Most training was at night or in instrument conditions with very little day VFR because the visual quality was frankly mediocre at best. Hopefully newer sim systems have upgraded the visuals to more replicate a real world view. The benefit would be substantial, on the civilian side many of us would be faced with a circle to land procedure on a regular basis. Having a good visual system in the simulator would allow to train clients for their needs at specific airports. I would be shocked if the current state of simulation has not yet achieved that which can be displayed in entertainment software.

Then you know that Prepar3d as used in commercial/military applications with custom scenery is more than adequate for the intended use case.

The FSX@War and TacPack mods were always fun to tinker with (think they worked in P3Dv5 up to some point).