Lockheed Martin Prepar 3D

There's a mod that makes it use Google Maps instead. In many places, it is better by leaps and bounds.

I think when it comes to simulation fidelity, it still has a nice edge over the Microsoft ecosystem. Though that did improve with their latest version. In terms of third party aircraft, there are interesting products for both simulators. Probably more for MS; but there are a few nice ones for X-plane as well.

P3D seems like it has served its purpose. It was a nice upgrade before MSFS 2020 became a thing for users stuck in the MS ecosystem without meaningful updates to their simulator for a decade or so. Now that they have released (and given how great it is), there probably still is a niche market for people with older setups that are happy to keep on using that; especially those that invested in third party aircraft. Of course, most relevant aircraft are probably also available for MSFS 2020 at this point and possibly in an improved or nicer version.

Other than that, I don't see any good reasons for new users to want or need this. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I imagine a ship, train sim would go over quite well. Would be great if they were all in the same in game session.

Can also picture tycoon and enterprise type games doing well here.

And of course eventually there will be weapons, it is bound to happen.

  > uploading the chrome username/password DB of suspected hackers

Another interesting one is what Bohemia Interactive does -- they develop and commercially release simulation-style shooters in the ArmA series, and they developed the original Operation Flashpoint back in the early 00s. But Bohemia also has a product they sell to armed services around the globe. It's gotten them in trouble before -- a few developers were detained in Greece while gathering reference material for the fictional island of Altis in Arma 3.

I haven't read the book, but in the movie, it claims that the army had spent $14 Bn at the time of the Congressional Committy on April 24th, 1987 where as it had only spent $8Bn out of the $12Bn allocated.[1]

Beyond that simple fact check, sure the programs did exist but there are numerous other issues.

The most significant were the subjects of the destructive tests, in which Col. James Burton insisted on destroying many fully functioning combat loaded Bradleys by firing RPG's at them from multiple different angles. The Army thought it would be worth while to do some tests but not to the extent which Burton demanded. The Army filled the ammo shells with sand and the fuel tanks with water as to be bale to measure damage done to them from sharp metal. That way you could actually account for the damage done.

According to the Col, this was a bad faith cover up that the Bradley wouldn't survive and instead be a flaming wreck. A Bradley would indeed blow up and be turned into a flaming pile of melted aluminum from an AT weapon hit, but that was always known - it wasn't designed to be able to resist such weapons. Neither did the previous troop carrier it was replacing. Nor did the Russian equivalents do so either.

[1]: Capability of the Bradley fighting vehicle : hearing before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, One hundredth Congress, first session, April 24, 1987 (EBook version): https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=6VhyQC11xEAC&pg=GBS....

The oft referenced scene from the film where Army Generals keep sending the designer back to make stupid changes is completely fictitious. The book and film portray the Bradley as a victim of design by committee and the whims of out of touch generals.

The couldn't be more far from the truth. You see, Burton thought the Bradley was a replacement for the M113, an armored personnel carrier. But it wasn't and was never supposed to be. It was supposed to be an Infantry Fighting Vehicle.

This is a class of armored fighting vehicle that the Soviets introduced with the BMP-1. Instead of being a battle taxi that would drive the troops to the front and then leave like an APC, the IFV would stick around and fight with the troops. Adding more firepower.

This is a good idea and the US Army wanted one of their own. They had several successive projects starting in the 1960's that culminated in the Bradley in the 80's. It was always meant to have a cannon and ATGMs. It was always going to carry fewer troops.

EDIT: Hmm I guess you edited out the part about saying the US has been losing for 60 years.

They were and are luddites who thought warfare hadn't moved on from the 1950's and investing in new technology and capabilities was a waste of time. They claimed the M1 Abrams was less effective than previous tanks such as the M48 Patton. They though radar and guided missiles were useless to put on a plane and that the ideal fighter had more in common with the F-86 than the F-15. While at the same time claiming credit for designing the F-15 when they didn't have a thing to do with it.

The important thing is that your mind and hands go through the right motions.

(This is useful knowledge! I have trained system administrators with simulations that basically amount to pen-and-paper role-playing with some screenshots interspersed.)

That's fine for learning to fly a 737, by that time it doesn't matter much anymore. But for earlier training it's too easy, because in the real world partial visibility and light effects in clouds cause much more disorientation than zero visibility.