homepage

Army and Navy Looking to Replace VBS 2

Posted By: kramer

Army and Navy Looking to Replace VBS 2 - 01/21/13 08:48 PM

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/a...meTraining.aspx

Quote:
The Army and Navy are seeking out video game technology to engage young soldiers and sailors, and both services plan on awarding major contracts in 2013 for virtual, PC-based training.

The industry needs to find a way to get past the older code that’s sitting out there,” he said. “They [soldiers] look at these simulators, and they don’t take them seriously because they don’t look as good as what they’re playing in their living rooms.

Currently, the Army is conducting a competition for the flagship of its Games for Training program, with an award of approximately $44.5 million over five years. It wants another first-person shooter to replace Bohemia Interactive’s Virtual Battlespace 2 (VBS2).
Posted By: Jedi Master

Re: Army and Navy Looking to Replace VBS 2 - 01/21/13 11:00 PM

LOL, now the DoD is complaining about eye candy!



The Jedi Master
Posted By: Coot

Re: Army and Navy Looking to Replace VBS 2 - 01/22/13 02:32 AM

Heehee biggrin Its a slippery slope from here. Its Rainbow6 to COD all over again.
Posted By: Apocalypse31

Re: Army and Navy Looking to Replace VBS 2 - 01/24/13 01:38 AM

Thank goodness. It's about time.

The thing about VBS-2 isnt the graphics, but the horrible gameplay. The terribly programmed AI that normally just run off and die and the bulky and outdated (and UGLY) engine that make it such a pain to use the system.
Posted By: Coot

Re: Army and Navy Looking to Replace VBS 2 - 01/24/13 01:45 AM

Why not Arma3?
Posted By: Linebacker

Re: Army and Navy Looking to Replace VBS 2 - 01/24/13 04:11 AM

Originally Posted By: Coot
Why not Arma3?

+1

I was thinking a contemporary version of ARMA 3 or bring in the boys from Ground Branch!
Posted By: Apocalypse31

Re: Army and Navy Looking to Replace VBS 2 - 01/25/13 02:13 AM

Anyone play ArmA 3 yet?

It doesn't look much better than ArmA 2, personally speaking.

I'm just not a fan of Bohemia. Id rather see a simulation based off the Frostbite or Unreal Engines
Posted By: ricnunes

Re: Army and Navy Looking to Replace VBS 2 - 01/25/13 03:05 AM

Originally Posted By: Apocalypse31
Anyone play ArmA 3 yet?

It doesn't look much better than ArmA 2, personally speaking.

I'm just not a fan of Bohemia. Id rather see a simulation based off the Frostbite or Unreal Engines



Despite having been a OFP:CWC, OFP:Resistance and Armed Assault fan and currently being an ArmA2 fan mostly because there's absolutely no other MODERN FPS/Tactical shooter game besides ArmA2 I must admit that you're right when you say that the ArmA's engine gameplay is very "clunky".

But it's also a fact that there's no other game engine that I know of that has a comproved capability of multiplayer games with large dozens of players (maybe more than a hundred) together with hundreds of AI units while modeling maps with the size of hundreds of square kilometers with enterable buildings where players can roam freely around the map without any kind of limitations and at the same time modeling all sorts of vehicles ranging from cars, tanks, helicopters, fixed-wing aircraft, boats, etc... where several players can even control the same vehicle (for example one player driving a tank while an another player is controlling the gunner position of that same tank and another player controlling the commander station of this same tank). What are the other games or game engines that allow this??
Posted By: ebud

Re: Army and Navy Looking to Replace VBS 2 - 01/25/13 05:22 AM

I haven't been to IITSEC for a couple of years, but for about 6 years I had to work it every year and never once saw anything that could beat VBS in sheer scope. You would always see something that could do one aspect much better, but never anything that could do half as much, even half as good, let alone have even 1/4 of the content.

Everyone wants/wanted to come up with the VBS "killer" because there is a LOT of $$$ to be made, but from talking to people who still work out in Research Park here in Orlando doing heavy sim work, anything to replace VBS2 basically has to be VBS2, only better, but different. Good luck with that. Just generating the same amount of content would run into the six figures. I used to work for managers who would just come to us every couple of years to write up a requirements doc on what it would actually take to make a replacement. They could never actually believe us when we told them the amount of models needed, the terrain, etc. Just think about what VBS2 can do, what is has and what it would take to duplicate EVERYTHING in a new engine.

I've been away from contracting a few years, but right now VBS2 from what other devs and trainers tell me is pretty entrenched. Just replacing it and writing new training programs would be huge. Also there are TONS of VBS2 related contracts out there spending millions that you never hear about as well. FOr example, I know a guy who is helping to just convert years of old openflight content to VBS2 format. I doubt any of it will ever get used honestly. If I had a penny from eveyone's paycheck who earned it doing something tied to VBS2 I would be pretty well off.

Anyone can complain about certain aspects of the engine but to replace it would take ungodly amounts of time and money. Look at how much money they thew at the Crytek engine contracts to try and get that going. Looked awesome, but from what I was told, was a HUGE failure. I thought if any engine would work other that all the openflight/metavr sims, it would be the Crytek contract.

If they are serious about replacing it, they need to just award it and start from the ground up rather than expecting to find a replacement all done and ready to go with the same features and content plus whatever new requirements they are throwing in. It's just not going to happen.
Posted By: ricnunes

Re: Army and Navy Looking to Replace VBS 2 - 01/25/13 04:18 PM

Well actually I always had my strong doubts that the Crytek engine could or would ever be capable of modeling the same or similar amount of content as the ArmA/VBS engine does. Crytek engine seems IMO to be clearly designed and oriented to small map games (such as Crysis).
At best the Crytek engine could model a small scale tactical simulation similar to Ghost Recon 1 or SWAT4 with a few land and low speed vehicles such as tanks operating very closely to the players.
The "proof" of this is for example the new Chris Roberts space sim game (the "spiritual" sucessor of Wing Commander/Privateer) where the team lead by Chris Roberts is having a very hard time to model very large maps and this in a space simulator which naturaly have maps full of nothing (space or empty space). Now imagine in a simulation similar to VBS/ArmA where the maps are full of stuff!

IMO, the only engine that IMO could somehow compete and model similar capabilities as the VBS/ArmA engine is the Outerra engine. Look here for more detail regarding the Outerra engine:
http://www.outerra.com/

What's interesting about the Outerra is that it models the entire planet and it also allows multiple platforms ranging from men/soldiers, to ground vehicles, air vehicles (helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft), etc... Of course one thing is the engine and it's theorical capabilities other thing is the real capabilities when you have a simulation with lots of units and players mixed in a multiplayer enviourment.


Apart from this I completly agree and understand what ebud says and I also agree that perhaps the best way to replace VBS with something better looking but with the same or better capabilities you'll probably need to develop something "from scratch" which of course would take LOTS OF MONEY!
Posted By: LugnutUSA

Re: Army and Navy Looking to Replace VBS 2 - 01/25/13 05:36 PM

Originally Posted By: ricnunes
Originally Posted By: Apocalypse31
Anyone play ArmA 3 yet?

It doesn't look much better than ArmA 2, personally speaking.

I'm just not a fan of Bohemia. Id rather see a simulation based off the Frostbite or Unreal Engines



Despite having been a OFP:CWC, OFP:Resistance and Armed Assault fan and currently being an ArmA2 fan mostly because there's absolutely no other MODERN FPS/Tactical shooter game besides ArmA2 I must admit that you're right when you say that the ArmA's engine gameplay is very "clunky".

But it's also a fact that there's no other game engine that I know of that has a comproved capability of multiplayer games with large dozens of players (maybe more than a hundred) together with hundreds of AI units while modeling maps with the size of hundreds of square kilometers with enterable buildings where players can roam freely around the map without any kind of limitations and at the same time modeling all sorts of vehicles ranging from cars, tanks, helicopters, fixed-wing aircraft, boats, etc... where several players can even control the same vehicle (for example one player driving a tank while an another player is controlling the gunner position of that same tank and another player controlling the commander station of this same tank). What are the other games or game engines that allow this??


The game engine for Planetside 2 is probably the most current that does what you say here. There's no AI at the moment, because it's all player vs. player.

Considering that SOE has a section of the PS2 website devoted entirely to the game engine (they call it ForgeLight), I wouldn't be surprised if they plan to use it in other SOE titles or license it for others.
Posted By: Jedi Master

Re: Army and Navy Looking to Replace VBS 2 - 01/25/13 07:02 PM

Frostbite and Unreal rely on tiny maps (compared to OFP/Arma/VBS) to get the detail up and the performance to stay decent.

They don't stream their levels, which is what you need to get good detail + good performance + large scope.

I would say DCS could do it, as the Georgia map is quite large and with Combined Arms you can now do Arma-like stuff there with vehicles...BUT there is no infantry modeled yet, just bailed pilots, the ground objects up close make OFP look like DX11...
Maybe in several years DCS could do it, depending on what EDGE brings.

What about the Fallout/Elder Scrolls engine? That streams and has fairly large maps (albeit with alarming "pop up" of things that aren't that distant).



The Jedi Master
Posted By: ricnunes

Re: Army and Navy Looking to Replace VBS 2 - 01/25/13 09:26 PM

The Fallout engine does inded model large maps but the enterable building interiors are in fact diferent levels separated from the main (large) map. With the Fallout engine you have one map for each enterable building plus the large "outside" map therefore in Fallout you don't have a single map but several maps which means that when you enter a building the building's map will load (and the game will "pause") and when the player exits the building the outside world map is loaded (pausing the game again). Besides and probably due to the reason that I just mentioned the Fallout engine doesn't seem to have any multiplayer capability.
IMO, these 2 reasons means that the Fallout engine doesn't seem suitable for a VBS (or ArmA) sucessor.
Posted By: FlashBurn

Re: Army and Navy Looking to Replace VBS 2 - 01/26/13 01:02 AM

Using something lie VBS or arma for training is all well and good. But there are many things a unit commander would like to train on that it simply can not do. Indeed, the eye candy thing IS important to some 19 year old private. If they do not connect with the training device it becomes a vary expensive piece of poop. I have used a few and most in fact are over priced jokes. Unreal engine and those.........they look pretty but are even more a step backwards as far as training aids IMO. The defense guys are on the right track looking to reduce costs using game tech. But they also IMO need to get people in the developnment who have actually none the damned job. Not some silly geek guy that plays with an m16 during a 2 minute here you go fest.

Training things like vehicle recovery, call for fire, or even basic first aid tasks are MORE needed than shoot and move stuff. That can be trained by checking out weapons and go TRAIN. Just saying. Light vehicle gunnery that is legit would also be nice. OMG I got forced to use some of those...........totally freaken awful! At a million a piece.......total garbage. My unit used it once then backed it away to hopefully never be seen again.
Posted By: Reschke

Re: Army and Navy Looking to Replace VBS 2 - 01/26/13 06:51 PM

I love the way Outerra looks in its videos. Wish you could port those same terrains over into Arma without having to rebuild the whole thing.
Posted By: Apocalypse31

Re: Army and Navy Looking to Replace VBS 2 - 01/27/13 07:53 PM

I would say that the Delta Force engine (Joint Operations, Delta Force Xtreme) is a much better choice than the ArmA/VBS2 engine. Much smoother.
Posted By: ricnunes

Re: Army and Navy Looking to Replace VBS 2 - 01/28/13 10:38 PM

Originally Posted By: Apocalypse31
I would say that the Delta Force engine (Joint Operations, Delta Force Xtreme) is a much better choice than the ArmA/VBS2 engine. Much smoother.


You must be joking right?? eek

While ArmA/VBS soldier movement/animations are inded clunky the Delta Force engine is the exact oposite -> Too "smooth", so smooth that it doesn't look like a soldier's movement at, it looks more like a soap sliding on a icy surface (or something like that) so IMO the movement in both Delta Force and ArmA/VBS doesn't look right (for diferent and opposing reasons).
And not to mention other stuff like AI -> If some of you complain about ArmA/VBS AI (yes it has it's faults but lets face it, it's by far the best AI of the genre) I wonder what to say about the Delta Force AI which is completly stupid and incompetent where an enemy AI soldier is capable of emptying an entire AK-47 clip firing at you at 5 meters away (from you) while sometimes it can kill you with a single shot 500 meters away with the same AK-47!!
Posted By: Jedi Master

Re: Army and Navy Looking to Replace VBS 2 - 01/29/13 03:53 PM

Don't forget in Joint Ops I had an AI firing at me from the other side of a hill, in other words LOS was totally blocked with meters and meters of solid ground between us, forever! He literally did not stop until someone else got him from the side. How did he know I was there? How could he see through a hill?





The Jedi Master
Posted By: shadylurker

Re: Army and Navy Looking to Replace VBS 2 - 01/29/13 07:25 PM

Outterra looks good but who knows how well it works. They don't need an entire planet modeled. Honestly I didn't even think of DCS, but now that I think about it, it seems like the perfect solution for a combined arms Simulator. However it hasn't really shown that it is capable of it. And as it stands now I don't think it is, the engine would need a rewrite to take advantage of multi-threading. Don't blame the engine for anything on the DCS forums though. It's the PC's fault. Even though I get the same FPS (q6700 @3g) as i7 @4.4ghz, but but but but but its a CPU restricted game (ENGINE RESTRICTED) /rant
Posted By: FlashBurn

Re: Army and Navy Looking to Replace VBS 2 - 01/31/13 07:05 AM

Why does everyone think the military wants some crazy ulimate combined arms sim? They want a training aid to teach selected tasks that are expensive, difficult, or dangerous to do. Not the worlds most realistic infantry simulator. That is silly. It will NEVER be close to the real deal. But basic soldier tasks. Or gunnery tasks of large equipment etc etc is I am sure what they are after at cheaper prices than bloated defense contractors charge. VBS2 i simply can not imagine being used at the Private level. Nothing there is useful to lowest levels. At platoon leadership and above it may have value. But from basic soldier perspective a waste of time. better to run around in the woods yelling bang bang at each other. At least you will get some exercise and not turn into a fat #%&*$#.
Posted By: ricnunes

Re: Army and Navy Looking to Replace VBS 2 - 02/02/13 12:28 PM

Originally Posted By: FlashBurn
Why does everyone think the military wants some crazy ulimate combined arms sim?


Perhaps and because the vast majority of REAL modern military operations are combined arms?? rolleyes

Nevertheless I do agree with you when you say "They (military) want a training aid to teach selected tasks that are expensive, difficult, or dangerous to do" and what's more expensive, difficult or dangerous to do than a combined arms operation??

Like you said, if the objective is to train "at the Private level" than IMO it's better to do it on the field (this I also agree with you) using systems such as MILES (Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System).
Posted By: FozzyBear

Re: Army and Navy Looking to Replace VBS 2 - 02/02/13 10:51 PM

I'll just leave this here.
Posted By: strykerpsg

Re: Army and Navy Looking to Replace VBS 2 - 02/03/13 05:19 AM

Originally Posted By: FlashBurn
Why does everyone think the military wants some crazy ulimate combined arms sim? They want a training aid to teach selected tasks that are expensive, difficult, or dangerous to do. Not the worlds most realistic infantry simulator. That is silly. It will NEVER be close to the real deal. But basic soldier tasks. Or gunnery tasks of large equipment etc etc is I am sure what they are after at cheaper prices than bloated defense contractors charge. VBS2 i simply can not imagine being used at the Private level. Nothing there is useful to lowest levels. At platoon leadership and above it may have value. But from basic soldier perspective a waste of time. better to run around in the woods yelling bang bang at each other. At least you will get some exercise and not turn into a fat #%&*$#.


Wow! So far off base of what the Army and I would assume, the military is looking for, it's almost comical. In case you've missed the technology advances of the last 10 years in both the military and computers, ultimate combined arms is exactly what we are looking for. Gone are the old days of combat arms units only combining in their BDE FTXs before they move onto a military training center for their capstone event. Especially today, with much fiscal restraints, it is even more paramount to a units success to perform their individual and collective tasks virtually before expending real bullets, gas, food and time in the local training environments, so once they do deploy to the field they have advanced through the crawl and walk phases before running. With so many FPS shooter engines available, why not capitalize on existing technologies rather than reinvent a new engine specifically for the military? So we have, Bohemia Interactive and it's Arma II engine.

Now, it's combined arms focused, as it should be, it's a flipping first person shooter, not a vehicle recovery simulator. We can practice vehicle recovery in the motor pool. I can't shoot blanks or even a shoot house in the Motor pool. It's combined arms because we've learned from the USMC that a mobile expeditionary force is far more lethal than a dedicated infantry brigade. We fight alongside tankers, scouts, artillery men, cooks, mechanics and even admin specialists. We have a mandate to conduct semi annual 12 mile foot marches. Some, such as infantry, tankers, scouts and artillery do 1 a month. We, as a combined arms BDE, have to know how to enter and clear a room/building. In addition, basic and advanced rifle marksmanship is conducted by all, again amount of qualification varies by unit type but gone are the days soft skill MOSs not grasping basic infantry tasks, again, kudos to the USMC for setting us straight. When we patrol a street, there's an MGS Stryker vehicle supporting us, along with scouts in the outer cordons with their LRAS sights and dismounts looking for bad guys. Above us, flitter AH64s, OH58s and UAVs providing real time imagery feeds to the ground commander. Then, mortars are outer perimeter, standing by to lob high angle hell precisely into a 13 digit grid, called for by either a 13F, 19D, 19K or an 11B because we've all trained intimately together, as a combined arms unit. So, why wouldn't we want a combined arms simulator?

Now, you elude to having used it before, perhaps in its inception and without any innovative thinkers on how best to practice your unit TTPs or SOPs, but it works great. I can put a whole platoon, virtually, into their deploying theater, whether its their back yard, NTC, or Afghanistan. There, the PSG, PL, and squad leaders can shoot move and communicate as either a sole mounted or dismounted element, or they can add additional stations for aviation( including HOTAS and Track IR), mortars and scouts, for dare I say, combined arms. Where they use the actual call for fire format, have binos, GPS and maps available, as well as laser range finders. Additionally, while they are working their platoon personalities through, their company commander can watch via FBCB2 or another station, all connected to his TOC. So, please stop speaking on behalf of the military and its needs, as you missed the significant importance of tools like VBS2 and what it can do for my unit. It works, and works well. It also saves you, the taxpayers millions in expenses that I would have squandered without a virtual enhancement. It also graphically looks pretty good, though VBS3 is around the corner.

So, apologies to all for the lengthy soapbox. I've tried to refrain from some of these talks but this fired me up a bit.
Posted By: ricnunes

Re: Army and Navy Looking to Replace VBS 2 - 02/03/13 06:20 PM

@FozzyBear,

That SAGE engine is definitly good looking. Thanks for posting!
Posted By: sharpe26

Re: Army and Navy Looking to Replace VBS 2 - 02/04/13 12:58 PM

That Sage engine almost reminds me of the GTA IV engine....
Posted By: FlashBurn

Re: Army and Navy Looking to Replace VBS 2 - 02/05/13 05:14 AM

You can train basic vehicle recovery in a motor pool sure. how bout under combat conditions? Or shove your buddies vic out of the kill zone. VBS2 or well anything can not train that. As far as scout tasks......ya was a 19D myself. I think I did allude to call for fire and LRAZ stuff, that is legit AND useful. But fps shooter in game land is fail by and large. TOTALLY different deal.

As a leadership tool for squad leaders an above it has some merit.... But I never seen anything half way decent at Joe level.
Posted By: strykerpsg

Re: Army and Navy Looking to Replace VBS 2 - 02/05/13 05:23 AM

Originally Posted By: FlashBurn
You can train basic vehicle recovery in a motor pool sure. how bout under combat conditions? Or shove your buddies vic out of the kill zone. VBS2 or well anything can not train that. As far as scout tasks......ya was a 19D myself. I think I did allude to call for fire and LRAZ stuff, that is legit AND useful. But fps shooter in game land is fail by and large. TOTALLY different deal.

As a leadership tool for squad leaders an above it has some merit.... But I never seen anything half way decent at Joe level.


How is it fail, by and large as you say? Your reply doesn't make much sense, please clarify. I replied to your original reply of how the military doesn't want a combined arms simulator. This reply doesn't make sense to me, maybe my TBI kicking in...
Posted By: strykerpsg

Re: Army and Navy Looking to Replace VBS 2 - 02/05/13 05:26 AM

By the way, has lots of merit for company level and below, limited usefulness to battalion and above, but not impossible.

Here's a new addition to JBLM, DSTS (Dismounted Soldier Trainer System). We have 27 total stations, giving a platoon the capability to link together, along with supporting squads and/or aviation/indirect fires. This system is based on the VBS2 system and may eventually be linked to VBS2. Advantage of using VBS2 is its the same editor and can therefore import existing scenarios, terrain and objects.

Here's the link: http://www.intelligent.net/?q=news/dismounted-soldier-training-system-0812
Posted By: strykerpsg

Re: Army and Navy Looking to Replace VBS 2 - 02/05/13 06:11 AM

Bottom line is I think you make fantastic mods, but your assessment and those that share it, that VBS2 isn't beneficial to me and my unit are woefully misinformed and should come by for a tour sometime of the capabilities. I suspect you might be impressed and more so if you know little or nothing about the men, women and equipment that make up our SBCTs (Stryker Brigade Combat Teams). Come on out, anyone. I'll escort you around and get you some insights that you can't find in a magazine. With the return of 3-2 and 2-2 SBCT, there's a lot of Warriors hanging around wanting to tell there stories.
Posted By: FlashBurn

Re: Army and Navy Looking to Replace VBS 2 - 02/05/13 06:23 AM

I would also point out that unless you have a budget of close to a billion dollars and at least 500 good people working on such a thing, with many years for development. AND are commited to consant updates without letting the holy than thou types screw it up. Well as well as the developers lying to your face going free government cash sure you want the moon...... To realisticly make say a fully working Bradley fighting vehicle in a sim would. #1 take an engine heavily modified or better still made custom. 2. Likly 4-6 months for 1 fully modeled and programmed vehicle. Now it could do everything the real deal could do. But that is JUST that. It would also out date in 5 years before Joe says screw this thing. Have you ever modeled a vehicle, textured it and then rigged up in a game engine making it do exactly what it does? Multiply that across every major system and you have a vary expensive polished turd.

Possible? Yes. Realistic it government contract world.....NO. Better to focus one part at a time with MUCH less scope. Attempt to intergrate later into one mass uber sim. Look from the bottom up, not the top down. It will simply not work out that way....at least well.

But I am sure all the guys that are contracted say sure and low ball by a factor of 20.

I am looking at such a thing from someone who has DONE the job and MAKES this crap. Ok granted I have 1 game credit and still made ZERO dollars. But baby steps.

But a true combined arms training aid if at the platoon level and HIGHER can certainly work well. But factor in Joe and it will fail. Build training aids focusing in on one or two basic tasks done right to a 19 year olds level of detail.....that can plug into 1 game engine. Well with constant updates to graphic and engine. You got something useful. SO long as the guys making UNDERSTAND the needs of lowest levels AND the MOST important part of the whole damned Army.

As you can see i am not exactly impressed with the.........oh your special for 4 years speach and heres your butter bar. Some real good guys come from that but so many really buy into that crap and are messes. This plays into producing training aids and the retard specs these guys often draw up. Whats worse is some scum bag says SURE we can do that.......
Posted By: FlashBurn

Re: Army and Navy Looking to Replace VBS 2 - 02/05/13 06:27 AM

FIne OK. I will take you up on that. MAy be a bit. in the end its getting the best #%&*$# to JOE. I am NOT impressed with what I have been inflicted with. But PLEASE prove me wrong. biggrin Honestly this stuff interests the crap out of me for at least the past 10 years.
Posted By: FlashBurn

Re: Army and Navy Looking to Replace VBS 2 - 02/05/13 06:32 AM

Oh yes I have seen some good call for fire stuff. So maybe I am baised in not a good way. Just saw to many people cashing in but screwing over joe and the tax payer. It made me sick.
Posted By: FlashBurn

Re: Army and Navy Looking to Replace VBS 2 - 02/05/13 06:39 AM

Actually off topic a bit but doing something like stryers with legit bft (or whatever they use now) could be done vary well within the confines of a sim. Along with elements of all the crap that goes with them. If you plopped in sat data to generate real world areas on the fly...... ya ok I could see that being vary useful. But as a dismount running about? I just can not see it ever working remotely close to right. Totally different deal.

To do the base vic would not be to bad at all. So long as it does a legit job of that rolling and pitching of vehicle over uneven topagraphy. And accounts for all elements of gunnery. HMMMM...... biggrin would be neat as hell to work on something like that. biggrin
Posted By: strykerpsg

Re: Army and Navy Looking to Replace VBS 2 - 02/05/13 07:00 AM

I think ultimately, you've come from the older UCOFT and CCTT stuff, that wasn't very pretty or detailed, they were more of a switchology simulator or gave the crews the ability to iron out their crew commands and formations.

Don't get me wrong, there is absolutely nothing that replaces getting a Soldier on the ground and applying what they've learned or not learned, in a tactical environment. But, much can be saved in lives, equipment and training by applying the crawl and walk phases of our training methodology in the virtual battlespace first. Then, when actual dollars must be spent on fuel, ammo, food, and other resources, the companies know what the BN/BDE's SOPs are, platoons know what the CO/BN expects and ultimately, the Soldier knows what to expect from their battle buddy on his left and right flanks. It isn't perfect, but can recount the number of times I spent much wasted time when the Army believed in 30 day field problems. I'm so glad they finally made them 10-14 days, with little weekend training included, unless necessary.

Bottom line is the FORSCOM commander has mandated that all units utilize their virtual facilities before expending various classes of supplies in our limited budgets. Smart move in my opinion. If I were to bet, to bring this back on topic, we will end up adopting the next version of VBS2, as there's already much time and money invested in the current engine. Besides, if you look at the official VBS2 website, we're not the only country to adopt VBS2, so Bohemia Interactive has much to loose if they cannot up their ante. The release of DSTS only helps confirm their grasp of what the military needs.

As far as replicating vehicles down to the lowest detail, it's not needed. Simply being able to maneuver the vehicle, reacting to contacts, employing tactics and communicating, is all that needed to be replicated. You're right, it would be a waste of money to replicate a vehicle down to it's lowest level of detail, when a Soldier is clicking a mouse or pushing various keys, not what's needed. However, moving in a formation, mounted or dismounted and understanding the importance of the techniques is more important.

Whenever you're interested in coming out to Lewis, shoot me a PM. We'll finalize some details and times. I bet you'll be buying the beer at the end of the day. Cheers wink
Posted By: strykerpsg

Re: Army and Navy Looking to Replace VBS 2 - 02/05/13 07:07 AM

Originally Posted By: FlashBurn
Actually off topic a bit but doing something like stryers with legit bft (or whatever they use now) could be done vary well within the confines of a sim. Along with elements of all the crap that goes with them. If you plopped in sat data to generate real world areas on the fly...... ya ok I could see that being vary useful. But as a dismount running about? I just can not see it ever working remotely close to right. Totally different deal.


FBCB2 is the same as BFT, though FBCB2 is WIFI based, BFT is celestial based. However, both display same data of vehicles, graphic control measures, imagery and tactical data. This system already in every vehicle in an SBCT and replicated in VBS2. A unit a few years ago used the Land Warrior equipment with much success, in theater. It has since been put on hold, being re-worked into something better, coming soon.

Also, check out the DSTS link. I think you'll like it.
Posted By: FlashBurn

Re: Army and Navy Looking to Replace VBS 2 - 02/05/13 07:21 AM

Yes you are right on the first. But I would not discount a simulation of vehicle gunnery........light vehicle for SURE. I became a convert to that while messing about with Graviteams K42. The turrets of those old tanks where pretty damned close to m1117 we had for a bit. Firing on the move with that thing........... Reminded me of WW1 reels of Naval war fare.

If you brake it down to 2 elements. Hardware and software. The Hardware can last decades (hopefully). While the software much less so. However making soldier proof (ie.....beatable, kickable) hardware on low run items is costly. But if it lasts for 10 years.........whatever. Well spent. The software could certainly go thru regular upgrade cycles. To keep the eye candy.

While I have not had my hands in VBS's guts I most certainly did in OFP, Arma, and a lesser extent arma2. To much time to make anything in a hurry for mission dependant things. I do see the utilty, and VBS series is the furthest along. But after that gawd awful Darwars crap I have a hard time taking it seriously. My unit turned it into a game land frag fest for 30 minutes. biggrin Ok I had fun LOL. Crashing HMMWV into things. But when it came time to get down to brass tacks......next to useless. Most soldier simply had a hard time taking it seriously.

I do think its a good move on the whole. But after talking with you I may well have been baised with my personal experiences. Can i bring a 17 year old clone with me? No relation biggrin. Hes all crazy about making oddball materials. I joke with him to go make light weigth body armor so you do not end up with guys that get pain lifting grocery bags later in life.
Posted By: strykerpsg

Re: Army and Navy Looking to Replace VBS 2 - 02/05/13 07:44 AM

Originally Posted By: FlashBurn

I do think its a good move on the whole. But after talking with you I may well have been baised with my personal experiences. Can i bring a 17 year old clone with me? No relation biggrin. Hes all crazy about making oddball materials. I joke with him to go make light weigth body armor so you do not end up with guys that get pain lifting grocery bags later in life.


It's ok, we're debating because my personal bias conflicts with yours. It's simply healthy debate. As for you bringing a guest, sure. Just shoot me a PM when you think you want to come down. I need to de-conflict my schedule, which isn't impossible when you're boss, but need to de-conflict nonetheless the various meetings and such.
Posted By: FlashBurn

Re: Army and Navy Looking to Replace VBS 2 - 02/05/13 08:01 AM

Be a few weeks off and i would let you know WAY in advance. I also need to hit up the Ft Lewis history mueseum for my little Battle at Longstop hill and Medjez valley deal. But just moved so CAOS right now. biggrin Healthy debate is ALWAYS good. Well at the correct time. biggrin
Posted By: FlashBurn

Re: Army and Navy Looking to Replace VBS 2 - 02/05/13 08:31 AM

I did check out that link. So it looks to be intergrated into VBS2? How on earth would the hardware aspect intergrate in a human factors sort of way? beleave me I have put some tought into such things and for the LIFE of me could not come up with any crazed ideas of how you could do it well.

HMmmmmm i maybe going the wrong way in my chosen path. Perhaps I should be looking into this sort of thing. So does it work? I mean REALLY work? If you do take out the excertion part.......you could work out certain things I suppose. I maybe VARY wrong in some of my bais. Granted it was nearly 5 years ago.......that stuff was BAD.
Posted By: Apocalypse31

Re: Army and Navy Looking to Replace VBS 2 - 02/05/13 11:12 AM

Originally Posted By: strykerpsg
By the way, has lots of merit for company level and below, limited usefulness to battalion and above, but not impossible.

Here's a new addition to JBLM, DSTS (Dismounted Soldier Trainer System). We have 27 total stations, giving a platoon the capability to link together, along with supporting squads and/or aviation/indirect fires. This system is based on the VBS2 system and may eventually be linked to VBS2. Advantage of using VBS2 is its the same editor and can therefore import existing scenarios, terrain and objects.

Here's the link: http://www.intelligent.net/?q=news/dismounted-soldier-training-system-0812


I've spent some time at the CCTT on Fort Benning, in the last few months. Whenever we're in there I see Soldiers using this system. I haven't tried it, but its just a variant of VBS-2, so I imagine its bulky and a pain in the ass to use.
Posted By: strykerpsg

Re: Army and Navy Looking to Replace VBS 2 - 02/05/13 04:16 PM

Originally Posted By: Apocalypse31
Originally Posted By: strykerpsg
By the way, has lots of merit for company level and below, limited usefulness to battalion and above, but not impossible.

Here's a new addition to JBLM, DSTS (Dismounted Soldier Trainer System). We have 27 total stations, giving a platoon the capability to link together, along with supporting squads and/or aviation/indirect fires. This system is based on the VBS2 system and may eventually be linked to VBS2. Advantage of using VBS2 is its the same editor and can therefore import existing scenarios, terrain and objects.

Here's the link: http://www.intelligent.net/?q=news/dismounted-soldier-training-system-0812


I've spent some time at the CCTT on Fort Benning, in the last few months. Whenever we're in there I see Soldiers using this system. I haven't tried it, but its just a variant of VBS-2, so I imagine its bulky and a pain in the ass to use.


So lead where others have not, try it out! Is it bulky? It's comparable to the kit you're going to wear in the field. Is it a pain in the ass? Only if you've never used it and have no knowledge on how to set it up. You do have to calibrate the equipment, but overall, nothing that a good leader won't overcome to totally immerse his unit into and get them off the keyboards. I've seen our Soldiers leaving sessions very much sweaty and big smiles on their faces because they finally got the mission accomplished.

I would just say as a final comment of the overall trend of comments is that if you know nothing of the specific equipment, don't be so quick to damn or criticize until you've invested time and energy to make it work. Even the earliest UCOFTs were very primitive graphically, but made our armor crewmen and many allies, some of the worlds best armor crews. It was the outside the norm thinking that makes our military leadership often times the worlds best.
Posted By: Apocalypse31

Re: Army and Navy Looking to Replace VBS 2 - 02/06/13 12:32 AM

Originally Posted By: strykerpsg
Even the earliest UCOFTs were very primitive graphically, but made our armor crewmen and many allies, some of the worlds best armor crews. It was the outside the norm thinking that makes our military leadership often times the worlds best.


I know. I used the old UCOFT

Going back to my original point; The VBS-2 engine is bulky and sluggish...not the equipment, especially compared to the real gear that you'd carry on mission.
Posted By: strykerpsg

Re: Army and Navy Looking to Replace VBS 2 - 02/06/13 01:52 AM

Originally Posted By: Apocalypse31
Originally Posted By: strykerpsg
Even the earliest UCOFTs were very primitive graphically, but made our armor crewmen and many allies, some of the worlds best armor crews. It was the outside the norm thinking that makes our military leadership often times the worlds best.


I know. I used the old UCOFT

Going back to my original point; The VBS-2 engine is bulky and sluggish...not the equipment, especially compared to the real gear that you'd carry on mission.


Ok, misunderstood your earlier statement. My apologies. From what I've seen and we've utilized, it's really not too bad. If you've used the editor in ArmA 2, exactly the same.perhaps if its the performance FPS you're discussing, perhaps your contract team is in need of upgraded equipment. Ours is very fluid and the contract team is able to add custom items instantly.
© 2024 SimHQ Forums