# Synthetic environnement training, what do you think about it?



## ettibebs (23 Nov 2008)

I would like to know what people think of training in a synthetic environnement like with VBS2, JCATS or the STAL?  How good do you think compare to actual field training? I understand that it can't replace it but how good you think it is as a complementary tool to train soldier?  

I am asking because I'm working in the field and I would like to know how people see it where would they want it to go. 

Thanks for your input.


----------



## George Wallace (23 Nov 2008)

Sort of like asking someone if they see any value in training for a Marathon on a Treadmill.


----------



## dangerboy (23 Nov 2008)

Having used JCATS I found it was good for  planning and issuing orders for the offensive and was a good work up before when went out a did Mech Pl atttacks.


----------



## ettibebs (23 Nov 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Sort of like asking someone if they see any value in training for a Marathon on a Treadmill.



I don't agree with you as the treadmill you are just running.  There is much more going on in synthetic training and it's a relativly young tool so there is still place for improvement and to better the immersion factor.  You won't do your physical validation for depoyment on a treadmill but part of the validation process for organisation going in Afghanistan is done using synthetic system.


----------



## George Wallace (23 Nov 2008)

Any type of TEWT is valuable, but can not replace the "real time" and "Murphy's Law" involved in actual Field Training with Troops.  There are numerous things that simulation can not train troops on.  Resupply problems, Eating, Sleeping, Shift rotations, Fatigue, etc. are all factors that need "real time" and "place/environment" to train.  Remember, the troops are not little clones in a program, but actual individuals with a wide variety of personalities that will affect how any task passed on to them will be done.  How do you simulate digging, driving, fighting in inclement weather conditions?  Will we see the day that a large facility will house a simulator that replicates rain, cold, heat, etc. to make the troops miserable?


----------



## ARMY_101 (23 Nov 2008)

Is it just something like a virtual field?  Or how is it laid out?


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Nov 2008)

I agree with George that you can't REPLACE real-life on-the-ground human-and-situational-friction practice with the "arcade version" ....


			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> How do you simulate digging, driving, fighting in inclement weather conditions?  Will we see the day that a large facility will house a simulator that replicates rain, cold, heat, etc. to make the troops miserable?


.... but I'd see at least _some_ merit in being able to ingrain the sequence of events or checklist into one's mind before using same checklist in the real world conditions.  To some extent, it's the same way GPMG gun drills (do I age myself?) would imprint drills before you used them in the field.


----------



## George Wallace (23 Nov 2008)

ettibebs said:
			
		

> ...................... but part of the validation process for organisation going in Afghanistan is done using synthetic system.



This is a tool that can be used to train Command Post elements on the basics, but without actual deployment into the "Field Conditions" it can provide false results.  Some people are great at sending email from the comfort of their comfy chairs, but can't last one day in the Field under austere conditions.   What good is a member of a Staff who has no idea how to set up their site/CP/complex, start their vehicle, refuel their vehicle/generator, maintain their vehicle/generator, operate and maintain their weapons and electronic systems, etc.?  What about their other daily routines; sleeping, eating, ablutions, etc.? 

Synthetic systems have a valid use in developing some skill sets, but cannot replace actual Field Exercises.  It is the actual Field Exercises that provide the final confirmation and "simulation", not a synthetic environment.


----------



## ettibebs (23 Nov 2008)

As I said in my original post George I don't think synthetic training can replace field training.  And I don't want to create a machine that will make us more miserable will training, that simply not the point at all.  Generally it's used more to train adequate procedure and action to a situation that you can afterward train for real while saving the cost in fuel, ammo, repairs and cleaning actual field training would require. Please correct me if I'm mistaken but isn't it better to have the staff know the correct procedure before going to the field training where they can apply it to "real" simulated event?

Also we are not just training command post.  I know that some element of NSE came to the centre to train there IED reaction before going to the field to practice for real.

As for troops are not little clones in a program comment, I would like to point out that I'm not that stupid.  All I want to know is what people think of their training using those tools and where we could improve or what kind of training that are not already done using synthetic environnement that could be done.  All I want is our troops to be train as efficently as possible while spending less ressources that could be better used elsewhere.

Understand, I don't doubt your experience with the real world in any way but may I ask what is your experience with synthetic training as you seem to have a very low esteem of it.


----------



## George Wallace (23 Nov 2008)

As I said, Synthetic Training does have value, but it should not be the final validation.  

It is simulation, and as such only offers so many scenarios.  It, as such, can turn out to be unrealistic.   It can provide unrealistic "time", unrealistic "weapons effects", etc.  

As I have also said, some troops can perform very well in a simulated environment, but cannot in a real environment.   The "real" environment offers more "stressful" situations than the simulated environment.  Some troops will have difficulty with being in the correct frame of mind in either environment.

There are still members of the CF who have "computer phobias".  In some cases they will not do well in a Synthetic environment, but do quite well in the real world.

Sorry.....I think I rambled a bit there.


----------



## ettibebs (23 Nov 2008)

No problem as I agree with you on your points.  As far as I know nobody as ever sugested that final validation be done in sybthetic environnement and I agree with you that it would do no good for the reasons you pointed out.  Can we at least at agree it can be a cost effective way for "first training" or familiarisation with procedure or action to be taken.

Also you haven't answer ref. your experience with synthetic training.  I'm just asking so I can better understand how you see things as I can't see your profile yet.


----------



## George Wallace (23 Nov 2008)

Some Synthetic Training is very cost effective.  Some is not, due to it being "Trial Versions" or systems that are not widely used or used at all.  Some are unrealistic in that they are in the development stages.

Many of the Gunnery programs are cost effective.  

Of course there are the Flight Simulators that have been in use for ages, and these have more than proven their worth.

None of these synthetic systems are cheap, and often expensive to maintain and operate.   The CF can use them, but are at the mercy of the "bean counters" in the end as to how many they can purchase.  The time to train on them must be maximized to see the real cost savings on them.


----------



## Cleared Hot (23 Nov 2008)

Ettibebs,

Since you acknowledged that simulation can not replace field time I will let that one go and try to answer your question based on my experience.  The key to employing simulation effectively is to clearly define what the training aims are and where it fits into the training plan.  Usually this means earlier in a cycle (either individual or collective) to work out the bugs before going to the field and wasting time learning lessons that could have been learned in a more sterile environment before adding the stressors that will naturally be injected during field training such as veh breakdowns, 24/4 ops, sleep deprivation etc., etc.  That will come.

IMO one of the problems with simulation in the CF is a lack of resources (money) require us to get one system that does everything okay and nothing really well.  JCATS for example was a good tool for allowing leadership at various levels (ex dependant) to practice conventional war-fighting ops i.e. emphasizing reaction to a fluid environment, decision making, passage of orders, use of enablers etc.  Did it take into account every variable that one could encounter?  Absolutely not but used in the earlier stages of a training cycle it allows teams to work out SOPs or it gives individual students an idea of what to expect thus making them more functional once they get back to their units where the real training begins.  What JCATS did not do well is the asymmetrical piece but we try it anyway because JCATS is the tool we have.  You can not hold a shura in JCATS (although its been tried), search vehicles or compounds, identify civilian or insurgent etc.  But forcing the tool on the situation just because it is the only one we have adds no training value whatsoever.

Another example was the Indirect Fire Trainer (IFT) at the Artillery School.  There were two and a few years ago, a movie set designer was hired to come in and convert one to a simulated [destroyed] building and a dismounted OP.  This did nothing but decrease the utility of the room as it reduced the number of students that could be easily accommodated and it became a very awkward place to give actual lectures/classes/presentations in.  IMO this is even more apparent when we keep in mind that the intent of the IFT was a "procedural trainer" not a simulator.  Students need to first understand the basics of how to conduct a fire mission properly.  The "doing it while uncomfortable - cold, wet, lying down  after humping for 12 hours" comes later in the course.  What it did though, was make the school look good because they were on the "cutting edge".  

One of my least favourite "simulators" although not digital was the 14.5mm trainer for Artillery.  Drills at every level had to be altered somewhat to make it work, so few people other that the person "firing" a fire plan got any real training and even that could have been better achieved in a well run CPX.  So in the end, it arguably taught bad lessons and took away real bullets from the units.  But I'm sure there is enough debate there to start its own thread.

To sum up, I guess my point is that if you have any input into the types of simulators we develop, make sure you figure out why we need it (and make sure we do) then be identify exactly what you need it to do and design it to do (just) that well.  Don't look for one that promises to be an all-singing and all-dancing.


----------



## aesop081 (23 Nov 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Of course there are the Flight Simulators that have been in use for ages, and these have more than proven their worth.



Not only have they proven their worth but in some specific cases, they have replaced flight training entirely. The Airbus A380 training syllabus is done in the simulators and the first time a new A380 pilot actually flies the machine is on his first flight with passengers. Granted that to get to this point they are already season aviators but this shows the advancements made in simulator technology.




			
				Cleared Hot said:
			
		

> "procedural trainer" not a simulator.



Allot of people fail to grasp the difference.


----------



## Snafu-Bar (23 Nov 2008)

I think with enough resources and develpoment time, a software environment capable of handling training aspects of ALL the CF's trades could be accomplished within one environment. Computers and simulation training has unlimited potential reguarding flexibility ,capability and cost effectiveness. 

 That being said accomplishing something with this kind of magnitude would be staggering, yet still completely attainable with todays technology and expertise behind it. The time factor for coding the requirements into the Sim, as well as factoring in scalability for the software to harware advancements also play into the easability/timefactor of accomplishing the feat.

 The end results of it could be that someone could in theory boot up the sim, and go from raw recruit though to field ready soldier within a simulated environment reguardless of trade choice.

America's Army is already well on it's way to taking someone through some of the basics of what it takes to get from point a to point b within a simulated environment. And it does so rather well and efficiently. 

 Cheers.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (24 Nov 2008)

I have trained with JANUS, JCATS, SIMNET and CCTT. I have also dabbled with VBS. I think that tactical simulation can certainly enhance training. I see simulation being a bit distinct from simulators. The value of simulators for things like gunnery is, I believe, pretty much taken as a given.

With regards to collective training, the SIMNET/CTCC style of trainer allowed us to train as a squadron in our crew stations against a big enemy force that fought realistically but was controlled by two people. We could not have done this in the field without a huge personnel bill for the enemy. We could practice troop/squadron engagements that we only paid lip-service to in field training. At lower levels I could see similar styles of simulation providing individuals and crews with excellent full-speed convoy training in urban environments (hard to do for real). Simulations like JANUS and JCATS let us sort out basic tactics and radio procedures in a controlled environment before hitting the field.

Looking at individual training, I think that there are limits to the utility of simulation at foundation level training for the Army unless we are talking about some kind of _holodeck_ or _Matrix_. Courses like DP 1 (officer or NCM), PLQ and DP3 Crew Commander should be focused on doing the task in the field. On my CTCC, however, we used roughly two weeks of JCATS work before going to the field to make sure we had our basic combat estimate, radio orders and combat team tactics squared away before being inflicted on real soldiers. Courses like AOC need simulation. An Ops O still needs to be able to do his job in the field, but the thought process and basic staff procedures can be done in simulation. 

I don't think that we could replace field training with simulation, but it can certainly enhance the overall training package.


----------



## Infanteer (24 Nov 2008)

The one thing I didn't like about JCATS was the "facilitator" - they often went ahead and did stuff that they knew would work better, or "finessed" the commands given to them by the user.

It is a fairly low-tech computer program; I've got video games that are more complex.  In this day, a computer simulation can have a simple enough interface to allow the average soldier the ability to control his or her own command and make his or her own mistakes.


----------



## McG (24 Nov 2008)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> It is a fairly low-tech computer program; I've got video games that are more complex.


That is a fairly bold statement to make without knowing how things are working inside.  I can think of quite a few CAD/CAM software that looks dirt simple, but I know that the guts of it are anything but.

One thing about video games is that they are often built for excitement and provide a "Hollywood" output that thrills and looks cool.  Training simulators, for all their rough edges, put a greater emphasis on modeling realistic effects (weapons, terrain, weather, armour, etc) and so are less likely to teach bad lessons than a video game.  However, there is nothing saying that a game engine cannot be modified to produce less "Hollywood" and more real world physics.

http://www.seriousgames.org/


----------



## ettibebs (25 Nov 2008)

First I would like to thank you all for the answer, they will be helpfull.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> The one thing I didn't like about JCATS was the "facilitator" - they often went ahead and did stuff that they knew would work better, or "finessed" the commands given to them by the user.
> 
> It is a fairly low-tech computer program; I've got video games that are more complex.  In this day, a computer simulation can have a simple enough interface to allow the average soldier the ability to control his or her own command and make his or her own mistakes.



I know for having work as a "facilitator" that we are suppose to do what we are told by the soldier at our side.  As for "finessing" the commands, I' not sure I understand what you mean by that.  Also JCATS doesn't really care about physics as it is more a question of probability, considering that you fire with that on this you have x% of damaging it and y% of destroying it.  (Destroy 4 Ts tank and 2 BMP with a MK coyote will training on the system, what are the chance that it happen in real life  ). This system is more about creating situation where commander or organisation have to take decision and must learn the proper procedure for a 9 liner or whatever else.  As far as I know there isn't many game out there where you have to do medevac or send the EOD.

If there is I would like to know as we migth be able to use it...


----------



## McG (28 Dec 2008)

ettibebs said:
			
		

> I am asking because I'm working in the field and I would like to know how people see it where would they want it to go.


I assume you are in contact with the folks at DLSE for information on what the Army centre is doing:  http://armyapp.dnd.ca/dlse/index_e.asp



			
				ettibebs said:
			
		

> This system is more about creating situation where commander or [headquarters] organisation have to take decision and ...


In this role I think JCATS and CAST work best when the primary training audience is not even in the same room as the simulation computers.  However, this requires the interactors be competent with radio voice procedures, or a Low-Con or secondary training audience operate next to the interactors in order to look after reports and returns.  

I recall Canadian JANUS was starting to get into some decent detail in battlefield logistics when we upgraded to JACATS.  It got down to tracking individual rounds of ammunition and forcing headquarters to manage the flow of ammunition forward.  I don't know if this has been developed for the current system.


----------



## Infanteer (28 Dec 2008)

I will maintain that JCATS is an outdated, low-tech computer game.

I'm currently fooling around with this on my PC:

http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=31&Itemid=80

Bought it online for 60 bucks.

Probably some of the most realistic physics out there - all different sorts of rounds of every caliber are matched against different armour ratings.  Effects such as smoke, weather and troop experience all factor in.  Every single soldier is represented in what are surprisingly good graphics.  The Company has modelled US Army, Marine, British Army, Syrian Army and Arab Irregular military units.

Logistics-wise, every round is accounted for.  Vehicles get stuck if you put them through poor terrain.  Soldiers will take cover if pinned down and will crouch over to deliver first aid to wounded buddies.  If the casualty is dead, they will take the weapons/ammo and redistribute it.  Call-for-Fire is done with realistic procedures.

Even the use of irregular soldiers is quite interesting - there is a detection threshold that makes them visible/invisible to the player based on their actions.  Civilians running around with RPGs/AKs will show up, but a trigger man waiting for the convoy to roll over an IED won't.

The game is easily modifiable, meaning with minimal effort it could be modeled for the Army classroom.  Additional features like casevac and AmmoCas can probably be added on.  Some work on the enemy AI will most likely be needed in order to "Template" him, if that is the aim of the lesson.  However, it is a commercial off-the shelf product that is relatively easy to work with.

The best part - it takes about an hour to learn.  Moving, dismounting, fire-and-movement, suppresive fire and calling for fire are all accomplished with a few simply mouse clicks.  No need for someone to hold the students hand.


----------



## McG (28 Dec 2008)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Probably some of the most realistic physics out there - all different sorts of rounds of every caliber are matched against different armour ratings.  Effects such as smoke, weather and troop experience all factor in.  Every single soldier is represented in what are surprisingly good graphics.  The Company has modelled US Army, Marine, British Army, Syrian Army and Arab Irregular military units.


But is it actually realistic, or just look good & convincing?  The game can include all sorts of weapons & armours, but if the terminal effects are not accurately modeled then you are being trained for a Hollywood world.

You also need to consider the fidelity required.  Detailed graphics are not required if the primary training audience does not look at the simulation screen (as JCATS and CAST should be used).  The nice thing about JCATS is that it can talk to other military simulations.  I've seen a JCATS simulation run from Kingston linked with Air Force simulators across the country.  You can be the CF-18 pilots had all the detailed graphics required while flying thier simulators in the JCATS battle.  I think Sea King was the other pilot simulator connected to that exercise.

I've also seen the UAV feeds generated from a JCATS exercise.  The graphics are good, the smoke and cloud effects were there, and you can even use it to direct arty onto targets.

That detail is not required for guys moving units on a map.  It might be nice to integrate AFV crew simulators into the common architecture.  Commanders who would normally lead forward could then see the battle as they would plan to fight it (from their turret).  

For the Pl and Section attack level, I've seen first person shooters networked at DLSE in Kingston.  Every soldier could fight himself.  I believe it is a version of SWAT that was modified to be a trainer.


----------



## ettibebs (28 Dec 2008)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I'm currently fooling around with this on my PC:
> 
> http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=31&Itemid=80
> 
> ...



Thanks for the link Infanteer, will check it out and and see if we can use it.


----------



## Infanteer (28 Dec 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> But is it actually realistic, or just look good & convincing?  The game can include all sorts of weapons & armours, but if the terminal effects are not accurately modeled then you are being trained for a Hollywood world.



If you enjoy playing the odd game, I'd recommend picking it up.

It's based off an older WWII game and the physics are advertised as the best in the genre.  Coming from the gaming market, this means alot.  The game instructions include a description on how they modelled ballistics and armour, and it's pretty good.  An RPG won't stop an M1A2, but it may or may not damage some exterior things like optics, making targeting and detection a bit harder.  Small arms rounds ricochet off hard targets, but enough will reduce a soft-skin vehicle.  A round may or may not kill a soldier, who's degree of wound will require a certain amount of First Aid.  Heck, it even has minefields that need to be breached/cleared by engineer sections and ELAVs (although this part of the game needs work).

The game's physics have conformed as best as possible to everything I've seen/heard in a real environment.



> You also need to consider the fidelity required.  Detailed graphics are not required if the primary training audience does not look at the simulation screen (as JCATS and CAST should be used).  The nice thing about JCATS is that it can talk to other military simulations.  I've seen a JCATS simulation run from Kingston linked with Air Force simulators across the country.  You can be the CF-18 pilots had all the detailed graphics required while flying thier simulators in the JCATS battle.  I think Sea King was the other pilot simulator connected to that exercise.
> 
> I've also seen the UAV feeds generated from a JCATS exercise.  The graphics are good, the smoke and cloud effects were there, and you can even use it to direct arty onto targets.
> 
> That detail is not required for guys moving units on a map.  It might be nice to integrate AFV crew simulators into the common architecture.  Commanders who would normally lead forward could then see the battle as they would plan to fight it (from their turret).



Graphics are important for feedback.  Better graphics are just icing on the cake - the Combat Missions series isn't renowned for its graphics, it's known for its realistic physics.  However, this game has got a decent presentation and adequately models ground better then JCATS.

As for linking, the game is extremely mod-able, I see no issues with connecting to separate programs (they've already added a campaign game to their previous title).  As well, a simple change could probably allow a single actor to be linked to a single section/vehicle.  This would work well with the games detection model, which makes detection of enemy and distinction individual to each unit on the map.  Just because Tank A sees a bad guy doesn't mean Section B will, although they'll have a vague idea (represented by a question mark) that there are enemy in the general vicinity.  



> For the Pl and Section attack level, I've seen first person shooters networked at DLSE in Kingston.  Every soldier could fight himself.  I believe it is a version of SWAT that was modified to be a trainer.



Yeah, I played that one as well - I didn't find it as useful as a training tool, especially as it was very buggy.

I still maintain that this Combat Mission game is a superior training tool to JCATS.


----------



## McG (28 Dec 2008)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> ... the physics are advertised as the best in the genre.  Coming from the gaming market, this means alot.
> 
> The game's physics have conformed as best as possible to everything I've seen/heard in a real environment.


I'm still not sure what "game physics" are.  I suspect this is a stochastic simulation in which outcomes are predicted based on a probability.  



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> As for linking, the game is extremely mod-able, I see no issues with connecting to separate programs (they've already added a campaign game to their previous title).


The game uses the proprietary engine CMx2.  Proprietary systems have been the bane of simulation interoperability in Canada and with our Allies.  It is why military communities have been working toward developing a architecture standard.  Making this game interact with other simulations is more than likely possible, but the software costs would be extremely high and it would likely introduce additional hardware demands on the simulation system.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Graphics are important for feedback.


Which is why they are important in aircraft simulators, and shooter training simulators.  However, there is no value in graphics depicting details beyond what would be available to the training audience in the real world.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> I still maintain that this Combat Mission game is a superior training tool to JCATS.


Maybe at some levels (Pl & Coy), but at the BG level all the extra fidelity is wasted while still placing its demands on the computer systems and interactors.  Once we get to the level of sub-unit CPs and BG HQs, then much of the graphics information is superfluous (because the HQs cannot see the fight from the CP).  At this level a simple map display with pers & vehicle icons is adequate display.

In this regard, Combat Mission is not a better training tool that JCATS.  It would be (assuming the underlying models are acruate) a training tool for a different audience.

If you are interested in where the US Army is going (and a project that the Canadian Army has been following along in) check out OneSAF:
http://www.peostri.army.mil/PRODUCTS/ONESAF/
http://www.saic.com/news/saicmag/2003-summer/simulation.html


----------

