Synthetic environnement training, what do you think about it?

[Infanteer]

I will maintain that JCATS is an outdated, low-tech computer game.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

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]

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.

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

 

[Infanteer]

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]

... 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. 

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.

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.

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