Battle Ground Simulations

VBS2Fires, developed in partnership with SimCentric Technologies, is a professional Call-For-Fire training application which combines the flexibility and stunning visuals of VBS2 with a highly sophisticated Call-For-Fire training and simulation system. The system allows Offensive Support specialists to construct a Call-For-Fire which is then processed and actioned within VBS2. The system simulates exterior and terminal ballistics to high levels of detail and supports a wide array of munitions, fuse types and firing platforms.

As VBS2Fires is built upon VBS2, all of VBS2’s standard features are included, including After Action Review and the Real Time Editor. Do you want to conduct Call-For-Fire training from a helicopter? Do you want to perform a Danger Close mission while Infantry participants conduct a mounted assault? All of this is possible within VBS2Fires thanks to the underlying VBS2 framework. VBS2Fires is suitable for a wide range of uses; from training general officers in the All-Arms Call-For-Fire through to practicing experienced Forward Observers, or simply simulating AI-driven indirect fire in support of VBS2 exercises.

Features include:

• Highly detailed exterior ballistics model

  Simulates gravity, drag, wind drift, pressure, temperature, spin drift and Coriolis effects. Additionally the model simulates the change of these parameters at varying altitudes.

• Customisable properties

  Supports field guns, self propelled guns and naval fire platforms. Customise the firing characteristics, operational reloading and relaying times, and the munitions that a platform is able to fire. Build your own projectiles with customisable ballistics properties.

• Wide selection of munitions and fuses

  Munitions include: HE, WP, Smoke (multiple colours), SADARM, DPICM, RAAMS, ADAM, ILLUM (multiple colours), and Copperhead. Fuses include: Quick, VT, Time, Delay, Seek and Destroy, and Laser guided.

• Wide selection of fire distributions

  Including: Converging, Circular, Linear, Range and Lateral Spread, Parallel Lines of Fire, and user defined custom distributions.

• High fidelity terminal ballistics models

  Terminal Ballistics are modelled both visually and functionally to accurately reflect real-world effects. Functional damage models reflect side lobe patterns of explosive rounds defined by round velocity and explosive velocity.

• Range of Call-For-Fire entry options

  Trainees enter Calls-For-Fire through the entry of plain text or through the use of a wizard-based GUI. These are automatically interpreted by the system. Additionally, voice may be used to communicate between a human instructor and trainee. The instructor then has the option of manually entering Fire Control information into the system.

• Artificial Intelligence Engine

  VBS2Fires will automatically respond to a Call-For-Fire that is entered by the trainee through a detailed Artificial Intelligence suite. Alternatively, the instructor may manually respond to a Call-For-Fire and inject errors as appropriate.

• Rapid scenario design

  VBS2Fires will save you time and money through leveraging the VBS2 scenario editor -building a VBS2Fires scenario is no more complex than building a standard VBS2 scenario.

• After Action Review

  VBS2Fires is completely integrated into the VBS2 AAR system. Bookmarks can be dynamically added and all projectile paths and effects are captured and replayed. Additionally, terrain and ballistics analysis tools are included.

• Runs on COTS hardware

  Calls-For-Fire may be entered either in a Windows-based interface (connected to a VBS2 instance by VBS2Fusion), or within VBS2 itself. The Windows-based interface can be run alongside VBS2 on a single PC with two video outputs, or on two networked PCs. If a PC can run VBS2, it can run VBS2Fires.

• Flexible network based architecture

  Operable in Instructor, Trainee or Stand-Alone mode. Can be run on same machine as VBS2 or on a separate machine connected over the network.

• Seamlessly links with VBS2 COTS Desktop Trainer

  Use VBSFires as part of a larger training exercise. As the system leverages the VBS2 engine, Call-For-Fire training can be implemented as part of larger training scenarios with Combined Arms participants.

Examples of VBS2 Fires applications:

• Individual training, or one-on-one training

  Stand-Alone mode allows a trainee to practice Calling-For-Fire without an Instructor or other participants. Individual instructor/trainee interaction A single instructor terminal can be solely dedicated to a single trainee terminal, allowing an instructor to monitor and control the exercise for that trainee.

• Instructor led or monitored group training

  An instructor can monitor and control the exercise for a group of trainees participating in a single VBS2 scenario. These trainees can interact with each other, or can alternatively be located remotely in a scenario calling fire for unrelated targets.

• Instructor monitored group training

  The Artificial Intelligence engine within VBS2 allows the system to automatically respond to Calls-For-Fire without the requirement for Instructor interaction. This allows the instructor to focus on monitoring or assessing trainees and highlighting learning points, rather than on operating the system.

• Instructor led training during combined exercises

  An instructor can manage a group of trainees who are conducting Call-For-Fire training in support of a manoeuvre force consisting of a combination of human and computer controlled elements.

• Enhanced Offensive Support simulation for VBS2 training exercises

  VBS2Fires can be used to increase the richness of a training exercise involving a manoeuvre force by providing a high fidelity hostile indirect fire simulation.

• Combined in exercise with Call-For-Fire Trainer

  VBS2 Fires can be used in conjunction with the Call-For-Fire Trainer to provide seamless interaction between the physical simulator and the VBS2 desktop trainer.

Bohemia Interactive (BI) design and develop some of the most realistic battlefield simulators seen in today’s military sector. The company’s latest battlefield simulation, Virtual Battlespace 2 (VB2) is an fully interactive high-fidelity desktop battlefield simulator which is already in use with military forces throughout the world, including the US Marine Corps, the Australian Defence force and the UK MoD.

Desktop battlefield simulator: Virtual Battlespace 2 is a fully interactive, three-dimensional, PC-based synthetic environment suitable for military training and experimentation. Developed by Bohemia Interactive, the creator of Operation Flashpoint and ArmA: Combat Operations, VBS2 offers both virtual and constructive interfaces onto high-fidelity worlds of unparalleled realism. VBS2 supports rapid, real-world terrain development and is interoperable via both HLA and DIS (through LVC Game).

Features of VB2 include:

• Real-time rendering of large, high-fidelity terrain areas with an emphasis on simulating real-world conditions such as rotation of the earth, accurate star fields, time-lapsed weather and ambient flora and fauna
• Highly accurate 3D representations of ADF, NZDF, USMC and Middle Eastern units, vehicles and weapons are included, soon to include thermal signatures also. the entire US Army and UK equipment fleets are currently under development
• A flexible, networked training environment able to simulate complex combined-arms maneuevres such as combat teams of infantry and armored elements operating with human-controlled aircraft and artillery in support
• The VBS2 real-time editor (RTE) has set the standard for run-time authoring capability, allowing any aspect of the simulation to be modified during training; place an IED, assign behavior to OpFor AI or create a city without the slightest pause in the scenario
• Rapid terrain generation – create real-world terrain areas rapidly (within a few hours) from source data (DTED, shape, imagery), and import 3D models (buildings, vegetation etc) from 3DS or OpenFlight

Through VBS2 script and intuitive modeling tools, complex weapon platforms can be created quickly and cost-effectively. From vehicle checkpoint functionality to UAV interfaces, Bohemia Interactive has proven time and again the true meaning of rapid development.

Bohemia Interactive has a proven record at delivering on time and on budget, having completed numerous development projects for government agencies around the world. BI can quickly develop models or terrain, modify the simulation engine to suit new requirements, integrate new hardware, provide training courses for VBS2 operators or administrators and also deliver varying levels of product support.

Virtual battlefield – real training benefits:  VBS2 is an out-of-the-box training solution capable of simulating a wide range of situations at the tactical level. VBS2 can be federated with other HLA-compliant simulations to meet specific training outcomes, for example connecting dismounted infantry in VBS2 with a high-fidelity armored vehicle simulator, or simulating a special forces team conducting a counter-insurgency mission while the overall campaign is controlled by a higher-level constructive simulation such as OneSAF.

Other examples of simulated scenarios include:

• Mission rehearsal and/or AO familiarization
• Tactical training, up to combat team level
• Combined arms or joint training
• Convoy training (including integration of virtual reality technology)
• IED defeat
• Analysis of options (decision support)
• Fire support / forward air controller training
• Complimentary virtual environment for live and constructive simulation or crew procedural trainers
• Navigation
• Mission simulation (for example aviation elements practicing LZ procedures)
• Vehicle checkpoints and area control
• Helicopter loadmaster training
• Procedural training for UAV operators
• Cultural awareness training
• Visualization of weapon effects
• Weapon (or platform) familiarization or experimentation
• Training in urban environments (eg MOUT)

Multiple simulation systems: VBS2 allows commanders, crew, soldiers and support elements to be immersed in the VBS2 environment across multiple simulation systems in an endless number of different configurations. Briefly consider a typical mechanized infantry platoon, and how VBS2 may provide training for all of the elements of that organization at a fraction of the cost of live training.

Perhaps one squad is located in a small arms trainer using VBS2 TWS, with two squads in a separate VBS2 classroom. Air support might be provided by a VBS2 Aircrewman Virtual Reality simulator or flown by real pilots or AI on a VBS2 desktop trainer. An instructor operator station (IOS) controls the flow of the scenario and manages OpFor elements in real time. Meanwhile the company commander (or higher) views a constructive simulation such as OneSAF, communicating with VBS2 via HLA.

Extensive simulation content library: Bohemia Interactive has modeled hundreds of units, weapons and vehicles for the VBS series including USMC, ADF, US Army, NZDF, incident response, Eastern European and Middle Eastern representations. A wide range of structures and vegetation have also been modeled. These models are available for purchase through Bohemia Interactive.

Even though Navy budget cuts mean nondeployed sailors can expect to spend about a third less time at sea this year, that doesn’t mean they’ll spend less time at their duty stations aboard ships. In fact, they could spend more.

Commanders are trying to make up for that lost sea time — and a lack of available ships to play the “bad guys” — by relying more on “synthetic” training, in which sailors practice using their equipment aboard their ships in port.

Big Navy is so confident about synthetic training that commanders on the East Coast plan to deploy about one of every three carrier strike groups without them having completed a joint task force exercise, which traditionally has been the capstone to pre-deployment work-ups. Instead, those ships will do it virtually.

“Today we have limited live opposing forces we can bring to it,” said Adm. Jonathan Greenert, head of Fleet Forces Command, in a May 4 presentation near Washington, D.C. “It’s not just an issue of Navy forces — remember, it’s a joint task force — but a limit of total joint forces we have available. We need an efficient and effective alternative to make sure we have these forces ready.”

That alternative, Greenert said, is to simulate many of the things that sailors have traditionally practiced at sea. Although he and other Navy officials concede that some things still must be learned at sea, Greenert said synthetic training can be as good as, or better than, traditional time underway.

The Navy’s first big experiment with that principle is taking place now: In February, the Dwight D. Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group became the first flotilla to run an entirely synthetic JTFEX, having trained earlier at sea in a traditional composite training unit exercise. So far, Ike’s deployment to the Middle East has been routine.

However, skeptics worry that depending too much on synthetic training will backfire. Sailors without real experience operating their ships and systems in such intensive and realistic “final exam” scenarios could have more mishaps, they say. More broadly, the skills of sailors whose jobs can’t easily be artificially replicated — engineers and boatswain’s mates, for example — could atrophy.

Officials haven’t decided yet how much more synthetic training sailors will get to make up for the time they would have spent at sea, but the Navy should have no problem scaling up the practice time, said Eric Seeland, Fleet Forces Command’s top synthetic training manager.

“We will support whatever the numbered fleet commanders and strike group commanders desire for training,” Seeland said. “We can [dial] up and down different warfare areas, different levels of difficulties; we can tailor to different strike groups to make sure each one gets what they want.”

Rear Adm. Garry White, commander of Strike Force Training Atlantic, said strike groups will go with a combination of synthetic and real training, depending on what works for that specific group.

“Whether a JTFEX or a [fleet synthetic training-joint] is conducted as the certifying event will be dependent on a number of factors including experience, proficiency, type and level of training needed, and whether live or synthetic will be the most effective at accomplishing that training,” he said. “Tailoring the training for the specific strike group could lead us to an FST-J, a JTFEX, or possibly a hybrid that includes a modified combination of both.”

When it comes time to train, Navy computers can integrate the instruments aboard surface ships, aircraft, shore stations and submarines so that sailors thousands of miles apart can work together as a virtual strike group.

For example, a P-3 Orion air crewman sitting at a console on the West Coast might call a fire controlman in a destroyer in Norfolk, Va., to tell him about a new contact picked up by his sonobuoy. The destroyer and the airplane would work together to hunt a submarine in the virtual training world, even though the sailors are thousands of miles apart.

Seeland said synthetic training is best used to practice high-level command and control decision-making.

“You’re looking at the tactical link picture, you’re going forward and making command decisions on who to engage and who not to engage,” he said.

From the perspective of the sailors at their consoles in a combat information center, everything about the scenario would be the same as it would be if the ship were at sea, only with no motion of the deck.  Synthetic training also works well to integrate international allies into U.S. exercises. Fleet Forces Command has brought together American sailors in Yokosuka, Japan; Royal Navy sailors at their base in Great Britain; and German pilots and sailors at their bases in Germany.

The Ike strike group’s synthetic version of its JTFEX included the command staffs from the Eisenhower, the Enterprise and the French carrier Charles de Gaulle, according to 2nd Fleet officials. Eisenhower’s command staff dialed into the Navy’s training network from their ship at the pier. Enterprise was in the shipyard at the time, so its staff joined from a simulator at Tactical Training Group Atlantic at Naval Surface Warfare Center Dam Neck, Va. And de Gaulle’s staff trained from a simulator in Toulon, France.

Doing the drills synthetically meant Big E and de Gaulle could keep their shipyard work on schedule and save French and U.S. taxpayers $25 million worth of steaming days, White said. The synthetic version of the exercise cost $500,000.

“The cost difference is obviously significant, and in these fiscal times that’s a consideration,” White said. “We’re not going to let any fiscal driver impact on our readiness, but we’re going to maintain the same level of readiness while conserving energy, if you will.”

He also said one strike group would not be “more ready” than another because it did the physical JTFEX.

“We assess and evaluate to the same standard whether the certifying event is live or synthetic,” White said. “The combination of live and synthetic training provides the best possible training because each venue has distinct advantages that may be unobtainable with the exclusive use of one or the other.”

The cost and time savings aren’t just things that admirals and bean counters can appreciate: Aviation Boatswain’s Mate (Fuels) 2nd Class (AW/SW) Pablo Rodriguez, a fuel depot supervisor at Naval Station Mayport, Fla., told Navy Times he liked the individual focus in the shift to more synthetic training.

“Instead of paying someone or using someone’s time to come and train us as a group of people, [it] can be avoided by using virtual training. We can be self-trained with an automated system that lets us know all our personal training requirements,” he said.

For as much potential as top Navy officials credit to synthetic training, skeptics see just as much to be concerned about. Greenert, Seeland and other officials are quick to acknowledge that sailors still need to spend time at sea learning to do underway replenishments, taking off and landing, and generally being stressed and challenged.

“There’s never really a substitute for being underway for six or seven days, knowing you’re going to be underway for several more days, and this is your fourth mid-watch, and you got two hours of sleep the night before, and seaman Johnny has an issue, and you’ve got to work on your own personal qualifications, and you’ve got to write a message for the captain — and, oh by the way, you have to go stand watch,” Seeland said.

“All of those things going on in the back of your head,” he said. “We can simulate that a little bit, and that’s not a huge factor in the area of training, but is there a one-to-one correlation? No, not completely. We still need that underway flavor.”

And it can go even deeper than that. Sailors in ships at the pier can get so inured to synthetic scenarios that they start to tune out drills that have life-or-death consequences on deployment.

“It’s hard to pretend you’re tracking aircraft or surface contacts when you have regular daily 1MC calls blaring in the background,” said Cryptologic Technician (Collection) 1st Class (SW) Andrew Dunn, who recalled virtual training in the combat information center of a docked ship. “The realism factor is lost pretty quickly. One minute you have a contact inbound and the next minute you hear ‘mail call’ over the 1MC.”

Expand that phenomenon to an entire ship’s company, and even routine jobs could become dangerous, said two retired commanding officers. Both, a retired submarine commander and a retired cruiser commander, have experience with synthetic training but asked not to be named because they still work closely with the Navy. They agreed that unless crews can take their training seriously, they may not be ready for the real thing.

What’s more, the retired sub commander said synthetic training takes away trainers’ ability to see a ship fight “hurt,” if its gear breaks, weather interferes or other unpredictable events crop up during an exercise. Scripted exercises can lock ships into performing to the script, he said, even though they’re easier to grade.

Seeland said engineers in particular benefit from the experience of running the propulsion plant of a ship that’s underway on the ocean because it can also include experiences that can’t be replicated in a schoolhouse.

“Having been an engineer, there is nothing more embarrassing than being that guy on watch, walking into the wardroom after you lost power and the ship went cold and dark out at sea, and knowing everybody was looking at you,” he said. “You don’t really quite get that same feel, when it’s just an ‘oops’ in the trainer.”

By Philip Ewing – navytimes.com

A newly issued U.S. Army field manual has put people on notice: Video games are serious training tools. In its first revision since 9/11, the U.S. Army field manual for Training and Full Spectrum Operations mentions gaming 32 times, describing it as as a key ingredient in replicating “an actual operational environment.”

Released in December 2008, the new doctrine is another reminder of how gaming is rapidly redefining military recruitment and training.

The push to use games as a recruiting tool dates back to 2002, when the Army released “America’s Army” — a free, downloadable video game that gave people a virtual peak into soldiering. Since then, the game has registered 9.7 million regular users worldwide, and military leaders suggest that a third of the cadets entering the Army’s West Point academy have played the first-person shooter game. It has also been praised as a cheaper alternative to television ads, which may not reach the targeted audience: 14- to 16-year-olds.

The same year that America’s Army was released, the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) launched a new program to revolutionize the use of experimental training in the military and take advantage of the technological advances in the computer-gaming industry. The project helped generate DARWARS Ambush, a multiplayer, first-person shooter game that since 2006 has taught thousands of troops about convoy operations, including how to react to and anticipate ambushes and improvised explosive devices.

This year, the military is spending millions more to upgrade the game with a modified version of Virtual Battlespace 2 (VBS2), known as “Game After Ambush.” The new version more accurately replicates what today’s soldiers encounter on the battlefield, and gives trainers more tools to edit missions, increase difficulty and run after-action reviews.

The military also relies on tactical language and cultural training tools — such as Tactical Iraqi and Tactical Pashto — to help familiarize troops with cultures and languages they will encounter in the Middle East. These programs immerse troops in a 3-D, interactive environment that simulates real life, teaching culturally sensitive communication that could benefit them in the field.

The United States is not the only country plugging into virtual reality. Gaming is being embraced by combat leaders in the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is also developing a tailor-made version of VBS2 for tactical training needs of member countries.

Critics, including antiwar groups and some researchers, accuse the military of preying on a generation of adolescents, raised on video games that blur the brutal reality of war. These groups often ask: If soldiers treat a game like war, what happens if they start treating war like a game?

U.S. military officials portray gaming as simply a cost-effective way to attract talent, and a proven platform for rehearsing missions, building leadership skills and developing teamwork. However, despite their confidence in the Defense Department’s multibillion-dollar investment, the impact of gaming is still unknown — and the military knows it.

“The only piece that is not there is some extensive study that shows numbers to prove it,” says Col. Gary Stephens, a product manager in the office responsible for developing, acquiring and fielding cutting-edge training and testing devices for the U.S. military.

Given all the complex variables that go into successful recruiting, training and performance on the battlefield, such a definitive study would be difficult to design.

Still, Stephens is confident that gaming works, and his claims got a boost from a 2007 study by the Canadian Armour School that found gaming proved successful when it was incorporated into an officers’ training course. In the study, the class with the most game-based simulations mixed in with live training performed much better in the course.

Col. Casey Wardynski, one of the creator’s of America’s Army, points to a 2007 study from Rochester University that showed that certain cognitive skills, useful in operational conditions, were improved by a few hours of daily gaming over the course of a month.

Others are more skeptical.

A 2008 report from the Congressional Research Office said that virtual reality games allow training missions to be repeated numerous times, without the risk of injury or wear and tear on military equipment. But the report also mentioned shortcomings, such as comfortable gaming environments that minimize the impact of real world conditions such as fatigue, stress and physical discomfort.

Wardynski says that while there “is still a need for a science-based study,” there is already enough anecdotal evidence of gaming’s success to justify its expanded use.

The Pentagon apparently agrees.

Last summer, the Army opened a controversial 14,500 square foot Army Experience Center at a mall in suburban Philadelphia, sparking recent protests in which seven people were arrested. The $12-million, taxpayer-funded “virtual education” facility is supposed to give anyone over the age of 13 years old a sneak peak into military life. Visitors can fly a simulated Black Hawk helicopter, shoot M-16s aboard an Army Humvee and play America’s Army — which will soon be upgraded to include authentic weapons.

In December, the Army also announced approval of roughly $50 million for a “games in training” program that will keep an eye on industry trends to identify technology that can be used for military training. The Army also freed up funding to help field Game After Ambush at least a year ahead of schedule, Stephens said.

By September, the Army is scheduled to have 70 Game After Ambush systems in 53 military locations across the globe — including Germany, Italy and South Korea.

The funding is a direct result of the Army’s decision in April 2008 to institutionalize its use of gaming technology, Stephens said. Before that, the Army used games informally and had never established a sustained program for the acquisition and use of games. Now, like other training devices, funding requests for gaming can be part of the line-item fiscal year budget.

“The army realized gaming technology really did have a place in training,” Stephens says. “It was a technology we need.”

Seth McLaughlin is a Washington-based journalist.

The Army is shelling out nearly $18 million for a new training simulator game that will allow soldiers to drive virtual vehicles, fire virtual weapons and pilot virtual unmanned aerial vehicles in combat situations.

The contract for “Game After Ambush” was awarded late last month to software developers Laser Shot, of Texas, Bohemia Interactive, of the Czech Republic, and Australia-based Calytrix Technologies.

The new simulator — a modification of the commercial “Virtual Battle Space 2″ — will replace the Army’s official video game “DARWARS Ambush,” which the service uses to train soldiers for combat.

Since 2006, the Army’s Program Executive Office for Simulation, Training, and Instrumentation, or PEO STRI, has fielded more than 3,000 copies of “DARWARS Ambush” to the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard and Homeland Defense Department, according to spokeswoman Kristen Dooley McCullough.

In an e-mail, McCullough said the contract included $10.7 million awarded on Dec. 19, with another $7 million in options.

PEO STRI officials said earlier the new game will replicate what soldiers encounter on today’s battlefield — from fighting in urban terrain and convoy operations to reacting to contact and ambush operations.

The game will be able to interact with the Army’s battle command systems used by soldiers in the real world to track equipment as well as enemy and friendly forces. It also will include tools that will allow the Army to modify terrain, scenarios and missions, officials said.

The Army plans to field 70 gaming systems in 53 locations in the United States, Germany, Italy and South Korea between February and September 2009, according to Leslie Duvow, project director for gaming at PEO STRI.

“Each system will consist of 52 computers with ancillary equipment including steering wheels, headsets and mice,” she said.

Soldiers will be able to drive virtual vehicles, fire virtual weapons, pilot virtual unmanned aerial vehicles and do “most anything a soldier does” in a virtual battle space as large as 100 kilometers by 100 kilometers, Duvow said.

Laser Shot’s “Tactical Weapon Simulator” and Calytrix’s “LVC Game” will be added to the VBS2 software to tailor the game to the Army’s needs.

The Texas firm is the prime contractor for the production, fielding, training, software updates, technical support, and Web portal, in support of the game, according to a Laser Shot news release.

“Our company has extensive experience in supporting training for the soldiers of the U.S. Army, as do our partners Bohemia Interactive and Calytrix,” said Christopher Chambers, Laser Shot’s president.

The Army already uses VBS2 for convoy training alongside several other games at the Joint Multinational Simulation Center at Grafenwöhr.

The game has a strong reputation as a flexible, interactive, three-dimensional tactical training and mission rehearsal tool, according to Bohemia chief executive Pete Morrison. Bohemia sells a range of military-themed titles such as “Operation Flashpoint” and “ArmA: Armed Assault” for PCs.

“VBS2 is, without a doubt, the best military-grade game-based simulation on the market today,” he said.

The PEO STRI contract provides for fielding and training for “Game After Ambush” and associated tasks for one year, with an option to extend the program for four more years, the Laser Shot press statement said.

Military simulations ArmA 2 and Operation Flashpoint 2: Dragon Rising are to go head-to-head in the software chart when they are released later this year.

ArmA 2, developed by Bohemia Interactive Studio, is based around a Communist uprising in the former USSR. The game already has a thriving multiplayer scene awaiting its release.

Operation Flashpoint 2: Dragon Rising is being developed and published by Codemasters. The gameplay takes place on a real island off the coast of Japan and is said to capture the high level of detail of its predecessor but with a modern twist.

Both games arrive on the Xbox 360, PC and PS3 in the first half of this year.