VBS2Fusion transforms VBS2 into a true simulation platform, allowing bespoke applications to be developed which leverage the power of the VBS2 virtual environemnt, graphics capability and simulation engine.

VBS2Fusion is an add-on module that is sold separately to VBS2. VBS2Fusion will be released in several phases, with Version 1.0 to be released in May 2009. The initial version of VBS2Fusion abstracts the VBS2 Application Scripting Interface (ASI) and is designed to allow developers to influence VBS2 scenarios during run time.

Version 2.0, due for release in November 2009, will add a range of additional features such as direct access to the VBS2 simulation core (removing the need to access the scripting layer, or ASI, entirely) and also the means to control the complete VBS2 character skeleton externally.

VBS2Fusion is developed by SimCentric Technologies, a close partner of Bohemia Interactive. SimCentric offers professional and affordable support services for customers seeking to employ or fund updates to VBS2Fusion.

For more information visit the VBS2 website.

Simulations provide safe and controlled environments, immediate performance feedback, and practice for skills under unique or dangerous conditions.  Virtual environments have proven to be effective in training dismounted soldiers and military checkpoint guards, for example.

In this study, 15 medical students had to perform an emergency chest tube thoracostomy incision and insertion of a tube in the chest to permit fluid to drain on a mannequin in a CAVE (Cave Automatic Virtual Environment) while surrounded by visual and auditory depictions of gunfire, explosions, and a virtual sniper. They performed the surgery under both daytime and nighttime combat conditions. When tested again four months later, they demonstrated that they retained the necessary skills for the procedure.

The students’ completion times demonstrated that they could perform the surgery efficiently, but the quality of their work suffered. Those who performed the procedure faster were more susceptible to “sniper” fire. Furthermore, stress created by the simulated environment may have caused some students to engage in inappropriate and dangerous behavior that would likely result in their being killed in a real combat situation.

This study is possibly the first to test performance with a standard mannequin-based medical simulator within a fully immersive virtual environment.

Story by: Lois Smith of HFES.ORG

Physical sensation in the ball is similar to that of a real mission, since trainee in the ball has to move and shoot from a virtual gun. Special sensors monitor trainee’s body state during virtual sessions.

Source: RIA Novosti (with video, in Russian).

The shift in culture of the military reflected in procurement policies discussed above is also evident in new military approaches to developing critical thinking. Emblematic of this shift is Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Charles C. Krulak’s directive 1500.55 issued in 1996 aimed at implementing improvements in what he termed “Military Thinking and Decision Making Exercises.” In his comments on the planning guidance Gen. Krulak wrote: “It is my intent that we reach the stage where Marines come to work and spend part of each day talking about warfighting: learning to think, making decisions, and being exposed to tactical and operational issues.” He identified an important way to exercise these skills:

The use of technological innovations, such as personal computer (PC)-based wargames, provide great potential for Marines to develop decision making skills, particularly when live training time and opportunities are limited. Policy contained herein authorizes Marines to use Government computers for approved PC-based wargames.

General Krulak directed furthermore that the Marine Combat Development Command assume responsibility for the development, exploitation, and approval of PC-based wargames. In addition, they were to maintain the PC-based Wargames Catalog on the Internet. With this incentive some Marine simulation experts from the Marine Corps Modeling and Simulation Management Office in the training and education division at Quantico, Virginia tracked down a shareware copy of the commercial game doom produced by Id Software, Inc. and began experimenting with it. This led to the adaptation of this game as a fire team simulation, with some of the input for the Marine version coming from Internet doom gamers employing shareware software tools. They then rewrote the code for the commercial game doom II. Instead of employing fantasy weapons to face down monster-like characters in a labyrinthine castle, real-world images were scanned into WAD files along with images of weapons such as the M16(a1) rifle, M-249 squad automatic weapon, and M-67 fragmentation grenades. The game was also modified from its original version to include fighting holes, bunkers, tactical wire, “the fog of war,” and friendly fire. marine doom trainees use Marine-issue assault rifles to shoot it out with enemy combat troops in a variety of terrain and building configurations. In addition to training fire teams in various combat scenarios, the simulation can also be configured for a specific mission immediately prior to engagement. For example, Marines tasked with rescuing a group of Americans held hostage in an overseas embassy could rehearse in a virtual building constructed from the actual floor plans of the structure. Users needed only to purchase version 1.9 of the commercial game and add the Marine rewrite code to run the new tactical simulation. The Quantico-based software could not run without the original commercial package, so no licensing violations occurred. Indeed, any personal computer owner with doom II can download the code for marine doom from the Modeling and Simulation Management Office’s web page. You too can become a military assault commando.

The success of the doom II simulation rewrite led the Marines to look ahead to the next step in commercial war gaming. Discussions with MÄK (pronounced “mock”) Technologies (Cambridge, MA), a commercial game manufacturer specializing in network simulation tools for distributed interactive simulations, lead to the design of a tactical operations game built to Marine specifications. According to the contract the Marine Corps would help develop the software code and in turn would receive a site license to train on this game, while MÄK would sell it commercially as an official Marine Corps tactical training game. This from-the-ground-up development would eliminate all of the nuances of the other adapted games that are not particular to Marine combat.

MÄK was founded in 1990 by two MIT engineering graduates, Warren Katz and John Morrison. After graduating from MIT both were original members of Bolt Beranek & Newman’s SIMNET project team from 1987 to 1990, which developed low-cost, networkable 3D simulators for the Department of Defense. MÄK’s corporate goal is to provide cutting-edge research and development services to the Department of Defense in the areas of distributed interactive simulation (DIS) and networked virtual reality (VR) systems and to convert the results of this research into commercial products for the entertainment and industrial markets. MÄK’s first commercial product, the VR-Link™ developer’s toolkit, is the most widely used commercial DIS interface in the world. It is an application programmer’s toolkit that makes possible networking of distributed simulations and VR systems. The toolkit complies with the Defense Department’s DIS protocol, enabling multiple participants to interact in real time via low-bandwidth network connections. VR-Link is designed for easy integration with existing and new simulations, VR systems, and games. Thanks to such products, MÄK was ranked 36th in the 1997 New England Technology Fast 50 and 380th in the 1997 National Technology Fast 500 based on revenue growth between 1992 and 1996.

In addition to its work in the defense community, the company’s software has been licensed for use by several entertainment firms, such as Total Entertainment Network and Zombie Virtual Reality Entertainment, to serve as the launching pad for real-time, 3D, multi-user video games. One such game, Spearhead, a multi-user tank simulation game released in mid-1998, was written by MÄK and published by Interactive Magic. Spearhead can be played over the Internet and incorporates networking technology similar to that used in military simulations.

MÄK’s products use technologies called Distributed Interactive Simulation (DIS) and High Level Architecture (HLA). Both technologies efficiently connect thousands of 3D simulations together on a computer network. Replacing the DIS standard for net-based simulations, HLA has been designated as the new standard technical architecture for all DoD simulations. All simulations must be HLA-compatible by the end of 1999. The transition to HLA is part of a DoD-wide effort to establish a common technical framework to facilitate the interoperability of all types of models and simulations, as well as to facilitate the reuse of modeling and simulation components. This framework includes HLA, which represents the highest priority effort within the DoD modeling and simulation community. MÄK intends to leverage its technology for both the military and commercial markets by taking advantage of the nearly $500 million a year spent by the US government on optimizing the speed and capabilities of DIS and HLA. State-of-the-art military DIS systems are now capable of running over 10,000 simulations simultaneously, networked together across far-ranging geographies. As low-cost commercial data services (bi-directional cable TV, ADSL, etc.) become more widely available to consumers, industry analysts project the market for on-line, 3D, multi-user simulations to reach $2 billion in the year 2000. The networking capabilities of distributed simulation technology developed by MÄK and other government suppliers will enable entertainment providers to create platforms for 3D worlds supporting up to 100,000 participants simultaneously. Katz has described his vision provocatively in a chapter for the book Digital Illusion: Entertaining the Future with High Technology. The chapter is titled “Networked Synthetic Environments: From DARPA to Your Virtual Neighborhood.” In the near future MÄK co-founders Katz and Johnson are betting that Internet-based populations the size of a mid-sized U.S. city will be able to stroll through an electronic shopping mall, explore and colonize a virtual universe, or race for prizes in cyberspace’s largest 3D road rally.

The contract awarded by the US Marine Corps to MÄK in 1997 will assist this vision of vastly shared virtual reality; it further erodes the distinction between military simulation technology and the technology available to ordinary users. The contract is for meu 2000, a computer-based tactical decision-making game for US Marines which will also be released simultaneously as a commercial computer game. The player of meu 2000 assumes the role of a Marine officer coordinating the actions of a “Marine Expeditionary Unit—Special Operations Capable [MEU (SOC)].” The player will see the battle from a 3-D tactical view, enabling him to select units, issue orders, and monitor the progress of his forces. meu 2000 will be a multiplayer game. Each player may assume a position in the command hierarchy of either US or opposing forces. (Players will only be able to command US equipment). Additionally, players of platform-level simulations will be able to assume their appropriate positions in the hierarchy. meu 2000 will be a real-time, networkable, 3D strategy game simulating modern US Marine Corps warfare, developed in cooperation with the US Marine Corps in order to ensure that a high level of realism is incorporated into the simulation. MÄK will use the same game engine in both its military and civilian versions. The military version will add more accurate details about tactics and weapons, while the civilian game will be less demanding. But both versions will allow multiple players to compete against each other over a local-area network or the Internet.

While a number of military simulations and commercial airline flight simulators have been adapted to the commercial game market, falcon 4.0 is the first flight simulation video game to be adapted to military training. falcon 4.0 is a network-based game which supports either single player or multiplayer modes. Multiplayer mode supports dogfights with up to four squadrons of four F-16s each. The game’s whopping 600-page manual suggests the seriousness of play involved and indicates why the military finds it attractive for its own training purposes. As producer Gilman Louie explains, the falcon 4.0 is a detailed simulation re-creating the feel of being an F-16 pilot operating over a modern battlefield. The simulation has a highly accurate flight model and avionics suite that incorporates flight parameters conforming to real-world specifications. falcon 4.0 accurately re-creates such effects as deep stall (to escape, the player must use the real-world procedure of flipping the Manual Pitch Override switch and “rocking” the aircraft out—the standard game trick of simply lighting the afterburners won’t restore normal flight in this simulation). Weapon modeling is equally realistic and, except for omitting a few classified details, provides an amazingly accurate representation of weapons deployment. The simulation is so detailed, in fact, that reviewers of the game report consulting a real-world “Dash 1″ manual for the F-16 when playing the game. The realism of falcon 4.0 is further enhanced by graphics generated from actual aerial photographs and map data from the Korean peninsula. In its current version, the game plays best on a computer with a processor of 400 MHZ or higher.

The extreme realism in this video game led Peter Bonanni, graduate of the F-16 Fighter Weapons School and pilot instructor of the Virginia Air National Guard, to work with Spectrum HoloByte Inc. to modify the falcon 4.0 flight simulator game for military training. According to Bonanni, falcon 4.0 mimics the look and feel of real military aircraft and allows users to play against computer-generated forces or, in a networked fashion, against other pilots, which facilitates team-training opportunities. Another reason for Bonanni’s enthusiasm is the virtual world around the player. Although the product features scripted Tactical Engagement missions as well as an Instant Action mode for newcomers, the heart and soul of the product is the dynamic campaign mode, where the player assumes the role of a pilot in an F-16 squadron during a conflict on the Korean peninsula.  The campaign engine runs an entire war, assigning missions to units throughout the theater. A list (displayed either by priority to the war effort or by launch time) shows the missions available to the player’s squadron. The player can fly any of these missions, with the freedom to choose air-to-air or air-to-ground sorties. Unlike games with pre-scripted outcomes the campaign engine allows story lines, missions, and outcomes to be dynamically generated. Each play of the game influences the next. If a player is first assigned a mission to destroy a bridge but fails, the next mission may be to provide support to friendly tanks engaged by an enemy that just crossed the bridge.

Networked video games such as falcon 4.0 are emblematic of the calculated emergence of a military-entertainment complex but also of the fusion of the digital and the real happening around us. It is hardly surprising that Bonanni not only helps adapt the video game to military training needs but also writes a regular column for the www.falcon4.com website on tactics and has designed several of the 31 pre-built training missions included with the game. He is co-author of two best-selling books on falcon 4.0, one with colleague James Reiner, also an F-16 instructor pilot and graduate of the F-16 Fighter Weapons School, and like Bonanni a consultant on the game. Beginning with some basics on the game and the various gameplay options, falcon 4.0: Prima’s Official Strategy Guide gives readers a guide to instant action missions, multiplayer dogfights, and full-fledged campaigns. The book is a serious no-nonsense manual, devoting separate chapters to laser-guided bombs and even the AGM-65 Maverick missile. Bonanni’s second book, falcon 4.0 Checklist, is scheduled to appear soon and is already high on the Amazon.com sales list before it has even hit the bookstores. Recalling that Ender’s Game has been taught in flight schools, would-be Falcon pilots will probably want to add a copy to their Amazon.com shopping cart for inspirational reading.

Until the last two or three years these crossovers from military simulations and the entertainment industries have been unplanned and opportunistic. In December of 1996 the National Academy of Sciences hosted a workshop on modeling and simulation aimed at exploring mutual ground for organized cooperation between the entertainment industries and defense. The report stimulated the Army in August 1999 to give $45 million to the University of Southern California over the next five years to create a research center to develop advanced military simulations. The research center will enlist film studios and video game designers in the effort, with the promise that any technological advances can also be applied to make more compelling video games and theme park rides. The idea for the new center, to be called the Institute for Creative Technologies, reflects the fact that although Hollywood and the Pentagon may differ markedly in culture, they now overlap in technology. Moreover, as we have seen, military technology, which once trickled down to civilian use, now often lags behind what is available in games, rides and movie special effects. As STRICOM Chief Scientist and Acting Technical Director Dr. Michael Macedonia wrote in a recent article in Computer:

As Siggraph—the computer-graphics community’s showcase—has demonstrated over the past several years, the demands of digital film development are making way for computer games’ even more demanding real-time simulation requirements. As a mass market, games now drive the development of graphics and processor hardware. Intel and AMD have added specialized multimedia and graphics instructions to their line of processors in their battle to counter companies such as Nvidia, whose computer graphics chips continue breaking new performance boundaries.

By aggressively maneuvering to seize and expand their market share, the entertainment industry’s biggest players are shaping a 21st century in which consumer demand for entertainment—not grand science projects or military research—will drive computing innovation. Private-sector research-and-development spending, which now accounts for 75 percent of total US R&D, will increase to about $187.2 billion in 2000, up from an estimated $169.3 billion in 1999, according to Battelle Memorial Institute’s annual R&D forecast.

In opening the new Institute for Creative Technology Secretary of the Army Louis Caldera said, “We could never hope to get the expertise of a Steven Spielberg or some of the other film industry people working just on Army projects.” But the new institute, Caldera said, will be “a win-win for everyone.”

While putting more polygons on the screen for less cost is certainly one of the military’s objectives at the Institute for Creative Technologies and in similar alliances, other dimensions of simulated worlds are equally important for their agenda. Military simulations have been extremely good at modeling hardware components of military systems. Flight and tank simulators are excellent tools for learning and practicing the use of complex, expensive equipment. However, movies, theme park rides, and increasingly even video games are driven by stories with plot, feeling, tension, and emotion. To train for real world military engagements is not just to train on how to use the equipment but how to cope with the implementation of strategy in an environment with uncertainties, surprises, and participants with actual fears. As Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Charles C. Krulak’s directive on “Military Thinking and Decision Making Exercises” emphasized, decisions made in war must frequently be made under physical and emotional duress. The directive stated that the PC-based wargame exercises in peacetime should replicate some of the same conditions: “Imaginative combinations of physical and mental activities provide Marines the opportunity to make decisions under conditions of physical stress and fatigue, thereby more closely approximating combat.”

Early military simulations incorporated very rote behaviors. They did not capture “soft” characteristics well. An effort to go beyond this was launched in 1991 by the Institute for Defense Analyses in their effort to construct a computer-generated “magic carpet” simulation-recreation of the Battle of 73 Easting, based on in-depth debriefings of 150 survivors of a key battle that had taken place during the Gulf War. The goal of the project was to get timeline-based experiences of how individuals felt, thought and reacted to the dynamic unfolding of the events–their fears and emotions as well as actions–and render the events as a fully three-dimensional simulated reality which any future cadet could enter and relive. Going a step beyond the traditional “staff ride”–a face-to-face post-battle tutorial at the site itself in which a commander leads his staff in a verbal recreation of the skirmish–this tour of a battle site was a simulacrum of the war itself. Work on data gathering for the simulation began one month after the battle had taken place. The IDA brought the soldiers who had actually taken part and had them sketch out the battle. They walked over the battlefield amidst the twisted wreckage of Iraqi tanks, recalling the action as best they could. A few soldiers supplied diaries to reconstruct their actions. Some were even able to consult personal tape recordings taken during the chaos. Tracks in the sand gave the simulators precise traces of movement. A black box in each tank, programmed to track three satellites, confirmed its exact position on the ground to eight digits. Every missile shot left a thin wire trail which lay undisturbed in the sand. Headquarters had a tape recording of radio-voice communications from the field. Sequenced overhead photos from satellite cameras gave the big view. A digital map of the terrain was captured by lasers and radar.

With this data a team at the IDA Simulation Center spent nine months constructing a simulation of the battle. A few months into the project, they had the actual desert troops, then stationed in Germany, review a preliminary version of the recreation. The simulacra were sufficiently fleshed out that the soldiers could sit in tank simulators and enter the virtual battle. They reported corrections of the simulated event to the technicians, who modified the model. One year after the confrontation the recreated Battle of 73 Easting was demo-ed for high-ranking military in a facility with panoramic views on three 50-inch TV screens at the resolution of a very good video game.

The Battle of 73 Easting is an extremely accurate historical reconstruction of a battle whose outcome is known. It set the standard of a future genre of training simulations, something like the Saving Private Ryan of staff rides. Although the cost of creating the simulation is not available, it was undoubtedly expensive. As a computer simulation with programmable variables, however, the scenario could be replayed with different endings. Indeed the next logical step after creating this fantastically accurate simulation would be to use the data and behaviors of the simulation as inputs to a game engine, like marine doom, or a more current best-seller, quake. By making the simulation reprogrammable, the staff ride could become an adaptable tool for battle training. Embedded simulations involving real global-positional data, information on opposing forces and their capabilities could be built into the M1 tank units, attack helicopters, or F-16s themselves as real soldiers train for an impending mission right up to the hour of the engagement.

How might the interest in pursuing this line of development in new settings like the Institute for Creative Technology (ICT) proceed? At this early date we can only speculate. In light of the new military practice of forming product development teams consisting of military, industry and possibly academic partners, and in light of effort to merge military and entertainment projects for their mutual benefit, I would like to propose an imaginary scenario of teamwork involving elements from each of these sectors. Several of the members of the new ICT work on constructing semi-automated forces and multiple distributed agents for virtual environments, such as training programs. Others in the ICT work on building models of emotion for use in synthetic training environments. The work of professors Jonathan Gratch and Jeff Rickel are prototypical. Prior to the formation of the ICT these researchers had been working on the construction of intelligent agent technology for incorporation into state-of-the-art military simulation systems. More interested in modeling training behaviors, they have not been particularly interested in developing “believable agents” for video games or film. The goal of one of their projects is to develop command and control agents that can model the capabilities of a human military commander, where commander agents must plan, monitor their execution, and replan when necessary.

We could imagine lots of potential collaborations with commercial videogame companies that would leverage the skills and knowledge of both commercial and academic partners interested in artificial agents and historically accurate “staff ride” training scenarios that build in uncertainty, fear, emotion, and a gripping sense of story and narrative. I find Atomic Games an interesting candidate. Its personnel and company history map the trajectory from military to commercial applications we have explored above. Atomic Games is a company of ten persons founded in 1991 by Keith Zabalaoui. Today Atomic is a subsidiary of Microsoft Games. Before entering the video game business Zabalaoui and his colleagues worked for Rockwell International at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas. Zabalaoui worked on a space-based robotic retriever for recapturing astronauts, tools, or anything else that might become detached from the space shuttle. After the retriever project was canceled Zabalaoui shifted his activities full-time to what had been until then his recreation during breaks at the Center: a board game called atlantic wall with three boards set up in different rooms for the Allies, Axis and referees. Zabalaoui started bringing his Macintosh computer with him to the game and between moves began writing the first v for victory game that has become the trademark of Atomic Games. v for victory, utah beach, which was selected as Game of the Year by Strategy Plus in 1992.

Atomic Games’ most successful attempt to build an historically accurate game is close combat 2: a bridge too far. This game is based on an historically accurate rendering of a WWII German-American tank battle. The game has won many awards for its realism. In part this is achieved by the addition of sound and movie-like visual effects, but a key element is provided by models of the behavior of men under fire. This human aspect of combat has been provided by advisors, such as Dr. Steven Silver, who is a combat psychologist.

Whether or not this imaginary alliance between Atomic Games and AI researchers in the ITC is ever realized, my point is to illustrate how the Army’s goals of leveraging technology for its own purposes from the film and video game industry at sites like this incubator institute might be achieved. The military has contributed enormously to the development of the digital technologies that are transforming our world, but they have become a backseat player in the new digital economy. According to the Interactive Digital Software Association (IDSA), the sale of game and edutainment software for computers, video consoles, and the Internet generated revenues of $5.5 billion in the U.S. alone, making it the fastest growing entertainment industry in the world. Video game rentals accounted for a further $800 million in 1998. The interactive entertainment software industry that created these products did so with only about 70,000 employees. Compare these figures with the motion picture business, which generated $6.9 billion, but employed more than 240,000 people in doing so. In 1998, software sales continued to skyrocket, increasing by 22 percent on a dollar basis, making it the third consecutive year the industry experienced double-digit growth. Video game sales racked up more than $3.7 billion, and computer game sales topped $1.8 billion. Retail sales remained strong throughout the year, with each month outperforming the same month a year ago. In addition, unit sales increased by 33 percent, selling 181 million units of PC and video games in the U.S. alone, or almost two per household. Through the first three quarters of 1999, video game unit sales were up 31 percent, and dollar sales were up 21 percent. Unit growth for computer games increased 22 percent and dollar sales increased almost 20 percent. Total sales reached $3.3 billion, a 19 percent increase compared to the same period in 1998.

What these figures suggest is that sufficient economic incentives exist alongside the policy and organizational structures I have been describing to fuel the continued rapid diffusion and improvement of military SIMNET technology through its fusion with videogame and film. Companies like Perceptronics, one of the original contractors for SIMNET, has been committed to the redeployment and further development of that technology into its Internet Collaborative 3D™ Framework (IC3D™) for mass-market, people-oriented 3D experiences on the web in which multiple users can interact fully, naturally, collaboratively and in real-time within virtual environments. For those who see such developments as contributing to the fusion of the digital and the real, and as I have argued, creating the precondition for a “posthuman” future, the ride isn’t over yet.

As we have seen, the DOD has been the major source of long-term funding for 3-D graphics and work on VR throughout their 30-year history. As a result of its changes in procurement and indeed its entire culture for contracting, the DOD will continue to be a major force in developing these technologies in the near future, both through DARPA funding for support of graphics labs at universities and through DOD funding of military projects. Directive 5000.1 on defense procurement acquisition mandated that models and simulations be required of all proposed systems, and that “representations of proposed systems (virtual prototypes) shall be embedded in realistic, synthetic environments to support the various phases of the acquisition process, from requirements determination and initial concept exploration to the manufacturing and testing of new systems, and related training.”  The total 1998 budget for programs for modeling and simulation exceeded $2.5 billion. When such considerable resources are channeled through the new DOD procurement system intent upon seamless integration into the civilian high-tech industrial sector, a new and important role of federal funding in the post-Cold War era as accelerator of the development and dissemination of modeling and simulation technologies becomes evident.

An example suggesting the crucial role federal funding will continue to play in the future of visualization and simulation technology is provided by the growing synergy between the U.S. Army’s Simulation Training and Instrumentation Command (STRICOM) and the entertainment industry. For the last several years, the videogame industry has been one of the fastest growing sectors of the entertainment business. Physicians and computer scientists working on real-time volume rendering of medical imaging data are quick to point out that the systems they are developing to depend on the ability to deliver live 3-D images on a desktop computer in a physician’s office. This will require improved graphics capabilities in PCs and higher bandwidth networking technologies. Developments in the entertainment industry such as those emerging from the partnership between Nintendo and Silicon Graphics produce such capabilities. In a similar fashion, those engaged in the VR field have argued that VR’s breakthrough to acceptance has depended on the dissemination of VR technologies in the entertainment market for videogames and video arcades. One of the brightest new players in that industry is Real3D of Orlando, Florida.

While its present incarnation is new, Real3D has a venerable history tracing its origins back to the first GE Aerospace Visual Docking Simulator for the Apollo lunar landings. In 1991, GE Aerospace began exploring commercial applications of its real-time 3D graphics technology, which led to a contract with Sega Enterprises Ltd. of Japan, the largest manufacturer of arcade systems in the world. Sega was interested in improving its arcade graphics hardware so their games would present more realistic images. GE Aerospace adapted a miniaturized version of their real-time 3D graphics technology specifically for Sega’s Model 2 and Model 3 arcade systems, incorporating new algorithms for features such as antialiasing and able to provide a visual experience far exceeding expectations. To date, Sega has shipped more than 200,000 systems that include what is today Real 3D technology.

This spinoff of technology originally developed for defense contracts is not in itself new, but the next phase of the story points to the impact of the procurement reforms in creating a synergy between government and industry sectors of potential benefit to both the research and the industrial communities. In the newly streamlined, flexibly managed military of the 90s, STRICOM is the DOD’s executive agent in charge of developing the Advanced Distributed Simulation Technology Program behind much of the military’s simulator training efforts. STRICOM has an interesting web presence. On one side of STRICOM’s spinning weblogo is a figure in what might be either a space suit or a cleanroom suit worn by a chip worker. In the background are objects that could be tanks or chips on a board. The figure holds what could be a laser gun. Just when the viewer begins to wonder,”Is this a video game?”, the reverse side of the spinning logo dispels that illusion. The figure there holds a lightning bolt as a weapon, but is otherwise a traditional helmet-clad soldier. The rim of the logo reads, “All But War Is Simulation.”

In its capacity as manager of the military simulation training effort STRICOM arranged a partnership of the San Diego-based Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) and Lockheed Martin to develop hardware, software, and simulation systems for, among other things, networking simulations in live simulation environments such as SIMNET. Given the new imperative to build on products supplied by commercial industry, one key to success in this program of “integrated product development” is the development of standards for distributed interactive simulations (DIS standards) and the high-level software architecture (HLA) that sets specifications, interfaces and standards for a wide range of simulations.The adoption of these standards across the board by industry and by the American National Standards Institute prepares the ground for assimilating networked videogaming and more robust military simulations.

Developments connected with companies like Real3D can be seen as seminal in the historical evolution of the Post-Cold War effort to create a seamless environment in which research work carried out for the high-end military projects can be integrated with systems in the commercial sector. In 1993, GE Aerospace was acquired by Martin Marietta, another leader in the field of visual simulation. Martin Marietta not only advocated expansion of the relationship with Sega, but also encouraged further research and analysis to look at other commercial markets, such as personal computers and graphics workstations. In 1995, Martin Marietta merged with Lockheed Corporation to form Lockheed Martin, and shortly thereafter launched Real 3D to focus solely on developing and producing 3D graphics products for commercial markets. To that end in November 1996 a strategic alliance was formed between Real3D and Chips and Technologies, Inc. of San Jose, CA, aimed at selling and distributing Real 3D®’s R3D/100 two-chip graphics accelerator exclusively to the PC industry, and bringing world class 3D applications in the PC environment to professionals who use 3D graphics acceleration on Windows® NT machines. Finally, in December 1997, Lockheed Martin established Real 3D, Inc. as an independent company and at the same time announced Intel had purchased a 20 percent stake in the firm. Real 3D thus builds on more than three decades of experience in real-time 3D graphics hardware and software going back to the Apollo Visual Docking Simulator, experience in a variety of projects related to construction of real-time distributed simulations, and its considerable intellectual property, consisting of more than 40 key patents on 3-D graphics hardware and software. These assets, together with its strategic relationships to Lockheed Martin, Intel, and Chips, positions the company well for getting high-end graphics from leading edge research environments onto the desktops of physicians, engineers, and scientists. The company profits from its role as a supplier of commercial videogame technologies developed by companies like Sega to the research community developing military training simulators.

But it is not just the 3D graphics capabilities that are being made more widely accessible through such developments. High level research on distributed simulation environments such as SIMNET and on the use of artificial intelligence in generating synthetic agents, both high priority research problems in computer science, are other examples of federally funded research work being more rapidly disseminated through the military’s new integrated product teams.  Once again, Real3D’s relation to Intel and the entertainment industry is thought-provoking. Intel is committed to advancing the capabilities of the PC platform; with its Pentium II processor with MMX technology, the corporation has launched an all-out campaign focused on bringing 3D technology to mainstream PCs. In July 1997 Intel with 60 hardware and software manufacturers in the arcade industry including Real 3D, Evans and Sutherland, 3Dfx Interactive, and Quantum 3D, joined in the Open Arcade Architecture Forum to encourage the development of hardware and software for open arcade systems through proactive market development efforts that ensure systems and software compatibility, while delivering arcade-game performance equaling or exceeding proprietary systems. The Open Arcade Architecture (OAA) specification, which Intel announced in April 1997, supports dual processor-based arcade systems, which allow for faster, richer games and provide additional processing power for networking, video and voice conferencing.

Examination of the work and careers of individuals who have participated in both the military simulation community and the entertainment industry suggests paths through which the dissemination of research ideas across these seemingly different fields takes place. For example, prior to joining Walt Disney Imagineering in 1992, Dr. Eric Haseltine was an executive at Hughes Aircraft Co., where he held a series of posts in the Human Factors, Flight Simulation, and Display System areas. Haseltine joined Hughes in 1979 after completing a Ph.D. in physiological psychology at Indiana University and a post-doctoral fellowship in neuroanatomy at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine. Haseltine has published in the fields of Sensory Physiology, Neuroanatomy, Flight Simulation, Training Systems Development, and Display Systems Engineering; and he holds a number of patents in laser projection and electro-optical imaging. At Disney Imagineering Haseltine is vice president and chief scientist of research and development of projects including advanced head-mounted displays, optical systems, wireless communications, user interfaces, paperless animation systems data security, and biomedical imaging.

Dr. Robert S. Jacobs, currently director and president of Illusion, Incorporated, offers a similarly illustrative profile. He has a B.S.E. in systems engineering from the University of California, Los Angeles, an M.S. in management science from the University of Southern California, and a Ph.D. in engineering psychology from the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Having headed up the design team at Perceptronics that worked on the original design of SIMNET, he has been a technical contributor to the majority of later, related training programs. At Illusion Jacobs has directed the definition, development, and manufacturing of advanced technology training and simulation products including analytical studies, hardware design, software development and courseware production.

SIMNET has been an incubator for the ideas and technology behind many current-generation video games. Consider the company description of WizBang! Software Productions, Inc., which created the 3D environments for Hyperblade and Microsoft Baseball:

(“WizBang!”) is a 3D computer games company founded in 1994. WizBang!’s founders and staff combine expertise and years of experience in military simulation, artificial intelligence, traditional gaming, music composition and theater production, as well as game development. With this unique perspective, they continue to be at the forefront of the ever-evolving high-tech game industry.

Indeed among WizBang!’s illustrious team members is company founder Stuart Rosen, with experience in both the development of computer games and military simulations. Rosen’s computer game development experience began at Atari where he managed the PAC MAN project for Atari’s home computer and advanced video game. Rosen also headed the design team for one of the first movie-to-computer game spin-offs: Stephen Spielberg’s E.T. Rosen left Atari to manage the Image Generation Department at Singer-Link Flight Simulation, one of the early companies in the flight simulator business, which built such systems as the Apollo Docking Station and the DC8 flight simulator used in airlines around the world, and many others.  For Singer-Link Rosen developed virtual reality databases and advanced modeling tools for pilot training simulators. Rosen then moved to Bolt Beranek & Newman Advanced Simulation, where he led the design, development and integration of networked interactive simulation systems for U.S., British and Japanese forces. This included extensive work on the SIMNET project.

Andrew Johnston, WizBang!’s other founder and president, was also a key contributor to SIMNET. Along with M. Cyrus from Boeing Johnston was the co-founder, vice president and director of engineering of Delta Graphics (later acquired by Bolt Beranek & Newman), and  he directed the software development effort for the Computer Image Generator (CIG) I have described above, the CAD modeling system for the CIG database, and commercial computer animation software. Prior to that, while at the Boeing Aerospace Company in Seattle, Johnston managed a group of 45 engineers involved in research and development in advanced computer-image generation; he was a key architect of a real-time 3D computer-image generation system under contract with DARPA. This system was the basis of the Boeing B1-B Weapons System Trainer, a large scale computer-image generation system.

The SIMNET project was approved by DARPA in late 1982 and began early in the spring of 1983 with three essential component contracts. Perceptronics was to develop the training requirements and conceptual designs for the vehicle simulator hardware and system integration; BBN Laboratories Inc, of Boston, which had been the principal ARPANET developer, was to develop the networking and graphics technology; and the Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) of La Jolla, California was to conduct studies of field training experiences at instrumented training ranges at the National Training Center in Fort Irwin, California.

Affordability was the chief requirement Thorpe placed on the development of SIMNET components. Sticking to this requirement led to the most highly innovative aspects of SIMNET. Prior to the late 1980s simulators were typically designed to emulate the vehicles they represented as closely as engineering technology and the available funds permitted. The usual design goal was to reach the highest possible level of physical fidelity — to design “an airplane on a stick,” as it were. The SIMNET design goal was different. It called for learning first what functions were needed to meet the training objectives, and only then specifying the needs for simulator hardware. Selective functional fidelity, rather than full physical fidelity, was SIMNET’s design goal, and as a result, many hardware items not regarded as relevant to combat operations were not included or were designated only by drawings or photographs in the simulator. Furthermore, the design did not concentrate on the armored vehicle per se. Rather, the vehicle simulator was viewed as a tool for the training of crews as a military unit. The major interest was in collective, not individual, training. The design goal was to make the crews and units, not the devices, the center of the simulations. This approach helped minimize costs, thus making possible the design of a relatively low-cost device.

An early crisis that threatened to undo the project was that the visual-display and networking architecture being developed by BBN would not support the SIMNET system concept within the limits of the low-cost constraints. Analyses and expert judgments, from both within and outside of DARPA, indicated that the planned use of available off-the-shelf visual-display technology would not support the required scene complexity within the cost, computer, and communications constraints set by the SIMNET goals. However a proposal from Boeing allowed Thorpe to take advantage of the new generation of DARPA-funded microprocessor advances in VLSI and RISC for development of a new low-cost microprocessor-based computer image generating technology for visual displays. The technology proposed by M. Cyrus of Boeing met the scene complexity (“moving models”) requirements at acceptably low dollar and computational costs. Also, it permitted use of a simpler, less costly networking architecture. The proposed technology would use microprocessors in each tank simulator to compute the visual scene for that tank’s own “virtual world,” including the needed representations of other armored vehicles, both “friendly” and “enemy.” The network would not have to carry all the information in the visual scenes (or potential visual scenes) of all simulators. Rather, the network transmission could be limited to a relatively small package of calibration and “status change” information.

With these architecture and design elements in place SIMNET was constructed of local and long-haul nets of interactive simulators for maneuvering armored vehicle combat elements (MI tanks and M2/3 fighting vehicles), combat-support elements (including artillery effects and close air support with both rotary and fixed-wing aircraft), and all the necessary command-and-control, administrative and logistics elements for both “friendly” and “enemy” forces. A distributed-net architecture was used, with no central computer exercising executive control or major computations, but rather with essentially similar (and all necessary) computation power resident in each vehicle simulator or center?nodal representation.

The terrains for the battle engagements were simulations of actual places, 50 kilometers by 50 kilometers initially, but eventually expandable by an order of magnitude in depth and width. Battles were to be fought in real time, with each simulated element—vehicle, command post, administrative and logistics center, etc.?being operated by its assigned crew members. Scoring would be recorded on combat events such as movements, firings, hits, and outcomes, but actions during the simulated battle engagements would be completely under the control of the personnel who were fighting the battle. Training would occur as a function of the intrinsic feedback and lessons learned from the relevant battle-engagement experiences. Development would proceed in steps, first to demonstrate platoon?level networking, then on to company and battalion levels, and later perhaps on to even higher levels.

Each simulator was developed as a self-contained stand-alone unit, with its own graphics and sound systems, host microprocessor, terrain data base, cockpit with task-training-justified controls and displays only, and network plug-in capability (Figure 2). Thus, each simulator generated the complete battle-engagement environment necessary for the combat mission training of its crew. For example, each tank crew member could see a part of the virtual world created by the graphics generator using the terrain data base and information arriving via the net regarding the movements and status of other simulated vehicles and battle effects. The precise part of the virtual world was defined by the crew member’s line of sight—forward for the tank driver, or from any of three viewing ports in a rotatable turret for the tank commander.

The visual display depended primarily on the graphics generator resident in each simulator. This computer image generation (CIG) system differed in several important characteristics from earlier CIG systems. First, it was microprocessor-based (vs. large mainframe or multiple minicomputer based), and therefore relatively low in cost (less than $100,000 per simulator visual-display subsystem, vs. more than $1 million per visual channel; typical flight simulators have at least five visual channels). Secondly, it was high in environmental complexity with many moving models and special effects, but low in display complexity with relatively few pixels, small viewing ports, and a relatively slow update rate of 15 frames per second (vs. the opposite with earlier CIG systems and the technology being developed to improve and replace them). The development of the essentially unique graphics generator for SIMNET was a principal factor in permitting the system to meet the low-cost-per-unit constraint of the plan.

“There’s been a huge change in the way we prepare for war, and the soldiers we’re training now are the children of the digital age who grew up with GameBoys,” says retired Rear Adm. Fred Lewis, a 33-year U.S. Navy veteran

The military simulation and virtual training market has seen dramatic growth in the last decade and it is expected to grow steadily over the next ten years. Increasing concerns over training costs, time and risk of life have forced military forces around the world to adapt technologies such as computer-based simulators and computer wargames in military training. Most importantly, simulation and virtual training have so far proved to be not only cost-effective but also an effective way to train military staff in a wide range of activities. Those functions range from weapons training to flying and even medical training. Both combat and non-combat applications for military simulations and gaming technologies with increase significantly during the period 2008-2018.

This is the video game generation of soldiers. ” ‘Ctrl+Alt+Del,’ ” the U.S. Army noted in a recent study, “is as basic as ‘ABC.’ ” And computer simulations — as military officials prefer to call them — have transformed the way the United States military fights wars, as well as soldiers’ ways of killing.

“The technology in games has facilitated a revolution in the art of warfare,” says David Bartlett, the former chief of operations at the Defense Modeling and Simulation Office, a high-level office within the Defense Department and the focal point for computer-generated training at the Pentagon. “When the time came for him” — meaning Swales — “to fire his weapon, he was ready to do that. And capable of doing that. His experience leading up to that time, through on-the-ground training and playing ‘Halo’ and whatever else, enabled him to execute. His situation awareness was up. He knew what he had to do. He had done it before — or something like it up to that point.”

Virtual Training Technology, largely train soldiers how to coordinate complicated missions. Think of it as a sort of military “EverQuest” that can be played by multiple people in multiple places at the same time.

“Of course, it’s not a game. The feel of the actual weapon was more of an adrenaline rush than the feel of the controller, but you’re practically doing the same thing: trying to kill the other person. The goal is the same. That’s the similarity. The goal is to survive.”  says Trevino, 20, recalling his first shot at a human enemy.

Compare that with Armed Assault, the commercial game for the PC, with modifications that are available and you will see that there isn’t much difference in the trainee or player’s experience.

Much of the equipment and features in the newest Military Sim are available for us in the private realm as well.  While there are limitations in the back end of the public version that are not in the military grade version, many of these have been overcome through dedicated members of the community that have created such great add-ons or modifications as ACE (Advanced Combat Environment), BLND HMMWVs, the CH M1Abrams and T72 Pack and a thousand others.

An M1 Abrams by CH

The in depth and careful modeling makes this a vehicle for intense immersion in many types of scenarios. Be they small unit patrolling techniques or immediate action drills, ArmA is a powerful engine and tool in its own right.