Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
minimalaco

Realtime immersive - Militar simulator cryengine

Recommended Posts

Fuck that looks nice, looks like they have a simple real time 3D editor. I wonder how easily they can create scenarios with it though. In A2 setting up an artillery battery or airstrikes is complicated enough. I wonder if this is just drag and drop for mission building. I don't know how.much VBS2 is used, but it takes a significant.amount of time and energy to understand all of the scripting language.

If it works anything like Sandbox2 then it can create/alter and color terrain, place props, rotate objects, adjust height and so on..however the 'coding' part of interaction is done via Flowgraph, so to get an AI to patrol any area you have to set up waypoints and then flowgraph them into it, likewise aircraft require flowgraphs to function with AI and so on.

So unless something changes this will be less user friendly because they can't go in and just prop some units plus a waypoint and watch the results.

Edited by NodUnit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Judging by that video above your post - Crysis trying to simulate CoDMW.

"Technology Showcase" -- Doesn't say it cleans dishes...

...but, knowing the CryEngine, I bet dishes make an appearance.

ITS A KITCHEN SIMULATOR!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It says technology and simulation presentation in the video description.

What is shown in the video is a one big heavily scripted cutscene.

Is it a cameraman simulation then?

Since we'll probably never actually use it, all we can do is comment on its looks. And it looks incredible.

I really doubt it's being developed for a military use and this video only reinforces the doubt. If it isn't targeted at consumer level then why does every single video show nothing but CoDMW? Military sure as hell isn't interested in what generation of shaders is used to render that CryEngine's sun shooting lasers and bombastic soundtrack with soldiers running amidst explosions most likely seem silly to them. Weapons also behave like in CoD (see previous video) - zero recoil and zero weight. Bullets go straight through a wall (like in arcade shooters once again) when in reality their trajectory often gets changed upon entering the wall.

Here's some more nitpicking when it comes to "awesome graphx". When a soldier rides on a humvee you can see the gun and the humvee being motion-blurred (they are static in relation to the viewer), while everything else is not (and it's actually moving). Not mentioning that motion blur is completely unrealistic.

If anything it looks like a yet another army contract for another America's Army

Edited by metalcraze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It says technology and simulation presentation in the video description.

What is shown in the video is a one big heavily scripted cutscene.

Is it a cameraman simulation then?

I really doubt it's being developed for a military use and this video only reinforces the doubt. If it isn't targeted at consumer level then why does every single video show nothing but CoDMW? Military sure as hell isn't interested in what generation of shaders is used to render that CryEngine's sun shooting lasers and bombastic soundtrack with soldiers running amidst explosions most likely seem silly to them. Weapons also behave like in CoD (see previous video) - zero recoil and zero weight. Bullets go straight through a wall (like in arcade shooters once again) when in reality their trajectory often gets changed upon entering the wall.

Here's some more nitpicking when it comes to "awesome graphx". When a soldier rides on a humvee you can see the gun and the humvee being motion-blurred (they are static in relation to the viewer), while everything else is not (and it's actually moving). Not mentioning that motion blur is completely unrealistic.

If anything it looks like a yet another army contract for another America's Army

Well Arma2 has its fair share of graphical/sound/physical anomalies and inconsistencies too. Sometimes it's incredibly realistic and immersive, othertimes it's jarring.

TBH the constant shitcanning of any piece of software not written by BIS is getting tiresome. There's just not (and never will be) a game/simulation that will please everyone in terms of looks/realism/gameplay/expandability/scriptability/developer support etc etc etc. Arma2 is as good as it gets for me, but that doesn't automatically invalidate everything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fuck that looks nice, looks like they have a simple real time 3D editor. I wonder how easily they can create scenarios with it though. In A2 setting up an artillery battery or airstrikes is complicated enough. I wonder if this is just drag and drop for mission building. I don't know how.much VBS2 is used, but it takes a significant.amount of time and energy to understand all of the scripting language.

there is simple 3D editor (hmm in fact several if i count work from partners) for VBS2 customers too

and more scripting languages plus true coding languages links (direct APIs) than in ARMA games

and way more of features what true serious game (simulator) needs ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well Arma2 has its fair share of graphical/sound/physical anomalies and inconsistencies too. Sometimes it's incredibly realistic and immersive, othertimes it's jarring.

.

That's Arma2 though, not VBS2 which would be the military simulation while Arma is the game version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's Arma2 though, not VBS2 which would be the military simulation while Arma is the game version.

My reply was to the comments regarding the perceived visual shortcomings of RTI, since a visual impression is pretty much all we can glean from the videos.

And since a rather small fraction of us on this forum can vouch for the visual aspects of VBS (and since BIS have explicitly stated that VBS favours simulation aspects over visual fidelity), acknowledging Arma2s graphical shortcomings is perfectly valid.

My point remains, constant bashing of other software that has committed the crime of not being Arma2/VBS is tiresome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll agree that judging a product based on it simply not being made by BI is a bad thing, but I'm not sure that is what is happening here, rather people are bashing it based on displaying a lack of...what it does from a user perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll agree that judging a product based on it simply not being made by BI is a bad thing, but I'm not sure that is what is happening here, rather people are bashing it based on displaying a lack of...what it does from a user perspective.

Thanks NodUnit. The videos are visually impressive regardless of the shortcomings of the simulation (which we really can't accurately critique without a hands on). That was my original point.

Cryengine is very pretty and does a lot of advanced light/sound/physics very very well, regardless of what people think of its "cartoon" shaders or its motion blur. Whether that translates into a decent high end training simulator remains to be seen.

I can understand how jaded many people are because of the current trend of visually awesome shooters (COD, BF etc) lacking any real depth or complexity. But a graphically impressive tech demo video doesn't necessarily have to imply that the finished product will be poor.

I fully understand that a company touting itself as flogging an advanced military simulator for (presumably) thousands of $ per seat better have its simulation up to scratch. But at this stage we can only infer how the simulation will be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well Arma2 has its fair share of graphical/sound/physical anomalies and inconsistencies too. Sometimes it's incredibly realistic and immersive, othertimes it's jarring.

TBH the constant shitcanning of any piece of software not written by BIS is getting tiresome. There's just not (and never will be) a game/simulation that will please everyone in terms of looks/realism/gameplay/expandability/scriptability/developer support etc etc etc. Arma2 is as good as it gets for me, but that doesn't automatically invalidate everything else.

They say it's a serious military simulation, in videos they don't show any of it at all or even the opposite of it. It has nothing to do with "VBS is bettah!!1". Watching every single RTI video thus far is like: "Yeah like every 2nd arcade shooter game out there does godrays and boxes being pushed by explosions together with scripted animations, it's nothing special but what's so different here from those games for it to be called a sim?"

Do you even get a slightest hint at any simulation from their videos?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll agree that judging a product based on it simply not being made by BI is a bad thing, but I'm not sure that is what is happening here, rather people are bashing it based on displaying a lack of...what it does from a user perspective.

Yup... Their first video looked like a simulation demonstration, this one does not demonstrate a thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They say it's a serious military simulation, in videos they don't show any of it at all or even the opposite of it. It has nothing to do with "VBS is bettah!!1". Watching every single RTI video thus far is like: "Yeah like every 2nd arcade shooter game out there does godrays and boxes being pushed by explosions together with scripted animations, it's nothing special but what's so different here from those games for it to be called a sim?"

Do you even get a slightest hint at any simulation from their videos?

Mate my original comment had nothing to do with simulation, it simply mentioned that the video looked beautiful (which I stand by). You begged to differ, and fair enough too if you don't like their shaders etc. And on that issue I simply pointed out that RV based games/simulations have their own graphical (and other) shortcomings. Metalcraze I'm very sorry if I misconstrued your comments as BI fanboyism (there is a lot of it on this forum and I shouldn't let it get to me).

Maybe RTI should have just called the videos a "graphics showcase" rather than a "technology showcase", since "technology" seems to mean "simulation" in this thread. No big deal - none of the videos make me like my RV games any less :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said that the game looks beautiful too. But I replied to "bashing anything that isn't by BIS". I certainly would've welcomed competition and would've played another serious tactical shooter.

And again they wrote "technology and simulation showcase" not just "technology". They should prove it isn't Crysis MW :>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like anyone said, all this video show is that it LOOKS good, but nothing more came out of it:confused:

Now lets us take a few step back and look at VBS2 launch trailer, we got to know many functions is there, enough to make every Arma player crying for many of those features to be in ArmA2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@metalcraze, you start to sound ridiculous.

I don't care at all about this project, but you fail to see what are their intentions with the showcase videos.

They are showing off what they have, meaning, a work in progress project.

You also fail to understand that their priorities may differ from BIA or even BIS.

Funny to read your comments such as the one about the obvious misuse of object motion blur, and some effects etc they have in the videos, when you would probably defend with teeth and nails anything about RV engine, when it has major flaws, let's say, within the light engine. Is it simulating anything "real" when lights do not cast shadows or are not blocked by objects terrain?

It's just a damn demo, show off, video preview, whatever. Why would you even judge it on it's current state?

What I mean is, see more, talk less.

_neo_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So much comparisons going on. No two games are going to be following the exact same path as each other. Comparing all of these constantly just because these products aren't VBS2 or ArmA 2 is really pointless.

Just a question, isn't dynamic nightvision a type of simulation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are showing off what they have, meaning, a work in progress project.

So after all this time all they have is shaders? Must mean it will take them like 20 years to finally make a competition for VBS.

You also fail to understand that their priorities may differ from BIA or even BIS.

Indeed - BIA and BIS priorities are to make games, CryTek's priorities (which RTI is a subdivision of) are to make graphical tech-demos.

Funny to read your comments such as the one about the obvious misuse of object motion blur, and some effects etc they have in the videos, when you would probably defend with teeth and nails anything about RV engine, when it has major flaws, let's say, within the light engine.

Yeah that's why I say it needs point lights which it lacks using something that looks like vertex lighting instead. But while RV flaws are mostly graphical (not really important) - CryEngine flaws are much more glaring since they are all gameplay related.

Is it simulating anything "real" when lights do not cast shadows or are not blocked by objects terrain?

It isn't a graphics simulation like CryTek's "games" that's for sure.

CryEngine also doesn't have anything blocking lights. You need shadows for that. Which CryEngine again doesn't have from every light source. For obvious reasons.

It's just a damn demo, show off, video preview, whatever. Why would you even judge it on it's current state?

Actually it's quite telling that after years of development (since RTI didn't start with the rapping gangsta soldier video) they can't show anything but Crysis Modern Warfare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ArmA 3 will _look_ just as good. plus it will include sophisticated user mission editor. which means you will not need to contract-out Realtimersion and pay them 1/2 million $$$ to make you a custom mission every time you want a new scenario :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This video is not connected with RealiTime Immersive, isn't it? Description says that it is Unity 3D engine and it is developed by eecs.ucf.edu/isuelab/

I think it is not quite clear. It is confused who is RealTime Imersive. And I have some others questions?

RealTime immersive http://www.rt-immersive.com/ is Crytec's sister company and they are trying expand use of its Crynegine?

from their page, their customers:

US Army

US Special Operations Command

Lockheed Martin

Thales

General Dynamics

Bechtel

Kapl

Cubic

Meggit

but dismount soldier project is made by different company. Intelligent Decisions http://www.idsi.com/

This is their press releases from spring http://www.intelligent.net/idweb/company/pressview.cfm?view=108

at that time they used Cryengine for dismount soldier.

but

this is what Karel Mořický posted on his twitter:

Remember the company which was trying to use #CryEngine for military training? They're using #Arma engine now

1 Dec

fHkBuxm6lXg

now they are using VBS2, so are they scrap Cryengine3? or they are developing their simulation on both platform?

Anyone have better or other information? Maybe I'm completely wrong about this. I'm just curious how exactly it is.

Edited by BoboCZ
small correction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Dec 2011

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2011/December/Pages/GamingTechnologyPutsSoldiers%E2%80%99BootsonGround.aspx

Dismounted Soldier employs the CryEngine gaming technology behind Crysis 2, a sci-fi first-person shooter in which the main character fights off extraterrestrials in a futuristic New York City. The original Crysis game featured a U.S. special operator battling otherworldly beings on an island off the Philippines. The influence of these games is taking military simulation far beyond the days when the Pentagon relied on companies to churn out image generators at market-driving rates.
The service currently uses Virtual Battlespace 2 (VBS2), which offers the ability to operate land, sea and air vehicles in various scenarios via realistic simulations. PEO STRI is looking for a system that offers everything VBS2 does, plus higher fidelity graphics and the ability for it to be plugged into a combined live, virtual and constructive training environment through the use of personal computers and other mobile devices.

Intelligent Decisions plans to be a major player in this effort as it already has shown the ability to run the VBS2 software on the Dismounted Soldier system.

VBS2 plays an important role by providing a ubiquitous, low-cost training system for kinetic and non-kinetic skills. Soldiers use it to practice missions and hone team effectiveness, communications and decision-making abilities, Dubow says. But the Army is always looking for better graphics, increased ease of use and larger terrain boxes, or the visual space in which activity can take place.
The CryEngine technology used in Dismounted Soldier helps create precise images and sounds in an effort to make troops feel as if they were in battle at a specific location. But Intelligent Decisions, its partners and the Army are quick to note that they are not building a video game.

So still going to use RTI thing, but using VBS2 for now.

Personally, RTI looks like a game, it just doesn't look to be structured how a Simulator should/needs to be structured.

Surely a Sim is there to learn/train/practice procedures in a controlled, repeatable and cheap manner? I don't see how immersion applies to a simulator. It is always going to fall waaayy short. This sort of thing surely applies far better. Still not real but fills the role better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as far i know Unity Engine, CryEngine and Real Virtuality compete in the serious games area ...

because there are lot of money involved it's obvious there will more companies trying more engines and weird combinations to get foothold into the market

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't see how immersion applies to a simulator.

"Training engineers say some of the newest simulation technologies — such as the Dismounted Soldier Training System — are getting closer to producing the kind of tension or fear that could make a real difference in soldiers’ experience".

http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/CPT-COMBATSIMULATORS-FEAR_6807514/CPT-COMBATSIMULATORS-FEAR_6807514/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×