Realtime immersive - Militar simulator cryengine

[Cripsis 10]

I can make a photorealistic scene in my own developed game engine.

One problem though, it displays at 0.0001 frames per hour.

LOL, yeah I think the Army might prefer something that plays in realtime.:)

I was reading a brochure yesterday that stated the hardware being used for the Dismounted Soldier Training System will run both the VBS2 and CryEngine 3 software. I think that's an ideal setup, the Army can choose the software best suited to each particular training scenario. I definitely think CryEngine would be perfect for IED training, the visuals are mindblowing even with CryEngine 2.

KGgZfiSKoow

jIXag9D6A38

[walker 0]

Hi all

When you consider that most of those rather dire graphic in the previous post are pre rendered scripted scenes you understand why the Cry engine graphics look poor in comparison to the RV engine:

zksbVThXmdc

The fact that most of the functionality in the RV is shown as in game also shows how much more advanced it is that than the CRY engine beta development project.

As far as I can tell there is no flight engine in the Cry engine there is nothing explaining the ballistics model or how projectiles can be tracked, I rather suspect the Cry engine does not have a complex ballistics simulation capable of thousands of projectiles and even its water simulation seems stunted.

Then we have no information on entity counts, or the size and nature of geo specific terrain import and whether it is just flat or capable of showing earth curvature, finally they complexity flora and fauna seems somewhat lacking.

When you compare it to the latest iteration of the RV engine the cracks in Cry realy begin to show:

http://www.youtube.com/user/Arma3official?feature=relchannel#p/u

The core problem with the Cry engines use for a military simulation beyond its dire graphics performance, inability to perform as a training simulation, despite the over 50 million dollars spent on it, it only seems capable of extracting money even more money from tax payers for research projects into whether it could one day be developed into a training platform; certainly that is all Cripsis has shown us, is that it is just the usual rip the tax payer off with untested beta ware.

Rather than a fully fledged COTS training system that works out of the box like the RV engine's VBS.

Kind Regards walker

[Cripsis 10]

Hi Walker

I am yet to see RV acheive visuals, physics and performance such as this -

dOxpVPg_rCA

vAFGiVXWqeA

“In the virtual world, visuals mean everything,â€

“All budgets across the board are going to be tighter,†Murphy says. “But I think simulation and gaming is probably going to be less affected by that because the returns on investment generally are considered very high.â€

“You always hear that we do simulation because it saves money,†Fierko says. “But that’s not why we do simulations. We do simulation to save lives.

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

[onlyrazor 11]

Are those helicopters capable of transporting individuals? Are they each a separate entity with a pilot NPC? Is this Realtime Immersive's simulator?

[neokika 62]

Hi Cripsis,

Have you notice the size of the maps is those videos?

Not to mention the lousy frame rate?

And whats so impressive about it anyway?

Those videos show a very, very small terrain, probably 100 times smaller then Chernarus...

And you call that AI? A NPC going from point A to point B, nothing else...

_neo_

[-Snafu- 78]

In a time of economic uncertainty can the DoD justify spending millions on a new engine and the high end rigs to run it when, let's face it, at the end of the day they don't need it.

If I was looking over their finances I would be asking why they are investing in a platform when they already have one available. I just don't see that "better graphics" is going to cut it as a justifiable reason.

[Przemek_kondor 13]

What physics you meant? Or what visuals? - I've seen ~300-500m view distance with small repetitive textures on buildings and ground on 20FPS.

[Pulverizer 1]

Apples and oranges.

But flight and avionics are possible in CE:

Fv3TwP8BUaU

Also, ballistics with wind deflection are possible:

c6kdPAWrWLw

A very basic model like that is probably enough for serious gaming. Actual shooting and flying is learned elsewhere anyhow.

[Cripsis 10]

I just don't see that "better graphics" is going to cut it as a justifiable reason.

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

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.

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

No matter which way you slice it, the military want's better graphics, no point sticking your head in the sand about it. The guys at Realtime Immersive no doubt are fully aware that their tech demo videos have generated an enormous amount of interest in the gaming world, obviously they will eventually develop a simulation designed for the gaming community. Personally I think competition is a good thing for all military simulation fans.

[onlyrazor 11]

Personally I think competition is a good thing for all military simulation fans.

True. But they have to be serious about it. We all know what happened to Operation Flashpoint...

[Cripsis 10]

True. But they have to be serious about it. We all know what happened to Operation Flashpoint...

We should be starting to work with RTI soon on scenarios using CryEngine, very excited about the new possibilities

http://www.facebook.com/tbocsims?sk=wall&filter=2#!/tbocsims

[-Snafu- 78]

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

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.

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

No matter which way you slice it, the military want's better graphics, no point sticking your head in the sand about it. The guys at Realtime Immersive no doubt are fully aware that their tech demo videos have generated an enormous amount of interest in the gaming world, obviously they will eventually develop a simulation designed for the gaming community. Personally I think competition is a good thing for all military simulation fans.

I'm not sticking my head in the sand I just find it incredibly stupid to waste millions on something new when a platform that has been proven to be flexible and can be updated to military requirements when requested exists.

[Cripsis 10]

I'm not sticking my head in the sand I just find it incredibly stupid to waste millions on something new when a platform that has been proven to be flexible and can be updated to military requirements when requested exists.

In case you missed this -

the CryEngine "stood out among it's peers". For example IED defeat training is highly based on visual clues, such as the changes of color in concrete and that of disturbed soil. The Crytek gaming engine was the only one capable of such photorealistic image fidelity.

http://issuu.com/halldale/docs/mst_5_2011

[-Snafu- 78]

In case you missed this -

the CryEngine "stood out among it's peers". For example IED defeat training is highly based on visual clues, such as the changes of color in concrete and that of disturbed soil. The Crytek gaming engine was the only one capable of such photorealistic image fidelity.

http://issuu.com/halldale/docs/mst_5_2011

That has no bearing on my opinion that it is a complete waste of money. Much like how logic has no bearing on your opinion that Crytek is the be all and end all.

There are frankly better things that those millions could be spent on.

Edited December 27, 2011 by Snafu

[Cripsis 10]

That has no bearing on my opinion that it is a complete waste of money. Much like how logic has no bearing on your opinion that Crytek is the be all and end all.

There are frankly better things that those millions could be spent on.

Well your entitled to your opinion, and the Army, who has had to deal with an increasing number of troops killed or seriously wounded by IED's is entitled to their opinion.

[maturin 12]

In case you missed this -

the CryEngine "stood out among it's peers". For example IED defeat training is highly based on visual clues, such as the changes of color in concrete and that of disturbed soil. The Crytek gaming engine was the only one capable of such photorealistic image fidelity.

http://issuu.com/halldale/docs/mst_5_2011

Millions of dollars later, we have the first solid example of a single benefit from shiny graphics.

[-Snafu- 78]

Well your entitled to your opinion, and the Army, who has had to deal with an increasing number of troops killed or seriously wounded by IED's is entitled to their opinion.

Yes, exactly, those millions would be better spent on improving IED countermeasures and training now so there can be tangible benefits for those on the ground now. Not in several years when most ISAF troops will be withdrawn from Afghanistan.

Edited December 27, 2011 by Snafu

[Cripsis 10]

Yes, exactly, those millions would be better spent on improving IED countermeasures and training now so there can be tangible benefits for those on the ground now. Not in several years when most ISAF troops will be withdrawn from Afghanistan.

Sorry I didn't realise that your an expert in this field, perhaps you could get in contact with those in charge of the Dismounted Soldier Training Program, I'm sure they would be very interested to hear about your credentials.

[-Snafu- 78]

Sorry I didn't realise that your an expert in this field, perhaps you could get in contact with those in charge of the Dismounted Soldier Training Program, I'm sure they would be very interested to hear about your credentials.

What's your post got to do with anything?

The article you posted earlier said they would use the current system for 5+ years before exploring other technologies. Obama announced the withdrawal from Afghanistan in the summer of this year to be complete by 2014. So how is the Crytek sim going to help those in Afghanistan identify IEDs today? By the time it's ready US and ISAF troops will be gone.

[PuFu 4600]

No matter which way you slice it, the military want's better graphics, no point sticking your head in the sand about it. The guys at Realtime Immersive no doubt are fully aware that their tech demo videos have generated an enormous amount of interest in the gaming world, obviously they will eventually develop a simulation designed for the gaming community. Personally I think competition is a good thing for all military simulation fans.

why i do agree that competition is great for the market, i really doubt they will make a game out of it...Anyhow, that is years away.

True. But they have to be serious about it. We all know what happened to Operation Flashpoint...

I really hope you mean DR/RR. Even if Consolemasters own the name and brand, you can't call those failures OFP. There is only one OFP, the one developed by BIS...

We should be starting to work with RTI soon on scenarios using CryEngine, very excited about the new possibilities

http://www.facebook.com/tbocsims?sk=wall&filter=2#!/tbocsims

Who is "we" in your phrase son, besides yourself? While you are obviously very subjective about RTI and CE2/3, i have some questions for you: 1. what makes you think you'll have access to the RTI "sim" in the first place? Secondly, have you even touched the current CE3 sdk to begin with?

There are frankly better things that those millions could be spent on.

While i agree that the DOD is spending money in stupid ways, what some don't seem to understand is that RTI is not necesart aiming for the same market. There are more specific applications where these sort of sims are needed (such as the IED one).

the CryEngine "stood out among it's peers". For example IED defeat training is highly based on visual clues, such as the changes of color in concrete and that of disturbed soil. The Crytek gaming engine was the only one capable of such photorealistic image fidelity.

There are also other great engines out there that are capable of photo realistic images. Unreal 3 for instance, Unity is not far away either..

So while CE3 is indeed a good engine to begin with, it's not all apples and pies (at least that is what i've been hearing from a mate of mine working at crytek)...

[Cripsis 10]

The article you posted earlier said they would use the current system for 5+ years before exploring other technologies.

Makes perfect sense to me, no point in using outdated technology if something better is available.

Obama announced the withdrawal from Afghanistan in the summer of this year to be complete by 2014. So how is the Crytek sim going to help those in Afghanistan identify IEDs today?

Are you seriously suggesting that our troops no longer require to be trained how to defeat IED's. That's possibly the most ludicrous comment I've read on these forums.

There seems to be no shortage of experts here, unfortunately some are less interested in discussing the potential of new technology than acting like nervous fanboys. :rolleyes:

---------- Post added at 04:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:51 PM ----------

Who is "we" in your phrase son, besides yourself?

If you followed the link you would have seen that the comment was written by one of the staff at the Training Brain Operations Center Systems Integration Modeling and Simulation

http://www.facebook.com/tbocsims

[-Snafu- 78]

Makes perfect sense to me, no point in using outdated technology if something better is available.

Are you seriously suggesting that our troops no longer require to be trained how to defeat IED's. That's possibly the most ludicrous comment I've read on these forums.

There seems to be no shortage of experts here, unfortunately some are less interested in discussing the potential of new technology than acting like nervous fanboys. :rolleyes:

Don't be so bloody stupid.

You said it would help in countering IEDs in Afghanistan since they have been and are a big threat in Iraq and Afghanistan. I simply pointed out that the technology won't be used until 2016 and by that point US and ISAF will have pulled out of Afghanistan as per Obama's withdrawal plan.

Hence why I think it is a waste. The cash would be better used, as I said earlier, to, for example, help the troops out there right now.

[Cripsis 10]

Don't be so bloody stupid.

You said it would help in countering IEDs in Afghanistan since they have been and are a big threat in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I never mentioned Afghanistan or Iraq. You owe me an apology.

[-Snafu- 78]

I never mentioned Afghanistan or Iraq. You owe me an apology.

Well your entitled to your opinion, and the Army, who has had to deal with an increasing number of troops killed or seriously wounded by IED's is entitled to their opinion.

The only war the US military is involved in where IEDs are in heavy use is Afghanistan (Iraq now being "over").

[Cripsis 10]

The only war the US military is involved in where IEDs are in heavy use is Afghanistan (Iraq now being "over").

So you think that our Army will never again be involved in future conflicts.:rolleyes:

I knew you wouldn't have the balls to apologise.