Realtime immersive - Militar simulator cryengine

[[frl]myke 14]

Laughed out loud when the guy jumped out of the LAV without even struggling. In A2 you would at least be injured. Very realistic, indeed.

[soul_assassin 1747]

Myke;2220160']Laughed out loud when the guy jumped out of the LAV without even struggling. In A2 you would at least be injured. Very realistic' date=' indeed.[/quote']

he could be in "godmode" for demo purposes

[Mr. Charles 22]

This is competition. BIS has been too long without a real competitor and I hope that they'll finally get a kick up the arse and provide some more quality.

[froggyluv 2135]

This is competition. BIS has been too long without a real competitor and I hope that they'll finally get a kick up the arse and provide some more quality.

Competition for VBS -not Arma. Not really sure how you figure that'll help us.

[soul_assassin 1747]

Competition for VBS -not Arma. Not really sure how you figure that'll help us.

well I wouldnt say its entirely out of the question that RTI tech could be used for some kind of commercial product.

[nodunit 397]

he could be in "godmode" for demo purposes

Pretty much, one of the greatest things about sandbox is that you can look at things in realtime without having to be in the game for the most part.

The only reason you saw him 'get out' of the stryker is because unlike the RV engine, CE does not support special LOD's such as interiors, if there is any detail then it must be covered on the primary LOD's, so what yo usee is the camera going from the inside of the vehicle to the outside, thats it.

Edited September 7, 2012 by NodUnit

[[frl]myke 14]

Pretty much, one of the greatest things about sandbox is that you can look at things in realtime without having to be in the game for the most part.

The only reason you saw him 'get out' of the stryker is because unlike the RV engine, CE does not support special LOD's such as interiors, if there is any detail then it must be covered on the primary LOD's, so what yo usee is the camera going from the inside of the vehicle to the outside, thats it.

Not quite sure:

Quite after he placed the Stryker (sorry, not LAV) he seems to switch to live playing mode (or whatever it is called). Watch the shadow of the soldier, it is clearly controlled by the player. In this mode, anims and interaction seems to be quite how they are normally ingame. Also the fact that he has a grenade in his hands right after jumping out of the Stryker is a clear sign that this isn't esitor- or godmode at this time.

[nodunit 397]

Ah I see, was thinking of a different scene...you would be correct, though regardless of anything I get the feeling that they won't be changing this.

I'm still trying to figure out where they are trying to compete, ballistics are out, weapon handling is out, vehiclular control is out and by that I mean more than box on wheels. At the moment it seems to be mostly action replay.

[Opticalsnare 12]

Its bullshit. Its nothing more than to demo showcase a good engine with a modern genre and call it a simulation. Its like me saying hey guys look what i can do in sandbox

- Spawn Soldier with M16a4... m16a4 real weapon ... argh i used the the word real so thats realism right there. Blow up some rubbish, rubbish flys in real life when blown up so more realism right yup, get into a vehicle (you can do that in real life btw) which is a stryker a REAL US Army vehicle btw so thats another +1 on the realism factor scale.. Hey this Game is pretty real right it must be cause i am using real weapon names and vehicles that are based on real vehicles right??.. day and night cycles realtime yeh more realism, people walk about yup more real life shit. Erm what else argh we got a bunch of dudes shooting at us fook thats real as everyone shoots at eachother these days so thats def real. Hey this is a simulation now because of all this real stuff were putting in, insted of aliens and supersuits thats not real but this is real stuff not the usual cinematic aliens with plasma blast rifles and flying squid.

[batto 17]

The replay feature is nice. No replays = no amazing edited videos on YouTube. I've put it in A3 suggestions a while ago but I think it'll be very hard to make it in ArmA.

[NZXSHADOWS 0]

Anyone check out the new released video's? They look all pretty an fancey. But I wonder what the actual training category look like. Maybe someone will get some video's at the I/ITSEC 2012 of this software in action.

[maturin 12]

I see they're gunning for VBS with the naval functionality. But really, does it reflect well on a company to waste mocap resources on something so trivial as walking down an APC ladder? It has no bearing on what soldiers train to do. They know what a stooping walk looks like.

[Prydain 1]

Criticising it for being polished is a bit mad. They are using an engine with a better animation system and animations add to immersion, why waste it? You might even find out that those anims where just for the video.

Edited December 4, 2012 by Prydain

[max power 21]

the animation didn't even really look all that good, and the shaders are oversaturated. I dunno, if their goal is total realism, they need to keep pushing. If it's not, the whole premise of their project confuses me.

[Smurf 12]

-.-.-

[Prydain 1]

They aren't going for a full simulation, are they, isn't their stated goal just to play out scenes? The naval stuff kind of makes sense, then. Training for the launching of UAVs from a naval platform is probably easier if done in a virtual environment as I doubt that the UAV controls are even stationed on the ship -- save the ball-ache and just do it virtually.

in the video so, unless they state otherwise, scenes are probably what RTI intend for their 'sim'.

[max power 21]

Who said anything about simulation? I was talking about their visual style.

[mr_centipede 31]

The whole video that they've shown seems that their target group is the gaming crowd - ie us. Not some government agencies...

[max power 21]

The whole video that they've shown seems that their target group is the gaming crowd - ie us. Not some government agencies...

Yeah. The whole thing seems a bit confused.

[NZXSHADOWS 0]

More details about the video "Virtual Attain" are on RealTime Immersive Inc website an they also have the info on the video comment on youtube of what it is. BUt ima post it here which I should have done before hands, sorry about that.

RealTime Immersive Inc., a simulation and serious games company supporting CryENGINE® licensees, announced today its Serious Game Submission entitled Virtual Attain has been selected as a finalist in the 2012 Serious Games Showcase & Challenge. As a finalist, Virtual Attain can be experienced at the Serious Games Showcase & Challenge pavilion (booth #3263) at the Interservice/Industry Training Simulation and Education Conference (I/ITSEC) in December.

Virtual Attain is designed to be used by soldiers who have previously received training, such as patrol operations, casualty evacuation, call for fire, egress, and special operation tactics. The game puts the commander or patrol leader in a virtual driver seat with a real life scenario where things can go wrong before they step foot on the battlefield. It is designed to help soldiers start planning for what could happen given the history of an area of operation.

Virtual Attain’s use of robust review features, including the Observation Marking System, After Action Review, and Situational Decision Point allows players to make critical decisions during high-pressure, time-limited situations. Students can enhance their situational awareness in hostile environments by taking individual skills previously learned from real world environments and putting them into practice in a simulated team environment.

Virtual Attain is a CryENGINE® powered solution inspired by efforts inside the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Special Operations Command.

[Prydain 1]

Who said anything about simulation? I was talking about their visual style.

You said you didn't know what they were going for in terms of realism. I basically said that it doesn't matter because they don't seem to be making a full on simulation like DCS or, even, Arma.

Simple really.

[walker 0]

Hi all

As the company make clear in their own blurb essentialy the Cry Engine is an animated film generation tool not a simulator. Which is what it has always been, even in the game version; it was a not very good game, spiced up with lots of pre-rendered cutscenes. These latest videos and the text from the involved companies make it clear. As concept for a simulator/game engine it is fundamentaly flawed for doing multi player; something I and others pointed out very early on.

Frankly as a film making tool, which is what they are pitching it as now, it is very low spec compared to professional and even open source tools.

Nothing to see here move along.

Kind Regards walker

Edited December 5, 2012 by walker

[Pulverizer 1]

Crysis was a solid, fun game, and the graphics still look cool 5 years later.

I don't think there's many things VBS simulates, that you couldn't also easily simulate in CE. Especially having source code access like RTI have. Perhaps having larger terrain and mass AI would be a performance problem, unless they rewrote it to scale better.

[max power 21]

You said you didn't know what they were going for in terms of realism. I basically said that it doesn't matter because they don't seem to be making a full on simulation like DCS or, even, Arma.

Simple really.

Yeah, again, I was only talking about visual realism. No one even mentioned DCS or any kind of simulation.

The whole argument for this training utility is that they believe that more realistic graphics will enhance the soldier training experience through immersion. The graphics are not realistic, they are saturated and artsy. I do find it amusing that they are trying to sell the ability to make machinema, tho.

Edited December 5, 2012 by Max Power

[metalcraze 290]

Watched those new videos.

Crytek guys don't just get the point do they? ITSEC 2011 kinda told them that military wants a superfunctional training tool - but it seems Crytek understood it as "goddamnit looks like our presentation wasn't Call of Duty enough, make it even more cinematic, they must be impressed!"

What to expect from a developer who never made a game in their lives, only shader effect techdemos.