Realtime immersive - Militar simulator cryengine

[rexehuk 16]

Would love to see those dynamic view distance implemented in Arma2.

Already being done ;) made a ticket for ACE a long time ago.

http://dev-heaven.net/issues/14811

[Pulverizer 1]

Changing the market

Without doubt the ease of use of the ArmA/VBS Real Virtuality (RV) engine scenario editor is one of its primary... [wall-of-text ctrl-x'd]

The intersting thing about that post is... about that post is... Zzzzzzzzzzz

Crysis sandbox is super-duper easy and fast compared to the tools and amount of work required to create proper islands in Arma.

[Baff1 0]

Still moot seeing that this is geared to be sold as a high priced simulator as well. :p

Its not like they are going to undercut a market that will pay for really expensive software.

I don't see it as undercutting, only complimenting.

The reason that military sim software is high priced is the amount of customisation that goes into to it in porportion to the amount of people who will buy it.

The big profits are in games. Mass audience software. The more available developer tools are, the more people who are experienced using them, the easier it will be for the military to get their mods too.

[walker 0]

Hi all

NouberNou I explained the process a few pages back:

....

Changing the market

Without doubt the ease of use of the ArmA/VBS Real Virtuality (RV) engine scenario editor is one of its primary advantages. The reason other developers and indeed the primes do not want such easy technology given to the customer is that one of their primary sources of income is in providing the customer with scenarios.

The million monkey effect

It is a short sighted business model as a tens of developers cannot match the creativity of a millions of monkeys hitting all the keys and coming up with sonnets, not only that but once they learn how to make a sonnet being in actual fact "human monkeys" they can then produce sonnet after sonnet after sonnet. Also in the creating of scenarios, these training sergeant and junior officer developers better understand the concepts they are training others on, and become better at their primary task of being a soldier.

This million monkey effect is the primary driver behind the cloud computing concept. As a developer if you rely on in-house bespoke for anything other than specialist core factors of your engine then you are pitting your few tens of developers against a self training mass of thousands of developers and they will simply overwhelm you.

Any Developers that realise this are streets ahead in terms of development and have masses of resources to draw on. This is how a small company like BIS can simultaneously be nimble enough to run rings around and simultaneously overwhelm with numbers the likes of the big primes.

Letting the customer develop, and creating internal champions

This was part of BIS's strategy to change the market. Simply it placed the development of scenario content in the hands of the training sergeants and junior officers and other targeted key training personnel. Allowing them to create the training tools they needed. This gave BIS several key advantages. It turned many of those persons in to internal customer champions. It cut the scenario development business that the primes relied on out of the equation; essentially that business dried up overnight, and allowed BIS to then enter the scenario development market as a training and refinement provider.

As the provider of these new services BIS started out with advantages of both insider knowledge and experience of the product and providers of the services of those who had the requisite skill set from which to draw on, eg the modders in this community, in particular those who were former or serving military who then went on to become secure veted local contractors in each customer country.

Avoiding the secure lab trap

BIS created a concept of exposed variables for all security related details, leaving it to the customer to insert these, thereby escaping the cost of maintaining secure labs. Because the core BIS engine was staying out of the direct confidential and secure market it could make use of international development teams, that the secure lab environment precludes. Most of all this allowed BIS to make use of a wider, more experienced and skilled development team; than any Prime, restricted to the limited number of personnel, that are security cleared, and that all other primes are competing for.

This also negated the security cost based barriers (cost of expensive secure labs, vetting procedures and security cleared personnel) to entry that the Primes had relied to prevent the entry of low cost market entrants like BIS. And as soon as VBS was established it could then also go after that same security cleared jobs by supplying people from within the community which has always included very high proportions of former and serving military persons.

Mass market techniques

The key factor is that the market was changed to one conducive to the BIS business mass market model of stack it high sell it cheap, the COTS model of game engines. Giving much of the services that the bespoke suppliers relied on as included in the whole COTS package. This is not new this is what Tescos and Walmart did to the High Street butchers and the Chain Stores.

"Try before you buy" vs. "Pay through the Nose"

Once this was achieved it was then just a case of exposing as many senior people in the defense department to the product and its advantages via free trial use labs so that they could test the product, "Try before you buy", a truly shocking concept to customers used to "Pay through the Nose"; and allow them to discover for them selves that can do 80% of all the simulation that is needed but with modification tools that allow the customer or contractors to develop the final 20%. Straight up Pareto Analysis tells you to do this because that first 80% only takes 20% of the effort.

Making an offer they could not refuse

Then Make The Offer of an unlimited license that allows the customer to issue the product with a soldiers boots at a price offer of between a 10th and 100th of the cost of the best Bespoke product on the market, which only does a 10th of what the RV engine can do. It became a no brain-er.

With that Done VBS became the de facto simulator of NATO and the West.

In order for any product to compete with VBS such as this CRY engine based competitor it has to match or trump this low cost strategy with a cheaper one. And because VBS is already established it is hard for a market entrant to match the users existing understanding. This means they have to provide a similar editing interface as the customer is used to it and retraining them all to a new interface is an additional cost, to the customer, that they have already born in terms of VBS training and familiarity. This can then open them to claims of infringing copyright even the hint of which legal questions can kill a project. Or they have to come up with a new interface that relies on a different set of metaphors and analogies, and hope the customer will retrain all its soldiers.

As I point out this Mass Market environment is one that is alien to the Primes and requires them to rejig their business model. This then gives BIS time to establish itself in the primes former markets.

It was all about a market entry and change of market from pure bespoke to a mass market, a model that as game developer BIS knows. That plus negating the negative market effects of security considerations, without compromising security, which was as simple as applying the need to know security model correctly. A big argument the primes used to prevent low cost market entrants like BIS was to say their product was not developed in a secure lab by veted people, news up, neither is MS word. And that is the COTS business model VBS was following. For 99% of military simulation development security is not an issue. Once VBS was established as the market leading product, it could then use various business strategies to exploit the lucrative bespoke market from a position of strength.

For the Primes there is another problem. They cannot match the development team size that BIS are able to apply because most development costs for VBS are covered by the game, any additional use of the existing IP in the game engine is a cash cow. Most Bespoke products have a development team of under 10 people, though they do have high numbers of people involved in sales, administration and management.

Kind Regards walker

Edited January 15, 2011 by walker

[icebreakr 3159]

Well, engine is pretty much amazing when you're comparing it to A2. It took one guy just 2 months to make something spectacular looking like this.

[noubernou 77]

I don't see it as undercutting, only complimenting.

The reason that military sim software is high priced is the amount of customisation that goes into to it in porportion to the amount of people who will buy it.

The big profits are in games. Mass audience software. The more available developer tools are, the more people who are experienced using them, the easier it will be for the military to get their mods too.

The big profits are in games yes, but last time I checked ArmA2 filled a pretty small niche of the market and is the only game in its field, with its closest competitor being OFP:DR and that is not even near the same game as ArmA2 in terms of style.

There is far more money now in simulation for simulation purposes than there is for simulation for gaming. Its a sad fact reflecting a changing demographic of computer gamers.

I 100% guarantee you that this technology will be used in games far outside the expected price range of most gamers.

Also again, this is NOT a game that is being made, this company specializes in developing custom simulations for certain situations, at least thats as far as I can tell from their website. There is no "game" planned using this engine, but if you want to contract them and pay them tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to make you a simulation of xyz system then thats what they are offering.

@Walker

??? I don't get what you are getting at? Why is that directed at me?

Yes, VBS2 is CHEAPER than other simulators, but it is much MORE EXPENSIVE than normal games. Thats what I was trying to convey. If you are using VBS2 for anything other than personal use you have to have a support contract and those are $$$.

[dm 9]

If you are using VBS2 for anything other than personal use you have to have a support contract and those are $$$.

And you think thats going to be any different with a cryengine based solution?

[noubernou 77]

And you think thats going to be any different with a cryengine based solution?

Ahhh! No!

Thats what I am trying to say!

Where is this getting lost in translation? :confused:

[whisper 0]

Never look like you are bashing BI in front of DM, even if you don't intend to :P

[dm 9]

Where is this getting lost in translation? :confused:

Sorry, quoted you in response to some other people.

Hinting that the availability of the cryengine over that of the vbs-modified RV engine as an advantage, when the major modifications and improvements that will make realtime immersive "oh so much better" will only be available in the more expensive militrary version (just like with VBS) is a bit of a fallacy.

I didnt realise it was other people trying to make this point when I quoted you Nouber :o

Never look like you are bashing BI in front of DM, even if you don't intend to :P

:cool:

[Lorca 10]

Well, engine is pretty much amazing when you're comparing it to A2. It took one guy just 2 months to make something spectacular looking like this.

Yes, that's great. The Cryengine 2 is so easy to do amazing stuff. I remember when I first used it and I was bit clueless of the controls, of course. But once you know the interface you will be amazed of how convenient and intuitive the functions are. I cant wait for the Cryengine 3 Sandbox editor coming this March.

[Andre 10]

(...)

Edited January 24, 2011 by Andre

[Opticalsnare 12]

Sorry i coundnt resist it. But serously guys you need to take a step back for once and go, hmmm yeh times are changing game engines are getting better and better with more features being supported, like support for dx11 loads of other stuff like ragdolls, physics, a proper sound engine and other features. The RV is a great engine for what it is and can do, but its serously getting outdated in terms of graphics and features currently being rolled out on other engines. How far can it go before it needs a complete overhaul. Players get turned off by its basic design and clunkyness, the expression of a basic design works just fine just isnt working anymore. I have tried my best in making ArmA2 visually appealling and its been pretty hard, ive also tried my best at making the game sound better as alot of other modders have done so is well. The game IMHO has only lasted because of the dedicated modders in the community who try and make this game better, but we cannot change the most important thing and thats the engine.

Edited January 16, 2011 by Opticalsnare

[noubernou 77]

Sorry i coundnt resist it. But serously guys you need to take a step back for once and go, hmmm yeh times are changing game engines are getting better and better with more features being supported, like support for dx11 loads of other stuff like ragdolls, physics, a proper sound engine and other features. The RV is a great engine for what it is and can do, but its serously getting outdated in terms of graphics and features currently being rolled out on other engines. How far can it go before it needs a complete overhaul. Players get turned off by its basic design and clunkyness, the expression of a basic design works just fine just isnt working anymore. I have tried my best in making ArmA2 visually appealling and its not hard, ive also tried my best at making the game sound better as alot of other modders have done so. The game IMHO has only lasted because of the dedicated modders in the community who try and make this game better, but we cannot change the most important thing and thats the engine.

No offense Optical, but graphics are really the least of my concerns in a simulation. I'd rather have it looking like crap and allowing me to do really accurate simulations than having it look spiffy but not realistic. I'd be happy with OFP graphics and big improvements in the network stack and other things needed for hardcore simulation.

Going shiny and spiffy is not the way to go IMO.

And I am not a fanboy, because ArmA2 barely covers the needs of simulation well enough.

Edited January 16, 2011 by NouberNou

[nodunit 397]

Like anything else the two could have their strengths and weakenesses, on the one hand CE3 would be easier for small adjustable terrain and situations of simulated physics such as weather conditions in correlation to vehicle control and other things.

Whereas VBS2 would be the training and scenerio tool, with the versatility it has the sandbox feature is yet again it's strongest point, and while it may not have the physics or adjustable terrain CE3 would have it could simulate complex weapon and cargo systems with generally more ease.

Each tailored to it's strengths, VBS2=scenerio and complex weapons systems

CE3= physics and quick creation of terrain for many scenerio's.

[max power 21]

And for what training purpose would you need a physically accurate tornado ripping through a town made of corrugated aluminum?

If anyone has any proof that puts the 'fanboys' in their place, and shows that this training tool has such lush graphics with ArmA's say 5k view distance, with a comprarible objects draw distance, please, by all means, show us.

[nodunit 397]

EDIT: Ah screw it I'm staying out of this now.

Edited January 16, 2011 by NodUnit

[noubernou 77]

The thing is there really is nothing to argue about here. The videos are not of any specific game, just a demo of the CryEngine, we've seen it before, and its not really offering anything new to the argument.

ArmA2 has its major issues, in fact the last two nights I've gotten to the point where I just do not want to touch it right now I am so pissed off at it, but its still the best at what it does... :(

[Lorca 10]

And for what training purpose would you need a physically accurate tornado ripping through a town made of corrugated aluminum?

If anyone has any proof that puts the 'fanboys' in their place, and shows that this training tool has such lush graphics with ArmA's say 5k view distance, with a comprarible objects draw distance, please, by all means, show us.

Yeah, the Cryengine 2 or any other engine can't do lush graphics and at the same time do massive Arma style lands. In fact, Crysis 2 according to Cryteck CEO, will be smaller than original Crysis in terms of horizontal distance but instead it will have volumetric distance. In other words, it will have horizontal and vertical distance taking advantage of New York skyscrapers and whatnot.

Without a doubt within 6-8 years we will see both long distance terrain with lush graphics in the pc industry. But for now BI should concentrate in hiring a small team of debuggers because more than anything else bugs and bad optimization is what's slowly killing the Arma franchise. BI is actually lucky because so far as I notice in this community players care more about the gameplay and simulation accuracy than lush state-of-the-art graphics. The Crysis community is more demanding. They want everything done right.

Edited January 16, 2011 by Lorca

[NoRailgunner 0]

The Crysis community is more gfx/sfx demanding. They want everything done right gamey/to be a popcorn blockbuster.

fixed it for you. ;)

[Defunkt 431]

The Cryengine 2 is so easy to do amazing stuff.

Could you link me to some stand-out mods and total conversions then? I ask because I went looking recently, thinking I'd buy Crysis now it's cheap just to have a play with all the mods that have been in production since 2007 for a cutting-edge engine with state-of-the-art tools and found diddly squat. Didn't bother in the end, seemed like nobody was playing it or modding it much and what was in production seemed to be moving at a glacial pace. Maybe I just looked in the wrong places?

[dunedain 48]

Me think you did not bother to search, the SDK was only out about two years ago btw..

http://www.mechlivinglegends.net/

http://www.frenchtouchstudio.com/index/

http://www.openoutcast.org/wp/

http://starcry.media-pixel.net/index.php

http://www.x32i.org/

There are plenty of impressive maps done on Crysis as well...

http://www.youtube.com/user/DouceurTube#grid/user/0B2B7152E53279C2

Edited January 16, 2011 by dunedain

[Defunkt 431]

Well I started and ended at the official modding portal, I'd run across Cassus Belli some time before then (it was this I had in mind when I said progress is glacial). And plenty of impressive maps is a bit under-whelming if there's no new gameplay, Counter-Striike had a zillion cool maps made for it that nobody ever played. We'll have to agree to differ, what you've linked to is more-or-less what I found and a I thought it a bit disappointing (given all the hoopla about engine/tools).

[Opticalsnare 12]

Well I started and ended at the official modding portal, I'd run across Cassus Belli some time before then (it was this I had in mind when I said progress is glacial). And plenty of impressive maps is a bit under-whelming if there's no new gameplay, Counter-Striike had a zillion cool maps made for it that nobody ever played. We'll have to agree to differ, what you've linked to is more-or-less what I found and a I thought it a bit disappointing (given all the hoopla about engine/tools).

So your not prepared to play a game or check its editor yourself unless mods are involved?

[walker 0]

Hi all

There are several key factors that a CRY engine based training tools have to answer.

Profit

Is there a profit in their business model?

This is the first hurdle and from looking at their website I am afraid they have failed.

BIS make a profit by providing a true COTS product to the customer. They make their profit from selling the licence and providing a support package. They are also in a position to provide upgrades internationally by allowing core upgrades to be financed by any customer or group of customers and then roll them out as part of the support package to all customers or alternately to provide them as modules. Using this model VBS is continuously upgraded to meet further training needs at very low cost.

The key problem for the CRY engine competitor is that they have signed over the upgrades to their business partners. Who they then license the game engine too. These then each have to make a profit. This means also two layers of cost and profit. Inefficient at best and a massive cost increase and value decrease at worst.

First there is the CRY engines costs and profit then there is each of the Prime Partners costs and profits, and from my experience of how the primes work they will be looking for the lions share of the profits; say charging a Million US dollars to change the uniforms of some of the units. The key factor to making a profit from the Primes Cost Plus business model is HIGH COSTS THE HIGHER THE BETTER because you are making ~10% on that cost so the business model drives you to increase cost. As 10% of 10,000 is nothing like the profits of 10% of a million.

And serving those two masters is what will kill a CRY engine based solution.

Training Value

Can a CRY engine based solution fulfill unmet training needs?

You do not need great physics or graphics to fulfill a training need, of far more importance is the scenario development tool and the AAR tool. In the past this would have been a complicated process only to be carried out by the high priests of technical Primeness, developers along with a superannuated retired ex colonel/major or two employed as subject matter experts; to say it fulfilled the training need.

You also ideally institute a revolving door VV&A process, though if the customer catches you doing this you could be in deep doo doo.

VBS changed that. It placed the scenario development in the hands of serving training sergeants and training officers. This cut development time of training tools to months and even weeks or days.

It also removed scenario development as major income stream for primes. There is still a business in Scenario development but it is in training the customer to use the tool and offering a refinement service to existing training scenarios that are not efficiently using code. This follows the Rapid Application Development (RAD) philosophy to its logical conclusion of letting the customer design what they want then going in and improving the code, by both refining it and adding neat bells and whistles.

You also train them as part of this, by telling them and even writing down the process and putting it on a Wiki; "this I what I did this is how I did it", this builds the customer relationship making them more loyal. You are also creating future developers of your product who will then become contractors who prefer to use your product. It is called exceeding your customers expectations. It also incidentally excludes competitors who might seek to exploit this market.

Capability

Is the cry engine capable of fulfilling and bettering the same training as the existing system?

Now here is the point where the CRY engine supporters say they can win. Only they can't.

Physics Superiority! of ... wait a minute :butbut: :( :mad:

The Physics superiority is a myth based on client side physics that can only work in Single Player mode, I explained why in previous posts. The customer is not dumb and knows this. Even if they go down a Server side solution how are they going to get all that info to more than say 5 clients over existing network technology? As I keep saying on this subject: DO THE MATH! How much data has to sent per simulation frame multiply by number of clients and try to fit it in to your network capability of and dont forget network overheads like packet headers and footers.

You also seem to be under the wrong impression that BIS do not want such physics and are incapable of it, sorry but you are wrong, they did the math and decided; it was not technically possible, within the constraints of current physics understanding and Internet technology; and so stuck it on the back burner. And if even if a hardware solution exists, it exists for all engines including the RV engine. So any competitive advantage it could create is negated instantly.

On graphics.

The customer is only marginally interested in graphics quality they are aware that the human brain fills in, something a graphics whore is not aware of as they over focus in a decal being an inch out of place, and something a training soldier who is absorbed in the training would never notice, and VBS is being continuously developed and its graphics improved but more importantly the CRY engine is not capable of the view distances needed and so the CRY engine is fundamentally graphically deficient for military simulation needs.

Entity Count

Part of what VBS does is act as a visualisation tool for constructive simulators, this requires a capability of thousands and thousands of entities. Something the CRY engine cannot do.

Conclusion

In conclusion: The CRY engine has no way of making a profit, so is business disaster waiting to happen. It brings in no new training value, so wont have any customers, unless you count the primes trying to use it as a life vest. And is technically not up to the job, just cant hack it.

Kind Regards walker

Edited January 16, 2011 by walker