Realtime immersive - Militar simulator cryengine

[Baff1 0]

I think you'd be surprised. Australian army, British army, American army, Marines, all the other various country's armies, they pay more than £1000 per pop because they get tailored solutions. In fact it's more like a few thou per pop plus money per year for contractive support etc.

Given that all those soldiers combined equals to about 1.5 million people, I would be very surprised, yes.

Why would they need so many copies? How many times is any of those armies expecting to have more than 1,000 users online simultaneously?

The tailored solutions is a nice little earner. Jobs for the boys.

---------- Post added at 01:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:09 PM ----------

:popcornsmilie:

Also this engine does look quite promising, I would probably even be able to live with the (probably) reduced game area

I can't see why the game area would be "reduced".

The Egosoft engine has a game area measured in hundreds of lightyears.

Game area is a function of scale and computational power only. It is limited only by the programmers imagination.

Some game engines can even time travel!!!

The game area you choose to operate in has no limits. The amount of information you can populate that chosen area with, the number of polygons and AI's etc may differ from engine to engine, but this is one department in which Crytek have been leading the field. Their jungles are dense.

Can they produce a similar scaled enviroment to ArmA? Yes. Many game engines on the market do.

Will it have more or less models in an arena of the same size, I expect they will be broadly comparable. Both games have a very good track record in this department, both game engines use streaming technology and can push a modern computer to it's absolute hardware limitations.

Edited January 18, 2011 by Baff1

[dmarkwick 261]

Given that all those soldiers combined equals to about 1.5 million people, I would be very surprised, yes.

Why would they need so many copies? How many times is any of those armies expecting to have more than 1,000 users online simultaneously?

Well, I don't know whether you're saying you believe the VBS2 market to equal 1.5 million, or whether you believe all armies train in one spot only, but I don't think the VBS2 military market needs to be massive to turn a profit. It's expensive stuff to buy, and it's expensive stuff to maintain (which means annual fee per license/install BTW :))

Also, to clarify, VBS2 is not meant to train soldiers to be soldiers, it's meant to train soldiers in procedure only. The gamey stuff is just to make it interesting and lend consequence to decisions. As such, a training installation can be set up locally anywhere using a few laptops, with even trained personel making basic local maps etc.

---------- Post added at 02:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:23 PM ----------

I can't see why the game area would be "reduced".

The Egosoft engine has a game area measured in hundreds of lightyears.

Game area is a function of scale and computational power only. It is limited only by the programmers imagination.

Some game engines can even time travel!!!

The game area you choose to operate in has no limits. The amount of information you can populate that chosen area with, the number of polygons and AI's etc may differ from engine to engine, but this is one department in which Crytek have been leading the field. Their jungles are dense.

Can they produce a similar scaled enviroment to ArmA? Yes. Many game engines on the market do.

Will it have more or less models in an arena of the same size, I expect they will be broadly comparable. Both games have a very good track record in this department, both game engines use streaming technology and can push a modern computer to it's absolute hardware limitations.

Well, the egosoft area might be defined in light years, but that basically means seperate playing areas. There's no way everything is synced across such a large area in anything other than slow time.

[Baff1 0]

On the Egosoft engine, everything is highly synced across those area's in real time.

I couldn't think of a game that is more synchronised.

They don't have streaming technology however, so you do have loading screens.

I am saying that armies do not need 10's of thousands of copies of VBS for training. That sales of VBS, while high priced are not many.

As you say, I can run it off a laptop. Which means I can take my single copy to any soldier I please. I just don't need very many of them. It's not like a pair of trousers where I have to buy at least one for every soldier.

I'm sure it is profitable. But it's not profitable on the same scale as games software is. They don't earn more money just because they can charge more per copy.

In the same way, Ferrari doesn't earn more money than Ford. Despite being a sister company.

If you thought ArmA was a niche product... then VBS is a really, really, really niche product. A nice little earner, for sure, but still just a little earner rather than the primary income stram for BIS if you see what I mean.

Edited January 18, 2011 by Baff1

[dm 9]

I am saying that armies do not need 10's of thousands of copies of VBS for training. That sales of VBS, while high priced are not many.

As you say, I can run it off a laptop. Which means I can take my single copy to any soldier I please. I just don't need very many of them. It's not like a pair of trousers where I have to buy at least one for every soldier.

And you're assuming that the military can use that single [supposedly] $1500 dollar licence on as many pc's as they want? Hah.

just a little earner

Chuckles

[walker 0]

I am saying that armies do not need 10's of thousands of copies of VBS for training. That sales of VBS, while high priced are not many.

As you say, I can run it off a laptop. Which means I can take my single copy to any soldier I please. I just don't need very many of them. It's not like a pair of trousers where I have to buy at least one for every soldier.

Hi Baff1

Issuing VBS with a soldiers boots!

In this above statement you are 100% wrong! The whole marketing concept for VBS was to issue it with a soldiers boots! That every soldier is encouraged to download or directly given on DVD at least the lite version of the simulation, is the VBS business model.

Most countries buy VBS as either lab licenses which are considerably discounted or the enterprise license usually along with the support package allowing them to install as many copies as they like. So the price per individual license is not relevant to most militaries.

The US Army paid 17 Million US dollars for the enterprise license. Compared to the 4 Billion dollar cost of CCTT it is very very cheap, not only that but it can be used to upgrade the dodgy software in other systems like... it can also be used in a bog standard laptop in theatre on a ship or in barracks thus removing the cost of expensive training labs. It is included as the Lite version for recruits though there was some additional costs to mod the full VBS to a lite version but these were nominal.

Vesatility first, focus second

VBS is also very versatile in what it can train, but it is capable of being focused to training need using the Modding tools. Most of Primes Bespoke products are pure focus designed to do one job and one job only, a universal simulator destroys the Primes business model of the high priests of Primeness being necessary to create each individual simulation in as expensive a way as possible at dear old cost plus.

Marketing Math, prices designed to encourage 100% buy in

The US Army Active personnel is 1,477,896, Reserve personnel 1,458,500 plus any number of additional seats for training and research departments, and also officer training colleges etc. If we say a round figure of 4 Million seats we will not be far wrong 17 Million divided 4 Million works out to around 4 dollars per seat. That puts the per seat cost at less than a quarter the cost of them buying ArmA and yes the costs were designed that way.

The pricing structure was designed to encourage the customer at each stage to see it as a far better option to buy the next discount phase up. It was also designed to make it obvious for the military customer that VBS was cheaper than ArmA. BIS were not interested in selling individual licenses, they could never make a profit selling that way which is the same as the Prime's business model, as I keep hammering on about, the concept was to CHANGE THE SHAPE OF THE MARKET from the high cost low volume Primes based bespoke model to the Mass Market model used in the games market that BIS as a business was designed to compete in.

The US Army, USMC, UK MOD, CA and ADF all followed that strategy and the whole of NATO as well as most of the PFP countries are in the process of following it too.

By doing this BIS ensured the maximum amount of sales and flooded the market, thus seriously disrupting its competitors, and allowing it to take advantage as the stupid ones go extinct and the brighter ones spend time and money rearranging the company to cope with the new market environment.

Market exploitation from a position of strength

VBS is now busy hoovering up modification contracts and expanding into more and more roles. Most of their competitors are having to go cap in hand to ask if they can develop on the platform, BISim say fine here is our developer partner pricing structure :) and hoover up more cash. The customer wants training in VBS their first port of call is the originators of the program BISim, they want code refinement or new MODs, they want a source of local developers or administrators for labs to get security cleared, who is their first port of call? BISim and this communities former and serving military members of course.

I'm sure it is profitable. But it's not profitable on the same scale as games software is. They don't earn more money just because they can charge more per copy.

In the same way, Ferrari doesn't earn more money than Ford. Despite being a sister company.

If you thought ArmA was a niche product... then VBS is a really, really, really niche product. A nice little earner, for sure, but still just a little earner rather than the primary income stream for BIS if you see what I mean.

Correct

I agree with this 100%. Games is a far more lucrative market, as I say the whole thing about VBS is that it is a Cash Cow developed off an existing product. Entering this niche market is a sensible strategy but you need to do it without the Primes.

So in order to compete any CRY engine based solution has to achieve both similar capability and pricing something that does not leave sufficient room for profits for both the engine developer and Primes. That is because BISim purposefully changed the market. Essentially it undercuts the competition, just the same as Microsoft did to IBM, but be aware just like the PC boom that followed Microsoft's PC revolution there is now a simulation boom in the offing so the developers of the CRY Engine have identified the coming market what they have not done is identify how to exploit it.

Kind Regards walker

Edited February 3, 2011 by walker
How VBS is cheaper than ArmA if you a military customer

[Prydain 1]

Some game engines can even time travel!!!

Time travel is the wrong term to use here because it is a game engine. I would think that all games have time travel... VBS2 has replay features, as the AAR demonstrates, and it shares the ability to alter time with every game in the series, as the Fast Forward feature demonstrates.

CryEngine2, (I suspect 3 too) when talking about time, is superior though since you can create partitioned areas on a map which can be identical and existing in very close proximity to each other that the player can jump to (done in Crysis, the game, a few times in a subtle way) to enact certain parts of a single player level or, as would be appropriate with a military trainer, play out different scenarios with randomised occurrences, ect.

[draakon 11]

Just my 2 cents on this topic:

First of all, a huge fact I want to make sure everyone understand about both game engines(Reality Virtual engine and the Cryengine): They both CAN be military simulators, for any military application, the same way as the other. Except a few cases(which I am mentioning).

Now, the real difference between Cryengine and Reality Virtual(I am going to take Arma 2 and VBS2 into account here) is indeed mostly their market, as said before. Crysis and Far Cry(where the engine acctualy began) were both targeted at civilian market. To be more precise, gaming. And not they were targeting for good gameplay, they were making the game appealing to artistical persons(for those who don't know what I mean: Graphics fans). And because Crytek had chosen one of it's goals being succesful in the above mentioned market, and thus like any similar path by huge game industry companys, they knew they were going to get a lot of money from the sales. Also, ads!

This is where Arma 2(well, technically VBS2 as well, since the game is similar, only extended) and it's developers, Bohemia Interactive, decided to do something different. Yes, when OPF back in the day was launched, there were only very few(and I mean FEW) realistic games(some only took a part of it and that was it). But, that is not the reason for why OPF is not popular as any other game. The reason acctualy was the lack of advertisment. Back then, Xbox 360 and PS3 were dreams. If BI had done more ads, the game would be a lot popular and maybe then, more sim and reality like games would had been available on the market. Alas, this is not the case. Because of that, arcade games could start taking over the market(CoD, CS and such similar games) and turn the juicy gaming industry market side into a certain mainstream products. What I mean is that when you try to sell a simulator or similar game to a teenager, he is not going to buy it. Hes just too used to fast paced game. Some such people who I managed to get playing Project Reality(Battlefield 2 mod) didn't play the game for a few weeks, since in the first 5 minutes, they got bored really fast. Anyway, that itself is another topic, but my point being is, for Arma 2 to be more popular, it needs more advertisment. TV's, magazines, radios, everywhere!

But overall, this created another opportunity for BI. Namely, the VBS2 case. People are saying, it's expensive because the extra work on it and it's cool shiny new stuff not available in the Arma series. Althought, I do not work for BI, my experience as well as the current situation in todays market tells me, if they would sell VBS2 for as much as Arma 2 today is, they will not gain back the expenses. Yes, BI CAN sell VBS2 as a mainstream product, advertising it as such. Althought, I don't know why are they not taking steps a bit there. Another myth that's been talked about(well, I atleast hear it a lot), is that since it's a military simulator, it's somehow connected to the military as their secret project, their equipment and such are. Not true. Or there wouldn't be a PE version available.

What I am saying about this is, BI's decision on VBS2 was a bit bad IMO. They could had released it into the mainstream as well, advertising it. But in the meantime, different militarys can use it for training as well. What prevents someone using Counter-Strike Source as a training application for their soldiers(just taking CSS as an example) or as a base for modding. Not the military itself nor the laws. It's the company who makes those limitations. If there is a line EULA(or TOS if you prefer) saying: "[insert random section here] You are not premitted to use this product as a military application." then yes, military personell are not allowed to use VBS2.

Anyway, that's my thought about on the market side.

Now, you guys talked a lot about the modding and editing side of things. Here are a few fact's for you:

1. Both games have the capability to change the game into something different with built in support..

In the case of Arma, it's the IG editor and it's scripting language.

In the case of Crysis, it's the standalone editor(for free) and it's different functionalities there.

The main difference between the 2 are, that one game has All-in-one product as standalone, while the other has the stuff scattered a bit. This leads to my second point:

2. Functionality and user-friendliness.

Now, before you go bashing around, I have done some personal stuff in both games. But my experience does not limit only to that. Since like 2000, I have played many games with they each having their uniqe modding cabapilites. But anyway, I personally find the Sandbox editor to be more user friendly and much more practical then the ones in Arma as well as several other persons. In Sandbox, I just press a few buttons, look at some shiny text and press a few buttons as well and I have a working nice CQB battle ready.

In Arma 2, it's involes a bit more then just pressing buttons. Althought, both require having a brain and understanding plain english, the sandbox editor has much more functionally built in and makes more sense as well.

3. On the fly.

In Sandbox, if you have a scenario made up and you wanna change it and look what happens after that, it's easy. For example, let's take a random FB somewhere. And I want to add a static M249 inside a bunker as well as someone manning it. In Sandbox, I spawn the weapon, move it into positon, use the menu to lock it/attach it into place. Then, I spawn a soldier and using the menu again, I can group the 2 togheter, thus it allows me to make the soldier use the gun. It's almost the same in VBS2 as well, but I have to use scripting for such a simple task. AFAIK, you can't spawn a empty static weapon and make the soldier already in mount position when starting the game.

Also, in Sandbox, if i hit the green arrow button, it takes me a second or so and i can already playtest.

Now, that's about it, as far as it concerns me, because those are the major reasons why I prefer Sandbox over any other editor.

But one fact remains: Both can be indentical in the way how the game is played.

Edit: VBS2 having it's editor built in or Crysys having it as standalone does not make a difference in how more popular either game is. The editor itself does.

Physics.

Yes, Cryengine has better physics. Yes, it's disabled by default in multiplayer. No, that does not mean you can't have it in multiplayer.

Most of the time, at least around here, VBS2 is played at a LAN network. So, bandwidth issue is out of the question. It can be used in LAN, since you don't use your allocated bandwidth by your ISP. LAN bandwidth depends on the router(and any other switches/cables), the server's network card and CPU. Althought I don't know if there have been done any kind of testing when concerning this or how the behind the scenes stuff goes in both games, but Physics are really douable. And I mean in the level of crysis. The fact is, 1 server only needs to do Physics related calculations. And that's the server. If it has a good CPU, then okay, that's good. We can definetly do Physics in a LAN server with this computer. But when you go over the internet, the most importan factor comes into play next: How is the physics info transfered from server to client and what kind of info? Most games I have played and which have some form of Physics have done a simple thing really. Let me explain:

Let's take an example I am going to cut a tree in half. Well, with my chainsaw in my hand, I click a button to start cutting it into half. That command is sent to the server, if the server acnowledes it, it will calculate the trees landing path and any other neccesary thing, like what happens to the grass on the ground once the tree hit's the ground. After that calculation is done, the info is sent back to the client as well any other for them to see the changes and the seeing part happens. Animations and such are now being executed. And once the action is done, the client will use the given info by the server to display the landing path and any other neccesary stuff. So really, Physics=Douable in MP. And even in Crysys level. And since we live in 2011, internet speed today is not a issue.

Graphics

This is just purely an user taste and opinon. Nothing else, nothing more. And having pixel art or HDD quality ary doesn't change the gameplay. It might look cool, but that's about it.

And no, you don't need a supercomputer for it. A simple Radeon HD 4000 series is enogh to make your game look cool.

[noubernou 77]

The one thing to remember about physics is that VBS2 needs to work with other platforms as well using HLA (or DIS). Alllll of that physics stuff that does cool things like dynamic debris would have to be sent and some how handled in other platforms (to varying degrees).

The simpler the better in terms of ancillary stuff.

[mrcash2009 0]

Draakon ... I realy want to read your post but I just can bring myself to look

[SprintJack 10]

Crysis 2 Engine Enlists with the U.S. Army for New Military Simulator

by John Gaudiosi

May 26, 2011 11:01 AM PT

The United States Army is funding what could the most realistic military simulator ever developed, and they're doing it with the same technology that powered Crysis 2.

The U.S. Army is spending $57 million on what's essentially the most realistic video game ever made. And they're using Crytek's CryEngine 3 technology to power the new combat simulator, which means soldiers will get an exclusive gaming experience that goes well beyond Crysis 2 or Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3.

The new Dismounted Soldier Training System (DSTS) from tech company Intelligent Decisions will enable U.S. soldiers, leaders, and units to train within a photorealistic video game environment that features real weather conditions, squad interactions, and advanced motion sensor technology for full 360-degree movement in-game. The Army will have 102 systems in place globally in January 2012.

"What we're trying to do with infantry squad-level training is suspension of disbelief, and the CryEngine 3 is the best video game technology on the market today," said Floyd West, Director of Strategic Programs, Orlando Division of Intelligent Decisions. "With CryEngine 3 being used for Crysis 2 and the capabilities that game engine provides, it allows us to make the most realistic simulation possible. We're able to transport soldiers to accurately recreated locales like Afghanistan and Iraq, where we can simulate everything from visuals to 360-degree sound."

Soldiers will gear up with special head-mounted displays on their helmets to bring the virtual world to life, but they'll still have some real-world peripheral vision to ensure they don't bump into their squad mates. Each soldier will put on a backpack, called a "man wearable system," which is essentially a maxed-out gaming laptop (although one you wouldn't be able to buy at any retailer).

"While the man wearable units aren't running on an off-the-shelf Alienware, the internal components themselves are commercial off-the-shelf CPU's and GPU's like NVIDIA graphic cards and whatnot," said West.

The training area consists of a 10-by-10 foot pad for each soldier to operate within. A full range of motion is captured in the game, allowing soldiers to move and look in any direction. Firing weapons is handled using a joystick. Voice communication is done in-game amongst squad mates.

"The goal is to complete common operating environments, so the things the Army is doing today would be Afghanistan, the mountainous, cavernous regions, and the Iraqi desert-like regions, as well as wooded areas," said West. "We have some geotypical and common operating environments built-in for training, but the system will come with an editor that allows real missions to be created in the field."

West said that Crytek's game engine allows editors to create extremely detailed environments within the virtual world. DSTS accurately simulates the movement of ground vehicles, aircraft, dismounted infantry, and guided weapons. The training system also conforms visually with the environment by identifying such elements as footprints, disturbed soil and grass, rolling terrain, and dense vegetation.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/34896/Crysis_2_Engine_Powers_57M_Army_Training_VR_Sim.php

OglCqZq3pcE&hd=1

[CameronMcDonald 146]

Heh, that's kewl. I wish I had 57 million dollars.

[max power 21]

The character design and the animation for the presenter were terrible. The animations on the whole weren't great. The shader quality (like the skin shader) was less than I was expecting. The view distance from the air was a lot more than I was expecting, though. This video seems to look less realistic than the last video I saw of this technology.

[Laqueesha 474]

Dare I say, ARMA 2/VBS 2 ain't got shit on this? :p

Edited May 28, 2011 by Laqueesha

[nodunit 397]

Depends on what the tool is used for and how much of it is actually realtime dynamics versus flowgraphs, looks don't count for jack when it comes to military simulators (I wouldn't be suprised if they said get rid of the shader textures later in). It seems they are focusing on one of CE's major strongpoints, the map editor since they could create things far easier and adjust at a moments notice.

But yes VBS2 does have plenty of shit on this :P UAV's, sling loads, loading programs, vehicle operations, hand signal training, evaluation kits and so on.

Edited May 28, 2011 by NodUnit

[Richey79 10]

The video didn't show very much of what the engine can do in action.

The shaders and lighting were very nice, but something about it looked rather cartoonish. The animations were a bit 'weightless', like they were walking in low gravity.

None of this matters if the engine can only handle the six units at a time that the video showed. No indication of what it looks like in first-person.

I certainly wouldn't say that this looks like a more effective tool than VBS or Arma2, although I'm sure we'd all like to see Arma3's graphics take something of a step in this direction.

[nodunit 397]

I'm sure we'd all like to see Arma3's graphics take something of a step in this direction.

Maybe, depends on what has to be taken out for it.

[ScratcH1 10]

I'm sure we'd all like to see Arma3's graphics take something of a step in this direction.

ArmA3's graphics are already pretty good imo but I'd like to see the lightning effects and the dynamic nightvision in ArmA3.

[nodunit 397]

dynamic nightvision?

[ScratcH1 10]

dynamic nightvision?

Skip to 0:37

[nodunit 397]

Oooh that.

[ScratcH1 10]

Oooh that.

Yep, pretty impressive imo

[Pyronick 21]

What the hell is "dynamic" nightvision? I do see anything "dynamic" about this. Perhaps they just are referring to the combination of HDR and night vision?

[purepassion 22]

i think they are talking about the "dynamic" lensflares.

[Bob.Dob 0]

US Army goes with CryEngine 3 for Military Simulator

Read more @ http://gaming.operationreality.org/2011/05/28/us-army-goes-with-cryengine3-military-simulator/

Sounds like BIS is going to really need to step it up a few notches in face of such competition (in particular with regards to their Real Virtuality engine when compared with an essentially free and open Cryengine 3 - that's difficult to rival)! Anyways hopefully that will be a good thing for us ARMA players! ;)

Not to mention both those companies that won the contract are based in Orlando Florida, and if i'm not mistaken BIS just opened up an office recently in Orlando did they not? I'm curious if BIS was competing against Real Time Immersive and Intelligent Decisions for this particular contract or not? Did you lose out or did you not bid at all? If not, why not? $57 million USD is a lot of cash for this type of thing! Dayum! :p

Edited May 28, 2011 by Bob.Dob

[mrcash2009 0]

I think the main thing about "dynamic" is the reactive lense flare, that added would be do able for A3.

Oops didn't see PurePassion's post :)