US army now a VBS2 customer

[walker 0]

Hi all

Noticed a new article discussing VBS use by the US Army. While VBS is used a lot by the USMC, US special forces, some US National Guard units and officer training this is the first time I have noticed it taken up by the US Army in general.

Quote[/b] ]Gaming maximizes Army training resources

By John Milburn - The Associated Press

Posted : Monday Apr 28, 2008 9:53:53 EDT

FORT RILEY, Kan. — A team of advisers listens to instructions about the pending mission, where to go and what to expect winding through Baghdad’s streets.

Contact with insurgents is likely, so the team is reminded of basic techniques: stay focused, stay alert and talk to each other.

They strap on helmets, pick up their weapons and climb into four Humvees.

Lights go out. Sounds come up. The mission begins.

Although it looks like just a video game, for these soldiers it’s also a training session designed to simulate combat. The Army believes lessons learned while shooting at a computer-generated insurgent can save lives when the bullets are not just pixels on a monitor.

“It’s all based on the commander’s guidance and commander’s intent. I’m not here to play games with them,†said Mario Miramontez, an instructor at Fort Riley’s Warrior Skills Trainer. “We just make sure they are doing the tactics, techniques and procedures right.â€

The Army feels so strongly about gaming technologies that it carved out an area inside the National Simulations Center at Fort Leavenworth to develop the next generation of computer simulators. Working off the commercially available Virtual Battle Space 2 gaming engine, a team of 20 soldiers and civilians is creating something new that could put realistic training for soldiers on a laptop, even linking them to others in the world...

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/04/ap_skillstrainer_042708/

Follow link for the full story

Interesting article showing the increasing acceptance of VBS as a training tool.

Kind regards walker

[Heatseeker 0]

Quote[/b] ]

The Army feels so strongly about gaming technologies that it carved out an area inside the National Simulations Center at Fort Leavenworth to develop the next generation of computer simulators. Working off the commercially available Virtual Battle Space 2 gaming engine, a team of 20 soldiers and civilians is creating something new...

It sounds more like they licensed the graphics engine and are doing something with it, who knows how deep they will be able to "touch" it .

Heres a quote that brings back memories...

Quote[/b] ]

Fort Riley soon will get one of the first prototypes of the system, replacing DARWARS Ambush!, which links groups of computers to teach soldiers how to run basic convoys. Soldiers using DARWARS sit in groups of five behind a keyboard and monitor, except for the driver, who has a small steering wheel.

Words can make something sound terrific, even if its just some crap.. lol.

[dslyecxi 23]

It sounds more like they licensed the graphics engine and are doing something with it, who knows how deep they will be able to "touch" it .

I wouldn't read too much into it. The writer could easily take scripting/mod-style development, not understand exactly what that entails, and make it sound more significant than it actually is.

[shinRaiden 0]

It sounds more like they licensed the graphics engine and are doing something with it, who knows how deep they will be able to "touch" it .

I wouldn't read too much into it. The writer could easily take scripting/mod-style development, not understand exactly what that entails, and make it sound more significant than it actually is.

Indeed. The immediately following quote should more than illustrate that point :

Quote[/b] ]The Army is building on the VBS2 platform to replicate buildings, vehicles, weapons and troop movements. All the elements can be manipulated to increase the frequency of attacks or impact of explosions, for example.

[Call911-AGE- 0]

"National Simulations Center at Fort Leavenworth", aw man thats like not even 2 hrs south of where I currently live (central US)!! I even trained  there once with my Guard unit. Would almost be worth looking into seeing if the public could sit in one of there sessions(highly unlikely) but never thought I'd see VBS2 so close to home.Nice find!!

10 yrs ago I would've put it a strong request/recommendation to my chain of command to definatly pusue using VBS2 if'n it was unvailable then

[walker 0]

Hi all

My view and one I have pushed in various quarters for some time now is that VBS should be a NATO wide package.

My long term goal/dream is for VBS to available to every soldier and issued with their boots and rifle and stay with them through into their time in the reserves.

I know that most packages have to be built, created and tested in the labs; where they can be analysed for negative training effects, and that some training modules will always have to be in such places; whether it be for formal training environment requirements or use of classified materials reasons.

That said, many none classified training modules and scenarios lend themselves to being run from a controlled server and can be monitored for negative training effects in such an environment and as more officers and training sergeants become proficient in using the system I think NATO will find it gets more benefit from it.

The key benefits of VBS are the obvious from the above article, communications, tactics, techniques and procedures, but the most telling is this that VBS can

Quote[/b] ]...allow soldiers to develop confidence in each other before they deploy...

Ibid

I am happy that marksmanship is transferring from the Laser-shot environment and the fact a training sergeant is saying it is enhancing that process is a great boon.

The things that will cause the Army to take real notice are:

1) Improvement the amount of time spent really training instead of faffing about.

2) Improvement in metrics

3) The massive cost improvements

I know the licenses BIS/BIA push are enterprise licenses I hope that those in NATO realise that this is for their benefit. If all the units of NATO can regularly train together and improve their communications and experience of their colleagues equipment and methods by the sheer number of times they can train together; it will, I am sure, save lives and make for a more effective force.

I draw everyones attention to this article

http://virtualbattlespace.vbs2.com/index.p....emid=62

Kind Regards walker

[wld427 1705]

"National Simulations Center at Fort Leavenworth", aw man thats like not even 2 hrs south of where I currently live (central US)!! I even trained  there once with my Guard unit. Would almost be worth looking into seeing if the public could sit in one of there sessions(highly unlikely) but never thought I'd see VBS2 so close to home.Nice find!!

10 yrs ago I would've put it a strong request/recommendation to my chain of command to definatly pusue using VBS2 if'n it was unvailable then  

we one of these systems here at ft campbell....... you have to have a secret clearance just to get in the building.....

[Call911-AGE- 0]

Yeah figured as much. Just a thought good to see, (off topic) who knows maybe it will shed some light on ArmAII when it's released. Still good too see VBS2 being more widespread use other then from what I heard an read was only USMC an some other foreign armies.

[shinRaiden 0]

Hi all

My view and one I have pushed in various quarters for some time now is that VBS should be a NATO wide package.

My long term goal/dream is for VBS to available to every soldier and issued with their boots and rifle and stay with them through into their time in the reserves.

I know that most packages have to be built, created and tested in the labs; where they can be analysed for negative training effects, and that some training modules will always have to be in such places; whether it be for formal training environment requirements or use of classified materials reasons.

That said, many none classified training modules and scenarios lend themselves being run from a controlled server and can be monitored for negative training effects in such an environment and as more officers and training sergeants become proficient in using the system I think NATO will find it gets more benefit from it.

The key benefits of VBS are the obvious from the above article, communications, tactics, techniques and procedures, but the most telling is this that VBS can

Quote[/b] ]...allow soldiers to develop confidence in each other before they deploy...

Ibid

I am happy that marksmanship is transferring from the Laser-shot environment and the fact a training sergeant is saying it is enhancing that process is a great boon.

The things that will cause the Army to take real notice are:

1) Improvement the amount of time spent really training instead of faffing about.

2) Improvement in metrics

3) The massive cost improvements

I know the licenses BIS/BIA push are enterprise licenses I hope that those in NATO realise that this is for their benefit. If all the units of NATO can regularly train together and improve their communications and experience of their colleagues equipment and methods by the sheer number of times they can train together; it will, I am sure, save lives and make for a more effective force.

I draw everyones attention to this article

http://virtualbattlespace.vbs2.com/index.p....emid=62

Kind Regards walker

From? LaserShot's very much involved, if you want to shoot guns at a VBS2 visual screen you have to go through LaserShot's equipment.

[walker 0]

Hi all

Just to remove any confusion I may have caused shinRaiden or any one else I will parse the sentence more clearly.

From the sentence commenting on the excellent work of Lasershot; using VBS as the visualisation and scenario editing portion of their simulation environment where I said:

Quote[/b] ]I am happy that marksmanship is transferring from the Laser-shot environment and the fact a training sergeant is saying it is enhancing that process is a great boon.

When I discussed this matter some time ago with various involved people. The opinion at that time was that marksmanship would not be one of the skills that would transfer from a simulation into the real world. Rather that skills such as decision making and tactical awareness would be the ones that could be trained from such an environment.

The assumption and the results from previous less detailed simulation environments at the time was that motor skills would not be positively affected and might even negative train in such an environment; though the trade off in tactical and decision making was worth use of such a system.

The work by lasershot in VBS is I think unique in being able to say it has had positive results on speeding up marksmanship training; as described by the training sergeant in the article.

To my knowledge no other simulated training environment has had a positive effect on marksmanship training. They have all been purely focused on tactical awareness and decision making (the classic do I shoot the white woman with her hand in the bag or the mean looking bald black guy with his hands open out to his side pop up target stuff)

VBS is obviously better tool than those old tools for tactical awareness and decision making just on purely on graphics, environment, AI or human opponent and scenario building grounds but the improvement of speed marksmanship training is as I said unprecdented.

Kind Regards walker

[General Barron 0]

Quote[/b] ]To my knowledge no other simulated training environment has had a positive effect on marksmanship training. They have all been purely focused on tactical awareness and decision making

Well this certainly isn't true. The US military has been using the FATS marksmanship trainer for at least 10-15 years.

The FATS is specifically designed to be a marksmanship trainer, and it does that *very* well. It also has pre-recorded (video) scenarios, which is where you get the "shoot / no shoot" training.

FATS worked together with DARPA to create the virtual convoy trainer, which is kinda like Ambush! with a FATS screen to shoot at.

I haven't used the virtual convoy trainer, but I have used FATS, and it *is* good at training marksmanship. I thin the big areas where it would lose out to lasershot / vbs2 is in collective training and in scenario design.

In VBS2 you can easily create all sorts of scenarios, which you can't do in FATS (you can only make new shooting ranges, not shoot/no shoot scenarios).

In VBS2 you can train a group of people to work together across a wide range of disciplines. For example, you can have APCs and people on foot. In FATS you are only teaching marksmanship.

Also, VBS2 is DIS/HLA compliant, while I'm not sure if FATS is. That is why VBS2 can be linked with an AC-130 simulator as mentioned in the article.

So, no, VBS/lasershot isn't unprecidented in terms of marksmanship training. That's not to say it isn't the best tool for that job (and others), though.

[walker 0]

Hi all

I thought FATS had been or was being upgraded from Video and photos to a simulated environment?

I was not aware it had been validated as a marksmanship training tool so thank you for correcting me.

Kind Regards walker

[General Barron 0]

I thought FATS had been or was being upgraded from Video and photos to a simulated environment?

The version I've used had a very, very crude / ugly 3d mode (in addition to 2d and video modes). Compared to VBS (or even OFP), it is junk.

But, again, the system I used is at least 1 generation old, possibly more. By now they might have a better 3d engine, maybe even whatever is being used in the VCCT.

IMO, the VCCT doesn't look too flash when compared to VBS2 / Lasershot, though.

Except for the semi-truck, of course. I don't think Lasershot has one of those.

[edit]

In this photo, you can clearly see a monitor that is labeled "FATS 3D" (bottom left monitor). So, the VCCT must use the current generation of FATS 3D. I'll leave it up to the reader to determine if it is better than VBS2.

[walker 0]

Hi all

It looks like the CCTT/CATT environment used for the front end. Super mega expensive, cost the UK 200 million pounds (400 milion dollars) to set up two labs, one at Warminster the other in Germany. The US Army spent about 2 or 3 billion on it for which they got more labs and those semi-trucks your talking about.

Like you General Barron I leave it to others to asses the quality of that evironment in comparison to VBS2.

Kind Regards walker

[dslyecxi 23]

Except for the semi-truck, of course. I don't think Lasershot has one of those.

I can't comment on much of anything that has been said regarding FATS/LaserShot here, for obvious reasons, but I will say that yes, LaserShot does have a trailer-based firearms training solution (that supports live-fire as well as virtual gunnery).

I was an instructor on a FATS ISMT system during my time in the Marines, so I'm very familiar with what that iteration of their systems offered. One of the things I always wanted back then was the ability to interface it with VBS1 (at the time) - now I actually work on that very concept with LaserShot & VBS2. I think that says enough.

edit:

If you would like to see some footage of the LaserShot convoy trainer, you can find some here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b58zI-ZlaXg

Compare that with the visuals of the VCCT offered by Lockheed/FATS if you feel so inclined.

[shinRaiden 0]

Except for the semi-truck, of course. I don't think Lasershot has one of those.

I can't comment on much of anything that has been said regarding FATS/LaserShot here, for obvious reasons, but I will say that yes, LaserShot does have a trailer-based firearms training solution (that supports live-fire as well as virtual gunnery).

I was an instructor on a FATS ISMT system during my time in the Marines, so I'm very familiar with what that iteration of their systems offered. One of the things I always wanted back then was the ability to interface it with VBS1 (at the time) - now I actually work on that very concept with LaserShot & VBS2. I think that says enough.

edit:

If you would like to see some footage of the LaserShot convoy trainer, you can find some here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b58zI-ZlaXg

Compare that with the visuals of the VCCT offered by Lockheed/FATS if you feel so inclined.

Just for clarification :

The US Army (dunno exactly about USMC, but I suppose it's comparable) has in place the Engagement Skills Trainer. The project manager is Cubic, the equipment is FATS, and I don't know who was responsible for the visuals.

The CATT/VCCT is run by Lockheed Martin, with FATS equipment and Raydon graphics.

Digging around on the America's Army website, the America's Army Experience, as well as lite versions in National Guard elements frequently visiting state fairs and such, reports using America's Army graphics and Lasershot, Inc. equipment.

A good breakout of various systems can be found here : http://mst.texterity.com/mst/2005-4/?pg=17 Some of the information maybe a bit outdated of course.

[walker 0]

Hi all

Thanks for the video link Dslyecxi

Nice to see the increasing adoption of Aircrewman Virtual Reality Simulators (AVRS) and gunnery trainer going well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hd44w6jYMRk&feature=related

The remark about reducing load-master attrition by 25% is impressive.

Kind regards walker

[canukausiuka 1]

My experience with the VCCT was rather mixed. I would argue that the marksmanship training is very limited. I found that my weapon did not shoot where I aimed (I was on the M2, perhaps the M16s were better about this). The biggest lessons from the VCCT were in communications and cohesion.

Of course, it is possible that the trailers we used just weren't kept up well. The instructors told us that one trailer was pretty much always responsible for 75% of the kills, regardless of where he was in the convoy. I guess what I'm saying is that just because you use a model rifle for the simulation doesn't mean it teaches marksmanship.

[walker 0]

Hi all

In reply to Canukausiuka.

I find it odd that with Lockheed Martin's budget for CCTT/CATT that they are not following normal maintenance protocols.

Part of the setup must surely be zeroing each weapon to their particular environment, in this case a particular trailer, before training begins. This is obvious training 101.

I presume the training room protocol is also that it is each soldiers job to zero the weapon in the particular training environment before training starts.

If the problem still persists then it is my guess that it is in the training room tracking system that is in error and it is the job of the training manager who is running that particular lab to fix it pronto.

And since I am assuming an AAR system is standard in FATS it must record stats; then the FATS/Lockheed Martin contractor must be not only aware of the facts but have a comparative graph of the trailers showing any disparity. In fact I would go so far as to say that such comaparative stats should be part of the ongoing Verification Validation And Accreditation (V&A) procedure.

If they are not following a proper maintenance and VV&A procedures then that would be truly shocking.

Kind regards walker

[wld427 1705]

My experience with the VCCT was rather mixed.  I would argue that the marksmanship training is very limited.  I found that my weapon did not shoot where I aimed (I was on the M2, perhaps the M16s were better about this).  The biggest lessons from the VCCT were in communications and cohesion.

Of course, it is possible that the trailers we used just weren't kept up well.  The instructors told us that one trailer was pretty much always responsible for 75% of the kills, regardless of where he was in the convoy.  I guess what I'm saying is that just because you use a model rifle for the simulation doesn't mean it teaches marksmanship.

I second that......

The VCCT is a good concept. Unfortunatley like everything else army once it makes it down to the troops its over used and out dated. We tried to make a better training event out of it but our ACIP radios kept shutting off the server. Seemed like it took 15 minutes to set up then the rolling vehicle took 2 minutes to stop and the guy with an RPG was indistinguishable ftom the old lady with a baby.

Basically my troops got nothing out of it.

[walker 0]

Hi all

wld427 Do you think the VCTT/CCTT/CATT would work better if they were to replace the software with VBS2 as the graphic presentation environment?

Kind Regards walker

[wld427 1705]

I think it would definately help. The VCCT trainer editor looked almost like a hopped up version of command and conquer generals. I think its definately the right concept. Maybee technology has not been able to get there just yet.

[canukausiuka 1]

The graphics on the VCCT are not great, so VBS2 would be a definite improvement there. And some of the things you encounter are just ridiculous (normal cars just drive down the road, VBIEDs go everywhere with no regard to either intelligence or physics). There was no "zero your weapon" phase to the training... we were told (on the M2s) to just use our tracers as a guide, and the guys with M16s... I guess they just had to keep shooting.

Like wld427 said, its a good concept. Its just not as amazing as you would think.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Can't say much to either of them, but I did have a field day with Lasershot's product a few months ago. I say Dslyecxi did a great job putting those two together. To those who are wondering how it goes, think of playing ARMA or VBS2 with mock rifles. It is fun.

From the video provided by General Barron, I'd say VBS2 kicks VCCT's ass.