The financial crisis and ArmA2/BIS

[MontyVCB 0]

I think another problem with US car companies is they produce too many SUVs, 4x4s & other large vehicles. I can't remember the last time GM produced a cost effective 5 door family saloon car. Would be interesting to see if diesel would catch on in personal cars if it was more widely available in the US. Here in the UK they have become really popular.

[Pulverizer 1]

If BIS were to fail as a business model then you can say goodbye to the simulation based FPS game.

I already got OFP so I don't care. BIS might not ever do anything significantly better for the gamers, because it is a business.

Quote[/b] ]And the Full Universe Simulator (FUS) which is what ArmA is becoming will be that much later arriving.

Christ... Stop calling it a simulator. It's just a game, and not a terribly realistic game either.

[Second 0]

Well it simulates cycles of day, area's position in coordinates also has effect on light levels (i made one map which location was in norther Europe and results were somewhat correct, altough i don't remember were winter days as pale and dark/gray as they should or were summer nights as "nightless" as they are porbably not, but i can't check as i sent that map to great unknown after i finished it and tested it bit.

Atleast i quess Walker ment something like that. BIS by my understandment actually is more interested to deliver immersive and as whole world as possible or atleast build/improve their engine to that direction... I could be wrong thou.

[walker 0]

Hi all

In reply to Pulverizer

COD4 is a game.

OFP was a prototype First Person Simulator.

That it is worthy of being called a simulator is proven by the fact it was used as a simulator by the military.

ArmA is OFP with some of its bugs and problems solved.

The fact that VBSII is now considered the defacto NATO FPS simulator kind of proves you wrong.

It is a simulator because it alows you to rehearse and practice in the virtual world things you would do in the real world. What decides whether it is good at one of those tasks is a process of Validation Verification and Accreditation VV&A.

Essentialy a bunch of academics and subject matter experts make up tests and experiments to see if it produces the correct results.

I could go into more reasons why it is a simulator and not just a game but it is beyond the scope of both this thread and forum.

ArmA II continues that process and moves us one step closer to a Full Universe Simulator.

Kind regards walker

[Baff1 0]

Hi Baff1

Debt is not a longterm working Business Model

So your explanation is that Woolworth's took out a loan they could not afford, that if they had been able to afford it they would not be having their shops foreclosed?

Hmm.

Wooolworths have been in trouble for about 8 years

By the way they have been in trouble for about 8 years if you follow the business press. They took out the loans to try to restructure their business model but never got round to it. They should have halved their number of stores and and refocused. Instead they squandered the loans on supporting a failed business model.

They have gone out of business. So according to you they are still a success?

I think you may wish to slightly revise that assessment. I think at the end they have a sensible management that realised their business model will not function in a recession.

Quality versus Stack it high sell it cheap

Both quality and stack it high sell it cheap are good core business models that still thrive; but Wooolworths forgot that and became neither.

They were stuck between quality retail and the one pound/dollar/euro shops; a sort of expensive pound shop or tatty quality shop. A kind of wish washy not realy there unfocussed business model. That Woolworth's began as a 6 penny nee pound shop I admit, but they decided to go upscale in their business model and lost their core business as a result. Marks and Spencer's went through the same but decided to aim for the quality market, people still buy quality; other than that they buy cheap as you pointed out with regard to Tata which is why pound shops who still run the original Woolworth's core business model still survive.

Dieing Gracefully is not the same as surviving

It is the middle that is worst hit in a recession. As I pointed out Woolworth's are predominantly lower middle. The management was good enough to get out before they went bankrupt rather than have the receivers called in. They controlled their own ending and maximised their returns to the end.

In essence as a company they died gracefully.

Big Three Versus Toyota

Now on the matter of Ford, GM, Chrysler and Toyota.

What is wrong with the big three?

For that past 8 years Ford, GM, Chrysler have been losing money on every car they sell. They have been trying to reorganise for about 16 years. Their real problems are:

FAILURE OF STRATEGIC VISSION. They have no vision of the future, they think it is the same as now.

1) Too many dealerships it needs to be reduced by 2/3 and has no future in a market where increasingly people buy products over the Internet. But stupid contracts they signed means they are stuck with them unless they go bust.

2) Too many competitors at least one probably two of them should go to the wall.

3) Failure to plan for the future, Petrol engines are dead all you have now are the zombie corpses of an out of date technology. They have few diesel cars. No Electric or hybrid cars. No hydrogen fuel cell cars (the real future for cars)

4) Their lack of quality is legendary who want a second hand Ford, GM or Chrysler?

5) They are too big and heavy and fuel inefficient.

6) Their staff agreements promote inefficiency and do not even pay as well as their rivals who as a consequence take all their good staff.

7) Their plant is ancient.

8) An overly complex supply chain.

I could go on the list is truly amazing. I wrote a reasearch assessment of the market back in the 1990s. Those are just some of the problems I and the rest of my colleagues pointed out then and they still have not been resolved over 10 years later. I should point out that Ford at least solved some of its worst problems regarding models.

This year all three would be bankrupt if they did not have government loans.

Why Toyota has a future

Toyota on the other hand has not made a loss in 70 years this year is their first operating loss. And they have sufficient capital to absorb it and go on.

Toyota has a future because it has a vision of the future:

1) They have future models lined up including existing diesel, hybrid and electric cars already in market and hydrogen Fuel cell car about two years off.

2) A competent well compensated staff.

4) The latest robotic plant

5) As to quality, Toyota's last, you have only to compare the second hand depreciation prices.

6) Toyota is not tied to a mass of really bad out of the way dealership contracts in all the wrong places that suck up vast amounts of profits, as are the other three. Toyota actually own most of their dealerships. So their supply chain is shorter.

7) Toyota cars are far more efficient.

8) Toyota has a very short supply chain and owns many of its suppliers.

So how does this apply to BIS?

Simple BIS has a shorter supply chain than game publisher based companies, thus lower costs, every point in the supply chain must make a profit, this drives up costs, if one of the points in supply chain makes a loss, it goes out of business as does every other business in the chain, as I pointed out.

Look at Zavvi. Woolworth's go out of business and so do they.

Kind Regards walker

Woolworths haven't been in trouble for the last 8 years at all.

I do read the business press (and I have done everyday for the last 8 years and before).

Quite the opposite, Woolworths has been one of the most successful highstreet chains.

In fact for a product such as a game, music CD or film, sales in Woolworths are the primary method a publishing company measures it's success by in this country.

Marks and Spencer unlike Woolworths (I have a lot of M&S stock) has always been a quality brand. So when it tried to go into the lower quality market it was working against it's core customer base.

(It was also facing stiff and increased competition in that sector of the market place (cheap clothes). To defeat that new competiton M&S hired it's primary competitors management to take over their business. A very smart move. That's why, and when, I bought the stock. That and because unlike Woolworths they hadn't sold all their premises and rented them back for a short term profit. They had assets.).

Woolies has always been cheap and cheerful. It never went upmarket ever.

M&S's real growth has been to reinvent itself as a food shop. An upmarket supermarket where before it had been a mid price range clothes shop only.

Unlike Woolworths, M&S has not initiated major share buybacks funded by the cheap intrest rates of the last 10 years leaving itself less exposed to the current credit crunch.

It's not just Woolies, many companies have folded here from this same reason. Including a few banks.

And that's why Woolworths has failed.

There has been no significant change in the shops turnovers. No sudden drop in profits.

Quite the opposite Woolworths sales were up 16.6% last year. (As we would expect for a budget retailer in a downturn).

It just can't afford to service it's debts in the current unforseen climate.

I don't know anything about Zavvi but I'm bang up to date on Woolies.

Not only does Toyota have a future, but so does Ford and GM.

The Japanese government has bailed out Toyota twice before and are currently in negotiation with them to do it again.

I own a Toyota (Lexus) and I love it. I think their cars are excellent too, but the company has the exact same problem all the other car companies are having world wide.

Something many people don't recognise about American car models, is that it is a big country. So while Ford and GM make many small economical cars and they sell well in Europe, they don't in the U.S

In Europe, my drive to the supermarket takes 5 minutes. In the U.S. it takes one hour.

It's a bigger country. People are spread out of far greater distances. People who travel longer distances prefer to buy bigger cars.

They have tried making smaller cars for th U.S. market. Other companies in other countries make smaller cars that American drivers are perfectly able to buy.

Nothing is stopping them. They don't want to. They prefer 4x4's.

(It is of note that the small economical robotically made models GM and Ford make and retail to the European market are also not selling this year, neither are Volkswagons, Toyota's or Honda's).

It is important to remember that your vision is not necessarily the same as theirs.

Products must be tailored for regional markets.

And while it is true that a second hand Ford does not hold it's value as well as a second hand Toyota or last as long, it is also true that this is reflected in the asking price. The people who want to buy second hand Fords are the same type of people who want to buy first hand Fords.

People on a tighter budget.

Not you and me for sure, but plenty of people still do.

Cars in America are cheap mate. You get a lot of bang for your buck over there.

No one is buying new cars this year. Quality or cheap. Gas guzzling or green. Hand made or robotically.

There is a recession on. No one is buying.

[Pulverizer 1]

That it is worthy of being called a simulator is proven by the fact it was used as a simulator by the military.

The fact that VBSII is now considered the defacto NATO FPS simulator kind of proves you wrong.

No. It is used as a training tool. That doesn't validate it as a simulator.

It doesn't simulate real combat at all. It makes horrible abstractions that warp the dynamics you'd expect in any combat scenario to something completely different. It's a game with some simesque qualities, such as built-in mission editor and open enviroment. Simulator it is not.

[dm 9]

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">sim-u-la-tor

Pronunciation [sim-yuh-ley-ter]

–noun

2. a machine for simulating certain environmental and other conditions for purposes of training or experimentation

VBS reproduces (all be it in an abstract manner) "environmental conditions" like terrain, time of day, people and vehicles in said terrain. And is used for both training and experimentation.

Ergo, simulator.

edit: stoopid limited character set

[Maddmatt 1]

That it is worthy of being called a simulator is proven by the fact it was used as a simulator by the military.

The fact that VBSII is now considered the defacto NATO FPS simulator kind of proves you wrong.

No. It is used as a training tool. That doesn't validate it as a simulator.

It doesn't simulate real combat at all. It makes horrible abstractions that warp the dynamics you'd expect in any combat scenario to something completely different. It's a game with some simesque qualities, such as built-in mission editor and open enviroment. Simulator it is not.

It does not need to be extremely accurate to be called as a simulator. It is a simulator, and a game.

It tries to recreate something from the real world, just because it's not accurate doesn't mean it's not a simulator.

Otherwise race sims and flight sims like rFactor and Lock-On can't be called simulators

[Pulverizer 1]

Well, okay. I guess COD4 is a simulator too then, just not a very accurate one. And Quake, it has like, guns and stuff. And Pac-man, that's so totally a drug-abuse simulator.

[sanctuary 19]

Quote[/b] ]It does not need to be extremely accurate to be called as a simulator. It is a simulator, and a game.

It tries to recreate something from the real world, just because it's not accurate doesn't mean it's not a simulator.

In, that case, Counter Strike is a simulator too, as it has been used in the past as a "training tool" too for military purpose, especially for the tension management.

Basically, everything is a simulator according to such kind of definition...

[lwlooz 0]

Hello there,

I thought VBS was used for situation/location familiarization.

Like rehearsing plans on maps and sand tables. Anyways...

The "Virtual Reality Engine" and its assorted games are still the best there is , besides all its shortcomings , it has a lot going for it.

Of course I think the warfare simulation is advanced at a slow speed and I might paraphrase Cpt.Blackadder here:

"We've been sitting here since Summer 2001, during which time hundreds of men have left in frustration, and we've moved no further than an asthmatic ant with heavy shopping."

Walker might be an optimist, and I hope I am wrong , but I believe that Arma2 development will still have focused 90% on graphics and gimmicks and making the game exactly more wanted by the COD4 folk (Which in case you haven't noticed are here in far larger numbers than in OFP. You will notice it by threads like: "Headshotting while running with my rifle over 2 km with completly steady aim - We demand realism now!!" , "I am a soldier and when I do any action it doesnt take longer than 2ms".)

But coming back to the initial question , that doesn't matter much because there enough sad people like me that still will buy the game even if it only has the tiniest of tiny improvements to the game (And Hey, Saving in Multiplayer is not tiny, but there is a huge chance BIS will implement in a way that it completely unusable and I hope there are many other small improvements).

So therefore I think BIS are fine.

[Second 0]

Yeah. I can see that forexmaple COD4 would work as a (poor) simulator even when it's mostly just shooter (like ArmA is too). It has little part of vehicle control, that UAV-part. Right?

Simulator = focuses on vehicles. Flight sims as main exmaple

Shooter = focuses on infantry. OFP was tactical shooter too, and ArmA as well.

Simulation = Not tied to being either simulator or shooter. It is own genre, prime example are wargames in computer gaming. Basically it needs to be suitable product for experimental and teaching use. In this ArmA is better than COD4 or Quake, thanks to it's mission editor.

[walker 0]

Hi all

ALL GAMES ARE SIMULTATORS.

Chess simulates tactics. Heck even noughts and crosses teaches you to plan.

Just some are better than others.

As I pointed out a simulator is something that allows you to rehearse or practice something you would do in the real world. Ideally you learn from it.

The first aircraft simulators were go kart like airplanes moved by wires and pulleys. You pulled the stick it lent back, pushed it forward and it lent forward pushed left it lent left etc. They added pedals and pushing on them slewed it left and right. They added a trigger and bb gun and you shot targets. They added camera with a moving screen, you lined up on a projected airplane silhouette. Etc etc.

It is a process of improvement.

Why is COD 4 and CS no good as a simulator:

as Second pointed out limited editor,

negative training:

 Bunny Hopping

 Run and gun (as others pointed out)

 No one shot kill

 Teaches you to stand in the open and let rip full auto

 Teaches you to ignore your flanks

 Teaches stand up rather than crawl

 Fails to teach communication and cross talk

Shoe Box or corridor shooter and not open sandbox

limited reprogramming ability so errors in game engine are expensive to correct

I will keep adding to the list

The plane fact is the virtual reality engine is a simulator and no amount of your caveats will change that.

Is it the perfect simulator? NO!

Is it the best there is at the moment? Yes!

Can it be improved, damn right, that is what Ace and the recent patch prove. And that will always be the case.

No simulator is ever perfect. If it was then lots of people would end up dead. The key purpose of a simulator is to prevent that; both in the simulated world and the real world.

All I can say is I know that the Real Virtuality Engine has received emails saying it has saved soldiers and their buddies lives. I cannot think of a more appropriate test.

ArmA II will take us all a step closer to a Full Universe Simulator. People like being able to simulate all the risky things they would like to do in the real world as well as the ones that require lots of time or money. Having one simulator able to all the things is obviously the way things are going.

ArmA II will be the closest thing we have to doing that.

The reason ArmA II and BIS will survive is because they have an adaptable business model and product.

In reply to Baff1

On the matter of Woolworths: Their problems started in the 80s before Paternoster Stores acquired them, they were an obvious weak firm and takeover target. They had a major rationalisation and closed all their Irish stores as well as some in the rest of the UK. Paternoster became Kingfisher, they then tried to reinvent them selves in the 90s to compete with Tesco, Asda and Sainsburys it worked to begin with but they never followed through, that Woolworths wishy washiness took over Kingfisher demerged from them and they sold out the skeleton of those stores to their competitors by 2004. Since then they have took out loans as you pointed out. They were supposed to be used to refocus the company but instead they were used to help the limping business survive. Woolworths had a chance to get ready for the coming recession but instead it ran up its debt and even held back on paying it business rates. The creditors were at the door and they were looking for another white night on a charger like Kingfisher; it did not come in a recession there is limited money to do rescues.

As I pointed out they at least realised it and died gracefully.

Kind Regards walker

[Second 0]

this simulator/shooter/simultion thing is driving me nuts. I already thought that i handle this stuff after "studying" it for few hours, and Walker comes in and kicks me right into nuts (sure i deserve it).

So simulator isn't just related to vehicles? And it's same thing as simulation?

[Pulverizer 1]

Combat simulation should simulate combat, yes? ArmA does not even try.

Remember when that guy from BIS said something like "If you expect an all-around combat simulator, you will be dissapointed. It is not possible.".

Yet they go around advertising that they are making the "ultimate combat simulation"

In my definition, it's not a simulator if it doesn't really strive to simulate something real, such as an aeroplane, as accurately as possible. Within the limits of available resources of course. If it's just a quick hack that remotely looks like it's something real, but by design acts very differently, it's just a game, training tool or somesuch.

[walker 0]

So simulator isn't just related to vehicles? And it's same thing as simulation?

Hi Second

Yes.

(Oh by the way no nut kicking intended )

All games are simulation. Even animals simulate. It is called play and it where the human concept of games come from. Tigers and lions practice on their moms tails, and butterflies or imaginary prey (even house cats do it), then they graduate to their siblings, then their mom brings in a live baby antelope. Young male herd animals play at territorial fights.

Human beings do it too. Sorry to appear to be sexist but a girls doll is practice for mothering. Schools have have realised this and give children very accurate child dolls to show them what parenting is like.

Hunter gatherers practice hunting both as children and adults. Even dance is used to practice the hunt.

It is all simulation.

There are simulators to deal with PTSD. Being a first responder: training as a medic, police or fire rescue officer.

There are simulators to teach train engine drivers, signal operators and logistics managers. Sim City is used to train architects and town planners.

There is a simulator to teach and test your driving risk assessment skills.

In Specific reply to Pulverizer. There is no perfect simulator. If there was everyone on this forum would be long dead, in my case on the hill 100m from where the truck lets your squad off above Houdan in the demo.

All simulators are continuously being improved, as i pointed out the first air simulators were go karts. You say the the real virtuality engine is not a battlefield simulator. I would suggest that is a matter for the subject matter experts to decide. I would further suggest they already think it does many tasks well enough for them to be happy with it in those tasks.

It is through the process of VV&A that a simulator is assesed as fit for task. A whole bunch of researchers and subject matter experts design tests to assess its fitness for purpose. It is not a matter of your or my opinion; it is a matter of academic debate, rigorous testing and peer review.

That then results in customers. Plane fact VBS has become the Defacto NATO First person simulator of choice.

A good simulator is fun.

By definition a simulator is capable of being a game but a game is not certain to be a good training tool

ArmA once adapted (and it is easy to adapt) is a good training tool. It starts out closer to the training requirement anyway but as it is completely adaptable in a way no other engine is, it is a simple matter to adapt ArmA. That is a cost implication.

That adaptability is also one of the reasons why ArmA is closer to being an FUS. The fact you can interact with so much of your environment is also why it is closer to being an FUS.

That adabtability and broad degree of interaction is part of why ArmA and BIS are likely to survive the current downturn.

Kind regards walker

[POTS 0]

ArmA is a combat simulator. The outcome from a battle would be very close if it were carried out in real life. Assuming every player is human. Thats why Militaries use it, to carry out a simulation of the mission they will do.

[Pulverizer 1]

ArmA is a combat simulator. The outcome from a battle would be very close if it were carried out in real life. Assuming every player is human. Thats why Militaries use it, to carry out a simulation of the mission they will do.

You are so wrong that I cannot decide if you are being serious or just fucking with me,

[POTS 0]

ArmA is a combat simulator. The outcome from a battle would be very close if it were carried out in real life. Assuming every player is human. Thats why Militaries use it, to carry out a simulation of the mission they will do.

You are so wrong that I cannot decide if you are being serious or just fucking with me,

I'm not wrong. Just look at the facts. Many militaries use this game to carry out a simulation of the mission before they actualy do it. Of coarse i'm speaking of VBS2, but they literaly are the same engine/physics/graphics/controls/ballistics. You need to know this before you go on.

[mr reality 0]

Of all the VBS2 videos i've ever seen they all seem to be 'simulating' convoy procedures, if and when attacked.

I don't think it would be possible to simulate MOUT very well with the ARMA engine.

I agree that it is a simulator, albeit a poor one, but it's the only one on the market at this time.

[wamingo 1]

ArmA is a combat simulator. The outcome from a battle would be very close if it were carried out in real life. Assuming every player is human. Thats why Militaries use it, to carry out a simulation of the mission they will do.

You are so wrong that I cannot decide if you are being serious or just fucking with me,

"close" is maybe a poorly chosen word.

"closest" may be better.

It's a matter of comparison...

If Lock On is a sim andACE Combat is not...

Then arma is a sim and bf2/cod etc is not.

And it's also a matter of intention...

ArmA tries to match real world combat.

BF2/COD/CS etc tries to match hollywood.

[sanctuary 19]

Oh certainly the OFP/ArmA series can be seen as close to be simulators, but as long as most soldiers/armed people just go prone in the middle of a street instead of trying to take even the lightest of the covers, you just can't say

Quote[/b] ]The outcome from a battle would be very close if it were carried out in real life.

Because it is wrong every AI in ArmA/OFP goes prone in a middle of a street while in real situations even totally untrained armed average joes will take as much cover as they can when a firefight is occuring, that's just called survival instinct and every human without a death wish has it in his guts.

[walker 0]

Hi all

On the point of MOUT. I refer you to these articles:

http://www.janes.com/article....ia.html

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

A quote from the above:

Quote[/b] ]..."Staff Sgt. Darron Dahl, a 10-year veteran who has been to Iraq, gives the simulators high praise. Soon to be an adviser, Dahl describes the realism and benefits as “awesome.†The simulators allow soldiers to develop confidence in each other before they deploy, he said.

“If we make contact, we know exactly that this guy in this truck is going to do this,†He said. “I know that he’s going to do that, so I don’t have to worry about that. He’s going to do that, I’m going to do this, and we all work together.â€

Mike McCaffrey, digital training coordinator at Fort Riley’s simulation center, said technology’s role has grown exponentially in the 14 years he has been working there. Last year, 11,000 soldiers went through Fort Riley’s simulation complex, most heading to combat soon thereafter. McCaffrey said simulators maximize training efforts when time is a factor.

“It saves a lot of money. It saves a lot of ammo. It saves lives because you don’t have the training accidents that do occur. You don’t have as many,†he said. “As long as you’re practicing the things you’re going to do when you get to the dirt, it’s time well spent.

“It’s going to get bigger and bigger.â€

That would suggest BIS's military market is secure.

The military will always be a cash cow for BIS using the technology it develops for games to sell to an additional market.

The key market is the game though.

Without doubt government/military contracts will help BIS survive as a business through the current downturn but the games market is ten times the size of the military market.

ArmA II should be a simulation because that is the market BIS knows.

Also because all games are simulations. Heck who would want to do a boring job like town planner? Yet that is what Sim City is.

Who on earth would want to be shot at for real? Yet that is what an FPS simulation/game is. The real virtuality engine delivered that in spades from day one. Unlike other game engines with their Rambo magic body armor that allow you to stand up in the street blasting away. One shot kill was what you got in the in the real virtuality engine. DEAD IS DEAD. And less of those magic saves too. Add to that the ability interact with more of your environment than any other engine and you have true quality.

It is that accuracy that the real virtuality game engine is about and that is why people are attracted to it. So far; No other game engine dares to deliver it.

It is that quality that people want when the buy a game.

That is why the BIS business model will continue to be successful.

Kind Regards walker

[Second 0]

I wouldn't like to sound too cynical but has this same thing been said with Marine Doom, Delta Force: Land Warrior, Close Combat - First to fight? For last 10 years hype has been which i would define to be horrible when it comes to US military (or product's PR-guys?) hyping their "video game"-simulators.

True VBS2 has it's defined strongpoint when it comes to modelling lots of stuff. This all from single provider instead of tens or even hundreds. And bunch of other features like quite big player size.

[walker 0]

And it's also a matter of intention...

ArmA tries to match real world combat.

BF2/COD/CS etc tries to match hollywood.

Hi all

I think wamingo has defined the real difference between the Real Virtuality engine and all the others.

And that is the reason that ArmA II will sell better than its competitors.

Kind Regards walker