Virtual Reality support?

[Nike-Ajax]

6 hours ago, Homer said:

mpdugas,

You need to adjust your writing style if you want to continue posting here long term.  You do not seem to be interested in having a discussion.  Instead, you seem to be interested in a debate because you appear to have a need to be the one who is always right. To illustrate, you often end a post by (re)stating you are correct and then issuing a challenge to everyone to prove you wrong. This aspect often overwhelms everything else you are trying to say.  Your posts are very adversarial and condescending in tone. That is what got you in trouble this time. You earned a 1 week ban for a personal attack:  "I know you admire and like Herr Nils, to the point of obsequiousness, but that's your choice."  I am being generous in noting only one instance.

 

As for your last post, the forum is my responsibility.  This action is my decision alone.  I do not take orders from Ssnake nor has he ever attempted to give me any.  I am stating this for the record so there is no misunderstanding.  Having said that... (In context) Holy fuck! Are you serious?! You are actually suggesting that a ban equates to martyring yourself for speaking truth to a fascism?  NO, dude.  It's the consequence for ACTING like a dick.

 

Amen

 

[Grenny]

Given that VR is mostly helpfull for use in flight-simulations or FPS-shooters, I can understand why gamers that mainly play these types of games, see it as the holy grail.

 

For AFV based games, I see the ONLY usable part is for the TC's position.

Even in professional training simulators, that emulate the TC position, and in parts the "out of vehicle work", a domed screen is still seen by most users as the better AND more economical solution.

 

Where VR has proved a big hit in professional training was (at least in our place) mainly:

- informational and procedural training for technical personel (maintenance soldiers, technical-ship crews)

 

Application in infantry training was only implemented fro some very special/high-value cases.

 

[Grenny]

Don't waste breath on this Nike...not worth it.

[CalAB]

The way I see it, virtual reality for military applications has a ceiling in so far as cost saving vs actual hands on. Simulating reality can’t reproduce the hazards of that reality in quite the same way. Obviously “in the field” training is where you want to be with military personnel. 

Aplications for VR that would make sence to me would be medical or robotics, or even better, augmented reality in these areas. 

As far as games go the level of fidelity leaves much to be desired with the current generation of head sets/ computers available to the consumer. 

The technology has a long way to go. 

[Ssnake]

1 hour ago, Grenny said:

Even in professional training simulators, that emulate the TC position, and in parts the "out of vehicle work", a domed screen is still seen by most users as the better AND more economical solution.

Hahahaha.... that's what you rich kids from the Bundeswehr think as "economical".

My reality says

• "eight TV screens around the commander's hatch are too costly, make it with six".

 

• Or, "We have this car port sized room with white painted walls. Three shortneck projectors will do. Forget the rear."

 

• Or, "If I had the room for multiple classrooms, I would opt for control panel replicas. But I need to teach five different vehicle types in one room. Give me a touchscreen."

 

• "Touchscreens? We have no money for that luxury! The mouse will do!"

 

• "TEN licenses? I can afford four. Maybe another four in two years."

[Grenny]

41 minutes ago, CalAB said:

Simulating reality can’t reproduce the hazards of that reality in quite the same way. Obviously “in the field” training is where you want to be with military personnel. 

The idea is to use virtual training, to learn the very basics....not to replace BUT to support the field training.

This can make field training more effective, as you start it "one level higher".

[Grenny]

11 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

Or, "If I had the room for multiple classrooms, I would opt for control panel replicas. But I need to teach five different vehicle types in one room. Give me a touchscreen."

I have an idea who these are ;-)

[Grenny]

Well, just for example look at our FENNEK trainers:

Basicly Fennek vehicles converted to simulators inside a dome-projector...the scout can even dismount and use binos and LRF :-)

[Captain_Colossus]

insofar as games matter, it's not something i really look forward to or pine away for. gameplay design still matters, and the trend is that some AAA titles that developers are putting lots of resources into are more like very scripted interactive movies

than games (look at any of those call of duty type games), they''re boring, and vr wouldn't likely improve that sort of game design once the novelty wears off.

 

i could see the occasional spooky haunted house or dungeon crawler, but generally i'm not interested in the technology at this point.

 

looking at the IL2 videos, which do  look good- i think resources would be better invested in an engine with the moving grasses and trees, shadows rendered at longer ranges rather than VR.

 

 

 

 

[Apocalypse 31]

5 minutes ago, Grenny said:

The idea is to use virtual training, to learn the very basics....not to replace BUT to support the field training.

This can make field training more effective, as you start it "one level higher".

Spot on.

 

The best use I've seen was a 1:1 scale virtual re-creation of a live fire range.

 

We hit the simulators (VBS2) for 2 days to rehearse the sequence and concept of maneuver, and safety proceedurally then conducted the actual live fire.

[ashdivay]

LOL this post ! I laughed for 15 mins. 

[Azure Lion]

8 hours ago, Grenny said:

The idea is to use virtual training, to learn the very basics....not to replace BUT to support the field training.

This can make field training more effective, as you start it "one level higher".

Which in turn usually means fewer mistakes hands on, many of which can be costly in ways that are not just monetary in nature.

Also, there are things you can do in simulations that you probably don't want to do with live training, like opfor return fire.

That's gotta hurt!

[Michael Ramsey]

On 11/30/2017 at 5:34 PM, Ssnake said:

Well, I guess the relevant search term would be "Oculus".

 

In short, No, it won't happen.

• We cannot guarantee stable 90 frames per second
• Would be immersive, but not necessarily useful; sole exception: Vehicle commanders
• Requires rebuilding 3D vehicle interiors
• No discernible use in the training domain; if at all it would be an exclusive feature for the Personal Edition, and most likely a severe and misguided distraction from our "real" work. eSim Games, despite the name, is first and foremost a simulation based training company.

So - training value is the litmus test for all our development, then the cost vs effect ratio (very high, in this case). We give preference to what's most useful for mopst customers.

 

[Michael Ramsey]

Excellent response.

 

[Captain_Colossus]

i just had my first experience with a VR set- the pimax 8k. i tend to agree that the technology isn't quite there yet- but it will never get there without going through its learning phase. has to start somewhere.

 

of course the 3D effect is uncanny- in that sense, the 3D world you see looks more 3D than the actual world looks 3D; i was initially expecting what would essentially look 2-D but could pan a view in all directions, but this is not what it is of course. it looks more like the effects you would see in a 3D movie; a cockpit dash looks like it is floating in space in front of you, or a menu screen looks like it is suspended in space- again, it looks novel, but it does look artificial, because it is not the actual way the 3D world looks but 'exaggerated'; at the same time however, it does add depth, which no matter how you draw a 2D image on a 2D screen to give the perception of depth, there is no comparison. it is much easier to intuitively gauge distances between objects.

 

and now the tradeoffs- although the pimax comes with a fantastic 200 degree field of view, you take a large performance hit at the same time. so you you would likely have to scale back graphics settings on a resource heavy simulator to get playable framerates- then you might begin to wonder which is better- the 3D depth perception or the sharper resolution and graphics detail on a 2D screen that you have to scale down for VR.

 

it is twitchy- if for whatever reason the VR set doesn't pick up the base stations, you lose connection to the scene and it may freeze during that lapse in coverage.

 

you are blind- if for whatever reason you need to look at your keyboard or where your mouse or joystick are positioned on your desk, you might have to momentarily remove the set to regain some orientation in order to type or correctly find your controls- for all the complex key combinations and assignments of DCS this might be a problem for some as you either mash buttons or remove the set, breaking immersion in order to press the required keys. may not be as much of problem for less involved games though. for DCS i think i prefer a track IR solution- while you don't have the sense of depth which would be helpful in some situations (mainly landing and air to air refueling), it seemed more of strain in others- dogfighting, operating the various sensors or weapons systems. so i view them both to have advantages and disadvantages, that is generally, VR - excellent for joyriding, taking in the view. track IR- better for combat, or for situations where you may need to do more than just turn your head around such as operating a lot of complex controls or stations with the keyboard. also much better for taking screenshots.