Microsoft Game Software Preps Soldiers For Battle 44
coondoggie writes "Soldiers may go into battle better prepared to handle equipment and with a greater knowledge of their surroundings after an intellectual property licensing deal Monday between Microsoft and Lockheed Martin that will deepen the defense giant's access to visual simulation technology. The intellectual property agreement between the two focuses on Microsoft ESP, a games-based visual simulation software platform for the PC."
Confused. Didn't they kill off ESP with flightsim? (Score:2)
My understanding was that earlier this year Microsoft fired most of the guys in Aces Studios (who build MSFS and ESP) and killed off the MS Flight Simulator franchise. Very confused. I'm going to have to do some googling tonight.
Re: (Score:1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jBKKV2V8eU [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
My understanding was that earlier this year Microsoft fired most of the guys in Aces Studios (who build MSFS and ESP) and killed off the MS Flight Simulator franchise. Very confused. I'm going to have to do some googling tonight.
It's because it has been shown that most soldiers used Solitaire to prep for battle and that further investments were unnecessary.
Not Games (Score:2)
Believe me, having to deal with Vista has made me want to kill like nothing else.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
They *did*. I cleaned my office out January 23rd.
I have no idea what they think they're going to do with that license. My understanding is that it doesn't include access to the codebase (which is truly Byzantine code), so it's essentially like licensing somebody the graphics engine they used to make the CGI for the original TRON. Nobody's left anymore who can explain to them how it works or how to use it.
Those of us that were at ACES are just shaking our heads going "...huh?"
Re: (Score:2)
What MS did to FS was tragic. Watching the series dragged through the mud with FSX and then canned was literally depressing. I can only image what it was like for someone working on the code base. When I want to fire up a flight sim it's still usually FS2004, but I've lost my enthusiasm for the product since it was killed. I use to plan my computer purchases around it. (I still have a 3 screen setup). C'est la vie. It'll be decades before anything succeeds MSFS (if anything does in my life time that is. I o
I/ITSEC (Score:4, Informative)
I was at I/ITSEC [iitsec.org] today. ( Interservice/Industry Training Simulation & Education Conference ) It was completely off the hook. There was an entire section devoted to what they called "Serious Games" and a few of them were actually fun to play and educational at the same time.
Of course a lot of the other stuff was quite a bit like a game as well, just involving high dollar hardware that most gamers could never afford. They had a simulator for dismounted troops that involved wearing VR gear inside what was basically a giant hamster ball set up on a frame that allowed it to roll around while staying in one place. I saw a number of demos for what they called organic tracking I think. Imagine something like Natal [xbox.com] but in a large area with cameras overhead, all around. They seemed to be pushing it as less expensive as sensors were not required on each individual. Still didn't look cheap. And of course there were tons of simulators for flying and driving that looked pretty typical. Still very cool.
It was wall to wall military folks and defense contractors and pretty much anyone looking to sell to the military or related type stuff. I saw a simulator for law enforcement that was pretty slick. It was all CGI so unlike the type that use film, the person in the simulator could affect the outcome. Pretty wild.
I think the game thing has been going on for some time and will continue to develop inside and outside the military. One game I looked at was for teaching Information Security. They said most threats were physical and so the game focused on that. The dude telling me about it claimed that people would finish the training but continue to play the game on their own. He said retention of skills and information went up with each repetition. It was interesting but I am somewhat skeptical on how much someone would play it. It looked a bit boring.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I just spent a few hours on the exhibitor floor. I have a friend from a local university that had a booth and got me in.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think there is a huge incentive to do that. I saw a banner on a booth that read, "The government will spend 3 trillion dollars this year. Are you getting your fair share?" I didn't see what they were selling.
My friend that got me in works in a lab at the University of Central Florida. As we walked in he said something like "Now you can see what can be built with a virtually unlimited budget."
I think a lot of this stuff can't be made less expensive. So it would be hard if not impossible to do an
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, we've been using those kinds of simulators for a while.. they are fantastic. I have even used a squad sized simulator once that was setup like a firing line. We were in defensive positions and had to shift fire and move our heavy weapons depending on the incoming forces.
But the one/two man simulators are a lot of fun (and good training). Good for peace-keeping type scenarios that involve dialog and more decision making. Like we would be watching a market place and two people come running past.. on
Oh no... (Score:1)
This will be interesting when soldiers begin to bluescreen on the battlefield.
Commanding Officer: So what happened out there?
Soldier: Well, Bill got freaked out, said he didn't know what to do...said the simulation stopped whenever a baddy got too close.
Commanding Officer: So what happened?
Soldier: Well, he just froze up, completely. I hit him a couple times, even re(peatedly) booted him, nothing.
Commanding Officer: Where's Bill now?
Soldier: He finally reanimated and ran off screaming something about a page
Re: (Score:1)
Dude, I heard there's no re-spawn points in RL.
What if you get lag out there? Your dead!
Re: (Score:2)
But the graphics are a lot better, so the headshots are even more boom.
Oh, now it makes sense (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Awesome.
I did 3D computer simulated training in the Army (Score:1)
First, I got to navigate in real 3D through the narrow doorway in a JNN shelter out to a generator, where I flipped a couple switches. Then, I got to navigate in real 3D virtual reality back into the shelter to flip a few more switches on the power system. Then, I could see my character in spectacular CGI inserting the CIK into my TACLANE, and using the four button interface to enter the correct static IP and subnet mask from the cut sheet. The special effects when booting the NIPR & SIP
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
OPSEC/IA (Score:1)
Photoshop request... (Score:2)
I want to see a suitable photoshop of a giant Steve Ballmer head delivering that message to a bunch of CGI land warrior types.
I shot the bad guy, but not the guy next to me (Score:2)
"Soldiers may go into battle better prepared...
after an intellectual property licensing deal...
will deepen the defense giant's access to visual simulation technology...
The intellectual property agreement....."
is a damn sight different than "Microsoft Game Software Preps Soldiers For Battle"
With all the equivocation, inaccuracy and future tense in the text, it's pretty obvious that in this case at least Microsoft game software isn't doing squat for soldiers, and won't until MS preps themselves to help L-M ge
Armed Assualt/ArmA2 and VBS2 (Score:1)
They also release a slightly stripped down version, usually using the next generation of technology as a commercial game, the current iteration being ArmA2, before that Armed Assualt, and before that the original Operation Flashpoint.
I am not seeing what is so new about this...?
Re: (Score:1)
It's relevant not because it's new, but because it's Microsoft.
Windows is a good gaming platform (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
VR isn't meant to train those types of situations. However, it can help in training situations which replication IRL would be cost prohibitive and/or life-risking.
Example: To train infantry IRL, you need to handle weapon safety, allocation and maintenance, field injuries (if any), transportation and etc. Then if you want to train in a critical situation, you have to factor in the cost of replicating said situations. Costs are further increased if you are trying to train vehicular units, regardless of air, l
Re: (Score:2)
There are many more jobs in the military that don't include direct combat that benefit from this kind of thing - though VR is useful for combat as well. It's not all or nothing though. It's all part of a mixed approach, just like flight simulators.
video footage here (Score:2)
Vista? (Score:1)
I can see it now... (Score:1, Funny)
MS War Demo (Score:1, Funny)
I guess the blue screen of death will really have more context now.
"Johhny! Don't go into the blue light!! Stay with me Johnny!...NOOO!..It's the POST loading...[sob]...Oh well, he'll be on his feet in a few minutes."
Mayday ! (Score:1)
War Games ... (Score:1)
"Would you like to play a game?" ... I'm sorry. I had to.
Warning...Warning... (Score:2)
Microsoft and Lockheed Martin? Greed overload detected...
Re:Lockheed and Microsoft (Score:2)
Microsoft and Lockheed Martin? Greed overload detected...
It's a natural synergy. When the cargo door falls off, there will be a .NET to catch you.