Apparently the UK's Ministry of Defence has some pretty unexciting war simulators. So unexciting, in fact, that the MoD's Science and Technology lab - the folks responsible for managing said simulators - is looking to the likes of Battlefield and Call of Duty to help up its game.
Speaking to UK newspaper The Guardian, technical team leader Andrew Poulter ran down a brief history of the UK's past with simulators, and detailed the current predicament he believes the MoD is facing. "Back in the 1980s and 1990s, defence was far out in front in terms of quality of simulation. Military-built simulators were state of the art. But now, for £50 [$77], you can buy a commercial game that will be far more realistic than the sorts of tools we were using."
The MoD has been employing a simulator known as "Virtual Battlespace 2," which, strictly from a sequels perspective, is way behind pretty much every video game that exists. The simulator was originally created by Operation Flashpoint dev Bohemia Interactive, which itself is not exactly considered at the forefront of game development. According to Poulter, that'll be changing in the coming months, with a reinvestment in his team from the MoD to bring in new technology from more modern shooters.
"The weapons need to be credible. If they fire a rifle and the bullet travels three and a half miles, then that is not right. If they are steering a vehicle, then that has to be right too. Realism is more important than entertainment. Levels of immersion are very important," he said. And it definitely doesn't hurt that the soldiers tend to be more engaged with virtual simulations than paperwork. "It is certainly a lot more fun than going through lists of checks and box-ticking. We want them to think 'I would quite like to do a bit more of that kind of thing'. So they might spend 10 minutes [on a simulation] after reading papers in the morning, or in their spare time."
And let's be fair, wouldn't soldiers be playing games like these in their spare time anyway? Why not direct that attention to something that could potentially save their lives? Poulter seemed to agree, as he concluded, "It has been invaluable. It is being taken seriously. It's not just a game." We feel the same way about our Battlefield 3 sessions, but don't tell anyone.
Reader Comments (35)
Posted: Dec 29th 2011 7:08PM BrianZeluz said
A UK MoD simulator will never be realistic because it doesn't show "Great" Britain ruling the world!
Posted: Dec 29th 2011 7:11PM Tiradyn said
Well, for starters, it is very likely that the games have much bigger budgets and better programmers.
Posted: Dec 30th 2011 10:59AM AntiVillian said
@Timjoy
This is the UK not america. They don't put 90% of taxpayer dollars into their military.
Reply
This is the UK not america. They don't put 90% of taxpayer dollars into their military.
Posted: Dec 29th 2011 7:15PM LaughingTarget said
Except when you rage-quit in real life, you get hit with being AWOL.
Posted: Dec 29th 2011 7:17PM gold163 said
Operation Flashpoint devs? They know how to make a "realistic" enough game. You could make the point about Battlefield 3 having a semi-realistic hit model but Call of Duty? Pffffft.
Play ArmA. Or any of the older Tom Clancy games before they dumbed them down.
Play ArmA. Or any of the older Tom Clancy games before they dumbed them down.
Posted: Dec 29th 2011 7:20PM hotstew said
In what kind of world is Call of Duty realistic?
It does have high production values but it's corny like a b-movie.
It does have high production values but it's corny like a b-movie.
Posted: Dec 29th 2011 7:20PM Tommy758 said
Have they even played the games? How is opening a care package and getting a air strike out of it realistic?
Posted: Dec 30th 2011 12:09AM ShadowXIII said
@Tommy758
The same way that re-spawning and instant health regeneration is apparently.
Reply
The same way that re-spawning and instant health regeneration is apparently.
Posted: Dec 29th 2011 7:32PM Roflrex said
With the mention of Call of Duty, they could be referring to the overall production and quality compared to what they have. The only realism is call of duty would be the sound of the guns I suppose.
Posted: Dec 29th 2011 10:02PM Godslegion said
@Roflrex
Call of Duty would probably be the worst model to base a Military Simulator on. For one the player models run like the hunchback of notre dame taking a constipated dump while on a morning jog. Secondly the hit detection would be ridiculous...for actual REALISTIC simulators to exist, getting shot in the foot in the same spot 10 times still would not exactly kill someone as it would in any of the games we are familiar with.
I guess in simulators getting shot at all is failure, but my point is the gamer side would definitely be dropped, and the actual aesthetics, feel, and sound is what these military simulator builders would be focusing on.
Reply
Call of Duty would probably be the worst model to base a Military Simulator on. For one the player models run like the hunchback of notre dame taking a constipated dump while on a morning jog. Secondly the hit detection would be ridiculous...for actual REALISTIC simulators to exist, getting shot in the foot in the same spot 10 times still would not exactly kill someone as it would in any of the games we are familiar with.
I guess in simulators getting shot at all is failure, but my point is the gamer side would definitely be dropped, and the actual aesthetics, feel, and sound is what these military simulator builders would be focusing on.
Posted: Dec 29th 2011 7:37PM (Unverified) said
Note this is the same MoD that didn't even try to hide it's links with and bribes from neocon lobbies, and just sold the UK's entire Harrier fleet for less than 1% of their actual value because "it's the best we could do in the circumstances and we're all in this together".
"The weapons need to be credible. If they fire a rifle and the bullet travels three and a half miles, then that is not right. If they are steering a vehicle, then that has to be right too. Realism is more important than entertainment. Levels of immersion are very important,"
Oh, you mean like in ARMA? You know, the game based on that military sim you're using right now?
So in short, they're replacing actual simulators with neco-con approved KILL THE HAJI propoganda tools because the realistic simulators they're using aren't as realistic as Call of Duty.
Oh, and don't think you're not safe either, Joystiq. BI not "exactly at the forefront of game development"? You're not by any chance under the impression BI developed Dragon Rising and Red River because they have the same "Operation Flashpoint" title, do you?
"The weapons need to be credible. If they fire a rifle and the bullet travels three and a half miles, then that is not right. If they are steering a vehicle, then that has to be right too. Realism is more important than entertainment. Levels of immersion are very important,"
Oh, you mean like in ARMA? You know, the game based on that military sim you're using right now?
So in short, they're replacing actual simulators with neco-con approved KILL THE HAJI propoganda tools because the realistic simulators they're using aren't as realistic as Call of Duty.
Oh, and don't think you're not safe either, Joystiq. BI not "exactly at the forefront of game development"? You're not by any chance under the impression BI developed Dragon Rising and Red River because they have the same "Operation Flashpoint" title, do you?
Posted: Dec 30th 2011 12:03AM ComedyInK said
@(Unverified)
No, just no.
They aren't talking about replacing their current sim with Battlefield or Call of Duty, they need something that's up with the current times, Look at RealTime Immersive work on CryEngine 3; working with the US Army's Military to create a more up to date Simulator, that what they want, but them dudes [MoD] prob too stupid to say it since they aren't in the know.
Reply
No, just no.
They aren't talking about replacing their current sim with Battlefield or Call of Duty, they need something that's up with the current times, Look at RealTime Immersive work on CryEngine 3; working with the US Army's Military to create a more up to date Simulator, that what they want, but them dudes [MoD] prob too stupid to say it since they aren't in the know.
Posted: Dec 29th 2011 7:57PM tecnicrow said
Too bad you don't get a respawn timer once you're dead irl.
Posted: Dec 29th 2011 8:17PM imtheman said
You mean the Taliban just sit in corners waiting .....
Posted: Dec 29th 2011 8:43PM FearTheMuffin said
"The weapons need to be credible. If they fire a rifle and the bullet travels three and a half miles, then that is not right."
Someone needs to learn about ballistics.
Just recently someone was killed by a muzzle loader round that was fired into the air 1.5 miles away.
Someone needs to learn about ballistics.
Just recently someone was killed by a muzzle loader round that was fired into the air 1.5 miles away.
Posted: Dec 29th 2011 10:06PM Xero Theory said
@FearTheMuffin Well 1.5 miles is not 3.5 miles. Also what you mentioned has less to do with. Ballistics and more to do with gravity and terminal velocity since it was fired into the air but came down under the influence of gravity. The longest recorded kill shot was 2707 yards (a little over 1.5 miles) in Afghanistan and it likely wouldn't be able to be duplicated. So long story short them saying 3.5 miles isn't realistic is right.
Reply
Posted: Dec 29th 2011 11:12PM FearTheMuffin said
@Xero Theory
I understand what they're saying. They don't want firearms to shoot straight like a laser for miles, but it came out poorly.
What I am saying is that some standard rifle rounds (30.06 Springfield) can easily travel 3 miles, even if not in a straight, flat line.
Most games today mimic bullet drop fairly realistically. Modern Warfare maps are close enough that battlefield zeroed rifles wouldn't really be effected. You wouldn't necessarily even need a sniper rifle for most of the distances in real life. Battlefield 3 has larger maps, so the drop is needed and works pretty well.
Reply
I understand what they're saying. They don't want firearms to shoot straight like a laser for miles, but it came out poorly.
What I am saying is that some standard rifle rounds (30.06 Springfield) can easily travel 3 miles, even if not in a straight, flat line.
Most games today mimic bullet drop fairly realistically. Modern Warfare maps are close enough that battlefield zeroed rifles wouldn't really be effected. You wouldn't necessarily even need a sniper rifle for most of the distances in real life. Battlefield 3 has larger maps, so the drop is needed and works pretty well.
Posted: Dec 29th 2011 8:56PM editor said
The MOD are far behind the eight ball when it comes to simulation - they paid the price of poor consultancy and poor development.
Just for those that want to see the latest in simulation - don't look at BF or CoD - look at this:
http://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?view=&gid=2403841&type=member&item=86557107&qid=f03ec934-d981-4111-bd03-f8ff65d7a78f&trk=group_most_recent_rich-0-b-ttl&goback=.gmr_2403841
Just for those that want to see the latest in simulation - don't look at BF or CoD - look at this:
http://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?view=&gid=2403841&type=member&item=86557107&qid=f03ec934-d981-4111-bd03-f8ff65d7a78f&trk=group_most_recent_rich-0-b-ttl&goback=.gmr_2403841
Posted: Dec 29th 2011 10:09PM Godslegion said
Even though military programs are searching out for better means of computer simulators, I feel the main idea behind why the simulators look the way they do, or so outdated nowadays, is simply because simulators can only produce a scenario.
And i'm saying that is why live-action scenarios are more emphasized than a computer screen teaching maneuvers or strategy. It can only produce principles because the human body will never take it as a threatening or actually harmful situation.
And until that day when we gain access to actual virtual reality movement, not just peripherals and whatnot, then real in person scenarios and exercises are going to be what is emphasized.
And i'm saying that is why live-action scenarios are more emphasized than a computer screen teaching maneuvers or strategy. It can only produce principles because the human body will never take it as a threatening or actually harmful situation.
And until that day when we gain access to actual virtual reality movement, not just peripherals and whatnot, then real in person scenarios and exercises are going to be what is emphasized.
Posted: Dec 30th 2011 12:47AM maxwell97 said
@Godslegion True, but the problem is that "real-life exercises" are damned expensive compared to computer simulation, and everybody's budgets are getting cut sooner or later. If they can develop a realistic and involving computer simulator to supplement the real stuff, it can have some benefits.
I disagree to some extent, also, regarding a physical stress reaction - try watching someone play a game like Dead Space. Obviously a combat simulator can't be quite that dramatic, but maybe they can throw in some mind-f*ck tricks, or perhaps an electric shock when you get "shot" (although somebody would probably get worked up over that in today's mamby-pamby world).
Reply
I disagree to some extent, also, regarding a physical stress reaction - try watching someone play a game like Dead Space. Obviously a combat simulator can't be quite that dramatic, but maybe they can throw in some mind-f*ck tricks, or perhaps an electric shock when you get "shot" (although somebody would probably get worked up over that in today's mamby-pamby world).
Posted: Dec 29th 2011 11:25PM fatguy88 said
If they want relistic they need to play army men sarge's heroes lol.
Posted: Dec 30th 2011 1:22AM Altrix said
It can't be that hard to find some talented programmers from the UK, right?
Posted: Dec 30th 2011 2:15AM HalloweenBlues said
Yikes, those soldiers better watch out for that Dementor.
Posted: Dec 30th 2011 9:26AM DblMcMurder said
@HalloweenBlues LMAO i cant stop laughing at that picture now
Reply
Posted: Dec 30th 2011 9:13AM TC said
The title of this post leaves me in no doubt that a new Timesplitters is long overdue.
Posted: Dec 30th 2011 10:32AM Luciano said
Completely misleading headline, they just said commercial games have better graphics and immersion, not that they are more realistic. They are trying to improve the quality of military simulations so that they become as immersive as commercial games.
Posted: Dec 30th 2011 7:55PM Yellowdevil said
Back in the day when I was stationed at a little base called Fort Bragg, we got a chance to train on a very expensive simulator (they had an acronym-inspired Army approved name for it but I forgot what it was) that had a mock HMMWV and fake weapons. Surrounding us at least 180 degrees was a projector screen that would display the scenario for us. We were pretty excited, thinking it was going to be awesome. When they booted it up, our excitement turned to disappointment very quickly. The graphics were terrible. I couldn't discern between a rock, a bush or a bystander. Worse, the scenario called for us to convoy through this "town" (i think it was a town) and only fire back at insurgents that fired at us. Trouble is, you couldn't tell the difference between the people who had guns firing at us or the people just walking around. Because, according to the program there was no difference in bystander's behavior when people are trading 5.56 and 7.62 mm lead. I think we ended up getting stuck in a river because we thought it was a road. I went to my barracks that night and played Battlefield 2 just to remind myself how capable computers really are.








