No. The primary function of a simulator is to create an experience that is as close as possible to actual combat without the permanent cost of life and materials. Some games and simulators have come close. The first time I played COD WOW I found myself ducking, hiding in cover and being legitimately shocked at some of the violence portrayed, not because of the amounts, but the mortality of the player, the fog of war execution, and the legitimate effort for realism and horror more than action made it a heart pounding experience. All of that having been said. I was not going to die, and I knew it. I may have been jumpy or scared, but I knew I was not going to die. I did things that I know with absolution I am not now brave enough to do because I knew I was incapable of permanently loosing anything. Psychologically there is no replacement for the real thing. With a very few exceptions current technology a person will always know the difference between an adrenaline pumping video game or Hollywood special effects and a life or death struggle. Simulators DO have value however. The drilling of simulation encourages not only psychological preparation, but also muscle memory. With a combination of video and real time simulation one can achieve positive results. A fighter pilot with no combat hours but extensive simulator experience and flight time will find certain action so ingrained that he cannot help but go through the motions when first encountered with a real threat. The challenge is to get passed that first thrill of realization and let the training take over.
Yes! First look at the definition of "simulate"…to give or assume the appearance or effect of often with the intent to deceive (okay take off the part about often with the intent to deceive). If you look at First Person Shooters today they replicate the appearance of a battlefield. They provide interaction with an enemy which you must outwit using tactics, techniques or procedures (some just game it). This is the same thing a soldier must do in battle (hopefully they use those TTPs instead of gaming it). The “game” can provide endless opportunities for the soldier to practice what he or she would do on the battlefield in a safe environment. If the game is “played” with clear training objectives up front then the soldier can understand how his/her actions interact with other soldiers on the battlefield. After each iteration of the game, after action reviews should be conducted to facilitate the learning objectives. Then run through the game again to see improvement.
Games have become so real that the military has passed out flight simulators to student pilots to increase their skills and knowledge about flying. Even first person shooter games, like America’s Army, can teach new recruits the fundamentals of firing a rifle even if they have never touched a weapon in their life. So YES games give the appearance or effect of tactical combat.
As stated above I am not denying the value of simulations. They are wonderful training and teaching tools. But I believe that the "intent to deceive" that you removed is extremely important! A simulator can only go so far until the human brain is completely decieved into believeing that it is fighting for its life. Until you can put a person in that situation with a simulator I feel that they have hit a wall that no amount of honing what the five senses detect can change. The simulator would have to change the way we interepret these senses, not what we actually are sensing.
Well I can tell you the first time I was in a Close Combat Tactical Trainer (CCTT) M2 Bradley simulator, after firing a few dozen virtual rounds against a semi-automated force (SAF) I thought I could smell the cordite from rounds going off. There was no stimulation of my smelling sense included in the simulation...but my mind perceived it.
Obviously I will have to defer to real life experience in a CCTT. But smell, and sometimes hearing, are often altered by the brain in relation to sight and touch. Our brain trusts what it sees and touches as definite, but distrusts smells and sounds. If the brain feels you should be smelling something, it will make it so you do. This is most common in activities that an individual performs regularly (like firing a weapon for a soldier.) For me it has occurred when I tossed a pizza in the over. I swore I smelled it cooking, but I accidentally had turned the oven off when setting the timer (quite disappointing when the timer went off.) These relationships still require a knowledge of the real thing. You have to have fired a real weapon to smell the cordite. I had to have baked a pizza to smell it again. While valuable to realism, this does not help the fact that simulators are often used to simulate new experiences that the brain has little to know prior knowledge of. Without that knowledge the brain cannot filling the gaps.
Zachary...How much realism would there have to be for you to think a game can simulate combat, driving a tank, or flying an F4? I have actually done all of those things (yes even fly in an F-4...it was an RF-4C Reconnisance aircraft at Berkstrom AFB (Austin TX) when I was in Civil Air Partol)...now I will give you a point...a motion simulator with the tank or aircraft will be even more realistic...but the games are pushing realism. Granted there is little real threat of being killed when playing a first person shooter....but your have to remember it is only a simulation...and not reality.
I'm not denying the expeiriences you have had in the real thing or in simulators. In many ways I envy you and those opportunities! I don't know what any of that feels like and that leaves me at a disadvantage to argue specifics. I guess I am struggling with the idea that combat can be simulated without risk. Courage can manifest in many ways. One of those ways, poetic and terrifying, is the complete disregard for all risks in the pursuit of a goal. Weather it is running under heavy fire to rescue a downed fellow soldier or walking into a crowded bus station and blowing yourself up, the mental fortitude it takes to do these things is rare.(One is obviously a better application of said courage, but both require the belief in a higher goal, worth more than one's own life.) I believe simulators can prepare soldiers for many things and are invaluable in their deployment as training tools. The examples above are extreme examples but courage is part of combat. I do not believe that the game can bring out a decisive element that tests a person in that way.
But that is what simulations can actually do...(okay after typing that it may not look as good as it sounds)...LOL
We can put soldiers into those conditions over and over again in a virtual environment and they will begin to understand the complexities of the environment they will fight in. Even if you take simulations out of the picture and conduct "live" training on the ground...you won't be able to completely replicate combat. But you can still simulate it enough to allow soldiers how to learn in the environment. I spent 15 years in the Army before I fired my weapon in a combat situation. But in those 15 years I was exposed 100s of times to what combat could be like in training...sometimes live and sometimes in simulation. There is a motto used by the organization responsible for simulation, training and instrumentation for the Army (PEO STRI) that goes "All but war is simulation."
I can tell you that no one in the Army can identify for certainty who has courage. There are traits that we can assume...but no one can ever pick out that one thing. Audie Murphy is a good example. It is though training that soldiers gain confidence in their leaders, peers and equipment. A simulation may not add to a soldiers confidence in their equipment (but the effects of their equipment must be replicated as realistic)...but it can increase a soldiers confidence in their leaders and peers. Simulations can show how your unit will operate in a combat situation. If it is done over and over and also conducted in live training....some actions will become second nature. This is just the start. If we can expose our soldiers to what actions to take after the first bullet is fired then we let second nature take over. Simulations (and training) provide exposure to a combat situation...
I can tell you now that we have an Army full of combat experience the training we conduct now is more realistic. And that realism is both in live training and virtual training. That is why the Army purchased VBS2 as it's game for training. It is easily adapted to current tactics, techniques and procedures currently being used in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I whole heartedly agree that simulation is an extremely valuable tool. On the history channel the other day I say a CCTT for a Tank in operation and the crews were jumping and yelling when the enemy started shooting back. They were really into it and were gaining valuable expierience.
I think we are on more on the same page than we first thought and we are interpretting the question differently.
Since games have added things like healing teammates who are down and tossing grenades back I have seen a real difference in the way people play them. There is a new intensity, almost to the point of fear.
Such advances will continue to be made and someday combat and simulation may be indistinguishable.Simulation does, and will continue, to save lives.
However, combat expierience cannot be replaced by anything. I feel that until experieince in a simulation system and expeireince in combat can be freely interchanged as equal, simulators cannot be deemed perfect.
Zachary....yes we do agree. One of the things I was trying to promote while I was in the Army at the Army Modeling and Simulation Office was to utilize gaming in training. When talking to senior leaders in the Army I would remind them that the Army has a training mythology that could be applied to gaming just as it is applied to live training. By doing so it would help negate some of the "unrealistic" parts of the game (those that make it more entertaining or unrealistic for game play sake.) The games that have been "approved" for training have taken some of those "gaming" points out. Even the newer games are trying to be more realistic by allowing for one shot being able to kill you.
From your discussions I assume you have read "Ender's Game" by Orson Scott Card. Ender thinks he is in a simulation where in the end he is actually leading units in combat against the bugs.
No. The primary function of a simulator is to create an experience that is as close as possible to actual combat without the permanent cost of life and materials.
ReplyDeleteSome games and simulators have come close. The first time I played COD WOW I found myself ducking, hiding in cover and being legitimately shocked at some of the violence portrayed, not because of the amounts, but the mortality of the player, the fog of war execution, and the legitimate effort for realism and horror more than action made it a heart pounding experience.
All of that having been said. I was not going to die, and I knew it. I may have been jumpy or scared, but I knew I was not going to die. I did things that I know with absolution I am not now brave enough to do because I knew I was incapable of permanently loosing anything.
Psychologically there is no replacement for the real thing. With a very few exceptions current technology a person will always know the difference between an adrenaline pumping video game or Hollywood special effects and a life or death struggle.
Simulators DO have value however. The drilling of simulation encourages not only psychological preparation, but also muscle memory. With a combination of video and real time simulation one can achieve positive results.
A fighter pilot with no combat hours but extensive simulator experience and flight time will find certain action so ingrained that he cannot help but go through the motions when first encountered with a real threat. The challenge is to get passed that first thrill of realization and let the training take over.
Yes! First look at the definition of "simulate"…to give or assume the appearance or effect of often with the intent to deceive (okay take off the part about often with the intent to deceive). If you look at First Person Shooters today they replicate the appearance of a battlefield. They provide interaction with an enemy which you must outwit using tactics, techniques or procedures (some just game it). This is the same thing a soldier must do in battle (hopefully they use those TTPs instead of gaming it). The “game” can provide endless opportunities for the soldier to practice what he or she would do on the battlefield in a safe environment. If the game is “played” with clear training objectives up front then the soldier can understand how his/her actions interact with other soldiers on the battlefield. After each iteration of the game, after action reviews should be conducted to facilitate the learning objectives. Then run through the game again to see improvement.
ReplyDeleteGames have become so real that the military has passed out flight simulators to student pilots to increase their skills and knowledge about flying. Even first person shooter games, like America’s Army, can teach new recruits the fundamentals of firing a rifle even if they have never touched a weapon in their life. So YES games give the appearance or effect of tactical combat.
As stated above I am not denying the value of simulations. They are wonderful training and teaching tools. But I believe that the "intent to deceive" that you removed is extremely important!
ReplyDeleteA simulator can only go so far until the human brain is completely decieved into believeing that it is fighting for its life. Until you can put a person in that situation with a simulator I feel that they have hit a wall that no amount of honing what the five senses detect can change. The simulator would have to change the way we interepret these senses, not what we actually are sensing.
Well I can tell you the first time I was in a Close Combat Tactical Trainer (CCTT) M2 Bradley simulator, after firing a few dozen virtual rounds against a semi-automated force (SAF) I thought I could smell the cordite from rounds going off. There was no stimulation of my smelling sense included in the simulation...but my mind perceived it.
ReplyDeleteObviously I will have to defer to real life experience in a CCTT. But smell, and sometimes hearing, are often altered by the brain in relation to sight and touch. Our brain trusts what it sees and touches as definite, but distrusts smells and sounds. If the brain feels you should be smelling something, it will make it so you do. This is most common in activities that an individual performs regularly (like firing a weapon for a soldier.) For me it has occurred when I tossed a pizza in the over. I swore I smelled it cooking, but I accidentally had turned the oven off when setting the timer (quite disappointing when the timer went off.)
ReplyDeleteThese relationships still require a knowledge of the real thing. You have to have fired a real weapon to smell the cordite. I had to have baked a pizza to smell it again.
While valuable to realism, this does not help the fact that simulators are often used to simulate new experiences that the brain has little to know prior knowledge of. Without that knowledge the brain cannot filling the gaps.
Zachary...How much realism would there have to be for you to think a game can simulate combat, driving a tank, or flying an F4? I have actually done all of those things (yes even fly in an F-4...it was an RF-4C Reconnisance aircraft at Berkstrom AFB (Austin TX) when I was in Civil Air Partol)...now I will give you a point...a motion simulator with the tank or aircraft will be even more realistic...but the games are pushing realism. Granted there is little real threat of being killed when playing a first person shooter....but your have to remember it is only a simulation...and not reality.
ReplyDeleteI'm not denying the expeiriences you have had in the real thing or in simulators. In many ways I envy you and those opportunities! I don't know what any of that feels like and that leaves me at a disadvantage to argue specifics.
ReplyDeleteI guess I am struggling with the idea that combat can be simulated without risk.
Courage can manifest in many ways. One of those ways, poetic and terrifying, is the complete disregard for all risks in the pursuit of a goal.
Weather it is running under heavy fire to rescue a downed fellow soldier or walking into a crowded bus station and blowing yourself up, the mental fortitude it takes to do these things is rare.(One is obviously a better application of said courage, but both require the belief in a higher goal, worth more than one's own life.)
I believe simulators can prepare soldiers for many things and are invaluable in their deployment as training tools.
The examples above are extreme examples but courage is part of combat. I do not believe that the game can bring out a decisive element that tests a person in that way.
But that is what simulations can actually do...(okay after typing that it may not look as good as it sounds)...LOL
ReplyDeleteWe can put soldiers into those conditions over and over again in a virtual environment and they will begin to understand the complexities of the environment they will fight in. Even if you take simulations out of the picture and conduct "live" training on the ground...you won't be able to completely replicate combat. But you can still simulate it enough to allow soldiers how to learn in the environment. I spent 15 years in the Army before I fired my weapon in a combat situation. But in those 15 years I was exposed 100s of times to what combat could be like in training...sometimes live and sometimes in simulation. There is a motto used by the organization responsible for simulation, training and instrumentation for the Army (PEO STRI) that goes "All but war is simulation."
I can tell you that no one in the Army can identify for certainty who has courage. There are traits that we can assume...but no one can ever pick out that one thing. Audie Murphy is a good example. It is though training that soldiers gain confidence in their leaders, peers and equipment. A simulation may not add to a soldiers confidence in their equipment (but the effects of their equipment must be replicated as realistic)...but it can increase a soldiers confidence in their leaders and peers. Simulations can show how your unit will operate in a combat situation. If it is done over and over and also conducted in live training....some actions will become second nature. This is just the start. If we can expose our soldiers to what actions to take after the first bullet is fired then we let second nature take over. Simulations (and training) provide exposure to a combat situation...
I can tell you now that we have an Army full of combat experience the training we conduct now is more realistic. And that realism is both in live training and virtual training. That is why the Army purchased VBS2 as it's game for training. It is easily adapted to current tactics, techniques and procedures currently being used in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I whole heartedly agree that simulation is an extremely valuable tool. On the history channel the other day I say a CCTT for a Tank in operation and the crews were jumping and yelling when the enemy started shooting back. They were really into it and were gaining valuable expierience.
ReplyDeleteI think we are on more on the same page than we first thought and we are interpretting the question differently.
Since games have added things like healing teammates who are down and tossing grenades back I have seen a real difference in the way people play them. There is a new intensity, almost to the point of fear.
Such advances will continue to be made and someday combat and simulation may be indistinguishable.Simulation does, and will continue, to save lives.
However, combat expierience cannot be replaced by anything. I feel that until experieince in a simulation system and expeireince in combat can be freely interchanged as equal, simulators cannot be deemed perfect.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteZachary....yes we do agree. One of the things I was trying to promote while I was in the Army at the Army Modeling and Simulation Office was to utilize gaming in training. When talking to senior leaders in the Army I would remind them that the Army has a training mythology that could be applied to gaming just as it is applied to live training. By doing so it would help negate some of the "unrealistic" parts of the game (those that make it more entertaining or unrealistic for game play sake.) The games that have been "approved" for training have taken some of those "gaming" points out. Even the newer games are trying to be more realistic by allowing for one shot being able to kill you.
ReplyDeleteFrom your discussions I assume you have read "Ender's Game" by Orson Scott Card. Ender thinks he is in a simulation where in the end he is actually leading units in combat against the bugs.