U.S. Military Using CryEngine 3 to Make New Training Simulator

[Firehound]

What happened to good ole'fashin boot camp? Why are we spending so much to train soldiers for wars we don't need to fight?

You'd prefer a conscripted army and human wave attacks?

You mean like a Crysis 2 clone with health bars would teach soldiers?


Let's be honest. GAME engines do not engender realistic military sims. Everyone is either a one-hit wonder, or a bulletsponge. A system where Injuries are modeled realistically, similar to how many games model tanks with components, except taken to humans as opposed to vehicles, could be fitted to a proper system where you could easily model human anatomy for greater realism.

 

[DOS4GW]

Wouldn't it make more sense to use Arma II or III for the basis of their training program?

Not enough blur, I suppose.

 

[Firehound]

Wouldn't it make more sense to use Arma II or III for the basis of their training program?

Not enough blur, I suppose.

You would think. Or some crossbreed between arma and DF that actually requires the damn supercomputer.

 

[Lillowh]

Umm...I got one word for you U.S. Military: Frostbite 2. Nuff Said

 

[DaHero]

Umm...I got one word for you U.S. Military: Frostbite 2. Nuff Said

DICE is notorious for making games specifically designed to be vehicle based combat (don't believe me? Try taking down a jet without the stationary AA guns they shoot up as the game starts) since this is for infantry, something DICE knows virtually nothing about, the engine wouldn't work at all.

 

[theriddlen]

CryEngine 3 is CryEngine 2 with some additional blur and bloom effects. And i don't have to remind you that CryEngine 2 has "vegetation" written all over it.

 

[quhouv vhqwiufv qwiu]

Why does no-one ever use source >.>

 

[Dyp100]

Why does no-one ever use source >.>

Because the load times and the fact Valve don't want to ever update it?

 

[Fralf]

so now the question becomes, when is the Army gonna start using achievements.

 

[teebeeohh]

isn't the military(any military) notoriously paranoid about using stuff not made in their country (unless you are a booming third world country).
Isn't the army afraid that using tech from a German company may condition the soldier not to shoot at Germans. or something.

 

[maturin]

Wouldn't it make more sense to use Arma II or III for the basis of their training program?

Not enough blur, I suppose.

The Army (and USMC) already does.

It's called Virtual Battlespace 2.

The graphics suck balls, and that's because it's absolutely enormous and is actually useful as a training tool. Instead of bloom and physics and post-processing, it focuses on being easily editable and letting trainers review the performance of dozens of different groups all playing on one map.

And the Army will go crawling back once this project is over-budget, delayed, glitchy and turns out to only teach soldiers the twitch reflexes they already get from non-electronic training.

isn't the military(any military) notoriously paranoid about using stuff not made in their country (unless you are a booming third world country).
Isn't the army afraid that using tech from a German company may condition the soldier not to shoot at Germans. or something.

The software I just mentioned is Czech-made. And the SAW is Belgian.

Why does no-one ever use source >.>

As much as I love Valve, modern war isn't fought in a broom closet.