• Ministry of Defence forced to update its war games for Xbox generation
    46 replies, posted
[QUOTE=AceOfDivine;33963009]What joke?[/QUOTE] In Battlefield 3, the flashlights are incredibly bright, so you can use them to blind people. That's what Crimor was making a zing about, how bright the flashlights are.
[QUOTE=Cone;33963035]In Battlefield 3, the flashlights are incredibly bright, so you can use them to blind people. That's what Crimor was making a zing about, how bright the flashlights are.[/QUOTE]Oh FLASHLIGHTS. Damn my bad. I'm not too god at english and got flashbangs mixed up. My bad, I get it now.
I remember when I was in, we used a GSIMS to practice our firing techniques. It ran in some kind of really old custom-built operating system from the 80's, and would regularly break. Calibration was near-impossible due to the weird set up of the system (lots and lots of mirrors). The graphics were laughable. Enemy units consisted of 2-frame animated sprites of some sort that were perhaps 16 pixels tall, it was impossible to judge distance because the sprite sizes were disproportional as fuck. I don't think anyone actually learned anything from using it, which is probably why it's pretty much never used. Also, this was a year ago and they're still using it.
well shit, then they should update the tank simulator we're still using the one they made back in 1988 it's like we were in a dire straits video oh and using the vbs2 did nothing for me... you can't simulate reality
[QUOTE=Hans-Gunther 3.;33962559]Pff, how retarded would you have to be to think that MW3 is more realistic than something like VBS2? To cut them a break, they usually don't deal with such topics.[/QUOTE] They should be talking only about the shooting part. Actually, I don't know what they are talking about. Even though I defend mw3 on lots of its stuff, this isn't included in it. MW3 is far from realistic really. Why not ARMA instead?
[QUOTE=Ignhelper;33962099][video=youtube;rC6k_KWwRhw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rC6k_KWwRhw&list=PLC81106CA4503F3B0&context=C3300bceADOEgsToPDskLIWqhJuFCpVDb8F_6oHS1C[/video][/QUOTE] So it's ArmA 2, but infinitely better. Why don't they just update the original one? :c
If they start teaching the military with MW3 there are going to be a lot of deaths, and not enemy deaths either.
rude I was pointing out the fact that the news writer thought VBS2 was a spinoff of a civilian game. Not mocking the decision to use it or train soldiers on vidya [editline]30th December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=RichyZ;33961632]vbs is pretty rad, its based off of arma 1 but has most of the features from arma 2 and even more dont hate[/QUOTE] Like seriously, grade A example of misconception with as to what I meant, didn't think it'd be too hard.
[QUOTE=WeltEnSTurm;33963277]So it's ArmA 2, but infinitely better. Why don't they just update the original one? :c[/QUOTE] Because BIS (which is not BI) work on VBS and not ArmA, apart from using the same engine they are completely different products. Occasionally features from VBS will filter back to ArmA though (the FLIR simulation in OA started off in VBS2). Also, VBS2 2.0 [video=youtube;coA9Os9P-cg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coA9Os9P-cg[/video] As for graphics, if the MoD wanted decent graphics (which IMO is not what a sim is about surely) they would consider using that stuff made on the Crysis engine and pay the associated costs for top of the range hardware to run it on.
[QUOTE=dass;33963264]They should be talking only about the shooting part. Actually, I don't know what they are talking about. Even though I defend mw3 on lots of its stuff, this isn't included in it. MW3 is far from realistic really. Why not ARMA instead?[/QUOTE] MW3 is graphically and audibly more advanced than their current simulators. This is what the entire article is about, recruits expect the simulators they will be trained in to at least look and sound up to par with modern games. Which they don't. [editline]30th December 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Jsm;33965591]As for graphics, if the MoD wanted decent graphics (which IMO is not what a sim is about surely) they would consider using that stuff made on the Crysis engine and pay the associated costs for top of the range hardware to run it on.[/QUOTE] As someone mentioned earlier, decent graphics can assist training in a unbelievable way. If smoke and fog can be emulated more realistically, the sim can train soldiers to use smoke and fog to their advantage, if textures are good quality and foliage is improved, soldiers can be taught to spot camouflage. If the audio quality is improved, soldiers can be taught to tell sounds apart, to locate attackers based on the sounds they hear and so forth. A updated engine doesn't mean the sim has to become bad, it just means the sim could train more effectively.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;33965824] As someone mentioned earlier, decent graphics can assist training in a unbelievable way. If smoke and fog can be emulated more realistically, the sim can train soldiers to use smoke and fog to their advantage, if textures are good quality and foliage is improved, soldiers can be taught to spot camouflage. If the audio quality is improved, soldiers can be taught to tell sounds apart, to locate attackers based on the sounds they hear and so forth. A updated engine doesn't mean the sim has to become bad, it just means the sim could train more effectively.[/QUOTE] I suppose that makes sense, but its the fine line between something that looks and sounds realistic and something that sounds like a Hollywood film and has a brown filter over it.
[QUOTE=wari65;33961611]lol[/QUOTE] Everyone says all CoDs are the same, but then they say CoD4 is the best, and that in my mind was a high-quality commercial game.
[QUOTE=Jsm;33966013]I suppose that makes sense, but its the fine line between something that looks and sounds realistic and something that sounds like a Hollywood film and has a brown filter over it.[/QUOTE] That is merely a design choice of the game. For example, look at BF3, as lovely as it looks, it's all brown 'n' bloom because the art direction DICE went in specified that. It is not something hard coded into the engine, it can be adjusted. That is the point of a game engine. A base for a game, all it needs is a stylistic choice to define what the game looks like. As bad an engine as IW Engine is, if you removed the style that IW went for (over the top, hollywood-ing), you could technically make a game look like whatever your artists could produce within the engine limits. This is the reason Unreal Engine is so popular, it's open in comparison to Frostbite and IW Engine, and while the majority of commercial games on it are brown and bloom overloads, the indie games on it, and some commercial games are insanely beautiful in places. Mirrors Edge is a great example of how the engine, and its previous use, does not define what games it can make.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.