Virtual Reality: Its Potential Impact on Embedded Training

  • J. Michael Moshell
  • Ernest A. Smart
  • Richard Dunn-Roberts
  • Brian Blau
  • Curtis R. Lisle
Part of the Defense Research Series book series (DRSS, volume 4)

Abstract

Virtual Reality (VR) denotes a multi-sensory realtime simulation that immerses the user in 3d graphical space, allows freedom of movement within the space, and supports complex interactions including the modification of most features of the space itself.

Embedded Training (ET) involves the integration of training capabilities into operational devices. As such, ET seems to invoke the opposite spirit than VR. In ET, as little as possible is simulated; the actual device and its environment (e. g. the associated vehicle) are used. However, there are cases in which the experience of VR could meld very nicely with embedded training.

Consider the problem of integrating SIMNET-style networked simulations with real armor exercises. It has been suggested that tank commanders operating open-hatch or POP-hatch in field exercises could pick up a pair of special binoculars to see the virtual (simulated) components of the battlefield. Alternatively, the entire vehicle could wear display devices over its viewing blocks and gunsights, which would provide a mixture of real scenery and superimposed images of virtual participants.

Keywords

Virtual Reality Virtual Environment Virtual World Force Feedback Virtual Reality System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ascension Technology Corp. “Bird” Tracking System Product Description. Burlington, VT. Feb. 1991.Google Scholar
  2. AWST. “Crew Systems Lab Offers Rapid Feedback on Cockpit Concepts”. Aviation Week & Space Technology, Dec. 7, 1987.Google Scholar
  3. Bricken, Meredith. “Virtual Worlds: No Interface to Design”. Submitted for publication to CyberFace, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, May 1990.Google Scholar
  4. Daedalean. Guard Fist I Product Description. Daedalean, Inc. Columbia, MD. 1991.Google Scholar
  5. DMA. Tactical Tenain Data description, in Digitizing the Future, 3rd ed. Defense Mapping Agency, Fairfax, VA. May 1990.Google Scholar
  6. Donovan, Kenneth B. “Mission Rehearsal Database Requirements and Technologies”. Proceedings of the 12th I/ITS Conference, Orlando, FL., 6–8 November, 1990.Google Scholar
  7. Downs-Martin, Steven G. Replacing the Exercise Controller with the Enemy: The SIMNET Semi-Automated Forces Approach. BBN Systems and Technologies Corp. Report 7211. Cambridge, MA. December 1989.Google Scholar
  8. Furness, Thomas A. III.“Harnessing Virtual Space.” Proceedings of the SID (Society for Information Display) 1988 International Symposium. Playa del Ray, CA. May, 1988Google Scholar
  9. GE. Rapidly Recoпfigurable Data Base Concept Demonstration Final Report. General Electric Company. Daytona Beach, FL. July 17, 1989.Google Scholar
  10. Gorman, Paul F. SuperTroop via 1-Port: Distributed Simulation Technology for Combat Development and Training Development. IDA Paper P-2374. Institute for Defense Analysis, Alexandria VA. August 1990.Google Scholar
  11. IST. Entity Information and Entity Interaction in a Distributed Interactive Simulation. Institute for Simulation and Training Report IST-PD-90–2 (revised). University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL. Jan. 25, 1991.Google Scholar
  12. Kreuger, Myron M. Artificial Reality II. Addison-Wesley. Reading, MA. 1989.Google Scholar
  13. Massey, D., Harris, M., Downes-Martin, S., and Kurland, L. Embedded Training Technology Survey. BBN Laboratories Report 6062. Cambridge, MA. 1986.Google Scholar
  14. McBride, Dennis K. “Individual Portal (I-Port) in Advanced Distributed Simulation Research.” in Proceedings of the ADPA Conference on CLose Combat (Light) Simulation Technology. Albuquerque, NM, 17–20 September 1990.Google Scholar
  15. Moshell, J. Michael. Work Plan for Dynamic Terrain Project: The Virtual Reality Testbed. Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central Florida. Orlando, FL. March 1990.Google Scholar
  16. Moshell, J. Michael. The Architecture of the Virtual Environment Testbed. VSL Memo 91.6. Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central Florida. Orlando, FL. April 1991.Google Scholar
  17. NATO. Final Report of Research Study Group 12 on Computer-Human Interaction in Command and Control. Document АС/243 (Panel 8/RSG. 12) D/7. NATO, 1110 Brussels, Belgium. Unclassified (Not for Public Release)Google Scholar
  18. PRC. ISWG Project 2851 Newsletter. Planning Research Corp., McLean, VA. 1989.Google Scholar
  19. StereoGraphics Corporation Product Directory. San Rafael, CA. October 1990.Google Scholar
  20. Zeltzer, D. “Task Level Graphical Simulation: Abstraction, Representationand Control,” in Making them Move: Mechanics, Control and Animation of Articulated Figures.“ N. Badler, B. Barsky and D. Zeltzer, eds. pp. 3–33. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, 1991.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Michael Moshell
    • 1
  • Ernest A. Smart
    • 1
  • Richard Dunn-Roberts
    • 1
  • Brian Blau
    • 1
  • Curtis R. Lisle
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Simulation and Training (IST)University of Central FloridaOrlandoUSA

Personalised recommendations