| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 115
Page 115
D—
Position Papers
Prior to the Computer Science and Telecommunications Board's
October 1996 workshop on modeling and simulation, participants were
asked to submit a one- to three-page position paper that responded
to three questions:
1. How do you see your particular industry segment evolving over
the next decade (i.e., how will markets and products evolve)?
2. What technological advances are necessary to enable the
progress outlined in your answer to question 1? What are the
primary research challenges?
3. Are you aware of complementary efforts in the entertainment
or defense sectors that might be applicable to your interests? If
so, please describe them.
This appendix reproduces a number of these position papers. The
papers examine technologies of interest to the entertainment
industry and the U.S. Department of Defense, as well as some of the
barriers to collaboration. Several of the papers are cited in the
body of the report; substantial portions of some have also been
incorporated there.
OCR for page 116
Page 116
Brian Blau—
VRML: Future of the Collaborative 3D Internet
Introduction
VRML (virtual reality modeling language) is the
three-dimensional computer graphics interchange file specification
that has become the standard for Internet-based simulations. It is
being used in many industries, and the momentum of the standard and
industry acceptance continues to grow at a fast pace. Most of the
major software and hardware corporations are now starting serious
efforts to build core VRML technologies directly into business
applications, scientific and engineering tools, software
development tools, and entertainment applications.
One of the most significant developments in the history of VRML
was its adoption by Silicon Graphics Inc. (SGI), Netscape, and
Microsoft during 1995-1996. This broad level of industry acceptance
continues to challenge the VRML community to provide an official
international standard so that wide adoption will be possible.
Given that creation of VRML came from a unique and open
consensus-based process, its future depends on continued innovation
in the directions of true distributed simulations as well as
efforts to keep the standards process moving forward.
Historical Development of VRML
Over the past two years the development of a standard for
distributing 3D computer graphics and simulations over the Internet
has taken the quick path from idea to reality. In 1994 a few San
Francisco cyberspace artisans (Mark Pesce, Tony Parisi, and Gavin
Bell) combined their efforts to start the VRML effort. Their
intention was to create a standard that would enable artists and
designers to deliver a new kind of content to the browsable
Internet.
In mid-1995 VRML version 1.0 emerged as the first attempt at
this standard. After an open Internet vote, VRML 1.0 was to be
based on Silicon Graphics' popular Open Inventor technology. VRML
was widely evaluated as unique and progressive but still not
useable. At this point broad industry support for VRML was
coalescing in an effort to kick-start a new industry. Complimentary
efforts were also underway to deliver both audio and video over the
Internet. The general feeling was that soon the broad acceptance of
distributed multimedia on the Internet was a real possibility and
that VRML would emerge as the 3D standard.
After completion of the VRML 1.0 standard, the VRML Architecture
Group (VAG) was established at SIGGRAPH 1995 and consisted of
eight
OCR for page 117
Page 117
Internet and 3D simulation experts. In early 1996 VAG issued a
request for proposals on the second round of VRML development. The
call was answered by six industry leaders. Through an open vote SGI
emerged as the winner with its Moving Worlds proposal. By this time
over 100 companies had publicly endorsed VRML, and many of them
were working on core technologies, browsers, authoring tools, and
content. At SIGGRAPH 1996 VAG issued the final VRML 2.0
specification and made a number of other significant
announcements.
To help maintain VRML as a standard, VAG made several concrete
moves. First, it started the process of creating the VRML
Consortium, a nonprofit organization devoted to VRML standard
development, conformance, and education. Second, VAG announced that
the International Standards Organization (ISO) would adopt VRML and
the consensus-based standardization process as its starting place
for an international 3D metafile format.
Distributed and Multiuser Simulations
Using VRML
Based on the current state of technology, it is now obvious that
distributed 3D simulations are clearly possible for a wide
audience. Distributed simulation is the broad term that defines 3D
applications that communicate by standards-based communications
protocols. Military training, collaborative design, and multiuser
chat are examples of such applications.
Widespread adoption of this technology depends on the following
key technology factors: platforms, rendering, multimedia, and
connectivity. Today, the most popular platforms for accessing the
Internet are desktop machines—namely, Windows 95/NT and the
Macintosh PowerPC family. These operating systems are running on
computing platforms powerful enough to display complex 3D-rendered
scenes. The tools are readily available as well, thanks to
Microsoft's DirectX media integration API's and ActiveX Internet
controls as well as Netscape's Live3D and LiveConnect developer
platforms. These software tools, combined with powerful desktop
processors, make it easy for software developers to create VRML
technologies and products.
Another key aspect of development is the tight integration of
multimedia into these platforms. Hollywood and the video games
industry see the desktop PC as the next major platform for delivery
of multimedia content. This means VRML technology development will
be accessible to developers of all types of integrated
Internet-based media.
The final key is development of open-protocol communications
standards suited for Internet use. Currently, the military uses
distributed interactive simulation (DIS) as the communications
protocol for training
OCR for page 118
Page 118
applications and has been successful to date. The integration of
DIS with Internet technology is key but not the entire solution.
DIS was developed only for military applications. Its broader
acceptance by industry is dependent on significant changes to its
infrastructure, including the simulation model, numerical
representation, integration with VRML, and dependence on Department
of Defense initiatives.
Another complementary area of interest is multiuser VRML spaces.
These applications are the next step in on-line human-to-human
communication and are enabled by the Internet and VRML. Several
companies have products that let individuals directly interact with
others. In these on-line worlds each person views a fully
interactive 3D VRML world, including moving graphical avatars that
are the virtual representations of their human counterparts. Some
of these applications also include real-time voice that is
syncopated with movements of the avatar's eyes and mouth. It is
very compelling to communicate with someone and only be able to see
their virtual representation.
Several companies and organizations are now starting to
collaborate on a standard for VRML-based avatars. These groups are
now in the formative stages and are being published by fairly small
companies. The first avatar standard will roll out later in
1996.
Future Directions
VRML technology and content development in 1996-1997 will focus
on several areas. On the standards front, the VRML Consortium and
ISO will continue to broaden acceptance of VRML. The VRML
Consortium will have its first official meetings in late 1996.
Creating the organization and filling it with technical, creative,
process-oriented people will be a goal. The VAG will continue to
serve as the focus for standards-based VRML work until the
consortium is self-sustaining. Also during 1997, ISO will
officially adopt VRML as the only international 3D metafile format
for the Internet. Once the VRML Consortium is operational, the
focus of activities will be on continued development of the VRML
specification and the creation of working groups.
On the software and hardware development fronts many advances
will be made. VRML 2.0 browsers will emerge and will integrate
directly into the popular HTML-based browsers. Manufacturers of
three-dimensional hardware accelerators will add features that
directly support basic VRML graphics. Tool manufacturers, such as
polygonal modelers and scene creation tools, will incorporate VRML
read-and-write capabilities. Integration of DIS and other
distributed simulation communications protocols will quickly help
content authors build multiuser capabilities into
OCR for page 119
OCR for page 120
OCR for page 121
OCR for page 122
OCR for page 123
OCR for page 124
OCR for page 125
OCR for page 171
OCR for page 172
OCR for page 173
OCR for page 174
OCR for page 175
OCR for page 176
OCR for page 177
OCR for page 178
OCR for page 179
OCR for page 180
OCR for page 181
Representative terms from entire chapter:
simulator sickness
Page 119
their worlds. Finally, content developers will enjoy the flood
of new modeling and programming tools.
Given all of these advances there are still three immediate
technical areas that need to be addressed before VRML becomes
widely adopted: common scripting language, external API, and binary
file format. Currently, these areas are quite controversial, but it
is clear within the VRML community that solutions to the problems
are within reach.
VRML Resources on the Internet
http://vag.vrml.org—Official home
of the VRML spec and the VAG
http://sdsc.vrml.org—Very
comprehensive list of VRML resources
http://www.intervista.co—Popular
VRML browser
http://www.microsoft.com/ie/ie3/vrml.htm—Popular
VRML browser
http://www.sgi.com/cosmo—Popular
VRML browser
http://home.netscape.com/eng/live3d—Popular
VRML browser
http://www.blacksun.com—Multiuser
3D application
http://www.onlive.com—Multiuser
application with real-time voice
http://www.dimensionx.com—Java-based
VRML tools
http://www.ktx.com—VRML tools
Page 120
Mark Bolas
Introduction
If the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's VIEW
laboratory marks the beginning of the virtual reality (VR)
industry, the industry is just about to pass its 10-year mark.
There is a rule of thumb stating that it takes about 20 years for a
new technology to find its way into the mainstream economy. Applied
here, this means 10 years before VR is in the mainstream economy.
This prediction seems completely reasonable, or even pessimistic.
Consumers can currently purchase VR headsets with integrated
tracking for less than $800. A handful of automotive manufacturers
and aerospace contractors use VR on an ongoing basis to solve
design and engineering problems. However, early adopters are
incorporating the technology into their work and lives. They face
all of the frustrations and challenges typically associated with
being on the cutting edge. The next 10 years will see the VR
industry evolve in a straightforward and boring fashion—early
adopters will have paved the way for easy use by the
mainstream.
This evolution will require a fundamental shift in the way VR
technology is viewed and used. The technology must cease to stand
apart; it needs to become an invisible part of a user's lifestyle
and work habits. This requires progress on two basic fronts: First,
the technology must be integrated into the user's physical
environment. Second, it must be integrated into the user's software
environment.
Evolution
For mainstream users to benefit from VR technologies, the
technologies must become pervasive. They must extend throughout our
industries and lives. They must diligently work for their users and
quietly become part of their lifestyle. The facsimile machine is an
example of a technology that has accomplished this.
Walkmen, dishwashers, televisions—All these have become
pervasive by thoroughly changing the way people do things. A person
does not talk about using a walkman, or a dishwasher, or a
television. If anything, a person discusses the content or end
result as opposed to the
NOTE: The industry segment described here is
defined as industries that benefit from immersive human-computer
interfaces. The term virtual reality is intended to include this
definition.
Page 121
actual device. "I heard a good song," "The dishes are clean,"
"Did you see that stupid show last night?"
There is little question that three-dimensional (3D) graphics
and simulation are on the way to becoming pervasive. In industry
the design process is being transformed to demand 3D models and
simulations. This Christmas consumers will be choosing between the
Sony or Nintendo platforms with 3D graphics capability being
assumed.
However, the VR industry must evolve to provide such 3D systems
with immersive interfaces that multiply the utility and effect of
the 3D graphics. Currently, most 3D graphics are shown on a 2D
screen and manipulated via a 2D mouse. These interfaces effectively
remove much of the value present in the 3D environments. The VR
industry must maintain the utility and comfort present in a user's
natural ability to perceive and manipulate 3D environments and
objects.
Advances
For VR to become a pervasive tool, it must become integrated
into both the user's physical and software environments. Seamless
integration with a user's physical environment is not simple
because immersive interfaces tend to immerse—that is, they
surround and envelop the user. This can easily intrude on a user's
physical and mental environment. The VR industry needs to minimize
this intrusion to the point where immersive interfaces are as
natural to use as a telephone or mouse. It is interesting to note
that both these examples are not inherently natural, but both have
been integrated into users' workspaces and lifestyles.
To achieve a natural interface, paradigms that transcend the
standard goggles-and-gloves paradigm need to be pursued. The fact
that people collaborate, multitask, and eat while they work are
down-to-earth aspects that must be considered in the design of
immersive tools.
Equally challenging is the integration of these new interfaces
in the software environment. Application software packages have
typically been written for 2D screens and interfaces. As a result,
most immersive interfaces are poor retrofits onto existing packages
that were never designed to incorporate them. This lack of
integration severely cripples the utility of immersive
interfaces.
This integration is probably best achieved by starting with a
"top down/bottom up" design approach on a number of key
applications. For example, the entertainment industry could use an
immersive set design and preview system, while the Defense
Department would benefit from a simulation-based design and
modeling system that fully utilizes a human's ability to think,
design, and manipulate 3D space.
Page 122
Peter Bonanni
The U.S. armed forces have created the most advanced training
systems in the world. Some segments of the armed forces, however,
are facing true training shortfalls for the first time in decades.
These training deficiencies are being caused by worldwide
deployments. U.S. Air Force active duty and reserve squadrons, for
example, have experienced a reduction in training sorties of up to
25 percent. This reduction is a direct result of deployments in
support of contingency operations over Iraq and Bosnia. Pilots are
most proficient and able to fight when they are first deployed to
these areas. As the deployment wears on, with little or no training
opportunities, pilot proficiency slips. The same problem is
occurring in other combat arms as the trend to use U.S. forces in
peacekeeping roles accelerates. Since conducting realistic training
is impossible on most of these missions, simulators provide the
only realistic training alternative. Unfortunately, most of the
simulators in use today are very expensive, are limited to
single-crew training, and are not deployable.
Emerging commercial simulation technology, however, may provide
a near-term solution to this military training problem. Some
fighter pilot skills, for example, cannot be practiced in
simulation, regardless of the fidelity. The most important (and
perishable) skills, however, can be honed by very-low-cost
simulators. The computer game Falcon 4.0 is an example of a
commercial product that is shattering the fidelity threshold and
providing a model for very-low-cost simulation. There are several
key components to Falcon 4.0 that allow this type of
breakthrough. Falcon 4.0 features "SIMNET-like" networking
protocols that create a large man-in-the-loop environment. These
features of Falcon 4.0 provide the basic building blocks for
producing a simulator that will be low in cost and deployable and
that will provide pilots with team training opportunities. In the
near term this capability will be enhanced with the development of
commercial head-mounted displays and voice recognition systems.
Page 123
Defense Modeling and Simulation
Office:
DOD Modeling and Simulation Overview and Opportunities for
Collaboration Between the Defense and Entertainment Industries
The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) is building a robust
modeling and simulation (M&S) capability to evaluate weapons
system requirements and courses of actions; to reduce the time
line, risk, and cost of complex weapons system development; to
conduct training; and for realistic mission rehearsal. Part One of
this paper provides a description of the current and envisioned
application of M&S in the training, analysis, and acquisition
support functional areas. It also summarizes the plan that is in
place to help achieve DOD's M&S vision. Part Two is a list of
technology areas that DOD believes have a potential for
collaborative development with the entertainment industry.
Part One:
DOD Modeling and Simulation Overview
Vision and Application
The foundation for the above set of DOD M&S capabilities
will be the development of a common technical framework to maximize
interoperability among simulations and the reuse of simulation
components. The cornerstone of the common technical framework
(CTF), the High-level Architecture (HLA), has just been adopted as
DOD-wide policy. Together with the other elements of the CTF, data
standards, and a common understanding (or conceptual model) of the
real world, the HLA will enable DOD to use and combine simulations
in as-yet unimagined ways. Establishment of a commercial standard
will follow as applications spread to training for natural disaster
response, weather and crop forecasting, and a host of other
business and social problems.
Common services and tools also will be provided to simulation
developers to further reduce the cost and time required to build
high-fidelity representations of real-world systems and processes.
Realistic simulations, interacting with actual war-fighting
systems, will enable combatants to rehearse missions and "train as
we fight." Virtual prototypes developed in a collaborative design
environment using the new integrated product and process
development concept will be evaluated and perfected with the help
of real war fighters before physical realizations are ever
constructed. DOD
Page 124
will enforce recently approved policies and procedures for the
verification, validation, and accreditation of models and
simulations to ensure accuracy, thereby enhancing the credibility
of simulation results.
The advanced M&S capability envisioned by DOD will be a
rapidly configured mix of computer simulations, actual war-fighting
systems, and weapons systems simulators geographically distributed
and networked and involving tens of thousands of entities to
support training, analysis, and acquisition. Not only is there a
desire to quickly scale the size and mix of simulations, but DOD
also is pursuing the capability whereby both groups and individuals
can interact equally well with a synthetic environment. The major
challenge in providing scalability, as well as the group and
individual experience, is achieving consistency and coherence of
both time and space.
Other areas of ongoing research in DOD that show promising
results are the accurate representation of human behavior, systems,
and the natural environment (air, space, land, sea, weather, and
battle effects). DOD's efforts are focused on just-in-time
generation of integrated and consistent environmental data to
support realistic mission rehearsals anywhere in the world,
including inaccessible or operationally dangerous locations.
Investments in the rapid extraction of land and water surfaces,
features existing on those surfaces, and features derived from
ocean, air, and space grided fields have begun to yield results.
The goal is to develop a capability to generate feature-integrated
surfaces that require minimal editing and model-based software for
feature extraction. Achieving this will, for example, ensure that
weather fronts that bring rain or snow change the characteristics
of the ground so that transit rate is affected and the associated
wind patterns move trees, create waves, and alter dispersal
patterns of smoke and dust. The resulting realism will add
significantly to training, analysis, and acquisition. These
effects, when coupled with dial-up capability to create custom
correlated conditions, can provide year-round training.
Training
Warriors of every rank will use M&S to challenge their
skills at the tactical, operational, or strategic level through the
use of realistic synthetic environments for a full range of
missions, to include peacekeeping and providing humanitarian aide.
Huge exercises, combining forces from all services in carefully
planned combined operations, will engage in realistic training
without risking injury, environmental damage, or costly equipment
damage. Simulation will enable leaders to train at scales not
possible in any arena short of full-scale combat operations, using
weap-
Page 125
ons that would be unsafe on conventional live ranges. Simulation
will be used to evaluate the readiness of our armed forces as
well.
The active duty and reserve components of all forces will be
able to operate together in synthetic environments without costly
and time-consuming travel to live training grounds. In
computer-based training, both the friendly and opposition forces,
or computer-generated forces (CGFs), are highly aggregated into
large command echelons and carry out the orders resulting from
staff planning and decision making. CGFs fall into two categories:
(1) semiautomated forces (SAFs), which require some direct human
involvement to make tactical decisions and control the activities
of the aggregated force, and (2) automated forces, which are
associated with autonomous agent (AA) technology. AAs are in early
development phases and will find extensive applications in M&S
as the technology matures.
There is now a diverse and active interest throughout the DOD
M&S community, academia, and the software industry in the
development of CGFs and AAs. The Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency is sponsoring the development of Modular Semi-Automated
Forces for the Synthetic Theater of War program, which includes
both intelligent forces and command forces. This effort also
involves development of the command and control simulation
interface language. It is designed for communications between and
among simulated command entities, small units, and virtual
platforms. The services, more specifically the Army's Close Combat
Tactical Trainer program, is now developing opposing forces and
blue forces to be completed in 1997. The British Ministry of
Defence also is developing similar capabilities using command agent
technology in a program called Command Agent Support for Unit
Movement Facility. Academic and industrial interest in this
technology has led to the First International Conference on
Autonomous Agents, which will take place in Marina del Rey,
California, on February 5-8, 1997.
Analysis
M&S will provide DOD with a powerful set of tools to
systematically analyze alternative force structures. Analysts and
planners will design virtual joint forces, fight an imaginary foe,
reconfigure the mix of forces, and fight the battle numerous times
in order to learn how best to shape future task forces. Not only
will simulation shape future force structure, but it will also be
used to evaluate and optimize the course of action in response to
events that occur worldwide.
M&S representations will enable planners to design the most
effective logistics pipelines to supply the warriors of the future,
whether they are facing conventional combat missions or operations
other than war.
Page 171
certainly the Web will become the preeminent forum for the
exchange of commercial and scientific information; its significance
will exceed that of the cellular phone, the automated teller
machine, the fax machine, and the Home Shopping Network combined.
This is not a trivial development. Whether storytelling itself will
be fundamentally changed depends on a paradigm shift that I would
contend is much larger than for other emerging media. To fully
evaluate the likelihood and meaning of such as shift requires a
careful distinction between what we think of now as a "story" and
what we consider a "game" or "environment." A full appraisal of the
differences between the cognitive processes involved is beyond the
scope of this paper and is an excellent subject for further
research.
Page 172
Steven Seidensticker—
Distributed Simulation: A View from the Future
The battle date is August 17, 1943. I am the ball turret gunner
of Luscious Lady, a brand new B-17F of the 427th squadron, 303rd
Bombardment Group, of the Eighth Air Force. Our takeoff from
Molesworth was without incident, but as soon as we were off the
ground the pilot asked me to check the wheels. He had an indication
that the left main gear had not retracted fully. I hopped into the
ball and spun it until I had a good view of the wheel. It looked
OK. We chalked it up to a bad indicator in the cockpit. Although
the ball with its twin 50s is primarily intended to protect a B-17
from enemy fighters approaching from below, the view from beneath
the aircraft comes in handy for other chores. We climb out and
begin a long lazy circle. I keep tabs on and report other squadron
aircraft as they join our formation.
We are on our second mission and our first over Germany. Our
first mission was to bomb a Luftwaffe airfield near Paris. The
target was partly obscured by weather. Opposition was light. A few
Me-109s came up to meet us. They were not particularly aggressive
or well coordinated. Nevertheless, we lost one of our squadron. I
saw Old Ironsides get most of her rudder shot off. The pilot was
obviously losing control and chose to abandon his ship. I saw 10
good chutes. The debriefing team called the mission a "milk run."
The missions would become much tougher as we gained more
experience. We were happy to get this far.
My pilot and copilot are in Milwaukee. The navigator/bombardier
is in Montreal. Other crew members are in Seattle, San Jose,
Denver, and Green Bay. We cannot see or touch each other, but we
communicate via what appears to be a B-17's standard intercom. In
fact, we are part of a wide-area high-speed data network that
connects all crew stations of all aircraft, both friendly and
hostile. I don't know the total number of nodes on this network,
but it must be in the thousands. The number of spectators who can
tap into the net is in the millions. In addition to our voices,
this network carries all the data that our individual crew station
simulators need to show other aircraft the terrain over which we
fly, the weather, and other elements of our environment. To
participate in these missions each of us simply dials into the
network at the time scheduled for the mission, gets the standard
crew briefing on our screens, and waits for our turn to take off.
The pilots, bombardiers, and navigators get a detailed briefing on
the target and expected weather. The rest of the crew gets briefed
on expected opposition. The briefings are, of course, the same as
(or as close as possible to) the original briefings given to the
original crews. Like in the original briefings, we can ask
questions and get answers.
Page 173
Not all the crew stations on Luscious Lady are manned by humans.
The waist gunners and the radio operator are computer-generated
entities. They do their jobs reasonably well. They even respond to
us when we talk to them over the intercom. However, if the
conversation strays from simple orders or reports they quickly
become confused and start spouting gibberish. Some of the other
friendly aircraft on the mission and some of the opposing Luftwaffe
fighters have no human crews at all. But it's getting harder to
tell who is human and who is computer-generated, because the
programmers keep tweaking their behavior algorithms. But my
personal feeling is that they will never get to the point where
these simulations are totally indistinguishable from real people. I
hope they don't.
Over the Channel the pilot gives us the order to test our guns.
This is a ritual that ensures that the guns are working and marks
the real beginning of the mission for us gunners. From here we are
in harm's way. I cock both guns, point to a clear area, and let
loose with a short burst. The tracers arc away gracefully. I have
managed not to hit anyone else in the formation. To do so is
considered very bad form. It also requires the hapless shooter to
buy dinner for the shootee's crew at our next annual convention. Of
course, the computers that run this whole operation keep track of
everything, so there is no arguing or hiding. The target today is
the Me-109 plant in Regensburg. We know that the Luftwaffe was out
in force that day. The Eighth Air Force lost 24 B-17s out of a
force of 147. Shortly after we cross the French coast the nose
gunner shouts "four 109s at 12 o'clock low." The control yoke feels
comfortable in my hands as I spin the turret forward. They are
coming at our formation four abreast from dead ahead. The winking
lights on the leading edge of their wings show that they are
firing. I mash the right pedal hard to tell the lead computing gun
sight to use maximum range. The left pedal goes to the third notch
to input the wing span of an Me-109. I line the sight's pipper on
the number two plane and fire short bursts, trying to adjust the
range as they close. My shots appear low. Just about everyone in
our formation is firing. A puff of smoke bursts from the number
three fighter. It continues to smoke as their formation passes
right through ours.
This line abreast head-on attack was developed by the Luftwaffe
in early 1943. It took a lot of courage and discipline on the part
of the German pilots, but it was very effective. The idea was not
only to get the best shots possible but also to intimidate the
bomber pilots and break up the formation. It was probably the
greatest game of chicken ever and it frequently ended in collision.
The right waist gunner reports another formation at the four
o'clock level. But they are out of our range and overtaking us on a
parallel course, no doubt moving up for another head-on pass
through the bomber stream. I can see their yellow cowlings and
Page 174
know that they belong to JG 26, the "Abbeville Kids," one of the
best Luftwaffe fighter wings.
The attacks continue sporadically until we are about 30 miles
from the target. At that point we start seeing the dreaded flak.
The small black clouds bloom innocently in the distance, but we
know that as the ground gunners adjust the aim of their 88s, the
bursts will be right around us. There is little evasive action that
a formation of B-17s can take. We are near the IP (initial point)
that the pilot must fly over if we are to get our bombs anywhere
near the target. At that point, the bombardier takes over and
actually flies the plane to the bomb release point, using autopilot
controls on the famous Norden bomb sight, probably one of the most
famous but overrated technical developments of World War II. The
flak rounds get closer.
The concussion from one of them is louder than the fifties going
off next to my ears. The pilot reports that number four engine is
starting to vibrate and that the manifold pressure is dropping. Bad
news. If it fails we will have to drop out of the formation. Like
the weak separated from the herd, we will be on our own. We may
have to fight packs of fighters as we try for the coast and the
protection of friendly Spitfires. Most who have been through this
say that it can be the most exciting part of an afternoon of
simulation, but the B-17 seldom survives. Those that do get an
award at the next convention and, of course, their battle with the
fighters is replayed on the large screen.
We finally reach the target, the bombardier hits the pickle
switch, and I watch the bombs fall away. I loose sight of them
after a few seconds, but shortly thereafter see a string of
explosions on the ground. The bombs land in a rail yard just east
of the target complex. But that's closer than the original crew
came in 1943.
The flight back was challenging. For two hours we endured more
flak and almost constant fighter harassment. Our pilot managed to
coax enough power out of the number four engine to maintain our
position in the formation. The rest of the formation was not so
lucky. Stric Nine took an 88-mm round in the right wing root and
the whole wing came off. There were no chutes. Wallaroo lost an
engine and had to drop back, but we were close to the coast and a
flight of P-47s escorted her back. Once we got over the Channel I
turned over my role to an automatic ball turret simulation and had
a quick dinner in the kitchen with my wife. I doubt that the rest
of my crew even noticed I was gone. I rejoined the simulation for
the debriefing. The colonel told us that we had done reasonably
well for a second mission crew.
My ball turret is a medium-priced model from RealSim Inc., one
of the rising companies in this field. It provides a lot of
fidelity for the price and has a lot of update options. I'm very
happy with it. The ball spins
Page 175
and rotates vertically much the way the original did and takes
up less than half of my garage. The visual scenes are presented on
panels built right into the ball. Sound and vibration are provided
by some large but ordinary speakers. RealSim sells the basic turret
dirt cheap but knows how sim-heads get hooked on fidelity, and so
they offer a large range of add-ons that can become real expensive.
Some of my colleagues have mounted their units on electrically
driven motion platforms. I don't know if that is worth the extra
cost. Maybe next year. Many other simulated crew stations are built
around virtual reality goggles. Those are a lot less expensive but
work quite well. One enthusiastic crew has built a whole B-17
fuselage in a warehouse.
As in most simulations, visual scenes provide the dominant cues.
The simulation industry long ago reached its holy grail of creating
visual images that are indistinguishable from the real thing. The
processing power needed to create them is so cheap that the image
generators are no longer a cost factor in most simulators.
Databases that represent the terrain of any portion of the earth
are readily available at any resolution desired. Specialty "period"
databases (Dunkirk or Waterloo for instance) for groundpounders are
becoming available but are very expensive.
The key factor that made this kind of group simulation possible
was the development of the DIS (distributed interactive simulation)
standards about 25 years ago. Once these standards were in place,
the designers and builders of simulator components didn't have to
spend any more time thinking about linking them together than does
the designer of a railroad car need to worry about how to couple
his car to a train. The DIS standards allowed the simulation
industry to concentrate on functionality, performance, and cost
reduction.
My wife used to ask me why I spend so much time and money on
this. There are a number of reasons. I, like most middle-aged guys,
have often fantasized about going into battle to test my wits and
skill with a comparably equipped enemy. In this fantasy I support
my comrades and in turn depend on their support. I yearn to
experience the heat of battle, victory over my adversary, or a
narrow escape from the reach of his weapons. However, I have no
desire to shed any of my blood.
I also love history, great battles in particular. I know of no
greater battle than that between the U.S. Eighth Air Force and the
German Luftwaffe in 1943 and 1944. The leaders of the American
forces felt that they could win the war with heavy bombing of
German military and industrial targets. To be accurate this had to
be done in daylight. Escort fighters of the day did not have
sufficient range to cover the bombers. The bombers had to depend on
their own defensive weapons.
Participation in these re-created battles is available at a
number of levels. I started as a spectator. The magic carpet mode
of my computer
Page 176
let me observe operations from any point in space. It also let
me attach myself to any aircraft in the battle and listen to the
radio and intercom traffic for that aircraft. Running commentary is
available from experts. Previews and schedules of upcoming battles
are carried by the major sports pages. Reports of completed battles
also are carried. These tend to dwell on the personalities involved
and the shoot-em-up aspects. How close the reenactment came to the
original battle seems to be getting lost.
After watching several of the major raids, I was hooked and
wanted to play an active role. My first desire was to be a
Luftwaffe pilot, but the requirement for fluency in German
eliminated that. Rumors are that an English-speaking Luftwaffe wing
is forming. My second choice was to sit in the cockpit of a B-17.
But, like the original aircrews, I needed training. The training
course for all pilot positions is long and demanding. I opted for
the less ambitious role of gunner. Fortunately, the simulator
technology that I own trains me more efficiently and quickly than
did similar training programs in 1943. After a few intense
weekends, I passed the qualification tests and was assigned to my
present crew. We are not the most proficient crew on today's raid,
but neither were the new crews in 1943.
As I become more serious in this avocation, I wonder where it is
going. Some social commentators are starting to decry the
"glorification of war." Others counter with statements about
"harmless outlets of male aggression," despite the fact that at
last year's convention the Best B-17 Crew Award went to an
all-female crew. Some critics are worried that the super-realistic
simulation available today is going to replace drugs as the
national addiction. Who knows! The raid on the ball-bearing
factories in Schweinfurt is scheduled for next week. It was the
bloodiest for the Eighth Air Force. I think my crew and I are good
enough and lucky enough to survive. I can hardly wait to find
out.
Page 177
Jack Thorpe—
Research Needs for Synthetic Environments
Purpose
This paper introduces one approach for thinking about the
technical challenges of constructing synthetic environments and
some of the related research issues. The paper is designed to
stimulate discussion, not to be a comprehensive treatise on the
topic.
Discussion
Simulation, virtual reality, gaming, and film share the common
objective of creating a believable artificial world for
participants. In this context, believability is less about the
specific content of the environment and more about the perception
that there exists a world that participants can port themselves
into and be active in—that is, exert behavior of some
sort.
In film, this is vicarious. In simulation, virtual reality, and
gaming it tends to be active, even allowing participants to choose
the form for porting into the environment: either as an occupant of
a vehicle moving through the environment, as a puppet (proxy) of
him or herself that he or she controls from an observation station,
or as a fully immersed human. The iconic representation or avatar
can assume whatever form is appropriate for the environment.
When the participant is an audience member in a single venue and
is neither required to interact overtly with other audience members
in the same venue or other connected venues, the issues of
large-scale interactivity and distributed locations are minimal. On
the other hand, when tens or hundreds of remotely located
participants are ported into the same world and begin to interact
freely (and unpredictably), as demonstrated in recent advances in
distributed interactive simulation, not only are the environments
more interesting but the technical challenges are also more
difficult. It is likely that these will also be the next-generation
commercial application for this technology, and so addressing
technical issues is timely.
To design and build these more complex worlds, the following
major tasks have been found to be useful classifications of the
work needed to be done and the tools required to perform this work,
thus leading to the research and development needed to construct
the tools. For each of these tasks a few of the research issues are
identified, but this is far from a comprehensive treatment:
Page 178
• Efficient fabrication of the synthetic environment;
• Design and manufacture of affordable porting devices that
allow humans to enter and/or interface with these environments;
• Design and management of a worldwide simulation Internet
to connect these porting devices in real time;
• Development of computational proxies (algorithms) that
accurately mimic the behavior of humans unable to be present;
• Staffing, organization, and management of realistic,
validated sentient opponents (or other agents), networked based,
for augmenting the world; and
• Development of innovative applications and methodologies
for exploiting this unique capability.
Efficient Fabrication of the Synthetic
Environment
Artificial worlds are usually three-dimensional spaces whose
features are sensed by the participants in multiple modes, almost
always visual but possibly auditory, tactile, whole-body motion,
infrared, radar, or via a full range of notional sensor or
information cues. For each of these modes of interaction, the
attributes can be specified in a prebuilt database ahead of time,
or calculated in real time, or both.
The challenge is to construct interesting three-dimensional
environments efficiently. Cost rises as a function of the size of
the space (in some military simulations it can be thousands of
square miles of topography), resolution, detail (precision cues
needed for interaction), dynamic features (objects that can
interact with participants, like doors that can open or buildings
that can be razed), and several other factors. As a general
observation, the tools needed to efficiently construct large
complex environments are lacking, a particularly serious shortfall
when fine-tuning environments for specific goals of a simulation or
game. Toolsets are quirky and primitive, require substantial
training to master, and often prohibit the environment architect
from including all of the attributes desired. This is a serious
problem, one that seems to get relatively little attention. It is
an area that needs continual research and development focus.
Design and Manufacture of Affordable
Porting Devices that Allow Humans to Enter and/or Interface with
These Environments
The manner in which the human enters the synthetic environment
continues to undergo rapid change. Flight simulators are a good
example. Twenty years ago a sophisticated flight simulator cost $20
million to
Page 179
$40 million. Ten years ago technology allowed costs to drop by a
factor of 100. Today there has been another one or two orders of
magnitude decrease. Further, each new generation is more capable
than its more costly predecessor. This drop in cost, with an
increase in the richness of the participant's ability to interact
with the environment and other people and agents similarly ported
there, is especially important as large-scale simulations are
constructed—that is, those that might have 50 or more
participants (some military simulations have thousands of
participants). The cost per participant (cost per seat) can be a
limiting factor no matter how rich the interface.
The research issues include the design methodology that leads to
good functional specifications for the simulation or game (the work
on selective fidelity by Bob Jacobs at Illusion Inc. is relevant),
the design and fabrication approaches for full-enclosure simulators
(vehicles) and caves (individuals), the porting facade at the
desktop workstation (partly manifested by the graphical user
interface), and other means of entering the environment, such as
while mobile via a wireless personal digital assistant.
Design and Management of a Worldwide
Simulation Internet to Connect These Porting Devices in Real
Time
Small-scale as well as large-scale distributed interactive
environments have baseline requirements for latency, which is
compounded when a requirement to worldwide entry into environments
is added. Latency is influenced by the type of interaction a
participant is involved with in the specific synthetic environment.
The requirement is that the perception of "real timeness" is not
violated, that is, that participants do not perceive a rift in the
time domain (a stutter, momentary freeze, or unnatural delay in
consequence of some action that should be a seamless interaction).
Because this is a perceptual issue, it is dependent on the nature
of the interaction and the participant's expectations.
This becomes a technology issue as the number of independently
behaving participants grows, the number of remote sites increases,
and the diversity of the types of interactions coming from these
sites and participants grows. It has been demonstrated that
unfiltered broadcasting of interaction messages ("I am here doing
this to you") quickly saturates the ability of every participant to
sort through all the incoming messages, the majority of which are
irrelevant to a specific participant. The functionality needed in
this type of large interactive network is akin to dynamically
reconfigurable multicasting, as yet unavailable as a network
service.
It could turn out that as the Internet expands it will provide
the ded-
Page 180
icated protected speed and addressing for these types of
interactions, but this is not the case to date, and dedicated
networks have had to be installed to support large exercises.
Further, it is conceivable that the appetite of the simulation or
game designer for more complex and interactive environments will
outpace the near-term flexibility and capacity of network
providers. Networks are going to have to be smarter, a continuing
research issue.
Development of Computational Proxies
(Algorithms) That Accurately Mimic the Behavior of Humans Unable to
Be Present
Late 1980s experimentation with distributed interactive
simulations resulted in the constant pressure to grow the
environments in the numbers of participants, but there were never
enough porting devices or people to man them to satisfy this
growth. Since these environments began as behaviorally rich
human-on-human/force-on-force experiences, players demanded that
any additional agents brought on via computer algorithm have all
the characteristic behaviors of intelligent beings, that is, that
they passed the Turing test and would be indistinguishable from
real humans—a tall order.
This resulted in a series of developments of semiautomated and
fully automated forces capable of behaving as humans and
interacting alongside or against other humans ported into the
simulation. These developments have met with mixed success. In some
cases computer algorithms have been constructed that are excellent
mimics of actual individuals and teams, particularly in vehicles,
but in other cases the problem is more difficult, especially in
areas of mimicking cognition as in decision making. Nonetheless,
the commercial application as well as the defense application of
large-scale interactive environments will require large-scale
synthetic forces behaving correctly. Given that understanding,
predicting, and "generating" human behavior transcends simulation
and gaming, this will continue to be a major research area.
Staffing, Organization, and Management
of Realistic, Validated Sentient Opponents (or Other Agents),
Networked Based, for Augmenting the World
Where environments require teams of people acting in concert to
augment the synthetic environment for participants, for example,
teams of well-trained and commanded competitors, the opportunity
presents itself for the establishment of network-based teams. These
could be widely remoted themselves, even though they would be
perceived as being
Page 181
ported into the synthetic environment at a single location. The
challenge of establishing these teams is less technical and more
organizational, typical of military operations, except in the case
where these teams are required to faithfully portray forces of
different backgrounds, languages, and value systems. Technology can
assist with real-time language generation and translation. Behaving
as someone from a different culture is more difficult.
Development of Innovative Applications
and Methodologies for Exploiting This Unique Capability
The capabilities created through the design and instantiation of
a synthetic environment can be unprecedented, making conventional
applications and methodologies obsolete. This task recognizes that
research is needed on how to characterize these new capabilities
and systematically exploit them.
Items in cart [0]
