Quantum3D/NVIDIA technology: Military Applications
Posted by
Hemos
on from the battle-of-the-video dept.
rask22 writes "FiringSquad has a interesting new article up discussing the changes at Quantum3D since the demise of 3dfx along with the current military applications of NVidia chipsets. Interesting to see how the US Gov is using all this technology coming out of the gaming sector."
Not terribly surprising...
by
neksys
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The military, even the US military, has a limited R&D budget. Why go to the trouble of developing a chipset from scratch, when you can just use one that's already been developed? I can guarantee that the amount of money spent on commercial research and development in the area of graphics far exceeds that of any military research into the same area.
Really, this is no different than the US military using Intel or AMD CPUs in their computer systems - there's no doubt that these consumer-driven products give them more than enough bang for their buck. Why spend $100 million on a new CPU when you can buy one for $99 at CompuSmart? It's not "surprising". Its good business.
So does this mean that the new Dell laptops woth the Quadro4 Go chips in them could be called weapons?
-- "Evil will always triumph because good is dumb." -- Dark Helmet
Wanted: gamers
by
revbob
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
to visit exciting places, meet interesting people, and kill them.
so you mean that all this time i've been developing my hand/eye coordination i've been testing technologies that are now used in the military?
Yup.
Imagine yourself for a moment wearing a brass hat. You've got a stream of young civilians coming in to begin their military service. Your goal is to train those young people so that they:
Defeat the enemy,
Remain as safe as possible, and
Come back home
The US military folks have realized since before the Gulf War that young people are entering the military having spent hundreds or thousands of hours developing gaming skills.
This is potentially free training -- there's no way the military could possibly pay to train that many hours or train to that level of skill. And study after study has shown that gaming skills transfer over to combat situations, and that transfer of training is even more dramatic when combat displays and actions can be adapted to be more like their videogame counterparts.
What's more, military training is inherently dangerous, while videogaming seldom results in anything worse than a blister on your thumb.
Anybody who's thinking Ender's Game may be forgiven -- though Card had to spend an enormous amount of plot time developing a military and political situation where allowing Ender and friends to do their thing wasn't wildly improbable.
So keep on pushing them buttons. If you decide to help your country in warfare against its enemies, the skills you develop will raise your chances of coming back home.
This is potentially free training -- there's no way the military could possibly pay to train that many hours or train to that level of skill. And study after study has shown that gaming skills transfer over to combat situations, and that transfer of training is even more dramatic when combat displays and actions can be adapted to be more like their videogame counterparts.
That said, however, the money saved in training is offset by additional money spent in DE-training so as to stop the GI's from attempting to rocket jump up to the second floor of the barracks.
-- "Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
Don't forget *why* the military does R&D
by
Aniquel
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The military - including agencies like DARPA, ONNR, etc - don't just choose products based on cost. This is a common misconception. One of the reasons gov't funded projects are so expensive is that they *TRY* to push the envelope. Think about it - Do you want your military to use the same quality components as your enemy? Or do you want them to use bleeding-edge (but very carefully verified) technology?
Don't believe me? We saw the same thing when NASA chose to fund Boeing's overbudget, delayed, and far-fetched next-gen reusable spacecraft, rather than selecting the already built and working prototype model by McDD. NASAs justification? The Boeing craft required alot of new technology to be developed.
The same thing is true in university research, btw.
Friendly fire
by
Mandelbrute
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
that improves safety in zero visibility conditions and a general improvement in situational awareness, reducing the risk of friendly fire casualties.
Something like this is needed, since bright orange reflective paint always doesn't work, orders from ground control are sometimes ignored, "extreme weather conditions" like a sunny desert day have an effect, and "extreme differences in language" between english and whatever A10 pilots from the USA speak (Ebonics?) take their toll. A heads up display that says "DON'T FIRE - IT'S A BRITISH TANK YOU ARSEHOLE" may be useful.
No one from the USA even bothered to turn up to the inquest. Somewhere out there is probably a couple of A10s with little union jacks painted on the side.
You want evidence?
by
neksys
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Please see Men Against Fire (1946, 1978), by Brig. Gen. S. L. A. Marshall, which I have open right in front of me. Based on his post-combat interviews, Marshall concluded in his book Men Against Fire (1946, 1978) that only 15 to 20 percent of the individual riflemen in World War II fired their own weapons at an exposed enemy soldier. In 1946, the US Army had accepted Marshall's conclusions, and the Human Resources Research Office of the US Army subsequently pioneered a revolution in combat training, which eventually replaced firing at targets with deeply ingrained conditioning, using realistic, man-shaped pop-up targets that fall when hit. Psychologists assert that this kind of powerful operant conditioning is the only technique that will reliably influence the primitive, midbrain processing of a frightened human being. This application and perfection of basic conditioning techniques increased the rate of fire to approximately 55 percent in Korea and around 95 percent in Vietnam (Grossman, 1995).
Equally high rates of fire resulting from modern conditioning techniques can be seen in Richard Holmes' (Soldiers, 1985) observation of British firing rates in the Falklands and FBI data on law enforcement firing rates since the nationwide introduction of modern conditioning techniques in the late 1960s.
For additional info and further statistics please consider the following selections:
Konrad Lorenz, On Aggression, 1963 John Keegan, The Face of Battle, 1976 Jim Goodwin, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorders: A Handbook for Clinicians, 1988 Dave Grossman, On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, 8th ed., 1996
why games develop combat skills
by
labradore
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Most of the computer and console games played today require one of the following three skill sets (often there is overlap):
Attack, dodge and maneuver.
Navigate and maneuver.
Strategize, direct (or engage) and react.
It also happens that these are the skill sets employed by soldiers in modern battles. The biggest difference between the real battlefield and a game is that the battlefield traditionally has required strength, endurance and discipline. The modern battlefield also requires a level of coodinated communication not yet matched in computer gaming.
Even further off topic: It is interesting that the we as a human species have survived and prospered by devloping and exploiting complex hunting skills and strategies. Most of the pre-history of the species was a 75,000 year territorial expansion over the over the surface of the dry earth. Humans did not develop agricultural resources until the climate and our populations stabilized enough to make farming an "obvious" alternative to hunting. Therefore we are the descendants of the last, most successful terrestrial hunters (note: we are not necessarily the most successful terrestrial hunters of all time because we just don't know). Our games frequently mimic hunting activities and our wars are the natural results of our competitive nature and our aptitude to kill. All predatory social species will develop conflicts between individuals AND groups.
It is easy to see that our games and our predatory activity and our conflicts will probably always be very similar. The other conclusion available from these details is that we are not really predisposed to live peaceful, stress-free lives. In fact, the pressure to live in an ordered, peaceful, structured society is fairly contrary to our natural tendencies. Perhaps this is one reason why societies tend to decay? It seems to me pretty comical that we have achieved total superiority over the other species on the planet and now we have turned our domination and predation against ourselves. Do the animals that were once our prey now quietly giggle among themselves when they see us kill eachother instead of them? Now we are consigned to struggle against our own nature and against our own wills to make peace. It seems almost an abomination to smother our greatest virtues. If we must make peace then I suppose we can use our skill to play games. In that light the playing of games is an extordinary savior of civilization. Our tendencies can be subverted. Civility can be maintained. Is this the noble role of the video game? Time will tell.
Re:WTF is the "ebonics" comment about?
by
Mandelbrute
·
· Score: 3, Informative
WTF is the "ebonics" comment about?
A very senior US military spokesman blamed a maverick missile attack on some british tanks behind the lines on a variety of factors - including bad weather conditions (the reality was that it was a warm sunny day with zero humidity and very good visability), and "the extreme differences in the languges of the forces". The reality about the language would be that anyone that is flying an A10 for the USA would be a fluent english speaker - so the "Ebonics?" comment could be better phrased as "who do you think you're fooling by talking about language differences - it's not as if they are going to be talking in ebonics". The A10 pilots screwed up, but their bosses really screwed up, and showed what they personally thought of their military allies.
But do us all a favor and keep the racist crap on your side of the Atlantic.
Maybe I've missed something here, but from where I am I've heard ebonics is some sort of pigin spanish/english mix that was proposed to be taught in schools in parts of California. What has racism got to do with it? If the schools haven't got their shit together enough to teach the kids english in an english speaking country then those kids are going to be screwed when they start looking for work.
Here's an example
by
revbob
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
offerors should emphasize
radical concepts that may contain high technical risk but
if enabled would have commensurate high military payoff.
These are typical words for a DARPA solicitation. The last thing DARPA wants to hear about is something you're pretty sure will work.
The problem space for this one is fairly prosaic in comparison to some recent ones (nanotech, weird biology, real AI), but the problems addressed (being absolutely sure you can communicate in a hostile and confusing environment, fighting on any randomly chosen battlefield like it's your home field, and weapons that will kill the bad guys but not the good guys) are first class Hard Problems.
Notice also that the amount of money they've got to spend on all three projects in this area is US$5M. Chicken feed. Shrinking budgets and a proper insistence that defense dollars show up on the battlefield preclude much else.
Slashdot Mirror
The military, even the US military, has a limited R&D budget. Why go to the trouble of developing a chipset from scratch, when you can just use one that's already been developed? I can guarantee that the amount of money spent on commercial research and development in the area of graphics far exceeds that of any military research into the same area.
Really, this is no different than the US military using Intel or AMD CPUs in their computer systems - there's no doubt that these consumer-driven products give them more than enough bang for their buck. Why spend $100 million on a new CPU when you can buy one for $99 at CompuSmart? It's not "surprising". Its good business.
Next thing we know we'll be arming soldiers with nail guns.
If your not buying Nvidia products - you are supprting the terrorists!
So does this mean that the new Dell laptops woth the Quadro4 Go chips in them could be called weapons?
"Evil will always triumph because good is dumb." -- Dark Helmet
Yup.
Imagine yourself for a moment wearing a brass hat. You've got a stream of young civilians coming in to begin their military service. Your goal is to train those young people so that they:
The US military folks have realized since before the Gulf War that young people are entering the military having spent hundreds or thousands of hours developing gaming skills.
This is potentially free training -- there's no way the military could possibly pay to train that many hours or train to that level of skill. And study after study has shown that gaming skills transfer over to combat situations, and that transfer of training is even more dramatic when combat displays and actions can be adapted to be more like their videogame counterparts.
What's more, military training is inherently dangerous, while videogaming seldom results in anything worse than a blister on your thumb.
Anybody who's thinking Ender's Game may be forgiven -- though Card had to spend an enormous amount of plot time developing a military and political situation where allowing Ender and friends to do their thing wasn't wildly improbable.
So keep on pushing them buttons. If you decide to help your country in warfare against its enemies, the skills you develop will raise your chances of coming back home.
The military - including agencies like DARPA, ONNR, etc - don't just choose products based on cost. This is a common misconception. One of the reasons gov't funded projects are so expensive is that they *TRY* to push the envelope. Think about it - Do you want your military to use the same quality components as your enemy? Or do you want them to use bleeding-edge (but very carefully verified) technology?
Don't believe me? We saw the same thing when NASA chose to fund Boeing's overbudget, delayed, and far-fetched next-gen reusable spacecraft, rather than selecting the already built and working prototype model by McDD. NASAs justification? The Boeing craft required alot of new technology to be developed.
The same thing is true in university research, btw.
No one from the USA even bothered to turn up to the inquest. Somewhere out there is probably a couple of A10s with little union jacks painted on the side.
Please see Men Against Fire (1946, 1978), by Brig. Gen. S. L. A. Marshall, which I have open right in front of me. Based on his post-combat interviews, Marshall concluded in his book Men Against Fire (1946, 1978) that only 15 to 20 percent of the individual riflemen in World War II fired their own weapons at an exposed enemy soldier. In 1946, the US Army had accepted Marshall's conclusions, and the Human Resources Research Office of the US Army subsequently pioneered a revolution in combat training, which eventually replaced firing at targets with deeply ingrained conditioning, using realistic, man-shaped pop-up targets that fall when hit. Psychologists assert that this kind of powerful operant conditioning is the only technique that will reliably influence the primitive, midbrain processing of a frightened human being. This application and perfection of basic conditioning techniques increased the rate of fire to approximately 55 percent in Korea and around 95 percent in Vietnam (Grossman, 1995).
Equally high rates of fire resulting from modern conditioning techniques can be seen in Richard Holmes' (Soldiers, 1985) observation of British firing rates in the Falklands and FBI data on law enforcement firing rates since the nationwide introduction of modern conditioning techniques in the late 1960s.
For additional info and further statistics please consider the following selections:
Konrad Lorenz, On Aggression, 1963
John Keegan, The Face of Battle, 1976
Jim Goodwin, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorders: A Handbook for Clinicians, 1988
Dave Grossman, On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, 8th ed., 1996
Most of the computer and console games played today require one of the following three skill sets (often there is overlap):
It also happens that these are the skill sets employed by soldiers in modern battles. The biggest difference between the real battlefield and a game is that the battlefield traditionally has required strength, endurance and discipline. The modern battlefield also requires a level of coodinated communication not yet matched in computer gaming.
Even further off topic: It is interesting that the we as a human species have survived and prospered by devloping and exploiting complex hunting skills and strategies. Most of the pre-history of the species was a 75,000 year territorial expansion over the over the surface of the dry earth. Humans did not develop agricultural resources until the climate and our populations stabilized enough to make farming an "obvious" alternative to hunting. Therefore we are the descendants of the last, most successful terrestrial hunters (note: we are not necessarily the most successful terrestrial hunters of all time because we just don't know). Our games frequently mimic hunting activities and our wars are the natural results of our competitive nature and our aptitude to kill. All predatory social species will develop conflicts between individuals AND groups.
It is easy to see that our games and our predatory activity and our conflicts will probably always be very similar. The other conclusion available from these details is that we are not really predisposed to live peaceful, stress-free lives. In fact, the pressure to live in an ordered, peaceful, structured society is fairly contrary to our natural tendencies. Perhaps this is one reason why societies tend to decay? It seems to me pretty comical that we have achieved total superiority over the other species on the planet and now we have turned our domination and predation against ourselves. Do the animals that were once our prey now quietly giggle among themselves when they see us kill eachother instead of them? Now we are consigned to struggle against our own nature and against our own wills to make peace. It seems almost an abomination to smother our greatest virtues. If we must make peace then I suppose we can use our skill to play games. In that light the playing of games is an extordinary savior of civilization. Our tendencies can be subverted. Civility can be maintained. Is this the noble role of the video game? Time will tell.
Note the relevant words:
These are typical words for a DARPA solicitation. The last thing DARPA wants to hear about is something you're pretty sure will work.
The problem space for this one is fairly prosaic in comparison to some recent ones (nanotech, weird biology, real AI), but the problems addressed (being absolutely sure you can communicate in a hostile and confusing environment, fighting on any randomly chosen battlefield like it's your home field, and weapons that will kill the bad guys but not the good guys) are first class Hard Problems.
Notice also that the amount of money they've got to spend on all three projects in this area is US$5M. Chicken feed. Shrinking budgets and a proper insistence that defense dollars show up on the battlefield preclude much else.