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."
-- General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
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.
Slashdot Mirror
If your not buying Nvidia products - you are supprting the terrorists!
Actually, for a while, the Marines had a custom version of Doom for training purposes!
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
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.