Technical Report 1129

Virtual Environments for Dismounted Soldier

Simulation, Training, and Mission Rehearsal:

Results of the FY 2001 Culminating Event

Bruce W. Knerr and Donald R. Lampton

U.S. Army Research Institute

Harrison P. Crowell, III and Mark A. Thomas

U.S. Army Research Laboratory

Brian D. Comer and James R. Grosse

U.S. Army Simulation, Training and Instrumentation Command

James H. Centric

TRW, Inc.

Keith A. Garfield, Glenn A. Martin, and Donald A. Washburn

University of Central Florida Institute for Simulation and Training

 June 2002

United States Army Research Institute

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
U.S. Army Research Institute

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

A Directorate of the U.S. Total Army Personnel Command

ZITA M. SIMUTIS

Acting Director

Technical review by

Dr. Robert Pleban

Dr. Bob Witmer

NOTICES

DISTRIBUTION: Primary distribution of this Technical Report has been made by ARI. Please

address correspondence concerning distribution of reports to: U.S. Army Research Institute for

the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Attn: TAPC-ARI-PO, 5001 Eisenhower Ave., Alexandria,

VA 22333-5600.

FINAL DISPOSITION: This Technical Report may be destroyed when it is no longer needed.

Please do not return it to the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social

Sciences.

NOTE: The findings in this Technical Report are not to be construed as an official Department

of the Army position, unless so designated by other authorized documents.
i

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

1. REPORT DATE (dd-mm-yy)

June 2002

2. REPORT TYPE

Final

3. DATES COVERED (from. . . to)

October, 2000 – January, 2002

5a. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER

N/A

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Virtual Environments for Dismounted Soldier Simulation, Training,

and Mission Rehearsal: Results of the FY 2001 Culminating Event

5b. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

2Q622785A

6. AUTHOR(S) Bruce W. Knerr & Donald R. Lampton, (U.S. Army Research

Institute), Harrison P. Crowell, III & Mark Thomas (U.S. Army Research

5c. PROJECT NUMBER

A790

Laboratory), Brian D. Comer & James R. Grosse (U.S. Army Simulation,

Training, and Instrumentation Command), James Centric (TRW, Inc.),

5d. TASK NUMBER

202a

Keith A. Garfield, Glenn A. Martin, & Donald A. Washburn (University of

Central Florida Institute for Simulation & Training)

5e. WORK UNIT NUMBER

H01

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

ATTN: TAPC-ARI-IF

12350 Research Parkway

Orlando, FL 32826-3276

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

5001 Eisenhower Avenue

10. MONITOR ACRONYM

ARI

Alexandria, VA 22333-5600 11. MONITOR REPORT NUMBER

ARI Technical Report 1129

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words):

This report describes the activities and results of the third year culminating event (CE) of the “Virtual Environments for

Dismounted Soldier Simulation, Training and Mission Rehearsal” Science and Technology Objective (STO). This STO is being

conducted jointly by the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, the U.S. Army Simulation,

Training, and Instrumentation Command (STRICOM), and the U.S. Army Research Laboratory. This four-year effort (FY99-

FY02) is focused on overcoming critical technological challenges that currently prevent high fidelity dismounted soldier

simulation. The objectives of the CE were to integrate and evaluate the technologies developed during the year. The key

technologies included: a Dismounted Infantry Virtual After Action Review (AAR) System; new behaviors and improved

operator control for Dismounted Infantry Semi-Automated Forces (DISAF); soldier control of DISAF through Voice

Recognition and Synthesis; enhancements to the soldier simulator, the Soldier Visualization Station (SVS); an improved

locomotion device, the Omni-Directional Treadmill (ODT); a dynamic terrain server; and a Mission Planning and Training Tool

(MPTT). The CE provided a realistic and challenging test of the systems and capabilities under development. The results

identified both accomplishments and areas in which improvements and corrections are required.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Virtual Environments, Dismounted Infantry, Simulator Sickness, Locomotion Simulators, DISAF, Semi-Automated Forces,

After Action Review, Voice Recognition, Voice Synthesis, Training Effectiveness

 SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF 19. LIMITATION OF 20. NUMBER 21. RESPONSIBLE PERSON

16. REPORT

Unclassified

17. ABSTRACT

Unclassified

18. THIS PAGE

Unclassified

ABSTRACT

Unlimited

OF PAGES (Name and Telephone Number)

Dr. Bruce W. Knerr

(407) 384-3987
ii
iii

Technical Report 1129

 Virtual Environments for Dismounted Soldier

Simulation, Training, and Mission Rehearsal:

Results of the FY 2001 Culminating Event

Bruce W. Knerr and Donald R. Lampton

U.S. Army Research Institute

Harrison P. Crowell, III and Mark A. Thomas

U.S. Army Research Laboratory

Brian D. Comer and James R. Grosse

U.S. Army Simulation, Training and Instrumentation Command

James H. Centric

TRW, Inc.

Keith A. Garfield, Glenn A. Martin, and Donald A. Washburn

University of Central Florida Institute for Simulation and Training

Simulator Systems Research Unit

Stephen L. Goldberg, Chief

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333-5600

June 2002

Army Project Number Personnel Performance and

 2O262785A790 Training Technology
iv
v

FOREWORD

The U.S. Army needs a capability to effectively simulate the performance of dismounted

soldiers in virtual simulations. In current fielded systems, such as the Close Combat Tactical

Trainer, dismounted combatants are involved in the combined arms operation in an artificial and

generally unsatisfactory manner. Virtual simulation can provide a means for dismounted leaders,

soldiers and units to train effectively over a wide range of conditions. The same technologies

also can be used for development of new Infantry concepts and doctrine and applied to

development of mission planning and rehearsal tools. The capability to use effective virtual

simulations for dismounted combatants has implications for training of today’s dismounted

leaders and soldiers and for the development of effective Objective Force Warrior concepts and

systems.

Emerging Virtual Environment (VE) technologies, such as low cost computer image

generators, locomotion platforms, intelligent computer-controlled forces, and immersive

displays, have the potential to provide training, mission rehearsal, and experimentation

capabilities for dismounted soldiers and leaders. However, the potential of VE is currently

unrealized because critical hardware and software gaps, documented effective training methods

and strategies, and training support tools need to be developed and integrated.

In response to this need, the U.S. Army Research Institute Simulator Systems (ARISSRU) and Infantry Forces Research Units (ARI-IFRU), the U.S. Army Simulation, Training,

and Instrumentation Command (STRICOM), and the U.S. Army Research Laboratory Human

Research and Engineering Directorate (ARL-HRED) and Computational and Information

Sciences Directorate (ARL-CISD) are participating in a joint Science and Technology Objective

(STO) entitled “Virtual Environments for Dismounted Soldier Simulation, Training and Mission

Rehearsal.” This four-year effort (FY99-FY02) is focused on overcoming critical technological

challenges that currently prevent effective dismounted soldier simulation. This report describes

an assessment of progress in meeting STO objectives conducted by the participating

organizations at Fort Benning, GA in September 2001.

The results were briefed to the sponsoring Dismounted BattleSpace Battle Lab and

representatives of the participating organizations on 19 November 2001 in Orlando, FL. They are

being used to guide activities for the final year of the STO.

MICHAEL G. RUMSEY

Acting Technical Director
vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The research described in this report could not have been conducted without the combined

efforts of a large number of people. In addition to the authors of this report, they include the

following:

• Bryan Clark, University of Central Florida, who analyzed the questionnaire data.

• John Kraemer, Bill Guest, and John Dohme, CSC, who supported the conduct of the exercises at

the Land Warrior Test Bed.

• Matt Kraus and Daryl Siddon, SAIC, who were responsible for DISAF development.

• Paul Barham, Charles Brown, Brian Plamondon, and Brian Stewart, Reality by Design, who were

responsible for Soldier Visualization Station development.

• Phuong Tran, Patrick Wiley, and Jim Faughn, ARL-HRED, who supported Omni-Directional

Treadmill operation.

• Andrew Neiderer, ARL-CISD, who supported Dynamic Terrain development.

• Mike Dlubac, TRW, who assisted in scenario development and conduct.

• And especially the soldiers who participated.
vii

VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTS FOR DISMOUNTED SOLDIER SIMULATION, TRAINING, AND

MISSION REHEARSAL: RESULTS OF THE FY 2001 CULMINATING EVENT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Research Requirement:

The U.S. Army Research Institute Simulator Systems (ARI-SSRU) and Infantry Forces

Research Units (ARI-IFRU), the U.S. Army Simulation, Training, and Instrumentation Command

(STRICOM), and the U.S. Army Research Laboratory Human Research and Engineering Directorate

(ARL-HRED) and Computational and Information Sciences Directorate (ARL-CISD) are

participating in a joint Science and Technology Objective (STO) entitled “Virtual Environments for

Dismounted Soldier Simulation, Training and Mission Rehearsal.” This four-year effort (FY99-

FY02) is focused on overcoming critical technological challenges that currently prevent high fidelity

dismounted soldier simulation. The research objective is to develop a dismounted leader trainer at the

fire team, squad, and platoon level. Leader trainees will be able to execute a series of realistic training

scenarios (combat operations and support operations) in the simulator. Repeated practice, enhanced

by training features, coaching, and After Action Reviews (AARs) will build decision-making and

coordination skills. Computer-controlled or semi-automated agents will represent subordinates, other

friendly forces, enemy forces, and civilians. The intent is to have a training system that is realistic

and effective, yet requires a fairly low level of personnel support for subordinates and role players.

During each year of the STO there have been two major types of activities: research and

technology development, and preparation for and conduct of a culminating event (CE). The purpose

of the CE is to insure the compatibility of the technologies under development and to obtain soldier

feedback on their use. This report describes the activities and results of the FY 2001 CE.

Procedure:

The FY 01 CE was held in September 2001 at Fort Benning, GA. The objectives were to

integrate and evaluate the technologies developed during the year. The key technologies included: a

Dismounted Infantry Virtual AAR System; new behaviors and improved operator control for

Dismounted Infantry Semi-Automated Forces (DISAF); soldier control of DISAF through Voice

Recognition and Synthesis; enhancements to the soldier simulator, the Soldier Visualization Station

(SVS); an improved locomotion device, the Omni-Directional Treadmill (ODT); a dynamic terrain

server; and a Mission Planning and Training Tool (MPTT).

Following final system integration and testing, Infantry soldiers participated in scenarios in

the virtual environments, with one group of six soldiers participating for one day, and two groups of

six soldiers participating for two days each.

Findings:

The CE provided a realistic and challenging test of the systems and capabilities under

development. The results identified both accomplishments and areas in which improvements and
viii

corrections are required. The capabilities under development generally performed well, not just as

independent systems, but as coordinated components of a larger system. When systems did not work,

the causes could usually be identified, and in some cases corrected, during the CE. Problems that

could not be corrected immediately were identified as high priority items for future development.

Utilization of Findings:

The VE STO will continue for one more year. During that year, the effort will focus on correcting

shortcomings and developing the higher-priority enhancements identified through the 2001 CE. Prior

to the end of FY 02, a final CE will be held at Fort Benning.
ix

VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTS FOR DISMOUNTED SOLDIER SIMULATION, TRAINING, AND

MISSION REHEARSAL: RESULTS OF THE FY 2001 CULMINATING EVENT

CONTENTS PAGE

INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................... 1

Army Need................................................................................................................................ 1

Prior Related Research.............................................................................................................. 2

STO Vision ............................................................................................................................... 6

History of the STO.................................................................................................................... 6

FY 01 Objectives....................................................................................................................... 7

APPROACH ................................................................................................................................... 9

Technological Capabilities Evaluated in the FY 01 CE............................................................ 9

.....................................................................................................................................................

The Culminating Event Network ............................................................................................ 17

Scenarios................................................................................................................................. 18

Questionnaires and Performance Measurement...................................................................... 20

Chronology of Soldier Activities............................................................................................ 21

RESULTS ..................................................................................................................................... 23

Soldier Characteristics ............................................................................................................ 23

Questionnaire Data.................................................................................................................. 23

Lessons Learned...................................................................................................................... 33

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS....................................................................................................... 40

Simulator Capabilities............................................................................................................. 40

Training Effectiveness ............................................................................................................ 41

AAR System............................................................................................................................ 41

Voice Control of DISAF......................................................................................................... 41

Dynamic Terrain ..................................................................................................................... 41

DISAF Performance................................................................................................................ 42

Locomotion Interfaces ............................................................................................................ 42

Simulator Sickness.................................................................................................................. 42

Future Directions..................................................................................................................... 42

REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................. 43

APPENDIX A: LIST OF ACRONYMS.................................................................................... A-1

 B: CULMINATING EVENT SCENARIOS ......................................................... B-1
x

CONTENTS (continued)

PAGE

 C: CULMINATING EVENT QUESTIONNAIRES..............................................C-1

 D: DAILY SCHEDULES...................................................................................... D-1

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. DISAF Capabilities and Behaviors..................................................................................14

 2. DISAF Intermediate Intervention Manager Capabilities.................................................15

 3. SVS Tasks Trained ..........................................................................................................22

 4. Simulator Capability Questionnaire Responses...............................................................24

 5. DISAF Behavior Ratings .................................................................................................26

 6. Dynamic Terrain Ratings.................................................................................................27

 7. Squad and Fire Team Leader Training Effectiveness Ratings.........................................28

 8. ODT Ratings ....................................................................................................................29

 9. SVS Ratings.....................................................................................................................30

 10. DISAF Voice Recognition Questionnaire Results..........................................................32

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. The Uniport ......................................................................................................................4

 2. The original Omni-Directional Treadmill (approximately 1997).....................................5

 3. AAR system main display ..............................................................................................10

 4. Soldier in an SVS............................................................................................................11

 5. The Omni-Directional Treadmill with sound enclosure .................................................12

 6. MPTT display .................................................................................................................16
xi

CONTENTS (continued)

PAGE

 7. CE system configuration................................................................................................ 18

 8. Map of the town of Dlubac ............................................................................................ 19
xii
1

VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTS FOR DISMOUNTED SOLDIER SIMULATION, TRAINING,

AND MISSION REHEARSAL: RESULTS OF THE FY 2001 CULMINATING EVENT

Introduction

Army Need

The U.S. Army requires vastly improved dismounted soldier simulation capabilities to

meet multiple needs. The first need is for simulations that allow dismounted leaders, soldiers and

units to train effectively even if they do not have frequent opportunity to participate in high

fidelity field training exercises. In addition, leaders, soldiers and units need effective mission

rehearsal tools that prepare them for specific combat missions in all types of terrain. Finally, U.S.

Army decision makers need inexpensive and high fidelity prototyping and testing systems that

will allow them to explore and evaluate potential doctrine, organizations, equipment, and soldier

characteristics. These needs are very important today; they are likely to be critically important as

the Objective Force becomes a reality.

Emerging Virtual Environment (VE) technologies, such as low cost computer image

generators, locomotion platforms, intelligent computer-controlled forces, and immersive helmet

mounted displays, have the potential to provide training, mission rehearsal, and experimentation

capabilities for dismounted soldiers and leaders. However, the potential of VE is currently

unrealized because no one has yet solved critical hardware and software limitations, documented

effective training methods and strategies, or created the training support packages necessary to

use it.

In response to this need, the U.S. Army Research Institute Simulator Systems (ARISSRU) and Infantry Forces Research Units (ARI-IFRU), the U.S. Army Simulation, Training,

and Instrumentation Command (STRICOM), and the U.S. Army Research Laboratory Human

Research and Engineering Directorate (ARL-HRED) and Computational and Information

Sciences Directorate (ARL-CISD) are participating in a joint Science and Technology Objective

(STO) entitled “Virtual Environments for Dismounted Soldier Simulation, Training and Mission

Rehearsal.” This four-year effort (FY99-FY02) is focused on overcoming critical technological

challenges that currently prevent high fidelity dismounted soldier simulation. These critical

challenges include: simulating locomotion; tracking weapons and body positions; creating

realistic performance of computer-controlled dismounted friendly and enemy soldiers;

simulation of night equipment and sensor images; making terrain and structures dynamic;

developing appropriate training strategies and methods; assessing individual and unit

performance; and determining transfer of training from virtual to live environments. The effort

builds on previous efforts of the participating organizations in the development and use of virtual

simulations.

The product of the STO will be a demonstration of a High Level Architecture (HLA)-

compliant integrated dismounted soldier simulation system that includes the following

components and capabilities:

• A locomotion platform which provides realistic perception of movement and accurate energy

expenditure.
2

• A visual display system which can simulate a variety of night vision sensors and equipment

accurately.

• “Intelligent” computer-controlled forces to represent enemy, friendly and neutral forces.

• Dynamic Terrain (DT), including damage to structures, rubble and other micro-terrain

obstacles.

• Features to enhance the effectiveness of training and mission rehearsal.

• Demonstrated effectiveness of the system.

This effort addresses several required U.S. Army future operational capabilities described

in U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) Pamphlet 525-66 (U.S. Army,

1997), including:

• The capability to provide highly realistic training through means other than on-the-job or

field training in numerous areas, including training for dismounted soldiers and small group

leader training.

• The capability to use advanced simulation as a means of providing training to achieve

proficiency in critical combat skills.

• Realistic, advanced simulation capabilities to train/mission rehearse tasks that require

multiple repetitions to achieve proficiency when repetitions would not otherwise be possible.

• The ability to conduct simultaneous interactive training for the total force.

• Simulations which have the dual capability of being an effective training tool as well as

providing the ability to evaluate warfighting concepts and battle planning.

• Simulations and simulators which allow testing, and validation of Doctrine, Training, Leader

Development, Organization, Materiel, and Soldier (DTLOMS) issues.

• The need to rehearse missions on the terrain and under the conditions that simulate the next

deployment as closely as possible.

• Realistically simulated friendly and opposing forces necessary to train/mission rehearse tasks

realistically within advanced simulation.

• The capability to develop and deliver training and mission rehearsals, on demand, to meet

contingency mission requirements.

Prior Related Research

Prior to the initiation of the STO, each of the participating government organizations had

initiated research and development programs related to the use of VE for dismounted soldier

simulation. This was largely a result of the influence of Gorman (1990), who was an early

proponent of the use of VE for dismounted infantry (DI) training. Partly as a result of his efforts,

a conference was held in Snowbird, Utah in 1990 to discuss individual soldier systems and the

role that an individual portal (or I-Port) would play in their development (Goldberg & Knerr,

1997). While consensus was achieved on the need for an I-Port, Operation Desert Storm

prevented the initiation of a cooperative effort. The conference did provide the impetus for

individual research programs, however.

ARI Virtual Environments Research

The ARI effort began with an initial examination of the feasibility of using VE

technology for dismounted soldier training and the identification of difficult technical problems
3

and research issues (Levison & Pew, 1993). This was followed shortly with a more detailed

examination of DI unit tasks and expected VE capabilities (Jacobs et al., 1994). With these

reports as a basis, ARI initiated an in-house research program to investigate critical behavioral

science research issues involved in dismounted soldier simulation. The initial four experiments

were conducted to investigate interface effects on the capabilities of participants to perform

simple tasks in VE. Variables investigated included the type of control device, amount of

practice on the tasks, stereoscopic vs. monoscopic helmet mounted displays (HMDs), and type of

display device (monitor, boom, HMD). Two experiments were then conducted that addressed the

effectiveness of VE for teaching the configuration of and routes through large buildings, and the

transfer of the knowledge acquired to the real world. These results led to the initiation of a

program of basic research into the investigation of distance estimation in VE. ARI then

investigated the use of VE to represent exterior terrain, both for training land navigation skills

(identifying landmarks and learning routes), and performing threat assessments. This research is

summarized in Knerr et al., (1998). The most recent research has investigated the use of VE for

training team tasks, both in terms of training strategies and features (Lampton, McDonald,

Rodriguez, Morris, & Parsons, 2001) and the effects of geographically distributed team members

on training effectiveness (Singer, Grant, Commarford, Kring, & Zavod, 2001).

STRICOM VE Research

Dismounted Warrior Network (DWN) was a STRICOM program to develop a reliable,

low-cost, easy-to-use capability to insert dismounted soldiers into VE. A series of engineering

and user experiments were conducted during 1997 to explore the utility of a DWN system as a

research and analysis tool and to investigate different interfaces for inserting dismounted soldiers

into virtual simulations. A joint government-contractor team selected Virtual Individual

Combatant Simulators (VICS) based on three criteria: a desire to have a diverse mixture of

characteristics to examine; a cost/benefit assessment of system characteristics; and expected

system availability. Following VICS selection, performance and interoperability issues were

identified and resolved. Finally, the selected VICS, a DI Semi-automated Forces (SAF) station,

an Exercise Support Station, and an After Action Review (AAR) Station were tied into a

distributed interactive simulation (DIS) network and installed at the Land Warrior Testbed

(LWTB), Fort Benning. An initial set of experiments was conducted using this configuration.

They showed that the DWN could be used to assess the utility of the emerging “immersive”

simulation technologies (Lockheed Martin, 1997a) both from a part-task engineering perspective

and from a mission-oriented user perspective. ARI-SSRU and ARI-IFRU participated in the

design and conduct of the experiments. (See Pleban, Dyer, Salter, & Brown, 1998.)

A follow-on project to DWN, entitled DWN Enhancements for Restricted Terrain (DWN

ERT) focused on Military Operations in Urban Terrain (MOUT). New low-cost VICS were

modified based on lessons learned in the first set of experiments. New locomotion methods were

introduced, improved low-cost visual systems were incorporated, and new aiming techniques

were implemented. In addition, DISAF was modified to support operations inside buildings.

Experiments were conducted in July 1998 with these modified systems. The goal of this round of

experiments was to investigate how well a fire team of VICS and DISAF could support MOUT

tasks at the individual soldier, fire team, squad, and platoon levels. Engineering experiments, live

tests at the McKenna MOUT site, and user experiments were conducted. The results are
4

documented in the DWN ERT Final Report (Lockheed Martin Corporation, 1998) and Salter,

Eakin, & Knerr (1999).

ARL-HRED Research in Mobility Interface Devices

One component of the I-Port concept (Gorman, 1990) was an interface device that

translated the soldier’s movements into movement through the VE. This interface device was

supposed to require the user to expend the same amount of physiological energy to move through

the VE as would be required to move through the real environment. To demonstrate that such a

device could be built, Sarcos Research Corporation built the Uniport in 1994..See Figure 1. On

the Uniport, the user pedals to go forward and backward. Turning is accomplished by applying

pressure to the side of the seat. The Uniport came to ARL-HRED and human factors studies

were conducted in 1996 (Savick, Krausman, Leiter & Faughn, 1996 and Krausman, Savick,

Leiter, Faughn & Knapik, 1997). Although the Uniport demonstrated the concept of an interface

device that required the user to expend physiological energy to move through the VE, the user’s

movements on the Uniport (pedaling) are not as normal a motion for moving around the

battlefield as walking or running.

Figure 1. The Uniport.
5

The Omni-Directional Treadmill (ODT) (Carmein, 1996) is a device that allows the user

to walk and run in any direction See Figure 2..It was built in 1996 and demonstrated at the

Annual Meeting of the Association of the U.S. Army (AUSA). During the demonstration, the

soldier on the ODT interacted with other soldiers in a VE. The soldier on the ODT exerted

himself physically to move through the VE much as he would to move through the real world. In

contrast, the other soldiers were not exerting themselves very much physically to move through

the VE. They were sitting at workstations and moving via joysticks.

Figure 2. The original Omni-Directional Treadmill (approximately 1997).

After the AUSA meeting, the ODT was taken to STRICOM and Fort Benning as part of

the DWN and DWN ERT programs. In the Engineering Experiments and the User Experiments,

the ODT was recognized as the locomotion interface device that permitted the most natural

locomotion (Lockheed Martin Corporation, 1997). However, it also had some problems that

limited its performance. The problems included misalignment of the user’s heading with the

vector along which the ODT returns the user to the center of the active area, false starts,

overshooting stops, and difficulty side stepping and turning in place. It was also noisy, 85 dB(A)
6

at high speeds (Darken, Cockayne & Carmein, 1997). In 1998, the ODT was moved to ARLHRED and these problems were addressed.

ARL-CISD Research in Dynamic Terrain

The ARL began research in dynamic terrain in 1996 with the Army Experiment 3

demonstration at the AUSA conference. Research in this area centers on distributed simulation

methods and protocols, computational geometry, and real time graphics. In the area of distributed

simulation, DIS protocols were investigated for efficiency in distributing dynamic terrain

changes (Thomas, 1998). Work by Neiderer in efficient real time algorithms for computing holes

in polygons (Neiderer, Thomas, and Pearson, 1998) enabled the simulation of wall breaching.

Work by Neiderer and Hansen on distribution methods of rubble and debris (Neiderer & Hansen,

2001) is providing insight into the distribution problem.

The ARL-CISD contributed to the STRICOM DWN program by providing algorithms

for wall breaching. Recent work with the VE STO with ARL, STRICOM, and ARL-HRED

continues the development and transition of ARL developed distributed dynamic terrain research

with the development of the Dynamic Terrain Server to include wall breaching, dings, rubble and

debris, and physics-based wall damage.

STO Vision

The goal of the STO research is to develop a dismounted leader trainer at the fire team,

squad, and platoon level. Leader trainees will be able to execute a series of realistic training

scenarios (combat operations and support operations) in the simulator. Repeated practice,

enhanced by training features, coaching, and AARs will build decision-making and coordination

skills. Computer-controlled or semi-automated agents will represent subordinates, other friendly

forces, enemy forces, and civilians. The intent is to have a training system that is realistic and

effective, yet requires a fairly low level of personnel support for subordinates and role players.

History of the STO

During each year of the STO there have been two major types of activities: research and

technology development, and preparation for and conduct of a culminating event (CE). The

purpose of the CE is to insure the compatibility of the technologies under development and to

obtain soldier feedback on their use. The first year CE was held at Fort Benning in September

1999. Its objective was to evaluate the improvements made in supporting technologies for

Infantry soldier simulation since the DWN ERT experiments of 1998 (Lockheed Martin, 1998).

The second year CE was held at the STRICOM Technology Development Center (TDC), and

Institute for Simulation and Training (IST) at Central Florida Research Park, Orlando, FL in

September 2000. The objectives of the second year CE were to insure that products were

compatible and integrated, and to evaluate progress in DISAF behaviors, voice and gesture

recognition, and night vision simulation. Specific training research issues were also investigated

by ARI IFRU during this time (Pleban, Eakin, & Salter, 2000; Pleban, Eakin, Salter, &

Matthews, 2001).
7

FY 01 Objectives

The FY 01 CE was held in September 2001 at Fort Benning, GA. As in previous years,

the general objectives were to integrate and evaluate the technologies developed during the year.

The specific technologies involved, and the evaluation objectives for each, are described briefly

in the following paragraphs.

After Action Review (AAR) System

The key capabilities of this system are digital videodisc (DVD)-like replay with

synchronized audio and video, including the capability to jump to pre-designated segments or

views, and tabular data summaries. The aspects of the system to be evaluated were: its capability

to capture and present information generated by other systems; its usability under reasonably

realistic conditions; and its capability to provide the information requested by soldiers and AAR

leaders.

Voice Recognition and Synthesis

Voice recognition was used by a Fire Team Leader to control DISAF subordinates. Voice

synthesis was used by DISAF to acknowledge a command, indicate failure to understand a

command, indicate completion of a task, or report that they have come under fire. Evaluation

issues were recognition accuracy, correctness or appropriateness of DISAF response to the voice

command, and appropriateness of the synthesized voice responses.

Soldier Visualization Station (SVS) Enhancements1

The SVS is a realistic immersive 3D virtual simulator described more fully in the

approach section. Recent enhancements included the integration of dynamic terrain and the

simulation of night conditions without the use of night vision devices. It also included the

representation of streetlights and interior building lights, and the use of night tools such as

flashlights and visible aiming lights. The evaluation issue was how the unaided night viewing

compared with “normal” daytime simulations on criteria such as detection and recognition of

objects and landmarks, movement rates, accurate use of weapons, and realistic appearance of the

environment. See Pleban and Beal (2002) for a complete description of the simulated night

vision goggle capability of the SVS.

Omni-Directional Treadmill (ODT)

The ODT is a complex locomotion interface. Aspects of the system to be evaluated were

the ODT’s improved control algorithm, user interaction with the ODT, and its performance in

general.

 

1

 The Infantry Center and School uses the term Squad Synthetic Environment (SSE) to describe the integrated set of

dismounted solider simulators which are individually referred to by the developer (Reality By Design, Inc.) and

developing agency (STRICOM) as the Soldier Visualization Station (SVS) and the Soldier Visualization Station

Version 2 (SVS2). This report will use SVS to refer to an individual simulator, and SSE to refer to the integrated

set of SVSs.
8

Dynamic Terrain Server (DTServer)

The DTServer provides a means to blow holes in buildings sized appropriately for the

munition and building material and to create rubble in addition to the hole. Evaluation issues

were: the comparability of the results (hole size and shape) across the various platforms in the

CE; the comparability of the implementation in both the visual and structural (Compact Terrain

Database (CTDB), for DISAF) databases; the perceived realism of the holes and rubble; and the

impact of rubble on movement (both human and DISAF).

Dismounted Infantry Semi-Automated Forces (DISAF)

 In addition to establishing compatibility with the DTServer, improvements were made to

DISAF to reduce operator workload and add two new behaviors, Withdraw and Tactically

Correct Default Behavior. Evaluation Issues were the appropriateness and realism of the new

behaviors, and their impact on DISAF operator workload.

Mission Planning and Training Tool (MPTT)

MPTT was used as a demonstration and mission-planning tool. The primary evaluation

issue was the perceived value of the demonstration.
9

Approach

The Virtual Environments for Dismounted Soldier Simulation STO FY 01 CE was held

at the Dismounted BattleSpace BattleLab LWTB, Fort Benning. The first four days were devoted

to equipment set-up, integration, and testing. Five days conducting scenarios with Infantry

soldiers followed, with one group of six soldiers participating for one day, and two groups of six

soldiers participating for two days each. The final day was devoted to packing and shipping

equipment. In addition to the government organizations already identified, Boston Dynamics,

Inc., CSC, Inc., Reality by Design, Inc., TRW, Inc., and IST supported the CE.

Technological Capabilities Evaluated in the FY 01 CE

AAR System

The AAR System was developed by ARI and IST to meet two needs. The first is to

provide trainees with a common understanding of what happened during an exercise and why it

happened, so that they can identify ways to improve their performance. Determining what

happened during an exercise is particularly difficult in a MOUT environment, where buildings

and other structures break up the visual field and limit the portion of the battlefield that can be

observed by any one person. The second need is to facilitate data analysis, in order to support

training feedback and research and development.

The AAR system connects to the network used by the soldier simulators and DISAF, and

permits observation and recording of the exercise data. It was based on an earlier AAR system

developed to support team training research (Lampton & Parsons, 2001). Among the key

features of the baseline system were the use of a top-down view, digital data recording to permit

immediate jumps to any point in the exercise, and the synchronized recording in digital form of

the auditory communications. A number of enhancements were added to this baseline, in part to

incorporate lessons learned from AAR systems for mounted soldiers, and in part to meet the

additional requirements presented by dismounted MOUT operations.

Whether in the stealth (recording) or AAR (playback) mode, an enhanced top-down view

is the primary view and organizing structure. See Figure 3. In the stealth mode, the operator can

mark or flag events and viewpoints, fly freely through the environment, teleport to pre-selected

viewpoints, zoom in and out, capture “snapshots” for later viewing, and toggle on and off

information such as movement traces and individual identifiers. Individual floors of multi-story

buildings can be selected for viewing. In the AAR mode, the operator can do all of those things

and in addition, change viewing speed and location, and jump forward or backward to flagged

events or times. A variety of exercise data can be shown in either tabular or graphic form, such

as Killer/Victim tables.
10

Figure 3. AAR system main display.

SVS Enhancements

The SVS is an evolving immersive 3D virtual simulator. The SVS uses a PC-based rearscreen projection system to present 32-bit color images in 1024 X 768 resolution on a screen

approximately 10 feet wide by seven and one-half feet high to display the VE. The soldier can

stand, kneel, or lie prone within a ten-foot square enclosure, but typically remains centered in

that space. The immersed soldier’s head and weapon are tracked using an acoustic and inertial

tracking system. The soldier navigates through the environment via a thumb switch located on

the weapon. Figure 4 shows a soldier in an SVS. As part of the integration effort, the updated

version of the SVS was installed at Fort Benning. This version of the software included these

new capabilities: streetlights, internal building lights, flashlights, visible and non-visible laser

aiming lights, and dynamic terrain implementation.

Street Lights. Reality by Design modified existing 3D OpenFlight databases to include

scene illumination from streetlights. The ability for lights to be "shot out" was incorporated to

improve movement at night by DI equipped with night vision devices.

Internal Building Lights. The work done for “Street Lights” was very similar to that of

“Internal Building lighting”. The same rules and functionality apply. Interior building lighting

may also be “shot out”.
11

Figure 4. Soldier in an SVS.

Flashlights. Reality by Design developed the capability for the DI to use simulated

flashlights in the simulator. The immersed user could turn on his flashlight and it would appear

that there was a flashlight attached to the end of the weapon. The flashlight beam is visible to all

networked SVS simulators, but not to DISAF.

Visible Laser Aiming Light. The immersed soldiers had the ability to use visible aiming

lights, which displayed a simulated laser beam visible on the object or entity at which it was

pointed. These aiming lights were visible to both networked SVS simulators and DISAF.

Non-Visible Laser Aiming Lights. Much like the Visible Laser Aiming Light, the

immersed user could use the Non-Visible Laser Aiming Lights. This aiming light is only visible

to those using SVS systems using image intensification (I2) or night vision goggle (NVG)

simulation. None of the CE scenarios used aided night vision capabilities, or consequently, the

Non-Visible Laser Aiming Lights.

Dynamic Terrain. The SVS simulators had the capability to display the effects of holes

being blown in buildings. This approach works in conjunction with ARL’s DTServer. When a

detonation Protocol Data Unit (PDU) is received by the DTServer the correct physics based hole

is created. This information is passed over the network and the receiving SVS simulators modify

their 3D visual model to incorporate the hole. In addition to the blown hole data, data

representing the location of rubble is sent to the SVS simulators which in turn display rubble in

the proper location.
12

Figure 5. The Omni-Directional Treadmill with the sound enclosure.

Dynamic Terrain

The DTServer made its debut at the FY 01 CE. The DTServer is Linux-based software

that receives Detonation PDUs from the DIS network, processes the data, and distributes the

results to other simulators on the network. The DTServer transmits two types of results to

receiving simulators on the network. The first is a ‘ding’ packet. A ‘ding’ results from small

arms fire on a hard surface. Upon receipt of a ding packet, the simulator displays a model of a

simulated crater at the point of impact.

The second result transmitted by the DTServer is a breach. A breach in the FY 01 CE

resulted from an AT8 round impact on a building. The receiving simulators received a Breach

PDU followed by a series of Polygon Vertex PDUs. When all Polygon Vertex PDUs were

received, the simulators removed the polygons in the breach area, and replaced them with the

new polygons received on the network.

The development of the DTServer provided the necessary capability to compute and

distribute dynamic terrain changes to the simulation network. The use of a server allows the

addition and modification of algorithms without changes to other simulators on the network,

reducing the costs of implementing dynamic terrain.
13

Omni-Directional Treadmill

The ODT used in the FY 01 CE is an improved version of the original ODT (Carmein,

1996). In 1998, the ODT was moved to ARL HRED, where a new control algorithm was

developed for it. This control algorithm reduces the problems originally encountered with the

device (misalignment of the user’s heading, false starts, overshooting stops, and difficulty side

stepping and turning in place). Also, an enclosure was built to attenuate the noise coming from

the ODT. The enclosure surrounds the ODT except for an opening around the active area. The

enclosure is made of plywood and lined with acoustic foam. See Figure 4. For the FY 2001 CE,

the ODT was returned to the LWTB. There it was networked with the other systems so that all of

the soldiers interacted in the same VE.

DISAF and Enhancements

DISAF was developed to provide a realistic representation of DI on the virtual battlefield.

The Infantry capabilities of simulations such as Simulation Network (SIMNET) SAF and

Modular SAF (ModSAF) were limited to the low-fidelity viewpoint of tanks. The primary focus

of DISAF has been the development of tactical behaviors for individual through squad level

operations. DISAF is based on the ModSAF architecture. DISAF includes support for MOUT

and rural terrain operations. Most of the DISAF behaviors are based on validated military

Combat Instruction Sets (CISs). A database development process was developed to generate

ModSAF Compact Terrain Database (CTDB) Multiple Elevation Surface (MES) structures from

visual database files. DISAF provides an enhanced 2D Plan View Display (PVD) to support

display of MES buildings and new Individual Combatant (IC) icons. In addition, DISAF can be

networked to a Stealth Viewer to provide a 3D display. DISAF runs on a SGI under IRIX 6.2 or

on a PC under Linux or Windows NT. DISAF capabilities and behaviors are summarized in

Table 1. Efforts during FY 01 focused on enhancements to the Immediate Intervention Manager

(IIM), integration of the DTServer capability, and a new Hasty Withdraw behavior. The IIM was

developed to provide a mechanism by which the DISAF Operator could make changes to DISAF

activities quickly and easily. The newly added functionality of the IIM is detailed below in Table

2.
14

Table 1.

DISAF Capabilities and Behaviors

Plan View Display (PVD)

• Greater Zoom-In Capability (1:25 Map Scale)

• View Multiple Elevation Structures (MES)

interiors, one level at a time

• MES windows, doors, and openings are

distinguished by color

• Can display entity altitude to indicate MES

level

• IC icons indicate posture and weapon position

 DISAF/CGF – Capabilities Entities and Units

• US IC w/ M16A2 & Hand Grenade

• US IC w/ AT8 & Hand Grenade

• US IC w/ Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW) &

Hand Grenade

• US IC w/ M203 & Hand Grenade

• US IC Fireteam A (M16, AT8, M203, SAW)

• US IC Fireteam B (M16, M16, M203, SAW)

• US IC Fireteam C (M16 x 3, SAW)

• US IC Auto Weapons Team (M16 x 2, SAW)

• US IC Squad (M16, Fireteam A, Fireteam B)

• US IC Rifle Squad (M16, Fireteam B x 2)

• US IC Auto Weapons Squad (M16, Auto

Weapons Team x 3)

• US IC Platoon (M16 x 2, Rifle Squad x 3, Auto

Weapons Squad)

• USSR IC AK47

• USSR IC Squad (AK47 x 6)

• Civilians

• Furniture

Situation Awareness

IC Sensors

• Aural: detects and locates entities from

movement and gunfire

• Visual: identifies and locates entities

Remembered Threats

• Visible entities

• Entities located, but not visible

• Entities known, but not located

BLUFOR Behaviors

• Halt

• Fire & Movement

• Throw Grenade

• Occupy Position

• Fire at Location

• React to Ambush

• Suppressive Fire

• React to Contact

• Move on Path

• Break Contact

• Mount / Dismount

• Clear Room

• Move Tactically

• Climb Up / Down

Autonomous OPFOR Behaviors

• Look Around

• Face Bogey

• Engage Threat

• Seek Cover

• Watch

• Engage from Cover

• Fall Prone & Freeze

• Freeze

• Pursue Threat

Automated MOUT Behaviors

• Fireteam Clear Room

• Squad Clear Room

Autonomous Civilian Behaviors

• React to Fire

• Wander
15

Table 2.

DISAF Immediate Intervention Manager Functional Capabilities

Behaviors

Increasing SpacingDecrease SpacingSpeed UpSlow DownChange FormationChange StanceIncrease Duration of Rapid FireDecrease Duration of Rapid FireShift Fire UpShift Fire DownIncrease Duration of FireDecrease Duration of Fire

Traveling X X X X X

Suppressive Fire X X X X X X

Advance to Position X X X X X

Attack by Fire X X X X X

Assault X X X X X

Road March X X X X X

Hasty Occupy X X X X

Fire and Movement X X X

Break Contact X X X

Manual Clear Room X X

Mission Planning and Training Tool (MPTT)

MPTT is software system for rapid creation of 3D scenarios with realistic human entities.

It is being developed under a STRICOM sponsored Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR)

project. It is intended to be used for mission planning, mission rehearsal, training, course of

action analysis, and AAR. MPTT provides human entities that are intelligent about how they

move and accept high-level commands. The software operates in real time, runs on ordinary PCs,

has support for DIS/HLA, and provides realistic 3D visualization. MPTT was incorporated in the

CE as a stand-alone capability to demonstrate a mission for the soldiers prior to their execution

of it. An MPTT display is shown in Figure 6.
16

Figure 6. MPTT display.

Voice Control of DISAF

The goal of the Reusable HLA Voice Input/Output Capability for Human Simulation

project is to further develop a Voice Recognition Federate (VRF) which allows a user to give

spoken commands to SAF entities in the simulation. The VRF translates these voice commands

to natural language text and then to commands that the SAF system can accept.

The first year of effort (FY 00) focused on two modes of voice interaction with DISAF.

The first mode allows a SAF operator to use voice to control the graphical user interface (GUI)

for the SAF. Operator commands include typical GUI commands such as "zoom in" and "zoom

out." The second mode allows a small unit leader to use voice to control the DISAF with

command and control commands. Normally the leader is in a fully immersive VE, but the same

voice commands can be used from the SAF GUI. The leader is able to command the SAF using

voice and receives feedback from them via text to indicate the orders were received and

understood. The commands include "move to point echo", "follow me", "halt", and "hold fire”.

This allows the small unit leader to coordinate and control virtual ICs without additional operator

intervention. Both modes can also be used simultaneously by a small unit leader sitting at the

SAF GUI, who manipulates the SAF GUI and issues orders to the virtual ICs.

The second year of the effort extended the VRF system in the following ways. First,

DISAF was modified to allow SAF entities to initiate and respond to speech appropriately based

on their behavior. Second, the VRF was extended to include voice commands for selected new
17

DISAF behaviors, and to allow more natural identification of CGF entities and terrain locations.

Third, off the shelf natural language products were incorporated into the system. Finally, the

VRF was modified to better support multiple human and automated speakers.

Expanded Speech Synthesis Capability. The goal of this task was to allow DISAF entities

to communicate more realistically with the user. These expanded capabilities allowed DISAF

entities to reply to speech addressed to them and to initiate speech when appropriate.

Extend the Army IC Speech Set. The speech set was modified so that DISAF entities can

be identified by a natural human name (e.g., “PVT Smith”). Voice commands can then be

directed to a DISAF entity using this name. The way that terrain locations are specified was also

modified to be more realistic. Important terrain features are identified prior to run-time and

assigned feature names (for example, “corner of building A”). Voice commands can then refer to

these feature names rather than specifying (x, y, z) coordinate values.

Evaluate Commercial-off-the-Shelf (COTS) Products for Natural Language

Understanding. Commercial speech recognition products were evaluated for inclusion in the

system. DragonSpeak was selected and incorporated.

Accommodate Multiple Speakers. The VRF was generalized to allow multiple speakers.

Mechanisms were developed to allow a speaker to designate to whom he is speaking, and then

require the addressed entity to appropriately “subscribe” to speech addressed to them.

The Culminating Event Network

The network configuration for the CE is shown in Figure 6. The following items

were connected to the network:

• Five SVS individual soldier simulators. These were used by the squad leader, the two

fire team leaders, and two of the three Fire Team A members. The simulators were

identical, except for additional equipment in the Fire Team B leader’s area for the

voice recognition system. All SVSs were equipped with ASTiTM radio headsets,

which permitted verbal communication on up to two channels, depending on the duty

position. The squad leader could talk to his fire team leaders and the platoon leader (a

role player). Each fire team leader could talk to the squad leader and his subordinates.

Fire team members could talk among themselves and with their fire team leader.

• One ODT station, with DISim as the network interface and image generator. The

third A fire team member used this simulator. Like the SVSs, this station was

equipped with an ASTiTM radio headset.

• One Voice Recognition PC

• One AAR System PC

• One Dynamic Terrain Server

• One BattleMaster/DISAF Operator Station. The DIS SAF Operator and the Exercise

Controller used this station.

• One Desktop SVS used by a role player.
18

Figure 7. CE system configuration.

Scenarios

A general situation and eight different scenarios were developed for the CE. The general

situation, in the form of a "Press Release", was provided to each new group of soldiers (exercise

participants) before they began their training. This helped to provide a background overview as

to why they were executing the various scenarios. The general situation is described in the

paragraphs below.

The U.N. Protection Force continues to closely monitor conditions in the town of

Dlubac located in the providence of El Polksa. Rebel forces from the radical

nationalist group Black Sabbath have been linked to several terrorist bombings

and attacks on the nearby towns. The strategic importance of Dlubac, overlooking

one of the major routes entering El Polksa, makes this town a prime target for

rebel activities. The U.S. 1-11th Infantry Battalion attached to the U.N. Protection

Force has been tasked with coordinating U.N. activities within the region.

Enemy forces have withdrawn from the town of Dlubac. There may still be

insurgents and insurgent sympathizers within the town's population. Enemy

DISAF Operator

After

Action

Review

System Role Player

SVS Desktop

Simulator

DIS

Rifle Rifle

SVS SVS

Voice

Recognition

MPTT

(before exercise)

ASTi Radio Network

Squad Ldr

SVS

Dynamic

Terrain

Server

Rifle

DISim/ODT

Voice

Recog

Team Ldr

SVS

Alpha Fire Team Bravo Fire Team

DISAF

Platoon

Ldr/

Exercise

Controller

Team Ldr

SVS DISAF

(during and after

exercise)
19

presence is considered light, capable of conducting military operations in the

immediate region with squad-size forces. There is no mechanized or motorized or

indirect fire threat. Last reported enemy activity in the region was sniper fire in

the neighboring town of Tuskin, 8 kilometers to the northwest, 3 days ago.

Your unit is always the 2d Squad of the 2d Platoon, Company A.

Figure 8. Map of the town of Dlubac.

Each of the scenarios was designed to be about 20 minutes in duration. They focused

specifically on necessitating the soldiers to use the various new devices and capabilities in the

VE. Each scenario provided a different mission so the capabilities would be used under differing

circumstances. Scenarios were also designed to actively involve as many players as possible.

Seven of the eight scenarios took place in the town of Dlubac itself. Dlubac was in fact a virtual

representation of the Shughart-Gordon MOUT facility at Fort Polk, LA. A map is shown in

Figure 8. The eighth scenario took place in a high-rise office building described as being in an

adjacent town. The scenarios covered a variety of wartime and Support and Sustainment

Operations (SASO). The descriptive scenario titles were:

• Support Operations Checkpoint

• Hostage Rescue

• Support by Fire

• Assault and Clear a Building

• Roving Patrol

• Air Assault and Clear a Building

• Crowd Control

18

Residence

27

Residence

16

Bank

8

Retail

Store

2

Office

6

Service

Station

26

School

 11

Post Office

20

Radio

Station

Soccer

Field

22

Town

House

7

Residence

4

Power Station

 21

24 Apartments

Residence

10

Church

13

5 Town House

Residence 3

Warehouse

1

Factory

12

City

Hall

17

Police

Station

19

Water

Tower

9

Cantina

 25

Residence

15

Fire Station

14

Retail

Store

23

Hotel

Town of

Dlubac
20

• Downed Helicopter

Complete scenario descriptions are in Appendix B.

Questionnaires and Performance Measurement

The questionnaires used are briefly described below. All questionnaires are in

Appendix C.

The Demographic Questionnaire contains 18 questions about the soldier’s

military career, training, personal characteristics, and experience with simulators.

The SAF Performance Questionnaire contains 17 items comparing the

performance of SAF with that of real soldiers. Response alternatives are Much Worse

than soldiers, Slightly Worse than Soldiers, About the Same as Soldiers, Slightly Better

than Soldiers, and Much Better than Soldiers.

The Simulator Capability Questionnaire is a multi-part questionnaire covering a variety

of topics. One set of 52 items asked soldiers to rate their ability to perform various tasks in the

simulators (Very Good, Good, Poor, Very Poor). The balance of the questionnaire items to were

rated on a five-point scale of Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree and covered dynamic terrain

(11 items), SVS enhancements (7 items), the AAR system (2 items), MPTT (2 items), and

artificial lighting (9 items).

The Training Effectiveness Questionnaire contains 11 items asking how much

improvement in task performance resulted from the day’s exercises (No Improvement, Slight

Improvement, Moderate Improvement, or Vast Improvement), and nine items asking about the

realism of the scenarios (Not Very Realistic, Slightly Realistic, Fairly Realistic, or Very

Realistic).

The Voice Recognition Questionnaire contains nine items on the use of the voice

recognition system, seven rated on a five-point scale of Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree, and

two items asking for percentages.

The AAR Evaluation Questionnaire contains items on the use of the AAR system. Eight

were rated on a five-point scale of Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree, and four were openended.

The Symptom Checklist is a list of symptoms used to assess simulator sickness. It is a

modified version of a checklist developed by Kennedy et al. (1993). Each of 16 symptoms is

rated as None, Slight, Moderate, or Severe. The modification was the replacement of the single

symptom “sweating” with “cold sweating” and “warm sweating.”

The ODT Questionnaire and the SVS Questionnaire were administered to soldiers

who used both the ODT and the SVS. Each contains 17 questions. Twelve items asked
21

the soldiers to rate their ability to perform tasks on each simulator on a five-point scale

(Very Poor, Poor, Fair, Good, Very Good). Four items asked about the frequency of

occurrence of events during the exercises (Never, Hardly Ever, Sometimes, Usually,

Always). One item asked about the speed of the simulator (Too Slow, About Right, Too

Fast).

A Structured Interview was used to obtain additional information. All leaders and

most soldiers participated in a structured interview on the last day after the questionnaires

had been completed. A locomotion system debriefing session was held to obtain more

feedback from the soldiers regarding the ODT and SVS as locomotion interfaces.

Because the objective of the culminating event was to evaluate how well the technologies

performed, rather than how well they trained, no attempt was made to collect soldier

performance data.

Chronology of Soldier Activities

The daily schedule for the soldier participants is shown in Appendix D. Upon their arrival

at the LWTB on their first (or only) day of participation, the soldiers were given an introductory

briefing which described: the overall purpose of the exercises; the nature of the performance and

questionnaire data to be collected, and the procedures that would be followed to insure the

privacy of information collected; safety procedures; and administrative information. The soldiers

then completed two questionnaires, the demographic questionnaire and the symptom checklist.

They were assigned duty positions for the exercises based on their rank: Squad Leader, Fire

Team A Leader, Fire Team B Leader, or Fire Team A Member.

All soldiers next received approximately one hour of instruction and practice on the use

of the SVS. A live instructor provided the instruction. The major tasks are shown in Table 3.

After the completion of the SVS training, additional training was conducted on three

parallel tracks. The three fire team members received training in the use of the ODT. Two of

these soldiers would use it during the exercises. The third was trained so that he could serve as a

back up. During the ODT training sessions, each soldier had approximately 20 minutes to use the

ODT and become familiar with it. The two fire team leaders received training in the use of the

voice recognition and synthesis system to control DISAF. The Fire Team B Leader would use it

during the exercises. The other was trained as a back up. Finally, the Squad Leader received

training and background information on the general situation for the upcoming exercises, and

reviewed MOUT tactics and procedures. This completed the morning session.

In the afternoon the soldiers completed three exercises: one familiarization exercise and

two training exercises. Each exercise session consisted of a verbal delivery of the mission order

by the Instructor/Controller, usually supplemented by a demonstration using MPTT. The Squad

Leader, supported by an operator, also used the MPTT to brief the squad. Soldiers then moved to

their simulators (either SVS or ODT) and calibrated their weapons. The exercise was conducted.

The soldiers then reported to the AAR station where the Instructor/Controller conducted an

AAR. Soldiers were then given a break prior to starting the next exercise sequence.
22

Table 3.

SVS Tasks Trained

Postures

• stand

• kneel

• crouch

• prone

Weapons calibration and use

• calibrate weapon

• engage stationary target

• engage moving target

• engage stationary target while moving

• reload

Change view/orientation while in position Auditory weapons recognition

Basic locomotion (open terrain)

• walk

• run

• crawl

• crouch-walk

Visual recognition

• friendly

• enemy

• civilians

Advanced locomotion (urban areas)

• doors

• windows

• stairs

• rubble

• stacking

furniture and other obstacles

Visual Effects

• night

• lighting

• streetlights

• interior lights

• flashlights

• shooting out lighting

• tracer fire

Whether they participated for one or two days, all soldiers were given the same

questionnaires at the completion of their last day. These questionnaires consisted of

• Simulator Capability Questionnaire

• Training Effectiveness Questionnaire

• AAR Evaluation Questionnaire

• SAF Performance Questionnaire (Squad and Fire Team Leaders only)

• Voice Recognition Questionnaire (Fire Team B Leader only)

• Symptom checklist

The four soldiers who used the ODT over a two-day period also completed an ODT

Questionnaire and an SVS Questionnaire, and participated in an ODT debriefing.

Additional questionnaires were administered to those soldiers who participated for two

days. At the completion of their first day they were administered the Training Effectiveness

Questionnaire and the Symptom Checklist. On the morning of the second day they were again

administered the symptom checklist.
23

Results

Soldier Characteristics

The participants in the exercises were 18 Infantry soldiers in MOSs 11M and 11B,

and in pay grades E-3 (6 soldiers), E-4 (7), and E-5 (5). Their average age was 23 years.

They had a mean time of 45 months in the Army, and 15 months in their current duty

position. Of the 18, 17 were right-handed, 17 had normal color vision, and 16 reported

20/20 vision (natural or corrected). Eight of the soldiers (four E-5s and four E-4s) were

currently assigned as Team Leaders. Six soldiers (all of the E-5’s and one of the E-4’s)

had completed a Primary Leadership Development Course, 15 had completed the Combat

Lifesaver Course, 13 had completed Close Quarter Combat Training, and 4 had

completed airborne training. None of the soldiers had completed a Basic NonCommissioned Officer Course. One-half of the soldiers (two E-5s, two E-4s, and five E3s) had received MOUT training at the McKenna MOUT site at Fort Benning since the

completion of Basic training. None of the groups of soldiers were composed of members

of the same organic squad.

Questionnaire Data

Simulator Capabilities

The responses to the Simulator Capability Questionnaire, which was completed

by all soldiers, are summarized in Table 4. The means were calculated by assigning a

response of Very Poor a value of 0, Poor a value of 1, Good a value of 2, and Very Good

a value of 3. Not all soldiers responded to every question. Mean responses to the same

items in the FY 99 CE are shown for comparison. The simulators used during the 1999

VE STO were an earlier version of the SVS. The questionnaire items are listed in order of

descending FY 01 mean value.

Only 14 of 52 tasks were rated Good or higher (mean equal to or greater than 2.0).

The more highly rated tasks consisted of identification of types of people (such as

civilians and non-combatants) and tactically significant areas, imprecise movement, and

communication. The lower rated tasks consisted of precise or rapid movement, including

aiming, distance estimation, and locating the source of enemy fire using either visual or

auditory cues. The overall mean rating of 1.74 was lower than the 1999 mean of 1.90, but

higher than the 2000 mean of 1.63. It was not feasible to retrieve the prior years’ data and

conduct tests of the significance of these differences. However, it was possible to

construct 95% confidence intervals around the 2001 means for each item and determine if

the 1999 data fell outside of those intervals. Only one mean did. The item “Identify areas

that mask supporting fires” had a higher mean in 2001 than in 1999 (2.00 vs. 1.72).

Nevertheless, the general but non-significant trend was for a decrease in item ratings

from 1999 to 2001.

Since 6 of the 18 soldiers had also experienced the ODT, there was the possibility

that the means were lower because they reflected a combination of SVS and ODT
24

experience, not just the SVS alone. The soldiers who had used the ODT were removed

from the sample and the means were recalculated. The overall mean for the new smaller

sample was slightly lower than the full sample (1.67 vs. 1.74), indicating that the ODT

did not contribute to the lower overall simulator ratings in 2001.

Table 4

Simulator Capability Questionnaire Responses.

VE STO 2001

Task

VE

STO

1999

Mean

Mean N SD

Change

2001-

1999

Move through open areas as a widely separated group. 2.38 2.33 18 0.69 -0.05

Move according to directions. 2.17 2.29 17 0.68 0.12

Understand verbal commands. 1.94 2.29 18 0.68 0.35

Identify civilians. 2.72 2.22 18 0.73 -0.50

Identify sector of responsibility. 2.11 2.17 17 0.61 0.06

Identify safe and danger areas. 2.22 2.11 18 0.68 -0.11

Identify non-combatants within a room. 2.24 2.06 18 0.48 -0.18

Execute planned route. 1.89 2.06 18 0.64 0.17

Maintain position relative to other team members. 1.78 2.06 18 0.72 0.28

Assume defensive positions. 2.06 2.00 18 0.58 -0.06

Communicate spot reports to squad leader. 1.94 2.00 18 0.70 0.06

Coordinate with other squad members. 1.88 2.00 18 0.69 0.12

Determine other team members’ positions. 1.78 2.00 18 0.88 0.22

Identify areas that mask supporting fires. 1.72 2.00 18 0.00 0.28

Take position to one side of a doorway. 2.11 1.94 18 0.79 -0.17

Identify assigned sectors of observation. 2.06 1.94 17 0.64 -0.12

Move in single file. 2.00 1.94 18 0.72 -0.06

Identify covered and concealed routes. 1.94 1.94 18 0.64 0.00

Scan from side to side. 1.72 1.94 18 0.88 0.22

Fire weapon in short bursts. 2.00 1.89 18 0.75 -0.11

Communicate enemy location to team member. 2.06 1.89 18 0.81 -0.17

Move quickly to the point of attack. 1.94 1.89 18 0.46 -0.05

Locate assigned areas of observation, e.g. across the

street.

2.17 1.88 17 0.69 -0.29

Move past furniture in a room. 1.56 1.86 14 0.72 0.30

Execute the assault as planned. 1.89 1.83 18 0.78 -0.06

Locate buddy team firing positions. 1.94 1.78 18 0.64 -0.16

Locate support team positions. 2.00 1.72 18 0.67 -0.28

Take a tactical position within a room. 1.83 1.72 18 0.81 -0.11

Aim weapon. 2.28 1.71 17 0.76 -0.57

Take hasty defensive positions. 1.89 1.71 17 0.76 -0.18

Engage targets within a room. 2.06 1.61 18 0.77 -0.37

Note: 1999 N=18.
25

Table 4. (continued)

Simulator Capability Questionnaire Responses

VE STO 2001

Task

VE

STO

1999

Mean

Mean N SD

Change

2001-

1999

Maneuver below windows. 2.06 1.61 18 0.77 -0.45

Identify enemy soldiers. 2.44 1.53 17 0.92 -0.91

Maneuver close to others. 1.65 1.50 18 0.87 -0.15

Move quickly through doorways. 1.61 1.50 18 0.83 -0.11

Move close to walls. 1.56 1.41 17 0.92 -0.15

Maneuver around obstacles. 1.67 1.39 18 0.82 -0.28

Fire weapon accurately. 1.78 1.35 17 0.91 -0.43

Maneuver past other personnel within a room. 1.55 1.33 18 0.76 -.022

Scan the room quickly for hostile combatants. 1.76 1.29 17 0.82 -0.47

Look around corners. 1.47 1.29 17 0.87 -0.18

Distinguish between friendly and enemy fire. 1.61 1.28 18 0.81 -0.33

Estimate distances from self to a distant object. 1.72 1.22 18 0.89 -0.50

Scan vertically. 1.11 1.12 17 0.90 -0.01

Maneuver around corners. 1.67 1.06 18 0.79 -0.61

Determine the source of enemy fire by sound. 1.78 1.06 18 0.92 -0.72

Visually locate the source of enemy fire. 1.44 0.83 18 0.87 -0.61

Climb up or down ladders. 1.92 12 0.53

Locate enemy soldiers inside buildings firing at your unit. 1.71 17 0.76

Climb up or down stairs. 1.55 17 0.92

Determine the direction enemy rounds are coming from. 1.06 18 0.88

Mean 1.90 1.74

Note: 1999 N= 18.

AAR System

The AAR system was positively received. More than 83% of the soldiers agreed or

strongly agreed that the AAR system:

• Was effective in displaying movement outside of buildings

• Was effective in displaying movement inside of buildings

• Made it easy to determine what happened during a mission

• Made it easy to determine why things happened the way they did during a mission

• Made it easy to determine how to do better in accomplishing the mission

• Helped them understand what occurred during the exercise, and

• Was more effective than conducting an AAR without any audio or visual playback (just

talking)

The least positive comment about the AAR system was that 56% agreed or strongly

agreed that it was effective in replaying communications. Since the communications played by

the AAR system were rarely intelligible (as will be discussed later), this suggests that the ratings
26

for the AAR system benefited from a positive “halo effect.” The soldiers had a generally

favorable impression of the AAR system, and tended to rate it on the basis of that impression, as

well as the specific item being rated. Since the AAR system was a new capability this year, there

is no comparison with previous years.

DISAF Performance

DISAF performance was rated by the squad leaders and the fire team leaders. Mean

ratings were calculated by assigning Much Better than Soldiers a value of +2, Slightly Better

than Soldiers a value of +1, About the Same as Soldiers a value of 0, Slightly Worse than

Soldiers a value of –1, and Much Worse than Soldiers a value –2. Results are shown in Table 5.

Overall, the DISAF were rated the same as two years ago: -.79, or “Slightly Worse than

Soldiers.” The highest rated tasks were distinguish between friendly and enemy positions, move

to designated location, locate known or suspected enemy positions, clear a building, fire weapons

accurately, and clear a room. The lowest rated tasks were support by fire, maintain position

relative to other squad members, change formation, take hasty defensive positions, communicate

information to squad leader, and react to ambush. The tasks that showed the most improvement

were distinguish between friendly and enemy positions, clear a room, clear a building, and locate

known or suspected enemy positions.

Table 5.

DISAF Behavior Ratings

SAF Behavior 1999 2001

Mean Mean N SD

Change

2001-

1999

Distinguish between friendly and enemy

positions.

-0.90 0.22 9 1.40 1.12

Move to designated location. -0.10 -0.13 8 0.78 -0.03

Locate known or suspected enemy positions. -1.10 -0.22 9 1.23 0.88

Clear a building. -1.33 -0.38 8 1.11 0.95

Fire weapons accurately. -0.40 -0.43 7 1.18 -0.03

Clear a room. -1.44 -0.44 9 1.07 1.00

Deliver suppressive fire. -0.80 -0.88 8 1.05 -0.08

React to contact. -1.00 -0.89 9 0.99 0.11

Move through open areas. -1.00 -1.00 8 1.12 0.00

Perform fire and movement. -0.67 -1.00 7 0.76 -0.33

Move through built-up areas. -0.67 -1.00 9 0.94 -0.33

React to ambush. -0.88 -1.11 9 0.87 -0.23

Communicate information to squad leader. -0.80 -1.11 9 0.87 -0.31

Take hasty defensive positions. -0.50 -1.11 9 0.74 -0.61

Change formation. -0.62 -1.25 8 0.83 -0.63

Maintain position relative to other squad or

team members.

-0.50 -1.29 7 0.70 -0.79

Support by fire. -0.67 -1.38 8 0.86 -0.71

Mean -0.79 -0.79

Note: 1999 N = 9.
27

Dynamic Terrain

All soldiers rated dynamic terrain. Results are show in Table 6. Overall, the battlefield

environment, the process of creating a hole, and the hole itself were perceived as being realistic.

Rubble was perceived as being less realistic and having little effect.

Table 6.

Dynamic Terrain Ratings

Question %Agree or

Strongly Agree

Battlefield environment (wrecked vehicles, building damage, civilians and

vehicles moving about, etc.) was realistically portrayed.

92.3

The blowhole (AT-8 fire) created a hole exactly where it was to be placed. 84.6

The sound simulation of the blowhole "burst" (AT-8 fire) was realistic. 76.9

The effect created by the blowhole (AT-8 fire) is realistic. 69.2

The flash simulation of the blowhole "bursts" (AT-8 fire) was realistic. 50.0

The rubble effect realistically portrays that found in a MOUT environment. 46.2

I was able to distinguish rubble from a distance. 30.8

The effects of simulated rubble noticeably impeded movement. 28.6

The rubble effect worked well in conjunction with the effects of the

blowhole.

23.1

The simulated rubble noticeably impeded both SAF and immersed players. 21.4

There is no impact or tactical advantage to blowing a hole in a building

ceiling or floor.

7.1

Note: N = 18.

SVS Enhancements

The soldiers believed that the absence of fragmentation and flash-bang grenades (92.8%),

smoke grenades, (85.7%), and flares (78.5%) adversely impacted their fighting ability. They

were largely neutral (33.4% agree and 21.0% disagree) on the question of whether tac lights

greatly aided in reducing civilian casualties. They agreed that the amount of light in the

simulators accurately reflected time of day (86.6%), but were neutral on the accuracy of shadows

in depicting time of day (33.4% agree and 20% disagree).

Training Effectiveness

Generally, squad and fire team leaders said that their performance improved as a result of

the training. The percentage who said that their performance improved at least slightly ranged

from 53% for the task “Clear a room” to 100% for the “Coordinate activities with your chain of

command.” Ratings were generally better, and in no instance worse, than those given to the same

tasks in the FY 99 CE. Complete results are shown in Table 7. In general, ratings for

coordination, communication, and control tasks were higher than those for specific unit tasks or

battle drills.
28

Table 7.

Squad and Fire Team Leader Training Effectiveness Ratings

% Indicating

Improvement

Task

1999 2001

Coordinate activities with your chain of command. 44% 100%

Assess the tactical situation. 67% 93%

Squad/fire team communication and coordination. 78% 80%

Control squad or fire team movement during assault. 67% 80%

Control squad or fire team movement while not in

contact with the enemy.

67% 80%

Control your squad or fire team. 67% 80%

React to Contact Battle Drill. 44% 80%

Plan a tactical operation. 33% 73%

Locate known or suspected enemy positions. 44% 67%

Clear a building. 56% 57%

Clear a room. 44% 53%

Note: 2001 N=15. 1999 N = 9. Squad and Fire Team Leaders who participated for two days

completed the questionnaire at the end of each day.

Mission Planning and Training Tool (MPTT)

Almost all (94.5%) of the soldiers strongly agreed or agreed that the MPTT was an

effective rehearsal tool, and 89.9% strongly agreed or agreed that the MPTT will make an

effective mission planning tool.

Locomotion Interfaces – ODT and SVS

Because the ODT and SVS are unique devices, designed to allow soldiers to move

through VEs in different ways, a one-to-one comparison of their performance is not appropriate.

Therefore, the results from the questionnaires about performance on each device will be

presented separately. Because only four soldiers used the ODT and completed locomotion

system questionnaires, the results only indicate trends for the locomotion interface devices.

The questionnaire results for the ODT are shown in Table 8. Overall, the ODT was rated

high for its ability to allow soldiers to move across open terrain. Its ability to allow the user to

move naturally, maintain balance, and maneuver close to other people in the VE were rated

“Fair.” It received somewhat low ratings for its ability to allow the soldiers to maneuver around

obstacles, maintain position relative to team members, move around inside buildings, and move

tactically. It received low ratings for its ability to allow the users to maneuver around corners,

look around corners, move quickly, and move through doors.
29

Table 8.

ODT Ratings

Task Rating Frequency

Very

Poor

Poor Fair Good Very

Good

Mean

Move Naturally 0 1 3 0 0 1.75

Maintain Balance 0 1 3 0 0 1.75

Maneuver Around Obstacles 0 2 1 1 0 1.75

Maneuver Close to Other People

in the Virtual Environment

1 0 3 0 0 1.50

Maintain Position Relative to

Team Members

1 1 0 2 0 1.75

Maneuver Around Corners 1 2 0 1 0 1.25

Look Around Corners 0 3 0 1 0 1.50

Move Quickly 1 3 0 0 0 0.75

Move Through Doors 0 2 2 0 0 1.50

Move Around Inside Buildings 1 0 2 0 0 1.00

Move Across Open Terrain 0 0 1 2 1 3.00

Move Tactically 1 1 1 1 0 1.50

Question Never Hardly

Ever

SometimesUsually Always Mean

Did your speed of movement

through the virtual environment

feel correct?

1 1 2 0 0 1.25

Did you forget that you were on

the ODT during the scenario?

2 1 1 0 0 0.75

Did you feel safe on the ODT? 1 1 1 1 0 1.50

Did the ODT cause you to move

when you were not ready?

0 0 4 0 0 2.00

Too

Slow

About

Right

Too

Fast

Was your speed 4 0 0

Note: N=4.

In general, the soldiers felt that their movement through the VE using the ODT was too

slow. Although it did happen sometimes for one of the soldiers, most of the soldiers hardly ever

got so immersed in the VE or so comfortable on the ODT that they forgot that they were on it

during the scenarios. Because the ODT sometimes caused the soldiers to move when they were

not ready and because some soldiers seemed to be more comfortable on the ODT than others,

they rated their feelings of safety from Never to Usually.

During the debriefing, the soldiers made very positive comments about the HMD used

with the ODT. The HMD combined with the ability to turn their bodies on the ODT allowed

them to observe 360 degrees around themselves. However, the soldiers also described several
30

problems and weaknesses with the ODT. They felt that the active area of the ODT was too small.

It limited their ability to move. The mechanical linkage restricted them to upright movement, so

they could not kneel, go prone or crawl. On occasion, the cables going to the HMD and the

ASTiTM radio entangled them. Another problem that the soldiers had was that they were unable

to sight and accurately aim the weapon that was used with the ODT.

The questionnaire results for the SVS are shown in Table 9. Overall, the SVS was rated

high for its ability to allow soldiers to move across open terrain, maintain balance, maintain

position relative to team members, and move quickly. Its ability to allow the user to

move naturally, maneuver close to other people in the VE, look around corners, move through

doors, move around inside buildings, and move tactically were rated “Fair.” It received low

Table 9.

SVS Ratings

Task Rating Frequency

Very

Poor

Poor Fair Good Very

Good

Mean

Move Naturally 0 0 3 1 0 2.25

Maintain Balance 0 0 1 2 1 3.00

Maneuver Around Obstacles 1 1 2 0 0 1.25

Maneuver Close to Other People

in the Virtual Environment

0 1 3 0 0 1.75

Maintain Position Relative to

Team Members

0 1 0 2 1 2.75

Maneuver Around Corners 1 1 2 0 0 1.25

Look Around Corners 0 1 2 1 0 2.00

Move Quickly 0 1 0 3 0 2.50

Move Through Doors 0 1 1 2 0 2.25

Move Around Inside Buildings 0 1 2 1 0 2.00

Move Across Open Terrain 0 0 0 2 2 3.50

Move Tactically 0 1 1 1 1 2.50

Question Never Hardly

Ever

SometimesUsually Always Mean

Did your speed of movement

through the virtual environment

feel correct?

0 1 1 2 0 2.25

Did you forget that you were in the

SVS during the scenario?

2 1 1 0 0 0.75

Did you feel safe in the SVS? 0 0 0 2 2 3.50

Too

Slow

About

Right

Too

Fast

Was your speed 2 2 0

Note – N=4.
31

ratings for its ability to allow the users to maneuver around obstacles and maneuver around

corners.

Half of the soldiers said that their speed through the VE using the SVS was about right,

while the others said their speed was too slow. They hardly ever forgot that they were in the

SVS, but they did feel safe using it.

In the debriefing sessions, the soldiers commented that the SVS was easy to use because

it is like a video game. They liked the fact that the SVS allowed them to kneel and go prone.

When boresighted properly, the weapon was accurate. Weaknesses of the SVS included the

inability of the user to side step, the inability of the user to vary speed, and the fact that the

tracking system sometimes lost the user.

Also in the debriefing sessions, the soldiers said that simulators that include systems like

the ODT or the SVS could be useful to the Army for training or mission rehearsal. They felt that

such systems would be useful for learning the layouts of buildings and practicing moving

through those buildings. They also felt that these systems would be useful for MOUT training,

specifically room clearing.

Observations of the soldiers on the ODT revealed several things about how soldiers

interacted with the device itself and with the whole system – VE, weapon, HMD, radio and

ODT. The noise enclosure did reduce the noise coming from the ODT, but it restricted the

soldiers’ stride length because it covered the ODT right up to the edge of the active area. The

ODT control system performed as designed. There were only rare occasions when the soldiers

had a false start, overshot a stop, or had problems because they made sharp turns on the ODT. In

fact, the more they used the ODT the more comfortable they became with it. On the first two

days of the CE, the system (VE, weapon, HMD, radio, and ODT) was not working well. There

were network interface unit crashes and visualization system freezes. Also, the soldiers could not

aim their weapon. These things frustrated the soldiers and prevented them from fully

participating in the scenarios. Thus, they had little time to use the ODT and gave it low ratings

on the questionnaires. The system worked much better for the second group. They were able to

participate in the scenarios, and they felt that they could contribute to their fire team’s efforts.

They used the ODT for fairly long periods of time and generally gave it higher ratings on the

questionnaires than the first group.

The soldier’s ability to observe his environment seemed to be very good on the system

that used the ODT. The HMD and the freedom of movement on the ODT allowed the soldiers to

observe 360 degrees around themselves easily and naturally. During one scenario, the soldier on

the ODT spotted and engaged an enemy soldier on the floor inside a doorway that two soldiers in

the SVSs moved past without seeing.

Finally, the soldiers seemed to feel like they were active members of the fire team if they

could crouch, kneel, go prone, crawl and aim their weapons. These are common tasks that are

important to Infantry soldiers. The soldiers in the SVSs could do these things. The soldiers on the

ODT could not because of the size of the active area, the mechanical linkage that senses the user’

s position and the lack of a way to aim the weapon while using the HMD.
32

Voice Control of DISAF

Four fire team leaders used voice to control DISAF at some time during the event. They

completed the DISAF Voice questionnaire. The results are shown in Table 10.

Table 10.

DISAF Voice Recognition Questionnaire Results

Questions:

Strongly

AgreeAgree

Neither

Agree

nor

Disagree Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

1. It was easy to give voice commands

that SAF could understand.

0 1 0 2 1

2. It was easy to learn to give voice

commands to SAF.

0 2 2 0 0

3. It was easy to tell if the SAF recognized

or understood my voice commands.

0 4 0 0 0

4. Giving voice commands to SAF came

naturally.

0 2 1 1 0

5. I frequently gave voice commands that

the SAF did not recognize.

2 2 0 0 0

6. The SAF responded to my verbal

commands.

0 3 0 0 1

7. The verbal responses were appropriate

for the various situations.

0 1 1 0 2

< 20% 20-

39%

40-

60%

61-

80%

>80%

8. What percentage of time was SAF

unable to recognize your voice commands

correctly on the first try? (Respondents

selected one of the ranges of percentages

shown above.)

1 0 0 1 2

9. What percentage of time did SAF

respond incorrectly to your voice

commands? (Respondents selected one of

the ranges of percentages shown above.)

3 0 1 0 0

On the positive side, 75% of the soldiers agreed that the SAF responded to their verbal

commands, 50% agreed that it was easy to learn to give voice commands to SAF, and 100%

agreed that it was easy to tell if the SAF recognized or understood their voice commands. On the

negative side, 75% strongly disagreed or disagreed that it was easy to give voice commands that

the SAF could understand, 100% strongly agreed or agreed that they frequently gave voice

commands that the SAF did not recognize, and 50% strongly disagreed that the SAF verbal

responses were appropriate for the various situations. One–half of the respondents indicated that
33

the SAF was unable to recognize their voice commands on the first try more than 80% of the

time.

Simulator Sickness

A mean symptom score was calculated by assigning each response of None a value of 0,

Slight a value of 1, Moderate a value of 2, and Severe a value of 3. Some symptoms (cold

sweating, difficulty concentrating, “fullness of head”, dizziness eyes open, dizziness eyes closed,

and vertigo) were never reported. The most frequently reported symptoms at the end of the day

were fatigue and eyestrain, both with mean symptom scores of 0.17, a level of occurrence equal

to about one slight symptom reported for every six soldiers. Total symptom scores were slightly

higher at the end of the day than at the start (0.67 vs 0.31) but the difference was slight, equating

to about one more slight symptom for every three soldiers.

Lessons Learned

AAR System

Initial integration of the AAR system proceeded well. The AAR system was able to

communicate with all systems almost from the start. However, problems were encountered: some

were fixed during the CE, while others required further analysis. The major problems and

corrective actions are described in the following paragraphs.

Communication with SVS. The SVS systems do not send DIS timestamps in their network

packets. This affects “post mission” systems, like AAR systems, that record and try to look at the

data later, rather than in real-time. Having the AAR system re-timestamp every packet as it was

received solved this problem. SVS also does not send standard DIS appearance flags.

Consequently, SVS entities do not indicate when they have been killed. This affected the tabular

data presentation, and has implications for future enhancements, such as changing the

appearance of an entity when it is killed.

DTServer. The AAR system can interface with the DTServer in one of two ways: the

reliable Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) interface and the less reliable User Datagram

Protocol (UDP) interface. When using the TCP interface, the AAR system showed all of the

dynamic terrain changes correctly during the mission itself (during data capture), but got stuck at

the time of the explosion during replay. This did not occur when using the UDP interface,

although packet loss did occur. This was related to the timestamping problem. The SVS

timestamp problem was fixed by re-timestamping packets as they were received at the main

network part of the AAR system. The TCP DT interface has its own connection in the AAR

system. Re-timestamping needed to occur at that interface as well. In other words, the code to do

the re-timestamping needed to be in two different places in the AAR system.

Audio Capture. Prior to the CE, ARI and STRICOM purchased a two-radio, ASTiTM

system for testing and use in Orlando. Before leaving for Fort Benning, we were satisfied with

our ability to work with the ASTiTM radio system. The LWTB had an eight-radio system during

the CE. The audio capture program seemed satisfactory during integration testing. However, it
34

became clear that exercises involving a large number of people caused a serious degradation of

capturing abilities, so severe that the voice communications were rarely intelligible. This was not

simply the result of too many packets coming in for the PC to handle. During the last scenario

run during the CE, the AAR system was reconfigured to also capture the raw PDUs of audio

from the ASTiTM radio for further analysis in an effort to troubleshoot the problem.

Review of that data show that the AAR system was mixing the voices on the different

channels of the ASTiTM radios. (ASTiTM radios can have up to four channels.) If the capture

software is changed to record just a single channel, it sounds. In order to support all four

channels, either additional sound cards will be necessary, or software mixing of the four channels

will have to be implemented. A Linux approach that could solve the problem more easily is also

under investigation.

Statistics (Tables/Graphs). For the most part, the statistical reporting element of the AAR

system worked. Unfortunately, the most interesting table was the Killer-Victim table, which did

not work. This failed because the SVS does not send the “I’m dead” appearance flags in DIS.

The AAR system therefore knew when an entity had been hit, but not when it had been killed.

Changing the AAR system to use the Detonation PDU instead would be an interim solution, but

would not work if the SVS soldiers could be wounded as well as killed. Some additional work on

statistics is also needed to make it more flexible and robust.

Other Issues. Other solvable problems identified include:

• Postures in capture mode are not shown properly.

• Timestamp problem with crossing an hour boundary.

• Avatars were shown holding a grenade when actually empty-handed.

New Enhancements. Ideas for a number of enhancements resulted from our experience

using the AAR system in the exercises.

• Save a viewpoint for an event as part of the “tagging” process. All viewpoints would still

be available, but it might be useful to have one “saved” with the event.

• Present the soldiers with a larger view of only the virtual scene instead of a copy of the

full interface. This could be done using the second monitor capability of the current video

cards.

• Separate global scenario elements from the scenario elements for a specific instance of

that scenario (for example, separate the viewpoints for a particular scenario from the

event log for a particular run of that scenario). This would enable the global elements to

be saved and loaded when the scenario is run again, without needing to be re-entered

manually.

• Re-work tables and perhaps graphs to improve visibility from a distance.

• Develop a good method for showing dead players.

• Implement the kneeling and prone postures better (including movements and entity

marking placement).

• Turn off display of entities that are on floors that are turned off.
35

DISAF Behaviors and Control

The enhancements to the IIM functioned as expected and appeared to greatly reduce the

workload of the DISAF Operator. The DTServer implementation on DISAF ran flawlessly. Shots

fired from DISAF or the SVS that resulted in building contact had the proper change displayed

on the PVD. Hasty Withdraw was not tested.

The ability of a Fire Team Leader to command his SAF entities to move where he desired

proved to be harder than expected. A proposed solution would be to allow the immersed leader

to issue a “Follow Me” command. The Follow Me command would cause the designated troops

to follow the live leader through the VE.

DI Simulators

The development of the capability to employ flash-bang devices, hand grenades

(fragmentary and tactical smoke), and hand-held illumination should be a high priority for any

future CE involving a MOUT environment. Many of the soldiers' concerns centered on flashbang devices and smoke hand grenades, in particular, being unavailable for their use. These

devices are used routinely in actual MOUT operations and need to be available in training to

represent a realistic situation.

The capability to use simulated binoculars in the SVS was also identified as a desirable

feature. This would allow the immersed soldier to have the ability to look through a simulated set

of binoculars and have a more detailed view to allow him to identify targets at greater distances

than is now possible. While looking through the binoculars the soldier should not be able to

navigate through the environment, but should be able to change his orientation as if turning his

head left or right. The orientation he looked last should be his orientation when he returns to

natural view. To change the view to Binocular View the soldier should hold down a button on

the unit (Binocular View only shown while button is depressed).

Scenarios

Furniture. Furniture should be added to all rooms involved in room-clearing operations

in a MOUT environment for all future CEs. This not only helps the realism, but also provides a

visual reference point for the unit maneuvering in a large building containing multiple rooms.

Scenarios cramped in time and space. The scenarios looked good on paper and seemed

reasonable during the briefing from the Exercise Controller to the squad. However, the

requirement to limit the scenarios to 20 minutes led to time and space problems that were not

recognized prior to the CE. In fact, the scenarios were “cramped” in both space and time. The

opposing force (OPFOR) was often positioned within range of the squad at the beginning of an

exercise. In several of the scenarios, actions started before the squad had enough time to get into

an initial formation. Although it might have been interesting to have one scenario start off very

quickly, in general the quick starts were counterproductive to the goal of observing if the DISAF

fire team and the ODT member of Fire Team A could get into the proper formation and how

rapidly they could do so. There is another problem with having opposing forces located so close

to each other at the beginning of a scenario: once the DISAF Blue forces have line of sight with
36

the OPFOR, the SAF controller is faced with challenges if the scenario calls for anything other

than the forces to immediately begin engaging each other. Setting different starting positions for

the OPFOR, and allowing the squad some time at the beginning of the scenario to get into

formation could mitigate the problems without major revisions to the scenarios.

Lack of points of reference. Dozens of different visual models (such as various types of

furniture and vehicles) are already available in DISAF. These objects should be used to enrich

the visual content of the village to provide natural points of reference. For example, inside the

high-rise building it would be logical that there would be some furniture in at least some of the

rooms and perhaps in the hallways. In a similar manner there could be at least a few automobiles

parked within the town and a few benches placed appropriate for bus stops. Instead of arguing

about which is the “salmon colored” building, the squad members could reference a building

relative to a parked car, bench, or flowerpot. For the defensive scenario situated on a rooftop, use

objects or rubble to mark the edge of the rooftop. Without additional cues it is hard to judge how

close you are to the edge of the roof. This needs to be implemented with care. If too many

"realistic" objects are emplaced, the computer systems may be overloaded and fail to operate in

real time. Conversely, if objects are placed only in those areas where action is to take place,

soldiers will learn to expect something in those areas where the extra objects are located.

Cognitive texturing. In the same manner that adding even a few objects can increase the

visual texturing of the environment, an object can be placed to provide cognitive texturing. For

example, very similar sets of objects could be placed in two different rooms such that in one

room an alert squad member will recognize a carefully constructed sniper position whereas the

same objects positioned differently would merely be a cluttered room.

Voice Recognition Federate

The VRF demonstrated several strengths during the CE. The VRF was a robust member

of the integrated environment and did not suffer nor initiate any unexpected crashes. The VRF

could be reconfigured easily to react to changes in scenarios as well as to work around

predictable errors in real time. The VRF also demonstrated that (as long as commands were

understood) a live soldier could command SAF entities and interact meaningfully with other live

participants in the exercise. The VRF did not seem to suffer as a result of background noise

during all but one of the scenarios. The one weakness of the VRF was the speech-to-text

translation, which depended heavily on the COTS Dragon NaturallySpeaking product. Since

everything else depended on this, speech recognition was the greatest single factor in the ability

of the VRF to substantially contribute to the scenarios.

For the first three days of the CE, Dragon NaturallySpeaking successfully parsed

approximately 26 of 57 commands. During the last two days of CE, an operator substituted for

the speech recognition system and typed in the spoken commands. The human team leaders

using the VRF in this fashion were able to command their fire teams and participate in the

scenarios relatively effectively.

The following improvements were identified as being needed:
37

• Commands should be pre-emptive, such that issuing a new command cancels out the existing

behavior.

• Separate “Move to ___” and “Move out” commands should not be required to implement a

move behavior.

• Other COTS speech recognition systems should be evaluated for use in the VRF.

• The capability to select entities by voice commands should be added.

CE Command, Control, and Coordination

The DISAF Operator and Exercise Controller should not have the additional workload of

implementing “work-arounds” for capabilities that do not work. The scenarios were designed to

provide maximum activity and minimum distractions for the trainees. The DISAF Operator and

the Exercise Controller were fully employed controlling scenario execution without having

additional responsibilities.

The overall CE schedule, starting with a rehearsal (scenario walk through) on the first

day following integration, with a full dress rehearsal with soldiers scheduled for the second day

following integration, worked well. This scheduling afforded the opportunity for contractors to

verify that their devices/capabilities worked with each other in the context of the scenarios and

the expected level of activity. It also allowed further integration of several devices/capabilities

and the opportunity to fine tune internal events within most of the scenarios.

Careful attention needs to be paid to exactly how each system will function during the

exercises and exactly what support will be required to insure proper functioning. This will likely

require low-level “talk-throughs” of the scenarios at pre-CE planning meetings.

The Exercise Controller and the AAR Leader should not be the same person. Using the

Exercise Controller to portray the platoon leader and orchestrate scenario events worked well

during the scenario execution, but it did not permit adequate planning time for each AAR. The

result was that the AARs were conducted "on the fly", with minimal preparation. Either a

"military leader" (a platoon leader or platoon sergeant if the exercise element will be a squad)

should be tasked as part of the troop requirement to support the exercise, or an AAR Leader

should be obtained from another source. This would permit an additional set of "eyes" on the

performance of the squad and allow the squad to receive their AAR from a "green-suiter", adding

to the validity of the AAR.

A single individual should maintain control over the scenarios and be responsible for

their doctrinal correctness. He must be the honest broker to ensure that the scenarios are realistic

and doctrinally based; and that the OPFOR play is equally realistic yet tempered to achieve the

focus of the CE - assessing new devices/capabilities.

The soldiers should be forced to employ realistic tactics and doctrine for the situation in

each scenario, and still exercise the devices/capabilities. For example, if part of a unit is

represented by DISAF entities, then the unit should not be allowed to consistently place these

entities in the most dangerous positions. Actual soldiers (immersed players) need to be actively
38

involved in all portions of scenario execution so they can provide a fair and accurate assessment

of the various devices/capabilities.

Role Players

The platoon leader. The procedure of having the platoon leader (role-player) brief the

mission to the entire squad should be reconsidered. Have the platoon leader brief the squad

leader, and then have the squad leader brief the squad. The platoon leader should not

micromanage the squad action. The platoon leader should frequently ask for updates if the squad

leader is not initiating reports, but the platoon leader should not manage the squad.

OPFOR sniper. All CE scenarios have employed a single live human, using a desktop

simulator, in the role of an enemy soldier or sniper. This is in addition to DISAF OPFOR. The

live human provides a level of creativity and flexibility in the scenarios that DISAF cannot

match. In practice, this role player is invariably and hotly criticized. What one observer saw as

“egregious gamesmanship which degraded many aspects of the exercises and data collection,”

another saw as appropriate demonstration of a deficiency of the virtual simulation, i.e., “failure

for not providing the squad the necessary tools to clear a room (flash-bang devices or hand

grenades) that the squad would have in real life.” The human OPFOR should be given written

guidelines that clarify the desired actions and events that should transpire by the exercise

participants so he can take actions to lead them in that direction.

Dynamic Terrain

The DTServer functioned as planned, computing wall breaches, transmitting the results to

compliant simulators, and transmitting rubble entity state protocol data units. The major problem

for all STO partners was the lack of definitive documentation of the DTServer message interface.

The following activities are recommended during FY 02 to improve the DT Server.

• Make the DTServer more robust, eliminating software crashes.

• Document all software.

• Create the capability, using ARL dynamic terrain algorithms, to pre-damage a database, store

the results, and distribute to compliant simulators using SEDRIS technology.

ODT

It is important for all of the members of a fire team to be able to move at the same speed

through the VE. Therefore, speed on the SVS and the ODT should be matched.

The soldiers need more time to become comfortable with moving on the ODT. More

training time, perhaps two twenty-minute sessions, should be given to the soldiers who will use

the ODT.

Soldiers on the ODT can side step, and with the HMD, they can observe the VE better

than soldiers in the SVS can. Therefore, in scenarios where those capabilities are important, the

squad leader should be the one on the ODT.
39

The visualization system for the ODT, the DISim, did not work well the first two days of

scenario runs. Problems encountered included network interface unit crashes, visualization

system freezes, and the inability of the soldier to aim the weapon. These problems prevented

some scenario runs from running to completion the first two days of scenario runs, and prevented

the soldier from engaging targets. The final two days of scenario runs were more successful.

Most scenarios ran to completion, and showed the utility of the ODT. Visitors remarked on the

utility of the HMD for visualization, and want to investigate using the HMD method with the

SVS rifle-joystick locomotion method. For FY 02, DISim needs to be made more robust,

eliminating software crashes in DI, and rifle target tracking and engagement need to be

improved.

System Integration

Integration time at Fort Benning went by very quickly and once dry runs were started on

Thursday, they took all day and little further integration was possible. The schedule should

include time to make software revisions to correct problems identified.

While a dry run integration testing session took place in Orlando in August, it was

difficult to measure success or identify problems because no scenarios were used at that time. An

actual scenario or scenarios should be available as part of this dry run next year.
40

Discussion of Results

Overall, the VE STO FY 2001 CE was a success. It provided a realistic and challenging

test of the systems and capabilities under development, and the results identified both

accomplishments and areas in which improvements and corrections are required. The capabilities

under development generally performed well, not just as independent systems, but as coordinated

components of a larger system. For example, the holes created by the DTServer appeared in the

SVS and AAR system, and DISAF could move and see through them. Of course, their

interaction was not problem free and not all aspects of all systems worked. However, the

scenarios were generally run as planned, with some last-minute changes. When systems did not

work, the causes could usually be identified, and in some cases corrected, during the CE.

Problems that could not be corrected immediately were identified as high priority items for

future development.

Simulator Capabilities

It was somewhat surprising that overall soldier ratings of simulator capability were

slightly but non-significantly lower than they had been two years ago. While capabilities have

been added to the SVSs, the basic characteristics remain the same. Given the small number of

soldiers performing the ratings and the variability of their responses, it would be premature to

leap to any conclusions about trends. One possible explanation is that as capabilities have been

added to the SVS and to the SSE network, system performance has deteriorated. A second

possibility is that as the scenarios were more challenging and complicated than those used two

years ago. They pushed the soldiers to try to perform more complicated tasks in the simulators,

and therefore they were more likely to encounter the limits of the simulators. The unavailability

of hand grenades, for example, made it extremely difficult to clear the high rise building. Finally,

the impact of the increasing sophistication of computer and video games may have caused this

year’s soldiers to have higher standards for simulator performance. The simulator capabilities are

being compared with increasingly realistic and sophisticated commercial products. This has, in

effect raised the standards by which automated entities and environments are judged.

Some soldier interface needs are recurring. The most prominent ones are the need for

better sound localization, more accurate weapons (particularly when in the prone position), and

improved arrangement of cables within the simulator. Soldiers reported having difficulty

localizing friendly and enemy fire by sound. It is not clear if this reflects limitations in the

realism of the SVS audio system, limitations imposed by the use of the ASTiTM Radio headsets

(which covered one ear), or is merely a realistic representation of the difficulties localizing

sounds in an urban environment. The SVS weapons are reasonably accurate at close range, but

soldiers cannot engage targets as accurately as they would in the real world. Since weapons

tracking accuracy is inversely related to the distance between the weapon and a sensor mounted

about the soldier’s head, the prone firing position, which would be the most accurate firing

position in the real world, is the least accurate in the SVS. Three cables are required to fully

connect the soldier to the virtual simulation (ASTiTM radio, head tracker, and weapon). It was

easy to become entangled in these cables, particularly when moving into and out of the prone

position.
41

Hand grenades are a key part of the conduct of MOUT operations and should, if possible,

be added to the SVS capabilities. The capability to use simulated binoculars should also be

useful in overcoming the limited resolution of the SVS visual displays.

Training Effectiveness

In the absence of objective measures of task performance, the only available indication of

learning during the exercises was the self-reports of the Squad and Fire Team Leaders. These

were quite positive, with the majority of the soldiers reporting improvement on each of the

eleven tasks. These ratings were substantially higher than those obtained in 1999. Training

effectiveness, even perceived training effectiveness, is a combination of factors, and reflects not

only the simulation technologies, but also other factors such as the scenarios and AAR quality. If

these results can be replicated in the future with objective measures of performance, it will

establish the effectiveness of the VE as a means for training dismounted Infantry.

AAR System

Soldier ratings of and comments on the AAR system were very positive. In fact, that the

soldiers gave good ratings to one aspect, voice playback, which never reproduced the voice

communications intelligibly. It appears that the soldiers were generally favorable toward the

AAR system, and were consequently unwilling to give any of its aspects a low rating. Of the

problems identified, the failure of the audio playback system is the most critical. The second

most critical is the inability to determine when soldiers in the SVSs have been killed. Several

other fixes and improvements, described previously, were also identified. The AAR leader and

the Exercise Controller should not be the same person in future exercises. This workload

allocation scheme allowed no time for AAR preparation.

Voice Control of DISAF

This did not appear to work well at all, although it is likely that most of the problems

stem from a single COTS component, the speech recognition software. When the speech

recognition system was turned off and an operator (without telling the fire team leader) typed the

commands issued by the Fire Team B Leader into the system, the DISAF performed

appropriately. Changing to a voice recognition system that permits the use of a smaller

vocabulary may very well go far toward solving the problem.

Dynamic Terrain

The hole blowing capability worked well. Capabilities need to be expanded to include

different munitions and different building materials, not just an AT-8 firing at a concrete block

wall. The resulting rubble did not have a realistic appearance. Soldiers did not agree that the

rubble impeded their movement or the movement of DISAF.
42

DISAF Performance

While new behaviors were added to the DISAF repertoire and they appeared to be

performed well, overall soldier ratings of SAF performance were the same as they were two

years ago. Several factors may be contributing. First, the scenarios are more complex, and

DISAF is being required to perform more, and more complex, tasks. Two years ago, DISAF

could only enter one building in the McKenna MOUT site. This year, they could enter all of the

buildings in two different terrain databases. Second, changes to DISAF, which made the

operator’s job easier, the IIM, were not apparent to the soldiers who rated DISAF performance.

Two years ago, building and room clearing behavior had to be plotted for each individual DISAF

entity. This year, it was performed automatically. Third, two years ago DISAF was commanded

by giving voice commands to a SAF operator, who controlled the SAF. Voice control, which did

not work well, may have been, from the perspective of the soldiers, a step backwards. Finally, as

with the ratings of simulator capabilities, there is the impact of soldier experience with

increasingly sophisticated computer and video games.

Locomotion Interfaces

The CE revealed several areas where the locomotion interfaces (ODT and SVS) need

improvement. The “working area” of the ODT needs to be larger. The mechanical linkage that

locates the user on the active surface needs to be replaced with a sensor that does not restrict the

user to being upright. The cables that go to the HMD and the ASTiTM radio need to be run

differently so that they do not interfere with the user’s movements. These modifications will

allow ODT users to take longer – more natural – strides, crouch, kneel, go prone, and crawl. In

addition, soldiers need a means for aiming their weapon while wearing the HMD. Desirable

areas of the SVS locomotion improvement include providing users with the ability to side step,

vary the speed at which they move through the VE, and the capability to track the user’s position

accurately anywhere within the SVS.

Simulator Sickness

The occurrence of simulator sickness symptoms was very low, equal to about 2/3 of one

slight symptom per soldier. This likely results from the use of short scenarios (approximately 20

minutes each) separated by non-immersive activities, and the use of rear-projection displays

rather than HMDs on the SVSs (the ODT used an HMD). Simulator sickness does not seem to be

an obstacle to longer-duration scenarios during the next CE.

Future Directions

The VE STO will continue for one more year. During that year, the effort will focus on

correcting shortcomings and developing the higher-priority enhancements identified through the

2001 CE. Prior to the end of FY 02, a final CE will be held at Fort Benning.
43

 References

Carmein, D.E.E. (1996). Omni-directional treadmill (US Patent Number 5,562,572).

Washington, DC: US Patent and Trademark Office.

Darken, R.P., Cockayne, W.R. & Carmein, D. (1997). The Omni-directional treadmill: A

locomotion device for virtual worlds. Proceedings of UIST ’97, 213-221.

Goldberg, S.L., & Knerr, B.W. (1997). Collective training in virtual environments: Exploring

performance requirements for dismounted soldier simulation. In R.J. Seidel & P.R.

Chatelier (Eds.), Virtual reality, training’s future? New York: Plenum Press.

Gorman, P.F. (1990). Supertroop via I-Port: Distributed simulation technology for combat

development and training development (IDA Paper P-2374). Alexandria, VA: Institute

for Defense Analysis.

Jacobs, R. S., Crooks, W. H., Crooks, J. R., Colburn, E., Fraser, II, R. E., Gorman, P. F.,

Madden, J. L., Furness, III, T. A., & Tice, S. E. (October, 1994). Behavioral

Requirements for Training and Rehearsal in Virtual Environments. (TR-1011), U.S.

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Alexandria, VA.

(ADA286311)

Kennedy, R. S., Lane, N. E., Berbaum, K. S., & Lilienthal, M.G., (1993). A simulator sickness

questionnaire (SSQ): A new method for quantifying simulator sickness. International

Journal of Aviation Psychology. 3(3), 203-220.

Knerr, B.W., Lampton, D.R., Witmer, B.G., Singer, M.J. Parsons, K.A. & Parsons, J. (in

preparation). Recommendations for using virtual environments for dismounted soldier

training (ARI Technical Report 971). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for

the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Krausman, A.S., Savick, D.S., Leiter, K.L., Faughn, J.F. & Knapik, J.J. (1997). Measurement of

energy expenditure on the Uniport mobility platform (Technical Report ARL-TR-1263).

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: U.S. Army Research Laboratory.

Lampton, D.R., & Parsons, J. B. (2001). The Fully Immersive Team Training (FITT) Research

System: Design and Implementation. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

Volume: 10 Number: 2 Page: 129-141.

Lampton, D.R., McDonald, D.P., Rodriguez, M.E., Morris, C.S., & Parsons, J.B. (2001).

Instructional strategies for training teams in virtual environments (Technical Report

1110). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social

Sciences. (ADA389674)
44

Levison, W. H., & Pew, R. W. (1993). Use of virtual environment training technology for

individual combat simulation. (Technical Report 971). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (ADA263546)

Lockheed Martin Corporation. (1997). Dismounted warrior network front end analysis

experiments final report (Advanced Distributed Simulation Technology II, Dismounted

Warrior Network DO #0020, CDRL AB06, ADST-II-CDRL-DWN-9700392A). Orlando,

FL: US Army Simulation, Training and Instrumentation Command.

Lockheed Martin Corporation. (1998). Dismounted warrior network enhancements for restricted

terrain final report. (Advanced Distributed Simulation Technology II, Dismounted

Warrior Network DO #0055, CDRL AB01, ADST-II-CDRL-DWN-9800258A). Orlando,

FL: US Army Simulation, Training and Instrumentation Command.

Neiderer, A., & Hansen, C. (2001). Distribution of Fragments Resulting From Polygonal Object

Fracture (ARL-TN-182). Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: U.S. Army Research

Laboratory.

Neiderer, A., Thomas, M.A., & Pearson, R. (1998). A Fracturing of Polygonal Objects (ARLTR-1649). Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: U.S. Army Research Laboratory.

Pleban, R. J. & Beal, S.A. (in preparation). Simulating night vision goggle effects in a virtual

environment: A preliminary evaluation (Research Report). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Pleban, R. J., Dyer, J. L. Salter, M. S., & Brown, J. B. (1998). Functional capabilities of four

virtual individual combatant (VIC) simulator technologies: An independent assessment

(Technical Report No. 1078). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the

Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Pleban, R. J., Eakin, D. E., & Salter, M. S. (2000). Analysis of mission-based scenarios for

training soldiers and small unit leaders in virtual environments (Research report No.

1754). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social

Sciences.

Pleban, R. J., Eakin, D. E., & Salter, M. S., & Matthews, M. D. (2001). Training and assessment

of decision-making skills in virtual environments (Research Report No. 1767).

Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Salter, M. S., Eakin, D. E., & Knerr, B. W. (1999). Dismounted warrior network enhanced

restricted terrain (DWN ERT): An independent assessment (Research Report No. 1742).

Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Savick, D.S., Krausman, A.S., Leiter, K.L. & Faughn, J.F. (1996). Validation of speed and stride

on the Uniport mobility platform (Technical Note ARL-TN-75). Aberdeen Proving

Ground, MD: U.S. Army Research Laboratory.
45

Singer, M.J, Grant, S., Commarford, P.M., Kring, J.P., and Zavod, M. (2001). Team performance

in distributed virtual environments (Technical Report 1118). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Thomas, M. A. (1998). The ARL Experiment 3 Individual Combatant/Military Operations on

Urbanized Terrain (MOUT) Demonstration (ARL-TN-102). Aberdeen Proving Ground,

MD: U.S. Army Research Laboratory.

U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command. (1997. Operational capability requirements

(TRADOC Pamphlet 525-66). Fort Monroe, VA: Headquarters, United States Army

Training and Doctrine Command. Available on-line: http://wwwtradoc.monroe.army.mil/tpubs/pams/p525-66.htm
46
A-1

Appendix A: List of Acronyms

AAR After Action Review

ARI U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

ARI-IFRU U.S. Army Research Institute, Infantry Forces Research Unit

ARI-SSRU U.S. Army Research Institute, Simulator Systems Research Unit

ARL-CISD U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Computational and Information Sciences

Directorate

ARL-HRED U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Human Research and Engineering

Directorate

AUSA Association of the United States Army

CGF Computer-Generated Forces

CIS Combat Instruction Sets

COTS Commercial-off-the-Shelf

CTDB Compact Terrain Database

CE Culminating Event

COB Civilian on the Battlefield

DBBL Dismounted BattleSpace BattleLab

DI Dismounted Infantry

DIS Distributed Interactive Simulation

DISAF Dismounted Infantry Semi-Automated Forces

DT Dynamic Terrain

DTServer Dynamic Terrain Server

DVD Digital Video Disc

DWN Dismounted Warrior Network

DWN ERT Dismounted Warrior Network Enhancements for Restricted Terrain

FITT Fully Immersive Team Trainer

GUI Graphical User Interface

HLA High Level Architecture

HMD Helmet Mounted Display

I2 Image Intensification

IC Individual Combatant

IIM Immediate Intervention Manager

I-Port Individual Portal

IST University of Central Florida Institute for Simulation and Training

LWTB Land Warrior Test Bed

MES Multiple Elevation Surface

ModSAF Modular SAF

MOS Military Occupational Specialty

MOUT Military Operations in Urban Terrain

MPTT Mission Planning and Training Tool

NVG Night Vision Goggles

O/C Observer/Controller

ODT Omni-Directional Treadmill

OOTW Operations Other Than War

OPFOR Opposing Forces
A-2

PDU Protocol Data Unit

PVD Plan View Display

R&D Research and Development

RGD RealGuy Desktop simulator

RGI RealGuy Immersive simulator

SAF Semi-Automated Forces

SASO Support and Sustainment Operations

SAW Squad Automatic Weapon

SBIR Small Business Innovative Research

SIMNET Simulation Network

SSE Squad Synthetic Environment

STO Science and Technology Objective

SVS Soldier Visualization Station

SVS2 Soldier Visualization Station, Version 2

STRICOM U.S. Army Simulation, Training, and Instrumentation Command

TCP Transmission Control Protocol

TDC Technology Development Center

TRADOC U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command

UDP User Datagram Protocol

VE Virtual Environment

VICS Virtual Individual Combat Simulator

VRF Voice Recognition Federate
B-1

Appendix B. Culminating Event Scenarios

This appendix contains the General Mission Statement that applies to all scenarios as

well as the Mission Planning Briefing and Scenario Description for each scenario. Scenarios are

not numbered consecutively. Scenarios 6 and 7 contain an additional map showing the DISAF

commands and waypoints which could be used by the Fire Team B leader.

Appendix B Table of Contents

General Mission Statement..........................................................................................................B-2

Scenario # 4: Roving Patrol .........................................................................................................B-3

Scenario # 6: Hostage Rescue......................................................................................................B-6

Scenario # 7: Support Operations Checkpoint...........................................................................B-10

Scenario # 10: Crowd Control ...................................................................................................B-14

Scenario # 11: Downed Helicopter............................................................................................B-18

Scenario # 13: Assault/Clear Building (Wall) ...........................................................................B-22

Scenario # 14: Air Assault/Clear Building (Roof).....................................................................B-25

Scenario # 16: Support by Fire ..................................................................................................B-29
B-2

General Mission Statement

Associated Press

Dlubac, El Polksa

The U.N. Protection Force continues to closely monitor conditions in the town of Dlubac

located in the providence of El Polksa. Rebel forces from the radical nationalist group

Black Sabbath have been linked to several terrorist bombings and attacks on the nearby

towns. The strategic importance of Dlubac, overlooking one of the major routes

entering El Polksa, makes this town a prime target for rebel activities. The U.S. 1-11th

Infantry Battalion attached to the U.N. Protection Force has been tasked with

coordinating U.N. activities within the region.

18

Residence

27

Residence

16

Bank

8

Retail

Store

2

Office

6

Service

Station

26

School

 11

Post Office

20

Radio

Station

Soccer

Field

22

Town

House

7

Residence

4

Power Station

 21

Apartments 24

Residence

10

Church

13

5 Town House

Residence 3

Warehouse

1

Factory

12

City

Hall

17

Police

Station

19

Water

Tower

9

Cantina

 25

Residence

15

Fire Station

14

Retail

Store

23

Hotel

Town of

Dlubac
B-3

Mission Planning Briefing

Scenario #4

Your unit is always the 2d Squad of the 2d Platoon.

Enemy Situation: Enemy presence is considered light, capable of conducting military

operations in the immediate region with forces less than platoon-size, supported by

mortars. There is no heavy threat. Last reported enemy activity in the region was 2

nights ago when a squad-sized raid was conducted in the neighboring town of Polo, 3

kilometers to the northwest.

Mission of Higher Units: The company has occupied the town of Dlubac (pronounced

d·lü·bk). The company commander has ordered the platoons to establish a hasty

defense along the perimeter of the town until daylight, when the town can be thoroughly

cleared. 2d Platoon, your platoon, is securing the northern sector of the town. 1st

Squad is on the left in Buildings 3 (Warehouse) and 1 (Factory). 3d Squad is on the

right in Buildings 13 (Townhouse), 24 (Residence), and 10 (Church). The 2d Squad is

the platoon reserve. The platoon mission is to maintain the peace in their sector. The

platoon command post is Building 17, the Police Station. The town population of

Dlubac is considered to be overall friendly. However, there may be insurgents and

insurgent sympathizers within the town's population.

Your Mission: The platoon leader has just ordered your squad, the 2d Squad, to

conduct a roving squad-size patrol. The start point is inside Building 17, the Police

Station, the platoon CP (see map). The route is counter-clockwise along the circular

road network. The squad is to move in blackout, with no white lights.

Rules of Engagement: The ROE is restrictive - only return fire after fired upon.

Building 21 (Apartments) is a former hospital. It is now used as apartments to house

refugees since the medical staff departed because of the civil unrest. As a result, it may

be fired on in self-defense, if necessary.

Your immediate task is to brief your squad members and organize the squad for the

roving patrol. Call signs remain constant.

What are your questions?

The scenario will begin once you have briefed your subordinates and the patrol is

preparing to deploy from the platoon CP location.
B-4

Scenario #4: Roving Patrol 

Tactical lights

Exterior lighting

Interior lighting

Rubble

System

Capabilities

Used During this

Scenario Omni-Directional Treadmill (ODT)

Time of Day: Night After Action Review (AAR) System

Weather: Light rain Tactically Correct Default Behavior (TCDB)

Wind effect: 5-10 mph Mission Planning Training Tool (MPTT)

Wind direction: North

The unit is always the 2d Squad of the 2d Platoon.

Mission Overview: The company has occupied the town of Dlubac (pronounced d·lü·bk). The

commander has ordered the platoons to establish a hasty defense along the perimeter of the town

until daylight, when the town can be thoroughly cleared. 2d PLT is securing the northern sector

of the town. 1st Squad is on the left in Buildings 3 (Warehouse) and 1 (Factory). 3d Squad is on

the right in Buildings 13 (Townhouse), 24 (Residence), and 10 (Church). The 2d Squad is the

platoon reserve. The platoon mission is to maintain the peace in their sector. The platoon leader

has ordered the 2d Squad to conduct a roving squad-size patrol. The squad is to move in

blackout, with no white lights. The ROE restrictive - only return fire after fired upon. Building

21 (Apartments) is a former hospital. It is now used as apartments to house refugees since the

medical staff departed because of the civil unrest. As a result, it may be fired on in self-defense,

if necessary.

Prior to Beginning Scenario

1. Streetlights are on.

2. Interior lights are on in Buildings 17 (Police Station), 20 (Radio Station), 7

(Residence), 21 (Apartments), and Building 23 (Hotel).

3. Add rubble to Buildings 16 (Bank), 27 (Residence), and 23 (Hotel).

4. Add 2 live OPFOR in Building 23 (Hotel). 1 OPFOR is immersed.

5. Position 1 COB to walk past 2d Squad from Building 15 (Retail Store) to Building

17 (Police Station).

6. Add 1 dead OPFOR near stairwell landing in Building 23 (Hotel).

7. Add Policeman in stairwell between Ground and 1st Floor of Building 23 (Hotel).

Scenario: This scenario takes place during darkness with a new moon. The operation order

(OPORD) has been issued by the platoon leader. The scenario begins with the 2d Squad at the

platoon command post in Building 17 (Police Station), preparing to begin the squad-sized roving

security patrol. The route is counter-clockwise along the circular road network (see map). As

the squad assembles for the roving patrol outside Building 17 (Police Station), a DISAF civilian

will walk past them from Building 8 (Retail Store) to Building 17 (Police Station). Before the

squad reaches Building 8 (Retail Store), the squad leader will receive a radio call from the

platoon leader stating that a Civilian on the battlefield (COB) had just informed him that he saw

3 armed people entering Building 23 (Hotel) and heard gunfire. The platoon leader should

remind the squad leader of the ROE. As the squad moves in the vicinity of Building 16 (Bank),
B-5

they come under fire by OPFOR in Building 23 (Hotel). One OPFOR is visible from the

windows. The squad should take cover and return fire. Squad leader should report this action.

If the squad leader fails to report, the platoon leader will ask for a SITREP.) The platoon leader:

(1) orders the squad to close with and destroy the enemy; (2) states that no smoke or illumination

is available; (3) recommends shooting out selected street lights to aid his movement; and (4)

authorizes the use of TAC lights once inside the building. The squad assaults the hotel. As

assault begins, the platoon leader calls and states that a civilian police officer, working as hotel

security, has killed 1 of the OPFOR and limited the OPFOR to the ground floor. Hostage

situation is unknown at this time. The squad must kill the 2 remaining OPFOR inside the

building. The outcome of this scenario will depend on the squad leader. The squad leader must

keep the platoon leader informed. If he doesn't, the platoon leader will repeatedly ask for

SITREPs. At the conclusion of the action, the platoon leader will direct the squad to evacuate all

casualties to the platoon casualty collection point, the platoon CP. ENDEX will occur at that

point.

18

Residence

27

Residence

16

Bank

8

Retail

Store

2

Office

6

Service

Station

26

School

 11

Post Office

20

Radio

Station

Soccer

Field

22

Town

House

7

Residence

4

Power Station

 21

Apartments 24

Residence

10

Church

13

5 Town House

Residence 3

Warehouse

1

Factory

12

City

Hall

17

Police

Station

19

Water

Tower

9

Cantina

 25

Residence

15

Fire Station

14

Retail

Store

23

Hotel

Street Lights

Interior Lights

Patrol Route Scenario #4:

Roving Patrol

KEY

OPFOR

Location
B-6

Mission Planning Briefing

Scenario #6:

Your unit is always the 2d Squad of the 2d Platoon.

Enemy Situation: Enemy presence is considered light, capable of conducting military

operations in the immediate region with forces less than platoon-size. There is no

mechanized, motorized, or indirect fire threat. Yesterday, a platoon-sized force was

caught in the open moving 4 kilometers to the southwest of Dlubac. In the ensuing

firefight, it was seriously mauled. Most of the enemy force was destroyed. However,

survivors may have infiltrated the town.

Mission of Higher Units: The company is defending the town of Dlubac (pronounced

d·lü·bk). The 2d Platoon, your platoon, is the company reserve. 1st Squad is manning

Checkpoint #1 on the road entrance adjacent to Building 4 (Power House) at the

northeast corner of the town. 3d Squad is manning Checkpoint #2 on the road entrance

adjacent to Building 23 (Hotel) at the southern corner of the town. The platoon mission

is to maintain the peace. The town population of Dlubac is considered to be friendly.

However, there may be insurgents and insurgent sympathizers within the town's

population. Dlubac has a police force. It is a local militia force. However, since it is

made up of local residents, it should not be considered a trained military force.

Your Mission: The 2d Squad, your squad, is the platoon reserve. It has just been

ordered to replace the 1st Squad at Checkpoint #1. The start point is inside Building 17,

the Police Station, your platoon CP (see map). Travel should be restricted to the road

network.

Rules of Engagement: The ROE is restrictive - only return fire after fired upon.

Building 21 (Apartments) is a former hospital. It is now used as apartments to house

refugees since the medical staff departed because of the civil unrest. As a result, it may

be fired on in self-defense, if necessary.

Your immediate task is to brief your squad members and organize the squad to move to

the checkpoint. Call signs remain constant.

What are your questions?

The scenario will begin once you have briefed your subordinates and the patrol is

preparing to deploy from inside the platoon CP location.
B-7

Scenario #6: Hostage Rescue 

Tactical lights

Exterior lighting

Interior lighting

Rubble

System

Capabilities

Used During this

Scenario Omni-Directional Treadmill (ODT)

Time of Day: Night After Action Review (AAR) System

Weather: Light Fog Voice Recognition/Synthesis

Wind effect: 1-2 mph Tactically Correct Default Behavior (TCDB)

Wind Direction: S.W.

The unit is always the 2d Squad of the 2d Platoon.

Mission Overview: The company is defending the town of Dlubac (pronounced d·lü·bk). The

2d Platoon is the company reserve. 1st Squad is manning Checkpoint #1 on the road entrance

adjacent to Building 4 (Power House) at the northeast corner of the town. 3d Squad is manning

Checkpoint #2 on the road entrance adjacent to Building 23 (Hotel) at the southern corner of the

town. The 2d Squad is the platoon reserve, but has just been ordered to conduct a deliberate

attack on Building 13 (Town House). The ROE is restrictive-only fire on confirmed targets.

Building 21 (Apartments) is a former hospital. It is now used as apartments to house refugees

since the medical staff departed because of the civil unrest. As a result, it may be fired on in selfdefense, if necessary.

Prior to Beginning Scenario

1. The streetlights are on.

2. Interior lights are on in Buildings 17 (Police Station), 21 (Apartments), 7

(Residence), and 20 (Radio Station).

3. Add rubble to Buildings 13 (Town House) 24 (Residence), 11 (Post Office), and 6

(Service Station).

4. Add 3 gunshot sounds as 2d Squad approaches Checkpoint #1

5. Add 2 OPFOR in Building 13 (Town House). 1 OPFOR is immersed (for tracer

fire).

6. Add 3 "police" (RBD soldier_dcu) located outside at the corners of Buildings 24

(Residence), 5 (Residence) and 6 (Service Station) forming a cordon around

Building 13 (Town House).

7. Add 2 civilians on the battlefield (COBs) as hostages in Building 13 (Town

House).

8. Add DISAF friendly sniper on roof of Building 23 (Hotel)

9. Identify role player for sniper communications reports.

10. Add 2 dead OPFOR in Building 13 (Town House).

11. DISAF 3d Squad at Checkpoint #2

10. DISAF 1st Squad fire team visible at Checkpoint #1.

Scenario: This scenario takes place at night. The operation order has been issued by the platoon

leader. The scenario begins with the 2d Squad at the 2d PLT command post in Building 17

(Police Station), preparing to conduct a deliberate attack on Building 13 (Town House). 2-3
B-8

armed OPFOR have seized hostages and are located in the Building (2 OPFOR and 3 COBs will

be positioned in Building 13). It is estimated that there are 2 to 3 COB being held hostage. The

police chief has requested assistance. The police have surrounded the building, but cannot gain

entry (3 RBD_dcu as police placed around building). The 2d Squad mission is to assault

Building 13 (Town House), free the hostages, and neutralize the enemy threat. The platoon

leader: (1) recommends shooting out selected street lights to aid his movement; (2) tells the

squad leader that there is no smoke to cover his movement; (3) tells the squad leader no

illumination is available; and (4) authorizes the use of TAC lights once inside the building. He

also attaches the platoon sniper to the squad. The sniper is located on the roof of Building 23

(Hotel). His call sign is S01. The 2d Squad will not to violate the ROE. (The squad leader

should report when he arrives on site, commences the assault, makes contact with enemy forces,

and when his mission is completed. If the squad leader does not report, the platoon leader will

ask for repeated SITREPs.) Once contact is made, the platoon leader should remind the squad

leader of the ROE. Once the assault begins, the OPFOR free play. The OPFOR will not harm

the hostages. ENDEX will occur when the squad can no longer continue the mission or when

Building 13 (Town House) is cleared. If the building is cleared, the platoon leader will direct the

squad to evacuate all casualties to the platoon casualty collection point, the platoon CP. ENDEX

will occur at that time.

18

Residence

27

Residence

16

Bank

8

Retail

Store

2

Office

6

Service

Station

26

School

 11

Post Office

20

Radio

Station

Soccer

Field

22

Town

House

7

Residence

4

Power Station

 21

Apartments 24

Residence

10

Church

13

5 Town House

Residence 3

Warehouse

1

Factory

12

City

Hall

17

Police

Station

19

Water

Tower

9

Cantina

 25

Residence

15

Fire Station

14

Retail

Store

23

Hotel

Street Lights

Interior Lights

Scenario #6:

Hostage Rescue

KEY

OPFOR

Location

CP

CP

1

CP

2

Checkpoint
B-9

18

Residence

27

Residence

16

Bank

8

Retail

Store

2

Office

6

Service

Station

26

School

 11

Post Office

20

Radio

Station

22

Town

House

7

Residence

4

Power Station

 21

Apartments 24

Residence

10

Church

13

5 Town House

Residence 3

Warehouse

1

Factory

12

City

Hall

17

Police

Station

19

Water

Tower

9

Cantina

 25

Residence

15

Fire Station

14

Retail

Store

23

Hotel Town of

Dlubac

a

b

c

d

g

e

h

f

Revised Scenario #6

A-Alpha

B-Bravo

C-Charlie

D-Delta

E-Echo

F-Foxtrot

G-Golf

H-Hotel

I-India

J-Juliet

K-Kilo

L-Lima

M-Mike

N-November

O-Oscar

P-Papa

2 Bravo Move to Waypoint _ (Letter) 

2 Bravo Move Out

2 Bravo Halt

2 Bravo Fire at Waypoint _ (Letter)

2 Bravo Commence Fire

2 Bravo Cease Fire

DISAF Team Commands

i j
B-10

Mission Planning Briefing

Scenario #7:

Your unit is always the 2d Squad of the 2d Platoon.

Enemy Situation: Enemy presence is considered light, capable of conducting military

operations in the immediate region with forces less than squad-size. There is no

mechanized or motorized or indirect fire threat. Last reported enemy activity in the

region was a squad-sized raid conducted in the neighboring town of Polo, 3 kilometers

to the northwest, 2 nights ago. The town population of Dlubac (pronounced d·lü·bk) is

considered to be friendly. However, there may be insurgents and insurgent

sympathizers within the town's population.

Mission of Higher Units: The 1st and 3d Platoons have established roving patrols

throughout the local territory to counter any enemy movement in the region. The 2d

PLT, your platoon, is the company reserve located in the town of Dlubac. Dlubac is

considered a friendly town. Town security has been left up to the regional militia forces

cordoning the town with local patrols. They are located outside the town limits. 2d

Platoon has established a visible presence in the town. 1st Squad is manning

Checkpoint #1 on the road entrance adjacent to Bldg. 4 (Power House) at the northeast

corner of the town. 3d Squad is manning Checkpoint #2 on the road entrance adjacent

to Bldg. 23 (Hotel) at the southern corner of the town.

Your Mission: The 2d Squad, your squad, is the platoon reserve. It has just been

ordered to replace the 1st Squad at Checkpoint #1 now that they have rested. The start

point is Bldg. 17, the Police Station, your platoon CP (see map). Travel should be

restricted to the road network.

Rules of Engagement: The ROE is restrictive - only return fire after fired upon.

Building 21 (Apartments) is a former hospital. It is now used as apartments to house

refugees since the medical staff departed because of the civil unrest. As a result, it may

be fired on in self-defense, if necessary.

Your immediate task is to brief your squad members and organize the squad to move to

the checkpoint. Call signs remain constant.

What are your questions?

The scenario will begin once you have briefed your subordinates and the patrol is

preparing to deploy from the platoon CP location.
B-11

Scenario #7: Support Operations Checkpoint 

Tactical lights

Streetlight

Interior lighting

Rubble

System

Capabilities

Used During this

Scenario Voice Recognition/Synthesis

Time of Day: First light Tactically Correct Default Behavior (TCDB)

Weather: Clear After Action Review (AAR) System

Wind effect: 10 mph

Wind Direction: West

The unit is always the 2d Squad of the 2d Platoon.

Mission Overview: The company is defending the town of Dlubac (pronounced d·lü·bk). The

2d Platoon is the company reserve. The platoon mission is to maintain the peace and control

personnel entering and leaving the town. 1st Squad is manning Checkpoint #1 on the road

entrance adjacent to Building 4 (Power House) at the northeast corner of the town. 3d Squad is

manning Checkpoint #2 on the road entrance adjacent to Building 23 (Hotel) at the southern

corner of the town. The 2d Squad is the platoon reserve, but has just been ordered to replace the

1st Squad at Checkpoint #1 now that they have rested. The platoon mission is to maintain the

peace. The ROE is restrictive-only return fire after fired upon. Building 21 (Apartments) is a

former hospital. It is now used as apartments to house refugees since the medical staff departed

because of the civil unrest. As a result, it may be fired on in self-defense, if necessary.

Prior to Beginning Scenario

1. Interior lights are on in Buildings 17 (Police Station) and Building 4 (Power

Station).

2. Add rubble to Building 7 (Residence).

3. Add DISAF fire team at Checkpoint #1. Moves defensively when firing starts.

4. Add 1 DISAF civilian on the battlefield (COBs) moving through Checkpoint #1

from Building 13 (Town House) out of town as squad forms to move out.

5. Add 2 DISAF civilians on the battlefield (COBs) moving through Checkpoint #1.

One will stop to talk to soldier manning checkpoint. One will move to Building 13

(Town House).

6. Add bus passing through Checkpoint #1 to BLDG 9 (Cantina) as squad

approaches.

7. Add 1 immersed OPFOR in Building 7 (Residence).

8. SAF 1st Squad fire team provides support by fire positions.

9. SAF 3d Squad moves from southwest to take up support by fire positions.

10. Ensure interior lights in Building 7 (Residence) are on.

Scenario: This scenario takes place at first light. The operation order (OPORD) has been issued

by the platoon leader. The scenario begins with the 2d Squad at the 2d Platoon command post in

Building 17 (Police Station), preparing to replace the 1st Squad at Checkpoint #1. The squad

departs for Checkpoint #1. As the squad approaches Checkpoint #1, the squad leader will

receive a radio call from the platoon leader stating that a COB had just informed him that he saw

a man entering Building 7 (Residence), armed with a rifle and orders the 2d Squad to that
B-12

location to investigate. A platoon leader call to the 1st Squad Leader notifying him of the change

of 2d Squad's mission will serve to reinforce the scenario. While this exchange is going on,

several COBs and vehicles move through Checkpoint #1. The platoon leader directs the 2d

Squad Leader to clear Building 7 (Residence), and report his findings. As the 2d Squad nears

Building 7 (Residence), they come under fire by a sniper. (If the squad leader fails to report, the

platoon leader asks for a SITREP.) The platoon leader directs the squad to fix the sniper in the

building until the 3d Squad (all DISAF) arrives. After the 3d Squad arrives, they will provide

support by fire for the 2d Squad's assault on Building 7 (Residence). The platoon leader tells the

squad leader: (1) authorizes the use of TAC lights once inside the building; (2) and, tells 2d

Squad leader to position his B TM on the south side of Building 12 (City Hall) to support his

movement. The squad leader should report when he arrives on site, and when 3d Squad arrives.

If the squad leader does not report, the platoon leader will ask for a SITREP. ENDEX will occur

when the squad can no longer continue the mission or when Building 7 (Residence) is cleared. If

the building is cleared, the platoon leader will direct the squad to evacuate all casualties to the

platoon casualty collection point, the platoon CP. ENDEX will occur at that time.

18

Residence

27

Residence

16

Bank

8

Retail

Store

2

Office

6

Service

Station

26

School

 11

Post Office

20

Radio

Station

Soccer

Field

22

Town

House

7

Residence

4

Power Station

 21

Apartments 24

Residence

10

Church

13

5 Town House

Residence 3

Warehouse

1

Factory

12

City

Hall

17

Police

Station

19

Water

Tower

9

Cantina

 25

Residence

15

Fire Station

14

Retail

Store

23

Hotel

Interior Lights

Scenario #7:

SASO Checkpoint

KEY

OPFOR

Location

CP

CP

1

CP

2

Checkpoint
B-13

18

Residence

27

Residence

16

Bank

8

Retail

Store

2

Office

6

Service

Station

26

School

 11

Post Office

20

Radio

Station

22

Town

House

7

Residence

4

Power Station

 21

Apartments 24

Residence

10

Church

13

5 Town House

Residence 3

Warehouse

1

Factory

12

City

Hall

17

Police

Station

19

Water

Tower

9

Cantina

 25

Residence

15

Fire Station

14

Retail

Store

23

Hotel

Town of

Dlubac

a

b

c

d

g

f

Revised Scenario #7

A-Alpha

B-Bravo

C-Charlie

D-Delta

E-Echo

F-Foxtrot

G-Golf

H-Hotel

I-India

J-Juliet

K-Kilo

L-Lima

M-Mike

N-November

O-Oscar

P-Papa

2 Bravo Move to Waypoint _ (Letter) 

2 Bravo Move Out

2 Bravo Halt

2 Bravo Fire at Waypoint _ (Letter)

2 Bravo Commence Fire

2 Bravo Cease Fire

DISAF Team Commands

e

i

j

h

k

l
B-14

Mission Planning Briefing

Scenario #10:

Your unit is always the 2d Squad of the 2d Platoon.

Enemy Situation: Enemy forces have withdrawn from the town of Dlubac (pronounced

d·lü·bk). There may still be insurgents and insurgent sympathizers within the town's

population. Enemy presence is considered light, capable of conducting military

operations in the immediate region with squad-size forces. There is no mechanized or

motorized or indirect fire threat. Last reported enemy activity in the region was sniper

fire in the neighboring town of Tuskin, 8 kilometers to the northwest, 3 days ago.

Mission of Higher Units: The company has occupied the town of Dlubac. The CO

CDR has ordered the platoons to establish a defense along the perimeter of the town.

3d PLT has established its sector along the north and east sides of the town from Bldg.

1 (Factory) to Bldg. 22 (Townhouse). 1st PLT has established its sector in the south

and west sides of the town from Bldg. 26 (School) to Bldg. 2 (Office). 2d PLT, your

platoon, is the company reserve. Its mission is to provide 1 squad to man a checkpoint

on the northeast side of town and conduct a squad-sized roving patrol to establish a

presence. The 1st Squad is at Checkpoint #1. 3d Squad is conducting a roving patrol

of the town.

Your Mission: 2d Squad, your squad, is the platoon reserve located at the platoon

command post in Bldg. 17 (Police Station).

Rules of Engagement: Since the overall town population of Dlubac is considered

friendly, the rules of engagement are very restrictive. There will be no weapon firing

within the town except in self-defense or in defense of the town against a confirmed

enemy presence. Self-defense is defined as a serious threat to life or limb. A serious

threat is considered gunfire or the presence of an uncontrolled mob armed with lifethreatening weapons such as knives, pikes, metal poles, etc. Every effort must be

made to disarm the situation prior to the use of deadly force. Bldg. 21 (Apartments) is a

former hospital. It is now used as apartments to house refugees since the medical staff

departed because of the civil unrest. As a result, it may be fired on in self-defense, if

necessary. Weapons control status is white.

Your immediate task is to brief your squad members and organize the squad to move to

the checkpoint. Call signs remain constant.

What are your questions?

The scenario will begin once you have briefed your subordinates and the patrol is

preparing to deploy from the platoon CP location.
B-15

Scenario #10: Crowd Control 

Mission Planning Training Tool (MPTT)

After Action Review (AAR) System

Omni-Directional Treadmill (ODT)

Rubble

System

Capabilities

Used During this

Scenario Tactical lights

Time of Day: Noon Voice Recognition/Synthesis

Weather: Light rain Tactically Correct Default Behavior (TCDB)

Wind effect: 5-7 mph

Wind direction: NW

The unit is always the 2d Squad of the 2d Platoon.

Mission Overview: The company has occupied the town of Dlubac (pronounced d·lü·bk). The

company commander has ordered the platoons to establish a defense along the perimeter of the

town. 3d PLT has established its sector along the north and east sides of the town from Building

1 (Factory) to Building 22 (Townhouse). 1st PLT has established its sector in the south and west

sides of the town from Building 26 (School) to Building 2 (Office). 2d PLT is the company

reserve. Its mission is to provide 1 squad to man Checkpoint #1 on the northeast side of town to

control movement into and from the town and conduct a squad-sized roving patrol to establish a

presence. The 1st Squad is at Checkpoint #1. The 3d Squad is conducting a roving patrol of the

town. The 2d Squad is the platoon reserve located at the platoon command post/casualty

collection point (CP/CCP) in Building 17 (Police Station). The ROE restrictive - only return fire

after fired upon. Building 21 (Apartments) is a former hospital. It is now used as apartments to

house refugees since the medical staff departed because of the civil unrest. As a result, it may be

fired on in self-defense, if necessary.

Prior to Beginning Scenario

1. Interior lights are on in Buildings 17 (Police Station), 6 (Service Station), and 5

(Residence).

2. Add rubble to Building 6 (Service Station) and Building 3 (Warehouse)

3. Add 2 live OPFOR in Building 3 (Warehouse). 1 OPFOR is immersed.

4. Add burning car in street north of Building 6 (Service Station) vicinity of "crowd".

5. Add 8-9 person crowd of COBs in street north of Building 6 (Service Station) (Use

female_jasmine, male_chris, and male_max).

6. Add SAF 3d Squad located to the east of crowd at the intersection of Buildings 13

(Town House) and 11 (Post Office).

7. Split 1 4-man group from crowd to head west, then disperse when fired on. 1 dies.

8. Add 3 shots fired as crowd moves toward Building 3 (Warehouse)

9. Identify role player for 3d Squad Leader communications reports.

10. Ensure interior lights in Building 3 (Warehouse) are on.

Scenario: The scenario is run at noon. The operation order has been issued by the platoon

leader. The scenario begins with 2d Squad located at the platoon command post/casualty

collection point (CP/CCP) in Building 17 (Police Station). The platoon leader calls and informs
B-16

2d Squad Leader that 3d Squad has reported a large crowd of approximately 8-9 civilians

forming in the north end of the Building 6 (Service Station) parking lot. No weapons have been

reported. The crowd is gathered around a burning car at the intersection of the service station

parking lot and the main road. The platoon leader directs the 2d Squad to approach the

intersection by traveling west, then north to Building 6 (Service Station). The platoon leader

wants the 2d Squad to come up along the east side of the building to let the crowd see the squad.

He intends for a show of force. 3d Squad is already located to the east, at the intersection of

Buildings 13 (Town House) and 11 (Post Office). As the 2d Squad arrives, the crowd divides

with one group staying around the burning car. The second group starts moving west along the

main street. (The squad leader should report both 2d Squad's arrival on site and the movement of

the crowd to the platoon leader. If the squad leader does not report, the 3d Squad Leader will

make the report to the platoon leader.) The platoon leader will direct the 3d Squad to remain in

place and observe the group of civilians at the burning car. 2d Squad is to keep the departing

group under observation, paralleling its movement by about 50 meters. As the 2d Squad nears

Building 3 (Warehouse), they come under fire from 2 OPFOR. The crowd disperses into

adjacent buildings at the sound of the gunfire. One civilian is killed. (The squad leader should

report this to the platoon leader. If the squad leader does not report, the platoon leader will ask

for a SITREP.) The platoon leader: (1) orders the squad to close with and destroy the enemy; (2)

tells the squad leader no smoke is available to cover his movement; and (3) authorizes the use of

TAC lights once inside the building. The squad maneuvers to and assaults the building. The

squad must kill the 2 OPFOR snipers. Once the assault begins, the squad leader will become a

casualty. The alpha team leader must take charge. If the alpha team leader does not notice the

squad leader becoming a casualty, the platoon leader will call and alert the alpha team leader that

he has a report that the squad leader was killed. If the alpha team leader knows the squad leader

was killed, he should report this to the platoon leader. If the alpha team leader does not report,

the platoon leader will ask for a SITREP. This scenario will allow free play for friendly and

OPFOR movement. The outcome of this scenario will depend on the alpha team leader

assuming control and managing the squad. The alpha team leader must keep the platoon leader

informed. If he doesn't, the platoon leader will repeatedly ask for SITREPs. ENDEX will occur

when the building is secured or the squad suffers enough casualties that it can no longer perform

its mission. If the squad cannot complete the mission due to casualties, the platoon leader will

notify the 3d Squad to assume the mission and place the 2d Squad in support. The platoon leader

will direct the squad to evacuate all casualties to the platoon casualty collection point, the

platoon CP. ENDEX will occur at that point.
B-17

18

Residence

27

Residence

16

Bank

8

Retail

Store

2

Office

6

Service

Station

26

School

 11

Post Office

20

Radio

Station

Soccer

Field

22

Town

House

7

Residence

4

Power Station

 21

Apartments 24

Residence

10

5 Church

Residence 3

Warehouse

1

Factory

12

City

Hall

17

Police

Station

19

Water

Tower

9

Cantina

 25

Residence

15

Fire Station

14

Retail

Store

23

Hotel

Scenario #10:

Crowd Control

CP

1

KEY

OPFOR

Location

CP

Checkpoint

Squad Route

Defensive

Sectors

Crowd

Location

Patrol Route

3d Platoon

1st Platoon

13

Town House
B-18

Mission Planning Briefing

Scenario #11:

Your unit is always the 2d Squad of the 2d Platoon.

Enemy Situation: Enemy forces have withdrawn from the town of Dlubac (pronounced

d·lü·bk). Enemy presence was less than squad-size. Last reported enemy activity in

the region was the laying of mines on the road leading to the town of Ursula, 6

kilometers to the west. The town population of Dlubac is considered to be friendly.

However, there may be insurgents and insurgent sympathizers within the town's

population.

Mission of Higher Units: The company has occupied Dlubac. The CO CDR has

ordered the platoons to establish a defense along the perimeter of the town. 3d PLT

has established its sector along the north and east from Bldg. 1 (Factory) to Bldg. 22

(Townhouse). 1st PLT has established its sector in the south and west from Bldg. 26

(School) to Bldg 2 (Office). The 2d PLT, your platoon, is the company reserve. The 2d

PLT's mission is to maintain the peace and order within the town. To accomplish this,

the platoon has established a squad-sized checkpoint on the northeast side of town to

control movement into and from the town and is conducting a squad-sized roving patrol

to establish a presence. 1st Squad is manning Checkpoint #1. 3d Squad is conducting

the roving patrol along the interior road network.

Your Mission: 2d Squad, your squad, is the platoon reserve located at the platoon

command post in Bldg. 17 (Police Station).

Rules of Engagement: Since the overall population of Dlubac is considered friendly,

the rules of engagement are very restrictive. There will be no weapon firing within the

town limits except in self-defense or in defense of the town against a confirmed enemy

presence. Enemy targets must be positively identified. Self-defense is defined as a

serious threat to life or limb. A serious threat is considered gunfire or the presence of

an uncontrolled mob armed with life-threatening weapons such as knives, pikes, metal

poles, etc. Every effort must be made to disarm the situation prior to the use of deadly

force. Bldg. 21 (Apartments) is a former hospital. It is now used as apartments to

house refugees since the medical staff departed because of the civil unrest. As a result,

it may be fired on in self-defense, if necessary. Weapons control status is white.

Your immediate task is to brief your squad members on the current situation. Call signs

remain constant.

What are your questions?

The scenario will begin once you have briefed your subordinates and the patrol is

preparing to deploy from the platoon CP location.
B-19

Scenario #11: Downed Helicopter

After Action Review (AAR) System

Rubble

Voice Recognition/Synthesis

Omni-Directional Treadmill (ODT)

System

Capabilities

Used During this

Scenario Interior lighting

Time of Day: Day Tactically Correct Default Behavior (TCDB)

Weather: Light rain

Wind effect: 5-10 mph

Wind Direction: East

The unit is always the 2d Squad of the 2d Platoon.

Mission Overview: The company has secured the town of Dlubac (pronounced d·lü·bk). The

company commander has ordered the platoons to establish a defense along the perimeter of the

town. The 3d Platoon has established its sector along the north and east sides of the town from

Building 1 (Factory) to Building 22 (Townhouse). Building 21 (Apartments) is a former

hospital. It is now used as apartments to house refugees since the medical staff departed because

of the civil unrest. As a result, it may be fired on in self-defense, if necessary. The 1st Platoon

has established its sector in the south and west sides of the town from Building 26 (School) to

Building 2 (Office). The 2d Platoon is the company reserve. Its mission is to provide 1 squad to

man Checkpoint #1 on the northeast side of town to control movement into and from the town

and conduct a squad-sized roving patrol to establish a presence. 1st Squad is manning

Checkpoint #1. 3d Squad is conducting the roving patrol along the interior road network. The

2d Squad is the platoon reserve since it just completed the roving patrol mission and was relieved

by 3d Squad. The platoon mission is to maintain the peace and order within the town. All

indirect fires and MEDEVAC vehicles are requested through the platoon leader. The ROE is

restrictive - only return fire after fired upon.

Prior to Beginning Scenario

1. Interior lights are on in Buildings 17 (Police Station) and Building 22 (Town

House).

2 SAF 3d SQD at Checkpoint #2 moving from BLDG 13 to BLDG 23, then drag

and drop.

3. SAF fire team at Checkpoint #1

4. SAF fire team from 1st Squad moves from inside BLDG 2 to on-line fire-bysupport positions

5. Add burning helicopter crashed west of, but adjacent to, the water tower.

6. Loud explosion can be heard while 2d Squad is in Building 17 (Police Station).

7. Add rubble to Buildings 9 (Cantina), 26 (School), 20 (Radio Station), and 22

(Town House).

8. Add 1 immersed OPFOR Sniper in Building 22 (Town House).

9. Add 5 prone (injured and dead) friendly SAF personnel lying on the ground on the

west side of the helicopter.

10. Add SAF Medic to 2d Squad at the Police Station. He will accompany squad to

the downed helicopter. A role player must be identified to portray Medic calling
B-20

squad leader on radio to report "that there are 3 injured and 2 dead friendly

personnel present. Request MEDEVAC immediately." He must also stand by to

respond to a radio call from squad leader reporting that the MEDEVAC is en

route, ETA is 10 minutes" and give a "Roger out."

11. Identify role player to replicate 1st SQD LDR responding to PLT LDR and when

reporting his unit in position to 2d SQD LDR.

Scenario: This scenario takes place early morning. The operation order has been issued by the

platoon leader. The scenario begins with the 2d Squad at the platoon command post in Building

17 (Police Station), eating/resting after just completing its patrol. A loud explosion breaks the

silence. The platoon leader calls the 2d Squad Leader and informs him that a Blackhawk

Helicopter has crashed just outside next to the water tower behind Building 17 (Police Station).

He orders the 2d Squad to secure the downed helicopter. The medic will join the 2d Squad

enroute. The downed helicopter will be crashed on the northwest side of the water tower with

fire and smoke present. 5 friendly personnel are visible lying on the ground on the western side

of the helicopter. The squad reaches the crash site. The SAF medic immediately moves to and

around the helicopter crew. He gets on a radio and states that there are 3 injured and 2 dead

friendly personnel present. He asks for help treating the injured personnel and tells the squad

leader that a MEDEVAC is needed ASAP. If the squad leader fails to report his arrival on site or

fails to request a MEDEVAC, the platoon leader asks for a SITREP. The platoon leader states

that a MEDEVAC is enroute, estimated time of arrival (ETA) is 10 minutes. After the

conversation ends, 1 OPFOR in Building 22 (Town House) starts sniping at the 2d Squad and

wounds one DISAF soldier. If the squad leader fails to report, the platoon leader asks for a

SITREP. The platoon leader directs the 2d Squad to initially remain in place, protect the injured

personnel, and orient fires on the sniper. He states that a fire team from1st Squad will move to

provide support. Once the 1st Squad fire team arrives, 2d Squad will assault and clear Building

22 (Town House). They will be arriving from the northwest and will take up fire-by-support

positions near Building 2 (Power Station). They will call for instructions once they are in

position. This scenario will allow free play for friendly movement. ENDEX will occur when 2d

Squad can no longer continue the mission or when Building 22 (Town House) is cleared. If the

building is cleared, the platoon leader will direct the squad to evacuate all casualties to the

platoon casualty collection point, the platoon CP. ENDEX will occur at that time.
B-21

18

Residence

27

Residence

16

Bank

8

Retail

Store

6

Service

Station

26

School

 11

Post Office

20

Radio

Station

Soccer

Field

22

Town

House

4

Power Station

 21

Apartments 24

Residence

10

5 Church

Residence 3

Warehouse

1

Factory

12

City

Hall

17

Police

Station

19

Water

Tower

9

Cantina

 25

Residence

15

Fire Station

14

Retail

Store

23

Hotel

Scenario #11:

Downed Helicopter

CP

1

KEY

OPFOR

Location

CP

Checkpoint

Squad Route

Defensive

Sectors

Patrol Route

13

Town House

1st Platoon

3d Platoon

Helicopter

Location

2

Office

7

Residence
B-22

Mission Planning Briefing

Scenario #13:

Your unit is always the 2d Squad of the 2d Platoon.

Enemy Situation: Enemy forces have seized the town of Dlubac (pronounced

d·lü·bk). Enemy presence is considered light, at platoon strength. 1-4 enemy

personnel have been found defending any given building. There is no mechanized or

motorized or indirect fire threat.

Mission of Higher Units: Your company has completed its initial assault on the town

and established an overall front line trace (see map). 1st PLT is on the right in Bldgs. 2

(Office) and 6 (Service Station), preparing to assault Bldgs. 8 (Retail Store), 16 (Bank),

and 27 (Residence), respectively. 3d PLT, the main effort, is in the center in Bldgs. 11

(Post Office) and 12 (City Hall), preparing to assault Bldgs 17 (Police Station), 15 (Fire

Station), 9 (Cantina), and 14 (Retail Store), respectively. 2d Platoon, your platoon, is on

the left. It has secured Bldgs. 4 (Power House), 7 (Residence), and 22 (Town House).

Bldg. 21 has also already been secured. The platoon is currently in Bldg. 22 (Town

House), preparing to assault Bldg. 20 (Radio Station). Resistance has been light (2-3

enemy soldiers in any building). The 2d PLT LDR has instructed that for the assault on

Building 20 (Radio Station), the 1st Squad ( DISAF) will support by fire from the vicinity

of Bldg. 22 (Town House). 1st Squad will provide on-order AT-8 fire to establish a

breach in Bldg. 20 (Radio Station). 1st Squad will follow on order; and clear Bldg. 20

(Radio Station), on order. 3d Squad is the platoon reserve.

Your Mission: 2d Squad, your squad, will conduct the initial assault, gain entry, then

secure Bldg. 20 (Radio Station). You must coordinate with the PLT LDR to obtain the

1st Squad AT-8 fire. The PLT LDR has authorized the use of TAC lights once inside the

building to reduce possible civilian casualties.

Rules of Engagement: The town population of Dlubac is considered to be friendly.

However, enemy forces are located within the town. The rules of engagement are very

restrictive. There will be no weapon firing within the town except in self-defense or in

defense of the town against a confirmed enemy presence. Self-defense is defined as a

serious threat to life or limb. Bldg. 21 (Apartments) is a former hospital. It is now used

as apartments to house refugees since the medical staff departed because of the civil

unrest. As a result, it may be fired on in self-defense, if necessary. Weapons control

status is yellow.

Your immediate task is to brief your squad members and organize the squad to

complete the mission. Call signs remain constant.

What are your questions?

The scenario will begin once you have briefed your subordinates.
B-23

Scenario #13: Assault/Clear Building (Wall) 

Blow hole (AT-8)

Rubble

Omni-Directional Treadmill (ODT)

Mission Planning Training Tool (MPTT)

System

Capabilities

Used During this

Scenario After Action Review (AAR) System

Time of Day: Noon Voice Recognition/Synthesis

Weather: Clear Tactically Correct Default Behavior

(TCDB)

Wind effect: 2-5 mph Tactical Lights

Wind Direction: N.W. AT-8 fires

The unit is always the 2d Squad of the 2d Platoon.

Mission Overview: The company has completed its initial assault on the town of Dlubac

(pronounced d·lü·bk) and established an overall front line trace. The company is attacking from

north to south. The town is divided along the two long axes formed by the circular road network

in the center of town (see map). 1st PLT is on the right in BLDGs 2 (Office) and 6 (Service

Station), preparing to assault BLDGs 8 (Retail Store), 16 (Bank), and 27 (Residence),

respectively. 3d PLT, the main effort, is in the center in Buildings 11 (Post Office) and 12 (City

Hall), preparing to assault BLDGs 17 (Police Station), 15 (Fire Station), 9 (Cantina), and 14

(Retail Store), respectively. 2d PLT is on the left. It has secured Buildings 4 (Power House), 7

(Residence), and 22 (Town House). Building 21 has also already been secured. The platoon is

currently in Building 22 (Town House), preparing to assault Building 20 (Radio Station).

Resistance has been light (2-3 enemy soldiers in any building). The 2d PLT LDR has instructed

the platoon that for the assault on Building 20 (Radio Station), the 1st Squad ( DISAF) will

support by fire from the vicinity of Building 22 (Town House). 2d Squad will conduct the initial

assault, gain entry, then secure Building 20 (Radio Station). 1st Squad (SAF) will: (1) provide

support by fire positions near Building 22 (Town House); (2) provide on-order AT-8 fire to

establish a breach in Building 20 (Radio Station) for the 2d Squad; (3) follow 2d Squad on order;

and, (4) clear Building 20 (Radio Station), on order. An AT-8 will be used to blow an entry hole

into Building 20 (Radio Station). The 2d Squad Leader must coordinate with the platoon leader

to obtain the AT-8 fire from the 1st Squad. The platoon leader authorizes the squad leader to use

TAC lights once inside the building to reduce possible civilian casualties. The rules of

engagement (ROE) restrict firing to return fire only. Building 21 (Apartments) is a former

hospital. It is now used as apartments to house refugees since the medical staff departed because

of the civil unrest. As a result, it may be fired on in self-defense, if necessary.

Prior to Beginning Scenario

1. Add rubble to Buildings 22 (Town House) and 20 (Radio Station).

2. Add 2 OPFOR in Building 20 (Radio Station). 1 OPFOR is dead in preparation of

AT-8 blast. 1 OPFOR is immersed (for TAC lights).

3. Add SAF 1st Squad around Building 22 (Town House) providing fire support into

Building 20 (Radio Station).

4. Establish an AT-8 "blown hole" location in Building 20 (Radio Station). Add

rubble immediately after explosion.
B-24

Scenario: This scenario takes place at noon. The operation order has been issued by the platoon

leader. The scenario begins with the 2d Squad in position next to BLDG 22 (Town House),

preparing to assault Building 20 (Radio Station). 1st Squad has established support by fire

positions. 3d Squad (notional) is in the rear of BLDG 22 (Town House) as the platoon reserve.

2d Squad is preparing to conduct the assault. The squad must move across open ground to

Building 20 (Radio Station). An AT-8 will be used to blow an entry hole. The squad leader must

coordinate with the platoon leader to obtain the fire from the 1st Squad. Once the hole is blown,

2d Squad will conduct the assault. The squad must clear and secure the building. If 2d Squad is

unable to clear the building, the 2d SQD LDR will call the platoon leader and ask for the 3d

Squad to pass through them and continue to clear the building. The first floor of the building

will be occupied by 2 OPFOR. One OPFOR will be dead as a result of the breach explosion.

Free play will be allowed with the remaining OPFOR. The scenario will run until enough data is

collected for an AAR. The squad leader must keep the platoon leader informed. If he doesn't,

the platoon leader will repeatedly ask for SITREPs. ENDEX will occur when the squad has

secured Building 22 (Town House) or can no longer continue the mission and a battle hand over

with the 3d Squad occurs. Once the building is cleared or 3d Squad is deployed to clear Building

22 (Town House), the platoon leader will direct the 2d Squad to evacuate all casualties to the

platoon casualty collection point, the platoon CP. ENDEX will occur at that time.

18

Residence

27

Residence

16

Bank

8

Retail

Store

2

Office

6

Service

Station

26

School

 11

Post Office

20

Radio

Station

Soccer

Field

22

Town

House

7

Residence

4

Power Station

24

Residence

10

Church

13

Town House 3

Warehouse

1

Factory

12

City

Hall

17

Police

Station

19

Water

Tower

9

Cantina

23

Hotel

Scenario #13:

Assault/Clear

Building

KEY

Platoon

Boundaries

...

 25

Residence

15

Fire Station

1

... 3

Front

Line Trace

 21

Apartments

3 2

...

14

Retail

Store

5

Residence

OPFOR

Location

Direction

of Attack
B-25

Mission Planning Briefing

Scenario #14:

Your unit is always the 2d Squad of the 2d Platoon.

Enemy Situation: After a prolonged and bitter campaign, enemy forces been forced

back to the town of Goldberg. Goldberg is considered an enemy stronghold with both

their political and military infrastructure based in the town. The town populace is

extremely sympathetic to the rebel cause. Armed enemy presence is considered

heavy. There is no mechanized or motorized threat. However, indirect fire, in the form

of mortars is available to the enemy.

Mission of Higher Units: The 11th IN BN is conducting a combined air assault and

ground assault operation to seize the town. Your company is the main effort conducting

the air assault. Two other companies are conducting a simultaneous ground assault.

Your CO CDR has ordered 1st PLT to conduct an air assault to seize the 10-story

building. 2d PLT will simultaneously conduct an air assault to seize the 20-story high

rise building. 3d PLT is the company reserve and is prepared to reinforce 2d PLT, on

order. Each platoon will have four helicopters at 30-second intervals. 2d PLT LDR has

ordered the 1st Squad to be the security element and will conduct the initial assault. Its

mission is to secure the roof with 1 fire team and establish a toehold on the top floor of

the building, clearing the steps to the 20th floor for the next squad. Access to the

follow-on floors is gained by using the stairwell steps. 2d Squad is second in order. It

will pass through the 1st Squad and start to clear the building, floor-by-floor. 3d Squad

is to follow the 2d Squad and be prepared to assume clearing responsibilities on order.

Once 2d and 3d Squads have passed through, the 1st Squad will follow 3d Squad as

the platoon reserve. 1st Squad will be prepared to assume clearing duties, on order.

Each squad will leave 2 men on each floor that it clears to secure that floor. The

platoon command post will initially be in the shed on the roof of the building. No fires

will be placed into the adjacent 10-story building unless a target is positively identified

firing on the 2d Platoon. If enemy troop movement is noticed in the 10-story building,

the platoon leader will be notified immediately. Even then, coordination must be

obtained from the platoon leader to fire into that building.

Your Mission: 2d Squad, your squad, will lead the assault on the 20th floor. 2d Squad

will pass through the 1st Squad securing the roof and start to clear the building, floor-byfloor. 2d Squad will leave 2 men on each floor that it clears to secure that floor.

Rules of Engagement: The town population of Goldberg is considered hostile.

However, given that the town population is not completely hostile, the rules of

engagement remain restrictive. There will be no weapon firing except in self-defense.

Self-defense is defined as a serious threat to life or limb. The use of deadly force is

authorized. Armed civilians and OPFOR troops actively engaging U.S. soldiers will be

fired on. Civilians found to be armed, but not firing on U.S. troops are to be disarmed,

detained, and processed through company channels. Weapons control status is yellow.
B-26

Your immediate task is to brief your squad members and organize the squad to

complete the mission. Call signs remain constant.

What are your questions?

The scenario will begin once you have briefed your subordinates.
B-27

Scenario #14: Air Assault/Clear Building (Roof) 

Tactical lighting

After Action Review (AAR) System

Omni-Directional Treadmill (ODT)

Voice Recognition/Synthesis

System

Capabilities

Used During this

Scenario Tactically Correct Default Behavior (TCDB)

Time of Day: Dawn

Weather: Clear

Wind effect: 5 mph

Wind Direction: N.E.

This is the Goldberg Scenario

The unit is always the 2d Squad of the 2d Platoon.

Mission Overview: The battalion is conducting a combined air assault and ground assault

operation to seize the town of Dlubac (pronounced d·lü·bk). The company is the main effort,

conducting the air assault. Two other companies are conducting a simultaneous ground assault.

Our company commander has ordered 1st Platoon to conduct an air assault to seize the 10-story

building. 2d Platoon will simultaneously conduct an air assault to seize the 20-story high rise

building. 3d Platoon is the company reserve and is prepared to reinforce 2d Platoon, on order.

Each platoon will have four helicopters at 30-second intervals. 2d Platoon Leader has ordered

the 1st Squad to be the security element and will conduct the initial assault. Its mission is to

secure the roof with 1 fire team and establish a toehold on the top floor of the building, clearing

the steps to the 20th floor for the next squad. Access to the follow-on floors is gained by using

the stairwell steps. 2d Squad is second in order. It will pass through the 1st Squad and start to

clear the building, floor-by-floor. 3d Squad is to follow the 2d Squad and be prepared to assume

clearing responsibilities on order. Once 2d and 3d Squads have passed through, the 1st Squad

will follow 3d Squad as the platoon reserve. 1st Squad will be prepared to assume clearing

duties, on order. Each squad will leave 2 men on each floor that it clears to secure that floor.

The platoon command post will initially be in the shed on the roof of the building. The platoon

casualty collection point (CCP) is initially the platoon CP, located on the roof. As floors are

cleared past the 10th floor, the CCP will be established on the landing of the last secured floor.

The ROE is restrictive. No fires will be placed into the adjacent 10-story building unless a target

is positively identified firing on the 2d Platoon. If enemy troop movement is noticed in the 10-

story building, the platoon leader will be notified immediately. Even then, coordination must be

obtained from the platoon leader to fire into that building. Armed OPFOR personnel in the 20-

story high rise building are considered hostile and will be fired on.

Prior to Beginning Scenario

1. Add 2 OPFOR, 1 immersed on the 20th floor and 1 SAF on the 19th floor.

2. Add 2 dead OPFOR on the roof.

3. No interior lights on either building.

4. SAF 1st Squad already on the roof (1 fire team) positioned along the roof perimeter.

Must be in position when the 2d Squad exits their helicopter.

5. Be prepared to have SAF 3d Squad moving on stairwell from the 20th floor to the
B-28

19th floor, relieving the 2d Squad.

Scenario: This scenario takes place at dawn. The operation order has been issued by the

platoon leader. The scenario begins with an aerial view of building from a high angle, at a

distance, with helicopter landing on the roof of the building. Would like helicopter noise added

to background. 1 DISAF squad on roof top moving to secure the building top. As the helicopter

depart, 2d Squad will then teleport to the roof of the high rise, just outside their helicopter.

DISAF players from the 1st Squad are already on the roof. The 2d Squad will move through the

1st Squad and commence clearing the top floor. There will be 2 dead OPFOR on the roof.

There will be 2 more live OPFOR on the 20th and 19th floors, respectively. The outcome of this

scenario will depend on the squad leader. Friendly and OPFOR “free play” will be allowed from

the entry onward. The squad will clear both floors, if it is able to. The squad leader must keep

the platoon leader informed. If he doesn't, the platoon leader will repeatedly ask for SITREPs.

The use of TAC lights is authorized to assist clearing the various rooms on each floor. Once the

2d Squad has cleared the 20th and 19th floors, respectively (or is unable to continue the mission),

the platoon leader will order the 3d Squad to assume the mission. ENDEX will occur when the

2d Squad has cleared both the 20th and 19th floors or is reduced to the point where it is unable to

continue the mission.

Goldburg

N Complex

McKenna

Goldburg

10

story

building

20

10

20

story

building

20 story building roof

room

stairs

Scenario #14:

Air Assault/Clear

Building
B-29

Mission Planning Briefing

Scenario #16:

Your unit is always the 2d Squad of the 2d Platoon.

Enemy Situation: Enemy forces have seized the town of Dlubac (pronounced

d·lü·bk). Enemy presence is considered light, at platoon strength with no mechanized

or motorized threat.

Mission of Higher Units: Your company has completed its initial assault on the town

and established an overall front line trace. The town is divided along the two long axes

formed by the circular road in the center of town (see map). 1st PLT is on the left in

Bldg. 27 (Residence), preparing to assault Bldgs. 16 (Bank), 8 (Retail Store), and 6

(Service Station), respectively. 3d PLT is on the right in Bldg. 20 (Radio Station),

preparing to assault Bldgs. 22 (Town House), 7 (Residence), and 4 (Power House),

respectively. 2d PLT, your platoon, is the main effort, in the center. 1st and 3d Squads

have secured Bldgs. 9 (Cantina) and 25 (Residence). Resistance has been light with 1-

3 enemy in any given building. The CO CDR has ordered 2d PLT to establish a squad

support-by-fire position on the roof of Building 23 (Hotel) to provide immediate

supporting fires for 2d PLT and on-call fire support for the rest of the company.

Your Mission: 2d Squad, your squad, has the mission of establishing a squad supportby-fire position on Bldg. 23 (Hotel) to provide immediate supporting fires for 2d PLT and

on-call fire support for the rest of the company. The company support will be

coordinated through the platoon leader. There will be no firing at targets outside the 2d

PLT sector without his approval. The PLT LDR wants all targets positively confirmed

prior to engagement. You will report all enemy movements and request permission to

engage targets outside the platoon sector.

Rules of Engagement: The town population of Dlubac is considered to be friendly.

The enemy attack caught the town population completely by surprise. Many civilians did

not have an opportunity to flee and have been caught in the ensuing firefight. As a

result, the rules of engagement are very restrictive. There will be no weapon firing

within the town limits except at confirmed enemy targets. Additionally, Building 21

(Apartments) is a former hospital. It is now used as apartments to house refugees since

the medical staff departed because of the civil unrest. Since it is no longer used as a

hospital, it may be fired on, provided the ROE are met. Weapons control status is

yellow.

Your immediate task is to brief your squad members and organize the squad to

complete the mission. Call signs remain constant.

What are your questions?

The scenario will begin once you have briefed your subordinates.
B-30

Scenario #16: Support By Fire 

Voice Recognition/Synthesis

AAR System

Omni-Directional Treadmill (ODT)

After Action Review (AAR) System

System

Capabilities

Used During this

Scenario Tactically Correct Default Behavior

Time of Day: Day

Weather: Clear

Wind effect: 5-10 mph

Wind Direction: SE

The unit is always the 2d Squad of the 2d Platoon.

Mission Overview: The company has completed its initial assault of the town of Dlubac

(pronounced d·lü·bk). The town is divided along the two long axes formed by the circular road

in the center of town (see map). 1st PLT is on the left in Buildings 27 (Residence), preparing to

assault Buildings 16 (Bank), 8 (Retail Store), and 6 (Service Station), respectively. 3d PLT is on

the right in Building 20 (Radio Station), preparing to assault Buildings 22 (Town House), 7

(Residence), and 4 (Power House), respectively. 3d PLT has responsibility for Building 21.

Normally, Building 21 would not be fired on since it is marked as a hospital. However, Building

21 is now used as apartments since the medical staff departed because of the civil unrest. As a

result, it may be fired on depending on the ROE. 2d PLT, the main effort, in the center, has

secured Buildings 9 (Cantina) and 25 (Residence). Resistance has been light (1-3 enemy in any

building). The CO CDR has ordered 2d PLT to establish a squad support-by-fire position in

Building 23 (Hotel) to provide immediate supporting fires for 2d PLT and on-call fire support for

the rest of the company. This is the mission of the 2d Squad. The company support will be

coordinated through the platoon leader. All fires will be coordinated through him. There will be

no firing at targets outside the 2d PLT sector without his approval. The platoon leader wants all

targets positively confirmed prior to engagement, and the squad leader to report all enemy

battlefield movement and request permission to engage targets outside the platoon sector. The

ROE are restrictive. There will be no firing on armed civilians on the battlefield (COBs) that are

not firing on you. Armed OPFOR personnel are considered hostile and may be fired on.

Prior to Beginning Scenario

1. The streetlights are off.

2. No interior lights are on.

3. Add SAF players. See Table 2.

4. Add an occasional COB being flushed out of a building and moving to another.

5. Embedded OPFOR sniper in Bldg 6 (Service Station).

6. Add periodic explosions and machine gun fire to coincide with on-going battle.

Scenario: This scenario takes place during the day. The OPORD has been issued by the platoon

leader. The scenario begins with the 2d Squad in position on the roof of Building 23 (Hotel),

preparing to provide fire support for both the platoon and the company. 2d Squad's mission is:

(1) to provide specific support by fire within the 2d PLT's sector; and, (2) to provide general

support for the company. (3) All fires outside the 2d PLT sector will be coordinated through the
B-31

2 PLT LDR. (4) Report all enemy movements. (5) All targets will be positively confirmed; only

clearly identified armed OPFOR personnel may be fired on. 1st and 3rd Squads will continue

their assault. 2d SQD LDR should call the platoon leader to report all enemy battlefield

movement and request permission to engage enemy targets outside the platoon's sector. If he

does not, the platoon leader will get back on the net and correct the squad leader's performance.

For this scenario, pre-program events in all 3 sectors have been created to establish the flow of

the battle (See Table 2). ENDEX will occur after a reasonable amount of time or when the squad

leader totally fails to control the fires of his squad.

Table 2. Programmed Moves

Move Description AAR View

1 2 CIV from Bldg 9 (Cantina) to Bldg 15 (Fire Station) From Bldg 23 (Hotel)

2 2 CIV from Bldg 20 (Radio Station) to Bldg 22 (Town House) From Water Tower

3 1 OPFOR from Bldg 16 (Bank) to Bldg 15 (Fire Station) From Bldg 23 (Hotel)

4 2 OPFOR from Bldg 22 (Town House) to Bldg 7 (Residence) From Bldg 23 (Hotel)

5 1 OPFOR from Bldg 16 (Bank) to Bldg 17 (Police Station) From Bldg 23 (Hotel)

6 1 US fire team from Bldg 20 (Radio Station) to Bldg 22 (Town House) From Water Tower

7 2 OPFOR from Bldg 8 (Retail Store) to Bldg 6 (Service Station) From Bldg 23 (Hotel)

8 1 US fire team from Bldg 27 (Residence) to Bldg 16 (Bank) From Bldg 23 (Hotel)

9 1 US fire team from Bldg 9 (Cantina) to Bldg 14 (Retail Store) From Bldg 23 (Hotel)

10 1 CIV from Bldg 7 (Residence) to Bldg 4 (Power Station) From Water Tower

11 2 CIV from Bldg 8 (Retail Store) to Bldg 2 (Office) From Bldg 23 (Hotel)

12 2 CIV from Bldg 17 (Police Station) to Bldg 12 (City Hall) From Bldg 23 (Hotel)

13 1 US fire team from Bldg 20 (Radio Station) to Bldg 22 (Town House) From Water Tower

14 1 OPFOR from Bldg 16 (Bank) to Bldg 12 (City Hall) From Bldg 23 (Hotel)

15 1 CIV from Bldg 12 (City Hall) to Bldg 11 (Post Office) From Water Tower

16 1 US fire team from Bldg 14 (Retail Store) to Bldg 15 (Fire Station) From Water Tower

17 3 CIV from Bldg 12 (City Hall) to Bldg 10 (Church) From Bldg 23 (Hotel)

18 1 US fire team from Bldg 22 (Town House) to Bldg 7 (Residence) From Water Tower

19 1 CIV from Bldg 6 (Service Station) to Bldg 13 (Town House) From Bldg 23 (Hotel)

20 1 US fire team from Bldg 8 (Retail Store) to Bldg 6 (Service Station) From Bldg 23 (Hotel)

21 2 OPFOR from Bldg 11 (Post Office) to Bldg 10 (Church), then beyond From Water Tower

22 1 CIV from Bldg 4 (Power Station) to Bldg 21 (Apts) From Water Tower

23 1 US fire team from Bldg 7 (Residence) to Bldg 4 (Power Station) From Water Tower

24 1 OPFOR from Bldg 17 (Police Station) to Bldg 6 (Service Station) From Bldg 23 (Hotel)

25 1 US fire team from Bldg 15 (Fire Station) to Bldg 17 (Police Station) From Water Tower

26 1 US fire team from Bldg 6 (Service Station) to Bldg 2 (Office) From Bldg 23 (Hotel)

27 3 OPFOR from Bldg 21 (Apts) to Bldg 24 (Residence), then beyond From Bldg 23 (Hotel)

28 1 US fire team from Bldg 4 (Power Station) to Bldg 21 (Apts) From Water Tower

29 1 US fire team from Bldg 2 (Office) to Bldg 3 (Warehouse) From Bldg 23 (Hotel)

30 1 US fire team from Bldg 12 (City Hall) to Bldg 10 (Church) From Bldg 23 (Hotel)

ENDEX
B-32

18

Residence

27

Residence

16

Bank

8

Retail

Store

2

Office

6

Service

Station

26

School

 11

Post Office

20

Radio

Station

Soccer

Field

22

Town

House

7

Residence

4

Power Station

24

Residence

10

Church

13

Town House 3

Warehouse

1

Factory

12

City

Hall

17

Police

Station

19

Water

Tower

9

Cantina

23

Hotel

Scenario #16:

Support-By-Fire

KEY

Platoon

Boundaries

...

Support-by-fire

Position

 25

Residence

15

Fire Station

1

... 2

Front

Line Trace

 21

Apartments

2 3

...

14

Retail

Store

5

Residence
C-1

Appendix C. Culminating Event Questionnaires

APPENDIX C Table of Contents

Questionnaire Page

Biographical Information Questionnaire......................................................................................C-2

Simulator Capability Questionnaire.............................................................................................C-4

Semi-Automated Force (SAF) Performance Questionnaire .......................................................C-8

Training Effectiveness Questionnaire..........................................................................................C-9

Voice Recognition Questionnaire ..............................................................................................C-10

After Action Review (AAR) Evaluation ...................................................................................C-11

Leader Post-Experimental Group Interview .............................................................................C-13

ODT Questionnaire....................................................................................................................C-16

SVS Questionnaire.....................................................................................................................C-18

Locomotion Systems Debrief ....................................................................................................C-20

Symptom Checklist ...................................................................................................................C-21
C-2

Biographical Information Questionnaire

 ID___________________________

 Date__________________

Please fill in the blank or mark or circle the appropriate response.

 1. What is your age? _____ Years 2. MOS _______ 3. Rank ________

 4. Time in service: Years _____ Months _____

 5. What is your current duty position? ___________________

 How long in this position ? __________

 6. What Army training courses have you completed? Check all that apply.

 ____ OSUT/AIT _____ PLDC _____BNCOC

 ____ BFV Leader Course _____ Airborne _____ Ranger

 ____ Air Assault _____ Combat Life Saver Course _____ Other (specify)

 7. How susceptible to motion or car sickness do you feel you are?

 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 not very average very

susceptible mildly highly

 8. Do you have normal or corrected to normal 20/20 vision? Yes No

 9. Are you color blind? Yes No

 10. Are you ___ right handed? ___ left handed?

 11. My level of confidence in using computers is

 1 2 3 4 5

 low average high
C-3

 12. How many hours per week do you use computers? _____ hours per week

 13. How many times in the last year have you experienced a virtual reality game or

 entertainment?

 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12+

 14. How often have you trained at the McKenna MOUT site since basic training

(NOT including demonstrations)?

 ___ not since basic training ___ 1-3 times ___ more than 3 times

 15. Have you ever participated in close quarter combat (room clearing) training

EXCEPT for a demonstration?

 Yes No

 16. Have you ever participated in a demonstration at the McKenna MOUT site?

 Yes No

 17. Have you ever been in a Virtual Individual Combatant (VIC) simulator at the

Land Warrior Test Bed before?

 Yes No

 If YES, when (approximate month and year) and which one(s)? (Describe if you

cannot remember the name)

 18. Have you had any other experience with military computer simulations?

 Yes No

 If yes, please describe briefly or give the names of the simulators.
C-4

2001 Simulator Capability Questionnaire

ID Number:_________________________ Today’s Date:____________________

Section I. Basic Simulator Capabilities

Please rate your ability to perform each task in the simulator

Very

Good Good Poor

Very

Poor

1. Move through open areas as a widely separated group.

2. Move according to directions.

3. Maneuver around obstacles.

4. Move in single file.

5. Maneuver below windows.

6. Maneuver close to others.

7. Determine other team/squad team members' positions.

8. Maintain position relative to other team/squad members.

9. Maneuver around corners.

10. Locate assigned areas of observation, e.g. across the

street.

11. Look around corners.

12. Visually locate the source of enemy fire.

13. Determine the source of enemy fire by sound.

14. Distinguish between friendly and enemy fire.

15. Identify civilians.

16. Communicate enemy location to team member.

17. Take hasty defensive positions.

18. Aim weapon.

19. Fire weapon in short bursts.

20. Fire weapon accurately.

21. Identify covered and concealed routes.

22. Identify areas that mask supporting fires.

23. Coordinate with other squad members.

24. Execute the assault as planned.

25. Move quickly to the point of attack.

26. Assume defensive positions.

27. Identify safe and danger areas.

28. Locate support team positions.

29. Locate fire team buddy positions.

30. Take position to one side of the doorway.

31. Move quickly through doorways.

32. Take a tactical position while within a room.

33. Scan the room quickly for hostile combatants.

34. Engage targets within a room.

35. Identify non-combatants within a room.

36. Move past furniture in a room.

37. Maneuver past other personnel in a room.

38. Understand verbal commands.
C-5

Please rate your ability to perform each task in the

simulator

Very

Good Good Poor

Very

Poor

39. Identify sector responsibility.

40. Communicate SPOT reports to squad leader.

41. Execute planned route.

42. Identify assigned sectors of observation.

43. Move close to walls.

44. Scan from side-to-side.

45. Scan vertically.

46. Identify enemy soldiers.

47. Estimate distances from self to a distant object.

48. Climb up or down stairs.

49. Climb up or down ladders.

50. Move through sewers. NA NA NA NA

51. Locate enemy soldiers inside buildings firing at your unit.

52. Determine the direction enemy rounds are coming from.

Section II: Dynamic Terrain Server

Indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.

Strongly

Agree

Agree

Neither

Agree Nor

Disagree

Disagree Strongly

Disagree

1. The rubble effect realistically portrays

that found in a MOUT environment.

2. I was able to distinguish rubble from a

distance.

3. The effects of simulated rubble

noticeably impeded movement.

4. The simulated rubble noticeably

impeded both SAF and immersed players.

5. The effect created by the blow hole (AT8 fire) is realistic.

6. The blow hole (AT-8 fire) created a hole

exactly where it was to be placed.

7. The sound simulation of the blow hole

"burst" (AT-8 fire) was realistic.

8. The flash simulation of the blow hole

"bursts" (AT-8 fire) was realistic.

9. There is no impact or tactical advantage

to blowing a hole in a building ceiling or

floor.

10. The rubble effect worked well in

conjunction with the effects of the blow

hole.

11. Battlefield environment (wrecked

vehicles, building damage, civilians and

vehicles moving about, etc.) was

realistically portrayed.
C-6

Section III: SVS Enhancements

Indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.

Strongly

Agree

Agree

Neither

Agree Nor

Disagree

Disagree Strongly

Disagree

1. The inability to throw grenades

adversely impacted my fighting ability.

2. The inability to use hand-held

illumination (flares) adversely impacted

my fighting ability.

3. The inability to use flash-bang

grenades to help clear rooms adversely

impacted my fighting ability.

4. The inability to employ tactical handheld smoke grenades adversely impacted

my fighting ability.

5. The use of tac lights greatly aided in

reducing possible civilian casualties.

6. Time of day was accurately reflected by

the amount of light demonstrated on the

simulator.

7. Shadows were used to accurately

depict the correct time of day.

Section IV: Other Training Tools

Please assess the following training tools

Strongly

Agree

Agree

Neither

Agree Nor

Disagree

Disagree Strongly

Disagree

1. The after-action review (AAR) system

helped me understand what occurred

during the exercise.

2. The after-action review (AAR) system

should be incorporated into all simulator

training.

3. The mission planning and training tool

(MPTT) was an effective rehearsal tool.

4. The MPTT will make an effective

mission planning tool.

5. Street lights were realistic.

6. Street lights were realistically placed

(not too high or too low).

7. There were an adequate number of

street lights, replicating real life.

8. Shooting out street lights to reduce their

impact on the mission was realistic.

9. The use of shadows under street lights

enhanced the realism.
C-7

Strongly

Agree

Agree

Neither

Agree Nor

Disagree

Disagree Strongly

Disagree

10. Building interior lights were realistic.

11. Shooting out building interior lights to

reduce their impact on the mission was

realistic.

12. Night conditions were accurately

portrayed in the simulator.

13. I was able to easily distinguish the

difference between lit interior rooms from

non-lit rooms.
C-8

Semi-Automated Force (SAF) Performance Questionnaire

ID Number: _____________________ Today's Date: _________________

Leadership position held during today's exercise (Check one):

 _____ Squad Leader _____ Alpha Team Leader _____ Bravo Team Leader

 How well did the semi-automated force fire teams perform the following tasks

 in today's exercises compared with soldiers in the simulators?

SAF players were...

Much

worse

than

soldiers

Slightly

worse

than

soldiers

About

the

same as

soldiers

Slightly

better

than

soldiers

Much

better

than

soldiers

1. Move through open areas.

2. Maintain position relative to other

squad or team members.

3. Communicate information to squad

leader.

4. Locate known or suspected enemy

positions.

5. Clear a room.

6. Clear a building.

7. Distinguish between friendly and

enemy positions.

8. Take hasty defensive positions.

9. Fire weapons automatically.

10. Move to designated location.

11. Change formation.

12. Support by fire.

13. Deliver suppressive fire.

14. Perform fire and movement.

15. React to contact

16. React to ambush.

17. Move through built-up areas.

18. Move through sewer. NA NA NA NA NA
C-9

Training Effectiveness Questionnaire

ID Number: _____________________ Today's Date: _________________

Position Held During Today's Exercise (Check one):

 _____ Squad Leader ______ Alpha Team Leader ______ Bravo Team Leader

As a result of today's exercises, my ability

to perform the following tasks was

changed as follows.

No

Improvement

Slight

Improvement

Moderate

Improvement

Vast

Improvement

1. React to Contact Battle Drill.

2. Assess the tactical situation.

3. Control of squad/fire team movement

during the assault.

4. Locate known or suspected enemy

positions.

5. Clear a room.

6. Clear a building.

7. Control squad or fire team movement

while NOT in contact with the enemy.

8. Plan a tactical operation.

9. Control your squad or fire team.

10. Coordinate activities with your chain

of command.

11. Squad/fire team communication and

coordination.

Please select the block that best captures

your impression of the scenarios.

Not Very

Realistic

Slightly

Realistic

Fairly

Realistic

Very

Realistic

1. Was your mission realistic?

2. Were the events that occurred during

each scenario realistic?

3. Were force ratios (sizes) realistic?

4. Were enemy actions realistic?

5. Were the distractors (events added to

distract your focus) realistic?

6. What was your overall rating of the 1st

scenario?

7. What was your overall rating of the 2d

scenario?

8. What was your overall rating of the 3d

scenario (if applicable)?

9. What was your overall rating of the 4th

scenario (if applicable)?
C-10

2001 Voice Recognition Questionnaire

ID Number:_________________________ Today’s Date:____________________

Indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of

the following statements.

Strongly

Agree Agree

Neither

Agree Nor

Disagree

Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

1. It was easy to give voice commands

that SAF could understand.

2. It was easy to learn to give voice

commands to SAF.

3. It was easy to tell if SAF recognized or

understood my voice commands.

4. Giving voice commands to SAF came

naturally.

5. I frequently gave voice commands that

SAF did not recognize.

6. The SAF responded to my verbal

commands.

7. The verbal responses were appropriate

for the various situations.

8. What percentage of time was SAF

unable to recognize your voice commands

correctly on the first try? (circle

response)

<20% 20-

39%

40-60% 61-

80%

>80%

9. What percentage of time did SAF

respond incorrectly to your voice

commands? (circle response)

<20% 20-

39%

40-60% 61-

80%

>80%
C-11

AFTER ACTION REVIEW (AAR) EVALUATION

ID Number:_________________________ Today’s Date:____________________

Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following

statements by placing a check mark in the appropriate cell.

Strongly

Agree

Agree Neither

Agree

nor

Disagree

Disagree Strongly

Disagree

The AAR system was effective

in displaying movement

outside of buildings.

The AAR system was effective

in displaying movement inside

of buildings.

The AAR system was effective

in replaying communications.

The AAR system made it easy

to determine what happened

during a mission.

The AAR system made it easy

to determine why things

happened the way they did

during a mission.

The AAR system made it easy

to determine how to do better

in accomplishing the mission.
C-12

AFTER ACTION REVIEW (AAR) EVALUATION

ID Number:_________________________ Today’s Date:____________________

Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following

statements by placing a check mark in the appropriate cell.

Strongly

Agree

Agree Neither

Agree

nor

Disagree

Disagree Strongly

Disagree

The AAR system made it easy

to determine the order in

which key events occurred

during the mission.

The AAR system was more

effective than conducting an

AAR without any visual or

audio playback (just talking)

What were the best aspects of the AAR system?

What were the worst aspects of the AAR system?

Was anything missing from the AAR system?

How could the AAR system be improved?
C-13

Leader Post-Experimental Group Interview

(Circle: Squad Leader, Alpha Team Leader, and Bravo Team Leader)

Interviewer____________________ Date:_____________

1. Do you think that the simulators you used today were a useful training tool (that is,

did you learn from today’s experience)?

What did you learn?

2. Do you think that this training will affect you performance in a real world setting?

3. Where in the Army training system do you think that this type of training would be

most appropriate or useful?

4. In today’s exercises, friendly and enemy forces were sometimes actual soldiers, and

sometimes semi-automated forces (SAF) under the control of an operator. Were you

able to identify which were SAF and which were soldiers?

If so, how?

5. Did you do anything differently when interacting with SAF vs. the real soldiers?

If so, what?
C-14

6. Did the use of SAF affect what you learned?

If so, what?

7. What additional capabilities do you think SAF should have in order to be effective

from a training standpoint?

8. What did you like most about the scenarios?

9. What did you like least about the scenarios?

10. Could these scenarios be used to practice decision-making skills?

Why or why not?

11. Were the after-action reviews (AARs) provided after the exercises helpful?

Why or why not?

12. What additional features do you think the AAR system should have?
C-15

13. What part of the simulation (tasks, terrain, etc.) was the most realistic?

14. What part of the simulation (tasks, terrain, etc.) was the least realistic?

15. What was the most difficult task to perform in the simulator?

16. Did you find any aspects of the simulator or simulation distracting?

If so, what?

17. Do you think your lack of familiarity with the simulators affected your performance in

the exercises, or did you have enough training?

18. Was the automatic voice recognition helpful when controlling SAF? Does it need

additional capabilities? If so, what?

19. What is your overall impression of the night simulation? Were some aspects more

realistic than others? If so, what?
C-16

ODT Questionnaire

Name:_________________________________ Date:_____________

Time:__________

Please rate your ability to do the following things on the Omni-Directional Treadmill (ODT).

Circle only one response for each item.

Move Naturally

Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good

Maintain Balance

Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good

Maneuver Around Obstacles

Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good

Maneuver Close to Other People in the Virtual Environment

Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good

Maintain Position Relative to Team Members

Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good

Maneuver Around Corners

Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good

Look Around Corners

Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good

Move Quickly

Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good

Move Through Doors

Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good

Move Around Inside Buildings

Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good

Move Across Open Terrain

Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good

Move Tactically

Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good
C-17

Please answer the following questions regarding the ODT. Circle only one response for each

question.

1. Did your speed of movement through the virtual environment feel correct?

Never Hardly Ever Sometimes Usually Always

2. Was your speed

Too Slow About Right Too Fast

3. Did you forget that you were on the ODT during the scenario?

Never Hardly Ever Sometimes Usually Always

4. Did you feel safe on the ODT?

Never Hardly Ever Sometimes Usually Always

5. Did the ODT cause you to move when you were not ready?

Never Hardly Ever Sometimes Usually Always
C-18

SVS Questionnaire

Name:_________________________________ Date:_____________

Time:__________

Please rate your ability to do the following things in the Soldier Visualization System (SVS).

Circle only one response for each item.

Move Naturally

Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good

Maintain Balance

Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good

Maneuver Around Obstacles

Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good

Maneuver Close to Other People in the Virtual Environment

Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good

Maintain Position Relative to Team Members

Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good

Maneuver Around Corners

Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good

Look Around Corners

Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good

Move Quickly

Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good

Move Through Doors

Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good

Move Around Inside Buildings

Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good

Move Across Open Terrain

Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good

Move Tactically

Very Poor Poor Fair Good Very Good
C-19

Please answer the following questions regarding the SVS. Circle only one response for each

question.

1. Did your speed of movement through the virtual environment feel correct?

Never Hardly Ever Sometimes Usually Always

2. Was your speed

Too Slow About Right Too Fast

3. Did you forget that you were in the SVS during the scenario?

Never Hardly Ever Sometimes Usually Always

4. Did you feel safe in the SVS?

Never Hardly Ever Sometimes Usually Always
C-20

Locomotion Systems Debrief

Date:__________

We are looking for information that will help us improve these simulators.

1. What problems did you encounter using the ODT to move through the virtual environment?

2. What are the strengths of the ODT as a device for moving through virtual environments?

3. What are the weaknesses of the ODT as a device for moving through virtual environments?

4. Would a simulator that includes the ODT be useful for Army training or mission rehearsal?

5. Give me examples of how a system that includes the ODT would be used.

6. What problems did you encounter using the SVS to move through the virtual environment?

7. What are the strengths of the SVS as a device for moving through virtual environments?

8. What are the weaknesses of the SVS as a device for moving through virtual environments?

9. Would a simulator that includes the SVS be useful for Army training or mission rehearsal?

10. Give me examples of how a system that includes the SVS would be used.
C-21

Date______________ ID_______________________

Time_____________

Symptom Checklist

Instructions: Please indicate the severity of symptoms that apply to you right now by circling the

appropriate word.

1. General discomfort None Slight Moderate Severe

2. Fatigue None Slight Moderate Severe

3. Headache None Slight Moderate Severe

4. Eye Strain None Slight Moderate Severe

5. Difficulty focusing None Slight Moderate Severe

6. Salivation increased None Slight Moderate Severe

7. a. Warm Sweating (from

 temperature or exertion) None Slight Moderate Severe

 b. Cold Sweating (from

 discomfort or nervousness) None Slight Moderate Severe

8. Nausea None Slight Moderate Severe

9. Difficulty concentrating None Slight Moderate Severe

10. "Fullness of the Head" None Slight Moderate Severe

11. Blurred Vision None Slight Moderate Severe

12. a. Dizziness with eyes open None Slight Moderate Severe

 b. Dizziness with eyes closed None Slight Moderate Severe

13. Vertigo None Slight Moderate Severe

14. *Stomach awareness None Slight Moderate Severe

15. Burping None Slight Moderate Severe

16. Other (describe): ________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

* Stomach awareness is usually used to indicate a feeling of discomfort which is just short of

nausea.
C-22
D-1

Appendix D. Daily Schedules

Friday, 21 September

0800 Set-up

0900 Soldiers Arrive

Soldier Welcome and Orientation

0930 Questionnaire Administration

• Biographical Questionnaire

• Symptom Checklist

1000 Train-up: SVS – Move shoot & communicate

1100 Train-up: Multiple Tracks

• ODT – 3 soldiers

• Voice & Gesture control of SAF – Team Leaders

• Mission Background – Squad Leader

1200 Lunch

1300 Familiarization Exercise -- Scenario 7 (SASO Checkpoint)

• Receive orders and plan (10 minutes)

• Move to SVSs and calibrate weapons (10 minutes)

• Conduct exercise (20 minutes)

• Break (10 minutes)

• Repeat Exercise (20 minutes)

1415 Training Exercise 1 – Scenario 6 (Hostage Rescue)

• Receive orders and plan - Use MPTT (10 minutes)

• Move to SVSs and calibrate weapons (10 minutes)

• Conduct exercise (20 minutes)

• AAR (20 minutes)

1515 Training Exercise 2 – Scenario 16 (Support by Fire)

(Same break-out as Training Exercise 1)

1615 Questionnaires & Interviews

1700 Release Soldiers
D-2

Monday 24 September and Wednesday, 26 September

0800 Set-up

0900 Soldiers Arrive

Soldier Welcome and Orientation

0930 Questionnaire Administration

• Biographical Questionnaire

• Symptom Checklist

1000 Train-up: SVS – Move shoot & communicate

1100 Train-up: Multiple Tracks

• ODT – 3 soldiers

• Voice & Gesture control of SAF – Team Leaders

• Mission Background – Squad Leader

1200 Lunch

1300 Familiarization Exercise -- Scenario 7 (SASO Checkpoint)

• Receive orders and plan (10 minutes)

• Move to SVSs and calibrate weapons (10 minutes)

• Conduct exercise (20 minutes)

• Break (10 minutes)

• Repeat Exercise (20 minutes)

1415 Training Exercise 1-- Scenario 6 (Hostage Rescue)

• Receive orders and plan -- Use MPTT (10 minutes)

• Move to SVSs and calibrate weapons (10 minutes)

• Conduct exercise (20 minutes)

• AAR (15 minutes)

1510 Training Exercise 2 -- Scenario 16 (Support by Fire)

(Same break-out as Training Exercise 1, except no MPTT use)

1605 Training Exercise 3 – Scenario 13 (Assault and Clear a

Building)

(Same break-out as Training Exercise 1)

1700 Release Soldiers
D-3

Tuesday, 25 September and Thursday, 27 September

0800 Set-up

0900 Soldiers Arrive

Questionnaire Administration

• Symptom Checklist

0930 Training Exercise 4 – Scenario 4 (Roving Patrol)

• Receive orders and plan -- Use MPTT (10 minutes)

• Move to SVSs and calibrate weapons (10 minutes)

• Conduct exercise (20 minutes)

• AAR (20 minutes)

1030 Training Exercise 5 – Scenario 14 (Air Assault and Clear an

Building)

(Same break-out as Training Exercise 4, except no MPTT)

1130

1230 Training Exercise 6 – Scenario 10 (Crowd Control)

(Same break-out as Training Exercise 4)

1330 Training Exercise 7 – Scenario 11 (Downed Helicopter)

(Same break-out as Training Exercise 4, except no MPTT))

1430 Questionnaires & Interviews

1600 Release Soldiers