Interested in hearing options for incorporating VR into our In-service training. I have seen a couple of ads for them but looking for any feedback from Instructors that have been able to use them.
Interested in hearing options for incorporating VR into our In-service training. I have seen a couple of ads for them but looking for any feedback from Instructors that have been able to use them.
This is an idea/area that I believe has merit, but I dont know to what extent any states/agencies have been able to make large scale use of it yet. In California, the Force Options component of basic Academy training and in service training for years used a variety of simulators, until CA POST mandated a single system for the whole state. The system chosen was marginally useful, though the equipment (especially the simulator firearms) were fragile. Last year California revised the Force Options program to mandate a VR system by Inveris Systems (formerly Meggitt) for everyone going forward. It was a disaster of a system. Ours literally NEVER worked from day 1. Other nearby large agencies had similar experiences. I believe the entire idea was suspended, but I'm not certain as I'm retired now. Not sure which system is best....but its not that one.
Our agency had purchased a Virtra 300 system and built a training facility for it at the Range, though it was administered by the Force Options crew. For what it's worth, I thought that system had a lot of promise for that type of simulator. The idea was to use it for our Force Options program, but POSTs mandates short circuited that plan. To my knowledge, it was only ever used by our Range Staff to conduct some remedial/diagnostic work with recruits who were having difficulty on the range. That was successful by the way, and we were then ordered to never do pre-emptive remedial work again. Remedial training could only come after the recruits had failed the tests. Took some time, but we were eventually able to offer optional remedial sessions for any recruit who sought it out.
Sorry this wasn't more informative. Our efforts out here were stymied by a very poor choice of vendor in my opinion.
Contact Warren Wilson with the Enid OK Police.
I had an ER nurse in a class. I noticed she kept taking all head shots. Her response when asked why, "'I've seen too many people who have been shot in the chest putting up a fight in the ER." Point taken.
Thank you. I sent him an email.Originally Posted by jlw
Ethan
Thank you for the response.
I spent the bulk of my career in Aerospace designing and producing Live, Virtual and Constructive training systems of all types, including small unit VR-based simulations for dismounted infantry. If I can help in any way, please let me know.
Our industry's major trade show is in Orlando around Thanksgiving every year. I retired in 2018, but it might be of interest to look over the Vendor list and products to see if anyone has solutions in this area. Small arms .mil VR training is an adjacent market to LE VR training, and I would bet there are some folks exploring or offering product in that space these days:
https://www.iitsec.org/
Last edited by RJ; 01-05-2023 at 11:11 AM.
In response to @AMC, Ca POST could kitten up a wet dream. They regularly have & will continue to. I'm dealing with them now. The class cert process is so not about content.
A rhetorical question is how that org became so damn focused on "the process" without being capable of seeing or caring about the actual product. I recall watching it over the years. The IDC program sure seemed responsible for a lot of that.
I'd be really interested in how & why Meggit was chosen over Virtra.
Anyway, back to VR ... I've looked at the Chimera is doing, in conjunction with Centrifuge. I think it has an awful lot of potential. Especially as the system's graphics get better and we get to near-real-world imagery.
POST and it's ability to ruin everything could be its own thread. But back to the topic at hand: I think VR type systems have the potential to overcome the limitations of most previous generation simulators based on 2d projections and scripted pre-filmed scenarios. Simulators are most useful in training critical decision making skills, but they are less useful than Force on Force training in one important aspect: they don't allow the student to make tactical decisions such as when and where to move, how to approach an incident, angles, etc. This is in my opinion and experience the most undertrained part of decision making.
Previous generation simulator systems, even really good ones like the Virtra system, are pre scripted. Yes, some have limited "branching" ability, but it's still a program. You're not engaging another human being who can react, and you're unable to make tactical, timing decisions. Your decisions are largely limited to whether or not you useForce, and what type of force to use. A useful tool....bur with serious limitations (by the way....it was astounding to me that our Force Options instructors in the past could NOT see this limitation. They thought Force on Force was a fad that would disappear, and their simulator was superior to live fire firearms training).
An effective VR system could eliminate that decision tree limitation. You could have role players taking the role of criminals, and with the proper training facility/environment, you could allow "real world" type movement and tactics to be employed against role players. I believe NYPD was experimenting with such a system a few years back for specialized units. That's what we HOPED the Inveris system was going to be. Sadly for all involved, it was not.
Seems to be the nature of most any bureaucracy.
"It's surprising how often you start wondering just how featureless a desert some people's inner landscapes must be."
-Maple Syrup Actual
Reply With Quote