1. Live-Virtual-Constructive (LVC) Overview
Katherine L. Morse, PhD
JHU/APL
11 November 2015
This class is the first one in the live virtual constructive (LVC) course. It provides an introduction to the course as a whole and an overview of key LVC concepts.

2. Class Outline Training goal and objectives Definitions
Examples
Purpose and applications of LVC
Theoretical vs. actual
Limitations
LVC Architecture Roadmap
We begin by reviewing the training goal and objectives for the entire course. This is followed by authoritative LVC definitions with examples to anchor understanding for the rest of the course. Because LVC is technically suitable for more applications than those for which it currently used, the next section discusses theoretical vs actual applications of LVC. Limitations of the individual aspects of LVC are covered as well as a brief history of the LVC Architecture Roadmap that led to advances in enterprise LVC technologies.

3. Training Goal
Problem - the possibility exists that many disparate and isolated LVC related efforts occurring within the Department of the Navy (DoN) may produce incompatible solutions (both amongst themselves and with other Joint solutions) which will:
Create duplicative capabilities,
Consume limited DoN resources, and
Introduce unnecessary technical and operational risks.
Solution - educate LVC users to make informed decisions based on knowledge of LVC:
Overview
LVC Federation Engineering
Technologies
Policy and Guidance
The purpose of this training is to address the problem of many disparate and isolated LVC related efforts within the Department of Navy that may and do produce incompatible solutions both amongst themselves and with other joint solutions. This problem results in duplicative capabilities that consume limited Department of Navy resources, and introduce unnecessary technical and operational risks. The solution to this problem is to educate LVC procurers to make informed decisions based on knowledge of LVC. This particular class provides an introductory overview of LVC. LVC federation engineering, technologies, and policy and guidance are covered in other classes in this course.

4. Training Objectives Learn to correctly apply LVC terminology
ELO 1: Learn authoritative LVC terminology
ELO 2: Identify variations in uses of terminology
The primary training objective for this class is to learn to make more informed decisions based on knowledge of LVC. The first enabling learning objective (ELO) is to learn authoritative LVC terminology. This leads to the second ELO, to identify variations in uses of terminology. Recognizing these variations is critical because they often lead to confusion amongst LVC developers and users.

5. Authoritative LVC Definitions
Live simulation – involves real people operating real systems. Military training events using real equipment are live simulations. They are considered simulations because they are not conducted against a live enemy.
Instrumented aircraft flying on a training range
Virtual simulation – involves real people operating simulated systems. Virtual simulations inject human-in-the-loop in a central role by exercising motor control, decision skills, or communication skills, usually involving realistic 2D or 3D visualization.
Tank simulator
Constructive simulation - includes simulated people operating simulated systems. Real people stimulate (make inputs) to such simulations, but are not involved in determining the outcomes. A constructive simulation is a computer program.
Semi-automated forces (SAF), computer-generated forces (CGF), or artificial intelligence (AI)
The definitions on this slide are from the DoD M&S Glossary. LVC definitions for kinetic simulation (vs cyber simulation) are characterized by the role humans play in each. These differences are illustrated with the examples which have decreasing levels of live human involvement across the three categories. Other sources include the following in the definition of constructive, “A constructive simulation uses a computer representation of a human to make human decisions within the simulated environment.”

6. Variations of L + V + C
Some individuals only consider simulation environments that use all of live + virtual + constructive together to be LVC.
Some individuals consider simulation environments that use some combination of live, virtual, and constructive to be LVC.
Sometimes only one way from one type to another, but not back
E.g. live ground forces sending their position information to control the location of a constructive unit, but the live ground forces have no knowledge of the constructive environment
Sometimes just virtual - virtual
E.g. Supporting Arms Virtual Trainer (SAVT) – AV-8B simulator
But SAVT itself has a constructive SAF component
Sometimes just constructive - constructive
E.g. Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF) Tactical Warfare Simulation (MTWS) – Joint Conflict and Tactical Simulation (JCATS) or OneSAF
Others use the term LVC to refer to the technologies that support the development and execution of LVC simulation environments.
I.e. a superset label that encompasses all M&S to include a single instance of L, V, or C.
As mentioned on the Training Objectives slide, there are many variations in the use of LVC terminology, particularly with respect to the LVC term itself. This slide lists the variations the author has observed, but that does not mean the list is necessarily exhaustive. The user should be sure to establish a clear consensus on terminology when communicating with other LVC developers and participants.

7. Purpose and Applications of LVC
Because the scope of LVC is so broad, theoretically it is applicable to all DoD and USMC missions supported by M&S.
In practice, LVC is applied predominantly to training, and test and evaluation (T&E).
LVC in the acquisition community is emerging and the community is in the process of defining how to use LVC across the acquisition life cycle.
While fully immersive, interactive environments are envisioned, the current reality is more limited and still requires considerable engineering effort to achieve.
Augmented Immersive Team Training (AITT) enables training of call-for-fire and close-air support by integrating the trainee in an augmented reality environment.
But it cannot yet incorporate in realistic environmental conditions, e.g. sun/clouds effects on lighting and occlusion of virtual representations by real battlefield effects
From the definitions, examples, and variations identified on the preceding slides, it should be clear the scope of LVC is broad enough to be applicable to all DoD and USMC missions supported by M&S. In practice, it is currently used predominantly for training and T&E. While fully immersive, interactive environments are envisioned, gaps still exist in basic technologies as well as integration / interoperability solutions.
Early, clear expectation management is necessary and must precisely differentiate LVC component capabilities that can and cannot be achieved.

8. Uses and Limitations of Live Simulation
Using operational systems and capabilities in a live training environment tied with digital, real time feedback and debriefing is the traditional method of attaining the knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary for success in operational environments. Live training is recognized as the most realistic and challenging domain because it:
Attempts to fully exercise end-to-end demands of the system.
Stimulates all five of the operator’s senses.
Physiologically challenges the trainee.
Takes place in environments similar to those that are expected to be encountered in combat.
However, safety and security, cost, and other factors induce limitations in the use of live simulation.
The next set of slides focus on the uses and limitations of L, V, and C technologies individually. The content of these slides is derived from a draft version of “Vision, Strategy and Roadmap for Live / Synthetic Blended Training for the Department of Defense.”
Although live simulation provides the most realistic experience for the human in the loop, it is also the most expensive, technically challenging, and dangerous due to the integration of live systems.

9. Specific Limitations of Live Simulation
Being restricted to the boundaries and the physical environment of the event location (e.g., desert, mountainous, heavily vegetated, urban, etc.), to the physical conditions occurring during the event (day/night, weather, etc.), and to the number and types scenario stimuli (threats, injects, etc.) that can be simultaneously employed.
Cost of providing neutral and white force activity replicating the intended operational environments.
Cost of providing the depth and diversity of threat participation with flexibility to avoid scenario familiarity.
Providing required joint participation (via substitution) when co-location or availability of appropriate live participation is not possible.
Most operational systems are expensive to operate and include high overhead.
Operational system “life” is often conserved for actual operational missions.
The cost of travel of personnel and transportation of operational equipment, platforms, vehicles, and their required support systems to designated training areas or ranges.
To be able to interact with synthetic entities, certain “ground-truth” information about the live assets and live environment must be measured and the resulting measurement data shared with the synthetic entities.
However, there are practical limits on the scope, accuracy, and timeliness of ground-truth data sharing that can be achieved -- and this may result in unsatisfactory levels of interoperability.
Cost is the most significant limitation of live simulation because it has all the cost burden of an operational mission except for forward deployment, but with the addition of a white force to replicate the intended operational environments. Access to live ranges (both training and testing) is increasingly restricted.

10. Uses and Limitations of Virtual Simulation
Simulators, or virtual methods applied to operational systems provide flexible, low cost, repeatable events for training.
Participant forces in virtual simulation at distributed locations, if properly integrated, can broaden participation and fill some gaps in live participation.
It can expose trainees to events that are not reproducible or are considered unsafe in the live environment.
Threat and background factors may be more robust and representative of the anticipated operational environment.
Virtual simulation offers many of the benefits of live simulation, but at lower cost and risk. The lack of external, uncontrollable environmental factors can also improve the repeatability of virtual simulation events over live simulation events.

11. Specific Limitations of Virtual Simulation
Many simulators are designed for only crew training and do not easily interconnect or interoperate with other simulators for realistic force level events.
It is difficult and expensive to maintain simulator configuration concurrent with the state of operational system configuration.
Simulators can exceed specific performance factors (e.g., visual acuity of objects on the “virtual” ground exceeds what can be seen with the naked eye given environmental conditions) resulting in negative training, particularly when safety perspectives are considered.
Simulators may not emulate complex tasks well nor accurately model sensor performance based on aircraft and environmental factors present in a specific training event.
Simulated entities may not be adequately presented to the live domain entities such that interaction can be conducted on a level playing field.
In general, the virtual simulator often cannot replicate the end-to-end psychological and operational pressures evident in the live domain.
Virtual simulators do not yet stimulate all the senses due to cost and complexity, e.g. haptic and smell.
The trade-off with virtual simulations over live simulations is that they may not be as physically accurate as the live systems. This lower fidelity can negatively impact the intended use, such as contributing to negative training when using LVC in the training domain. Additionally, keeping the virtual simulation current with the corresponding live system can be expensive even when it is possible to obtain up-to-date, accurate specifications.

12. Uses and Limitations of Constructive Simulation
Large-scale constructive applications are frequently used for command and staff training where force activity can be accelerated to faster than real-time to avoid the delays between staff training activities.
Force levels and their aggregation can be more easily adjusted to those anticipated or desired for the tasks being accomplished.
Large-scale events using constructive applications for composite force or inter-team training have many of the same limitations as the virtual domain.
Constructive simulation is often used for command and staff training because it can represent aggregated forces and run faster than real-time, allowing the training audience to skip time periods where their input is not required. Because constructive simulation can operate without humans in the loop and can run faster or slower than real-time, it has the repeatability that live and virtual simulation lack. For this reason, constructive simulation can also be applied beyond training and testing to acquisition and analysis. The ability to perform multiple, faster-than-real-time runs of a constructive simulation to generate large volumes of data can be useful to acquisition decisions or analysis studies.

13. Specific Limitations of Constructive Simulation
The different and inconsistent ways of representing the elements of the operational environment (e.g., different ways to represent integrated air or ground defenses, Link-16, common operational picture, family of interoperable operational pictures, user-defined operational picture, etc.) or the physical environment (e.g., flat versus curved representations of the earth) cause problems within simulations.
Limitations such as these can reduce the types of scenarios, maneuvers, or situations that can be exercised.
Difficulty and lead time required for modifying or creating new models and simulations deter presentation of contemporary issues, situations, and tasks.
In live and virtual simulations, the use of live humans reduces the need to develop complex models of their behavior. While virtual simulations require models of the environment, live simulations do not. Because constructive simulations are almost exclusively synthetic, all of these phenomena must be modeled in constructive simulations. Different constructive simulations implement the same human behaviors with different models, resulting in different observed behavior in the constructive simulations. And cognitive science has not yet achieved accurate models for the complex human behaviors that constructive simulations need to implement.

14. Live Virtual Constructive Architecture Roadmap (LVCAR)
The LVCAR considered three important dimensions of simulation interoperability:
Technical architecture
Business models
Standards evolution and management process
It made investment recommendations:
Architecture activities (10)
Standards activities (5)
Business activities (3)
Management activities (1)
DMSCO sponsored a team of technical experts that addressed many of the technical recommendations within the scope of available funding and DoD’s ability to affect change.
The following issues addressed under LVCAR are covered within the LVC Federation Engineering class:
Federation Engineering Agreements Template (FEAT)
Distributed Simulation Engineering and Execution Process (DSEEP) Multi-Architecture Overlay (DMAO)
In 2009, the M&S Coordination Office (now DMSCO) commissioned a report examining three important dimensions of LVC in detail: technical architecture, business models, and standards evolution and management process. The resulting LVC Architecture roadmap (LVCAR) examined issues in these areas and produced 19 investment recommendations across four areas to address them. The numbers in parentheses indicate how many investment recommendations were made in each area. Two of the results of the multi-year implementation effort, the FEAT and the DMAO, are covered in the LVC Federation Engineering class of this course.

15. References
DoD Modeling & Simulation (M&S) Glossary, 1 July 2013,
Live Virtual Constructive Architecture Roadmap (LVCAR), 14 August 2009,
Vision, Strategy and Roadmap for Live / Synthetic Blended Training for the Department of Defense, Draft, OSD Personnel & Readiness, 14 September 2015