View Full Version : Simulator Experience
Tried it at a local place that uses one for their course required to get an LTC.* Ever used a shooting simulator? This was my first time, and it was a blast. Worlds best video game. Does a simulator replace range time? Of course not, but it also allows you to do many things you cant do at a range, either for practical reasons or safety reasons or both. I could see taking a course based on the simulator as being another worthy tool in the tool box as there is an endless amount of scenarios and such that can be thrown at you.
My first thought of course was “I gotta get me one of these!” That was tempered a bit once I learned the cost of the set up (10k or so) but if you figured what you could save in ammo, it could be done at home, and what it could add to your shooting abilities, might still be worth it! I recommend everyone try one of these gizmos at least once.
Most interesting to me is the gun. I had expected the let down of a simulator to be a lack of realism with the gun. However, the gun is a stock Glock handgun (forget the model #) thats got a specialized barrel and other gizmos that are driven by high pressure air. The result is, recoil is essentially like shooting a 9mm Glock with approx noise level as if you had your ears on. So, the actual shooting experience has the realism needed there.
FAS is supposed to have more advanced courses using the simulator and I can see it would be of value as one more tool in the tool box for LEO (some of whom have depts. Already using simulators) and civilians looking for additional training and experiences. Of course mil has been using simulators f all kinds for years.
The only real draw back of a simulator is obvious: it’s a tool, and a potentially good one, but can NEVER replace range time, etc.
* www.massfirearmsschool.com
Why I was there: Went to Mass Fire Arms school with GF for her required course to get her LTC (on Valentines day no less!) as owner of MFS offered to let me play with the simulator. My GF is from the Midwest and has been to the range with me, etc, so she’s not new to guns per se. I think she out shot the men in the class... Once she was told their were no ammo limits to the simulator, she used the modified Glock more like an SMG and just ripped across BGs. Proud moments…I was calling her “Uzi Annie” all the way home ‘till I was told to “shut up”, but I digress....:)
FATS trainers/machines are a nice training aid to have. We use them from time to time to supplement firearms training - but you're right, it's a tool. The different LE scenarios/videos are interesting the first time around...
Agreed. Simulators are a great training aid when used to support live fire practice. but they should never be used to replace live fire.
slightly OT, Im in Boston in business. Other than seeing the USS Constitution and the freedom trail, any other suggestions as to stuff I can / should do?
My previous unit used to train with the Range 3000 system now known as the MILOS Range Pro system made by IES. Over 250 scenarios that can produce multiple outcomes based on the officer's actions (or lack of action). It also has range training scenarios.
http://www.ies-usa.com/products/range_pro/
The nice thing about this system is that it uses a laser insert for the barrel so you can use your actual duty weapon, and to get the recoil it uses a magazine that holds a CO2 cartridge that is used in pellet guns. So the gun can be holstered and the officer can move around the room to take cover, etc. That's what I didn't like about the original FATS I tried out. You were tethered to the machine by an air hose. There are a lot of other options as well.
I agree that these systems are no substitute for actual range training, but they can be used to identify shooter problems so you can correct them before even going to the range.
FATS is fun sometimes but as a training tool, for me at any rate.. I wouldn't rate it top of my list for training. I haven't found it to be detrimental in any way, but neither have I found it overly helpful. My feelings aren't universal however. A lot of our people love it. Simunition training on the other hand.... I've had a lot of preconceived notions go right out of the window after a session. Seeing peoples eyes after they get a haymaker to their face then shot with a paint round point blank.... you can tell it's made an "impact" as it were.
A good thing about FATS is ours is pretty accurate in recording shot placement. That has been nice to see.
One of the other things I liked about the Range 3000/MILOS, is that when you made good hits, the bad guys would drop so you got instant feedback you made a good shot.
I've used old FATS, new FATS, CAFS, ATS Prism, Range ####, MILO, and a few other smaller. They do not replace live fire, but are a great supplement to a training regimen. They are also an excellent orientation, diagnostic, and remediation tool.
We use MILO locally. MILO can also integrate intermediate weapons. It's also easy to develop your own scenarios. Flexibility makes it readily adaptable to other professions as well.
No matter what the system, a quality trainer running and debriefing the scenarios is essential for greatest productivity.
My previous unit used to train with the Range 3000 system now known as the MILOS Range Pro system made by IES. Over 250 scenarios that can produce multiple outcomes based on the officer's actions (or lack of action). It also has range training scenarios.
http://www.ies-usa.com/products/range_pro/
The nice thing about this system is that it uses a laser insert for the barrel so you can use your actual duty weapon, and to get the recoil it uses a magazine that holds a CO2 cartridge that is used in pellet guns. So the gun can be holstered and the officer can move around the room to take cover, etc. That's what I didn't like about the original FATS I tried out. You were tethered to the machine by an air hose. There are a lot of other options as well.
I agree that these systems are no substitute for actual range training, but they can be used to identify shooter problems so you can correct them before even going to the range.
One thing I learned is I had a bad habit of shooting non threats. Range, IDPA, etc can simulate good guys from bad, but this simulator has a good guy who looks like the wrestler Steve Auston with only a badge on his belt and a gun pointing at you. Your threat bells go off and you are pulling that trigger a millisecond before you see that tiny badge on his belt. I rarely if ever shoot good guy targets in say IDPA or in courses, etc as it's obvious who is who. This simulator had good guys and bad differing only by a badge on their belt or in their hand, and your eyes go right to the gun. Good learning experience there.
Another great thing about this simulator. We all know BGs don't go down as we might want after our neat double tap to the chest. The computer will randomly select number of rnds it takes for them to drop, which really messes with your normal training patterns. One guy might go down with a single shot, but others might take 5-6rnds, which throws off your tempo. We know this is a fact of "real world" encounters but most still fall into a tempo in our shooting patterns, and this exposes that weakness for those (me!) who have not experienced that first hand. It also adds interesting decision making when dealing with tactical priority and or sequence of the targets.
In this simulator, women were always BGs. :-)
Agreed. Simulators are a great training aid when used to support live fire practice. but they should never be used to replace live fire.
slightly OT, Im in Boston in business. Other than seeing the USS Constitution and the freedom trail, any other suggestions as to stuff I can / should do?
Historic or anything? Not knowing what you like, I'll throw some random ideas out.
Go over to faneuil hall:
http://www.faneuilhallmarketplace.com/
Lots of good places to eat, bars, shops etc.
Check out Harvard Square, which is where Harvard University is and various places to eat and drink and is a very historic area. If you like a good beer, hit John Harvard's Brew Pub. Although they are now a chain, the original place is the best and it's in Harvard Square at Harvard Square at 33 Dunster Street Cambridge.
If you have a few $$$ to blow, eat at the Top of The Hub which is on the top of the Pru building. Good food and a killer view of the city at night.See:
http://www.topofthehub.net/
If you like art, The Museum of Fine Arts is considered one of the best in the country.See:
http://www.mfa.org/home.htm
If you wanna hit the clubs, see Fenway Park, go to Lansdown, st:
http://www.starthereboston.com/lansdowne-street.html
And of course there's always Centerfolds Boston on 12 Lagrange St:
www.CenterfoldsBoston.com
Not that I would know anything about the place....:cool:
One thing I learned is I had a bad habit of shooting non threats. Range, IDPA, etc can simulate good guys from bad, but this simulator has a good guy who looks like the wrestler Steve Auston with only a badge on his belt and a gun pointing at you. Your threat bells go off and you are pulling that trigger a millisecond before you see that tiny badge on his belt. I rarely if ever shoot good guy targets in say IDPA or in courses, etc as it's obvious who is who. This simulator had good guys and bad differing only by a badge on their belt or in their hand, and your eyes go right to the gun. Good learning experience there.
Another great thing about this simulator. We all know BGs don't go down as we might want after our neat double tap to the chest. The computer will randomly select number of rnds it takes for them to drop, which really messes with your normal training patterns. One guy might go down with a single shot, but others might take 5-6rnds, which throws off your tempo. We know this is a fact of "real world" encounters but most still fall into a tempo in our shooting patterns, and this exposes that weakness for those (me!) who have not experienced that first hand. It also adds interesting decision making when dealing with tactical priority and or sequence of the targets.
In this simulator, women were always BGs.
That's a good point actually. I neglected to factor that into my original opinion. We had a similar one where there was school shooting, you were in the hallway when you heard gunshots. Kids start flooding the hallway running at you. You round the corner and there is a guy going standing over another guy. The guy standing has a bat and is going to town on the guy on the ground. Screaming etc. just looks like he's out of control. You yell at him to stop he doesn't, you yell at him again, the guy with the bat looks up and starts running towards you.. with the bat. So what do you do? You shoot the guy with the bat? If you do so the guy on the ground rolls over and shoots you. Not to mention you shot the hero who stopped the gunman. You decide to go hands on with the guy rushing you with the bat. Same story with the gun man. You decide to taser the guy running at you with the bat? now you got your hands tied up and you still get shot. and on and on.
The first time through, I shot the guy with the bat bull rushing me. The bg on the floor rolled over and got a shot off quick, then I engaged him. Was informed that my response was appropriate given the circumstance but... I'd be taking hell for it for a long time to come...if I would have survived that is. Made me think for a while. I'll be honest, in the moment it happened (this was my first scenario ever on FATS) it didn't occur to me the guy on the ground was the BG. In retrospect it makes perfect sense but the scenario advanced so quickly, like real life, I was unable to access my critical thinking part of brain as survival took over. I could nitpick the system how, the guy with the bat in real life would have likely been screaming HE HAS A GUN etc. instead of bull rushing me. But, for what it was, it was useful.
I was commenting more on the shooting aspect and not the critical thinking side. For that, yes, its an invaluable tool.
A problem though, is you can't advance your "avatar" or whatever you call it. You are stuck standing in the doorway. Sort of limits your options.
went through 2 simulators, and more then anything, i believe it gave the range officer a chance to judge your reactions and decision making skills, rather then test your actual abilities in different situations.
for us, best training has been with the airsoft type guns. The recoil is pretty good and within 20-25 feet your trajectory is also very similiar. We've used them for trainings in felony stops, building searches, and quad trainings. Combined our quad training with local EMT's and even some of our kids that volunteered to be students. To add to the realism, we had several revolvers that were loaded with blanks, so that it was easier to track locations in the school. For some reason when i was a bad guy and was shot, the EMT's never checked me out........don't know why.:rolleyes:
I rarely if ever shoot good guy targets in say IDPA or in courses, etc as it's obvious who is who. This simulator had good guys and bad differing only by a badge on their belt or in their hand, and your eyes go right to the gun. Good learning experience there.
Simulators aren't (or shouldn't be) used as firearms skill training. They provide judgment problems, use of force/escalation challenges, etc. For most people, they also tend to induce more stress than live fire drills against paper, cardboard, & steel targets.
Regarding IDPA/IPSC no-shoots: It's not just a matter of the targets being so well identified, but the fact that there is no significant penalty for taking a fraction of a second to identify the target properly. You're never worried that one of the carboard dodecagons is going to kill you, so you're rarely so amped up that you launch rounds at one "just in case" before you see the hands, blue stripes, etc.
Simulators aren't (or shouldn't be) used as firearms skill training. They provide judgment problems, use of force/escalation challenges, etc. For most people, they also tend to induce more stress than live fire drills against paper, cardboard, & steel targets.
Regarding IDPA/IPSC no-shoots: It's not just a matter of the targets being so well identified, but the fact that there is no significant penalty for taking a fraction of a second to identify the target properly. You're never worried that one of the carboard dodecagons is going to kill you, so you're rarely so amped up that you launch rounds at one "just in case" before you see the hands, blue stripes, etc.
I'm having a slow moment. Are you saying you do not think they are good shooting skill builders but useful in judgment assessment?
ZDL -- Yes, that's what I'm saying.
One could argue that they have a certain value for teaching shooting skills, but personally I don't find it translating very well. Recoil is wrong, often times the laser designator (which is what registers shot placement) isn't properly zeroed, etc.
Shooting on a simulator is better than not shooting at all, but it doesn't come close to building hard skills as well as live fire mixed with a proper dry fire program. Though I could see incorporating the simulator into some (not all) of a dry fire program.
And of course there's always Centerfolds Boston on 12 Lagrange St:
www.CenterfoldsBoston.com
Not that I would know anything about the place....:cool:
but of course, and not like Im gonna make a bee line for it or anything like that :cool:
ZDL -- Yes, that's what I'm saying.
One could argue that they have a certain value for teaching shooting skills, but personally I don't find it translating very well. Recoil is wrong, often times the laser designator (which is what registers shot placement) isn't properly zeroed, etc.
Shooting on a simulator is better than not shooting at all, but it doesn't come close to building hard skills as well as live fire mixed with a proper dry fire program. Though I could see incorporating the simulator into some (not all) of a dry fire program.
No I agree. That's what I was saying in earlier posts. Just wanted to make sure my judgment was lining up with someones who is smarter than me.
Simunitions fall in the same category. They are extremely inaccurate from my experience and induce a more than normal amount of malfunctions. (maybe we have bad equipment?) They do serve to test your thinking in a dynamic way.
but of course, and not like Im gonna make a bee line for it or anything like that :cool:
Full of sin and ill repute. No idea why anyone would go there...;)
GLOCKMASTER
02-15-09, 15:20
Simulators are good training tools for judgment training as long as the instructor/operator doesn't allow it to become a video game for the student. Once it has become a video game environment it loses it's training value.
Also as Todd said they can be used to assist with skill development but by no means should it replace good range time.
Another great thing about this simulator. We all know BGs don't go down as we might want after our neat double tap to the chest. The computer will randomly select number of rnds it takes for them to drop, which really messes with your normal training patterns. One guy might go down with a single shot, but others might take 5-6rnds, which throws off your tempo. We know this is a fact of "real world" encounters but most still fall into a tempo in our shooting patterns, and this exposes that weakness for those (me!) who have not experienced that first hand. It also adds interesting decision making when dealing with tactical priority and or sequence of the targets.
In this simulator, women were always BGs. :-)
We used to set scenarios like that to simulate the BG wearing body armor (North Hollywood shootout) The only way to put them down was with a head shot, which could be hard when the BG is moving around.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.