Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure from:Delta3D: A Complete Open Source Game and Simulation Engine for Building Military Training Systems

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Figure 1. Delta3D’s underlying open source libraries

Figure 1 Delta3D’s underlying open source libraries

Related Figures (12)

Figure 2. Breakdown of rendering software usage
Figure 2. Breakdown of rendering software usage
Figure 3. Screenshot from Delta3D
Figure 3. Screenshot from Delta3D
Figure 6. Low altitude view of GENETICS terrain and features Figure 5. High altitude view of GENETICS terrain and features
Figure 6. Low altitude view of GENETICS terrain and features Figure 5. High altitude view of GENETICS terrain and features
Figure 4. Delta3D level editor
Figure 4. Delta3D level editor
Figure 9. Cleared Hot
Figure 9. Cleared Hot
Figure 7. FOPCSIM
Figure 7. FOPCSIM
Figure 8. Delta3D shipboard firefighting prototype
Figure 8. Delta3D shipboard firefighting prototype
Table 1. Supporting Arms Exam results; over-all score (from McDonough [10]) Another important result for this experiment is that FOPCSIM acted as an outstanding predictor of failure on the SAE. Figure 9 shows the correlation between the students’ scores assigned by FOPCSIM’s scoring system and passing the SAE. No student who scored below 85 on FOPCSIM failed the SAE, while those who scored below 85 had over a 20% failure rate (4 of 19). This is extremely important, since instructors can use the results of the students’ performance on FOPCSIM to target those who are in danger of failing for extra instruction prior to the exam in the hopes of bringing them to a passing knowledge level. More information on McDonough and Strom’s experiment can be found in [10].
Table 1. Supporting Arms Exam results; over-all score (from McDonough [10]) Another important result for this experiment is that FOPCSIM acted as an outstanding predictor of failure on the SAE. Figure 9 shows the correlation between the students’ scores assigned by FOPCSIM’s scoring system and passing the SAE. No student who scored below 85 on FOPCSIM failed the SAE, while those who scored below 85 had over a 20% failure rate (4 of 19). This is extremely important, since instructors can use the results of the students’ performance on FOPCSIM to target those who are in danger of failing for extra instruction prior to the exam in the hopes of bringing them to a passing knowledge level. More information on McDonough and Strom’s experiment can be found in [10].
Figure 10. Supporting arms exam score versus SimScore average (from McDonough [10])
Figure 10. Supporting arms exam score versus SimScore average (from McDonough [10])