Although advanced visual systems are the key to increased use of simulation, visual technology is just emerging from its expensive infancy. The Air Force Simulator for Air-to-Air Combat, the Advanced Simulator for Undergraduate Pilot Training, TAC's F-4E #18 Simulator, the Navy's CIG/screen system at Kingsville Naval Air Station,…the simulators today which embody most of the advances in visual simulation commonly referred to as "state-of-the-art"…are all developmental devices. They are intended for, at most, training development; they will probably all be contractor-supported; none are anticipated for production in their present form.

Life cycle costing is particularly significant in visual simulation. High cost elements, expensive optics and other elements not normally spared, skilled maintenance requirements, lack of operational experience, and unique facility requirements all combine to necessitate an overall look at visual system costs.

It is essential that the true costs involved in simulation be presented accurately to all concerned and that the nature of the at least temporary unique aspects of visual systems be considered in training program costs.

We cannot afford today to put together components to make a visual system and buy it simply because it works. Nor can we afford to assume that "available systems" will directly meet our training requirements. Costs of the acquisition of such hardware are a small portion of the costs of an acceptable visual system over the lifetime of the simulator.

To assure the materialization of training economy with the millions to be spent on visual systems we must on the operational hand trade-off requirements against life cycle costs, and at the same time milk the technology with the developmental hand. The trick is to let each hand know what the other is doing, but to not forget which is which.