Combat effectiveness requires coordination, and the most critical component of coordination is communication. This paper describes methods for communication with and among intelligent constructive forces (IFORs). It explores a number of different approaches to communication and their implementation in the TacAir-Soar behavior system.

Because TacAir-Soar entities are intended to be indistinguishable from human combatants within the simulation environment, communication may occur between IFORs, between humans and IFORs, and between IFORs and other constructive forces. This places a number of constraints on the possible forms of communication. They must be natural for human interaction, yet well structured for communication with other constructive forces.

TacAir-Soar s approach to communication is to model mechanisms used in the real world rather than to create simulation-specific versions. For example, radio messages are text representations of the same, doctrinally correct, English utterances spoken by human pilots and controllers. The resultant system makes it comparably easy to interchange roles between humans and IFORs. This approach also facilitates interaction with other constructive forces because of well-defined communication templates and optional translation to the Command and Control Simulation Interface Language (CCSIL) [Salisbury, 1995].

TacAir-Soar includes a range of communication methods, including explicit and implicit forms of communication. The methods presented here include natural language communication over simulated radios; a communication panel and radio log for graphically driven communication; SoarSpeak, for real-time speech recognition and generation; distributed goal and status reports for communication with controllers; data links; non-verbal communication; and translation methods for CCSIL.

This paper examines how these various modes are implemented, and their benefits and drawbacks. Specifically, it shows how the implementations enable humans to easily immerse themselves into a simulation involving IFORs. It also includes several examples drawn from technology demonstrations and operational exercises where humans communicated with IFORs serving as command and control entities, friendly forces, and wingmen.