The fidelity and cost effectiveness of flight simulators have increased dramatically over the last decade. Given increasing fiscal constraints, many organizations have struggled with questions such as, "What is the appropriate mix of live and virtual training?", and "What is the equivalence of virtual sorties to live ones?" In July 2008, Air Combat Command (ACC) received a tasking from Headquarters Air Force to determine the optimum mix of live training, simulator training, and distributed simulator training. The best way to answer the question would involve a series of longitudinal studies for each weapon system to explore options and quantify the tradespaces in each training approach. However the time constraints imposed in the tasking prevented this time consuming and expensive approach in the near term. ACC, in conjunction with the Air Force Research Laboratory's Warfighter Readiness Research Division, developed a methodology to systematically gather data from operational personnel to help frame responses to the tasker for a number of mission areas and weapon systems and to provide a unique set of data for examining key issues in live and virtual training and the investments in and mixes of both. This paper outlines the development of the methodology, data collection instruments and techniques, subsequent analyses, and applications of the information in determining the right mix and funding profiles for live and virtual training. We will also explore the relationships between current training requirements and the outcomes of the data collection and discuss potential ways ahead and lessons learned. Plans for evaluating different mixes in operational field studies will also be discussed.