Very kind of you! I listened to the presentation hoping to learn more about how training is implemented and what companies the presenters used/liked. The only training they talked about was live training plus some classroom stuff. The former FBI guy mentioned VR headsets being the most scalable way to train nationally and nobody in the first 3 hours mention screened simulators at all.
From what I understand (and i'm sure this is obvious to anyone in LE), there are a few different types of training:
classroom: meant to learn the ideas
simulators: meant to get reps and reinforce the ideas learned in the classroom
live training: train your body to react/respond
In the case of active shooters, these guys on the call only brought up live training probably because it's the only thing that makes sense for situations like this. One can't train in a simulator for someone shooting bullets at you.
That said, these guys mentioned that, for the most part, the country isn't even at the point of trying to solve "what is the best way to train officers (live, simulator, etc)," but "how do we get people to go to training at all." Some of the presenters were instructors and mentioned that most people who go to their trainings are either the people who are overly qualified and likely not the ones who will be on the scene for ATAK situations (SWAT) or they're fresh hires; and then they spend the rest of their 10+ year career never going to training again because there are other agents in the department 5+ years later who have yet to go and are thus prioritized.
Tying this back to VirTra.... The company's business problem isn't salemenship, it's apathy in the industry towards training. If an agency has $50k annual budget to spend on training, does the chief buy a simulator and skip the live training? It seems that federal funding is the real trigger for growth. Is it a great business strategy to wait for government to change the industry? No. And the company is/has pivoted to focusing on long term military opportunities.