June 7, 2023
If you're exploring VR training for your manufacturing or engineering operation, you're probably asking the same question most people ask at this stage: is it actually better than what we already do, or is it just a more expensive version of the same thing?
It's a fair question. Here's an honest comparison.
Traditional training: Lower upfront cost per session, but recurring costs add up quickly — trainer fees, travel, room hire, lost productivity, and repeat delivery every time you onboard new staff or run a refresher.
VR training: Higher initial build cost, but once the module exists, delivery is near-zero marginal cost. The more people you train, and the longer you use the programme, the better the economics look.
Verdict: For organisations training regularly, at scale, or across multiple sites, VR is typically more cost-effective over a two-to-three-year horizon.
Traditional training: Quality depends on the trainer, the room, the time of day, and how many other pressures the trainer is dealing with that week. Across multiple sites or cohorts, variation is inevitable.
VR training: Every trainee goes through the same experience. The same scenarios, the same information, the same quality — regardless of location, time, or who's available.
Verdict: VR wins on consistency, which matters enormously in safety-critical industries.
Traditional training: Classroom-based learning is largely passive. Research consistently shows that people forget a significant proportion of what they're told within days of a training session if they haven't had the chance to actively apply it.
VR training: Immersive, scenario-based learning puts the trainee in the situation. They're making decisions, experiencing consequences, and actively engaging with the material. Retention rates for experiential learning are substantially higher.
Verdict: VR is more effective at making training stick.
Traditional training: For high-risk procedures, on-the-job training carries inherent risk. Shadowing an experienced operative is valuable, but there's always an element of exposure to real hazards.
VR training: Trainees can practice the most dangerous procedures in a completely risk-free environment — as many times as needed, without any danger to themselves or others.
Verdict: For safety-critical training, VR has a clear advantage.
Traditional training: Scheduling classroom sessions around shift patterns, production cycles, and trainer availability is a logistical challenge. Getting the right people in the right room at the right time is rarely straightforward.
VR training: Sessions can be run on-site, on-demand, and integrated into your existing workflow. There's no need to pull a cohort off the floor for a full day.
Verdict: VR is considerably more flexible to deploy.
To be fair: VR training isn't the answer to every training need. Some skills require hands-on practice with real tools and equipment. Some training benefits from group discussion and interaction. And for very small organisations with infrequent training needs, the upfront investment may not stack up.
The most effective organisations tend to use VR and traditional training in combination — using VR for inductions, safety-critical scenarios, and high-repetition content, and traditional methods where human interaction and real-world practice are genuinely necessary.
Interested in how VR training could work alongside your existing programme? Talk to the ATXR team.
Bespoke VR & AR training simulations for manufacturing and engineering organisations.
