JF-17 Thunder Multirole Fighter [Thread 7]

[Armchair]

Striker is an HMDS, let's keep perspective here. Unless you are implying the BAe Striker is not an HMDS.

 

[CriticalThought]

Striker is an HMDS, let's keep perspective here. Unless you are implying the BAe Striker is not an HMDS.

Don't convolute the discussion behind acronyms. Spell out what you want to say. Use the full form of the system you are talking about.

 

[Armchair]

Don't convolute the discussion behind acronyms. Spell out what you want to say. Use the full form of the system you are talking about.

Don't talk about things you don't know about. Good luck.

 

[CriticalThought]

Don't talk about things you don't know about. Good luck.

@araz here is the reality of your 'friend'. After accusing others of sidelining the discussion, this man is now accusing me of not knowing what I am talking about. He is presenting fallacious arguments to support his naïve fantasies, and then using rude behaviour to defend himself.

If this is not rude, if this is not something that is unhelpful towards the discussion, then I don't know what is. I will expect some of your admonishment directed towards this armchair guy.

 

[GriffinsRule]

@araz here is the reality of your 'friend'. After accusing others of sidelining the discussion, this man is now accusing me of not knowing what I am talking about. He is presenting fallacious arguments to support his naïve fantasies, and then using rude behaviour to defend himself.

If this is not rude, if this is not something that is unhelpful towards the discussion, then I don't know what is. I will expect some of your admonishment directed towards this armchair guy.

Some people refuse to learn or are abhorrent to be corrected. Just a simple google search was enough to verify that the eyeball tracking is the fundamental technology in the actual cueing of the weapon systems.
The head positioning is akin to pointing the radar in the general direction of the adversary, while the helmets optical systems are used to actually target and lock on the foe.

Below is a good guide to what is involved.
http://www.ausairpower.net/hmd-technology.html

 

[Armchair]

The reality is you got caught faking it. You don't know what HMDS are or how they work. They work by head tracking, not eye movements. Disagree? Provide evidence. Not:

Don't convolute the discussion behind acronyms. Spell out what you want to say. Use the full form of the system you are talking about.

You've already reduced the quality of this forum by constantly harassing Gambit with your nonsense posts, who hasn't returned in a long while, after your ridiculous spates with him. I'll leave you now to your 9 year old level of maturity, and you are welcome to my ignore list.

Expect only as much courtesy as you hand out.
Learn to contribute positively, and buttress your points with evidence, not bravado.

On a side note, I hope the mods find some way of bringing back @gambit .

Some people refuse to learn or are abhorrent to be corrected. Just a simple google search was enough to verify that the eyeball tracking is the fundamental technology in the actual cueing of the weapon systems.
The head positioning is akin to pointing the radar in the general direction of the adversary, while the helmets optical systems are used to actually target and lock on the foe.

Below is a good guide to what is involved.
http://www.ausairpower.net/hmd-technology.html

From your link:

The other major problematic issue with HMDs is that the user must keep his/her eye always aligned with the sight, and thus the natural combination of head and eye movement used to track a moving object must be unlearned, and a new "head only" tracking motion learned. Since the position of the helmet is what is used to point the missile, pilots will have to develop even greater neck musculature.

Instead of innuendos, this is what is needed - post links, discuss evidences.

Clearly the current generation of HMDs provides a significant capability improvement over earlier technology HMS'. In the longer term we can expect to see all HMDs providing raster and calligraphic modes, binocular vision, higher angular rates, wider FoV, embedded eye tracking and full colour capability. Weight and compactness will continue to be an issue with all such technology.

Despite the limitations in current technology, it is quite evident that the wide scale deployment of the

Quite ironic that blinded by the desire to prove me wrong, someone has kindly posted a link that supports what I was saying...

 

[GriffinsRule]

The reality is you got caught faking it. You don't know what HMDS are or how they work. They work by head tracking, not eye movements. Disagree? Provide evidence. Not:



You've already reduced the quality of this forum by constantly harassing Gambit with your nonsense posts, who hasn't returned in a long while, after your ridiculous spates with him. I'll leave you now to your 9 year old level of maturity, and you are welcome to my ignore list.

Expect only as much courtesy as you hand out.
Learn to contribute positively, and buttress your points with evidence, not bravado.

On a side note, I hope the mods find some way of bringing back @gambit .




From your link:



Instead of innuendos, this is what is needed - post links, discuss evidences.



Quite ironic that blinded by the desire to prove me wrong, someone has kindly posted a link that supports what I was saying...

I read the article before posting it, including what you have highlighted. However do pay attention to the "embedded eye tracking" part. My reading of the text is that the distinction here is that instead of two separate individual systems, everything will be in one package ... its not going to go away from eye tracking.

I read the article before posting it, including what you have highlighted. However do pay attention to the "embedded eye tracking" part. My reading of the text is that the distinction here is that instead of two separate individual systems, everything will be in one package ... its not going to go away from eye tracking.

As I am a novice with this stuff, as is everyone here btw, I can already see a problem with the head movement only targeting that @Armchair you are seemingly proposing. How would one target 1 aircraft from a close/formation flight of 2 or 3 or 4 aircraft, since all of them would be in your field of view? The eye will have to designate the target regardless and hence what @CriticalThought is saying seems correct to me, esp in the view of the link I posted.

 

[Armchair]

I read the article before posting it, including what you have highlighted. However do pay attention to the "embedded eye tracking" part. My reading of the text is that the distinction here is that instead of two separate individual systems, everything will be in one package ... its not going to go away from eye tracking.



As I am a novice with this stuff, as is everyone here btw, I can already see a problem with the head movement only targeting that @Armchair you are seemingly proposing. How would one target 1 aircraft from a close/formation flight of 2 or 3 or 4 aircraft, since all of them would be in your field of view? The eye will have to designate the target regardless and hence what @CriticalThought is saying seems correct to me, esp in the view of the link I posted.

Hi Griffin,

The link you sent, specifically mentions (see my previous post) that the current technology uses head tracking. i.e. that present generation of HMDS use head tracking technology. That in the future there could be eye tracking implemented.

Who knows? Maybe it already is and we don't know it. Could be our limited knowledge or it could be classified. But the available information suggests current technology is head tracking based. Both the major European products certainly are. Which is what is available to the PAF anyways...

@GriffinsRule to not confuse the issue, let's discuss the HMDS issue first. Later we can go back to what I was proposing, and if you see my exchange with @araz you'd probably get a clear view of the pros and cons of it. As Araz put it, its more of a half-way solution.

 

[gambit]

On a side note, I hope the mods find some way of bringing back @gambit .

I have been very busy. Not enough time in the day.

 

[CriticalThought]

Hi Griffin,

The link you sent, specifically mentions (see my previous post) that the current technology uses head tracking. i.e. that present generation of HMDS use head tracking technology. That in the future there could be eye tracking implemented.

Who knows? Maybe it already is and we don't know it. Could be our limited knowledge or it could be classified. But the available information suggests current technology is head tracking based. Both the major European products certainly are. Which is what is available to the PAF anyways...

@GriffinsRule to not confuse the issue, let's discuss the HMDS issue first. Later we can go back to what I was proposing, and if you see my exchange with @araz you'd probably get a clear view of the pros and cons of it. As Araz put it, its more of a half-way solution.

@GriffinsRule

The article you gentlemen were discussing was written in 1998. Let me take you through a history of what articles have said over the years:

In 2007

https://www.airspacemag.com/need-to...mets-track-where-a-pilot-is-looking-20246887/

Determining where a pilot is looking by tracking eye movement is a much taller order. “You would not believe some of the human factor issues you have to overcome to have a successful eye tracker,” says Louis Taddeo, VSI marketing director. “Although we have research projects into eye tracking, it is a very difficult task both from a technical [standpoint] and the physiology.”

So for now, VSI uses helmet position to achieve that four-milliradian accuracy. Pilots need only turn their heads to aim their weapons, even during high-G maneuvers, freeing their hands for other tasks.

In 2015

https://www.wired.com/2015/09/helmet-will-make-f-35-pilots-missile-slinging-cyborgs/

After years of delays and more than $60 billion dropped on development, the jet is finally just about ready, and it's bringing some pretty slick tech along with it—including a brand new helmet that will let the pilot see through the plane, aim missiles with his eyeballs, and keep an eye on key data no matter where he turns his head.

And this article hints at what is involved. It actually claims the helmet performs retinal projection - painting information directly onto the retina. How do you think that is achieved without eye tracking?

https://www.geek.com/chips/f-35-hel...ction-to-give-pilots-a-gods-eye-view-1616488/

Of course, a visual apparatus this advanced can’t just be snapped on like a common Oculus Rift— each of the helmets has to be custom moulded to the particular pilot thanks to a detailed 3D head scan, and thus cannot be worn by anyone else. Engineers take very precise pupillary measurements so the helmet can be built to keep the display in view no matter how the pilot looks about. This means that if a pilot retires, they can’t just pass their helmet on to the next recruit; Australians will be on the hook to pay for a replacement.

Inter-pupillary measurement means measuring the distance between the centre of the pupils of the two eyes.

And FWIW, the official Rockwell-Collins brochure corroborates this by stating support for 'multiple interpupillary distance settings'

https://www.rockwellcollins.com/~/m... Displays/F-35 Gen III Helmet data sheet.aspx

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

Some posters should be let alone to discuss issues with themselves---

 

[GriffinsRule]

@GriffinsRule

The article you gentlemen were discussing was written in 1998. Let me take you through a history of what articles have said over the years:

In 2007

https://www.airspacemag.com/need-to...mets-track-where-a-pilot-is-looking-20246887/



In 2015

https://www.wired.com/2015/09/helmet-will-make-f-35-pilots-missile-slinging-cyborgs/



And this article hints at what is involved. It actually claims the helmet performs retinal projection - painting information directly onto the retina. How do you think that is achieved without eye tracking?

https://www.geek.com/chips/f-35-hel...ction-to-give-pilots-a-gods-eye-view-1616488/



Inter-pupillary measurement means measuring the distance between the centre of the pupils of the two eyes.

And FWIW, the official Rockwell-Collins brochure corroborates this by stating support for 'multiple interpupillary distance settings'

https://www.rockwellcollins.com/~/media/Files/Unsecure/Products/Product Brochures/Displays/Soldier Displays/F-35 Gen III Helmet data sheet.aspx

Thanks for the links, will go through these as well.

 

[air marshal]

http://falcons.pk/photo/JF-17A-Thunder,-JF-17B-Thunder/1088

 

[Path-Finder]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1006722821064515584

 

[Globalwarrior]

The Indian article that was earlier dissed had another interesting item in it. It mentioned that in a net centric environment the JF could hold its own against most threats. This would include the Indian Flankers and Rafales I presume...Isn’t that quite an admission from the other side??!!