escobar
Brigadier
Another sighting of the HMD on what I assume to be a J-16 pilot.
Last edited:
China Flanker Thread II
- Thread starter sumdud
- Start date
- Status
Hi so if we go by this information about SA design in 2000 is it ok to assume this Chinese design is like first or second generation as compare to USA newest HMDS any further info will be helpful
thank you
The F-35 is actually the exception, as it is the only example of a fighter aircraft that has a HMD but no HUD.
For many other modern fighter aircraft (including newly designed and developed ones), it is actually common to have both a HMD (even an advanced one), and also a HUD.
Think about all of the fighter aircraft in the world with a variant of JHMDS, DASH, Topowl, Striker.
A HMD can in theory replace the role of a HUD (in addition to other advanced functions that a modern HMD can offer), but the centrality of the role of a HUD to even normal routine flight operations means that if your aircraft only had a HMD (no HUD), and it was found that there was some sort of teething issue with your HMD's development, testing, then you have no HUD to fall back on.
Of course, in future as HMD technology and development becomes much more assured, low risk and normalized, perhaps all aircraft will begin to forgo HUDs for HMDs. But for now, the minor added weight of a HUD is arguably of much more benefit, even if you had a modern high end HMD.
Without having rather detailed pictures and tech specs, such a statement is about as useful as nothing.
Considering there are multiple HMD designs in the world with a similar configuration of bulbous visor + infrared trackers.... heck this HMD itself could be said to superficially resemble J-20's HMD design (even though the two are quite different in terms of details).
J-20 HMD:
J-16 HMD:
Striker HMD:
Cobra HMD (which Denel had a role in developing, and I suspect might be what that person is referring to):
No.
Last edited:
As a person who worked in XR industry for about 6 years, I happen to know HMD (although only commercial types) pretty well. I would say the resemblance of outside means nothing, the infrared tracking system and holographic visor is nothing but standard features, I myself tested quite a few products, including ones from big international brands and domestic nameless companies. The real trick, is wide FOV, brightness, and light weight, also the system integration.
Also, after Oculus the XR industry is forward by bound and leaps, you can almost learn nothing now from product made in 2002, it is seen by now as ancient technology. Heck, even the infrared tracking system is now seen as out-of-date, the current standard is inside-out multi-cam SLAM tracking system. And I would say this might not be transported to Miltech industry anytime soon.
Also, after Oculus the XR industry is forward by bound and leaps, you can almost learn nothing now from product made in 2002, it is seen by now as ancient technology. Heck, even the infrared tracking system is now seen as out-of-date, the current standard is inside-out multi-cam SLAM tracking system. And I would say this might not be transported to Miltech industry anytime soon.
I'm not sure what utility SLAM would offer a HMD for head tracking over existing methods, when it's not what SLAM is used for in the first place. What's there to map, other than the interior of the flight deck?
Not to mention the additional sensors that would have to be built into the helmet, when an outside-in system, be it infrared, radar, lidar etc., does the same job without the added weight, complexity and stress to the wearer, where having a standalone headset capable of inside-out tracking isn't as much of a concern, if at all, for military HMDs as it would be for XR headsets in the commercial/consumer realm.
I agree with you, that's why I said the inside-out tracking would not be happen on miltech HMD anytime soon. However as far as I recall the Hololens army-version is using SLAM, but this project has already been canceled due to power and other issue. The infantry-level HMDs still seems like experimental.
I think in general we expected such posts to be removed and the offenders banned. Isn't "quality" what this forum is supposed to be pushing?
In case the user's question was genuine, I think answering the question in an equally genuine nature would be beneficial to the person asking it and anyone else reading it.
There are some users who are already on a list of being watched closely for it, but outright moderator penalties for it is not going to be the first course of action.
Education and engagement comes first. If a persistent pattern of behaviour continues afterwards, then certainly.
- Status