Recent comments in /f/gadgets

Killjoy911 t1_j6033bw wrote

We’ll see my theory is…… that whoever develops this shit plays to much call of duty. Media puts out this image of a futuristic soldier with jet packs and 3d hologlasses… and Fuckin millennium falcons (joking of course) and the engineers that design this have never been in a conflict. The closest they get is watching fury with the lights off and surround sound. They don’t realize that for most cases.. the less shit you can carry the better, especially when you’re on foot. Your maneuverability increases, your SA (situational awareness) increases and you are able to operate at an op tempo that’s higher for a longer period of time. Then on top of that, they try and get it to integrate with gear that’s already fielded.. old battery technology.. etc to save money… I could go on and on…

8

Stillwater215 t1_j6023ex wrote

I can get why soldiers currently in the field who are being transitioned to it hate it, but I’d be curious if new soldiers who would be trained on this equipment from the start would see any improvement in effectivity compared to soldiers who were trained without it.

7

DarthBuzzard t1_j5zyoe3 wrote

Google Glass is completely unrelated technology to AR. That was a 2D HUD - the equivalent of a smartwatch for your face.

There are very few attempts so far that get close to a pair of sunglasses with AR, and those that do have severe limitations. Snap's AR spectacles only has a 30 minute battery life, Vuzix Shield is only monochrome, and Nreal Light is tethered. All of these have a tiny field of view, and the only known way to achieve a large field of view with AR thus far is a much larger/bulkier device.

Seriously, if you think this is bulky, look at what a very wide FoV AR device looks like: https://www.roadtovr.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/leap-motion-projet-northstar-3.jpg

15

In0nsistentGentleman t1_j5zs0p3 wrote

Wouldn't the results of this be a bit skewed though? I mean, putting them in the 1.0 Version of a specific technology and asking them to do something and then comparing it to the years of training done another way doesn't seem like a very good test. It sounds like the soldiers would need to be brought up and trained using this kind of equipment for months and months to actually determine the viability of it. As a gamer, just think of a new UI when a familiar game releases a new title. It's a bit jarring and tough to get used to until you've immersed yourself in it over the course of months. Take that several levels forward and I can understand why doing it "the old way" would look superior.

In the article, they do go into this a bit but it seems the preference for the old equipment is likely rooted in the unfamiliarity of the new equipment, but also that the 1.0 equipment just isnt...where it needs to be. Which I suppose makes sense.

Though, I think that we should keep investing in the technology because eventually it will be where it needs to be and be a benefit.

3

Killjoy911 t1_j5zol0c wrote

See the problem for me is not the hud system. I agree with you, a hud with locations and directions and all that would be great. It’s the hardware behind it. Shit it probably uses those block singars batteries (2590’s), you feel me. Charging this shit and getting it to glasses that are as thin as m frames, with an easy to use interface…. Not going to happen. People have been watching and playing too many video games.. last deployments I had it was always the simplest shit that worked the best… not this fancy bullshit.

22

ChronWeasely t1_j5zmn0c wrote

Who didn't see Iron Man and think, "Damn, wish I just had a HUD for life sometimes."

Like you are a block away from your destination, but you are second-guessing the location and don't want to pull out your phone and open up the map. Then you walk another block to discover you went the wrong way about 5 blocks back and have 10 to walk still because you were actually thinking of that other place.

Not based on real life obviously.

47