Blaze1

:lol:

I hope it all goes well for you Matt:thumbup:.

Thanks for the update fire. I was also under the impression that the AGM-65E was the preserve of the USN/USMC. Obviously thinks have changed. What about the hellfire, I think I may have seen somewhere that the hellfire is clear for use on both the AV-8B and the A-10?

:megalol:

Cheers Kaiza, I hear it now:thumbup:

Cheers:thumbup: The interviewer asks Matt: "What is you're favourite part of DCS A-10 Warthog?", but I can't make out his reply?

Ok! :bash:

I understand, Thanks. Your english is alot better than average.:thumbup:

What do you mean by 'poisoned virtual reality'?

I think this idea is very similar to the touchscreen method used in the links provided by CyBerkut here: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=919851&postcount=74 Regarding using the haptic gloves. The gloves don't need to be of the haptic type, they could simply be open and of a netted mesh fabric to allow the skin to breath. The most important thing it that the gloves house the multiple 'pick-up' points securely. The haptic technology could actually be moved from the gloves to the sensor panels I mentioned earlier. The effect would remain almost identical.

:thumbsup: Thats impressive.

Post an update of how you get on with this please:) BTW, do you think changing the type of switch used may help?

Haptic feedback gloves: http://www.inition.co.uk/inition/product.php?URL_=product_glove_vti_touch&SubCatID_=26

With a simple (blank panel) cockpit the experience would be very similar to using a touchscreen, but should be more natural, as to activate a switch/knob the players hand would actually be positioned in the same relative position as in the real aircraft cockpit. Because the panels won't contain any electronics they can be of a very simple cheap design. They can also be made to raise, lower or tilt, in order to simulate a variety of cockpits and flight decks. In addition a sensor mat could be added to the surface of the panels. The sensor mat could be thought of as a large touchpad and is used in conjunction with the glove. As the players glove approaches (and is close to a switch or knob) they will begin to receive some pressure feedback from the glove (This comes from using tracking technology mentioned earlier, so the player will have assigned the 'zones' in which cockpit controls are present and the feedback for the glove will activate as these zones and threshhold are crossed). The closer to the switch the more pressure from the glove (the pressure will be applied to the part of the glove which is closest to switch e.g middle of palm (but more normally a finger)), until a stronger more distinct pressure feedback (when the glove contacts the touchpad mat) will indicate the player is touching a button, switch, knob etc. If the player places the side of their palm across a number of switches, the feedback system will radiate across more points along the side of the palm, to indicate to the player that the side of their hand is in contact with more than one switch. This will allow the player to activate multiple switches with one motion if so desired. The touchpad mat panel, could have software driven user defined zones, which would allow the user to plot the location of switches, knobs and buttons as they are relative to the pilot in the real aircraft. If a zone is defined as having a switch, the player will be required to move that switch in the correct direction to 'action' it (similar to using the scroll function on a touchpad, but with user defined directions). In order to actuate a knob, the player must make contact with the touchpad and perform a twisting motion. The haptic system can also provide differing feedback to enable the player to differentiate between switches, knobs buttons etc, and this can be programmed by the user. Blaze1:)

That is a brilliant device. I think the only concern would be that the switch could damage the screen, I think that was mentioned on the wiimote glove thread? This could probably be fixed by using soft switches/buttons, with a fabric covering?

A simple cockpit could still be setup, but it would only consist of flat panels, to give the player real physical limits to the cockpit. However as you mentioned I believe after a while the player would be able to learn the location of particular controls, especially with the aid of the haptic glove. Yes, stick throttles and rudder hardware should be manditory.:thumbup:

Hi CyBerkut The visual depiction of your hand in relation to the panel will appear on screen. The player using a head tracker (TrackIR) will turn his or her head until the on screen 3D panel that is desired is displayed. As they move their real hand, a ghosted image of the pilots hand will follow on screen and this will provide the visual feedback. Also, after a while, because the position of the cockpit controls relative to the player remain constant, the player will naturally learn where particular switches and knobs are, without having to look. The haptic feedback system should help them isolate individual controls.

I decided to resurrect this thread after a BBC programme 'Click' I watched the other day. Basically it continues on from the idea of having virtual user defined zones in the real world to represent a cockpit, without the need for any actual panels or screens (except standard monitor or projector etc). Imagine having a pair of gloves (including fingers and palm) that are tracked in 6dof. The gloves have haptic feedback devices within them (such technology is being introduced with touchscreens) which trigger in a specific part of the glove e.g finger, when that part of the glove coincides with the part of the real environment the user has defined as a cockpit zone e.g switch. The type of feedback would be different depending on whether a knob or switch is touch, or just a blank panel. I think this could be a good work around having a real cockpit. Personally I would only be interested in a cockpit if it accurately mimicked the real article. If a software developer is simulating ten airframes, with true to life avionics detail, one can't be expected to build ten cockpits for each airframe. The user could build a generic cockpit for all ten, but for me that detracts from the realism of switches and buttons being placed where they are supposed to be in the real aircraft. Blaze1

Hi Olgerd I think the NTRP 3-22.4-FA18A-D is perhaps not as thorough as I previously thought. I'm not 100% sure, but I think alot of the unclassified weapon systems info reside in the classified 3-22.2 manual. So I think the best bet is probably the A1-F18AC-NFM-100 manual you mentioned earlier.:no_sad:

:megalol: Fortunately ED don't work that way. Blaze1:thumbup:

My understanding is that electrical signalling alone is not enough to qualify a system as being FBW. The signals must be processed between the input and the output.

So is this Weapon Systems manual an unclassified compilation of the other manuals, or is specifically an unclassified/export version of the TAC-100? Even foreign users must have classified supplements for radar and weapons. Perhaps the NFM-100 was the manual CJ was refering to.

My copies are all completely electronic.

Cheers Matt :thumbup: I appreciate you putting me straight on that. I recall CJ saying that with Janes F-18 the data on NCTR was blanked out. With your comments about needing the A1-F18AC-TAC-010, I put two & two together and came up short. Regarding a declass version of the manual, would one even exist? I doubt an FOIA request for a current airframe would be successful. Blaze1

Reading some of Matt's comments regarding Electronic Arts' Baltimore team and their association with Janes, I must say they were incredibly fortunate/astute to forge a relationship with Janes. Judging by Matt's remarks as well those of C.J Martin from many moons ago, I take it that they had access to the classified manuals, but with the classified elements redacted. That is a massive coup and perhaps an unprecedented level of data for a commercial sim development team. Such a level of co-operation is like gold dust. Blaze1