The complexity of computer systems in the a-10

[foxfour]

First of all part of my job is to do user interface design. So when i bought dcs-a10c a couple months ago i was thrown back by the amount of bad design in this plane. Its just so amazing at how far we have come in terms of interface design. This plane was designed in the 70s and new computer systems have been updated with new technology. But still the whole system and the terminology is just so damn archaic. I know the government and its contractors hire some of the smartest people in the world but probably aren't hiring the right people. If you were to take a modern day designer and redesign the user interface of the Multifunction displays and the hud, i guarantee you would be flying and killing with this a10 simulator in a matter of days not weeks. But maybe they just make it hard so people aren't jumping in an stealing planes left and right.

[Harzach]

If you were to take a modern day designer and redesign the user interface of the Multifunction displays and the hud, i guarantee you would be flying and killing with this a10 simulator in a matter of days not weeks.

 

Maybe, but that new interface wouldn't be integrated in to the actual plane for years, if not decades.

[EtherealN]

Also, there is no need to be flying and fighting within days, weeks or even months. You spend years becoming a good aviator, so the whole paradigm of being "easy to pick up" is not really of as much value. It isnt meant for use by novices, after all. The fact that an inexperienced consumer can be given a fairly authentic simulation of a combat aircraft and do anything is fairly amazing on its own. :p

[LostOblivion]

I think that "good ui design" is based a lot on user intuition, and that this intuition is once again based a lot on experience through many many hours of systems use. Keep in mind that these systems were designed at a time where computer systems in general had not been used extensively at all, so all things considered I find the ui in the A-10 very good actually.

[foxfour]

Can you imagine that being a marketing campaign for DCS-a10c "you will spend years learning how to play this game" haha

 

yeah totally agree that planes are not designed to to be flown overnight.. however complexity should be eliminated at all cost. There is no need for mega complexity if its not warranted.

 

One thing that sticks out for me is the font size in every computer display. No bold, no different font size etc. There was no typography considered at all with these systems!

[aaron886]

Actually I would say it is considered. It's uniform typography, designed to be read the same way every time. There's no need for it to look "pretty." The use of text is functional... there's no words where they shouldn't be. The screens that display the text are often simple (in the case of the CDU for example,) because simple breaks less and works well.

[hassata]

If you were to take a modern day designer and redesign the user interface of the Multifunction displays and the hud,

 

You would have an F-22, presumably.

[Snoopy]

Well you are taking a 70s era jet and upgrading...kinda like taking a first generation nintendo and swapping a few parts to try and make a PS3....never gonna be perfect...

[foxfour]

Actually I would say it is considered. It's uniform typography, designed to be read the same way every time. There's no need for it to look "pretty." The use of text is functional... there's no words where they shouldn't be. The screens that display the text are often simple (in the case of the CDU for example,) because simple breaks less and works well.

 

Well typography is not really to look pretty but to explain things like what is important and what is less important. The Air speed and altitude is in a slightly larger font to show that it is indeed the most important of all the other text on the HUD.. however thats the only thing that is different in all of the text in all of the computer text in the plane. There is alot to typography including the negative space between words, letters, and paragraphs.

 

When a noob is confronted with a wall of text when he jumps in the a-10, there is nothing that jumps out at him in terms of hierarchy, guiding him to what things he needs to see immediately and what things he doesnt need to see right away. This was the biggest thing for me when i started. As i learned the systems, i saw alot of flaws in hierarchy of text and functions and how its positioned on the screen.

[GGTharos]

Have you considered that reading the manual and drilling all this stuff in would be enough to not have to deal with bolding or italicizing any of the writing?

 

Combat pilots have to drill all if stuff anyway, and they're not likely to need any reminders. They know where to find what they want, when they want it. This isn't a 'jump in and figure it out' situation, and never will be. Just IMHO.

[cichlidfan]

There was no typography considered at all with these systems!

 

Steve Jobs was busy with other things at the time!:lol:

Edited January 18, 2012 by cichlidfan

[WarthogSmurf]

Euh a real computer geek would say that the best GUI is the terminal screen and I agree. Simple and old interfaces work as the best. And military systems need to have stable platforms to survive the greatest impacts of them all. besides imagine a A-10 flying on windows 7 .. the horror.

[Depth]

besides imagine a A-10 flying on windows 7 .. the horror.

"Golf Golf 362198"

"Readback correct, standby data"

"Ok, just need to punch this into the CDU real quick..."

 

[winz]

You don't want the pilot to use intuition when flying an airplane worth milions using live ordnance.

The pilot has to know that airspeed indicator is important because it's an airspeed indicator, not because it's displayed in bold.

The text should be kept simple to not disctract the pilot.

Look at your car dashboard...is the icon on the headlights controls bigger then the radio controls? It isn't on my car. Why it isn't bigger? because you know that lights are important... you don't step in a car untrained thinking 'well, this is big, it looks important, better turn that on'. You don't see anything step out, unless it's a warning or indication.

 

When a noob is confronted with a wall of text when he jumps in the a-10, there is nothing that jumps out at him in terms of hierarchy, guiding him to what things he needs to see immediately and what things he doesnt need to see right away. This was the biggest thing for me when i started. As i learned the systems, i saw alot of flaws in hierarchy of text and functions and how its positioned on the screen.

You don't jump in the real deal as a noob. You don't take guesses 'well, this is bold, it looks to be important'...i mean, that's a perfect way to disaster :) The gui isn't there to help you learn the aircraft, it's there to present you information in as less distracting form as possible. No part of the gui should battle for your focus by using bolds and italics unless it's something that require attention. Like airspeed indicator turning red when approaching stall speed in modern glass cockpits.

Also what part of the gui are you talking about? Because I have yet to meet that wall of text you are talking about :)

Edited January 18, 2012 by winz

[aaron886]

^ That.

[spikenet]

these days they could just slap a couple of iPads running iControl with some warthog sticks and be done with it!

[RobbySpike]

... But still the whole system and the terminology is just so damn archaic. I know the government and its contractors hire some of the smartest people in the world but probably aren't hiring the right people. If you were to take a modern day designer and redesign the user interface of the Multifunction displays and the hud,...

Well, this is military grade techs. To some degree, it was designed that simple intentionally, to rule out problems which become more likely in a complex system. So what did you expect? Touchscreens and Windows like menus? The concept of MFD/OSB seems pretty oldschool, but it is also simple to learn, thus effective and scaleable per definition.

[Nu-NRG]

Euh a real computer geek would say that the best GUI is the terminal screen and I agree. Simple and old interfaces work as the best. And military systems need to have stable platforms to survive the greatest impacts of them all. besides imagine a A-10 flying on windows 7 .. the horror.

How true. I definitely loose more time to make something happen or work in Windows Server Management Console (GUI) while it happens really quick in UNIX like console.

[RIPTIDE]

Steve Jobs was busy with other things at the time!:lol:

Just imagine.... i10-C *shudder*

[RIPTIDE]

First of all part of my job is to do user interface design. So when i bought dcs-a10c a couple months ago i was thrown back by the amount of bad design in this plane. Its just so amazing at how far we have come in terms of interface design. This plane was designed in the 70s and new computer systems have been updated with new technology. But still the whole system and the terminology is just so damn archaic. I know the government and its contractors hire some of the smartest people in the world but probably aren't hiring the right people. If you were to take a modern day designer and redesign the user interface of the Multifunction displays and the hud, i guarantee you would be flying and killing with this a10 simulator in a matter of days not weeks. But maybe they just make it hard so people aren't jumping in an stealing planes left and right.

Step away from the military side for just a second. In the finance world where systems are just as critical, that have to be near 100% stable, they purposefully use old very stable, Operating systems and software. The idea is that after 15+ years M$ has figured out the vast majority of the bugs and released patches for them. Many Bank ATM machines are still loaded up with NT4 because it is near bullet proof after 15 years. Same goes for hardware. Every brand new spanking processor comes with a page full of errata. After many years software and OS houses come to work around and develop ways of avoiding all errata events.

 

Speaking of reliability IIRC there is a OpenVMS machine in Ireland Railways that has operated for nearly 20 years non stop. :D

Edited February 3, 2012 by RIPTIDE

[bartleby]

Have you considered that reading the manual and drilling all this stuff in would be enough to not have to deal with bolding or italicizing any of the writing?

 

Combat pilots have to drill all if stuff anyway, and they're not likely to need any reminders. They know where to find what they want, when they want it. This isn't a 'jump in and figure it out' situation, and never will be. Just IMHO.

 

I don't know. Cognition get saturated. It's even worse when people are shooting guns and missiles at you, I imagine. Obviously a different presentation doesn't mean a pilot doesn't need to know what the airspeed tape is, but cognitive support through well-designed decluttering isn't that radical. Or new, even - look at the F-16's dogfight modes. Making more salient information easier to process can only help you fight better.

[GGTharos]

I don't know. Cognition get saturated. It's even worse when people are shooting guns and missiles at you, I imagine.

 

If your eyes are inside the cockpit while things are being shot at you, you're doing it wrong , and all your problems are about to end.

 

Obviously a different presentation doesn't mean a pilot doesn't need to know what the airspeed tape is, but cognitive support through well-designed decluttering isn't that radical. Or new, even - look at the F-16's dogfight modes. Making more salient information easier to process can only help you fight better.

 

And that's why the A-10 has an air to air mode, too, and I don't recall seeing symbols in the way that are a bother.

 

There are de-clutter options in pretty much any modern fighter's interfaces. The important thing is to fly your plane. Need extra info? It's there for you if you want it, but I sort of doubt that the computer would have any clue as to what you might consider important at any given moment.

[bartleby]

If your eyes are inside the cockpit while things are being shot at you, you're doing it wrong , and all your problems are about to end.

 

I was referring to the fact that workload (and stress) increases in combat. I'm sure you've read mishap report that refer to someone's scan breaking down. That's a symptom of cognition reaching some sort of bottleneck. It has nothing to do with staying eyes in.

 

And that's why the A-10 has an air to air mode, too, and I don't recall seeing symbols in the way that are a bother.

 

There are de-clutter options in pretty much any modern fighter's interfaces. The important thing is to fly your plane. Need extra info? It's there for you if you want it, but I sort of doubt that the computer would have any clue as to what you might consider important at any given moment.

 

I can imagine a fairly basic scheme. A system would keep track of "actions" - switch flips, button presses, pickles, maybe maneuvers as well. Include a basic metric for "engaged" - RWR indications could be a simple one. As the rate of actions increases, simplify the HUD display. Or you could go further and track the pilot's eye movements - fixation might trigger a warning or cause HUD simplification. Make it easy to override with a DMS press (or whatever). The idea is to assist fighting the jet, not dumb it down.

[GGTharos]

I was referring to the fact that workload (and stress) increases in combat. I'm sure you've read mishap report that refer to someone's scan breaking down. That's a symptom of cognition reaching some sort of bottleneck. It has nothing to do with staying eyes in.

 

Not even close to being relevant. No amount of system tweaking would have saved him from that one, save for a timely 'pull up' command, which may not necessarily be possible.

 

I can imagine a fairly basic scheme. A system would keep track of "actions" - switch flips, button presses, pickles, maybe maneuvers as well. Include a basic metric for "engaged" - RWR indications could be a simple one. As the rate of actions increases, simplify the HUD display. Or you could go further and track the pilot's eye movements - fixation might trigger a warning or cause HUD simplification. Make it easy to override with a DMS press (or whatever). The idea is to assist fighting the jet, not dumb it down.

 

Sounds like more stuff that can break and has no direct combat application. This is why the pilot chooses what to de-clutter and when, or if not, they may have procedures for it.

[aaron886]

Yeah, what GG said. Train good pilots.