Jump to content

Russian hud why no flight path vector?


CoBlue

Recommended Posts

What's the point of a FPV on a HMD?

What's the point in having it during a dogfight anyway? If the engagement is BVR and you're conducting an anti-ship strike from a set waypoint, then it may be useful information.

 

I think we're getting away from the point though, which is that not having an FPV is s***. The circle system tells you which way to turn to the flight-path but not where the waypoint is nor how much to turn. I know which one I'd prefer and don't understand why so many people are even arguing something that's so obvious.


Edited by 159th_Viper
Rule 1.1 - Profanity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we're getting away from the point though, which is that not having an FPV is s***. The circle system tells you which way to turn to the flight-path but not where the waypoint is nor how much to turn. I know which one I'd prefer and don't understand why so many people are even arguing something that's so obvious.

 

Far from it.

 

I tell you what - if you do not know which way to turn in order to line up with the direction/heading of the next waypoint and how much/far to turn to intercept your flightpath to said waypoint in the Russian birds then you truly have no idea how to fly them properly. I'd strongly advise that you take the time to learn before arguing the odds.


Edited by 159th_Viper
Clarification
  • Like 1

Novice or Veteran looking for an alternative MP career?

Click me to commence your Journey of Pillage and Plunder!

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

'....And when I get to Heaven, to St Peter I will tell....

One more Soldier reporting Sir, I've served my time in Hell......'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it's on your HMD, yes.

 

... you're going to be looking at your HUD during 'close combat'? ... interesting :)

 

Absolutely. That's the point... relevant information near your eyes without looking down. If I need a piece of information on there for weapons information or to max-perform an aircraft, that's where I'll look.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I can say one thing for the Russian HUD in FC, the waypoint circle system keeps me intuitively visualising the aircraft attitude outside the cockpit, where the Eagle one is more like being led by the nose and following instruction rather than relying upon visualisation which is actually a very useful personal tool skill flying. That's what I mean when I say it's more intuitive to use coming from older warbirds which rely absolutely on your necessary out of the cockpit visualisation under high performance flight conditions, a lot of older birds are very tricky to fly hard and don't tell you anything but whether the engine is overheating, you can walk right into a fatal stall during an innocuous manoeuvre with your eyes open if you're not with it.

 

That said, if a pilot elective chose to spend extra effort to maintain out of the cockpit visualisations, whilst using the extra HUD data that would be great, but the system allows laziness without obvious impact and there's no reason to think pilots would electively do this routinely. No need. But then when a spanner goes into the works, reduced proficiency.

 

Maybe. Or I just don't like the US HUD, I like the Russian one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not entirely true.

I didn't say, it is bad. I said it is not THAT needed.

Russia traditionally has horrible avionics and ergonomics,

Funny, it is said the same about western aircraft here.:))

Landing/takeoff

One note: landing at good weather conditions.

"Я ошеломлён, но думаю об этом другими словами", - некий гражданин

Ноет котик, ноет кротик,



Ноет в небе самолетик,

Ноют клумбы и кусты -

Ноют все. Поной и ты.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny, it is said the same about western aircraft here.:))

 

You're kidding, right?? :shocking: If that is true, then why are Russian cockpits and digital avionics slowly beginning to match "Western" control layout and design theory? (When I type "Western" I mean "the whole rest of the world.")

 

I didn't say, it is bad. I said it is not THAT needed.

 

Well then there's no discussion here. It's not about whether or not something is needed. Can the feature provide useful information to the pilot? Does that feature provide information to the pilot in the most efficient and readable manner possible?

 

 

Well I can say one thing for the Russian HUD in FC, the waypoint circle system keeps me intuitively visualising the aircraft attitude outside the cockpit, where the Eagle one is more like being led by the nose and following instruction rather than relying upon visualisation which is actually a very useful personal tool skill flying.

 

This is a fundamental difference in instrument design, not about "personal tool skills." Western attitude instruments display the world outside in motion, and the aircraft as stationary, which is the way things appear to the pilot in the cockpit. (Think about it.) Both methods can be used, but one is more intuitive, end of story. (Not up for argument... think about it.) You will note that Russian aircraft are beginning to display attitude this way as well. Example: http://toad-design.com/migalley/wp-content/gallery/equipment/mig29sniper-cockpit.jpg EDIT: Horrible example, in retrospect... that's an IMI instrumentation retrofit, isn't it? :megalol: Try this one: http://www.ausairpower.net/PLA-AF/000-Su-30MKK-Cockpit-1S.jpg


Edited by aaron886
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that is true, then why are Russian cockpits and digital avionics slowly beginning to match "Western" control layout and design theory?

They only match western cockpits in being digital. They are completely different.

 

Can the feature provide useful information to the pilot?

Yes.

 

Does that feature provide information to the pilot in the most efficient and readable manner possible?

No. It does not matter, when it comes to intense maneuvering and it does not work with reversed ADI symbology on the soviet huds.

 

but one is more intuitive, end of story.

Which is...?:)) Western attitude symbology is more easy for level flight, while russian - for coming out of complex attitude.

 

You will note that Russian aircraft are beginning to display attitude this way as well. Example: http://toad-design.com/migalley/wp-c...er-cockpit.jpg EDIT: Horrible example, in retrospect... that's an IMI instrumentation retrofit, isn't it? Try this one: http://www.ausairpower.net/PLA-AF/00...Cockpit-1S.jpg

 

You are wrong. The second photo shows the same type of ADI, as mechanical in cockpit - reversed.


Edited by ФрогФут

"Я ошеломлён, но думаю об этом другими словами", - некий гражданин

Ноет котик, ноет кротик,



Ноет в небе самолетик,

Ноют клумбы и кусты -

Ноют все. Поной и ты.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are wrong. The second photo shows the same type of ADI, as mechanical in cockpit - reversed.

 

Right you are! (Presentation has changed slightly, but the aircraft still moves... well done.)

 

Western attitude symbology is more easy for level flight, while russian - for coming out of complex attitude.

 

I would disagree. That Russian symbology gives you a quick reference of bank angle when in an extreme attitude, but pitch is even more difficult to discern than a western display (particularly if we're talking about HUDs, which is the point of the thread.) Well-designed western HUD symbology uses various cues to tell the pilot his attitude, its severity, and the corrective action. (eg. segmented negative pitch ladder "rungs," angled pitch ladder rungs) Furthermore (and perhaps even more important,) pitch symbology in a western HUDs collimates to the outside world, giving the pilot more direct information regarding pitch attitude. This also keeps the pilot looking through the HUD, rather than at it... in keeping with the purpose of a HUD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many Soviet and now Russian aircraft do in fact feature a "western" style attitude indicator. As Frogfoot indicated, it is believed that western style AIs are better suited for low maneuvering flight, like airliners, while Russian style AIs are better suited for highly maneuverable aircraft. Both can be found on Russian designs, just depending on the type.

 

As for the FPM, I think outside of the most recent designs (and maybe still not), the HUD has not been considered a primary flight indicator on Russian aircraft. Moreover, as Frogfoot also indicated, the FMP indication can be problematic when combined with a Russian style attitude display. Although, it can be seen in some recent designs, such as the Yak-130 - at least on some simulator video.

- EB

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Nothing is easy. Everything takes much longer.

The Parable of Jane's A-10

Forum Rules

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would disagree.

There have been several researches on that, including USA.

pitch symbology in a western HUDs collimates to the outside world

See screenshot from A-10C. Does not really help with the crosswind. Don't think, that idiots work on the other side. Here we have bad viisibility very often (compared to US), and there is no much use of velocity vector during landing in poor visibility and strong crosswind.

Screen_121105_120512.thumb.jpg.a8e7b3fa81efd5a23609d7acb9616bc6.jpg

"Я ошеломлён, но думаю об этом другими словами", - некий гражданин

Ноет котик, ноет кротик,



Ноет в небе самолетик,

Ноют клумбы и кусты -

Ноют все. Поной и ты.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Far from it.

 

I tell you what - if you do not know which way to turn in order to line up with the direction/heading of the next waypoint and how much/far to turn to intercept your flightpath to said waypoint in the Russian birds then you truly have no idea how to fly them properly. I'd strongly advise that you take the time to learn before arguing the odds.

Well, I'll tell you what, it's possible to navigate by stars, so lets scrap all instrumentation and HUDs and go back to the stone age like complete idiots shall we.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I'll tell you what, it's possible to navigate by stars, so lets scrap all instrumentation and HUDs and go back to the stone age like complete idiots shall we.

 

Don't let ignorance trip you up on your way to enlightenment. As I advised earlier, take the time to learn the Russian birds - it's well worth it.

Novice or Veteran looking for an alternative MP career?

Click me to commence your Journey of Pillage and Plunder!

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

'....And when I get to Heaven, to St Peter I will tell....

One more Soldier reporting Sir, I've served my time in Hell......'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I'll tell you what, it's possible to navigate by stars, so lets scrap all instrumentation and HUDs and go back to the stone age like complete idiots shall we.

 

Non-digital instruments can save your life if an emergency occurs... it's weird that modern aircrafts tends a lot to almost digital only instruments.

 

Still, I don't see why one would hate russian planes just because the absence of a symbol on the HUD... Maybe you dislike the russian style ?

­­­­­­

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Non-digital instruments can save your life if an emergency occurs... it's weird that modern aircrafts tends a lot to almost digital only instruments.

 

Still, I don't see why one would hate russian planes just because the absence of a symbol on the HUD... Maybe you dislike the russian style ?

Nobody said they hated Russian planes, nor that they couldn't fly without an FPV for that matter. They just said that the FPV was better and that's what they would choose.

 

Same issue with the gimballed targeting pod.

 

 

Don't let ignorance trip you up on your way to enlightenment. As I advised earlier, take the time to learn the Russian birds - it's well worth it.

I'll say again, the issue isn't that people can't use the Su-25T navigation system, it's just that they find it worse overall. Try to see it as using a hand-pump on a car tyre versus the automatic pumps you get at garages. You can use a hand pump, but would you want to?


Edited by marcos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really ?

 

I can fly it, it's just s***.

 

In the case of the DCS Su-25T, it also seems to be based on the path rather than the point, so if you were to come at the path perpendicularly after a detour, it gets confusing. Sorry but FPV is far better.

 

Not entirely true. It's an excellent cue. There is a reason why modern HUD systems for transport category aircraft all utilize a flight path vector... it's better technology. Russia traditionally has horrible avionics and ergonomics, although they're starting to join the "new wave."

­­­­­­

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the director circle in the Su-25T is quite an elegant solution.

 

Anyways, I don't see where all this fighting here is coming from. You can fly perfectly fine without an FPM, yet still it has its moments where it's very usefull.


Edited by Toxe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's why I'm expecting a day a 'DCS: russian fighter' to come.

Not US style, variation is welcome and a new approach of 'the way to fly' is always welcome.

FPM on one side, another symbology in another side... Who cares, the important is to learn, no? Isn't that why we're flying DCS titles?

 

As 159th_Viper said earlier "take the time to learn the Russian birds - it's well worth it." I'm interested.

 

Come on, Beczl, release your -21bis...

DCS Wish: Turbulences affecting surrounding aircraft...

[sIGPIC] [/sIGPIC]

Gigabyte GA-Z170-HD3P - Intel Core i5 6600K - 16Gb RAM DDR4-2133 - Gigabyte GeForce GTX 1080 G1 Gaming - 8 Go - 2 x SSD Crucial MX300 - 750 Go RAID0 - Screens: HP OMEN 32'' 2560x1440 + Oculus Rift CV1 - Win 10 - 64bits - TM WARTHOG #889 - Saitek Pro Rudder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There have been several researches on that, including USA.

Link em if you've got em! Location escapes me, but I was reading a technical report on the F/A-18's HUD and it's suitability for escape from extreme attitudes. Seems its combination of measures is extremely effective and of course quite standard among western displays. (In my experience, it's a very intuitive representation of attitude in a wide variety of instrument- and combat-flying situations.)

 

The pilot should read the attitude instrument in the same way that he would interpret the world outside the aircraft in visual conditions. A good pilot who flies with reference to the world outside the aircraft will read a western AI naturally.

 

See screenshot from A-10C. Does not really help with the crosswind. Don't think, that idiots work on the other side. Here we have bad viisibility very often (compared to US), and there is no much use of velocity vector during landing in poor visibility and strong crosswind.

Of course if the FPV is off the HUD it's no good to the pilot, but that doesn't remove the viability of the other instruments of course. You might be interested to know that the FPV/VV/FPM can usually be "caged" to the center of the HUD so that it can continue to provide usable descent angle information.

 

Of course I don't think Russian engineers are idiots. Quite the opposite in most ways. I do think Russia has traditionally been typified as lagging behind western counterparts in miniaturized (read: aviation) digital technology and ergonomics/control design theory... but that's one small facet of aircraft design.

 

 

 

Non-digital instruments can save your life if an emergency occurs... it's weird that modern aircrafts tends a lot to almost digital only instruments.

 

Yeah I hate to be the bad guy again but you're just wrong. Digital displays are more reliable, cheaper and easier to maintain, lighter, more flexible. Instrumentation errors are less insidious in EFIS aircraft as well, generally able to be detected and isolated by their respective system before presentation to the pilot.

 

Let's correct your statement, though. Redundant instruments/sources can save your life. Most EFIS aircraft have redundant data sources (redundant computers, redundant inputs,) and backup power sources. Very few EFIS aircraft utilize single displays, either. (Although that's becoming less of a problem as displays and their longevity continually improve.)

 

Embrace the future, learn from the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Location escapes me, but I was reading a technical report on the F/A-18's HUD and it's suitability for escape from extreme attitudes. Seems its combination of measures is extremely effective and of course quite standard among western displays. (In my experience, it's a very intuitive representation of attitude in a wide variety of instrument- and combat-flying situations.)

 

The pilot should read the attitude instrument in the same way that he would interpret the world outside the aircraft in visual conditions. A good pilot who flies with reference to the world outside the aircraft will read a western AI naturally.

I think the conversation has moved to two different, though congruent issues here. One is the Russian vs. western ADI format, the other is the HUD and its usability as a flight indicator. After all both Russian and Western HUDs indicate attitude somewhat differently than their "look down" AIs. For example, the Russian ADI features a pitch ladder, while a HUD may not. Similarly, a HUD may feature additional attitude indication not present on the "look-down" ADI, such as control director arrows. Obviously there has been a ton of research on both sides of the ocean into spacial disorientation, but even in the west the preponderance of it seems to indicate that the "outside-in" Russian style attitude indication is superior in terms of informing the pilot of the aircraft's attitude and producing accurate corrective actions. However this is in regards to the general AI format, not any specific HUD representation of it.

 

I do think Russia has traditionally been typified as lagging behind western counterparts in miniaturized (read: aviation) digital technology and ergonomics/control design theory... but that's one small facet of aircraft design.
There is certainly some truth to that, in particular as far as size and weight of equipment, but at the same time Soviet research was often leading in studying physiological and psychological issues of aircraft control. A good example is the way Russian designers continue to utilize "steam" gauge representations even on digital cockpit displays. This isn't because they're stuck in the past, but because it is believed to be superior when compared to the digital indications we more often see in western designs. Moving arrows are great at very quickly indicating to the pilot not only the value of the reading, but it's tendency and rate of change.

 

Link em if you've got em!

For example here is an abstract from a study as recent as 2009:

 

The "outside-in" attitude display concept, which includes a moving-aircraft (as opposed to a moving-horizon) attitude reference, dates back to the early days of flying. The majority of the laboratory and in-flight studies that have evaluated the outside-in format over the years have found it to be superior at preventing roll-reversal errors during normal flying and in recovering from unusual attitudes. Although outside-in attitude displays have been, and continue to be, flown throughout the world, the majority of military and civilian aircraft have failed to adopt this format. This article reviews the purported advantages and disadvantages of outside-in displays, presents a neuropsychological explanation for their general superiority in maintaining spatial orientation, and describes 3 new situations (off-axis helmet-mounted display viewing, global situation displays, and control of uninhabited aerial vehicles) for which the outside-in concept appears to be ideally suited.

 

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15327108ijap0904_5


Edited by EvilBivol-1
  • Like 1

- EB

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Nothing is easy. Everything takes much longer.

The Parable of Jane's A-10

Forum Rules

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...