There is a reason a button is more reliable than a touch screen when you are under acceleration. A ground vehicle is NOT an aircraft. I just used a ground vehicle under shifting acceleration as an experiment so that you could educate yourself, but apparently you missed the Human factors POINT for a positive mechanical feedback in a switch as opposed to tapping and MISSING the hotspot on the screen..

One last time, don't try to compare apples and oranges.

 

GF, I'll give you an e-mail soon. 

 

Herald

 

 

 

You just walked into a Herald TRAP. What aircraft? Under 50+m/s/s side shove acceleration with a moment arc of greater than two meters? Who are YOU trying to kid. RUBEN?

 

Now then. Apples and oranges: helos and airliners are NOT fighters.

 

Herald

 

h*tp://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/fa18ef/video/ckpt05.htm

 

...Herald repent. 

-DA 

Stores and general SYSTEMS menu centerline of aircraft thrust reachable in level stable flight with a simple push-NOT combat FUNCTIONS AS THE OUTER CRT SCREEENS ARE WITH THEIR BUTTONS where you have to reach under shove forces to change display when you are under acceleration.

 

So get stuffed; RUBEN.

 

I never said we didn't use it, I just said we use buttons for criticals when we are under accelerations because we cannot physically hit hotspots when you are in a 5 plus gee turn while you FLY the aircraft.

 

LEARN TO READ>AND COMPREHEND.

 

Herald

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DA,
I am sure there is a *place* for touch screens in both a/c and ground vehicles. However, to compare that *place* in each is as Herald has said, and that is apples and oranges it seems to me. Ground vehicles are simply not subject to the violent manuevers an a/c is. Even in the pic above it clearly shows there are many many times more buttons/switches then touchscreens.

 

Anyhow that being said, I am curious as to how the Army overcame the problem that seems to be to be the reason touch screen tech has never really taken off in main stream computing and that is the fact anything a human touches constantly becomes dirty and smeared and requires constant cleaning. Also how did the military overcome the problem of the hotspots drifting? I ask these because I used a touch screen panel to control the airport lighting where I worked and the screen required constant cleaning and over time the hotspots always drifted. And this drifting occured on a panel that was stationary and basically only used at sunset and sunrise with a few exceptions. It was always just a matter of time before to press spot *X* to get what you wanted, you had to touch a half inch below, above, etc., *X* to get it. Seems like in a combat invironment this could be extremely dangerous so I assume the military has overcome this? If so, I'd be curious to hear how.

 

Maybe if these 2 probs have been fixed I may look at getting it for myself ;-) Touch screen tech is certainly affordable but simply has so far as my experience with it never been preferable. I love building my own computers and trying out the latest gadgets so if this has got to the point to where it is not a pain in the butt, I'd really like to know for my own personal use.

 

Thanks for any insight you might have on it.

 

Beazz

The only one arrogant and stupid here, is you. I've tried to patiently explain to you that we don't use touch screens as primary fighter controls five times. We use switches, buttons, and levers with positive mechanical resist.

 

I read your CRAP, and I regarded it as CRAP.

 

I also explained to you IN SIMPLE WORDS why pictures as a rejoinder, if you don't know at what you look is a sure sign of ignorance. Now then, I can't stop you from looking stupid. That is up to you.; But I am sure as ----- not going to be corrected by the likes of you. Not in my backyard.

GF, please send me a drop via e-mail at the UK server. I had to change accounts and I lost your e-mail.

 

Herald

 

 

 

Wow I just slogged through the last several pages of this.  I was going to point out the Super Hornet touchscreen as well.

 

Touch screen technology has been around for a long time.  I was developing them for realtime applications in the early 90s, and they just are not that big a deal technologically.  As DA has pointed out, BFT uses it and it works just fine; so do a lot of other military systems.  But those are not fighter jets.

 

The reason the F-22 doesn't have touch screens, and the Super Hornet only makes limited use of them, comes down to human factors philosophy.  The designers at Lockheed and Boeing decided that push buttons were more robust under combat conditions, and that the tactile feedback they provide was desirable.  They are also more electronically simple, easier to repair, and don't require calibration.  You'll note that the Rafale requires the pilot to wear special gloves that have touchscreen-friendly fingertips and a built-in surface with which to wipe the screens, so clearly there are some environmental issues as well.  There is also the valid concern that a pilot under G could more easily hit the wrong portion of a screen, whereas buttons around the bezel are less subject to this.

 

On the other hand, the physical way the pilot interfaces with the displays really not what matters anyway.  What counts is the way the information is presented.  The F-22 has a big central "God's eye view" screen that overlays the fused data from onboard and offboard sensors into one coherent tactical picture, while the several other screens show defensive systems, offensive systems, navigation, and stores management functions.  The single-seat Super Hornet, and the front cockpit of the two-seater, have a similar system but using multiple configurable displays of the same size to provide for redundancy in case of damage or failure.  The rear cockpit of the Super Hornet uses a much larger central display in addition to the other reconfigurable ones.

 

The bottom line is that a more complicated and technologically risky approach to cockpit ergonomics is in no way inherently superior.  It might look more impressive in a hardware simulator, but that neither translates to better efficiency in combat nor in sales of the airplane to people who will actually use it.

Beazz,

I'm not going to claim to know all the engineering behind the touchscreens we use now. But that in and of itself is a testament to how good it is. When you are using products that work as advertised, then you don't often worry about such things. This is good because when your driver is speeding and you are being violently tossed about inside your vehicle, you don't have that kind of time. But here are my observations from actual use.

The screen is a very tough transparent plastic that is environmentally sealed. the case is a high impact material with a lot of shock absorbtion built in. You can get it wet, dirty, bang on it with a stylus or a pencil/pen/finger. The brightness is adjustable. Touching it in any spot does something. It's rare that you have to calibrate the display. In my gun truck, which belonged to someone else, I never needed to calibrate again after the first time. It sits within easy arms reach to there is no trouble to reach it and the buttons are big enough to prevent "fat fingering". To destroy the screen, you would have to shoot it or hit it very hard with a solid blunt/sharp instrument. Believe me when I tell you these are not delicate devices. Some of the kit is from Panasonic and is commercially available with the toughbook series of laptop. contrary to what Herald is telling you, IT CAN BE USED DURING very violent maneuver. There are even user programable buttons you can push for calling for fire/CAS/UXO/MEDEVAC or whatever else you want. Something I used to do is program a button for my sitrep and other common reports. When I hit the display, these reports quickly open up and simply by touching a spot on the screen I can send tons of valuable data to other platforms. For obvious reasons I'm not going to say what data but you get the idea. Let me put it to you this way, its completely capable of doing things we used to have to do by voice and it's much much faster.

Sure, in a dogfighting fighter, you would use controls on a HOTAS system, HMS or voice commands. But this is only a small part of the envelope and when in close proximity to the enemy. Otherwise, such as in a BVR scenario, it would be perfectly possible for a pilot to "touch" a spot on a moving map display, a red icon ect. and get information to navigate or begin an engagement.

-DA 

I'm still curious as to how flying US Army aircraft (choppers, some fixed wing) can be compared to flying a jet fighter over the speed of sound while pulling 8+ gs in at 30,000+ feet.  Call me what you will... but it would seem that DA's area of expertise is not applicable other than he has flown in airspace that could be occupied by fast movers at some point. 

 

Clearly the two systems have two very different sets of requirements and specialities both inside and out.  They certainly do require two different skill sets, training and conditioning.  Nice that he is an instructor - one only hopes that he doesn't wash out candidates due to political leanings.  I can just see the Obama/Biden sticker on his Kiowa.

 

So DA- doing touch and goes off a carriers, hitting the three wire, being trained in the delivery of nuclear weapons, naval battlegroup defense and BVR air-to-air combat with radar homing missiles in your resume?

 

That doesn't require a touch screen to accomplish.  Even the original CRT displays in the F-4 Phantom had navigable cursors that allowed selecting from multiple displayed objects.  Today's fighters use HOTAS switches for that rather than dials as the F-4 did.

 

This again illustrates why the whole touchscreen concept is really not that useful; the pilot can already accomplish these things without taking their hands off the controls, so the touch screen really doesn't add anything.

I just educated you. Now learn, confound it! You just have been taken to the woodshed..

Endit.

 

Herald