Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

Synthetic Vision 257

Posted by michael from the wireframe-world dept.
oniony writes "Ars Technica has a link to a story on new goggles being developed for/by the military. The new device uses satellite imaging and land profiling to build a 3D representation of the world in a soldier's goggles in real-time. This would enable troops to see through sand storms and oil smoke of the kind currently hampering operations in the Gulf. I imagine one could also remove mountains to allow remote viewing of approaching territory."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Synthetic Vision More

Synthetic Vision

Comments Filter:

  • Unproven = untrustworthy (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Drunken Coward ( 574991 ) on Friday March 28, 2003 @12:02PM (#5615879)
    Of course, when it fails, as all new technologies occasionally do, we'll end up with something like the American 12 soldiers that ended up taking a wrong turn and falling into the hands of Saddam as POW's.

    Even the FAA sees this, as they do not allow it to be the primary navigation system on planes in the US.

    • Re:Unproven = untrustworthy (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      would you rather have a technology with a 12% failure rate than be helpless without it?
    • I have to agree here. The FAA's primary responsibility to ensure safety. The article makes it sound like "the FAA makes things go very slowly" for no particular reason. Frankly, I wouldn't want these kinds of tests being done anywhere near me. Furthermore, the technology (at least as described in the article) relies on data taken at some point in the non-immediate past. What about new structures? or other aircraft? I'm sure planes equipt with this would still rely on collision avoidance systems and th

      • Re:Unproven = untrustworthy (Score:5, Interesting)

        by diablobynight ( 646304 ) on Friday March 28, 2003 @12:32PM (#5616177) Journal
        I think it gets its data directly from live feeds on satalites, not old pictures, the reason why you see old pictures when you go to the sattelite pictures that can be found online is because that is released technology, at this point we have halos of real time down looking satelites in space. My only problem with this, is that there is bound to be some lag, which in current VR systems, is known to cause sudden, horrible vomiting, because the feelings of Gs your feeling are not changing at the same pace your vision is getting new data.
      • When you're operating in low visibility, you are always under the constant guidance of radar controllers. Because everybody is being "handled" and separation standards are being applied, there isn't a great danger of running into eachother.

        The idea of new structures is more of an issue, though it is also an issue with the current system of radio beams. Strict controls are in effect with regards to the building of such structures.

        Testing of approach systems is largely done in clear blue air until further
      • That was my first thought too, but according to the article, they rely on both pre-recorded data and live data:

        These shuttle maps could then be checked against public satellite images; double-checked against data in the Global Positioning System or Internal Navigation System; and triple-checked by radar, infrared or millimeter wave sensors.

        But then again, it might bring good old barrage balloons back into fashion.
    • That is a false analogy (Unproven = untrustworthy).

      The Apple iPod is a good example.

      Untested waters for Apple, Apple not "well received" by entire PC population, different, semi-unpopular connection scheme, new type of hard drive never released on mass consumer scale- low profit margin market - what else could have been more unproven about the iPod? It has become one of the most critically acclaimed gadgets of the past two years and is made to a very high quality (typical Apple, but always exceptions) s

      • That is a false analogy (Unproven = untrustworthy).

        The Apple iPod is a good example.

        A procurement officer for active military troops should have completely different standards of trustworthiness than civilians needing an MP3 player.

        An unexpected failure of untested hardware can have drastically different costs depending on what you were trying to do when it conked out...

        Additionally, the "innovations" of the IPod were in the areas of reliability and portability- the actual task of "playing MP3s from
        • I suppose I could say that Apple customers aren't typical civilians.

          You do raise a good point, but the military also doesn't have to reinvent the wheel everytime they want to do something. Like Apple, even more so, Sony, the military has this weird desire to make everything from scratch or make it proprietary. While understanding that helps security and reliability, it also adds immensely to cost and "adoption through practicality"

          Also, I think a good measure of durability and reliability IS the consume

    • Not only that, but is the satellite imaging data going to be in real time? You could easily walk into the path of a tank that changed heading 30 seconds ago.

  • Wait a second. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tcd004 ( 134130 ) on Friday March 28, 2003 @12:05PM (#5615897) Homepage
    This seems a bit ambitious. From what I understand the holdup in flying in the sandstorms is the fear of hitting electrical lines. Is this tech gonna provide a level of resolution that can show a powerline? No way.

    A guide to the war's talking heads [lostbrain.com]

    tcd004

    • Re:Wait a second. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by p4ul13 ( 560810 ) on Friday March 28, 2003 @12:11PM (#5615971) Homepage
      I thought the problem with flying in sandstorms was that the flying sand can quickly grind down the spinning turbines and such parts?
      • Good point. somehow I don't think 3-d satellite-aided vision is going to stop that. sometimes wired gets a little bit too impressed with itself.

        Tcd004

        • You're overlooking: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Thud457 ( 234763 )
          Fly ABOVE the storm, see THROUGH the sand, shoot AT helpless targets.

          That's even better than moving and attacking with impunity under the cover of darkness (== nightvision).

          • I like your logic, save for the radar image you project when flying at high altitude, allowing air defenses to pick you off. or would a sandstorm effectively halt radar?

            Hmmm..

            Tcd004
      • "I thought the problem with flying in sandstorms was that the flying sand can quickly grind down the spinning turbines and such parts?"

        Exactly. When our choppers flew in Gulf War I:The Prequel, more than one operator got the opportunity to open an engine and see the miracle of how glass is made.

      • Re:Wait a second. (Score:2, Interesting)

        by visgoth ( 613861 )
        I remember reading an article in Avation Weekly years ago (1991 or so) about a system being developed for helicopters to help them avoid power lines. Basically they installed a high resolution millimetric wavelength radar on the nose of a Cobra, and had some electronics convert the rebounding microwaves into an image that a pilot could understand. If I'm not mistaken the Longbow system on the newer Apache choppers does this sort of thing, but I don't recall if it had a fine enough resolution to discern powe

    • Re:Wait a second. (Score:2, Insightful)

      by ratamacue ( 593855 )
      This seems a bit ambitious.

      Sure, but when you're spending other people's money, you've got nothing to lose. It's not the end product that matters to those in power -- it's the ability to take and spend the people's money at will. It's the ability to make those decisions. Power is addictive like a drug.

    • Powerlines (Score:2, Interesting)

      by hallerby ( 589097 )
      Actually, power lines are extremely simple to identify in a satellite image by looking for power poles.
    • The write-up doesn't mention flying in a sandstorm. Right now troops on the ground can barely move because of 100ft visibility. This would at least let them move faster.
    • You can see a power line by the electrical field it gives off ...
    • These glasses use stored data about the terrain to generate a computer image. The sandstorm is then completely irrelevant, assuming that you know where you are, because your image of the outside is generated from data taken when there was no sandstorm.

      If that data included the location of power lines, they should show up just fine.

  • When SomethingAwful is right... (Score:5, Funny)

    by LordYUK ( 552359 ) <jeffwright821@noSPAm.gmail.com> on Friday March 28, 2003 @12:07PM (#5615910)
    ... the world is in for it..

    from the wireframe-world dept:

    (taken from a January 2002 SA.com article entitled, How you Know You're in the Future or something...)

    Wireframe models. Everything in the future is represented by wireframe models on computers. Everything. If you're looking for a particular person, their face will appear as a wireframe model accompanied by 500-point flashing text displaying their name. If you're looking for a file, it will appear as a wireframe model of a folder. If you're looking for a wireframe model, it will appear as a wireframe model composed of really tiny wireframe models that make up each wire.

  • I imagine. . . (Score:5, Funny)

    by endeitzslash ( 570374 ) on Friday March 28, 2003 @12:07PM (#5615916)
    I imagine one could also remove mountains to allow remote viewing of approaching territory.


    I imagine nerds removing walls to allow remote viewing of the girls locker-room.
  • Is would it be real time enough to show the the enemy soldier standing directly in front of them about to pop a cap in thier ass.

    If not, then I believe this would only be of a limited usage.

  • Heinlein? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by zoward ( 188110 ) <email.me.at.zoward.at.gmail.com> on Friday March 28, 2003 @12:08PM (#5615929) Homepage
    This reminds me of the power armor in Robert A Heinlein's early novel Starship Troopers. It described in detail the experience of fighting in a suit with virtual enhancements to a solider's regular senses. A great read.

    • Re:Heinlein? (Score:2, Funny)

      by JoshZev ( 441887 )
      Basically, isn't that where a lot of hi-tech gadget ideas come from - Sci Fi?

      When a general sends a letter to a soldier, who had changed his name to Optimus Prime, to thank the leader of the Autobots for being part of the team, it kind of convinces you that they're not all a bunch of squares. http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_fullstory.asp?id=382 8 (I think this was on Slashdot).
      • Basically, isn't that where a lot of hi-tech gadget ideas come from - Sci Fi?
        No, they just appear in SiFi first because it's easier to fantasize about something than to actually build it.

  • That's cheating (Score:5, Funny)

    by Waffle Iron ( 339739 ) on Friday March 28, 2003 @12:09PM (#5615942)
    I imagine one could also remove mountains to allow remote viewing of approaching territory.

    How is this different from adding a cheat mod to your FPS client? Transparent textures is one of the oldest tricks in the book. I think that the Geneva conventions need to be updated to prohibit this kind of thing. It just encourages campers.

    • Wait till they introduce autoaim to the american military, then we can save a bundle on military funding by sending CS/Q3/UT cheaters to fight for us =D

      • Re:That's cheating (Score:2, Interesting)

        by chammel ( 19734 )
        The Abrams [army-technology.com] tanks will auto aim your gun you just have to identify the target. The Phalanx [navy.mil] is much more autonomous in tracking and killing incoming missiles.
        • Don't forget the Patriot Missile System that is an automated version of Mel Gibson striking down British forces. Teams of researchers developed neural net models for this missile system, training it with images of its wife being raped and its offspring being slaughtered. At the conclusion of the training, the missile system was a brutal warrior with an extreme hatred of those dirty Brits.
    • Is the host here!?! Please kick GI14932!

  • Hrmmm... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by }InFuZeD{ ( 52430 ) on Friday March 28, 2003 @12:10PM (#5615950) Homepage
    Do these satellites actually detect small changes such as people and tanks?

    Otherwise, why not just use a map and a laptop?
    • I was wondering the same thing, because, sandstorms provide stealth for the opposition particularly iRaqis I would imagine.. If all the troops or a recon just relied on this he wouldn't be able to see the enemy pointing a bazooka straight at him.

      I also don't see much of the devlopment phase for this. Aren't real time Satellite images already availible? Isn't an iPaq [hp.com] strong enough to decode/decipher/function for this purpose? And aren't the Olympus EyeTrek Glasses [eye-trek.com]small enough for such a purpose?

    • Do these satellites actually detect small changes such as people and tanks

      They certainly could. The challange is getting up to the minute data to the headset.

      Otherwise, why not just use a map and a laptop?

      You have to actually hold a laptop. If the laptop is out in the field, then it has to be ruggedized. So now you have a soldier with this 40lb armour plated laptop. If you can integrate the guts into the visor, it leaves the hands free to do more important things, like shoot or say drive that t
  • "I imagine one could also remove mountains to allow remote viewing of approaching territory."

    Hey, that would be cheating! [slashdot.org]

  • Wait a minute... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by stungod ( 137601 ) <scott@noSpaM.globalspynetwork.com> on Friday March 28, 2003 @12:10PM (#5615955) Journal
    Wasn't there an article just yesterday about how cheaters were using technology to be able to see through walls? Now they can say it's OK since the military does it in real life.

    I don't want that kind of realism in Counterstrike. Now all of the l4m3r5 will consider it justified since real soldiers now have wireframe mountains and buildings.

  • That's great. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by FreeLinux ( 555387 ) on Friday March 28, 2003 @12:10PM (#5615957)
    All this fancy tech stuff is great. But, if you watch the news right now, you'll see that this fancy schmancy stuff isn't terribly helpful when you are burried in a sand strom or up to your hips in mud and bullets are zinging every which way.

    There's a time for tech. But, there are always going to be times when nothing will take the place of simple brute force.

    Where's my sledge hammer?

    • Re:That's great. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by wagemonkey ( 595840 )
      Tech is really useful - Early tech was using bronze tools when the other guys didn't have them, then a steel sword when they had bronze.
      Then we got the tech called gun powder, precision rifled barrels....

      Tech always gives you an advantage, but you have to know how to cope if it doesn't work as well as you hope, jams and misfires have been a 'feature' of firearms from day one. They still happen, just not as frequently. Night vision gear isn't a 100% but it is getting better. Don't knock tech - when you're st

    • this fancy schmancy stuff isn't terribly helpful when you are burried in a sand storm

      Tell that to the gunners with thermal imaging sights who just fought their way through a sandstorm. See this account [cnn.com]. A quote:

      The desert winds had kicked up a sandstorm, but the result was the same as the night before. "We could see through thermal sites," he said. "You could see what was shooting at you. With our gun tube orientation, everybody kept their sector and we kept rolling and we engaged all the way throu

  • Cheating... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Grip3n ( 470031 ) on Friday March 28, 2003 @12:11PM (#5615966) Homepage
    "This would enable troops to see through sand storms and oil smoke of the kind currently hampering operations in the Gulf. I imagine one could also remove mountains to allow remote viewing of approaching territory"

    Great, first we get wallhackers in Counterstrike, now the military...what's next?

  • Civilian uses (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Cyclopedian ( 163375 ) on Friday March 28, 2003 @12:11PM (#5615969) Journal
    I would LOVE to see this type of technology for the general public. It would make life a lot easier, especially for someone like me.

    Examples:

    Driving through a snow storm at night in the middle of nowhere? Overlay location info, along with roadside markings in the goggles so you KNOW where the road is and not drive into a ditch.

    Driving from New York to SF for the first time? Can't read a map? Have the goggles map it all out for you connections to GPS for real time roadside updates.

    Part of this technology can be used in conjunction with speech-to-text software/hardware to overlay real-time closed captioning so that I know what the damn radio DJ's are saying on my morning commute. At least Satellite radio provides the song info.

    These are just some of the possibilities that I can think off the top of my head.
    -Cyc

    • Re:Civilian uses (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Friday March 28, 2003 @12:25PM (#5616109) Homepage
      Examples:

      Driving through a snow storm at night in the middle of nowhere? Overlay location info, along with roadside markings in the goggles so you KNOW where the road is and not drive into a ditch.
      Driving from New York to SF for the first time? Can't read a map? Have the goggles map it all out for you connections to GPS for real time roadside updates.
      Part of this technology can be used in conjunction with speech-to-text software/hardware to overlay real-time closed captioning so that I know what the damn radio DJ's are saying on my morning commute. At least Satellite radio provides the song info.

      No thank you. it would be pure idiocy to put it on goggles.

      On the windshield? Yes... In fact go rent a Cadillac that is loaded for a weekend, the Infared vision system works in a snowstorm. I could see the roadway and markers AND the other cars showed up very obviousally that could not be seen visually.

      Driving directions? a small map is OK but I much prefer voice prompting.. had both of these cince 1998 in my Kia Sephia with a stereo called the AutoPC.

      So for the vehicle, everything you want has been around for years. you just havent taken the time to spend your money to get it.

      • Re:Civilian uses (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Cyclopedian ( 163375 )
        No thank you. it would be pure idiocy to put it on goggles.

        On the windshield? Yes... In fact go rent a Cadillac that is loaded for a weekend, the Infared vision system works in a snowstorm. I could see the roadway and markers AND the other cars showed up very obviousally that could not be seen visually.

        The reason why I suggested goggles (or even miniaturized to sunglasses ala Doc Brown in Back to the future, Part II) is so that you could see the entire environment in that overlay, rather than just the

    • I'd personally like to see this kind of information embedded into the windshield somehow so you can skip the goggles.

      The low-visibility info would be great. Snow can obliterate lane markings and even road boundaries in flat areas -- having that appear on my windshield would be a big help, as would some kind of sensor info to help spot frontal obstacles in poor visibility.

    • I would LOVE to see this type of technology for the general public

      Like most new technology the adult entertainment industry will be the first to adopt this. Simply wear the goggles while you're driving and then everywhere you look you see nothing but naked chicks.

    • Remote activation of a HUD on someone else's car:
      "GET OFF THE PHONE YOU FREAKING IDIOT!!"
    • The downside to adding this to cars is that stupid people will think:

      "Hey, I kin see jus' fine, so's I'll drive jus' lik it were daytime, and"

      WHOOMP - as they plow into the cow the system didn't know about.

      There's more to driving than knowing where the road is, there's also knowing whats ON the road.

    • Re:Civilian uses (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Surak ( 18578 ) <surak&mailblocks,com> on Friday March 28, 2003 @12:49PM (#5616306) Homepage Journal
      I think you'd be more likely to see this kind of stuff in a HUD on a windshield, rather than goggles. Remember that consumers are little more picky about comfort and style than the military is. :)

      Also, I'm sure you will see this developed for civilians. Lots of military technology eventually ends up in the hands of civilians, albeit a bit stripped down or otherwise modified with consumer preferences and safety in mind. Examples include, of course, GPS, various off-road vehicle technologies, cell phones (yep, originally developed for the military), the Internet itself, spread-spectrum wireless technology, the list just goes on and on...

      Bottom line: if someone can make a buck off of military-developed technology, they will. :)

      • IIRC "cell" radio phones were first developed in car phone contexts.

        For examples: Here, [about.com], and also here [privateline.com]

        • You'll notice from this piece [about.com] that the first public mobile phones began during the period of 1945-1947, "coincidentally" around the time of WWII. Of course, you'll probably never find the documents that say why this technology was "really" being developed, because they'd probably still be classified.
    • Driving from New York to SF for the first time? Can't read a map?

      Whats so hard about that? Even if you are a moron that can't read a map, I think you should be able to follow these directions:

      1. Get on the George Washington Bridge
      2. Continue on I-80 westbound
      3. After crossing the Bay Bridge, stop.

      2900 miles later, congrats, you are in SanFran. Not that hard.

      -molo

  • This is called enhanced vision (Score:5, Informative)

    by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Friday March 28, 2003 @12:12PM (#5615982) Homepage
    and I'ts been worked on for the past 10 years by Steve Mann.

    www.wearcam.org is a good place to start.

    He is developing the cyper enhanced reality to specifically remove advertisments from the real world.
  • First wireframe walls in quake [slashdot.org], now wirefreame mountains in the real world. Is someone going to develop PunkBuster for the real wars?
  • They need to add tracking system so that we don't shoot are own troops as well. With that incotrporated along with the ideas of wire framing mountains and such to see through them, it could be a useful tool so long as it doesn't end up weighing 40lbs and require a small mini sat-dish to be sticking out of their bung.

    Then again, this system could also be a peeping-tom's best friend. No more need to hang from tree's or below window sills. Just act like you are waiting for the bus or cleaning the sidewalk
  • The war will still be on when the technology is ready... wow.
  • Well after it gets military use, it will eventually go mainstream. Will bulky ass VR goggles become the newest peice of geek swag?

  • hold on.. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by UU7 ( 103653 )
    Dosn't sand shift ?
    How realtime would these images be ? Personally Flying low altitude through a world that's 5 hrs old would make me nervous.

  • Fucking US troops are always cheating! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Bitter Cup O Joe ( 146008 ) on Friday March 28, 2003 @12:20PM (#5616074)
    Goddamned wall-haxoring bastards!

  • Removing mountains? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Beryllium Sphere(tm) ( 193358 ) on Friday March 28, 2003 @12:26PM (#5616119) Journal
    "though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing"

    This technology could be used for humanitarian purposes too, like staying oriented while fighting wildfires.
  • Can you see the bullet running on YOU while you're seeing the world through your goggles ?
  • This could open up a whole new level of dorm panty raids.

  • wireframe worlds (Score:3, Funny)

    by guacamolefoo ( 577448 ) on Friday March 28, 2003 @12:33PM (#5616185) Homepage Journal
    oniony writes "Ars Technica has a link to a story on new goggles being developed for/by the military. The new device uses satellite imaging and land profiling to build a 3D representation of the world in a soldier's goggles in real-time. This would enable troops to see through sand storms and oil smoke of the kind currently hampering operations in the Gulf. I imagine one could also remove mountains to allow remote viewing of approaching territory."

    Now if they make it so the soldiers see a wireframe world, will that mean that US troops will get kicked off battelfield servers for cheating?

    GF

  • Can't the military use the same google searches that the rest of us use?

    my other contact lenses are beer googles
  • Dammit! Cheap wall hacks ruin the war for the rest of us!

  • the problem with tech (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Suchetha ( 609968 ) <suchetha@@@gmail...com> on Friday March 28, 2003 @12:43PM (#5616257) Homepage Journal
    is it just me or are the soildiers becoming more and more dependent on tech.. when they SHOULD be honing their own skills? wireframe goggles.. nightvision.. laser dot sights.. the XM-29 Kinetic Energy Weapon [atk.com] (that's a fancy word for GUN folks).. all these things are delicate pieces of equipment.. you have to take care of them... or they jam up.. they short out (especially in situations like a harmattan sandstorm which creates a massive amount of static electricity).. that is why terrorists around the world use AK-47's .. they are easy to maintain and very hardy... the more purely mechanical a weapon is the less likely it is to fail.. and the easier it is to repair.

    as soldiers start to depend more and more on their equipment instead of their own skills.. and the less time they spend honing those skills.. the more vulnerable they are to a breakdown in the technology (two words "EMP Bomb")... it is at that point that you have a soldier who up to then has been totally dependent on his technology facing the enemy with what is essentially a high tech club... meanwhile the enemy who has NOT been softened through exposure to excessive technology is coming at him with a not too sympathetic grin on his face..

    Suchetha
    • as soldiers start to depend more and more on their equipment instead of their own skills..

      Maybe you should start reading some books about military history. Ever hear of something called a Gatling Gun? How about a musket? Swords? Dynamite? Throughout history, one can argue that military might is derived from a country's technological prowess. Do you think Hitler could have overtaken most of Europe if his forces were honing their horse-riding skills?
      Guns jam, dynamite can blow up prematurely, swords br
    • Maybe we should all just learn martial arts and develop our qi/chi/ki to protect us from the bullets of our enemies, like the Boxers did?

      Its true that older technologies are often more reliable in doing what they are supposed to, but it doesn't matter how reliable they are if you're opponent deploys a technology that renders them ineffective (like smoke grenades, IR goggles, and flash suppresors against said AK wielding terrorists).

      Greater technology does need greater inferstrecture to support it, but tha
  • Very nice technology indeed. But it is always the men behind the machines. These technologies can only augment but never substitute for skill, plan improvisation and mental toughness. In a way these gadgets become the weakest link when they fail besides steal the time away from *real* battlefield training.
  • Hmm. That subject reads like a spam email. Anyways... I understand how this would be useful for viewing terrain in dense smoke, etc. But it's not going to show you dynamic things like enemy troops, vehicles, and tanks that are moving around in the smoke with you. And since this appears to be of GPS-resolution, it's not even going to be able to show you small, dangerous things to avoid running into like ditches, holes, traps, mines, etc.

    As for viewing distant terrain... well... I can use topo maps to re

  • Reservations (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Hortensia Patel ( 101296 ) on Friday March 28, 2003 @12:55PM (#5616363)
    The trouble with goggles, or anything that fills a large angle of view (e.g. IMAX) is that they're compelling and immersive in a way that smaller displays can't really match. Which is great for entertainment, but potentially very dangerous in situations where the augmented stuff is not 100% trustworthy and ought to be treated with some degree of healthy scepticism. Maybe the AR overlays could be drawn in luminous flamingo pink or something, just to make damn sure you didn't forget what was what.

    I remember a driver in Germany a couple of years back who drove though a couple of barriers, past several yelling workmen and into a river. All because his in-car GPS navigation was telling him that there was a completed bridge there. And that was a just a teeny little display.

    (Side note: "removing" mountains sounds like a truly horrible idea. I have vivid memories of playing the excellent flight sim EF2000 - this was back in the days of software rendering when depth-buffering was still something to be avoided. So the engine just drew the terrain first, and buildings afterward, because, hey, buildings are on top of terrain, right? Unfortunately this didn't cope with occlusion, and I lost count of the number of times I crashed into a bleedin' great hill while on a bee-line for an airfield that was clearly visible right in front of me...)
  • OK. Realising that it's still in development...

    First, if you can't see where your fellow soldiers are, you're looking at a wireframe model of a world that you can't shoot into. How do you know where our guys are? This isn't a redundant post, because i need to add

    Second, if you add GPS for all our folks into the picture, all the enemy needs to do is take one set of goggles and kaboom! there go our troops.

    That said, i agree with the point that these are adding to the trivialisation of wartime 'kills' and the overlap of technology and wargames. But this has been coming for a long time, from way back in the world of 'duckhunt.' (which was pretty advanced itself, all things considered...) Hurt my spine in an accident one year, though, spent hours learnign to shoot those stupid ducks. Do i now look upon animated ducks with a dispassionate urge to blow them away? No. But that's not quite the same as human to human violence on the box. (PETA, leave me alone: it's NOT the same, and doesn't have the same effect. We can argue that one out when the US goes to war against waterfowl.)

    So tell me: does anyone else think of the ad for the - what was it, navy seals, is army, that has the war game with the kids being beat to shreds by some mystery troup, and it turns out that it's real US forces playing the war game against them? Frankly, i think that the US forces are using this marketing tool badly- they are smudging that line just as far and as fast as they can. But sooner or later, the kids who sign up get to find out that it's not a game.

    Realising that i've digressed from my original point: It's a catch-22. Put nobody else in the picture, all you have is a big sign saying 'you are here' on a digitised map. Good for sandstorms but won't tell you whether the guy hiding behind the wall up ahead is your buddy or your foe, and if you put in stuff that tells you this- you open the door for all those foes to know where your buddies are when they take you and your nifty goggles too. What's an army to do?

    • Put nobody else in the picture, all you have is a big sign saying 'you are here' on a digitised map.

      Similarly, unless the satellites are imaging the area in real time, the data is stale as soon as the soldier puts the goggles on. And if a soldier can't see the brand new building or big gaping hole in front of him, how can a satellite?

      This is a GREAT business model. Sell the military a nifty new gadget that requires hourly updated information, then sell them a subscription to the information.

      All that

  • CHEATERS!!!! (Score:2, Funny)

    by Iowaguy ( 621828 )
    Hey, wait a minute, weren't we just complaining about this in yesterday's thread [slashdot.org] about people cheating by using the wireframe views to track and kill there enemies? Sheez, do we ever learn. F--ing Noobs. -Iowa

  • planes in sandstorms? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by uwbbjai ( 661340 )
    Even if we can "see" through a sandstorm by means of this goggle, can the planes handle it? I've always thought that jet engines need streams of clean and particle-free cold air in order to run....This technology can probably work through dense fog and rain, but personally I think sandstorm is pushing it a bit too far.
  • {insert catchy reference to garoyles here}
  • Surely if the US soldiers don't have anything that can see through the sandstorm/oil smoke/whatever, then neither can the satellite? So if something has moved since the satellite last got a clear look, you won't know it is there. So you may know in which direction to drive your tank, but if you rely on this alone, it'd be a case of
    "Look out for those goats!"
    "What goats?"
    Blaaaart *splat*

    And bang goes any chance of one Iraqi herdsman being happy to see you.

  • the scene from "First contact" where the borg are walking through the steam with their lazer beams flashing all over the place...

    "We are the US army. Do not be afraid. Resistance is futile."

  • Visibility is only about half the problem when flying in a sandstorm. Sand getting sucked into turbines or jet engines (and damaging them), sand abrading the windshields of cockpits, and sand abrading the leading edges of aircraft (especially the rotor blades of helicopters) are even greater problems. Perhaps these are surmountable problems, but I wouldn't go saying that this technology would make it feasbile to just go running into a sandstorm to do combat just yet.
  • great, so how long before i can enable wireframe mode for the real world to see when my boss is coming around the corner?
  • Of the other story about online cheaters?
    They mod the game to see thru walls so to gain an unfair advantage :-)

  • They won't be allowed (Score:3, Funny)

    by TerryAtWork ( 598364 ) <research@aceretail.com> on Friday March 28, 2003 @03:56PM (#5618065)
    anywhere near the ladies's shower on base, right?

  • Yeah, but... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Cinematique ( 167333 ) on Friday March 28, 2003 @07:02PM (#5619518)
    If I type 'noclip' in the console, will this let me walk through walls? If so... I want one! :)

Slashdot Top Deals

It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.

Close