sideranautae
Mongoose
alex_greene said:
Thank you
Pilots use thoughts to control aircraft
- Thread starter sideranautae
- Start date
Thank you
The fact that there's no mechanical linkage doesn't necessarily mean no feedback.
Tactile - especially Haptic - information is something the human brain is set up to receive very efficiently. I can't speak for aircraft controls but certainly powered steering in cars is set up to provide feedback to the driver (albeit within carefully controlled bounds), and a lot of remote armature controllers (such as digital sculpting tools) provide (gentle) feedback to the controller to help the user's awareness.
I'm not convinced you'd see a 'matix-style' thinking faster, plugged in control - even if you remove the CNS-to-fingertip delay by monitoring the brain directly, you're only speeding up controls by tiny fractions of a second. Whilst fast reflexes are good, the major delay in the loop for a pilot - especially in DEX-driven, dogfight type flying - is the time taken to process what you're seeing and realise what you need to do.
The same has been said about F1 drivers - put other people in the seat and they can't process the multiple things they need to keep track of and the decision making at the right speed; actually pushing the buttons isn't the problem.
That's why I'd agree that the 'touch screen' or HOTAS controls are always going to be there, but the neural stuff lets you expand the stuff you can control without taking your hands off the primary controls - the most valuable thing you can do for a combat pilot is reduce their workload, so being able to control the secondary systems with eye contact and mental gestures rather than having to reach over to them is very useful.
Tactile - especially Haptic - information is something the human brain is set up to receive very efficiently. I can't speak for aircraft controls but certainly powered steering in cars is set up to provide feedback to the driver (albeit within carefully controlled bounds), and a lot of remote armature controllers (such as digital sculpting tools) provide (gentle) feedback to the controller to help the user's awareness.
I'm not convinced you'd see a 'matix-style' thinking faster, plugged in control - even if you remove the CNS-to-fingertip delay by monitoring the brain directly, you're only speeding up controls by tiny fractions of a second. Whilst fast reflexes are good, the major delay in the loop for a pilot - especially in DEX-driven, dogfight type flying - is the time taken to process what you're seeing and realise what you need to do.
The same has been said about F1 drivers - put other people in the seat and they can't process the multiple things they need to keep track of and the decision making at the right speed; actually pushing the buttons isn't the problem.
That's why I'd agree that the 'touch screen' or HOTAS controls are always going to be there, but the neural stuff lets you expand the stuff you can control without taking your hands off the primary controls - the most valuable thing you can do for a combat pilot is reduce their workload, so being able to control the secondary systems with eye contact and mental gestures rather than having to reach over to them is very useful.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
I think there are two approaches possible:
1. Interpreting brain signals
2. Using the nervous system, twitching phantom or actual muscles.
1. Interpreting brain signals
2. Using the nervous system, twitching phantom or actual muscles.
Rikki Tikki Traveller
Cosmic Mongoose
What about something like what they showed on the B5 spinoff/pilot about the Rangers? (sorry don't remember the name off the top of my head).
In that show, they used a 3D holographic tank to allow the gunner to use natural body movements to fire weapons and target the enemy. Piloting could be done the same way. With the TL12 Holographic controls, maybe that is exactly what they mean...
In that show, they used a 3D holographic tank to allow the gunner to use natural body movements to fire weapons and target the enemy. Piloting could be done the same way. With the TL12 Holographic controls, maybe that is exactly what they mean...
sideranautae
Mongoose
Rikki Tikki Traveller said:
Sure, that could be done. Is much lower than neural control though.
sideranautae
Mongoose
locarno24 said:
It is axiomatic. It is fractional of a second faster. But, depends on the problem solving ability of the pilot as you mention. Dex is hand to eye speed. Int governs problem recognition and solving.
Rikki Tikki Traveller
Cosmic Mongoose
sideranautae said:
Quite true, but much less prone to mental noise problems during the heat of combat.
sideranautae
Mongoose
Rikki Tikki Traveller said:
There is no "mental noise" in this methodology. No more than there is in hand eye control thought control process anyway. Motion of combat would far more effect body motion control than mental.
It would be an additional training step for those coming from lower TL's though.
sideranautae
Mongoose
Jacqual said:
Why? We have them at TL 7 now. Why not at higher TL's?
sideranautae said:
Because people don't all think the same, ever see a brain surgery video where they have to see where different places in someones brain receive a different stimulas? One funny hat may not work for everyone, but a cyber implant is already configured for that person. Now a individual helm would work, keyed for 1 person but myself I am a cybernetics guy I prefer that in my Science Fiction games.
sideranautae
Mongoose
Jacqual said:
But, in the real world, it does. Hence my question as to why it is less effective as TL goes up in your game... :wink:
Meanwhile I did take the time to read the material published by the
Brainflight team of the TU München, where the flight simulator ex-
periment took place. While the results of the experiment were some-
what promising, this is still very, very far from a technology which
could be used outside of the laboratory. For example, the best of
the pilots tested managed to follow eight of ten simulated flight paths,
which means that he failed to do it in one out of five cases, and both
the pilots and the scientists remarked that the pilot has to concentra-
te completely on controlling the aircraft and loses the control when
he gets tired or anything disrupts this permanent concentration. So
there is still a very long way to go before this technology can be con-
sidered sufficiently safe for its use in the real world, and it is not at
all sure whether it can ever be developed to that point.
Brainflight team of the TU München, where the flight simulator ex-
periment took place. While the results of the experiment were some-
what promising, this is still very, very far from a technology which
could be used outside of the laboratory. For example, the best of
the pilots tested managed to follow eight of ten simulated flight paths,
which means that he failed to do it in one out of five cases, and both
the pilots and the scientists remarked that the pilot has to concentra-
te completely on controlling the aircraft and loses the control when
he gets tired or anything disrupts this permanent concentration. So
there is still a very long way to go before this technology can be con-
sidered sufficiently safe for its use in the real world, and it is not at
all sure whether it can ever be developed to that point.
sideranautae
Mongoose
rust said:
Brainflight's is amateur hour compared to what has been done in the US Mil. Brainflight is at the point where the USAF was almost 16 years ago.