/sci/ - Science & Math

That's not a HUD, it's just a wearable computer you can look at. Used for things like rear view cameras in some vehicles. Its got lenses in it that have the effect of the screen being much further away.

>>5196758
What kind of lenses ?

>>5196761
Same type these things have.

>>5196758
but my question is how do you get the effect of the screen being far enough away to focus on, when it really isn't?

>>5196789
He said lenses already. Look up the lenses and read how they work.

>>5196800
>how do engines work
>fuel
>but what do they do with it?
>FUEL, GOOGLE FAGIT

>>5196801
Yeah, google fuel you lazy imbecile fuck. You ran out of braincells from procrastination ?

>>5196789

you don't. which is why they've never caught on and google glass is just a bunch of PR bullshit.

>>5196830
The thing in the OP image costs $32,000, is sold by a reputable technology company, and can be purchased right now.

>>5196841

>$32,000

What kind of a moron would pay that much to look so stupid?

>>5196851
They aren't aiming at individuals and social networking faggots, it's for industrial applications. The advertised usage showed a guy assembling machinery with the assembly instructions overlaid on the real life object.

>>5196789
> to focus on


The trick is that you don't need to.
It will ALWAYS be fully in focus at all times, which can cause problems when trying to look at shit that isn't the laser (Or light, assuming its an actual screen) shining in your eye.
I can't remember the specific problems this causes, but I know it causes some.
The times this isn't a problem is when all / the majority of your view is filled with it, since now it never needs to focus anywhere.

>>5196851
For the functionality?
Ever here of AR? We are only a few hurdles from AR glasses with no drawbacks.

>>5196863
>>5196870

why would you need that? what's wrong with catia?

>>5196870
>Ever here of AR? We are only a few hurdles from AR glasses with no drawbacks.

One of those hurdles being that the eye can't focus clearly on things that close without strain.

We were having this discussion on /k/ just the other day.

The light is collimated, so the image is focused at infinity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collimator#Optical_collimators

>>5196929
Its not the same as holographic sights. It has to work like a LED screen not a lazerprojection

>>5196946
It's still collimated. Whether it works via reflective or refractive optics is merely peripheral. The light rays still need to be parallel in order to achieve distant focus.

>>5196953

that helmet is a piece of shit and doesn't work, btw.

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/DRArchive/Pages/2012/September%202012/September%2018%202012/JSFOffi
cialsFocusinonHelmetIssues.aspx

>>5196953
But yeah, maybe. That parallel lightrays thing makes sense. I gotta read that wiki article

>>5196929
Why do we use powered sights instead of ambient light.

>>5197002
Because you don't have enough ambient light indoors or at night.

>>5196962
JHMCS works just fine in most of the aircraft it has been implemented on (F-15E, F-16C, F/A-18E, etc). It's only the F-35's version, which replaces the HUD entirely, which is having problems - no great surprise, really, since it must integrate with a zillion other systems that older JHMCS have not.

>>5197029
Can't you have some kind of lens and mirror focusing shit to collect the optimal amount of light to illuminate the sight without making it too bright?

>>5196892
You could use that logic with a LOT of inventions. Doesn't mean we shouldn't progress

>>5197092
>>5197002
Ambient-light-collecting reflex sights do exist. They just don't work that well in the dark. It's the same reason tritium-illuminated fixed night sights exist.

>>5196962
That is overstating the situation drastically (like a teenager talks, always in extremes).

The helmet works, works properly, works well, but needs to work better.

>>5197092
So now you are talking about larger optics and bulkier headwear -- but if they made that, you'd certainly be asking for a smaller, less bulky helmet with fewer optics.

Ambient light is a fine goal, but it just doesn't do the trick well enough.
Passive sensors are too weak and insensitive.
Amplifiers also have their problems, with output, reliability, and range sensitivity, not to mention complexity, power needs, integration, etc.
Scanners have the same issues.

There are always compromises; the key isn't trying to avoid them, but to whittle down your expectations to something you can build well.

Is there any more articles or info about this collimator or lens ?

>>5196754
I don't get the hype for these things
>letting a company track everything you fucking look at/every place you go
Yeah no

>>5198058
dude, just install linux on it.

>>5196754
His power level... It's over 9,000!

>>5198058
Just goddamn reflash it with new image and add/write apps you want. Am I really on /sci/?

>>5198058
I don't think you understand what these are.

>>5198035
I only just started reading up on the subject a few days ago. My classical optics is rusty, so I'm having a bit of a hard time with it myself, but I've gotten the gist of how the whole "parallel rays achieve distant focus and eliminate parallax" deal, and I've figured out a few simple configurations that produce collimated light. I'm just trying to figure out how to expand this to include more than a single point, since I can't quite grasp how to have a single collimator produce a 2d image (rather than just a point image) cast at infinity.

Illustration made for /k/ in the context of reflector gunsights, but perhaps it will be helpful on this board as well.

Could one of these potentially fit on somebody's head comfortably? http://www.mikesflightdeck.com/scenery_display/mirror_collimation.html

Is that maybe what pic related is?