Talk:Head-up display/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Experimental uses

These uses:

• "a HUD can be used to overlay tactical information...to infantrymen."
• "A surgical HUD could display overlaid x-rays..."
• "A prototype HUD has also been developed that displays information on the inside of a swimmer's goggles."

all seem to me to belong in Head-mounted displays. E2a2j (talk) 00:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Reoganization?

Proposing a reorg as follows:

1 Overview

2 History

3 Types

4 Design factors

4.1 Eyebox

4.2 Luminance/Contrast

4.3 Display Accuracy

4.4 Installation

5 Components / Technology

5.1 Combiner

5.2 Projection Unit

5.3 Video generation computer

6 Symbology / images displayed

7 Military aircraft specific applications

8 Civil aircraft specific applications

8.1 Enhanced Flight Vision Systems, EFVS

8.2 Synthetic Vision Systems, SVS

9 Automotive applications

10 Experimental uses

11 Pop Culture

12 Further reading / see also

13 Notes

Thoughts? E2a2j (talk) 01:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Manufacturer of F/A-18 HUDS

Photo caption says "manufactured by RealD" but I'm pretty sure the F/A-18 HUDS was manufactured by Kaiser Electronics, I did some of the electronic design there during the late seventies. Kaiser Electronics is now part of Rockwell Collins. HUDS means Head Up Display System. 89.195.138.200 (talk) 00:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)mike rogers

Good catch, I've removed the claim. It was added here, and is probably vandalism, as the same user has two vandalism warnings. - BilCat (talk) 01:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Generations

I think the Generations section is "artificial" how it is written atm. IMHO it is better to remove the whole section. If somebody wants to improve:

• There should be names/links to example implementations of these generations. Like "Flight Dynamic HUD xxx used on Challenger 604"
• It does not tell the the advantage of CRT, it's brightness. This was at least the reason for sticking to CRT technology throughout the seventies and eighties, as other technologies did not offer the same level at that time.
• The technologies described under third and fourth generations are interesting technical concepts - I don't think you should construct "generations" out of these. (see first point: examples)
• Under Second Generation, the sentence "These systems are on commercial aircraft" is not accurate, as most of the commercial aircraft systems actually *are* of CRT type. Likewise the term "do not fade" is debatable too, as LEDs also do fade. (I agree that LEDs fade a lot less than CRT).

W codebreaker (talk) 08:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It is also WP:OR, not one claim in it is backed up by reference. So yeah, needs work or needs to be remove to talk until it can be ref'ed. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 12:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

HUD Design factors

Left some response at my talk re: these adds look good. BTW Checking up on this I see one more design factor, Mechanical/ergonomic limitations - for example a diagram at one of the refs show how the optical path has to be redirected at a right angle to make a device housing that would clear the path of the pilots knees in an ejection. These design factors look to effect other design factors such as Collimation, Eyebox, FOV since there is a limit to the size of the optical elements/optical path, you are only going to get an FOV and Eyebox that is considered "good enough", can't afford anything bigger space wise. Something to ref and add. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

You're correct on the mechanical/ergonomic design considerations. I can see that there would be issues in ejecting from a military aircraft. But in the civil world, too, HUD installations must be designed (and certified) to comply with HIC requirements...HIC = Head Injury Criteria. This means that in the event of a sudden aircraft stoppage (a runway over-run, aircraft striking a dike or a localizer antenna structure, perhaps) the HUD combiner must swing out of the way before the forward motion of the pilot's head goes through it. LarryB55 (talk) 15:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

There are two basic methods of dealing with this HIC issue. One of this is to use the windshield itself as the "combiner". This adds no extra protrusions. The image of the C130 HUD appears to be an example of this, although I'm not totally sure of that, the field of view is a bit too small to be certain.

The other is to have the HUD display not too rigidly clamped so that in the event of a sufficient G-force it will move out of the way, sort of like the way an inertial reel seatbelt will only work after being subjected to a force above the "trigger" value. This is quite reasonably demonstrated in the picture of the HUD in the NASA Gulfstream, where it is effectively "stick mounted". There are many many more examples of this "stick mount" in the A380 pilot/copilot HUD at, for example, the airliners.net website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.165.172 (talk) 07:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

History

Referring to the last part of the History section, where it says "Until a few years ago, the Embraer 190 and Boeing 737 New Generation Aircraft (737-600,700,800, and 900 series) were the only commercial passenger aircraft...". This part is most likely not accurate. I worked from 1998-2008 at Crossair. The Saab 2000 - which was introduced in Crossair around 1993 - had a HUD as a standard equipment already. I remotely remember that we discussed other Aircraft types that also had HUD systems. I hesitate to edit the article directly, because I feel that the whole paragraph would need to be rewritten and I do not know the facts for the other types named. Another reason is the involvment of this article in the Aviation Wiki project. W codebreaker (talk) 08:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

noteworthy: the Daussault Mercure, civil Airliner, was introduced with a HUD system enabling CATIIIB with decission height down to 35'. ZwergAlw (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Links to the same article in other languages: duplicate Wikidata entry?

I've tried to add the Dutch language article to the list of links, but for some reason there are two lists of articles for Head-up Display:

http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q518461 and http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q13502100

If a language is added to the former, it cannot be added to the latter and vice-versa. This means that half of those equivalent articles cannot be linked to each other.

I didn't want to break anything so I haven't touched anything else, but I hope somebody can take the time to look into it.

Real life is 3D, but no info on 3D aspect

The article tells us (but unclearly) that a HUD has the FOCUS at infinity. What it doesn't tell us, is the perceived stereoscopic depth, or how it looks if you move your head. That seems important to me. Carl Kenner (talk) 16:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, it is important. It is not easy to describe. If you move your head from side to side, the scenery at infinity will move in the opposite sense of your head. The HUD image will also do that, so it stays "at the same spot" on the scenery. The same thing applies to up and down movement. This cannot really be conveyed in a single photograph. You really need two photos, taken from slightly different head positions. Even so, this does not really convey the actual effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.165.172 (talk) 07:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Important omission in the "advantages" section.

Being focussed on infinity gives another advantagbe, that of "no parallax". In this context, it means that the projected image will always appear to be at the same "infinite" position irrespective of any movement of the pilot/viewer's head. This sort of thing is somewhat difficult to explain in words, but very easy to demonstrate on the actual equipment. I have no specific reference to this, other than 30+ years of building HUDs as finderscopes for astronomical telescopes, where it is in fact the most important thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.165.172 (talk) 07:11, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Interesting BAE Video On History

For anyone interested in the history of the technology please follow this link. Also, perhaps even more interesting is this video segment by Forces TV on the helmet that nearly became the F35 helmet solution, regards.Twobells (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

There's a Royal Aeronautical Society (RAeS) podcast on the history of the Head-Up Display here: [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.134 (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

Proposal to merge The_Eyes-on-the-Road-Benefit into Heads-up display as it is a term cited to a primary source. Further discussion on the talk page. Russty11 (talk) 17:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Synthetic Vision Systems- incorrect image of HUD

I've studied this article thoroughly and found that image in this section Synthetic vision is not consistent with text description. Lonng hard minutes of searching for what my eyes could not see. It seems that Image was placed here from newer and more standard Honeywell system but - containing different flight information. And some details are completely absent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_vision_system#/media/File:Synthetic_Vision.JPG

After searching, I've found separate Article on synthetic Vision / and it contains the supposed original image at bottom of that page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_vision_system Image: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_vision_system#/media/File:NASA_Synthetic_Vision_Display.jpg

Hello Aviation folks, I'm new here so just suggesting a correction to WIMC without actually editing the page. Thanks for review and/or respond. Palo. Palo.hagara (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Gilbert Klopstein

The test pilot Gilbert Klopstein is mentioned to be the modern inventor of the HUD in 1950, but his name is barely mentioned in this article, I think the part concerning how he invented it could be fleshed out:

• [2]
• [3]
• [4]

Hervegirod (talk) 09:11, 21 February 2023 (UTC)