parachute simulator

[kingbunky 3]

kinda cool. seems like a lot of money though. UK parachute simulator

"Hang on a sec, the young'uns are throwin' beer cans at a golf cart."
MB4252 TDS699
killing threads since 2001

[piisfish 135]

got the chance to try a similar piece of equipment at PIA in BArcelona 3 years ago, very interesting, very realistic, really great training tool. Wish all DZ's were equipped for some basic canopy training (or at least mine).

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[demoknite 0]

I didnt know Geordi La Forge was HALO qualified...

[DocPop 1]

I thought it was Serge Betsen.

"The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls."

~ CanuckInUSA

[dorbie 0]

Quote

kinda cool. seems like a lot of money though. UK parachute simulator

They'll be counting the cost of the building etc.

You could build one for a lot less on your local DZ if you had a room to spare and I could do a better job eliminating the silly VR goggles and throwing a couple of cheap LCD projectors onto a screen with distortion correction. It would take some labor to fabricate a decent screen but it would be worth it. I worked on VR systems for years, head mounted displays suck.

[stratostar 5]

You would have to have a 360 degree screen and one above and below, the goggles are used to see where your looking.

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[dorbie 0]

Quote

You would have to have a 360 degree screen and one above and below, the goggles are used to see where your looking.

I understand the tradeoffs. I don't think a full sphere would be required but more than a hemisphere would. You get diminishing training value the higher you go but you need to train "head on a swivel" with this application. You have to consider the tradeoffs of this system vs flying a canopy while looking through shitty VR HMD goggles with tracking and rendering latency etc. Try it, it sucks balls, always has. When it doesn't they'll start using it in real training sims and eliminate millions in "traditional" costs.

Traditionally such systems are very expensive but many things used to be expensive that technology makes possible in a garage workshop now, if you're prepared to put in the labor. The computer hardware for this used to cost millions, now it's a PC.

I've helped build such systems in the past and personally solved and implemented the projection geometry problems in rendering software.

Here's my patent
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6369814.html

I have a better way of doing this on modern hardware now.

The biggest challenge IMHO is the physical fabrication of a high quality spherical screen. These days the projectors and graphics power are relatively cheap and can easily handle the rendering.

An PC sporting HydraVision type of setup would drive as many projectors as you would need for a small dome.

The main cost would be in the projectors (with the right amount of free skilled labor).

[dorbie 0]

P.S. the scope of what you build varies depending on your training objectives too.

Possible objectives and my thoughts:

1) Flying the pattern in an immersive environment
2) Traffic & collision avoidance (might require more screen)
3) Malfunction recognition - need screen coverage above
4) E.P.s - rules out VR HMDs, but could be done with a harness in a dome.

Consider that with a helmet mounted display you don't get to see your own hands or harness, just a virtual representation and may not see anything even approximating them without additional technology when you're off the toggles.

There's no one simulation solution that's better than others, it's always a tradeoff. Domes have been assumed to be cost prohibitive because usually they cost a million bucks.

[stratostar 5]

1. do you know how much one of these cost already?

A: a lot that is why you only see military using them and very few civilian dz's

2, have you ever used one to train FJC students?

A; I have trained a few thousand FJC students in one and it works pretty damn good, better then holding up some still photos and asking what would do?

3. A sphere screen would be needed as it works now. For a parachute sim it's pretty damn good, would be better is if the graphic s were more like a PS3 game, but being able to lok up and check canopy or look over your shoulder and the like are good training tools.

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[dorbie 0]

Quote

1. do you know how much one of these cost already?

A: a lot that is why you only see military using them and very few civilian dz's

2, have you ever used one to train FJC students?

A; I have trained a few thousand FJC students in one and it works pretty damn good, better then holding up some still photos and asking what would do?

3. A sphere screen would be needed as it works now. For a parachute sim it's pretty damn good, would be better is if the graphic s were more like a PS3 game, but being able to lok up and check canopy or look over your shoulder and the like are good training tools.

It's all better than holding cards up, that's the point right?

I know how much they cost I used to build them, both domes and virtual reality HMD based systems. w.r.t. training I used to implement these systems, so how many training simulators have you helped design & build? (RFPs ain't design)

"needed as it works now" is a classic procurement fallacy. As I said, each system has it's strengths and weaknesses. If you compare a dome to an HMD the dome would have its strengths as well as being qualitatively better until HMDs stop sucking, e.g. poor field of view and typically poorer binocular overlap, tracking latency and inaccuracy, no EPs. And frankly they're a pain to use, maintain adjust and keep callibrated. These are negative training features if you want to realistically compare merits.

It doesn't have to be a dome (sphere), it could be a grey walled cave setup.

Anyhoo, if someone has a spare room at a local DZ and wants to invest in some projectors and a PC........

[bofh 0]

I'm building an even cheaper system.

I use a PC+monitor, a bluetooth adapter, a WiiRemote and some IR diods, resistors and batteries.

I use FreeTracker/IRTracker-ish head tracking - you move your head slightly and the view on the monitor changes a lot. Not 100% realistic of course, but people grasp the concept quickly.

As for input from the toggles, my idea is to control two IR diods via pulleys and record their position via the same WiiRemote (they can track up to four points), some weights will have to be added so the toggles feel a bit like on a real canopy.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

I'm building an even cheaper system.

I use a PC+monitor, a bluetooth adapter, a WiiRemote and some IR diods, resistors and batteries.

I use FreeTracker/IRTracker-ish head tracking - you move your head slightly and the view on the monitor changes a lot. Not 100% realistic of course, but people grasp the concept quickly.

As for input from the toggles, my idea is to control two IR diods via pulleys and record their position via the same WiiRemote (they can track up to four points), some weights will have to be added so the toggles feel a bit like on a real canopy.

Cool, head tracked fixed display. Existing hanging harnesses already use weighted toggles.

Using a projector would be better than a monitor IMHO. And you wouldn't need to head track. the differences would be minor against a big screen. The bigger the field of view the better. It just comes down to cost. Not really sure what head tracking adds to training in this application with a monitor. It would give you a marginal benefit in FOV but introduce a factor that doesn't exist in reality.

Good idea for tracking the toggles though. Just flying the pattern over a realistic model has a lot of training value and is a solved problem. Building it or packaging it for a DZ is laudable, best of luck to you.

[bofh 0]

Quote

Using a projector would be better than a monitor IMHO.

It is of course more realistic with projectors and easier to configure per user. With head tracking (and only one LED), you have to reconfigure the system each time another user uses the system. You can also fool the system by moving the head up, down, left, right which makes it almost impossible to use in a hanging harness. Using two WiiRemotes and three LEDs on the head solves that problem, but increase the cost.
I might use that in the future as that would be needed if one also would like to simulate pulls in the risers/leaning in the harness. That is not needed for students though.

Quote

It would give you a marginal benefit in FOV but introduce a factor that doesn't exist in reality.

With head tracking, you can look straight down, up and all the way to left and right. To do that with projectors, you either have to have more than one projector or a sphere around the user. So it saves a lot of money and space. Without head tracking, the FOV is too small for the user. They can't look straight down to find the LZ after opening, they can't look left/right to see when to make the final turn etc. As an instructor it is also easier to see where the users look compared to using a wider projection.

My system is only to be used to help teach flying and landing. The students will sit in a chair and use toggles suspended from the ceiling. I believe they will easily adapt between the simulator and the reality.

[longtall 0]

I believe theres one here in New Mexico at Kirtland AFB.(I wonder if you can do sim-crew ?)

" 90 right, five miles then cut."---Pukin Buzzards

[dorbie 0]

Quote

With head tracking, you can look straight down, up and all the way to left and right. To do that with projectors, you either have to have more than one projector or a sphere around the user.

No, you can do that with head tracking AND a head mounted display.

You can head track without an HMD. So I was taking remarks literally and we were talking about different technological components.

HMDs have their benefits, notwithstanding the fact that after 20 years they still have their shortcomings.

[howardwhite 5]

SSK has one, displayed most recently at PIA in Reno.

HW