mjosparky 3 #26 March 18, 2006 QuoteThe quick connects will be color coded and reversed for right and left so that it can't be hooked on backwards. Never underestimate determined skydivers ability find away to fuck up the simplest of tasks. QuoteYes, I am a genius. Give me a dollar. Yes you are, your check is in the mail.SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
alw 0 #27 March 18, 2006 There may also be innovations that are variations in the sport. One that comes to mind it the PARIS system currently available for the military that deploys a paraglider for a high (relatively) glide ratio. We seem to innovate constrained by conventional wisdom, so a rag in a bag governs our thoughts of a parachute system. Thinking outside the box, or bag as it were, may lead us in entirely new directions for manned flight, or more appropriately flying man. Why not a lighter than air rigid inflatable wing that reduces fall rate and is navagable? Parabolic deployment of jumpers has been done, but is not accepted nor the norm, but it could add variation to the sport. The air bags that deploy gear on Mars missions represents an interesting consideration to freefall termination. For now I think I'll stick with my rag in a bag - strings attached. --------------------------------------------- Every day is a bonus - every night is an adventure. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ParaskiChamp 0 #28 March 18, 2006 A container harness system with adjustable main tray, so we can use the same rig for CRW, Swooping, Accuracy, Demos... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HydroGuy 0 #29 March 18, 2006 QuotePre-packed canopies. You'll be able to land, go over to the PD vending machine and put your "used" main into a bag that you will connect to the machine that will vacuum it down to a size that will fit into the "opened container" sized slot. (Like the McDonald's garbage slots in Sweden). Then you'll put your credit card in and push the buttons for the canopy you want. Bssssst-WHUMP and you'll get a pre-packed canopy with quick connects and just slot it into your container. The quick connects will be color coded and reversed for right and left so that it can't be hooked on backwards. I've often thought that a Pro-Packing robot would be a great project for some MIT brains...not that it would ever be mainstream, just to see it done. But if it were to be built, preferably it would pack a Safire 2 139...Get in - Get off - Get away....repeat as neccessary Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deuce 1 #30 March 18, 2006 QuoteYes you are, your check is in the mail. Sparky Ha! Made you look! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mjosparky 3 #31 March 18, 2006 QuoteOne that comes to mind it the PARIS system currently available for the military that deploys a paraglider for a high (relatively) glide ratio. http://www.paraflite.com/PARIS.htm SparkyMy idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Eule 0 #32 March 19, 2006 QuoteSo I wondered what will be the next major improvement to the sport will be in the way of gear, rigging or safety, as I can't imagine what it will be. I thought about this a bit and decided that a canopy simulator might be interesting. We have wind tunnels for the freefall part, but we don't really have a way to simulate flying the canopy. I think the US military has one or two, but I don't think there are any available to sport jumpers. I don't think it would be a problem to buy enough computing horsepower or mechanical actuators to make it work; the main expense would be the display. A couple of strategically placed flat-screen TVs would be better than nothing, but it's not that realistic to only be able to look in one or two directions. Perhaps as the LCD and DLP projectors get more popular and cheaper, they would be a good option. I used to work for a place that made aircraft simulators. There were three projectors (like an old-school projection TV with three big lenses) on top of the cockpit. Out in front of the cockpit, there was a sheet of plastic that wrapped around 180 degrees from left to right, about 30 degrees below level, and about 50 or 60 degrees above level. The plastic was mounted in a frame and to make it smooth, a pump pulled a light vacuum behind the plastic. I flew a sim with just the video operating - the motion was turned off - and with that wraparound video, when you bank the airplane, it felt exactly like it does in the air, even though my seat wasn't moving an inch. A canopy simulator could potentially be much less expensive than an aircraft simulator, since the "user interface" of a canopy is a lot simpler. For an aircraft sim, you've got to duplicate the controls and the entire instrument panel; for a canopy sim you have to duplicate a couple of toggles. You could also have a sim-driven "altimeter" to wear if you wanted. The screen would be expensive, and so would the initial software development. But once you've done that, it's not very hard to add more canopy types, landing areas, etc. You can push a button and have 160 acres or 1.6 acres to land in. You can have a Student 280 or a Teatowel 73. You can have light and variable or 20 gusting to 40. To be clear, I think this would be a training aid for skydiving, not something people would just do for fun - like the way some people who don't jump like to play in the tunnel. Probably it would be aimed mostly at students and somewhat at people who are considering a downsize or a canopy type change. EulePLF does not stand for Please Land on Face. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yamtx73 0 #33 March 19, 2006 QuoteA canopy simulator could potentially be much less expensive than an aircraft simulator, since the "user interface" of a canopy is a lot simpler. For an aircraft sim, you've got to duplicate the controls and the entire instrument panel; for a canopy sim you have to duplicate a couple of toggles. You could also have a sim-driven "altimeter" to wear if you wanted. The screen would be expensive, and so would the initial software development. But once you've done that, it's not very hard to add more canopy types, landing areas, etc. You can push a button and have 160 acres or 1.6 acres to land in. You can have a Student 280 or a Teatowel 73. You can have light and variable or 20 gusting to 40. To be clear, I think this would be a training aid for skydiving, not something people would just do for fun - like the way some people who don't jump like to play in the tunnel. Probably it would be aimed mostly at students and somewhat at people who are considering a downsize or a canopy type change. The biggest expense would definitely be in the software development department due to the small market. You wouldn't actually need to buy the screens when a pair of VR goggles would do the trick. Not only would you be able to change canopy sizes at the click of a mouse, you'd be able to change dz's just as easily. You could change the weather, wind direction and speed too. It would definitely be useful to students as well as for someone wanting to downsize canopies. I think it would also be useful for canopy control courses as well as for learning to swoop and perhaps even CReW. Any software developers out there?The only naturals in this sport shit thru feathers... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riggerrob 558 #34 March 19, 2006 Canopy simulators were invented more then years ago and are used by the better-funded armies, smoke jumpers, etc. The latest versions even come with VR goggles that shift the display as you turn your head. Many years ago I flew one - at the FXC Guardian factory - and it descended, turned, etc. pretty much the same way I expected a sport main to fly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billbooth 10 #35 March 19, 2006 I once invented a parachute that took only 3 seconds to pack...trouble was, that it took 10 minutes to open. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tenshi 0 #36 March 19, 2006 Zero gravity device. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #37 March 19, 2006 Some of these are available in limited numbers or prototype form already, but I think the following will catch on big time in the next 5 - 10 years: Heads-up displays In-air communications Noise cancelling helmets And I'm waiting anxiously for the self-packing canopy.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr17Hz 1 #38 March 19, 2006 Quote The biggest expense would definitely be in the software development department due to the small market..... Any software developers out there? I'm a software developer, and have to agree that the cost here is not the displays. You could go with VR glasses... but honestly using projector screens would probably be the best because it would provide entertainment for spectators as well. Projectors are dirt cheap. You can get a VERY nice setup for less than $15,000... Software development, on the other hand - even if you provide "fake" environments (not real dropzones), and just a few, you're looking at over $750,000 in development. You might get away with less, if you're a company that already does flight simulators and has a lot of the engine and console work and experience in-house.... but these are low estimates... It would not be unrealistic for the total costs to exceed 3 million, just for a basic feature set. there are not exactly pre-researched physicals engines to control lifelike parachute flight... Writing a starwars space flight simulator is easy, but if you start to talk about real flight simulators, (Microsoft's Flight Simulator is one of the best at-home simulators, and has a very realistice physics engine) the research work alone becomes quite heavy. If you start talking about providing the ability to fly at "real" dropzones... you're adding even more staff to your development team. You need surveyours and more talented artists... What I'm getting at, is that the cost of visual display's is nothing... MattMatt Christenson [email protected] http://www.RealDropzone.com - A new breed of dropzone manifest software. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yamtx73 0 #39 March 20, 2006 QuoteQuote The biggest expense would definitely be in the software development department due to the small market..... Any software developers out there? I'm a software developer, and have to agree that the cost here is not the displays. You could go with VR glasses... but honestly using projector screens would probably be the best because it would provide entertainment for spectators as well. Projectors are dirt cheap. You can get a VERY nice setup for less than $15,000... Software development, on the other hand - even if you provide "fake" environments (not real dropzones), and just a few, you're looking at over $750,000 in development. You might get away with less, if you're a company that already does flight simulators and has a lot of the engine and console work and experience in-house.... but these are low estimates... It would not be unrealistic for the total costs to exceed 3 million, just for a basic feature set. there are not exactly pre-researched physicals engines to control lifelike parachute flight... Writing a starwars space flight simulator is easy, but if you start to talk about real flight simulators, (Microsoft's Flight Simulator is one of the best at-home simulators, and has a very realistice physics engine) the research work alone becomes quite heavy. If you start talking about providing the ability to fly at "real" dropzones... you're adding even more staff to your development team. You need surveyours and more talented artists... What I'm getting at, is that the cost of visual display's is nothing... Matt That's about what I had figured, that the software development would be prohibitive. Riggerrob mentions the basic software already seems to be out there for military and smoke jumper use so someone already developed the physics engines, whether they'd be willing to release them is a different story though. Also, wouldn't it be easier to use aerial photos and topographic maps for dz layouts rather than having them surveyed? They wouldn't have to be exact, just close enough that the student would be able to recognize where they were going. I'm not a software developer but these are some thoughts I've had, I don't know what all goes into building a semi-realistic simulator. They claim it's "affordable" http://www.stiparasim.com/index.htmlThe only naturals in this sport shit thru feathers... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thesaint 0 #40 March 20, 2006 Cleveland Parachute Center has a canopy simulator. "If a thousand people agree on a dumb ideal, it's STILL a dumb ideal." Skully Bro #1 - POPS# 10440 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #41 March 20, 2006 Quote A canopy simulator could potentially be much less expensive than an aircraft simulator, since the "user interface" of a canopy is a lot simpler. For an aircraft sim, you've got to duplicate the controls and the entire instrument panel; for a canopy sim you have to duplicate a couple of toggles. Unless the simulator is only going to be used for basic student flight on big canopies, it's a lot more complicated than that. Two toggles, two front risers, two rear risers, and harness positioning. (There's more in chest strap tightness and whether or not the slider is pulled down) On my large Tri 210, I can make very slow rate turns just by shifting my hips. For the guys on a much higher wingloading, they can make very fast turns that way. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piisfish 135 #42 March 20, 2006 Quoteminiature jet engines that a jumper can strap onto their legs and fly around untill the fuel runs out. are you serious ?? This already exists...scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piisfish 135 #43 March 20, 2006 we need a magnetic suspension of the canopy. No more lines = no more lineovers, and it also opens new possibilitys for CREW and multiple ways freestyle landing.scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Newbie 0 #44 March 20, 2006 Quote> but people have landed wingsuits already... the trick will be landing >one AND being able to then get on another load... That's been done too. The trick is now landing a wingsuit without _any_ injuries. someone has "landed" on a ws jump without a canopy above their heads and only been injured? "Skydiving is a door" Happythoughts Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bert_man 0 #45 March 20, 2006 QuoteCleveland Parachute Center has a canopy simulator. That's right, and it's a lot of fun, too! It uses VR goggles, but the jumper's view also displays on the computer's monitor so spectators can watch. You can choose from the older canopies like cruislites etc (no velocity 98's ) and can choose from various wind and weather conditions as well as landing areas. You can land in the jungle in a rainstorm, on an aircraft carrier with 30mph winds in sunshine, on top of a building at night, etc. The jumper hangs in a real harness, and you can give them malfunctions to cutaway from, or ones that they can clear with 2 pumps of the brakes. Ripcord/cutaway cables go to a box in the back of the rig so the computer knows when you cutaway etc. Its alot of fun, its a shame that people rarely use the simulator. Last weekend at safety day a few of us had an accuracy competition which eventually turned into a low cutaway/low pull contest Oh yea, it also tells you stats about your landing, i.e. distance from target, vertical descent rate, horizontal speed, etc. The person sitting at the computer has the power to do lots of things unexpectedly while the sim is running. For example, cut away for somebody when they are at 100ft about to nail the target dead-center It's fun to give somebody a baglock malfunction and a round reserve during an accuracy contest The only main drawbacks are that you can't use riser input (no sensors) and the choice of canopies is from the 80's.-Ghetto "The reason death cannot frighten me, is because life has cured me of fear." Web Design Cleveland Skydiving Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bert_man 0 #46 March 20, 2006 Quotewe need a magnetic suspension of the canopy. No more lines = no more lineovers, and it also opens new possibilitys for CREW and multiple ways freestyle landing. I can imagine this... Two jumpers with magnetically suspended canopies get close to each other and suddenly everything goes haywire, the canopies stick together, the jumpers stick together and separate from the canopies, and suddenly you have an accidental tandem with no drogue . Or (more likely due to the polarities), the jumpers accidentally switch canopies.-Ghetto "The reason death cannot frighten me, is because life has cured me of fear." Web Design Cleveland Skydiving Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Eule 0 #47 March 23, 2006 QuoteQuoteFor an aircraft sim, you've got to duplicate the controls and the entire instrument panel; for a canopy sim you have to duplicate a couple of toggles. Unless the simulator is only going to be used for basic student flight on big canopies, it's a lot more complicated than that. Two toggles, two front risers, two rear risers, and harness positioning. OK, so you have to buy a few more pairs of strain gauges and hydraulic cylinders. I still think that's less expense and work than setting up two complete sets of instruments, a full radio stack, the warning light panel, the circuit breaker panels, etc. Balanced against this is the knowledge that it always takes longer and costs more... EulePLF does not stand for Please Land on Face. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Eule 0 #48 March 23, 2006 QuoteQuote[Mr17Hz:] Software development, on the other hand - even if you provide "fake" environments (not real dropzones), and just a few, you're looking at over $750,000 in development. Wow! Even using a fully burdened cost of something like $60-$100 an hour, that's something like 4 to 8 man-years of work. I don't doubt it would be expensive, but $750K is a lot of money... QuoteThey claim it's "affordable" http://www.stiparasim.com/index.html If they won't tell you the price, that means it's so shocking that they want to have a salesman lube you up first. On the other hand, their target market seems to mainly be the military, so you can take whatever figure they give you and halve or quarter it to get what they'd probably sell it at retail for. Maybe somebody with a GSA login can tell us what one of these costs, if that isn't against the rules. EulePLF does not stand for Please Land on Face. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fireflyer 0 #49 March 28, 2006 QuoteGood looking flight attendants serving chilled drinks on the way to altitude x2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen 1,048 #50 March 29, 2006 Hi Amax, Flight attendents, huh? Well, you're thinking small. Back in the wild days of Sheridan, Dirty Susie would ride up in the Beech giving b/j's the guys on the way to altitude. Now that's First Class Flying. Absolutely true; you should have been there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
