6 ms·

It’s infuriating trying to use the touch screen in my wife’s minivan to change the radio station. I can’t imagine the frustration trying to use a touch screen

by blhack 6y ago

It’s infuriating trying to use the touch screen in my wife’s minivan to change the radio station. I can’t imagine the frustration trying to use a touch screen to fly a fighter jet. More buttons please!

nickff 6y ago
There are lots of buttons and switches on the throttle and stick. Most modern western fighters are designed for HOTAS (hands on throttle and stick) operation, where the pilot never takes their hands off the throttle and stick during combat.
topspin 6y ago
> I can’t imagine the frustration trying to use a touch screen to fly a fighter jet. A war plane is something you have to operate while it's burning, or while you're bleeding on it, or while you can't see properly because it's full of smoke or someone just blinded you with a laser. The adoption of touch screens in this sort of cockpit seems misguided. Particularly for anything related to controlling comms or navigation.
- Retric 6y ago
  That’s really not how we design modern jet fighters. Air combat involves a huge number of tradeoffs and ejecting is now the correct response to a wide range of issues. For example, the F-35 so engine so engine failure is likely to result in a lost aircraft. It’s basically been decided that we are going to spend silly money keeping a small number of absolutely cutting edge aircraft flying rather than thousands if not tens of thousands of of likely more efficient but less capable possibly drone aircraft. PS: To be clear it’s possible their making the correct choice. I personally doubt it, but I don’t have access to the kind of classified documents to justify things in one way or another. An effective labor weapon for example might render vastly cheaper drone fleets ineffective.
  - jki275 6y ago
    No, the post above is exactly correct. Ejecting from an aircraft is an absolute last resort, and you stand a good chance of dying or being badly injured if you have to do it, and even if you survive the ejection, the parachute ride, and the landing, it's a better than even chance you're going to be captured and beaten, tortured, or killed on the ground. That's if you land on land of course -- if you land in the water you might just drown or never be found.
    - Retric 6y ago
      > it’s better than even chance you’re going to be captured and beaten, tortured, or killed on the ground. That’s simply not the reality of modern fighter jets. The vast majority of time is going to be spent flying over either open ocean or friendly territory. That’s been true even if you’re only looking at recent combat missions. Anyway, single engine aircraft are always going to be at higher risk for mechanical failure, yet that’s the chosen design. Just look through this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_military_aircraft_(2010–2019) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incident.... In commercial aviation 4 crashes per year worldwide not that great, in military aviation 4 crashes a month worldwide is a very good month.
      - topspin 6y ago
        > That’s simply not the reality of modern fighter jets. Even Iraq managed to capture US and allied pilots. I think I'll forego the rest; you're reality and actual reality are a bit too divergent.
        Retric 6y ago
        Again > it’s better than even chance you’re going to be captured and beaten, tortured, or killed on the ground Is demonstrably false. War is still an extremely unpleasant business, but the term acceptable losses applies even in peacetime. Every mission training or otherwise is rolling the dice that the aircraft will be lost. Yet, they still send pilots up knowing those risks in preparation for war. Aircraft designs really do involve similar tradeoffs and injured, dead, or captured pilots really are part of the equation.
  - wolverine876 6y ago
    > It’s basically been decided that we are going to spend silly money keeping a small number of absolutely cutting edge aircraft flying rather than thousands if not tens of thousands of of likely more efficient but less capable possibly drone aircraft. What is the basis for saying that? From what I understand, the U.S. military is investing very heavily in unmanned aerial vehicles, including having F-35's control large numbers of them.
    - Retric 6y ago
      I meant in terms of opportunity costs. Spending hundreds of billions on F-35’s is money they can’t spend on something else.
  - imtringued 6y ago
    It's the drone boogeyman again. They are cheap because I can buy them in a brick and mortar store. Surely the military can just buy tens of thousands of them. >It’s basically been decided that we are going to spend silly money keeping a small number of absolutely cutting edge aircraft flying rather than thousands if not tens of thousands of of likely more efficient but less capable possibly drone aircraft. Well, you're missing the fact that there will be thousands of F-35s on earth (500 already built). Meanwhile there are less drones like MQ-9 Reaper (200 built) which are basically primarily to bully some ground troops than F-35s despite them only costing $40 million a pop. After all they are cheap. Because you see, the brick and mortar store sells them, so they must be cheap even when they are not. >than thousands if not tens of thousands of of likely more efficient but less capable possibly drone aircraft. In a war less capability might mean the total loss of all aircraft. You only need a few F-35s and some anti air support on the ground and the drones will be shot down. Yes, you might be able to execute a saturation attack but once you lost your entire fleet how are you going to respond to the counterattack? Oh right, with your own 5th generation fighter that matches the F-35. Honestly, the biggest benefit of drones is that you can equip your infantry with loitering munitions and thereby reduce the need for conventional CAS provided by a conventional air force. This isn't a stupid lets build ten million drones swarm buzzword bingo to scare some people who barely know anything about the capability of military weapons. That's nonsensical. It's like plastering machine guns everywhere because "cheap". As if militaries only care about stockpiling weapons with no logic behind mission objectives.
    - taneq 6y ago
      > Meanwhile there are less drones like MQ-9 Reaper (200 built) [...] costing $40 million a pop. Prices like this for military equipment are deceptive. They're not $40mil a pop. They're the product of an $8 billion project. The build price is probably less than $100k... or at least it would be if a military contractor wasn't absolutely creaming it.
      - tim333 6y ago
        Glancing at the specs range 1,850 km, top speed: 482 km/h I don't think there are aircraft of any kind doing anything like that for $100k Something like a TBM 910 has comparable specs as a light aircraft and cost something like $4m.
cccc4all 6y ago
The touchscreen is not there for UX. The touch screen is there to charge $200,000 for basically $500 ipad. The software costs for touchscreen probably is in the $ millions.
jay_kyburz 6y ago
I've always wanted to build a big rig of buttons to surround my pc monitor that I could program for various functions I do every day. When working on Bioshock I had a strip of buttons that could be programmed to send keystrokes like it was a keyboard. I was working in Unreal Engine on the Xbox 360. I could plug these keys it into the dev kit, and with one click could enter all kinds of obscure console commands I could never remember. Was great. Update: was one of these. https://xkeys.com/ https://xkeys.com/
- LeifCarrotson 6y ago
  My company builds and works with industrial automation, custom CNC machines, and industrial robots. I've observed a shift from purely button-and-neon operated panels from early PLC or relay logic machines, to multifunction keys on the human-machine interface display (HMI) before touchscreens, to a fitful few years when people thought it was a good idea to build machines with VB6 and various serial to digital IO adapters, to purely touchscreen-driven machines with one legally-mandated physical emergency stop button (about when I arrived in the industry, the other machines were mostly historic beasts I've occasionally been charged with maintaining), and back towards multifunction keys. There are usually a few dedicated buttons and indicators for common operations (reset, cycle start, control power on, feed hold, feed rate override, etc), that still makes sense most of the time. I really think multifunction keys are the best of both worlds. As the author of this piece describes, the multifunction display with 20 keys around the outside (or, for CNCs, 10 keys across the bottom of the monitor and 10 off to the right, in a 1-4-4-1 spacing so you can feel exactly which button you're hovering over while you're staring unblinking at a cutter chewing through 5-figure assemblies) is a good compromise. It takes some serious concentrated planning to design a set of keys that are intuitive (top to scroll up, bottom to scroll down, one dedicated for enter, two for context-specific operations, etc), but it gives you the freedom to design relatively shallow but featureful menu systems that you can memorize and get tactile feedback to operate with confidence.
  - germinalphrase 6y ago
    Can anyone recommend reading about UX design for these kinds of combined digital/physical interfaces.
ertemplin 6y ago
Lots of general aviation cockpits are moving to touch screens too. For example Garmin just got the G3X Touch approved for certified aircraft: https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/p/682215/pn/G3X-TCERT-13 https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/p/682215/pn/G3X-TCERT-13 The G3000 integrated flight deck is pretty much the default in new business jets too. In my opinion the touch screens are a lot easier to use than the old G1000 screens except for when you are getting tossed around in turbulence. Fortunately, there are still physical buttons for all of the "safety critical" or "time critical" inputs such as configuring the autopilot, changing radio frequencies, or adjusting the barometric pressure for the altimeter. Source: I am a private pilot and have used the G1000, G300, and G3X touch.
leesec 6y ago
Not all touch screens are created equal. The one in my Tesla is as good as a phone or Ipad

by blhack 6y ago

nickff 6y ago

There are lots of buttons and switches on the throttle and stick. Most modern western fighters are designed for HOTAS (hands on throttle and stick) operation, where the pilot never takes their hands off the throttle and stick during combat.

topspin 6y ago

> I can’t imagine the frustration trying to use a touch screen to fly a fighter jet. A war plane is something you have to operate while it's burning, or while you're bleeding on it, or while you can't see properly because it's full of smoke or someone just blinded you with a laser. The adoption of touch screens in this sort of cockpit seems misguided. Particularly for anything related to controlling comms or navigation.

Retric 6y ago
That’s really not how we design modern jet fighters. Air combat involves a huge number of tradeoffs and ejecting is now the correct response to a wide range of issues. For example, the F-35 so engine so engine failure is likely to result in a lost aircraft. It’s basically been decided that we are going to spend silly money keeping a small number of absolutely cutting edge aircraft flying rather than thousands if not tens of thousands of of likely more efficient but less capable possibly drone aircraft. PS: To be clear it’s possible their making the correct choice. I personally doubt it, but I don’t have access to the kind of classified documents to justify things in one way or another. An effective labor weapon for example might render vastly cheaper drone fleets ineffective.
- jki275 6y ago
  No, the post above is exactly correct. Ejecting from an aircraft is an absolute last resort, and you stand a good chance of dying or being badly injured if you have to do it, and even if you survive the ejection, the parachute ride, and the landing, it's a better than even chance you're going to be captured and beaten, tortured, or killed on the ground. That's if you land on land of course -- if you land in the water you might just drown or never be found.
  - Retric 6y ago
    > it’s better than even chance you’re going to be captured and beaten, tortured, or killed on the ground. That’s simply not the reality of modern fighter jets. The vast majority of time is going to be spent flying over either open ocean or friendly territory. That’s been true even if you’re only looking at recent combat missions. Anyway, single engine aircraft are always going to be at higher risk for mechanical failure, yet that’s the chosen design. Just look through this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_military_aircraft_(2010–2019) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incident.... In commercial aviation 4 crashes per year worldwide not that great, in military aviation 4 crashes a month worldwide is a very good month.
    - topspin 6y ago
      > That’s simply not the reality of modern fighter jets. Even Iraq managed to capture US and allied pilots. I think I'll forego the rest; you're reality and actual reality are a bit too divergent.
      - Retric 6y ago
        Again > it’s better than even chance you’re going to be captured and beaten, tortured, or killed on the ground Is demonstrably false. War is still an extremely unpleasant business, but the term acceptable losses applies even in peacetime. Every mission training or otherwise is rolling the dice that the aircraft will be lost. Yet, they still send pilots up knowing those risks in preparation for war. Aircraft designs really do involve similar tradeoffs and injured, dead, or captured pilots really are part of the equation.
- wolverine876 6y ago
  > It’s basically been decided that we are going to spend silly money keeping a small number of absolutely cutting edge aircraft flying rather than thousands if not tens of thousands of of likely more efficient but less capable possibly drone aircraft. What is the basis for saying that? From what I understand, the U.S. military is investing very heavily in unmanned aerial vehicles, including having F-35's control large numbers of them.
  - Retric 6y ago
    I meant in terms of opportunity costs. Spending hundreds of billions on F-35’s is money they can’t spend on something else.
- imtringued 6y ago
  It's the drone boogeyman again. They are cheap because I can buy them in a brick and mortar store. Surely the military can just buy tens of thousands of them. >It’s basically been decided that we are going to spend silly money keeping a small number of absolutely cutting edge aircraft flying rather than thousands if not tens of thousands of of likely more efficient but less capable possibly drone aircraft. Well, you're missing the fact that there will be thousands of F-35s on earth (500 already built). Meanwhile there are less drones like MQ-9 Reaper (200 built) which are basically primarily to bully some ground troops than F-35s despite them only costing $40 million a pop. After all they are cheap. Because you see, the brick and mortar store sells them, so they must be cheap even when they are not. >than thousands if not tens of thousands of of likely more efficient but less capable possibly drone aircraft. In a war less capability might mean the total loss of all aircraft. You only need a few F-35s and some anti air support on the ground and the drones will be shot down. Yes, you might be able to execute a saturation attack but once you lost your entire fleet how are you going to respond to the counterattack? Oh right, with your own 5th generation fighter that matches the F-35. Honestly, the biggest benefit of drones is that you can equip your infantry with loitering munitions and thereby reduce the need for conventional CAS provided by a conventional air force. This isn't a stupid lets build ten million drones swarm buzzword bingo to scare some people who barely know anything about the capability of military weapons. That's nonsensical. It's like plastering machine guns everywhere because "cheap". As if militaries only care about stockpiling weapons with no logic behind mission objectives.
  - taneq 6y ago
    > Meanwhile there are less drones like MQ-9 Reaper (200 built) [...] costing $40 million a pop. Prices like this for military equipment are deceptive. They're not $40mil a pop. They're the product of an $8 billion project. The build price is probably less than $100k... or at least it would be if a military contractor wasn't absolutely creaming it.
    - tim333 6y ago
      Glancing at the specs range 1,850 km, top speed: 482 km/h I don't think there are aircraft of any kind doing anything like that for $100k Something like a TBM 910 has comparable specs as a light aircraft and cost something like $4m.

cccc4all 6y ago

The touchscreen is not there for UX. The touch screen is there to charge $200,000 for basically $500 ipad. The software costs for touchscreen probably is in the $ millions.

jay_kyburz 6y ago

I've always wanted to build a big rig of buttons to surround my pc monitor that I could program for various functions I do every day. When working on Bioshock I had a strip of buttons that could be programmed to send keystrokes like it was a keyboard. I was working in Unreal Engine on the Xbox 360. I could plug these keys it into the dev kit, and with one click could enter all kinds of obscure console commands I could never remember. Was great. Update: was one of these. https://xkeys.com/ https://xkeys.com/

LeifCarrotson 6y ago
My company builds and works with industrial automation, custom CNC machines, and industrial robots. I've observed a shift from purely button-and-neon operated panels from early PLC or relay logic machines, to multifunction keys on the human-machine interface display (HMI) before touchscreens, to a fitful few years when people thought it was a good idea to build machines with VB6 and various serial to digital IO adapters, to purely touchscreen-driven machines with one legally-mandated physical emergency stop button (about when I arrived in the industry, the other machines were mostly historic beasts I've occasionally been charged with maintaining), and back towards multifunction keys. There are usually a few dedicated buttons and indicators for common operations (reset, cycle start, control power on, feed hold, feed rate override, etc), that still makes sense most of the time. I really think multifunction keys are the best of both worlds. As the author of this piece describes, the multifunction display with 20 keys around the outside (or, for CNCs, 10 keys across the bottom of the monitor and 10 off to the right, in a 1-4-4-1 spacing so you can feel exactly which button you're hovering over while you're staring unblinking at a cutter chewing through 5-figure assemblies) is a good compromise. It takes some serious concentrated planning to design a set of keys that are intuitive (top to scroll up, bottom to scroll down, one dedicated for enter, two for context-specific operations, etc), but it gives you the freedom to design relatively shallow but featureful menu systems that you can memorize and get tactile feedback to operate with confidence.
- germinalphrase 6y ago
  Can anyone recommend reading about UX design for these kinds of combined digital/physical interfaces.

ertemplin 6y ago

Lots of general aviation cockpits are moving to touch screens too. For example Garmin just got the G3X Touch approved for certified aircraft: https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/p/682215/pn/G3X-TCERT-13 https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/p/682215/pn/G3X-TCERT-13 The G3000 integrated flight deck is pretty much the default in new business jets too. In my opinion the touch screens are a lot easier to use than the old G1000 screens except for when you are getting tossed around in turbulence. Fortunately, there are still physical buttons for all of the "safety critical" or "time critical" inputs such as configuring the autopilot, changing radio frequencies, or adjusting the barometric pressure for the altimeter. Source: I am a private pilot and have used the G1000, G300, and G3X touch.

leesec 6y ago

Not all touch screens are created equal. The one in my Tesla is as good as a phone or Ipad