US Navy will replace touchscreen with mechanical controls on its destroyers • Hacker News Board

Re: US Navy will replace touchscreen with mechanical controls on its destroyers

#411

Post by mannykannot » Mon, Aug 12, 2019, 2:31 PM UTC

ddingus wrote: post #257

beached_whale wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume, that actions like turning/twisting do not work well on touch screens. you can do sliders but for somethings that may not give the correct control. I can probably turn a knob at finer increments than I can slide my finger on the screen.

It is all about haptic feedback, and low latency between action and outcome. You can twist virtually with good precision. But, what is much harder is the feel, state of the knob, particularly when it is released and then gripped again. Mechanically, the structure of the knob can take some energy input, and it serves as a mechanical pivot, or fulcrum, depending on how people use a knob. Without all those physical thin…

In addition, the essential ship controls must work in rough weather, so you want something you can grasp to keep your hand steady. So long as airplanes have human pilots, I do not suppose the physical stick, rudder pedals and throttles are going away.

Re: US Navy will replace touchscreen with mechanical controls on its destroyers

#412

Post by logfromblammo » Mon, Aug 12, 2019, 2:52 PM UTC

gugagore wrote: post #305

cameronbrown wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

tbf this could be achievable with Apple's virtual click tech. Would like to see how that'd work in practice.

I imagine the star trek interact can really apply arbitrary forces. So you can simulate a knob for example. Not just a tactile sensation when you're already in (near) contact with the interface.

A really advanced Star Trek interface would use holo/replicator tech to materialize physical knobs, switches, and sliders in a user-defined configuration as they activated the console.

Re: US Navy will replace touchscreen with mechanical controls on its destroyers

#413

Post by stevec2222 » Mon, Aug 12, 2019, 2:59 PM UTC

I think this is actually a smart decision. Thinking about it from a systems engineering perspective might help. I spent a few years writing software for NAVAIR. I worked specifically with systems that are on carriers, but I assume it is the same for NAVSEA and destroyers. A touchscreen might be thought of as a COTs component, but there's not many choices when you take into account the mil spec standards that must be met with regards to vibration and salt water. The touchscreens that are allowed to be used are not cheap and if the display breaks, it must all be replaced. The whole monitor itself is the smallest replaceable unit. Physical buttons on the other hand have very cheap versions that have been passing mil spec for the last half century. Stocking LED buttons and non touch screen displays would be the cheapest option.

Re: US Navy will replace touchscreen with mechanical controls on its destroyers

#414

Post by TrevorJ » Mon, Aug 12, 2019, 3:01 PM UTC

I took a cheap MIDI controller and wrote some software to control Photoshop with it so that I can use dials for brush size, zoom, etc. Feels so much more natural.

Re: US Navy will replace touchscreen with mechanical controls on its destroyers

#415

Post by logfromblammo » Mon, Aug 12, 2019, 3:07 PM UTC

liability wrote: post #37

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honest question: Why don't modern cars yet monitor humidity in and outside the car and make the correct decisions to keep your windows clear? Why are we focusing on self-driving cars while our cars are too dumb to do this much on their own?

Because when the sensor goes screwy I don't want my car to start flipping shit like the defroster on when it's not needed? Because manual controls make such automation totally unnecessary? Because even if the automated system were designed to be "fail safe", the state that's 'safe' is actually context dependent, therefore manual controls will be necessary anyway? It ain't broke, so stop trying to 'fix' it.

I'd rather have the AC system dehumidify outside air, then reheat it before blowing it on the inside of the windshield. Most car HVAC systems make AC and heat mutually exclusive.

Dry hot air to heat the windshield above the dew point avoids the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" choice of cold dry air to keep the inside from fogging up versus hot humid air to keep the outside from fogging up.

It's not a matter of temperature sensing on the windshield, but humidity sensing in the cabin air.

Re: US Navy will replace touchscreen with mechanical controls on its destroyers

#416

Post by cannonedhamster » Mon, Aug 12, 2019, 3:09 PM UTC

amiga-workbench wrote: post #400

animal531 wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, before they mainly used it as an escape vehicle in case of warp nacelle or containment issues.

Yeah, the warp core ejection systems always seem to conveniently fail. You would want to dump the entire engineering section and haul ass if you were sitting on an antimatter bomb.

There were also physical backups in case the automated ejection system didn't work. There was always a physical backup to any touch interface that was critical to system operations.

Re: US Navy will replace touchscreen with mechanical controls on its destroyers

#417

Post by eeZah7Ux » Mon, Aug 12, 2019, 3:13 PM UTC

o-__-o wrote: post #252

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honest question: Why don't modern cars yet monitor humidity in and outside the car and make the correct decisions to keep your windows clear? Why are we focusing on self-driving cars while our cars are too dumb to do this much on their own?

This is the Airbus v Boeing problem. There are two schools of thought, one being that you the operator can control all the settings including the ones necessary to avoid the fogging. There are others that do so automatically. So many times people would be aggravated that my a/c would turn on with the heat in my Audi. What they didn’t realize was how that prevented fogging of the windows which inevitably would happen…

> This is the Airbus v Boeing problem

This is a false dichotomy.

Re: US Navy will replace touchscreen with mechanical controls on its destroyers

#418

Post by moftz » Mon, Aug 12, 2019, 3:14 PM UTC

m-p-3 wrote: post #403

Justsignedup wrote: post #198

Wait. Let me get this straight. Touchscreens, which are ideal for representing multiple user unterfaces in an intuitive way, but requiring constant visual contact are being replaced by a physical user interface that can be used by both touch, and memory? Why was touchscreen ever even a consideration for controls you're not looking at? Touchscreen is great for phones. It is awful for keyboards (see macbook pro). And i…

IMO touchscreen are awful in any kind of vehicles or activities requiring you to have your eyes focused on something else than the display. Like for smartwatches, I hate using touch controls to control it, I really prefer physical buttons since they provide multiple benefits - keep the display smudge-free - works with gloves (useful during winter) - allow actions from touch-memory (ie: skip song without looking at it…

I feel like destroyers are large enough that taking your eyes off the "road" for a moment to adjust controls is perfectly fine. Ships like that have radar systems to detect other boats. These things could probably pilot themselves with enough sensors. They move slow enough in crowded waterways and have actual radar (versus lidar or cameras) so seeing the speed and direction of other things around them is already built-in. Relying on a bunch of tired people to work together to steer a ship seems like a worse idea than having just one well-rested captain that can sit back and observe an auto-pilot.

Having a thoughtful default UI along with the ability to display any control or status on the screen would seem like a better idea for central control station. A captain could pull up their own configuration for the control panel. During an emergency, they could fallback to a default view that could be referenced by operating procedure documents. Give the ability to delegate controls to other stations but do not allow multiple stations to control the same input, that seems like an idiotic idea.

Re: US Navy will replace touchscreen with mechanical controls on its destroyers

#419

Post by logfromblammo » Mon, Aug 12, 2019, 3:22 PM UTC

Tomte wrote: post #62

rossdavidh wrote: post #2

You know, I think touchscreens are not preferable unless you need/want to be able to have controls for many different systems in the same space (e.g. a smartphone with multiple apps). If you are needing a dedicated control for a high-stakes system, the fact that it's a more modern-looking interface should not matter. Touchscreens are inherently inferior to a mechanical interface, if it's a single-system (i.e. doesn't…

Or if you need to clean/desinfect often. Touchscreens are good in hospitals.

Hospitals could also use hand controls made of metal with a high copper or silver content, or foot pedals. Maybe also autoclave-able interface boards, or disposable single-use plastic covers.

Too many medical devices are designed to be operated by fingers, rather than a foot. Touchscreens help the problem of hand-transferred contamination, but that is the wrong problem to fix. The problem is that hands are being forced to touch things unnecessarily. No one cares about what feet touch, because feet don't touch patients, and shoe-clad feet can step through a shallow disinfecting bath if necessary.

Re: US Navy will replace touchscreen with mechanical controls on its destroyers

#420

Post by com2kid » Mon, Aug 12, 2019, 3:40 PM UTC

DonHopkins wrote: post #360

starsinspace wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well, it worked on Star Trek. IIRC the official explanation from the makers of Star Trek is that the displays look like simple touch screens, but they are actually overlaid with structured force fields, so for the users it feels like a physical button press.

I saw a touch screen for controlling AV equipment at Sun decades ago that had a single solenoid underneath the glass that could thunk to provide tactile feedback as you pressed buttons and dragged sliders.

I've played with some tech demos that used electrostatic stiction (I may be remembering the name wrong) to create friction on a glass touch panel.

The high voltage needed makes it a no go for most/all portable devices.

I played with some other "cl controllable friction" tech but don't remember the basis of it. Iirc one actually made small indentations in the screen to simulate buttons. Had a bunch of limitations, I think the button placement was baked in at time of manufacturing, but it's been awhile and I don't trust my memory on the topic.