Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US Navy will replace touchscreen with mechanical controls on its destroyers

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 458 posts

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

#431

Post by saidajigumi »

magduf wrote: post #429
MisterTea wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it worked on Star Trek. Then again, that was addressed in a Voyager episode when Tom Paris designs the helm in their new runabout with old fashioned buttons and switches because he wanted to actually feel the controls much to Tuvok's dismay. Though, on a serious note, I work in industrial automation and user interfaces, aka HMI's have been touch oriented for quite some time. It was and still is common to see gr…

>Well, it worked on Star Trek. Then again, that was addressed in a Voyager episode when Tom Paris designs the helm in their new runabout with old fashioned buttons and switches because he wanted to actually feel the controls much to Tuvok's dismay. I didn't watch Voyager much, and never saw that episode, but this is extremely disappointing. The ST:TNG Technical Manual (which came out before VOY) clearly addressed thi…

Didn't the writers of VOY ever read the TNG Tech Manual?

Nope, in fact they were expressly prohibited from writing about the technology. In the scripts, instead of doing their built-world-homework and writing that coherently into the story, they just had to put "[TECH]" in to the scripts. Then the technical consistency editors came along and filled that stuff in. Not even kidding. This led to some of the really disastrous (IMO) early scenes in Voyager such as one where two characters (Cpt. Janeway and B'Elanna, iirc) are bonding while solving an crisis technical issue... and the dialogue is a total hash because it was "co-written" using a completely insane method.

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

#432

Post by magduf »

zeveb wrote: post #395
bigiain wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just generalised Monday morning cynicism... It happens with _everything_ else in this stupid industry, what're the chances of it not happening just the same when the tech industry targets the military industrial complex???

Principle of charity: don't attribute mistakes to malevolence. Unlike in business, military purchasing is, I think, generally run by people who were once users of the systems they were purchasing, and are not unlikely to rely on them again. Far more likely than, 'I don't care if the ensign standing watch on my next ship can do his job, this Mai Tai tastes great!' is 'wow, I see all these touch screens on TV shows, in…

I guess some of us are hoping for a little more competence and actually doing some research, like, for instance, trying out these products in field tests to see how soldiers like them and use them and how effective they are with them before committing to a big contract.

Maybe that's just asking too much these days.

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

#433

Post by zyngaro »

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…

Even for gaming it’s awful. Playing a video game on a touch screen never felt right , depending on the game but For most games it’s an awful experience.

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

#434

Post by Izkata »

magduf wrote: post #430
amiga-workbench wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bridge modules can be fairly easily swapped out in drydock, but I don't believe that can be done while underway. The Galaxy class was the first class of ship with a saucer separation system that could be re-attached while in flight. I believe the Constitution class did have the ability to separate its saucer, but that was accomplished with explosive bolts and it couldn't re-attach without being in drydock.

That galaxy-class saucer separation thing was honestly not a great idea, and it was somewhat annoying when they used it in the episodes. The problem with it is that only the "stardrive" section has warp capability, so what good is it to be able to separate except for using the saucer as a last-resort escape pod in case of warp engine failure? The saucer is simply too slow to go anywhere in a reasonable amount of time…

One of the reasons for that functionality I don't recall actually making it to an episode - tactical advantage in a fight. The rear section had increased maneuverability when separated, and it resulted in two targets for attackers, both of which could fire back.

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

#435

Post by smolder »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #43
liability wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The problem is the current solution doesn't work. Because trying to perfect those settings manually while driving in near zero visibility is scary and dangerous. And nobody even knows the correct settings to use! There are YouTube videos testing whether cold or warm air is the fastest way to defrost and/or defog your window, because nobody knows or remembers. I honestly don't remember and my solution is "try both for…

In my car there is a front window defrost button that turns on the a/c (to dehumidify) but also the heat. Dry warm air does the best to remove condensation.

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

#436

Post by amiga-workbench »

mannykannot wrote: post #407
amiga-workbench wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also in theory controls for any system can be transferred to any console on the ship, I can think of one episode where Seven transferred helm, tactical and ops down to an engineering console.

That was part of the problem on the USS McCain: there were so many different modes of control that the crew lost track of the state of the system.

I'd be really interested to see how the UI handled signposting for those handed-off functions, because I don't think the idea is inherently unwieldy, it just needs a good clear implementation.

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

#437

Post by amiga-workbench »

magduf wrote: post #430
amiga-workbench wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bridge modules can be fairly easily swapped out in drydock, but I don't believe that can be done while underway. The Galaxy class was the first class of ship with a saucer separation system that could be re-attached while in flight. I believe the Constitution class did have the ability to separate its saucer, but that was accomplished with explosive bolts and it couldn't re-attach without being in drydock.

That galaxy-class saucer separation thing was honestly not a great idea, and it was somewhat annoying when they used it in the episodes. The problem with it is that only the "stardrive" section has warp capability, so what good is it to be able to separate except for using the saucer as a last-resort escape pod in case of warp engine failure? The saucer is simply too slow to go anywhere in a reasonable amount of time…

The saucer section can still maintain a warp field for a little while after separation at warp, it could potentially coast quite far out of harms way.

Tactically that would only make sense if the engineering hull could keep an enemy ship entirely occupied, if there was more than one enemy ship engaging then its going to be difficult to keep them all from pursuing the saucer.

You are right though, if you did suffer a warp core breach you aren't going anywhere quickly. But in almost all situations help is only one subspace call away.

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

#438

Post by magduf »

Izkata wrote: post #434
magduf wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That galaxy-class saucer separation thing was honestly not a great idea, and it was somewhat annoying when they used it in the episodes. The problem with it is that only the "stardrive" section has warp capability, so what good is it to be able to separate except for using the saucer as a last-resort escape pod in case of warp engine failure? The saucer is simply too slow to go anywhere in a reasonable amount of time…

One of the reasons for that functionality I don't recall actually making it to an episode - tactical advantage in a fight. The rear section had increased maneuverability when separated, and it resulted in two targets for attackers, both of which could fire back.

Perhaps, but one of those targets is effectively stationary because it's so comparatively slow.

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

#439

Post by cardiffspaceman »

logfromblammo wrote: post #412
gugagore wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That sort of technology, if scale was not an issue, could allow you to make a miniaturized version of the situation and use your hands to move the ship among the other elements, and that input would then be translated into engine/thruster settings. The model ship would resist movement as needed.

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

#440

Post by modsiw »

MisterTea wrote: post #224
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…

Well, it worked on Star Trek. Then again, that was addressed in a Voyager episode when Tom Paris designs the helm in their new runabout with old fashioned buttons and switches because he wanted to actually feel the controls much to Tuvok's dismay. Though, on a serious note, I work in industrial automation and user interfaces, aka HMI's have been touch oriented for quite some time. It was and still is common to see gr…

Are you the reason why my office water dispenser has a touch screen?
Post reply on HN