Who is/are the idiot/s who thought it appropriate to use touch screens to begin with? How much taxpayer money waste has this decision and its undoing caused, and is there any effort whatsoever to get to the bottom of this? Or is this just "collateral damage"?
US Navy will replace touchscreen with mechanical controls on its destroyers
451–458 of 458 posts
Re: US Navy will replace touchscreen with mechanical controls on its destroyers
#452Recently I've taken up metal machining as a semi-serious hobby. Fully automated CNC machines don't entirely fit my use-cases but for a couple of them LinuxCNC works fine. The primary UI for LinuxCNC is a touchscreen and frankly it's a frustrating limitation. LCD Touchscreens are just not well suited for that sort of environment. Legit OEM CNC controls are better but honestly every time I use one I can't but feel like…
LinuxCNC (at least Axis) can be controlled by keyboard - F1 is especially handy to stop the job in progress if anything goes wrong. Arrow keys can be used for jogging, with shift it uses max travel speeds but dedicated CNC pendant for jogging is on my TODO list as well as standalone DRO with 7 segment displays.
I absolutely hate using a standard computer keyboard to control a machine tool. It's all wrong. Or maybe it's more accurate to say that my mind is in completely the wrong mode of thought. Anyway it just doesn't jive.
So far I've tried a few pendants, starting with a games controller, some kind of media production controller, and some off-shore low budget purpose made dedicated CNC pendant. The games controller was by far the most useable but it's made out of the wrong materials, made for childrens' hands, and doesn't have all the right mechanical inputs (I need a wheel). The media thing was unsatisfying but tantalising in some ways.
I've been psyching myself up for a doing some sort of mostly faithful copy of legit OEM controllers I use from time to time, like Fanuc for example. Some years ago I used an old Maho that had a really nice wired pendant. It was really solid, had some heft to it, and my recollection is that failing one or two functions had every one might want in such a device.
Also, I think you're right about wanting a standalone DRO with 7 segment LED displays. For a lot of jobs I find that a DRO hits the sweet spot with being easy to use, easy to read, and having the functions I need. My only real complaint is that I think I want one with a larger read out, so I can push it well out of the way and still see it properly.
Re: US Navy will replace touchscreen with mechanical controls on its destroyers
#453Earlier 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.
This! This!
Re: US Navy will replace touchscreen with mechanical controls on its destroyers
#454Earlier 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…
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…
>But in almost all situations help is only one subspace call away.
Huh? No way; whether you're in a battle with 3 cloaked Romulan warbirds, or have an imminent warp core breach, you have minutes, at most, to get help. Other starships aren't that close by.
Re: US Navy will replace touchscreen with mechanical controls on its destroyers
#455Earlier 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…
Did not know about the technical manual, just ordered a copy.
Re: US Navy will replace touchscreen with mechanical controls on its destroyers
#456Touchscreens seem like it was overly ambitious to implement in the first place. Not to mention prone to attack by an EMP, or even literal sticky fingers (heh) but I bet a lot of other stuff on the ships are too. Navy may bumble around a tiny bit but I really like my GPS.
Re: US Navy will replace touchscreen with mechanical controls on its destroyers
#457Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It is awful for keyboards (see macbook pro) I've never seen a MacBook Pro with a touchscreen keyboard. Can you point me at one?
Probably referring to the Touch Bar: https://assets.pcmag.com/media/images/548053-touch-bar.jpg?t...
Except the sentence clearly implies that MacBook Pros use a touchscreen keyboard. That's a hilariously wrong assertion, hence my sarcasm.
Re: US Navy will replace touchscreen with mechanical controls on its destroyers
#458Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or fewer. The only time I ever see them on is when it's a clear night and I'm getting blinded by the person in front of me. That said, they are pretty useful for more than fog... They're good for flashing at people behind you who don't have their headlights on.
...a rear fog light is an additional parking light on the rear driver side of your car to help other cars identify the width of your car in foggy or other incline to weather situations. They are not brighter than any other light that would regularly be present on that car. If it is brighter and blinding as you say, rest assured the car has been illegally modified and is subject to constant harassment by police in all…
I've owned three cars with rear fog lights and all of them came from the factory with the rear fog light(s) being brighter than the rear parking lights. That makes sense too -- because if rear parking lights were bright enough for fog then you wouldn't need rear fog lights.