Synthetic Vision

[Dw1oakes]

Would there be any thoughts about displaying towns or hills or lakes, etc on the synthetic display on SV in the future?
It is really boring to look at a checkered green landscape. I do see a runway when I land however. ;D
Just a thought
Dave

 

[dynonsupport]

Sounds like you should fly somewhere that has hills or lakes (or obstacles)... They're already on there!

Here's a screen shot from a real SkyView from back in 2010:

And here's New York City:

 

[airguy]

Dynon - the borders of your bodies of water - are those at some historical "snapshot" in time or are they floodstage or conservation stage or something else?

 

[dynonsupport]

They are generally at a flood level for inland water.

 

[jnmeade]

I spent a lot of time flying synthetic vision at the OPL in Iowa City when Prof Schnell and crew were developing this kind of idea. We flew all kinds of backgrounds, including the squares of different sizes and colors, other shapes, some kind of wire net look and others. The squares was chosen as the result of testing which indicated it was preferable. There were a lot of eye motion studies involved and lots of repetitive flights changing only the background.

 

[Dw1oakes]

I guess I must fly somewhere there is hills or something as I get nothing. Drat that midwest scenery. I do not even get large lakes, I would have thought a reservoir would have shown. Would i have missed something in the set up?
Thanks
Dave :-?

 

[jnmeade]

I don't know how bodies of water are depicted. When I was doing a lot of primary instruction, I used to caution the students about relying on the shape of bodies of water to verify a checkpoint. Dams don't move, but the lake gets big and small, changes shape and otherwise is untrustworthy. If you are in Minnesota, it can be downright confusing.

 

[mmarien]

Synthetic vision verses the real thing:

 

[jakej]

Just love those snow capped mountains ;D

Jake J

 

[Dw1oakes]

Dynon,
I suppose that the idea of using Google Earth view in the SV background would take too much programming or space on the computer?

Dave

 

[dynonsupport]

Only two minor issues:

1) Google map images are about 20,000 Terrabytes. With current 4TB hard drives, that would only weigh about 6,000 pounds and draw 70 HP of electricity to keep running Plus costing $1M.

2) The more real reason is that aerial images are far from free. Licensing a whole country of images isn't something that is generally in the budget of an experimental plane. While it appears that things like Google maps are free, the aren't if you want to use them commercially.