-  [WT]  [Home] [Manage]

[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]
Posting mode: Reply
Subject   (reply to 7480)
File URL
Embed   Help
Password  (for post and file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: 7Z, GIF, JPG, PDF, PNG, RAR, SWF, ZIP
  • Maximum file size allowed is 5120 KB.
  • Images greater than 300x300 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 551 unique user posts. View catalog

  • Blotter updated: 2017-02-04 Show/Hide Show All

Patches and Stickers for sale here

File 145048931168.jpg - (70.26KB , 800x600 , ultraslim crt.jpg )
7480 No. 7480 ID: 9aea35
Why do some militaries use LCD or plasma displays on aircraft?

LCDs suffer badly from effects of humidity or altitude changes, lose pixels often, have low service lifetimes, limited view angles, have resolution problems and a far greater latency rate compared to traditional CRT...

I'm specifically interested in why LCDs are used on aircraft such as the AWACS, which don't care as much about weight or power generation, and more reliable lower latency CRTs might make more sense
Expand all images
>> No. 7481 ID: 08f745
Why do you need a wide view angle? The operator's sitting in front of it.

Why are you concerned with latency? The equipment only presents information so fast.

Why are you concerned about altitude or humidity in a climate controlled pressurized aircraft?

Weight and power are always concerns on aircraft. Period. Always. We're talking about a fuckton of displays. A 24" screen in LCD or IPS is a fuckton less in terms of power, interference generation, weight, and actual cost these days.
>> No. 7483 ID: 6372b6
This, also input/latency issues these days are pretty much nonexistent. The "lag" for even consumer displays these days is infinitesimal, really not an issue.

>Why are you concerned about altitude or humidity in a climate controlled pressurized aircraft?
I thought most fighters had a semi-controlled environment, but I can't imagine shit fucking up screens that much.

Basically, if it was an issue it would be dealt with.
>> No. 7485 ID: b2a950
weight and cost
>> No. 7486 ID: 667a5a
>Why do you need a wide view angle?
So the operator beside the operator can see his buddys screen simultaneously with his own, this increases cooperation

>Why are you concerned with latency?
Because modern sensors are going to be pumping more and more info on screens directly from passive sensors, where latency matters much more than for radar

Future AWACS will probably have FLIRs capable of seeing fighters at hundreds of kilometers and ICBM launches at thousands of kilometers, and when FLIR sweeps the environment current LCD screens render the image as a stuttery blur that looks like shit and destroys any spatial awareness of the operator

>Why are you concerned about altitude or humidity in a climate controlled pressurized aircraft?
Because it may not be climate controlled or pressurized at all portions of its mission, at some point it may have to carry out a mission while having sustained damage
This is the key difference between civilian and military equipment - the ability to carry out missions damaged

Also it increases service life because pilots don't have to worry about landing in a high humidity zone

CRTs are two to three times cheaper at the moment, and far more reliable which decreases maintenance over the lifetime

Some experimental ones weigh only a bit more than LCDs, but I will agree that weight is an issue, as is volume
>> No. 7487 ID: 08f745

Yeah, fighters have a semi-controlled environment. I could go ask someone at the NAS if horses mouth is required, but doing a bit of research shows that at least for the F/A-18 it's ambient pressure to 8k then runs a differential that ends up pegging at something like 25k pressure alt @ 50k above sea level.

So that's the environment that the screens are subjected to. I think OP also doesn't understand the differences between aviation grade equipment and commercial production junk.
>> No. 7488 ID: 42779b
File 145056638813.jpg - (55.90KB , 728x546 , cathode-ray-tube-3-728.jpg )

> CRTs

What the fuck are you talking about? CRT monitors are extinct for a reason. I'm assuming you're young enough to not have used CRT monitors very much, but they're very heavy, large and expensive. Meanwhile new LCD screens with LED backlights are good to go. OLED screens are the future, and the future is bright. (Plasma was crap.)

I had a Viewsonic 22" professional CRT monitor, and the fucking thing was 70 lbs and I used it at 1280x1080 and 75 hz refresh rate. Toward the edges, the picture degraded and the color was always a little off.

The first monitor I had was in 1989 and was a 13" VGA monitor. (Hot shit.) Since then I've done 15, 17, 19, and finally the 22". My buddy had a 36" CRT TV, that we could do 800x600 on.

All of them, with the exception of one Viewsonic 17" we keep around in case we need it, are dead and gone. The power supplies always take a shit on them. Why not replace the PS? Because it's most of the cost of the monitor.

The first flat panel monitor I got a 19" 4:3 display and it worked fine. The first TV I used as a monitor is a Hyundai 32" with a cold cathode back light. 7 years later I still use it on my old computer. It always had issues with ghosting and response rate, but nothing that ever stopped me from pwning noobs. Now it's got some color issues, but works fine for the old computer. I've currently got a Sony Bravia 40" HDTV (LED backlight) from a couple of years ago that's fucking great, and a LG 42" at my new place that's adequate, but was cheap.

Computer monitor LCD screens from the last 5-7 years are good to go. New IPS panels are awesome. I saw a new OLED TV at the store the other day, and it was fucking amazing.
>> No. 7496 ID: 381ee6
Can you stop the personal attacks please

I grew up with CRTs and not having to replace an LCD every two years, kind of thinking about getting a CRT again

>heavy, large and expensive
Slightly heavier and larger than LCDs sure, but there are tradeoff such as latency, reliability, field of view etc
And they aren't more expensive than LCDs last time I checked

>I had a Viewsonic 22" professional CRT monitor
It came out fifteen years ago as a budget screen, it wasn't cutting edge then either considering it used technology from over 20 years ago
And you're comparing it with current LCDs.... at least compare current CRTs to current LCDs, there have been a few advances in the area since the 90s despite everyone the dearth of research funds

Also there are inherent superiorities, for example LCDs are hot shit if they have a display lag of 10m, but CRTs don't really have a display lag at all
CRT consistently see better colors, higher refresh rates, frame rates and response times... because of this CRTs are seeing a resurgence in high end pro gaming community

By the way a fighter pilot sees over 250 frames per second and has to be able to see and identify the shape of an enemy aircraft as it flashes in front of his face at that speed, so lets not pretend 10ms lag followed by 60fps running on a passive sensor is going to cut it
This exact reason is why F-35 pilots are reporting disorientation when using EODAS

>OLED screens are the future
Agree, but still plenty of kinks
>> No. 7497 ID: fc3045
>Stop with the personal attacks.

For the record, AVGAS and BTDT are different posters. I'm pretty sure you're more butthurt at AVGAS for stating what we're all thinking.

>I grew up with CRTs and not having to replace an LCD every two years, kind of thinking about getting a CRT again

This is another aspect of you not seeing the difference between commercial and aerospace grade products. There's a reason airplane shit is so expensive.

What was the failure mode on the LCD panel? You *did* check it for ugly caps, then go buy military/aerospace capacitors off of digikey or Mouser to replace them, right?

>MFW all my secondary screens are recapped Goodwill finds and cost ~25 bucks.

>Slightly heavier and larger than LCDs sure, but there are tradeoff such as latency, reliability, field of view etc
And they aren't more expensive than LCDs last time I checked

Weight tends to be everything in an aircraft, it's always critical, because you then have to leave behind people / gas / ammo.
Reliability is a wash. Proper components means the LCD panel is rock solid, and you don't have the inherit affectability due to Magnetic energy that CRTs have.

You've also got the need to feed a CRT high voltage, etc etc.

Yes, CRT's are better for high end gaming, but being inna airplane, isn't high end gaming. The benefits you reap aren't necessarily benefits you need.

Plus, if you're gonna go full autist about refresh rates and shit, what does it matter when you have a light on the dash that will warn you, you have audio warnings, and you have a back seater (possibly) dealing with all this bullshit.

I tend to just read things from people who know what they're talking about and link there. BTDT usually knows what he's talking about.

Some good reading:


And then the fact that Honeywell evidently went to LCD is telling.

>> No. 7498 ID: 381ee6
I have no problem with Avgas, he's not driveby insulting or being passive-aggressive
Just look at the size of their respective posts, Avgas actually posts information which is interesting and tries to discuss things instead of just losing his cool

>Weight tends to be everything in an aircraft, it's always critical, because you then have to leave behind people / gas / ammo.
So why aren't we using smaller, less capable radar systems on everything? Weight isn't so important that capability gets thrown out with the bathwater, there's a tradeoff there

>LCD panel is rock solid
Backlight... Maybe in airplanes this is different technology, but as far as I know these things are incredibly fragile

>what does it matter
See spoiler, performance does matter to pilots, because their eyes and brains are processing information at different rates compared to an average couch potato, or even a high end gamer
And even for average couch potato type people, a moving passive sensor produces motion fatigue when displayed on a screen with any latency

The fact that CRTs are still used in military markets despite them being basically nonexistant in civilian markets weighs in favor of their superior performance being desireable despite the weight/volume

Like Avgas said, OLEDs are the future because they have capabilities equivalent to CRT with much less weight, but until they start being used the CRTs seem to have their benefits as well
In the long run I don't think it's going to matter, but when people look back on this "LCD period", they're going to wonder why the fuck we went this route
>> No. 7499 ID: 08f745

You have yet to see a personal attack from me. Trust me, shit gets much more vicious if I'm getting personal versus what I did up till this point, and continue to do, which was simply asking questions and also stating facts. If that hurt your feelings then I recommend fornication with something out of the Cactaceae family to sooth your ailing heart and mind. But I digress.

You've now earned a full dissection of your derpitude. Buckle up buttercup, it's going to get turbulent up in here.

never once heard of plasma being utilised on aircraft for display purposes, feel free to present something to educate
>LCDs suffer badly from effects of humidity or altitude changes
As previously stated, Aircraft cockpits and cabins are climate controlled environments, and LCD's can handle 0-50C without batting an eye anyway, plus most aircraft LCD's also have heaters to function below freezing and maintain responsiveness. Aircraft rated hardware has higher design tolerances, which is... surprisingly, specced to what the aircraft's maximum altitude and therefore worst case environment is.
>lose pixels often
I'd rather lose a pixel (and have lost 4 over the last 10 years using LCD's) than oh, I don't know, have a CRT suddenly shit itself to a white dot. If you've actually had CRT's for as long as you say you have, then you'd know about that. I have had CRT's fail on me in the past and I'm not in a fucking aircraft..
>have low service lifetimes
Citation needed, MTBF for CRT's is 50khrs, 70k for LCD's, CRT's also have issues with burn-in of static information such as continually displayed information like you have in an airframe, whereas that's not an issue with LCD
>limited view angles
170 degree horizontal and 160 vertical is limited? At the outer end of both of those it's not like anyone can actually fucking look at a display and get a useful discernment of what's going on to be able to make a decision.... and if it's in a cockpit, SURPRISE ITS RIGHT THE FUCK IN FRONT OF AND POINTING AT THE PILOT.. Do you want the next jet over to be able to read things? If so.... why? Even with a CRT this holds true, and besides a limited field of view can be of benefit if someone's working one issue above the next console over's operators paygrade.
>have resolution problems
um... well, see, you're not changing resolutions in aircraft of any type like you do with a PC. There's no correlation because you're feeding the native resolution to the monitor, or feeding it through a display converter switch that guess what: converts all incoming video to the right resolution for the display
>far greater latency rate compared to traditional CRT
Ok..... as I've ridden on AC-130's and have the brass I got to help shoot to boot, I can say that what you see when you watch a video of hadj getting fucked up from above is actually WORSE in terms of framerate as well as resolution as what you actually see on display from onboard sensors. I don't know what resolution the sensors are nor the video display equipment (and if I did I sure as fuck wouldn't share it anyway), but shit gets downsampled in resolution just because everyone doesn't need to know exactly how well we can kill shit. INFOSEC and shit, yo. This argument is totally invalid.

Now let's look at something else: You talk about AWACS as though CRT's would be better there... Discounting that they aren't because of all of the shit already said... and simply talking about latency compared to CRT...It's about 10 seconds for a 360 degree rotation of an AWACS radome array. It doesn't take any significant brilliance to see that your latency argument is nullified in that aspect as data's statically displayed unless updated by data link from other aircraft radars and transponders, and even then, the information isn't changing at the rate of a screen change on a first person shooter. There's inherent latency within the entire system as an unavoidable consequence of the battlespace network that comprises what an AWACS handles, and an LCD's minimal lag is going to matter zero when it comes down to it. They aren't playing halo, they're getting an update a second as to location of radar returns and the like.

I would enjoy seeing where
>a fighter pilot sees over 250 frames per second and has to be able to see and identify the shape of an enemy aircraft as it flashes in front of his face at that speed
even remotely applies when it comes to oh, I don't know, the majority of aircraft displays where the information is generally static with minor changes. You know, like on ALL SIX OF THE DISPLAYS IN A F-22 COCKPIT....
>> No. 7501 ID: 08f745
File 145087841997.jpg - (1.43MB , 3872x2592 , 080116-F-1234P-002_JPG.jpg )
Bam. Image Related.

Let's tear this image apart, shall we?

Lowest display: Loadout, thrust, and various configuration changes capability as any MFD... which by the way, if you look, every one of these screens is a MFD. Lots of aircraft, civilian and military, you can huck different displays about depending if you like your radar on the left right center top bottom your mom or sister. Data all over her face and you can push her buttons to your own delight till she shows you what her momma gave her the way you like it where you like it.

Center, Left, Right. Situational awareness/Radar displays as depicted currently. Visual obviously can change if you're using a laser guided weapon system as you now have to not only fly the aircraft but also aim the beam... and as long as it's decent resolution and has a good refresh rate, guess what... you can hold the beam on target, especially considering that there are these things called stabilization programs and mechanisms that you know, let you aim the beam on something, figures out where you're aiming the beam in relation to the aircraft... and keeps the shit aimed at it once you're on, so you only have to make minor corrections when habib and his forty fucktards dismount the truck so that you have best weapon effect on the enemy.

You don't NEED shittons of color, because if it's a night vision device it's one color and lack thereof. You don't need shittons of color if it's a thermal, because unlike firefighting or industrial thermals, military only uses single color as a general rule, because you just need to see where the target is, not see that he's blushing because his favorite goat is waggling its tail seeing him before you fucking gank the shit out of him. Daytime sensor? Color works, but all these displays can do all the color information (16.7m colors, methinks it's goot) you need at a framerate that is smooth anyway.

Top right (hidden by top center control panel) and top left: Generally static data, frequencies, lat/long, navigation settings, fuel loadout, etc. It's information that you just need to change at oh... 60 fps at best.

Here's the thing. LCD's, Even aviation ones, are much lighter than legacy equipment that performs the same task, as well as CRT's that perform the same task. Not only that, but LCD's don't have the mounting depth issues that CRT's have. While CRT's have evolved slightly, the simple fact is that it's a pretty steady rule (as observable by actually LOOKING at tube displays) that you're going to have a mounting depth requirement of a minimum 3/4 of the screen diagonal. So now, you're having to eat up space with that display's backside AND ALL THAT GLASS, that could be used for... well, anything else you might want in the cockpit that could help you fly or fight.

>CRT's are Slightly heavier and larger than LCDs sure, but there are tradeoff such as latency, reliability, field of view etc

Let's look at some more shit shall we

CRT's: All similar construction commercial equipment

Viewsonic P810 21" monitor: 61 pounds, 2.9 pounds per inch diagonal displayed
Viewsonic E773 17" monitor: 36 pounds, 2.1 pounds per inch diagonal displayed
TTX TTX-6450G 14" monitor: 24.8 pounds, 1.7 pounds per inch diagonal displayed

So, going to a 10" diagonal display off the best pounds per inch right here of 1.7 = 17 pounds for that display. That's being generous, as aircraft grade CRT's are heavier duty and therefore heavier construction than civilian variants, using nice heavy metal bezels and so on vs plastic housings, bla de blah



gee johnny, how'd you fit all those displays in that fancy glass cockpit of yours

but wait, there's more, 145 watts for that 21" monitor.... and 7.2 watts for that 10" display... gee, there's no power savings there that could be used for any number of other things, or I don't know, designed to have less power output parasitically consumed off the engine for MOAR THRUST

All in all, the simple fact is that even in a military aviation environment the FPS and resolution of LCD's is more than adequate for the task at hand, and the size/weight/power factors are just about 10 times better across the board versus CRT's. Another factor is the reduced amount of EM interference in the cockpit compared to having all those glorious electromagnets doing their thing for beamforming, how CRT's have a higher propensity to just fucking die, are less vibration/G tolerant, etc, increased weight of component shielding above/beyond the CRT to deal with that EM interference.

CRT's are still used in very very very specific circumstances the vast majority of which are because they're tied to legacy equipment that functions but would cost more to retrofit for use with LCD's than it does to maintain them now with the CRT's that are integral to the system.

Your argument about CRT's being better than LCD's in this specific context can now comfortably be considered the intellectual equivalent of an E-type at 10 yards after a shotgun buckshot qualification... so full of holes it's trash.
>> No. 7503 ID: 7da887
File 145108532097.jpg - (35.23KB , 400x345 , rbhdtv.jpg )
Back on my old computer with pictures of old shit. This is my buddy's 36" HDTV I mentioned in an earlier post. It fucking weighed 270 lbs and I was nearly crushed helping them get it into the house.

Notice the gamecube hooked up to it.
>> No. 7504 ID: 7da887
File 145108539842.jpg - (42.09KB , 640x480 , monitercat.jpg )
Another pic from 2002. This is the one monitor we kept, and the cat is doing good.
>> No. 7505 ID: 7da887
File 145108569291.jpg - (391.16KB , 1280x960 , P7170001.jpg )
Year 2000. My first 17" monitor.
>> No. 7506 ID: 7da887
File 145108622162.jpg - (54.85KB , 640x480 , MVC-089F.jpg )
Oh fuck, LAN PARTY! (Y2K)

Notice the 21" monitor the dude on the left back is using.

Normally I have to censor pictures I post online, but the original resolution is so low, I don't think it matters here. In fact, this digital camera wrote to 3.5" floppies.

These were the days of PS2 keyborards, ball mice, single core (Pentium 2) processors, mechanical hard disks, 10-Base-2 COAX networks, and fucking Counter Strike.

People wonder why I don't play CS:GO, it's because I played CSTRIKE. (Fucking beta 1, sleeves/no sleeves... and even Navy Seals for Quake 1 before that.)
>> No. 7507 ID: 7da887
File 145108646057.jpg - (61.70KB , 640x480 , MVC-411F.jpg )
Before >>7505
>> No. 7508 ID: 7da887
File 145108693219.jpg - (83.69KB , 700x525 , 24-puter.jpg )


Ah, now I remember the model of monitor. The Viewsonic P220F.

On the screen is Blackhawk Down: Joint Operations, which was the last game I played competitively. (My clan was mediocre as fuck.)
>> No. 7509 ID: 7da887
File 145108717365.jpg - (382.42KB , 1280x960 , PC054044.jpg )
Ah, my first LCD monitor, 2004. Running on a second computer that I used to host our teamspeak channel. I had a screenshot of the map and strat for the upcoming match. I could also move people between the offense/defense channels on TS.

The LCD monitor is still being used on our server, and it works fucking fine.
>> No. 7510 ID: 7da887
File 14510873284.jpg - (382.56KB , 1280x960 , PC054045.jpg )
Interestingly, I'm still using both of those keyboards, and the MX300 (the right) mouse. The HP was my first USB keyboard and was $8.

The other mouse is the Logitech MX500, which I wore out. I've since (in like 2008) replaced it with a MX518 optical mouse. I had a laser mouse in between, but that thing was shit. Twitchy as all fuck.
>> No. 7511 ID: 7da887
File 145109424653.jpg - (33.72KB , 406x450 , 51T7TSVWYML__SY450_.jpg )
Correction, the xbox huge monitor is a 19".

>> No. 7512 ID: fb3bdd
I've got one of those HP keyboards, but a slightly older one, a PS/2 model. Types real good. I should find a USB adapter or something.
[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]

Delete post []
Report post