tkuiper t1_j5yvj17 wrote
The AR would have to be adding more than it costs...
Step 1 would be minimum interference, that would excuse the least functionality (good for a new tech): minimize weight, easy to setup, don't occupy space that I need for other things (don't be in the way of a scope or helmet).
Step 2 would be to not compete with convention. Humans have great vision and great image recognition. Instead add things they don't have at all: birds eye view, thermal vision, or other live strategic detail (any strategic information best conveyed by image, that would take time to explain verbally). Otherwise your fighting an uphill battle of trying to be better at seeing than actual eyeballs, or more defensive than a dedicated helmet.
What's in that cover photo would need to be explosively powerful to justify itself.
Phobic-window t1_j636vxo wrote
AR is like having eyes that talk to each other telepathically. Some of what you detail is being worked on, but from the first person perspective of a solder in the field, the value prop of AR is always knowing what everyone else (sensors, satellites, drones, other soldiers) are seeing.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments