darkpaladin t1_j5yfi39 wrote
Isn't stuff like this why field testing happens in the first place? From reading the article it seems like the army likes the overall package but it needs a lot of refinement which I think is fairly standard for field gear?
Bubbagumpredditor t1_j5yg84v wrote
No, no, no, nothing is ever.prototyped and tested, everything comes out perfect right off the drawing board.
FavelTramous t1_j615chq wrote
Exactly, the iPhone is living proof. It’s been perfected like 27 times.
DizGod t1_j62mmxh wrote
Well they pay for it like it was perfect
kymri t1_j5zla37 wrote
Yes, but "Early version of new technology isn't as good as the sales guy promised" isn't going to get nearly as many clicks.
dannyapplesauce t1_j64e6d7 wrote
ehhhh, with the military they likely asked for the moon on a stick and then changed the scope of work like 30 times after the contractor was selected or there were specifications that made no fucking sense and are not representative of the actual environment the tech will be used in but is more "just in case" we have to use these at 50,000 ft altitude and -40 Celsius.
PhilosophyforOne t1_j5zw421 wrote
I’ve been following this for a while - the complaints from field tests have persisted for a while now. While both MS and Army spokespeople have denied any considerable issues, the actual testers have absolutely loathed the product. The problems have also repeatedly gone unfixed.
Basically, I think they jumped on the tech too soon. It sounds good on paper but it cant perform in practice and the drawbacks are too big, both due to maneuvaribility, cumbersomness and just general useability and benefits from use.
The kind of things you see in a Marvel film are way way ahead in the future, even just technology-wise.
Prestigious-Gap-1163 t1_j60ee2u wrote
Considering Microsoft laid off a bunch of the staff behind this project/technology very recently I’d say they know it’s a bust and everyone is moving on.
DevAway22314 t1_j621f39 wrote
That probably had more to do with congressional appropriations denying additional funding to replace the existing headsets. Military leaders requested funding for updated hardware that fixed some of the main issues (like nausea), but were denied. Instead being awarded a very small sum to use in an attempt to retrofit the existing headsets
dessimus t1_j60acjj wrote
>The Army knows that IVAS 1.0 is something of a lemon. Indeed, as Task & Purpose previously reported, the service awarded a “task order” to Microsoft in mid-December to develop a new variant of the system known as IVAS 1.2 that will include a new form factor designed to address the “physiological impacts identified during testing,” the service announced in January.
>
>According to Breaking Defense, the Army still plans on fielding the 5,000 IVAS 1.0 units it’s currently procuring from Microsoft at $46,000 a pop to training units and Army Recruiting command for a total price tag of $230 million.
One would think the field testing would come prior to buying the gear, not awarding contractors for providing half-baked concepts.
BeneficialDog22 t1_j60i4da wrote
One would think. They must have some confidence in the product.
dravik t1_j61ogh7 wrote
That depends on what the government asked for and what the contractor promised. You need some number to do field tests. If they meet the development milestones, it works but needs some refinements, then I can see doing the initial purchase. Look at where they are going: recruiting and subs training units. It appears that they are going to places where they identified process problems aren't an issue.
robi4567 t1_j6378o8 wrote
Well you still buy the gear you test. I have a friend who sells military equipment. Armies buy them and throw all sort of shit at the equipment to see how it handles in the field and in strange situations.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments