RunningStrong wrote: ↑29 Oct 2022, 22:54
A trend for the last 50 years? Have you even been around an AFV in that time?
I have been around AFVs at least to the extent that I know that the periscopes have name plates on them calling them periscopes. I've never seen something described as an episcope.
RunningStrong wrote: ↑29 Oct 2022, 22:54
How do you propose repositioning a "hatch mounted" episcope that must be within use of the commander crew station? LMAO.
\
I don't know why you'd want a projector on an AFV. Maybe a command variant?
Whether it's "hatch mounted", hatch mounted, on a cupola surrounding a hatch or otherwise on the structure of the vehicle, positioning periscopes is part of positioning the the crew, the hatch and surrounding structure. If you slap them on as an afterthought you're likely to have difficulties.
The flexibility of positioning electro-optics is an advantage, for sure.
RunningStrong wrote: ↑29 Oct 2022, 22:54
From my first hand experience of current situational awareness systems, this is wrong on so many levels.
Well
my first-hand experience supports my take.
As does some simple mathematics based on pixels per degree.
RunningStrong wrote: ↑29 Oct 2022, 22:54
Digital systems have greater FoV, vertical and horizontal than episcopes. They can incorporate day, lowlight and thermal performance. The displays can be placed Infront of the commander, greatly reducing the need for commanders to "have their head on a swivel" to have over 180 degrees FoV.
Well, I don't know about analogue projectors, but comparing with direct view optics (not just unity periscopes) electro-optics can have wider fields of view, but they do this at the expense of resolution. You can use a standard definition camera to cover 90 degrees or greater, but the resolution will be so poor that your DRI ranges will suffer greatly. Even using high definition cameras, you need 11 full HD cameras to cover a 360 degree strip about 20 degrees wide. That comes down to five and a half cameras for 4k cameras, which is why I think that digital systems will keep on improving.
Thermals and low-light are definitely advantages that electro-optics have over direct view, but direct view has resolution and dynamic range advantages.
Putting all the displays in front of the commander reduces their size or ability to be viewed simultaneously. Looking around is something people have trained for all their life so why not use that ability to locate themselves relative to the surroundings? Being able to flip up a reversing camera without having to break your neck to look behind you is clearly a good thing, but why have a blank wall when you could have vision in that direction?
The KF51 demonstrator has an interesting setup for its left hand turret crewstation where they put a display for a camera in the location of a direct vision periscope would be on a cupola, but is blocked in that location because that's where the gun is. The operator gets at least some vision in that direction in an always-on, direction of the display equals direction of camera sense.
An array of screens with very high definition cameras would approach the field of view and resolution you get with a set of well implemented direct view unity periscopes, but no-one has done that yet.
RunningStrong wrote: ↑29 Oct 2022, 22:54
And yet the latency of modern situational awareness systems is imperceivable to the users even when used as the primary means of driving.
The more bandwidth you have the more latency could be a problem, but data transmission kit is improving too.
Two or three cameras for driving, at resolutions and fields of view suitable for driving, is less bandwidth than observing around the full circle with sufficient resolution to match direct view.
Note that I'm not saying that direct view is always better than electro-optics, just that direct view has a number of advantages that electro-optic installations can't match, yet. Conversely electro-optics can do things that direct view cannot. At present, the best solution makes use of both.