Talk:Head-up display

message: I think it's done, I need a fellow copy-editor to review it.
:It's done.--Anon423 (talk) 01:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyedit round 2

message: They're not great, esp not the last one. Anyone have better ones? --jazzle 02:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Example Images

message: Am I the only one who distinguishes between a head-up display (a display viewable without looking down) and a heads up display (a display which displays warning indications, i.e. gives you a 'heads up')?tim 13:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted it back because Wikipedia does not "promote" anything and is not a usage guide for correct speech, it is written for everyday readers per WP:NOTGUIDE.  and  show a "Heads-up display" usage. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking from my perspective as someone who actually worked in HUD development, standard UK usage is Head-Up, standard US usage is Heads-Up. These were well-established standard usages when I joined the GMAv HUD team at Rochester in the mid-80s. Use of Heads-Up has nothing to do with either Wikipedia or getting a heads-up.
82.11.64.250 (talk) 04:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Head-up display != Heads up display?

message: I deleted this reference from Experimental Uses. It seemed off hand and slightly irrelevant, but if anyone can show otherwise, it should go back in. It didn't seem to fit with the most of the other part of the article.John Pouliot 02:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom Deletion

message: I created this section from links previously in the External Links section, to indentify them as Consumer products, not necessarily unbiased informational material. I know advertising is not at all appropriate for wikipedia, but these websites are also a treasure trove of information concerning HUD technology. Is there an offical opinion on this? John Pouliot 02:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commercially Available HUDs 

message: I moved the technical elements of OPU discussion to the Display section, and am copyediting and wikifying Civil Aircraft Applications so far. Could ZazenCID just review these changes for accuracy? Thanks John Pouliot 02:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since being introduced on HUDs, both the FPV and acceleration symbols are becoming standard on head-down displays (HDD). The actual form of the FPV symbol on a HDD is not standarized but is usually a simple aircraft drawing, such as a circle with two short angled lines, (180 ± 30 degrees) and "wings" on the ends of the descending line.  Putting one of these angle lines on the horizon allows the pilot to easily fly a coordinated 30 degree turn while maintaining altitude.
because I didn't feel that it greatly contributed to HUD tech. Would it be appropriate elsewhere? John Pouliot 03:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Update: Copyedited the SVS section. Truly Fascinating!  John Pouliot 02:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civil Aircraft Applications Discussion 

message: Ok, I added the tactical aircraft note into the display section. 
I also re-added the HDD FPV symbol information, you're completely right.  
"Also the section is trying to discuss the HUD as a system with a few words about each of the major elements of the system.  I disagree with this move."
What do you mean by this?
- John - John Pouliot 02:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: Copyedited the SVS section. Truly Fascinating!  John Pouliot 02:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 3/5/07 

message: Adding the Flight Guidance Systems info would be great. This article seems to be exponentially expanding. Awesome. I'm almost tempted to nominate it for Good Article status...hmmm
As for the SVS. Have there been any media-covered accidents because of its mis-use? John Pouliot 02:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  re 

message: I linked directly to a Collins web site.  Brian — (ZazenCID 14:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rockwell Collins Link 

message: Added information in the SVS section related to usage of the image (actually restrictions on the use)  Also added a brief note about safety analysis in one of the foot notes.  Added Max-Viz and CMC to IR camera suppliers.  Moved Kollsman to Commercial sites along with the new links to Max-Viz and CMC.
ZazenCID 20:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update to SVS section 

message: ::The discussion of HUD 'generations' really isn't particularly good. What's currently listed as 1st generation is actually several different generations of technology/development. The technology starts with the simple beam splitter/combiner of the WWII reflector gun sights. Call that Gen 0.  Then you get the initial generation of HUDs with collimated simple stroke-written symbology, Gen 1. Further developments of that adds stroke written text, still Gen 1, but a later iteration. Then in the early/mid 80s you get several new technologies introduced simultaneously in the Wide Angle Holographic HUDs. These have much bigger combiners, a significantly increased field of view, and they combine stroke-written symbology with a raster-scan presentation of the FLIR to allow the HUD to display a FLIR picture with symbology overlaid. Meanwhile the separate collimator lens became a hologram of a lens printed on the combiner. Very definitely a second or third generation of technology.
:: Nowhere in here do I see the term HUDWAC - HUD Weapon Aiming Computer, this was a specific term current in the 80s, but likely appearing earlier and denoting a HUD that on top of the usual flight symbology also provided more than a simple boresighted guns pipper, functioning as a form of advanced gunsight/bombsight in aircraft that didn't previously have that. So the HUD would display symbology that was specifically positioned to mark either designated targets, or the calculated impact or release points of bombs, rockets or guns, all based on various inputs fed into the HUDWAC from the rest of the aircraft systems. It seems to have fallen out of use as a term as all military HUDs came to offer that functionality, but see eg http://rochesteravionicarchives.co.uk/document-archive/brochures/hudwac-head-up-display-weapon-aiming-computer 82.11.64.250 (talk) 06:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the more widely used term was HUDWAS - HUD Weapon Aiming System.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.152 (talk) 07:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Areas for Improvement 

message: List of automakers that utilize Head-Up displays was corrected and rearranged in the correct alphabetical order.
76.188.158.228 (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automotive section correction 

message: These uses:
*"a HUD can be used to overlay tactical information...to infantrymen." 
*"A surgical HUD could display overlaid x-rays..."
*"A prototype HUD has also been developed that displays information on the inside of a swimmer's goggles."
all seem to me to belong in Head-mounted displays.  E2a2j (talk) 00:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Experimental uses 

message: Proposing a reorg as follows:
1 Overview 
2 History 
3 Types 
4 Design factors 
:4.1 Eyebox 
:4.2 Luminance/Contrast 
:4.3 Display Accuracy 
:4.4 Installation 
5 Components / Technology 
5.1 Combiner 
:5.2 Projection Unit 
:5.3 Video generation computer 
6 Symbology / images displayed 
7 Military aircraft specific applications 
8 Civil aircraft specific applications 
:8.1 Enhanced Flight Vision Systems, EFVS 
:8.2 Synthetic Vision Systems, SVS 
9 Automotive applications 
10 Experimental uses 
11 Pop Culture 
12 Further reading / see also 
13 Notes
Thoughts?  E2a2j (talk) 01:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reoganization?

message: Photo caption says "manufactured by RealD" but I'm pretty sure the F/A-18 HUDS was manufactured by Kaiser Electronics, I did some of the electronic design there during the late seventies. Kaiser Electronics is now part of Rockwell Collins. HUDS means Head Up Display System.
89.195.138.200 (talk) 00:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch, I've removed the claim. It was added here, and is probably vandalism, as the same user has two vandalism warnings. - BilCat (talk) 01:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manufacturer of F/A-18 HUDS 

message: I think the Generations section is "artificial" how it is written atm. IMHO it is better to remove the whole section. If somebody wants to improve:
* There should be names/links to example implementations of these generations. Like "Flight Dynamic HUD xxx used on Challenger 604"
* It does not tell the the advantage of CRT, it's brightness. This was at least the reason for sticking to CRT technology throughout the seventies and eighties, as other technologies did not offer the same level at that time.
* The technologies described under third and fourth generations are interesting technical concepts - I don't think you should construct "generations" out of these. (see first point: examples)
* Under Second Generation, the sentence "These systems are on commercial aircraft" is not accurate, as most of the commercial aircraft systems actually *are* of CRT type. Likewise the term "do not fade" is debatable too, as LEDs also do fade. (I agree that LEDs fade a lot less than CRT).
W codebreaker (talk) 08:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It is also WP:OR, not one claim in it is backed up by reference. So yeah, needs work or needs to be remove to talk until it can be ref'ed. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 12:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Generations 

message: Left some response at my talk re: these adds look good. BTW Checking up on this I see one more design factor, Mechanical/ergonomic limitations - for example a diagram at one of the refs show how the optical path has to be redirected at a right angle to make a device housing that would clear the path of the pilots knees in an ejection. These design factors look to effect other design factors such as Collimation, Eyebox, FOV since there is a limit to the size of the optical elements/optical path, you are only going to get an FOV and Eyebox that is considered "good enough", can't afford anything bigger space wise. Something to ref and add. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You're correct on the mechanical/ergonomic design considerations. I can see that there would be issues in ejecting from a military aircraft. But in the civil world, too, HUD installations must be designed (and certified) to comply with HIC requirements...HIC = Head Injury Criteria. This means that in the event of a sudden aircraft stoppage (a runway over-run, aircraft striking a dike or a localizer antenna structure, perhaps) the HUD combiner must swing out of the way before the forward motion of the pilot's head goes through it. LarryB55 (talk) 15:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  HUD Design factors 

message: Referring to the last part of the History section, where it says "Until a few years ago, the Embraer 190 and Boeing 737 New Generation Aircraft (737-600,700,800, and 900 series) were the only commercial passenger aircraft...". This part is most likely not accurate. I worked from 1998-2008 at Crossair. The Saab 2000 - which was introduced in Crossair around 1993 - had a HUD as a standard equipment already. I remotely remember that we discussed other Aircraft types that also had HUD systems.
I hesitate to edit the article directly, because I feel that the whole paragraph would need to be rewritten and I do not know the facts for the other types named. Another reason is the involvment of this article in the Aviation Wiki project. W codebreaker (talk) 08:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: The article tells us (but unclearly) that a HUD has the FOCUS at infinity. What it doesn't tell us, is the perceived stereoscopic depth, or how it looks if you move your head. That seems important to me. Carl Kenner (talk) 16:56, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real life is 3D, but no info on 3D aspect 

message: Being focussed on infinity gives another advantagbe, that of "no parallax". In this context, it means that the projected image will always appear to be at the same "infinite" position irrespective of any movement of the pilot/viewer's head. This sort of thing is somewhat difficult to explain in words, but very easy to demonstrate on the actual equipment. I have no specific reference to this, other than 30+ years of building HUDs as finderscopes for astronomical telescopes, where it is in fact the most important thing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.165.172 (talk) 07:11, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important omission in the "advantages" section. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Head-up display. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061001014951/http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/examiners_inspectors/8700/hbga/media/hbga9916.doc to http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/examiners_inspectors/8700/hbga/media/hbga9916.doc
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: For anyone interested in the history of the technology please follow this link. Also, perhaps even more interesting is this video segment by Forces TV on the helmet that nearly became the F35 helmet solution, regards.Twobells (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a Royal Aeronautical Society (RAeS) podcast on the history of the Head-Up Display here:   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.134 (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting BAE Video On History  

message: Proposal to merge The_Eyes-on-the-Road-Benefit into Heads-up display as it is a term cited to a primary source. Further discussion on the talk page. Russty11 (talk) 17:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger Proposal 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Head-up display. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100330072505/http://news.motorbiker.org/blogs.nsf/dx/SportVue.htm to http://news.motorbiker.org/blogs.nsf/dx/SportVue.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Head-up display. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041101134641/http://techreports.larc.nasa.gov/ltrs/PDF/2003/tp/NASA-2003-tp212643.pdf to http://techreports.larc.nasa.gov/ltrs/PDF/2003/tp/NASA-2003-tp212643.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I've studied this article thoroughly and found that image in this section Synthetic vision is not consistent with text description. Lonng hard minutes of searching for what my eyes could not see.
It seems that Image was placed here from newer and more standard Honeywell system but - containing different flight information. And some details are completely absent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_vision_system#/media/File:Synthetic_Vision.JPG
After searching, I've found separate Article on synthetic Vision / and it contains the supposed original image at bottom of that page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_vision_system
Image: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_vision_system#/media/File:NASA_Synthetic_Vision_Display.jpg
Hello Aviation folks, 
I'm new here so just suggesting a correction to WIMC without actually editing the page.
Thanks for review and/or respond.
Palo. Palo.hagara (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synthetic Vision Systems- incorrect image of HUD 

message: The test pilot Gilbert Klopstein is mentioned to be the modern inventor of the HUD in 1950, but his name is barely mentioned in this article, I think the part concerning how he invented it could be fleshed out:
*
*
*
Hervegirod (talk) 09:11, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gilbert Klopstein