Surely this device should be a complete non-starter in a glider
cockpit as it give a fixed blind spot in the right lateral visual
field.

At 14:07 27 May 2013, Bill D wrote:
On Sunday, May 26, 2013 11:15:44 PM UTC-6, Darryl Ramm
wrote:
Yep so much for dreaming. From some brief playing and
knowing several
dev=
elopers playing with these...
=20
=20
=20
The glass display is quite difficult to read in full-daylight. It
often
w=
orks well in a car if you have a roof over your head. In bright
direct
sunl=
ight it is very washed out.
=20
=20
=20
Battery life can be very limited, very dependent on
application/usage.
Yo=
u'd need a power connection or external battery pack for long
flights.
=20
=20
=20
The display is far from immersive. It's a small display in the
top of
you=
r viewing area. See the simulation in the Google promo video
here
http://ww=
w.youtube.com/watch?v=3Dv1uyQZNg2vE So kind of big
enough to display basic
=
info, not too big to be ultra distracting.
=20
=20
=20
What is interesting is for many different uses how Google
and others
have=
condensed information into such as small display and made it
very useful.=
=20
=20
=20
=20
What could you display for a glider? Vario, STF, L/D
required,
distance/d=
irection to a turnpoint, (in PDA/PNA parlance you'd probably
only display
o=
ne two or three "nav boxes" of data) look up frequencies for
an
airport/ATC=
etc. simple stuff like that.=20
=20
=20
=20
As pointed others have pointed out without head tracking
things like
dire=
ction to... type information is not that interesting. With head
tracking,
b=
etter daylight visibility (and maybe a larger display) you might
potentiall=
y be able to do much more interesting things like
direction/distance to a
c=
ollision threat/buddy/turnpoint/airport etc.=20
=20
=20
=20
Swiping the side of the glass' trackpad sometimes is
annoying, requires
a=
few tries. I think its a much worse UI device in a cramped
cockpit than
bu=
ttons/switches/trackball on a joystick.=20
=20
=20
=20
Voice commands could be interesting but I'd like to see
them integrated
i=
nto the flight computer. Maybe as a thin UI layer to a flight
computer/PDA/=
PNA glass could provide that, but it may be a lot of hassle to
go though
ju=
st to get that. You might as well run that on more modern
PNA/PDAs.=20
=20
=20
=20
So all in all, I think there really is not something here to
excited
abou=
t, at least for quite a while. There are many more
practical/interesting
re=
al-world applications for glass.=20
=20
=20
=20
Darryl

Agreed. It's not yet clear what, if any, role Google Glass has
in the
cons=
umer space much less what it might be adapted to in gliders.

However, it's worth thinking about what more advanced
devices might do for
=
us in the future. What I think we want is a true Augmented
Reality device
=
which overlay's our visual field with tightly registered and
highly
pertine=
nt data. That means data about an airport off the left wing
wouldn't be
vi=
sible until we looked at the airport. Voice commands, or stick
switches,
c=
ould further limit and control the data displayed. One switch
might
displa=
y navigation data - where are airports? Airspace? Another
switch might
di=
splay soaring data - Cloudbase? Likely thermal sites?
Blipmaps?

A more futuristic aspect ties back to another thread on
attitude displays.
=
If VR technology can display a perfect POV replica of the real
world,
incl=
uding air traffic, would there be any real difference between
flight in
VMC=
and IMC? And, if that distinction goes away, will contest rules
have to
c=
hange?

OTOH, I don't necessarily disagree with the anti-tech crowd.
It might be
f=
un to have a low performance contest where no instruments
beyond those on
t=
he glider's MEL are allowed.