Laughlin UPT info

[ryleypav]

21 hours ago, Swizzle said:

Was it worth delaying a line # 11.5 years?

(Jk, kind of)

I'm guard, so hopefully its not that long of a delay 😉

[ryleypav]

19 hours ago, bfargin said:

I know Red6 is deeply involved with augmented reality (AR) in the fighter pilot training environment but are they working with the Air Force on UPT 2.5 and/or sim only UPT?

the more realistic the simulated flight environment is, the better you’d expect outcomes to be for the student. The better AR gets i can see it being used more and more for all types of training including pilots, firefighters, surgeons, swat/police, etc. It’s not cheap, but cheaper than actual flight and if advances continue, i expect more AR type training and less actual flight time for all future pilots.

Potentially? I know I saw a video of some T-1 sims that were using some kind of AR, but nothing at Laughlin so far. The T6/T1 sims are the same they've always been aside from the new T6 VR sims. Which are lacking. Excellent for learning pattern references, and getting comfortable flying the pattern itself, but not for actual aircraft feel. They're cumbersome just because of the interface. 

[FLEA]

19 hours ago, bfargin said:

I know Red6 is deeply involved with augmented reality (AR) in the fighter pilot training environment but are they working with the Air Force on UPT 2.5 and/or sim only UPT?

the more realistic the simulated flight environment is, the better you’d expect outcomes to be for the student. The better AR gets i can see it being used more and more for all types of training including pilots, firefighters, surgeons, swat/police, etc. It’s not cheap, but cheaper than actual flight and if advances continue, i expect more AR type training and less actual flight time for all future pilots.

Honest question but did you mean AR here or VR? Those two are distinctly different but I'm having difficulty imaging how AR would work for ground training by simulating flight. At first I thought you meant maybe they were using AR to produce red air targets or something for fighters but then you said less actual flight time so I got confused. 

[bfargin]

Probably included both AR and VR in the actual examples I used. AR seems to really allow using less expensive to operate aircraft to simulate 5th gen capabilities (Red6’s current focus from what i understand). So flying 4th gen or even earlier training type aircraft to reduce cost while augmenting feel/performance/capabilities to simulate the caps of 5th gen friends and adversaries.

My thinking, from a tech guy perspective, is that our focus seems to be on VR (perfecting simulations) in current training but with an eye towards blurring the line between VR and AR. Not sure, but guessing that as VR and AR capabilities advance we’ll be able to reduce training costs. And, as these tools advance in realism, we’ll be able to maintain realistic proficiency for experts and not just training for students. My university has tech labs set up for VR and I’ve done some work with them on training programs for TN law enforcement.

Just wondering aloud how these technological advancements in both VR and AR are going to shake out.

[bfargin]

Even thinking about drones. Is there any benefit (operational, psychological) in making a cockpit type environment for the crew? Would we see increased positive outcomes by building augmented environments for them to operate within. Make it feel more like they are in the aircraft and actually over the target area. The expense might far outweigh any benefit, but the ability to realistically do this is almost here.

[FLEA]

30 minutes ago, bfargin said:

Even thinking about drones. Is there any benefit (operational, psychological) in making a cockpit type environment for the crew? Would we see increased positive outcomes by building augmented environments for them to operate within. Make it feel more like they are in the aircraft and actually over the target area. The expense might far outweigh any benefit, but the ability to realistically do this is almost here.

I looked into it before. It was prohibitively expensive due to telecom limitations. Of course I only looked at one way of doing it. Possible someone more engineering minded could figure out a better way of doing it. 

Basically I imagined using an array of 6 wide angle lenses that would capture a 360 degree view around the aircraft and stream it back with the normal video off the sensor ball and forward tv. 

The problem is the resolutions that would be neccessary to not create discomfort on the human eye were quite high and bandwidth for streaming video increases exponentially. I don't remember the numbers I ran for but long story short it was going to take like all of the Ku bandwidth in a given geographic area to transmit enough data for a VR headset to stitch a complete picture that moves receptively with a pilots head movement. And that was just for one aircraft. 

[FLEA]

But now I'm rereading your post and I'm wondering if the video is even neccessary...... What if the cockpit stood in the center of a blacked room and only relevant data was transmitted back to the pilot. An artificial terrain floor could be rendered via gis database, and then you could use air to air sensors and data links to generate other players. Ill have to tool around with that idea. 

[FourFans]

On 4/27/2023 at 3:42 PM, ryleypav said:

Just finished up UPT (Legacy syllabus) at Laughlin if anyone has any burning questions about Laughlin or UPT as a whole. 

How much of your training was on VR?

How many real airplane sorties did you get?

Did you have to wear the sombrero?

How do the instructors feel about the new training (from your student perspective)? 

Are FAIPs tools?  *it's a yes or yes question* 

Does it suck?

Edited April 29, 2023 by FourFans

[ryleypav]

On 4/28/2023 at 8:13 PM, FourFans said:

How much of your training was on VR?

How many real airplane sorties did you get?

Did you have to wear the sombrero?

How do the instructors feel about the new training (from your student perspective)? 

Are FAIPs tools?  *it's a yes or yes question* 

Does it suck?

1. None of mine. I was still legacy syllabus. I think the 2.5 syllabus has like 20hrs (Not totally sure) of VR events. My class did use the VR sims though just on our own to brush up on pattern visuals and whatnot. VR pattern parties are a good time. 

2. 59 flights in the T-6 and 42 in the T-1. A few of those flights might have been incompletes for MX.

3. No sombrero for me. Couple close calls though. 

4. I didn't have first hand knowledge, but the first 2.5 class started simultaneously with my class in the other T-6 squadron, and when we'd fly with the other squadrons IPs, they would talk about there being a lot more queep than with the legacy syllabus. I think the overall mood regarding it has improved as they've gotten used to it and as some of the kinks get ironed out. 

5. Hahaha no comment. Definitley saw both sides of the spectrum though. Those who enjoy the job and those who don't. 

6. Absolutely. But damn, its was a good time. 

[FourFans]

7 hours ago, ryleypav said:

Absolutely. But damn, its was a good time

Then you did it right.  Well done sir