Quantum3D/NVIDIA technology: Military Applications
Posted by
Hemos
on from the battle-of-the-video dept.
rask22 writes "FiringSquad has a interesting new article up discussing the changes at Quantum3D since the demise of 3dfx along with the current military applications of NVidia chipsets. Interesting to see how the US Gov is using all this technology coming out of the gaming sector."
Not terribly surprising...
by
neksys
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The military, even the US military, has a limited R&D budget. Why go to the trouble of developing a chipset from scratch, when you can just use one that's already been developed? I can guarantee that the amount of money spent on commercial research and development in the area of graphics far exceeds that of any military research into the same area.
Really, this is no different than the US military using Intel or AMD CPUs in their computer systems - there's no doubt that these consumer-driven products give them more than enough bang for their buck. Why spend $100 million on a new CPU when you can buy one for $99 at CompuSmart? It's not "surprising". Its good business.
Re:Why do you think...
by
neksys
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
I don't put any faith into the "military conspiracy" you imply, but you raise a good point: Realistic first person shooter games serve the same purpose as the standard military shooting range: they desensitize the shooter to the idea of firing at a human shape. Apparently something like 75% of all soldiers in World War I couldn't bring themselves to fire at other human beings - this is a result of our biological imperative to propogate and continue the species. However, with the introduction of the "human shaped pop-up" target range for basic training, that number dropped to a few percent by Vietnam. I'd venture to say that within the next few years, the military will actually be using first person shooters to desensitize the soldiers instead of wasting ammunition on the firing range.
I do wonder whether it is wise to use such complex technology in the field (where the is no tech support?). Are these cards bug free? And they mention running windows in the article. I would not have thought that, due to the criticalness of the job, a windows variant can pass the required tests.
Do they use it just because it is now cheaper
Don't forget *why* the military does R&D
by
Aniquel
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The military - including agencies like DARPA, ONNR, etc - don't just choose products based on cost. This is a common misconception. One of the reasons gov't funded projects are so expensive is that they *TRY* to push the envelope. Think about it - Do you want your military to use the same quality components as your enemy? Or do you want them to use bleeding-edge (but very carefully verified) technology?
Don't believe me? We saw the same thing when NASA chose to fund Boeing's overbudget, delayed, and far-fetched next-gen reusable spacecraft, rather than selecting the already built and working prototype model by McDD. NASAs justification? The Boeing craft required alot of new technology to be developed.
The same thing is true in university research, btw.
Friendly fire
by
Mandelbrute
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
that improves safety in zero visibility conditions and a general improvement in situational awareness, reducing the risk of friendly fire casualties.
Something like this is needed, since bright orange reflective paint always doesn't work, orders from ground control are sometimes ignored, "extreme weather conditions" like a sunny desert day have an effect, and "extreme differences in language" between english and whatever A10 pilots from the USA speak (Ebonics?) take their toll. A heads up display that says "DON'T FIRE - IT'S A BRITISH TANK YOU ARSEHOLE" may be useful.
No one from the USA even bothered to turn up to the inquest. Somewhere out there is probably a couple of A10s with little union jacks painted on the side.
Slashdot Mirror
The military, even the US military, has a limited R&D budget. Why go to the trouble of developing a chipset from scratch, when you can just use one that's already been developed? I can guarantee that the amount of money spent on commercial research and development in the area of graphics far exceeds that of any military research into the same area.
Really, this is no different than the US military using Intel or AMD CPUs in their computer systems - there's no doubt that these consumer-driven products give them more than enough bang for their buck. Why spend $100 million on a new CPU when you can buy one for $99 at CompuSmart? It's not "surprising". Its good business.
I don't put any faith into the "military conspiracy" you imply, but you raise a good point:
Realistic first person shooter games serve the same purpose as the standard military shooting range: they desensitize the shooter to the idea of firing at a human shape. Apparently something like 75% of all soldiers in World War I couldn't bring themselves to fire at other human beings - this is a result of our biological imperative to propogate and continue the species. However, with the introduction of the "human shaped pop-up" target range for basic training, that number dropped to a few percent by Vietnam. I'd venture to say that within the next few years, the military will actually be using first person shooters to desensitize the soldiers instead of wasting ammunition on the firing range.
I do wonder whether it is wise to use such complex technology in the field (where the is no tech support?). Are these cards bug free? And they mention running windows in the article. I would not have thought that, due to the criticalness of the job, a windows variant can pass the required tests.
Do they use it just because it is now cheaper
The military - including agencies like DARPA, ONNR, etc - don't just choose products based on cost. This is a common misconception. One of the reasons gov't funded projects are so expensive is that they *TRY* to push the envelope. Think about it - Do you want your military to use the same quality components as your enemy? Or do you want them to use bleeding-edge (but very carefully verified) technology?
Don't believe me? We saw the same thing when NASA chose to fund Boeing's overbudget, delayed, and far-fetched next-gen reusable spacecraft, rather than selecting the already built and working prototype model by McDD. NASAs justification? The Boeing craft required alot of new technology to be developed.
The same thing is true in university research, btw.
No one from the USA even bothered to turn up to the inquest. Somewhere out there is probably a couple of A10s with little union jacks painted on the side.
If you do anything we don't like or you don't say you're actively supporting us - you're supporting the terrorists!
Video Game cheats, hints a