Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Norway Is Gamifying Warfare By Driving Tanks With Oculus Rift

Posted by Unknown on from the better-killing-through-technology dept.

Daniel_Stuckey (2647775) writes "Look at Norway, where the Army has started using Oculus Rift to drive tanks with increased visibility, according to the Norwegian TV station tu.no. Four VR cameras are mounted on the sides of the tank to give the soldier inside donning the headset a full 360 degree view of what's going on outside, like X-ray vision. Using cameras to 'see through' a vehicle isn't a new concept; when the hatches are down tanks are notoriously hard to navigate. But the Oculus Rift dev kit is just a fraction of the price of traditional 360-degree camera equipment: Lockheed Martin's F-35 helmet for pilots can cost tens of thousands of dollars."

22 of 106 comments (clear)

  1. F-35 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The latency / integration requirements for the F - 35 are probably a lot more sophisticated.

    1. Re:F-35 by binarylarry · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yeah it's like "My bike helmet looks like something astronauts wear and it protects my head! Why isn't NASA buying these instead of those expensive space helments?"

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    2. Re:F-35 by Splab · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I get that it is a silly comparison, but what's with the negative vibes?

      These guys have come up with a nifty solution to an expensive problem and they are using some awesome geek gear to do so.

    3. Re:F-35 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Maybe the F35 flies faster than a tank and needs a stricter latency.

      With sufficient thrust, the tank flies just fine

    4. Re:F-35 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      There's that, and the F-35 helmets do far more than just a visual display. They're engineered to keep the pilot's noggin safe(OR is not), they keep the pilot oxygenated in high G turns(OR does not), and it's highly integrated with the F35's avionics(OR is not).

      There are good reasons a pilot's helmet costs more than a thousand $$$.

    5. Re:F-35 by binarylarry · · Score: 2

      The tank solution is cool. Suggesting that this could work for something like a jet fighter is hilarious.

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    6. Re:F-35 by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2

      By the time the Occulus has been made combat ready, hardened, with a beefed up resolution necessary for such work, it will probably cost upward of $10k per unit as well.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    7. Re:F-35 by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 3, Informative

      Maybe the F35 flies faster than a tank and needs a stricter latency.

      With sufficient thrust, the tank flies just fine

      A flying tank has been built and tested already: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A... ... but even the crazy Russians only tried that once. Nowadays they are paradropping BMD APCs with the crew on board... any volunteers?

      --
      Only to idiots, are orders laws.
      -- Henning von Tresckow
  2. Gamifying doesn't mean what you think it means. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It refers to turning something that would otherwise be uninteresting into a game in order to make it more interesting for participants.

    1. Re:Gamifying doesn't mean what you think it means. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...Or at least adding game-like elements, like scorekeeping or achievements.

      But you're right that this isn't gamification because it does not add any elements of gaming to the activity. It's a digital head-mounted display system for a tank, like the one in the F35. If there were an attack helicopter controlled with a dual-analog gamepad, that wouldn't be gamification either.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  3. Can we just kill that word? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Informative

    "Gamify" is such an ugly neologism, even in the situations it was coined to cover (ie. the ones where a non-game task is dressed up in game-style features by some means), that it really should be taken out and shot. In this case, they aren't even 'gamifying'. They're just experimenting with COTS gear as a, presumably cheaper, presentation system for the stitched-together output of the exterior cameras. That doesn't make the situation somehow more game-like.

    1. Re:Can we just kill that word? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2

      At least they didn't drinkify snacks and snackify drinks.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
  4. Re:Jamming in real war... by xtal · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You've just realized why autonomous drones are necessary; they can't be jammed.

    If you're broadcasting a 1 MW jamming signal, you are a pretty bright light for HARM missiles or other radar-seeking technology. More sophisticated schemes or ECM are possible, but the physics is pretty clear on how you track down a broadcast location.

    --
    ..don't panic
  5. Stupid analogy by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

    Four VR cameras are mounted on the sides of the tank to give the soldier inside donning the headset a full 360 degree view of what's going on outside, like X-ray vision.

    Or like a window.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  6. Re:Externally mounted cameras by HornWumpus · · Score: 3

    If you can put a paint grenade on a tank you can also put a Molotov cocktail on the tank.

    Tanks generally operate with infantry support; good luck with that.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  7. Re:Why is the soldier inside? by drainbramage · · Score: 5, Funny

    Union requirement.
    Rules are rules.

    --
    No brain, no pain.
  8. Re:Parts of the system is EMP safe, the other part by Terrasque · · Score: 2

    Considering the fallback is to drive it just the way it's done every day today, I don't see that as the biggest problem.

    --
    It's The Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules."
  9. Re:Externally mounted cameras by jythie · · Score: 3, Informative

    Not that much different then usual. A couple of paint bombs can cover up view ports just as easily.

  10. TU != TV Station by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    TU or Teknisk Ukeblad is litterly Technical Week Magazine, a 150+ year old magazine owned by three engineer unions and distributed to their members and other subscribers. As most news outlets, they have a web page with a video section with video extending their written articles. They are not a TV Station.

  11. I wouldn't want it by portwojc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As a former M1A1 tank driver I would not want this system at all. I don't need something extra that can go wrong and leave me blind at the wrong time. Imagine yanking all that crap off just to be able to see again. Give it to the commander and let him play with the toy but he'll set it aside I'm sure.

    Tanks are not all that hard to navigate. Plus you're not suppose to get tanks into positions where you have those sorts of problems. If you do then you have the rest of your platoon to help be your eyes. As well as "scratch your back" if you need it.

  12. Russian paratroopers are religious (Re:F-35) by mi · · Score: 2

    Nowadays they are paradropping BMD APCs with the crew on board...

    It is not just the BMDs — there is a paradropping church in Russia's arsenal...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  13. Re:Why is the soldier inside? by quipalicious · · Score: 2

    Correct, our stike capability was removed some time ago, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... And we're not really in favor of purchasing the JSF either, although our overlords have other ideas.