Synthetic Vision....for my car?

Ok, so I'm sitting around thinking, how do I simulate the new Synthetic Terrain Vision that seems to be on all the newest Glass Displays?


A couple years earlier I wanted to make a set of "Simulated Night Vision Goggles." that I could just run another "display image" from my FS Server or even through WideView onto a set of VGA Goggles.

So wallah, there it was, two problems solved with the same answer, run another instance of FS (one way or another) and display it, along with a few choice guages, (HUD, PFD Componenets, etc.) and you have a panel displayed SynVision.

So that got me thinking about my drive to and from here and there, on average 74 miles one way, dark Alaskan Winter morning and nights, mini blizzards whipped up as Semi-trucks barrel past you head-on on a two lane highway exactly in the middle of nowhere. Night Snow Blindness lasting up to 10 seconds as the flurried snow settles.

I then thought about Plow Truck Drivers who have a device that picks up signals from magnets and data pods embedded in and near roads and road features, which give the a type of "Flight Director" guidance to drivers on a a box/display mounted on the dash, that gives advance warning of curves, curve speeds, up hills and down grade, and features such as RR crossings, bridges, etc. as they cannot not see due to the snow flurrie they are plowing up in front as they travel at 45 MPH.

I want what they got but probably can't have it, then this struck me....

"Synthetic Vision System" for my car.

Using on board PC, running Windows XP, ->Microsoft Flight Simulator->FSUIPC->FS GPS OUT-> Free FD->to 7 inch 16:9 LCD, to replace Guage Cluster.

This in effect will allow me to use Microsfot Flight Simulator to display a forward looking view of the position reported to MSFS by my Garmin GPS, then using Free FD to translate data from MSFS through FSUIPC, Free FD will display a Primary Flight Display, with heading, altitude, speed, and once I drive a particular road, it will be saved into the Flight Simulator 2004 as a Flight Plan, which when loaded, will calculate the route, allow me to lock-on, and provide me with 1) Synthetic Vision of the road, and rough terrain features (road being most important) 2) Course Deviation (Might help in fog and snowstorms, and micro blizzards caused by semi-trailer combos.) And using the built in GPS I can get ETA, Speed etc. etc.
and alarms if I deviate over/under speed, or wander of course. Similar to the Syn Vision in the new cars, but with more bells and whistles.

Now imagine if I tweak the scenery to match a little better.

Whaddya' guys think?:mrgreen:

Move to Arizona.....

Oh, I have pondered moving on many a bitter morning, with a frozen this or that, but there is just not enough Alaskans in Arizona.

Regardless, I am looking for some critique by those in the know of these systems or programmers in general.

I don't think it is that simple, I think GPSout sends FS position to the gps. You will need the opposite, I don't think you can slave FS from a real GPS output.
I hope I am wrong on this??

Andy

That may be true Andy, do you know of a program that goes the other way?

No I dont, BUT if this could work then I think EVERY PLANE FLYING would be crazy to not have this feature. I thought of this years ago that if you could fly a crappy weather approach at night by looking at the same blue sky daytime view you get from a flight sim than you could SEE the hills and the buildings accurately enough atleast to not fly into them. Project an image onto the windscreen and just fly the plane. And with TCAS you could SEE the traffic(with the correct paint job)way cool....
just my opinion

Andy Smith

Something like this.....(first image) is what I would like to see (with highway stipe of course) not to complicated, compared to what the new G1000 panel displays....(following images)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ak49er

Regardless, I am looking for some critique by those in the know of these systems or programmers in general.

---

The program for airplanes exists and has been specifically designed for Alaska:


http://www.cheltonflightsystems.com/default.htm

I was not aware that "Synthetic Vision" was created for Alaska, but I do know that the FAA CAPSTONE project was piloted in rural Alaska in traditionally high accident zones.

The project incorporates the new ADS-B (Automatic Dependent Surveillance - Broadcast) System. Which will replace Radar Navigation with satellite surveillance, and air to air communications, which will also result in shorter stagger distance and altitude separation of aircraft, among other features.

Chelton was one of the first systems that the ERA Twin Otters used when they took part in this program. I did not personally observe the Syn Vision, but did observe the use of the "Highway in the Sky" feature.

However, I still want to do this to my car, and upon further thought, I think would be easier achieved if I buy a laptop with mega RAM, and a massive HDD. Then, running Google Earth Pro, with my GPS synced in, I can use the "Hidden" Flight simulator for display, use the built in HUD and voila, in-car Synthetic Vision/Primary Cruise Display (PCD)


Why not...?

People use google earth on iphones in europe to navigate around the cities..y not just do that with your laptop an a gps device?

First,
Brilliant! What a simple solution for most, I hope someone tries it and reports back.

I would never have thought of it.

I believe I phone Service Up here is spotty if not Grey Market, things I don't even understand....

But I am looking into the laptop, GPS method, and will report.:idea:

You're insane.

Synth-vision is provided in planes to aid situational awareness ie help ensure pilots do not become disoriented in IFR flight when using standard IFR instrumentation.

You on the other hand are talking about using a pure synth-vision homebuilt solution to help you drive on presumably public roads with no other "IFR equivalent" back-up. God help the other users of those roads....

Insane,..... perhaps.

Read the original post, this was to be used purely during emergency, no-visibility situations, such as a temporary blizzards created when a double-semi tractor passes in the oncoming lane, or when crossing a bridge over a tidal river that is foggy more than not.

It's not as if I had planned on doing a "Cross-Country" "Solo" with an "IFR Hood" on.

In fact it would be to the benefit of the other drivers, and my self to stay safely in control of my vehicle, keeping it in my lane of travel.

You are a bit reactionary, no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ak49er

Insane,..... perhaps.

Read the original post, this was to be used purely during emergency, no-visibility situations, such as a temporary blizzards created when a double-semi tractor passes in the oncoming lane, or when crossing a bridge over a tidal river that is foggy more than not.

It's not as if I had planned on doing a "Cross-Country" "Solo" with an "IFR Hood" on.

In fact it would be to the benefit of the other drivers, and my self to stay safely in control of my vehicle, keeping it in my lane of travel.

You are a bit reactionary, no?

---

Possibly I am reactionary. Are you planning to test all of this wonderful tech on a private track where you have no chance of harming other people if it happens to be say 2 feet to the left inaccurate?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mattevans

Possibly I am reactionary. Are you planning to test all of this wonderful tech on a private track where you have no chance of harming other people if it happens to be say 2 feet to the left inaccurate?

---

Go fight all the clowns watching DVD, using their phones or reading newspaper while driving. Then go back harrassing the guy who tries to reduce his road-blindness with homemade solution. He want to switch to a situation of 0 visibility to a situation were at least he know where the rad was supposed to be. It's not exactly the kind of thinking that justify a "won't somebody think of the children" moment.
I had the same problem when I put a side screen for a side front cam on my car to cancel the blind angle due to a massive A pillard. The smartest of the bunch were crying "distraction, it's dangerous to look at a screen when driving" yeah... sure... looking a screen showing me 120 degres of the road in the direction I'm going instead of letting me play "drive and guess". (the "I told you so" crowd, people who trives in others failure while not doing a lot by themselves)

Improving safety is not just about "doing nothing". Sometimes, safety is about standing up and daring to say, "this solution is rubbish from the factory, nearly anything can be an improvment over it"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coligny

Go fight all the clowns watching DVD, using their phones or reading newspaper while driving. Then go back harrassing the guy who tries to reduce his road-blindness with homemade solution. He want to switch to a situation of 0 visibility to a situation were at least he know where the rad was supposed to be. It's not exactly the kind of thinking that justify a "won't somebody think of the children" moment.
I had the same problem when I put a side screen for a side front cam on my car to cancel the blind angle due to a massive A pillard. The smartest of the bunch were crying "distraction, it's dangerous to look at a screen when driving" yeah... sure... looking a screen showing me 120 degres of the road in the direction I'm going instead of letting me play "drive and guess". (the "I told you so" crowd, people who trives in others failure while not doing a lot by themselves)

Improving safety is not just about "doing nothing". Sometimes, safety is about standing up and daring to say, "this solution is rubbish from the factory, nearly anything can be an improvment over it"

---

"Improving safety" is also not just about using totally unproven solutions in a real world situation where you should just pull over and wait until visibility improve.

I couldn't really care less about distraction (and I actually think your blind spot cam is a good idea), my concern is that you appear to think that this "solution" is any better than "drive and guess" without any testing or evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mattevans

"Improving safety" is also not just about using totally unproven solutions in a real world situation where you should just pull over and wait until visibility improve.

I couldn't really care less about distraction (and I actually think your blind spot cam is a good idea), my concern is that you appear to think that this "solution" is any better than "drive and guess" without any testing or evidence.

---

Stopping on a road where there is no visibility is the typical case of "to be safe don't do anything" I'm referring to. And if you suggest stopping until the weather improve... on some parts of this planet that means staying at home 6 month a year.
Snow, traffic, bad visibility. The LAST THING YOU WANT TO DO is stopping and become a sitting duck on the side ready to be crushed by the other cars deporting to the right to avoid the incoming trucks who create the original mayhem.

I think we are here around people with aeronautical design methods (and, smart... I read "mycockpit in the URL, not digg). I don't know for the other but for me, each and every technical modification done to my car is done in several steps. Conception, on desk prototyping and stand alone testing, protocol of implementation on the vehicle, protocol for testing once installed. Static testing, in motion closed road testing (yeah, parking after dark as everybody else) including simulation of failure. Then after everything is proved to work or fail according to plan I start using it for daily driving.
Even for something as basic as selecting the place to put a GPS screen on the dash I went thrue most of this.
Screen had to be, near line of sight with the road, not obstructing the driving path view, correct angle toward the driver, correct angle to avoid sun glare, correct position to minimize reflection on the windshield.
The result is a GPS that can be used while still being able to follow the traffic ahead.
The sideview cam took quite some time too, selecting the proper FOV for the cam, proper position (choosing between more forward or more sideway view) even the height of the onboard screen was carefully tested.

All this work made me realize that, everything else in the car seems to have been designed by monkeys. All the aircon buttons have similar shapes and are too low, I don't have status lights for city and driving lights (just for fog and highbeams), the comodo for wipers and light selection are awefull in their feedback. And the hazard light button (used a lot in daily driving here for communication with other cars) is so out of reach that I'm in the process of putting a foot pedal switch to negate the risk of having to bend to reach it.
The gas refill and bonnet opening handle are under the steering together, and the bigger one open the bonnet (which is not something I do all the time) while the more used one for the fuel trap is smaller and harder to catch.

To be back on topic. I think (hope) that people coming up with ideas like this also know how to test their system before considering them foolproof for daily use. Usually, any solution is better than drive and guess. And if it's worse... It won't be twice. Now on this particular solution, testing of acuracy in good weather is dead easy... The only real parameter subject to variation would be the GPS precision degradation because of the bad weather, and this also can be safely tested.

Well first off, I had planned on using the thechnology in my boat, at the lake that makes up my front yard, this fall. Then if succesful directly to real world implementation. observing and refining it unitl the day I actually need it.

Second, **** no, I will not make any attempt to pull over while blinded by snow flurries, but will contuniue to decelerate and attempt to hold my lane.

Yes, texters, cell phone users, on the road salesman, and those who choose to watch TV/DVD or surf the internet will remain the biggest hazard on the road.

BTW I love the side cam idea, you really nailed it, the A-Pillars on todays vehicles are ginormous and very obstructive. I find myself leaning very far forward to complete my view of my surroundings.

Hey Evans, have a beer and chill.....

I am shure the first person to "fly blind" using the first prototype IFR instruments was shunned by nay sayers. don't get discouraged by other peoples inability to see the future..Andy

The future in that matter depends on roadside equipment. Not on a variant of a $40 sim Soft.
Precision approach is still linked to ILS "ground" stations and GPS CAT III IFR landings are far from being approved.

A road is narrower than a runway and a runway is straight.

Good luck guys!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coligny

All this work made me realize that, everything else in the car seems to have been designed by monkeys.

---

So is it a GM, or a Chrysler?