N251-008 TITLE: Autostereoscopic Flight Simulator Display System for Improved Depth Perception
OUSD (R&E) CRITICAL TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Advanced Computing and Software;Human-Machine Interfaces
OBJECTIVE: Develop a novel flight simulator display system, which improves user depth and velocity perception greater than those, which can be perceived via traditional two-dimensional visual display systems.
DESCRIPTION: Current display systems for Navy flight simulators traditionally project two-dimensional (2D) imagery of a three-dimensional (3D) environment onto a display medium, but user depth perception is greatly decreased due to a loss of visual information about the 3D environment. The human vision system relies on stereoscopic views of the real world in order to accurately gauge depth, object location in space, and velocity. This information is interpreted by the visual system from the combined effects of monocular and binocular cues. Naval aircrews must reliably perform tasks in 3D space (e.g., AAR, formation flights, air-to-air engagement, and landing on aircraft carriers). Therefore, the goal of this SBIR topic is to develop a display system capable of providing stereoscopic views of a computer generated 3D environment specifically for flight simulator usage.
It is expected that this effort will produce an autostereoscopic display system capable of replacing current flight simulator display systems without the use/requirement of stereoscopic eyewear. The visual acuity and performance of the system will be equivalent to or better than current flight simulator display systems regarding resolution (i.e., minimum 20/20, objective 20/10), refresh rate (i.e., minimum 120 Hz, objective > 140 Hz), luminance (i.e., maximum 1,500 cd/m2 and minimum 0.00 cd/m2), and integration into high fidelity naval aircraft training systems. The display system will also allow a user to accurately gauge depth at least between 5–100 ft (1.52 m–30.48 m) to an equivalent stereoacuity between 40 to 20 arcsec (objective 20 arcsec). Any impacts on human performance will need to be minimized and/or eliminated and evaluated to prevent negatively impacting the pilot's normal flight operations and learning (e.g., strabismus, vergence-accommodation conflict, visual distortions, operator feedback, lateral/vertical head movements, etc.). Users should not have a significantly limited "head box" to maintain stereoscopic vision. Formal pilot evaluations and human factors studies should be developed with assistance from the TPOC’s and NAVAIR’s Human Research Protection Official.
Note: NAVAIR will provide Phase I awardees with the appropriate guidance required for human research protocols so that they have the information to use while preparing their Phase II Initial Proposal. Institutional Review Board (IRB) determination as well as processing, submission, and review of all paperwork required for human subject use can be a lengthy process. As such, no human research will be allowed until Phase II and work will not be authorized until approval has been obtained, typically as an option to be exercised during Phase II.
PHASE I: Design an autostereoscopic display system that does not require the use of eyewear/glasses/headwear, which is able to meet or exceed the requirements outlined in the Description. Determine technical feasibility through experiments that address extended use from a human factors point of view. The Phase I effort will include prototype plans to be developed under Phase II. Prototype plans shall include methods for incorporation with high fidelity cockpit simulator systems currently in use by the Navy (e.g., tactical operational flight trainer "tub"). While the initial targeted simulation environment is for fighter jet platforms, integration should not be limited to fighter jet platforms as rotary-wing and large fixed-wing platforms also require stereoscopic simulation.
Note: Please refer to the statement included in the Description above regarding human research protocol for Phase II.
PHASE II: Develop and demonstrate a functional prototype of the system. Perform pilot evaluations of the system’s performance and capabilities, human factors analysis, and psychological assessment for simulator sickness and human performance. Determine if the display system can be used as a replacement to current flight simulator display systems. Identify, address, and document deficiencies and areas for improvement.
Note: Please refer to the statement in the Description above regarding human research protocol for Phase II.
PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Use pilot evaluations, human factors studies, and/or lessons learned from the Navy simulator integration (Phase II) to improve on the autostereoscopic display system design and transition from prototype to producible solution.
Autostereoscopic display technology is a new and growing field, which is getting a significant amount of attention inside and outside of the DoD. Testing this system as a simulation tool, and addressing human factors such as comfort for extended use, would allow this system to enter the market as a proven display system ready to be utilized in training systems. These training systems could extend beyond aircraft and military applications (e.g., gaming, entertainment, private sector training, etc.).
REFERENCES:
1. "Flight simulation training device initial and continuing qualification and use, 14 C.F.R. § 60 (2006)." https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-60
2. Kennedy, R. S.; Lane, N. E.; Berbaum, K. S. and Lilienthal, M. G. "Simulator Sickness Questionnaire: An enhanced method for quantifying simulator sickness." The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3(3), 1993, pp. 203-220. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327108ijap0303_3
3. Kuze, J. and Ukai, K. "Subjective evaluation of visual fatigue caused by motion images." Displays, 29(2), 2008, pp. 159-166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.displa.2007.09.007
4. Daniel, F. and Kapoula, Z. "Induced vergence-accommodation conflict reduces cognitive performance in the Stroop test." Scientific reports, 9(1), 2019, pp. 1-13. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-37778-y
5. Durgin, F. H;, Proffitt, D. R.; Olson, T. J. and Reinke, K. S. "Comparing depth from motion with depth from binocular disparity." Journal of experimental psychology, Human perception and performance, 21(3), 1995, pp. 679-699. https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-1523.21.3.679
6. Hibbard, P. B.; Haines, A. E. and Hornsey, R. L. "Magnitude, precision, and realism of depth perception in stereoscopic vision." Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 2(1), 2017, pp. 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-017-0062-7
7. Aghasi, A.; Heshmat, B.; Wei, L. and Tian, M. "Optimal allocation of quantized human eye depth perception for multi-focal 3D display design." Optics Express, 29(7), 2021, pp. 9878-9896. https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.412373
8. Stern, A.; Yitzhaky, Y. and Javidi, B. "Perceivable light fields: Matching the requirements between the human visual system and autostereoscopic 3-D displays." Proceedings of the IEEE, 102(10), 2014, pp. 1571-1587. Https://doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2014.2348938
KEYWORDS: Autostereoscopic; Stereoscopic; Display; Depth Perception; Simulator; Training
** TOPIC NOTICE ** |
The Navy Topic above is an "unofficial" copy from the Navy Topics in the DoD 25.1 SBIR BAA. Please see the official DoD Topic website at www.dodsbirsttr.mil/submissions/solicitation-documents/active-solicitations for any updates. The DoD issued its Navy 25.1 SBIR Topics pre-release on December 4, 2024 which opens to receive proposals on January 8, 2025, and closes February 5, 2025 (12:00pm ET). Direct Contact with Topic Authors: During the pre-release period (December 4, 2024, through January 7, 2025) proposing firms have an opportunity to directly contact the Technical Point of Contact (TPOC) to ask technical questions about the specific BAA topic. Once DoD begins accepting proposals on January 8, 2025 no further direct contact between proposers and topic authors is allowed unless the Topic Author is responding to a question submitted during the Pre-release period. DoD On-line Q&A System: After the pre-release period, until January 22, at 12:00 PM ET, proposers may submit written questions through the DoD On-line Topic Q&A at https://www.dodsbirsttr.mil/submissions/login/ by logging in and following instructions. In the Topic Q&A system, the questioner and respondent remain anonymous but all questions and answers are posted for general viewing. DoD Topics Search Tool: Visit the DoD Topic Search Tool at www.dodsbirsttr.mil/topics-app/ to find topics by keyword across all DoD Components participating in this BAA.
|
| 1/13/25 | Q. | About how many projectors are used and what is the nominal resolution of the simulator display? Is there a particular projector that tends to be used? |
| A. | The number of projectors and resolution of the projectors for flight simulators vary greatly and are determined by the intended use of the simulator and available technologies. There’s no one specific projector or project type that is best/used for all or even most simulators; desktop monitors and common TV screens can also be used for flight simulators. Title 14 part 60 of the Code of Federal Regulations and the listed SBIR requirements can be used to help guide the design of your product. Just to emphasize again, the Navy is able to build simulators and their display systems around the capabilities/limitations of your product. | |
| 1/13/25 | Q. | How large is the fighter simulator display and nominally how far away from pilot is the display surface? |
| A. | There is no specific flight simulator or platform being targeted for this effort, nor is the resulting product intended to replace all flight simulator display systems. The more capable and robust the final product is in terms of supporting a wide range of flight simulator designs and platforms the better. More capabilities will help convince more program offices to continue funding after Phase II, and can help increase your sales numbers when your product is fully deployed. There is no standard design for fighter flight simulator displays, which can range from a large desktop monitor to large TV screens to large quarter/half domes and anything in between. The horizontal and vertical fields of view (FOV) for a flight simulator vary greatly and are determined by the intended use of the simulator; there’s no specific FOV requirement for this topic, but the wider the FOV you can support the better, and tiling of the displays to increase FOV is acceptable. The display surface for a flight simulator is typically between a few feet (~3 ft) away to several feet (~10+ ft) away from the pilot. Flight simulators and their displays are typically custom built based on the intended purpose of the simulator and the technology available to support the intent, so I’d recommend not focusing on trying to fit your product to a specific size or distance from the pilot, but instead focus on meeting the listed SBIR requirements and increasing the robustness of your product. The Navy is able to build simulators and their display systems around the capabilities/limitations of your product. | |
| 1/13/25 | Q. | Do your simulators have a preferred or standard rendering engine such as Unreal or Unity or proprietary? Are they the same on every weapons system simulator? |
| A. | The Image Generator (IG) software for a flight simulator can be anything. The IG selected for a specific flight simulator will depend on the intent of the simulator and what is required of the IG. Flight simulator IGs can be consumer grade COTS products such as X-Plane and Microsoft Flight Simulator, or they can be custom built using Unreal or Unity or some other engine, or they can be professional grade COTS products such as Aechelon or Flight Safety or VBS or Prepar3D or some other IG. Searching online can provide other commonly used IGs. If your product requires access to the IG software, then it’s best to pick one or more IG vendors to work with to integrate your solution with their product; creating custom API’s, SDK’s, or plugins for your product can increase the robustness of your product. | |
| 12/11/24 | Q. | Would a head mounted display (HMD) with head tracking be considered as an alternative solution for a fully stereoscopic display? |
| A. | No, the intent of this topic is to produce a stereoscopic display that does not use any kind of headwear/HMD or eyewear/glasses. |