You gonna eat that?
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Fort Worth, Texas Church of Hopeful Uncertainty
Bikes: 1966 Raleigh DL-1 Tourist, 1973 Schwinn Varsity, 1983 Raleigh Marathon, 1994 Nishiki Sport XRS
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 44 Post(s)
My guess is that the optics are very complicated and expensive to implement. On aircraft HUDs, the projecting surface is flat but a car windshield is curved; I think that may make the whole HUD concept impractical for auto use. (It could be done, perhaps, but at a very high cost.) If the imaging system costs more than the car, no one will buy the car.
For aircraft, the HUD provides vision in the pilot's primary field of view, a narrow area directly in front of him. For cars, hazards are often outside that area, on the periphery of vision. Later aircraft technology uses HMDs (helmet mounted displays) to give the pilot imaging over a wider field of view. I don't think most drivers would even consider that at this stage, and the helmet for a HMD needs to be tailored to each individual pilot; no easy adjustment between users.
I stop for people / whose right of way I honor / but not for no one.
Originally Posted by bragi "However, it's never a good idea to overgeneralize."
Last edited by Doohickie; 07-01-11 at 08:25 AM.