HDL's - Holodynamic Linked

[PFVA63]

It doesn't have to be a wheel/stick/mouse. It can be whatever the panel user desires.

If you read the SOM, though, they are indeed physical objects: (from the SOM, pg. 5) Holodynamic controls, a further extension of of dynamic controls, allow the operator to configure the controls as if they were actual three-dimensional objects.

...

Hi,

I don't know if this helps but I kind of envisioned this type stuff would be something along the lines of the stuff shown in the movie "Final Fantasy: the Spirits Within" like shown in these links. The movie doesn't really explain how it works though.

Cinema.com

IMDB

Regards

PF

 

[Supplement Four]

Yes, to make something out of nothing sort of goes against Traveller's
staid course in terms of technology. Sure Traveller has some miracle-level
things to us, but not reconfigurable objects, otherwise, weapons and
such would really be something.

My ACR can grow a GL, and the suits out of Lost in Space the movie
where they grow and dissolve helmets in a few seconds. That's Miracle
Level, making something out of nothing.

This is a very good point, and although Gadrin is not completely thinking it through, it does start to limit how these HDL panels can work.

This thread was created to specualte on how HDLs work. And, where I think Gardin succeeds is in showing how HDLs are probably not comprised of some smart metal akin to what we see in Terminator 2+. Otherwise, ACRs would be able to grow GLs, and helmets coule be instantly grown on Combat Armor.

Obviously, that's not Traveller.

But, Gadrin's comment does not rule out the HDLs mentioned in the MT core rules and further described in the SOM (both works written by the same people, I might add, before someone starts to say one is valid while another is not: "Well, the core MT rules don't actually say...").

HDLs could easily be some sort of tech as I explain in this post: http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showpost.php?p=311914&postcount=18

That post describes a 3D object that is not solid, but fools the senses into believing it is a solid.

And, even if some sort of physical gravitic focussed particle is used to form the 3D objects, I can easilly see how such a system could be used for a control but not used to form a GL for an ACR or a helmet for a suit of Combat Armor.

So, Gadrin's comment succeeds in ruling out some of the ways the HDL panels can function, but it also fails in thinking that HDLs cannot create 3D objects (or facsimile 3D objects, as I speculate in my post linked above) and still be something that is considered "Traveller".

 

[Supplement Four]

When in doubt check the engineering manual

Per the MT Ref's Manual:

Controls:

"Holographic: Dynamically reconfigurable contoured 3D controls with tactile feedback. The operator may reconfigure the controls in a moment's notice to fit preference or operating style."

Fair enough.

But, I haven't been arguing that HDLs aren't "holographic" in nature. I've only suggested that they didn't have to be. You quote here points to them being, indeed, holographic based.

But, we still need to make that 3D hologram solid in order to get the tacticle feedback...or we need to fool the sense of touch, somehow, so that the operator can't tell the difference between gripping a holodynamic joystick and a a real joystick.

That takes me back to my speculation in this post: http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showpost.php?p=311914&postcount=18

That explanation seems to agree with all angles of this problem.

1) Light is used to effect a 3D visual object.

2) Some type of manipuation of the sense of touch is used to fool a person's senses into believing that the 3D hologram is a solid object. Air displacement (density) and/or graviton manipulation are likely suspects if the senses need to be fooled.

IF the name were different, or the description specifically said they were some liquid metal or such then I could agree with your take. It isn't, it doesn't, I can't We may have to just agree to disagree if you aren't convinced.

But...I don't have a set opinion on how they work. I've just thrown some suggestions out there.

The only thing I've been arguing is that, indeed, HDL create 3D objects that can be manipulation. HOW those objects are created is reason this thread was created--to speculate on it.

I am sure, but the description, that HDLs create reconfigurable 3D objects. Whether the object is created via light or some other method, I don't know.

Now, it looks as if holograms are used. And, as I've said, the tactile part fools the sense of touch into believing that real objects are being gripped and pushed and slid around.

They are a trick of light, with some other trick to make them "feel" solid in the absence of anything solid.

I think we're on the same page, now. Don't you?

 

[Supplement Four]

Hi,

I don't know if this helps but I kind of envisioned this type stuff would be something along the lines of the stuff shown in the movie "Final Fantasy: the Spirits Within" like shown in these links. The movie doesn't really explain how it works though.

I can't see your pics.

 

[PFVA63]

Hi

Hi,

Sorry about that. Maybe the sites don't allow hot links. Maybe if you try these two links they might show up:

http://www.cinema.com/film/4267/final-fantasy-the-spirits-within/gallery/page_69.phtml

http://www.cinema.com/film/4267/final-fantasy-the-spirits-within/gallery/page_9.phtml

Regards

PF

 

[Whipsnade]

S4,

I'm not suggesting your take on "replicated" objects being part of a control panel is impossible. What I'm saying is that the control panels described in SOM don't work the way you think they do.

Control panels in the 57th Century could very well work with configurable solid objects. No descriptions in either Traveller or SOM suggest that is the case however. That doesn't mean that they can't be the case IYTU.


Regards,
Bill

 

[Supplement Four]

I'm not suggesting your take on "replicated" objects being part of a control panel is impossible. What I'm saying is that the control panels described in SOM don't work the way you think they do.

Control panels in the 57th Century could very well work with configurable solid objects. No descriptions in either Traveller or SOM suggest that is the case however.

When the SOM states, "These panels can be altered to display whatever the user wishes, even in three-dimensions complete with tactile feedback," I think it's pretty clear that the panels do work the way I've been positing.

The panels reconfigure into 3D objects (which we've determined via Dan's post is done by using/manipulating holograms), and these objects hav tactile feedback (which I've speculated is done via air density/gravitic manipulaton combination).

That sentence clearly states that the panels produce a 3D object that a person can touch and feel. And, the next person using the panel can reconfigure it to produce a different 3D objects--whatever his taste desires.

 

[far-trader]

...
I think we're on the same page, now. Don't you?

Pretty much so yep. I think I mistook your original premise which created much of the misunderstanding.

 

[Icosahedron]

But...I don't have a set opinion on how they work. I've just thrown some suggestions out there.

The only thing I've been arguing is that, indeed, HDL create 3D objects that can be manipulation. HOW those objects are created is reason this thread was created--to speculate on it.

I am sure, but the description, that HDLs create reconfigurable 3D objects. Whether the object is created via light or some other method, I don't know.

Now, it looks as if holograms are used. And, as I've said, the tactile part fools the sense of touch into believing that real objects are being gripped and pushed and slid around.

Agreed, and gloves are the easiest (and cheapest) method of introducing tactile feedback.

I think we're on the same page, now. Don't you?

Yep.

 

[Gadrin]

Never read the SOM so, I have no idea what they're saying or mean.

I don't see the need to go that far out to move a ship around, especially
if it's not an ultra-advanced ship (say TL 14+)

That's my TU though.

I would use auto-pilots and UCAVs and RPVs. The UCAVs and RPVs could
very well be piloted remotely by someone wearing those old VR get-ups from
the movies/TV.

I've seen a few RPVs on the Military channel and the pilots use a common
cockpit setup but are basically at a console in a trailer. The Spooky gunship
vids I saw on the Military channel (or other similar ones) that offer a group
of officers doing various jobs usually has each at a console in a chair. I'd
probably go for something similar.

I'm not saying anyone's wrong, I'm saying Traveller is generally pretty traditional
in it's roles and terms (personality overlay programs not withstanding!)

There's some nice artwork in one of the Classic adventures that has a shot of
a crewman in a suit, wearing gloves and at what looks like the pilot seat.

I'll see if I can find it. While it might not depict canon per se, it's not a bad
representation of what TL14+ might look like in the TU.

>

 

[Andrew Boulton]

I think it's best to apply Occam's Razor. The displays are normal holograms. There is nothing you can physically touch, the tactile feedback is provided by gloves or repulsors. This would limit you to buttons & switches - for joysticks etc you'd need real hardware...like the picture in SOM shows!

 

[kafka47]

IMTU, players get the sense of what they want to do by the way it feels. Some pilot may want to have a steering wheel others a rollerball or others a joystick. These are holographic projections with a tactile sense generated by different gravatic fields that overlay actual controls. Therefore, if the holography should fail there are computations that could done to move a ship from A to B. I had always imaged the bridge of a Starship to look very differently than how it is portrayed to date. I can't express it but something that resembles a 747 Cockpit but roomier.

 

[Supplement Four]

I don't see the need to go that far out to move a ship around, especially
if it's not an ultra-advanced ship (say TL 14+)

I don't have my books with me right now, but HDLs are the highest tech control panel available (until you get to TL 16).

IIRC, I think TL 14-15 is about right.

They're also more expensive, so a TL 14 ship might use just DL controls to save money.

The displays are normal holograms. There is nothing you can physically touch, the tactile feedback is provided by gloves or repulsors. This would limit you to buttons & switches - for joysticks etc you'd need real hardware...like the picture in SOM shows!

But, that's not what the description says. It says the user can create any type of control he wishes, and it says that the control is 3D that can be felt and used because of its tacticle feedback.

I think we're on the right track thinking that the 3D controls are holograms with the sense of touch being fooled by use of air density and/or gravitic manipulation.

It looks and feels like a real joystick, but it is really created through manipulation of light and particles.







Far Trader mentioned something earlier about the instruments operation when damaged.

Imagine the GM, describing the ship entering the outer layers of a gas giant, trying to skim fuel. The ship is damaged, having been jumped by pirates that were repelled.

"As you enter the gas giant's outer atmo, the ship begins to shake against the turbulence. It gets rough, but you were expecting it. Will your repairs hold?

"The board in front of you begins to blink. There's a power problem to the bridge, backups evidently effected.

"Your joystick blinks off for a second. You're gripping air. Nothing. Then, it flashes back into existence. And then, it's gone again. Weird, though. You visually don't see anything, but this time, you feel the stick in your hands. The gravitic focussers on the board are working, but the holo is out.

"So the buttons are invisible. You feel your way down the stick, for the release button you search for. You find it, and the engineer reports that the fuel scoops have opened successfully."

A GM could have some fun with that.

 

[Whipsnade]

When the SOM states, "These panels can be altered to display whatever the user wishes, even in three-dimensions complete with tactile feedback," I think it's pretty clear that the panels do work the way I've been positing.

S4,

No.

I'll now explain why. There is a canonical reason and a real world reason.

From a canonical standpoint, we want both statements in SOM to be true. This means that "These panels can be altered to display whatever the user wishes, even in three-dimensions complete with tactile feedback..." and "...as if they were actual three-dimensional objects..." both must be true. In order for both to be true, neither should take emphasis over the other and both should work with the other.

In your interpretation, "These panels can be altered to display whatever the user wishes, even in three-dimensions complete with tactile feedback..." takes precedence over ...as if they were actual three-dimensional objects... and the latter statement becomes false. When you say the panels replicate 3D objects instead of simply displaying virtual objects, you're invalidating one canonical statement in order to have "kewl" control panels that extrude joysticks, switches, and buttons.

Furthermore, your fixation on tactile feedback as "evidence" for your interpretation is also wrong. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you in this thread, given 57th Century technology, you needn't have actual 3D object in order to also have tactile feedback. You can use gloves, magnetic fields, gravitic fields, or a myriad of other mechanisms to provide tactile feedback coupled to a virtual object. The operator's finger needn't touch anything in order for tactile feedback to be involved. Indeed, when you understand that tactile sense occurs in the brain and not in the fingertip, it becomes even more apparent that actually touching something isn't required for tactile feedback at all.

That last bit allows me to neatly seque into the real world reason why your interpretation is wrong.

I can flatly state that, given "primitive" 20th and 21st Century controls technology, you needn't have a 3D object to provide tactile feedback either. Among many other examples I've seen in my travels, there are ABB control systems for bio-reactors in pharma/chem plants that use proximity sensors. An operator's fingers in those applications are usually gloved and those gloves are usually contaminated in some fashion so physical contact with some control panels isn't desired. Contact is prevented by placing a "sacrificial" sheet of material on a control display and then using a network of proximity sensors to detect finger positions above that display.

Here's the kicker. The operators of those control systems act as if they're "receiving" tactile feedback when their fingers move through the proximity sensor "zone" above the control panel even though they're touching nothing. Why is that? It's because their brains are taking in visual clues from the control display, melding that with finger positions and movement, and then producing an effect that the operators describe as tactile feedback. Tactile feedback occurs in the brain and not the fingertips, so only a brain is required.

Voila. Tactile feedback from a virtual object without the use of fields or even VR gloves.

Now, if your want "kewl" control panels IYTU that extrude joysticks and buttons, go right ahead. However, in the OTU, the panels described in SOM do not work in that way and can only be said to work that way if you also ignore another canonical statement in the same book. And, finally, we have tactile feedback right now in the 21st Century without either holographic displays or dynamically extruded objects.


Regards,
Bill

 

[Supplement Four]

From a canonical standpoint, we want both statements in SOM to be true. This means that "These panels can be altered to display whatever the user wishes, even in three-dimensions complete with tactile feedback..." and "...as if they were actual three-dimensional objects..." both must be true. In order for both to be true, neither should take emphasis over the other and both should work with the other.

In your interpretation, "These panels can be altered to display whatever the user wishes, even in three-dimensions complete with tactile feedback..." takes precedence over ...as if they were actual three-dimensional objects... and the latter statement becomes false.

That's ridiculous.

The statements are clear. They could easily be what is shown in this pic from up thread:

When you touch the 3D objects, they feel real. In this pic, they don't look real--they look like light (transparent).

Maybe HDL controls look like this in the pic, and maybe they look solid by further manipulation of the light.

But, this type of thing is, in deed, what HDL controls are referring to.

See the objects in the pic? The controls? We know they're made of light--hologram. And, if some other system provides some tactile feedback (the air density/gravitic manipulation that I proposed) so that, as I push in one of the switches shown on the lower part of the arm, I actually feel the switch "click" like a real switch (and I see the switch in its depressed position), then both parts of the statement are satisfied.

This is a hologram that acts as if it were a 3D object that also provides tactile feedback.

As has been repeatedly pointed out to you in this thread, given 57th Century technology, you needn't have actual 3D object in order to also have tactile feedback. You can use gloves, magnetic fields, gravitic fields, or a myriad of other mechanisms to provide tactile feedback coupled to a virtual object.

Maybe you haven't been reading my posts closely and just posting a rebuttal.

I've said (several times now) that these things are probably 3D holograms with tacticle response provided by another system, such as air density and/or gravitic manipulation.

The operator's finger needn't touch anything in order for tactile feedback to be involved. Indeed, when you understand that tactile sense occurs in the brain and not in the fingertip, it becomes even more apparent that actually touching something isn't required for tactile feedback at all.

That last bit allows me to neatly seque into the real world reason why your interpretation is wrong.

I can flatly state that, given "primitive" 20th and 21st Century controls technology, you needn't have a 3D object to provide tactile feedback either.

So...you're just going to plain ignore the part of the HDL description that speaks of reconfigurable 3D objects, complete with tactile feedback?

3D objects. Tactile feedback. Reconfigurability.

HDLs are capable of all three.

Now, if your want "kewl" control panels IYTU that extrude joysticks and buttons, go right ahead. However, in the OTU, the panels described in SOM do not work in that way and can only be said to work that way if you also ignore another canonical statement in the same book.

Marc has said that the DGP stuff is canonical. And, I think you're squeezing in your version of the TU into the OTU. Maybe you never thought that HDLs operate that way that they do, and you're rejecting the idea.

But, it's there in B&W.

 

[Whipsnade]

That's ridiculous.

S4,

Ridiculous? Try logical instead. I'm positing a system in which both statements are true. SOM is canonical, so both statements have to be true at the same time.

However, I think we're talking past each other. I'll admit, I browsed the thread and I got the distinct impression that you were talking about the panels extruding solid objects, objects that could be directly grasped by the operators. That's why I wrote what I wrote.

I now know you're talking about something else, something I happen agree with...

... up to a point.

I've said (several times now) that these things are probably 3D holograms with tacticle response provided by another system, such as air density and/or gravitic manipulation.

And manipulating air density or providing gravitic resistance is exactly what I was suggesting.

So...you're just going to plain ignore the part of the HDL description that speaks of reconfigurable 3D objects, complete with tactile feedback?

No, I wasn't ignoring that statement. More importantly I wasn't ignoring either of the statement. I was suggesting a solution in which both statements are equally true because both statements are canonical.

Marc has said that the DGP stuff is canonical.

I never said SOM wasn't canonical. SOM is canonical and I wrote From a canonical standpoint, we want both statements in SOM to be true. Both statements in SOM so both statements in SOM must be true and any solution must allow both statements to be true.

And, I think you're squeezing in your version of the TU into the OTU.

Perish the thought. I'm not squeezing MTU into the OTU. I am keen on preventing something else from being crammed into the OTU however. Keep reading.

Maybe you never thought that HDLs operate that way that they do, and you're rejecting the idea.

Actually I have thought HDLs operate that way ever since SOM came out, so I'm definitely not rejecting the idea. I'm just dialing your version of the idea some so, as I wrote above, something else isn't crammed into the OTU. Something that shouldn't ever be crammed into the OTU. Keep reading.

I'm perfectly happy with photons being optically marshaled to present a 3D object. I'm perfectly happy with gravitic or magnetic force providing tactile feedback to an operator's fingers. What I have are great concerns about the possibility of gravitic, magnetic, or some other force marshaling photons into create 3D objects that can be directly grasped by the observer.

Why?

Because I don't want Star Trek's techno-babble holodecks in the OTU, that's why.

If you posit that HDL panels marshal photons into 3D object that can directly interact with an operator's fingers or hands, you're one step away from an honest-to-Spock holodeck. Do you want to retcon holodecks into the OTU? Because that will be the result of HDLs with photons creating 3D objects that can be directly grasped by the observer.

A hologram overlaid with separate gravitic field to provide tactile feedback is one thing. An object created from photons that can directly manipulated by an operator through physical actions is something else entirely and that something else entirely is a holodeck

I don't want holodecks in the OTU, at least at TL15 or 16 I don't want them. They've never been seen before. Even TL16 Vincennes didn't have holodeck and DGP wrote all about that world. None of the TL16 worlds in Knightfall had holodecks either. DGP invented HDLs and DGP also didn't write about holodecks, so HDLs must work in a manner that precludes the use of larger versions as holodecks.

You may want holodecks or you may not. I don't and that's why I only agree with your take on HDLs up to a certain point.

We're in 99% agreement here. I think and have always thought HDLs work in almost the exact same manner you do. But I draw the line at HDLs working in any manner that might come within shouting distance of a holodeck.

YMMV.


Regards,
Bill

 

[Supplement Four]

However, I think we're talking past each other. I'll admit, I browsed the thread and I got the distinct impression that you were talking about the panels extruding solid objects, objects that could be directly grasped by the operators. That's why I wrote what I wrote.

Gotcha. I thought as much.

We're in 99% agreement here. I think and have always thought HDLs work in almost the exact same manner you do.

Agreed. I think we're pretty much on the same page, now.

BTW, I don't know if you saw, over in the "Toots" thread, but I bought all four of the Criminal graphic novels based on your recommendation.

I should get them in a few days.

 

[Supplement Four]

I started this thread to speculate on how the HDLs work, but it seems much of the thread has been defending that HDLs do, indeed, exist in the Traveller universe.

I think it's clear, from Dan's find in the MT Ref's manual, that the "3D" aspect of the controls is created through light manipulation--holograms.

So, to continue the thread...

How does the hand become fooled that it is touching something real? I hologram roller ball appears on the panel. How is it, when we touch it, that it feels like a real ball under our finger tips? What makes that happen?

VR gloves and the like have been suggested, but I don't think an apparatus like that is necessary, given the description in the SOM. I think the operator's bare hand is used.

So...how is the sense of touch fooled? How is it, when we grip light, that it feels as if it is actually pressing back against us, as it does when you grip a joystick?

I've suggested controlling air density and/or graviton manipulation. Bill doesn't quite like that idea.

That's fine, though. What other ideas could be employed to fool the sense of touch into believing that a real object is being grasped?

I open the floor to you...

 

[aramis]

Air jets and short range repusors can do most of it. I can't see a joy stick, but I can see the ball or even a d-pad or d-disk like on modern videogame constole controllers. Simply because of the need for lines of sight.

 

[Supplement Four]

I can't see a joy stick, but I can see the ball or even a d-pad or d-disk like on modern videogame constole controllers. Simply because of the need for lines of sight.

The description does say any 3D object desired. That would include joysticks.

Also...the hologram doesn't have to be translucent. At that tech level, the manipulation of light could be so advanced that the hologram looks real. It looks like a real joystick, but its made of light.