Technology Stocks | Microvision (MVIS)


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: David Rodella who wrote (246)4/21/1997 2:55:00 AM
From: kili   of 7340
 
Dear David,

... and that was only on the telephone bit...

Kim

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: kili who wrote (249)4/22/1997 12:34:00 PM
From: toby cyr   of 7340
 
Dear Kim,

Will talk to you soon. I've been doing some actual work in one of my companies lately. You are correct in your observations and convictions about the future with MVIS technology. There is another company doing something similar. I don't have all the details yet. I don't think MVIS need worry, yet.

Best,
Toby Cyr
Visibook Technologies

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: toby cyr who wrote (251)4/23/1997 2:58:00 PM
From: kili   of 7340
 
Dear Toby,

I'm waiting for news. Can't say I like todays tumble on relatively high volume. Don't like it a bit. But I'm patient.
Wonder where all the "institutions just waiting to get in" are. There's obviously volume to be picked up for the patient accumulator.

Weakness on the downturn passing $6 isn't encouraging. Should we send Todd, Richard and the others on a promotion tour among the analyst and fund managers????

Kim

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: kili who wrote (252)4/24/1997 1:53:00 PM
From: toby cyr   of 7340
 
Dear Kim,

The company is on track and is following its business plan. First military, then medical, then commercial. They need to follow the plan to conserve capital. If a large sponsor comes in to speed the process up for a particular purpose, then news will arrive. The news might jolt the stock up, but I question whether it would be beneficial in the long run. Diversion of resources has a cost. It dilutes focus.
Microvision is very aware of this.

The completion of the VRD for a specific use is the major issue now. It's the safe thing to do. Hang in there. It will be worth your patience.

The current market valuation is simply an opportunity to buy.


Best,
Toby Cyr
Visibook Technologies

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: toby cyr who wrote (253)4/24/1997 3:19:00 PM
From: Stephan Gregory Chase   of 7340
 
Toby,

I really do enjoy the way you think.

Stephan

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Stephan Gregory Chase who wrote (254)4/25/1997 9:49:00 PM
From: wfrazee   of 7340
 
Wouldn't a MVIS product make this even more realistic? Note: the reference to Armstrong Labratory both here and in the recent press release on an Air Force development/research contract. We're talking big time potential for MVIS technology.



970498. Superlab tames menagerie of flight simulators at symposium

By Tech. Sgt. Pat McKenna
Air Force News Service

LAS VEGAS -- An Air Force superlab demonstrated the future of aircrew
simulator training here during Air Force FIFTY, a symposium and celebration
of the service's 50th anniversary.

An exhibit by Armstrong Laboratory's aircrew training research division,
based at the former Williams Air Force Base in Phoenix, linked flight
simulators of four F-16 Falcons, two A-10 Warthogs, and a C-130 Hercules to
accomplish a "virtual" airdrop mission over hostile territory.

"It's the first-time the Air Force has deployed a composite wing's worth of
training capability," said Col. Bob Mattingly, the division's director of
Reserve programs. "Right now, it's a testbed, but this multi-aircraft
simulation environment might become part of aircrew training in the near
future."

Although the simulators are driven by three different image generators made
by Evans and Sutherland, Lockheed Martin and Silicon Graphics, all use the
same visual database, which allows an amalgam of aircraft to fly coordinated
missions.

During the digital display at the Air Force Association convention Wednesday
and Thursday, a four-ship of F-16s flew ahead of the A-10 two-ship escorting
the C-130. The fighters suppressed enemy air defenses and engaged enemy
aircraft while the A-10s fired their 30mm guns and rockets to destroy tanks
and hostile ground forces. The fighters allowed the C-130 to airdrop
supplies to friendly infantrymen. The 3-D scenario replicates the terrain
surrounding Elmendorf AFB and Anchorage, Alaska.

At the exhibit, the eight simulators were crammed into the same room;
however, by using existing telephone lines and defense computer networks,
the computerized cockpits could be spread out across the world. The concept
is called distributed mission training, which permits multiple aircrews at
different locations to immerse themselves in a virtual environment and "fly"
with and against each other.

"We could hook up a four-ship of F-15s at Elmendorf with a four-ship of
F-16s at Shaw [AFB, S.C.] with a four-ship of A-10s at Davis-Monthan [AFB,
Ariz.]," said Maj. Reid Reasor, an Armstrong research-and-development
program manager, "or link any other combination or assortment of aircraft
you can think of. We've also done joint simulation training with the Army
at Fort Knox [Ky.] and they're 1,300 miles away. They used their tank
simulators in our digital battlespace and vice versa."

Currently, distributive mission training is under development and in a
research phase; but Armstrong Lab believes that if the technology is
fielded, it would greatly enhance training.

"There are a lot of things you can do training in a simulator that you can't
train to do in a real jet," Reasor said. "In the simulator, you can get
shot at, you can shoot at enemy aircraft and see the missiles explode. But
the technology is still a couple of years away from where we want it. We
want it to smell, act and respond like a real jet. If it doesn't, then
pilots won't accept it as a valid tool, and it'll become just a video game.
We're real close, though."

The F-16 simulators, employing powerful Lockheed Martin graphic computers,
are self-contained in large white pods called mini-DARTs, short for Display
for Advanced Research and Technology. The simulators have a 360-degree
field of view and a cockpit that duplicates the real thing within a quarter
of an inch. The current F-16 simulator used by the Air Force costs about
$32 million each, and its computer equipment occupies an entire room. A
four-ship of mini-DARTs cost about half as much, $15.5 million, as the old
system and its powerful computer sits underneath the cockpit.

"This would be great for a training unit like ours," said Maj. Kelley Tabor,
an F-16 pilot assigned to the 309th Fighter Squadron at Luke. "It's hard to
coordinate big packages of aircraft and set up a rendezvous with an AWACs.
It also gives guys exposure to a lot of different scenarios they'd never see
on a real training mission. But you still need that flying time. That's
where you learn airmanship. Simulators will never replace that."

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: toby cyr who wrote (253)4/26/1997 6:06:00 AM
From: kili   of 7340
 
Dear Toby,
I quite agree, this is a time to downscale average cost. I could sure need to do so. However, one needs more funds to buy more...

Hanging on by the fingernails,

Kim

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: wfrazee who wrote (255)4/28/1997 10:48:00 AM
From: Tony Havelka   of 7340
 
The potential for VRD technology in this arena seems really far away. While simulators of this caliber do require a high resolution image, which the VRD could potentially deliver, they also require a much wider field of view than MVIS has ever claimed the VRD could do.

There has been quite a bit of discussion in the virtual reality and the simulator industry as to how much field of view is enough. There really has not been a definite answer as it varies from person to person. From what I have read, and correct me if I am wrong, the VRD has a Field of View of ~4-7 degrees. That would be like driving your car while looking through two toilet paper rolls. Sure the resolution is great but all the other cues required to operate your car in a safe manner are eliminated.

Until MVIS can get the VRD technology to display at least a 40+ degree horizontal field of view, I feel, this market will be really hard for them to crack.


Regards,

Tony

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Tony Havelka who wrote (257)4/28/1997 11:32:00 AM
From: Stephan Gregory Chase   of 7340
 
Tony,

You are seriously misinformed. Where did you read this information? The color prototype presently allows a 40 degree field of vision. When VRD is modified to "broadcast" into both eyes, I believe Microvision is shooting for a 120 degree field of vision. This will be a "fully immersive experience". Perhaps, someone from the company can help us out on this one.

In any case, Microvision prototypes already perform at the levels you feel are necessary to crack this market. So, I disagree strongly that VRD is "far away" from exploiting this arena as you suggest.

Stephan

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Tony Havelka who wrote (257)4/28/1997 10:18:00 PM
From: David Rodella   of 7340
 
Dear Tony:

I'm not sure where MVIS stands currently as regards a field of view but the USAF is funding them for initial work on a very high resolution head mounted simulator. They must see some potential.

Also, Northern Telecom discussed the use of VRD in cellular phones during their presentation at the GSM conference in France recently. It seems unlikely to me that they would have made these public comments at a professional convention unless they saw great promise in the technology. I do wonder though, whether it was foolish of them to alert the competition before they cemented their own relationship with a contract?

I also heard that GEC/Marconi and Honeywell representatives both talked about the potential for VRD in military HUDs at an aerospace conference in Florida. Since they both appeared enthusiastic, can we infer that this represents their parent corporate views or were these just personal observations? How close is the relationship between GEC, HON and MVIS? Its exciting to consider that these two giants in avionics with specialisations in cockpit systems might at least looking at VRD as a possibility.

Regards,
David

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.