NZ520097A - Presenting a threat situation on a display using a common threat circle, inside which threats exist - Google Patents

Abstract

A method to present one or more possible events, between at least two objects (fiObj,SeObj), on a display, characterized in that a circle (TC), common for all the objects, is presented and that each possible event, presented in relation to the circle (TC) , is marked with a symbol and placed on the display in such away that the radial distance from each symbol to the circle (TC) constitutes, at each moment , a measure, in suitable scale, of its closeness to the circle (TC).

Description

<div class="application article clearfix" id="description"> <p class="printTableText" lang="en">'o: Intellect. Pr. Off. of New Zealand 0064 4560 1691 From: R. Roldan Prado 0046 13 330166 <br><br> 10 <br><br> 520097 <br><br> 1/10 <br><br> Method to present the threat situation on a display intellectual property <br><br> OFFICE OF N.Z. - <br><br> 1 2 jul 2002 <br><br> received <br><br> The present invention is intended to present the threat situation on a display. The invention is intended to present civilian as well as military threats and others possible events between objects. An object can be an aircraft, an air-defence gun, a ship, an obstacle, etc. An example of a civilian threat is the risk for collision between aircraft. An example of a military threat is the risk for impact with a missile. An example of a military possible event is to get a sensor to lock on a target. Yet another civil possible event is the risk for a ship to collide with other ships and the risk to run aground. <br><br> We shall look now an important case, the threat between the two objects in a pair. The objects are divided into pairs i.e. assuming N objects, where N is at least 2, then there are N * (N -1) /2 pairs. In a military combat situation we consider a specific pair where the first object is called, FiObj, and the second object, SeObj. It is now interesting 15 to know how to present the threat (tSF) to the FiObj from the SeObj and the threat (tFS) to the SeObj from the FiObj. Some vital data of the objects are their spatial position, their speed, the range and other attributes of their weapons. ;An unsophisticated way to present the situation of the threat is to put the first object at the 20 origin in a system of polar co-ordinates. The threat, e.g. the threat from robots (missiles), can be represented by circles around each object. In such a presentation it is, at least in a situation with many objects, hard to rapidly estimate the threats. ;The idea is to solve the mentioned problem so that the observer gets a rapid overview of p 25 the total situation of the threat. The observer should also at the same time be able to dedde quickly whether or not he is superior or inferior to the threat. These goals are met by my invention as specified in the first claim below. Suitable implementations of the invention are given in the other claims. ;30 The invention is characterised by a common circle, called the threat circle, TC, for all the objects, in the general case called the circle of possible events, in relation to which all the threats are presented. This is the main idea. The invention is also characterised by that both tSF and tFS can be marked in the same direction from the centre of the TC, e.g. along the direction to the SeObj or FiObj. The latter makes it possible to overlay the 35 picture of the threat situation plane on the plane of location and at the same time present the true location and the true threat situation of the different objects. ;Intellect. Pr. Off. of New Zealand 0064 4560 1691 From: R. Roldan Prado 0046 13 3301 ;2/10 ;Intellectual property office of n.z. ;1 2 jul 2002.= received ;The TC marks the boundary between the area inside the TC in which the threat exists and the area outside the TC in which the threat does not exist. The distance of the threat symbol to the TC tells nothing about how close in time the threat symbol is from crossing the TC. This, however, is obtained from the radial dynamics of the threat symbol together ;5 with its position in the threat situation plane. ;The invention makes it possible to easily present the uncertainty in forming judgement of the threat, witch normally is important to show. In practice there is a lot of uncertain facts. E. g. in a military situation you do not know if the antagonist shall discover the firing of ;10 your robot and run away or continue on the same course. Also, you do not have complete information of the robotic ranges of the antagonist, perhaps even insecurity on the range of your own robot. Knowledge of the position and velocity of the antagonist can also be insufficient. All this insecurity and others can, fundamentally, be expressed in the radial range of the symbol in the threat situation plane, cf. Figure 6 below. ;15 ;The invention makes it possible to change the scale of the location plane and/or the scale of the threat situation plane. It is also possible to move the centre of the TC to a suitable position in the location plane and at the same time present the real positions and situations of the threat of the different objects. ;20 ;The situation of the threat, i.e. the radial distance of the threat symbol to the TC, can, at least, be computed in three ways, each of which gives a certain form of presentation. Namely, presentations with respect to normalised distance, distance and time. ;25 In the normalised distance presentation mode, tSF is computed as the quotient of the distance from FiObj to SeObj and the range of the missile of SeObj. A value of tSF less than one lead to a position of the threat symbol inside the TC, otherwise the position is outside. ;30 In the distance presentation mode, tSF is computed as the difference of the distance between FiObj and SeObj and the range of the robot of SeObj. A value of tSF less than zero leads to a position of the threat symbol inside the TC, otherwise the position is outside. ;35 ;Finally, in the time presentation mode, tSF is computed as the time it takes for SeObj, with preserved velocity, to move the distance to FiObj minus the range of the robot of SeObj. If ;'o: Intellect. Pr. Off. of New Zealand 0064 4560 1691 From: R. Roldan Prado 0046 13 330 ;So ;1 ;INTELLkCI UAL FkUHtRI Y OFFICE OF N.Z. ;1 2 jul 2002 ;3/10 ;received ;the range of the robot of SeObj is greater than the distance between FiObj and SeObj, the threat situation, tSF, is positioned inside the TC, otherwise the position is outside. ;The analogous is valid for the threat situation, tFS, of the second object, SeObj, 5 concerning the computation of the threat situation. ;The choice of presentation mode depends of the current application. It is convenient to allow for the presentation equipment to change between alternative modes of presentation. ;10 ;The invention is to be described in more detail using the figures of this document. We now briefly describe these figures. ;Fig. 1 shows a picture of the presentation of location, ;15 Fig. 2 shows a picture of the presentation of the threat situation, ;Fig. 3 shows the threat situation according to Fig. 2 superposed (overlaid) on a picture of presentation of location, ;Fig. 4 shows a picture of the threat situation superposed on a picture of presentation of location with two first objects, ;20 Fig. 5 shows a picture of a one-sided threat situation to the second objects, SeObj, from the first objects, FiObj, ;Fig. 6 shows a picture of the threat situation with insecurity in the threat, ;Fig. 7 shows a picture of the threat situation superposed on a picture of presentation of location with the second objects (SeObj 1 and SeObj2) dose to and nearly at the same 25 bearing, and finally ;Fig. 8 shows another form of a representation of the threat situation with the second objects close to and nearly at the same bearing. ;Below follows a description of the invention from an application inside a combat aircraft. jo However it is clear that the invention can be used also in other situations, military as well as civilian, for similar presentations and it is my intention that this invention shall cover such applications. ;35 ;One can present the threat, using each of three modes. However all modes have a common TC for all displayed threats. The figures in the examples are valid for an arbitrary choice of any of the three modes. ;b: Intellect. Pr. Off. of New Zealand 0064 4560 1691 From: R. Roldan Prado 0046 13 330166 — —L— ;INTcLT£CTUAL PT&gt;0"lKTY OFFICE OF N.Z. ;1 2 jul 200^ - ;4/10 ;received ;Fig. 1 shows a picture of the presentation of location that can be used together with the picture of the presentation of threat. In fig. 1 the current location of one first object, FiObj, and two seconds objects, SeObjl and SeObj2, are presented on a monitor, for example a tactic indicator. Of course there could be several first objects and second objects. It is 5 appropriate that the symbol for the first object is different from the symbol of the second object. Even the colour should be different. ;Fig. 2 presents a situation where the threats (tFS, tSF) are located, in relation to the common TC, along the direction from the centre of the TC to respective second object. 10 This is a good choice in this situation. We present here only two pairs, (FiObj, SeObjl) and (FiObj, SeObj2), but we could present also the third pair (SeObjl, SeObj2). The threat, tS1 F, to FiObj from SeObjl is marked with an unfilled ring along the direction from the centre of the TC to SeObjl. The threat, tFSl, to SeObjl from FiObj is also marked, ;with a filled ring, along the same direction. The TC tells us that the threat is imminent 15 when the threat symbol is inside the TC. In this case the object SeObj2 is a dangerous threat to the object FiObj, which is evident by the position of tS2F inside the TC. Fig. 2 shows also that FiObj is inferior to SeObjl in the sense that tS1F is closer to the area inside TC, in which the threat exist, than tFS1. ;20 A threat can be represented e. g. as a ring in the equipment of presentation. The threat can also be represented as a short line (bar). By choosing a bar instead of a ring to present the threat, one must decide which end of the bar indicates the threat position. In the case of rings as well as in the case of bars one may use different colours, for example blue for first threat situation, tSF, and red for second threat situation, tFS. ;25 ;Fig. 3 shows that one may overlay fig. 1 and fig. 2 and at the same time represent both the true location and the threats for the different objects. ;In the examples displayed in the figures above the threat has been represented for one 30 first object, FiObj, and two second objects, (SeObjl, SeObj2). However, one may also represent the threat for several first objects in the same presentation of threat. Fig. 4 presents the threat, tS2F1, to FiObl from SeObj2 and tF1S2 presents the threat to SeObj2 from FiObj 1. The threat to FiObj2 from SeObj2 is denoted by tS2F2 and the threat to SeObj2 from FiObj2 is denoted by tF2S2. What restricts the number of objects is the 35 fact that the display can be quite messy and difficult to interpret with many objects. It is, of course, possible to let a user choose which objects to display. After that the other objects ;"o: Intellect. Pr. Off. of New Zealand 0064 4560 1691 From: R. Roldan Prado 0046 13 330166 ;5/10 ;intellectual property " office of n.z. ;1 2 jul 2002 . received are suppressed until new choices are made (e.g. after some time has elapsed or some other simple criterion is fulfilled). ;In fig. 4 the object FiObj2 is located deliberately at long range from SeObjl illustrating that 5 their threat situation is not very interesting and is therefore not presented. It is evident from the figure that the threat, tF1 S2, to SeObj2 from FiObjl is imminent and that the same is valid for tS2F1. It is also evident that SeObj2 is somewhat inferior to FiObjl in the sense that tS2F 1 is closer to the area outside TC, where the threat does not exist, than tF 1S2. It is also evident that FiObjl is somewhat inferior to SeObjl in the sense that io tSlF1 is closer to the area inside TC, where the threat exists, than tF1S1. ;Likewise it is possible to allow the user to specify which threats shall be computed and presented, amongst a number of imaginable (thinkable) threats. The user can choose not to present some improbable threats, though they are possible, with the purpose of making 15 the threat situation plane easy to interpret. An example of such a threat can be the threat from a long-range robot. ;In the case that a presentation of location shall be superposed, one must decide which of the first objects, if any, shall be located at the centre of the TC. There are several 20 possibilities. Fig. 4 shows two first objects where none of them are placed at the centre of the TC. FiObjl or FiObj2 could have been selected to lie at the centre or the centre could be selected to lie at some kind of mean value between the objects. Specially, in a case with a group of first objects that have weapons with larger ranges than the group spreading in space (i.e. the largest distance between any members in the group), it is 25 appropriate to place the group in the centre of the TC. The equipment of presentation of threat can easily be designed so that the relative transfer between the overlay pictures can be made by the user. ;Fig. 5 shows one-sided threat to second objects from first objects. It must be pointed out 30 that there are two different scales in the same picture. One is the scale of the threat-situation plane and the other is the scale of the location plane of the objects. If, for example, in the threat situation plane 1 cm corresponds to 10 km then the threat, tF1S2, to SeObj2 from FiObjl is placed about 15 km inside the robot range of FiObjl. This is because the filled ring is placed about 1.5 cm from the TC inside it. In the plane of location 35 1 cm can, for example, corresponds to 5 km and consequently the distance between FiObjl and SeObj2 is about 40 km. ;o: Intellect. Pr. Off. of New Zealand 0064 4560 1691 From: R. Roldan Prado 0046 13 330166 ;6/10 ;intellectual property ' office of n.z. ;1 2 jul 20tj2s RECEIVED ;If one wants to visualise the insecurity of the threat, which usually is important, then a short line (bar) is a suitable choose, where the length of the bar indicates the degree of insecurity. The insecurity of the threat can then be presented as a bar in radial direction where the probability that the threat Is inside the TC is proportional to the quotient f ;5 between the length of the part of the bar inside the TC and the length of the whole bar. ... ;In fig. 6 the different lengths of the bars state the different degrees of insecurity. In the other figures equally long bars or rings are used, meaning that the insecurity is either unknown or hidden. The threat, tF1S2, to SeObj2 from FiObjl shows more insecurity than 10 the threat, tS2Fl, to FiObjl from SeObj2 . The threat tF1 S2 overlaps slightly the area inside the TC, which means that there is a small probability that FiObjl can impact SeObj2 if its missile is fire. ;Normally, the threat, for example the threat from a missile by its range, is dependent of 15 several factors like the flying altitude, the relative differences in altitude between aircraft, launch directions, etc. For those reasons the presentation is constantly changing with respect to the current threat distance, e.g. the range of the missile. ;The presentation of the objects can be excellent as can be seen by the figures. The type 20 of object is given by the symbol, which also gives the speed and direction of the speed vector, etc. In some cases, with several objects and threats, it may be suitable for the user to omit objects to make the picture easier to interpret. This can be easily implemented in this presentation. ;25 If several other objects are lying close to each other at almost the same bearing, it can be difficult to see which symbol of threat belongs to which object, as illustrated in fig 7. Fig. 8 shows how one may, by relative removal of the two pictures, clarify the presentation. If the • centre of the TC moves near SeObjl and Se0bj2, then the angle difference between the objects, as seen from the centre of the TC, is bigger and consequently threat bars are 30 more separated in angle. ;In order to more easily estimate the radial position of the different threat symbols on the display in relation to the TC, one or more concentric circles, with respect to the TC, can be placed on the display. ;35 ;It was mentioned above that the invention can be used also for civilian air traffic. The reason for that is, of course, that every aircraft in the neighbourhood of the own aircraft ;: Intellect. Pr. Off. of New Zealand 0064 4560 1691 From: R. Roldan Prado 0046 13 330166 ;7/10 ;gives a potential risk of collision. Likewise the own aircraft is a potential risk of collision against nearby aircraft. Proximity (e.g. during take off/landing) to a stationary object also constitutes a risk. ;5 The advantage with this presentation, apart from what already has been mentioned, is that one can define the meaning of the risk an aircraft can be exposed to. This risk can be different for different aircraft, and still have the same TC for ail the aircraft involved. ;Finally, one must remember that the TC can, more generally,*be called the event circle. 10 Inside the event circle it is assumed that possible events occur, while outside, possible events do not occur. <br><br> intellectual property office of n.z. <br><br> 1 2 jul 2002 received <br><br> 20 <br><br> 30 <br><br> 35 <br><br></p> </div>

Claims (10)

<div class="application article clearfix printTableText" id="claims"> <p lang="en"> 8/10<br><br> I claim:<br><br>

1. Method to present one or more possible events, between at least two objects, on a display, characterised in that a circle (TC), common for ail the objects, is presented and 5 that each possible event, presented in relation to the circle (TC), is marked with a symbol and placed on the display is such a way that the radial distance from each symbol to the circle (TC) constitutes, at each moment, a measure, in suitable scale, of its closeness to the circle (TC).<br><br> 10

2. Method according to the claim 1, characterised by that the TC marks the boundary between the area, inside the TC, in which the possible events can happen (happen) and the area, outside the TC, in which the possible events cannot happen (do not happen).<br><br>

3. Method according to any of the previous claims, characterised by that at least one 15 possible event between at least one first object, FiObj, and at least one second object,<br><br> SeObj, are placed along the direction from the centre of the TC to respective SeObj or FiObj.<br><br>

4. Method according to any of the previous claims, characterised by that the possible<br><br> 20 events to at least one FiObj and the possible events to at least one SeObj are presented with different colours.<br><br>

5. Method according to any of the previous claims, characterised by that the insecurity in the position of the possible events, in relation to the TC, are presented by bars in the 25 radial directions inside of which the possible events are located.<br><br>

6. Method according to any of the previous claims, characterised by a picture that with symbols shows the geographic position of first objects (FiObj) and second objects (SeObj) superposed on the plane of possible events.<br><br>

7. Method according to any of the previous claims, characterised by that the plane of possible events is presented as a picture that uses a linear radial scale of normalised distance.<br><br> 35

8. Method according to any of claims 1-6, characterised by that the plane of possible events is presented as a picture that uses a linear radial scale of distance.<br><br> i INTELLECTUAL PROPERT i OFFICE OF M2<br><br> 2 2 jul 20(w<br><br> _ RFr.Fiwpn<br><br> From ++4613330166 to 006445601691 at 104-03-08 23:52 Pg 004/004<br><br> ■ : '*&gt;•<br><br> § 2.0 O y<br><br> 9/10<br><br>

9. Method according to any of claims 1-6, characterised by that the plane of possible events is presented as a picture that uses a linear radial scale of time.<br><br>

10. Method according to any of the previous claims, characterised by that the possible 5 events are threats and that the possible-event circle is a threat circle (TC) in relation to which the threats are presented.<br><br> 10<br><br> 15<br><br> 20<br><br> 25<br><br> 30<br><br> 35<br><br> INTELLECTUAL. PROPERTY OFFICE OF N.Z<br><br> - 9 mar 2004 received<br><br> </p> </div>