ONR Open Topic for Low-Cost Heads Up Displays (HUDs) for Virtual & Augmented Reality (VR/AR)

• Q1 is substantially expanded. The previous version had a single question on unit price, field of view, eye-relief, and related specs. The new version adds five questions on battery duration, the level of MilSpec qualification expected (e.g., full Mil-Std-810H versus IP67 only, given the "low cost" and "commercial applications" language), antenna/transmitter/power supply types for the intended frequency bands and distances, IMU resolution requirements, and whether the solution must be self-contained or can be split into two functional entities.
• Q2 is the former Q1, renumbered, with its content unchanged. It still covers unit price and display specs, whether an FPV-only submission without native 6DOF tracking satisfies the topic, minimum integration level for existing hardware and whether a teamed platform qualifies, and cost basis and sourcing/compliance criteria.
• Why it matters: The new Q1 answers, once posted, will likely set the environmental qualification level, the RF hardware scope, and whether a two-part teamed architecture is acceptable. Those are major cost and design drivers. Applicants should watch for ONR's responses to the MilSpec and self-contained questions in particular, since a full Mil-Std-810H requirement would materially raise the cost basis relative to an IP67-only standard.
• No answers are shown yet for the new questions, so none are marked as resolved or pending in this version.

• The Q&A section now contains a new question (Q1) asking for targeted performance specs: unit price, field of view, eye-relief, diopter, display resolution, brightness, latency, weight, battery endurance, and tracking accuracy. Government has not yet supplied these thresholds, so the question is unanswered.
• Three further questions were added on scope and integration: whether an FPV-only submission satisfies the topic without native 6DOF tracking at entry; what minimum integration level is expected of existing hardware; and whether a teamed hardware platform can satisfy that expectation.
• A question on cost basis and sourcing/compliance criteria was added, with ONR stating detailed thresholds will come later.

Why it matters: Applicants should not assume FPV-only proposals are acceptable, and should plan for possible 6DOF tracking requirements. Teaming arrangements may be viable for meeting integration expectations. Because numeric performance, price, and sourcing thresholds remain pending, proposers should hold off on final cost and design commitments and watch for the follow-up answers.

New opportunity: ONR Open Topic for Low-Cost Heads Up Displays (HUDs) for Virtual & Augmented Reality (VR/AR)