I worked for 5 years on synthetic vision. Honestly the avionics industry has done everything possible to avoid synthetic vision technology. It is humorous to continue to see news releases like this.
Synthetic vision really is the opposite of the "cockpit automation" mentality that has dominated civil avionics. That mentality comes from the perspective that pilot duties are complex, and therefore need to be automated away. The result is pilots who spend most of their time tending the autopilot.
The unfortunate effect of such automation-centric avionics designs is that pilots become more removed from reality because they are lost in automation and less aware of the airplane's situation. A long long list of tragic accidents support this finding. Synthetic vision embraces a different perspective.
Synthetic Vision comes from the viewpoint that the pilot will be the best prepared decision maker when the computer is used to reveal the aircraft's situation as clearly as possible to the pilot. Fog outside the window? Then show a picture of the outside anyway (from a database) to avoid terrain. Airspeed indicator out? Then use the GPS to create an estimate of airspeed, but put usable speed on the display so the pilot doesn't loose control. Computers can create meaningful information for pilots when plain instruments present easily confused data.
Synthetic vision is descendant from extensive military research into how to make pilots effective in complex and dangerous situations using Head Up Displays. Tremendous resources went into testing such displays. Aircraft systems like those on the F-35 continue to force this important finding forward. Flying is about what's outside the cockpit, not what's in it.
Computers can enhance a pilot's ability to be aware of the aircraft's situation, and that helps pilots make great decisions. Civil aviation avionics vendors and the authorities that regulate them are missing out on a big safety opportunity by dragging their feet here. And those feet are still dragging.