PDA

View Full Version : do you know of any game that has zoom on a slider and trackir?



raaaid
06-06-2007, 06:21 AM
is there also any tool to use trackir z axe as a joystick slider?

thats all i need to make the game appear like you are looking trhough a window instead of a screen, VR

T_O_A_D
06-06-2007, 06:44 AM
Lock-on does I beleive.

It supports 6dof and I used to use a rotary for zoom back when I flew it a bit.

raaaid
06-06-2007, 07:22 AM
can you change joystick input in lock on as in il2?

and is there any way to axign an axe of trackir to a slider?

i think ill buy trackir just to do the experiment

WhtBoy
06-06-2007, 09:55 AM
Why would you want to map the TrackIR Z axis to a joysitck axis when Lock-On fully supports 6DOF?

How do you plan to overcome the difference in movement between the real world and virtual world (ie, 3" of physical movement translating to 12" of in game movement)?

--Outlaw.

DmdSeeker
06-06-2007, 12:47 PM
Aces high also has very good track-ir and control assignment routines.

WOLFMondo
06-06-2007, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by raaaid:


and is there any way to axign an axe of trackir to a slider?

If that was anyone else saying that I'd think WTehF?!

raaaid
06-06-2007, 02:48 PM
my plan is simple:

assign zoom to z axe of 6dof and use besides 6d0f normally

my intention with this is keep fov of game and fov with which i look at the screen the same, on this way it will seem that instead of the screen im looking through a window

WhtBoy
06-06-2007, 03:35 PM
Originally posted by raaaid:
my plan is simple:

assign zoom to z axe of 6dof and use besides 6d0f normally

my intention with this is keep fov of game and fov with which i look at the screen the same, on this way it will seem that instead of the screen im looking through a window

I reiterate...

Why would you want to map the TrackIR Z axis to a joysitck axis when Lock-On fully supports 6DOF?

How do you plan to overcome the difference in movement between the real world and virtual world (ie, 3" of physical movement translating to 12" of in game movement)?

Also, what you're describing is a pilot with a pyramidal box strapped on his head looking out the base. Not a very accurate depiction of realithy eh?

--Outlaw.

Capt.LoneRanger
06-06-2007, 03:58 PM
The next addon BlackShark will support full 6DOF. With Flaming Cliffs, you can map the z-Axis to zooming, or a key or slider.


I won't comment on the other question, as this is #8 thread on the same subject... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Divine-Wind
06-06-2007, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by raaaid:
my plan is simple:

assign zoom to z axe of 6dof and use besides 6d0f normally

my intention with this is keep fov of game and fov with which i look at the screen the same, on this way it will seem that instead of the screen im looking through a window
That makes no sense. You want to assign the Zoom function of TrackIR to a slider, so you can keep the same FOV (aka level of zoom?) but still use 6DOF?

Why not just disable the zoom in your TrackIR profile?

Urufu_Shinjiro
06-06-2007, 04:45 PM
There was an article somewhere where they used a program that created a virtual joystick and was able to use trackir to manipulate on of the axis on that virtual joystick via a mouse-to-joy program that came with the virtual stick software, then they profiled that axis as bands and did a band for each of the zoom levels. It was somewhat complicated but apparently it worked. I wish I could find that article, it was in a language other than english, maybe a thorough google search might find it. Ppjoy was the name of the joystick program

WhtBoy
06-06-2007, 06:36 PM
Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
The next addon BlackShark will support full 6DOF. With Flaming Cliffs, you can map the z-Axis to zooming, or a key or slider.

'Doh!!!! The demo video I saw was from the Black Shark website. I didna realize the true 6 DOF was new with Black Shark.

--Outlaw.

M2morris
06-06-2007, 08:04 PM
You never answered my question raaaid:
How would you build a contraption that could fly if you were transported 200 years back in time?

Divine-Wind
06-06-2007, 08:17 PM
With wings.

Fireball_
06-06-2007, 08:54 PM
Lock-on doesnt' support true 6 DOF with TrackIR, but it does have pitch and yaw (like IL-2), plus lean forward (zoom?) which IL-2 doesn't. What it doesn't support is leaning from side-to-side. So I'm not sure how many DOF you call that.

raaaid
06-07-2007, 04:02 AM
if i were transported 200 years in time i wouldnt be able to improve a thing

because i have ideas that will be made in the future and even knowing them im unable to build them

do you imagine we were 200 years back in time and i was tring to convince people in this forum man can fly?

as my persistence about my VR idea whats wrong with it, i just want my ideas to fructify when they are good would you prefer me to talk on 0.50mm

all i want is give bob an option by which game fov and fov with which you see the screen are the same so its VR in which you have the feeling you are looking through a window

leaning forward, z axe, doesnt change fov(zoom)

Vanderstok
06-07-2007, 04:08 AM
Shockwave's Battle of Britain and First eagle (Thirdwire) both support zooming (changing FOV) using the TrackIR z-axis and it is indeed a great feature. You can easily identify aircraft from a great distance, just by moving your head towards the monitor...

raaaid
06-07-2007, 04:35 AM
Shockwave's Battle of Britain and First eagle (Thirdwire) both support zooming (changing FOV) using the TrackIR z-axis and it is indeed a great feature. You can easily identify aircraft from a great distance, just by moving your head towards the monitor...
0_o

im amazed then adjust fov to do opposite, zoom out when you move head close to monitor must be posible

therefore keeping a constant apparent size of things by keeping fov of screen and fov of game alike must be posible as well or just a little step away XD

i wonder if its a coincidence or my insistence is beggining to fructify

WhtBoy
06-07-2007, 05:43 AM
Originally posted by Vanderstok:
Shockwave's Battle of Britain and First eagle (Thirdwire) both support zooming (changing FOV) using the TrackIR z-axis and it is indeed a great feature. You can easily identify aircraft from a great distance, just by moving your head towards the monitor...

raaaid does not want this effect. In fact, he wants the opposite. He wants aircraft that are only a few blurry pixels on the screen to STAY a few blurry pixels on the screen when you move your head forward.

While technically, that is the way you would see in reality, (you can't move your head 3" closer to an object 800 yards away and see it more clearly), it's a really bad idea for our world due to the limits that graphics cards and monitors place on us.

--Outlaw.

raaaid
06-07-2007, 07:27 AM
i just made an approximate calculation and with a 21" monitor with a fov of 90º to see real size you must look at 25 cm distance from monitor

with 30º fov it would be 95 cm distance

so if you wanted to identify a plane you would move your head backwards to have more pixels shaping it but youd always see it realistically

as you see the ranges in which youd have to move your head is 70 cm to fit il2 fovs

WhtBoy
06-07-2007, 07:41 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:
i just made an approximate calculation and with a 21" monitor with a fov of 90º to see real size you must look at 25 cm distance from monitor

with 30º fov it would be 95 cm distance

so if you wanted to identify a plane you would move your head backwards to have more pixels shaping it but youd always see it realistically

as you see the ranges in which youd have to move your head is 70 cm to fit il2 fovs

70cm???? That's 2 freakin' feet. Who here wants to be wanking their face 2' back and forth while playing the game? Also, who here has a TrackIR setup that can handle 2' of fore/aft motion and still maintain the sensors in the unit's FOV, much less a decent and stable view point?

[edit]
Also, unless the size of the object changes drastically on the screen, the number of pixels will not increase much so you won't get enough extra detail to make a difference.
[end edit]

--Outlaw.

WWSensei
06-07-2007, 08:46 AM
This would help if the person asking the question understood the basics of 6DOF, FOV or TIR. Since he doesn't it's hard to explain.

In MSFS, TIR has 6DOF. If I lean forward in the cockpit aircraft in the game do NOT suddenly increase in size--because the game knows my point of view has only changed a few inches in relation to the distance to the other aircraft.

If I zoom in on the other aircraft (simulating looking at it with binoculars) and lean forward or backward it's apparent new size (ie it looks larger because I zoomed in on it) doesn't change in the game because, again, my point of origin in the the 3D space of the game hasn't changed enough to make a difference.

Raaid has ALWAYS gotten how trackIR works completely wrong and refuses to learn when it is explained to him.

NP_Vincent
06-07-2007, 02:51 PM
He could always buy it, and try it out............

WhtBoy
06-07-2007, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by WWSensei:
In MSFS, TIR has 6DOF. If I lean forward in the cockpit aircraft in the game do NOT suddenly increase in size--because the game knows my point of view has only changed a few inches in relation to the distance to the other aircraft.


raaaid wants the size of the aircraft on the screen to DECREASE when you do this to take into account that your eyes are now closer to the monitor.

Despite multiple people telling him how the TrackIR works he still believes that the motion is 1:1 between the real world and the virtual world. He either has no way to reconcile it, he doesn't believe us, or he doesn't understand it so he just ignores it. Based on his inability to understand the simple equation I posted regarding the angle an object subtends your field of view your first guess might be to go with him not understanding it, however, based on his fear of the "oil police" I'm going with he refuses to believe us despite the fact that we actually own TrackIRs and he doesn't.


--Outlaw.

raaaid
06-07-2007, 03:28 PM
i dont need to own a trackir to know that for a picture to look realistic you must look at it with the same fov it was taken

its a matter of time somebody who develops games understands this

WhtBoy
06-07-2007, 03:30 PM
Originally posted by raaaid:
i dont need to own a trackir to know that for a picture to look realistic you must look at it with the same fov it was taken

its a matter of time somebody who develops games understands this

No one is disputing this raaaid. That's what you don't seem to understand.

[edit]
Actually, we are disputing it to an extent in that we realize that there is a limit to what you can do with the available technology and that it won't be perfect with what is affordable now.
[end edit]

--Outlaw.

M2morris
06-07-2007, 08:40 PM
Originally posted by raaaid:
if i were transported 200 years in time i wouldnt be able to improve a thing

because i have ideas that will be made in the future and even knowing them im unable to build them

do you imagine we were 200 years back in time and i was tring to convince people in this forum man can fly?

as my persistence about my VR idea whats wrong with it, i just want my ideas to fructify when they are good would you prefer me to talk on 0.50mm

all i want is give bob an option by which game fov and fov with which you see the screen are the same so its VR in which you have the feeling you are looking through a window

leaning forward, z axe, doesnt change fov(zoom)
Sry to go OT from the thread topic, I was just curious as to how you would do it thats all because you are an idea-man.

Freelancer-1
06-07-2007, 10:28 PM
Okay, Raaaid

You've got at least three threads running on this topic now.

I have one question for you.

Why do you want the screen to appear as though you are looking through a window?

The game designers for this game and many, many others do NOT want it to appear that way.

THE SCREEN REPRESENTS YOUR EYES!!

THE COCKPIT IS THE WINDOW!!

Plain and simple.

Sheesh http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

raaaid
06-08-2007, 07:03 AM
how its gonna be the screen your eyes?

you see with your eyes you dont look at them

i think the only person in this forum who understands my point is outlaw but as he dilikes me he rathers to see it as a bad idea

well do we want realism? my idea will give it more realism, seeing the moon with an angular diameter of 0.5º always and a 100m fighter with an angular diameter of 10º always, even outlaw admits my idea is more realistical than now

and when i see arguments like sensei that proves he has no clue what im talking about is not my duty to clarify it?

you dont understand this not because you are more stupid than me, you dont just because you havent worked years on it just because you like it ignoring your work

WhtBoy
06-08-2007, 09:56 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:
i think the only person in this forum who understands my point is outlaw but as he dilikes me he rathers to see it as a bad idea

Totally incorrect as I rarely let personal feelings interfere with intelligence. I truly feel it's a bad idea.



Originally posted by raaaid:
well do we want realism? my idea will give it more realism, seeing the moon with an angular diameter of 0.5º always and a 100m fighter with an angular diameter of 10º always, even outlaw admits my idea is more realistical than now

"Realism" entails more than just a constant angular diameter of distant objects with differing fields of view. It includes the whole "visual package" that the sim is capable of delivering. Current technology SIGNIFICANTLY limits that visual package and we NEED the ability to make objects APPEAR larger than they actually would in reality. Your idea makes that impossible. I play using a projector with a resolution of 1024x768. The image on the screen is over 87" (>220cm) diagonal. Even with such a large image I still can't positively identify many aircraft at ranges >300 yards.

Besides the above, the TrackIR does NOT operate the way you think it does, making most of your ideas impossible to actually use.


Originally posted by raaaid:
and when i see arguments like sensei that proves he has no clue what im talking about is not my duty to clarify it?

Sensei DOES know what you're talking about and the points he brought up relate to the operation of the TrackIR and the current implementaion of 6DOF in various sims. You don't even own a TrackIR, much less those other games so saying he has no clue just makes you look bad.

--Outlaw.

Freelancer-1
06-08-2007, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:
how its gonna be the screen your eyes?

you see with your eyes you dont look at them



Lets say you were out one morning and a blast from an alien death ray turned your eyes to cinders.

A brilliant eye surgeon managed to replace your eyes with cameras and even gave you the ability to allow others to jack in to the back of your head and see what you're seeing.

They can't actually see through your cameras the way you can. But they can look at a monitor and are able to see what you see.

The screen is the world through your eyes!

You need to lose the idea of looking AT the monitor. As far as the game is concerned , you ARE the monitor. You have had the eyes ripped out of your head and replaced with a camera.

WWSensei
06-08-2007, 11:38 AM
Freelancer, he has had that explained to him about 400 times and he refuses to understand that the point of view on the screen is from the eyeball in the game and not a "real world" viewport. So, with a flawed understanding of how the games portrays things, how trackir works, perspective, fov and a multitude of other problems he claims WE don't understand HIM.

He just won't accept we understand him completely--he's just wrong.

raaaid
06-08-2007, 12:44 PM
blah blah blah

so the screen actually is pilots eyes which i chop off and look at them, and its me the one with the wild imagination

if you dont understand a picture must be look with the same fov it was taken well...

if you dont undertand 6dof can detect your distance to screen and therefore the fov the screen takes...

then you wont understand that 6dof allows you to have game fov and fov with which you look at the screen equal

so either you are just too slow or just want to piece me off which in either case means the end of conversation for me

in fact im gonna add new people to my ignore list

HitchHikerHSDWG
06-08-2007, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by raaaid:
you dont understand this not because you are more stupid than me, you dont just because you havent worked years on it just because you like it ignoring your work

I think thats crossing the line there. And furthermore if we can't do this in IL-2 how is the discussion relevant?

Freelancer-1
06-08-2007, 03:10 PM
Lets try another scenario.

The date is 2150 and you are a fighter pilot.

Thing is, you are not actually in the plane. You are controlling a robot pilot. The camera in the middle of the robots head sends a signal to the virtual cockpit where you are sitting.

What the robot sees comes up on a monitor.

So...you are not looking through a window at the robot (third person), you are seeing what the robot sees (first person).

The view in this game and many others (Quake, Fear, Doom, Half Life, etc) is first person. The image you see on the monitor is the view from the character's eyes.

If the camera were sitting above the pilot and you were looking over the back of his head (Knights of the Old Republic, Deus Ex, etc) it would be third person and your argument would be valid.

Maybe you will be understanding now?

Freelancer-1
06-08-2007, 10:07 PM
If IL2 were a book telling a story, it would start like this:

"My name is Raaaid and this is my story", not "This is a story about Raaaid".

Do you see the difference?

IL2 is a story told from the pilots perspective (first person) it's not a story told about a pilot (third person).

It's a story using imagery instead of words. The best way to show that is to look at things through the pilots eyes. Technology being what it is, you can't actually glue two little screens to your eyes. So, to represent how a pilot might see the world around him, the monitor has to do that for the player.

It's not perfect by any means, but it's all that can be done at this time and this level of technology.

Hope you weren't too quick on the ignore button as I'm truly trying to help you see why you are mistaken in your viewpoint here.

raaaid
06-09-2007, 06:28 AM
i see your point

i just get piece off sometimes here because people who dont like me instead of ignoring me they attack me, i never attack anybody but you have a point

so the way the game works now theres a camera in the cockpit and you see that by remote control in your screen, you can even zoom in and out

well seeing that you have a point

but what do you prefer remote control or the real thing?

my idea would give you the feeling you are there instead of being remote control

in fact if the images had enough quality you couldnt tell the difference from the real thing

in fact my idea is the closest you can get to virtual reality in a flat screen

i dont think its very known that for apicture to appear real you must look with the same fov it was taken because its something i found out myself

i bet even VR gogles are wrong and you dont have the same game fov in the game with which you see the screen of the glasses

though i do belive imax movies try to follow this rule to make you think you are really there(thought it just works from the center sit)

raaaid
06-09-2007, 06:58 AM
ill try to explain how i understand vision:

a pilot sees the gunsight, the gunsight appears on the retine, now the brains places himself in the pupil looking at the retine

so theres a virtual eye in the pupil looking at the retine, the gunsight appears on the virtual retine and the brain puts a second virtual eye on the first virtual pupil

now the gunsight is on the retine of the second virtual eye and the brain puts a third virtual eye on the second virtual pupil and so on to infinity

due to the laws of projection the gunsight will always have the same angular diameter on every virtual eye

so the screen would be a virtual retine and position detected by 6dof the virtual pupil from where you would look

so if you move far away pupil position it means the eye has grown growing as well images on the virtual retine

raaaid
06-09-2007, 07:23 AM
the problem with my vision theory is that infinity must be reached before vision happens but thanks to the people in this forum i can prove you can go to infinity and beyond:

you probably know about zenos turtle longing forever to reach destination, well doesnt have to be this way:

firts turtle goes 1 m then half then a quarter... never reachin 2m

lets just add this little condition and change it all

turtle runs 1m in 1 second half m in half second a quarter m in a quarter of second...

same conditions than zeno only adding time, it takes two seconds for the turtle to reach something that otherwise would be ethernal

mbfRoy
06-09-2007, 07:36 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:
the problem with my vision theory is that infinity must be reached before vision happens but thanks to the people in this forum i can prove you can go to infinity and beyond:

you probably know about zenos turtle longing forever to reach destination, well doesnt have to be this way:

firts turtle goes 1 m then half then a quarter... never reachin 2m

lets just add this little condition and change it all

turtle runs 1m in 1 second half m in half second a quarter m in a quarter of second...

same conditions than zeno only changing variable speed into constant speed, it takes two seconds for the turtle to reach something that otherwise would be ethernal fixed.

raaaid
06-09-2007, 08:18 AM
i cant find any info on the net on this just a race among achiles and a turtle

anyway time and therefore speed shouldnt make any difference

the point is as it takes infinite steps it never ends

though it doesnt make much difference if you consider that the tortoise halfs speeds every time

if it halfs speed every step in this relative world in which we live it can mean as well that the outside world doubles speed

so from the point of view of the outside world the tortoise is freezing but from the point of view of the tortoise the outside world will go at a mad speed

so in 2 seconds of the turtle an eternity has passed in the outside world

in 3 seconds the turtle will have seen more than eternity happening in the outside world ?¿

if there are multiple timelines and time accelerates it would be posible eternity of a timeline within 2 seconds of another time line i suppouse

mbfRoy
06-09-2007, 08:28 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:
i cant find any info on the net on this just a race among achiles and a turtle

anyway time between steps and therefore speed value shouldnt make any difference, however the rate at which the turtle advances does, so the turtle in question would be advancing 1 meter in 1 second, then half a meter in 1 second, then a quarter... never reaching 2m fixed and filtered

raaaid
06-09-2007, 08:39 AM
yeah i get your point

what about this tortoise paradox in which the turttle runs 1 m in 1 sec 0.5m in 1 sec... being another fraud of the educational system and never be said by zeno but by an impostor who decided what we should think

the actual limit paradox is about aquiles racing a tortoise to which he gives advantage but he cant never pass the tortoise

showing that the mathematical world and the real world are in contradiction, no wonder we are no taught the real paradox

mbfRoy
06-09-2007, 09:07 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:
yeah i get your point

what about this tortoise paradox in which the turttle runs 1 m then 0.5m then 0.25m... and achilles never being able to pass the turtle, being another fraud of the educational system and never be said by zeno but by an impostor lacking in reading comprehension

See, that's the problem.

The paradox is about aquiles racing a tortoise to which he gives advantage but he can never be in the same exact position of it, since no matter how small the fraction of time you pick, the position at which achiles advances is always slightly behind the tortoise's. He can of course pass the tortoise since he's running faster.

I too blame a poor educational system. Also fixed!

raaaid
06-09-2007, 09:51 AM
i was wondering if theres a single person here who was taught the real paradox of achiles and the tortoise instead of just the tortoise taking half steps

my teacher of maths taught me about zeno talking of a turtle taking half steps and so my father who is a mathematician

so from an initial example that wants to prove world is an illusion we go to an example not paradoxical at all that wants to prove the world is perfect

what is next make kids learn wars are good, no wait wasnt that what i was taugh?

irak because of the evil saddam wwii because of the evil hitler spanish civil war because of the evil reds american independence war for the evil slavists...

and even though people believe what they are taught with absolute faith

AKA_TAGERT
06-09-2007, 09:57 AM
http://strosbro.mlblogs.com/photos/uncategorized/8_1.gif

raaaid
06-09-2007, 10:14 AM
i really wonder if i had liked so much playing with toy guns and violent games as akid if i had had another rol models and education

maybe if i had had another rol models and education id dislike as much playing to kill people as much as i dislike playing with barbies

WhtBoy
06-09-2007, 10:30 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:
if you dont undertand 6dof can detect your distance to screen and therefore the fov the screen takes...


raaaid, as it is currently implemented, the TrackIR DOES NOT and CANNOT, measure the distance between you and the screen. It only measures CHANGE in distance, not actual distance. The requirements for it to actually measure distance would significantly reduce it's flexibility and usability.

Also, why have you not responded to the multiple problems with your idea that I have posted?

--Outlaw.

Zeus-cat
06-09-2007, 10:43 AM
raaaid, as it is currently implemented, the TrackIR DOES NOT and CANNOT, measure the distance between you and the screen. It only measures CHANGE in distance, not actual distance. The requirements for it to actually measure distance would significantly reduce it's flexibility and usability.

Also, why have you not responded to the multiple problems with your idea that I have posted?

--Outlaw.

No, no, no, no. I have posted this before. Logic, discussion of actual physics and reasonable thoughts are not allowed in a raaaid post. Thou shallt be ignored.

<span class="ev_code_RED">"Grasshopper, when you can snatch the pebble from my hand... well, I guess you will have mastered pebble snatching. Good luck finding a job." Old Wise Chinese Kung Fu Master</span>

raaaid
06-09-2007, 11:04 AM
lets use logic:

outlaw says 6dof cant detect distance to sensor and therefore to screen ill prove it can

trackir detects distance by simply checking the reflector appears bigger or smaller on the sensor, you know the size of the reflector you know the distance

i bet you dint know that though you own the machine

you said pixels hardly change when moving your head back and forth i proved that changing distance from 25cm to 95 in a 21" screen would change pixels for an object as the 90º fov changes to 30 fov

WhtBoy
06-09-2007, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:
lets use logic:

outlaw says 6dof cant detect distance to sensor and therefore to screen ill prove it can

trackir detects distance by simply checking the reflector appears bigger or smaller on the sensor, you know the size of the reflector you know the distance

i bet you dint know that though you own the machine



raaaid, I did not say that 6dof can't measure distance, I said that the TrackIR, "...AS IT IS CURRENTLY IMPLEMENTED..." cannot measure distance. This means that THE SOFTWARE IS NOT DESIGNED TO MEASURE DISTANCE. Do you understand that?

To measure distance the software would have to know HOW BIG THE REFLECTOR IS. THERE IS NO SETTING IN THE SOFTWARE TO ENTER THE SIZE OF THE REFLECTOR. I can put a small reflector or a big reflector and the sofware will still work fine. I can even change the size of the reflector WHILE I AM PLAYING WITH NO CHANGE IN SETTINGS. That's what I mean by flexibility and usability.

I'll say it again, THE TRACKIR DOES NOT KNOW THE SIZE OF THE REFLECTOR THAT YOU ARE USING!!!!! Do you understand this yet? Please respond with a yes or no.




Originally posted by raaaid:
you said pixels hardly change when moving your head back and forth i proved that changing distance from 25cm to 95 in a 21" screen would change pixels for an object as the 30º fov changes to 90 fov

Tell me then, WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE IN SIZE OF THE IMAGE ON SCREEN BETWEEN 25cm and 95cm? This is a simple question. All I want to know is the size (in mm) as measured by a ruler placed against the monitor scree.

--Outlaw.

DooDaH2007
06-09-2007, 11:29 AM
Originally posted by WhtBoy:
I said that the TrackIR, "...AS IT IS CURRENTLY IMPLEMENTED..." cannot measure distance. This means that THE SOFTWARE IS NOT DESIGNED TO MEASURE DISTANCE. Do you understand that?

To measure distance the software would have to know HOW BIG THE REFLECTOR IS. THERE IS NO SETTING IN THE SOFTWARE TO ENTER THE SIZE OF THE REFLECTOR.

http://home.wanadoo.nl/chosen1/trackir.jpg

"
Preferred Object Size
This slider bar determines the preferred size (in pixels) of the reflective target for the SmartNAV to track. The larger your dot, the greater the setting needs to be set to.
"

source:
http://naturalpoint.com/smartnav/support/manual/sn-Chapter_ALL.html

-

raaaid
06-09-2007, 11:32 AM
The reflector clip contains three reflectors arranged in such a way that it represents a triangle in space. The TrackIR Vector software knows the size of the triangle and uses advanced triangulation math to calculate the 6 Degrees of Freedom (6DOF)

from here:

http://www.flightsim.com/cgi/kds?$=main/review/vector.htm

we are talking 6dof with vector clip arent we?

yes i understand you make things up to peace me off

measure yourself in your screen the difference of gunsight size with 30º fov and 90º fov the difference in size will be the difference in pixels

WhtBoy
06-09-2007, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by DooDaH2007:
Preferred Object Size
This slider bar determines the preferred size (in pixels) of the reflective target for the SmartNAV to track. The larger your dot, the greater the setting needs to be set to.


Preferred Object Size is NOT the same as EXACT OBJECT SIZE. I can use the same reflector and swing this setting all over the place and still be able to play. This is a helper setting, not a required exact setting.

--Outlaw.

WhtBoy
06-09-2007, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:
The reflector clip contains three reflectors arranged in such a way that it represents a triangle in space. The TrackIR Vector software knows the size of the triangle and uses advanced triangulation math to calculate the 6 Degrees of Freedom (6DOF)

You do NOT have to use the supplied vector clip. You can make your own. The software only measures the CHANGE in orientation and in size, not the actual size. Also, the math is NOT advanced.



Originally posted by raaaid:
measure yourself in your screen the difference of gunsight size with 30º fov and 90º fov the difference in size will be the difference in pixels

I DID NOT ASK FOR THE SIZE OF THE GUNSIGHT!!!!!!!!!! I ASKED FOR THE CHANGE IN SIZE OF AN AIRCRAFT!!!!! Please read before responding.

[edit]
My bad, I MEANT TO ASK FOR THE CHANGE IN SIZE OF AN AIRCRAFT!!!!.

Sorry.
[end edit]

[another edit]
To further specify, tell me the change in size of a Spitfire (any model) in profile at 400 yards.
[end another edit]

--Outlaw.

raaaid
06-09-2007, 11:50 AM
i can even make my own wecam trackir

come on admit it i caught you lying saying 6dof doesnt know size of vector clips

as for the gunsight it measures the same than a fighter at 100 m

I'll say it again, THE TRACKIR DOES NOT KNOW THE SIZE OF THE REFLECTOR THAT YOU ARE USING!!!!! Do you understand this yet? Please respond with a yes or no.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

WhtBoy
06-09-2007, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by raaaid:
i can even make my own wecam trackir

come on admit it i caught you lying saying 6dof doesnt know size of vector clips

as for the gunsight it measures the same than a fighter at 100 m

I'll say it again, THE TRACKIR DOES NOT KNOW THE SIZE OF THE REFLECTOR THAT YOU ARE USING!!!!! Do you understand this yet? Please respond with a yes or no.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

Nope, you caught a mistake. Check edit and note respecification of question.

--Outlaw

Freelancer-1
06-09-2007, 12:13 PM
Why argue when the answers are out there?

I went and posted this on the TIR forum:

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Hi,

Bit of a heated debate going on over in the UBI forum concerning whether TIR knows how far away from the camera a user is sitting when wearing the vector clip.

Definitive answer please?

Thanks,

Freelancer </span>

You will have the answer shortly and can then move on to some other little detail to argue about http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

WhtBoy
06-09-2007, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by Freelancer-1:
Why argue when the answers are out there?

I went and posted this on the TIR forum:

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Hi,

Bit of a heated debate going on over in the UBI forum concerning whether TIR knows how far away from the camera a user is sitting when wearing the vector clip.

Definitive answer please?

Thanks,

Freelancer </span>

You will have the answer shortly and can then move on to some other little detail to argue about http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Well that's no fun. It kind of defeats the purpose doesn't it? Besides, that's not the real point of this argument.


--Outlaw

Freelancer-1
06-09-2007, 12:25 PM
Fine then,

I'll not tell when I get the answer.

Carry on http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

WhtBoy
06-09-2007, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by Freelancer-1:
Fine then,

I'll not tell when I get the answer.

Carry on http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Well it's a bit too late for that now isn't it? That's like starting a sentence with, "don't look now but...". Of course I'll look!!

--Outlaw.

WhtBoy
06-09-2007, 01:07 PM
raaaid got me thinkin' and I double checked the Natural Point website where I saw that it does mention that the vector clip, "...has 3 dots of an exact size and distance from each other...", which would indicate that it DOES have the ability to measure distance. This seems to conflict with someone I know who claims to have used a pair of safety glasses to mimic the clip. I can't possibly imagine this guy actually making it match the dimensions of the clip, but, maybe he did (or just got really lucky). I'm gonna test it out when I get home by throwing my remaining dots on a piece of paper and seeing if it will work.

It looks like I will be hanging my head in shame on this point.

Still waiting for the change in size of the Spitfire at 400 yards though.

--Outlaw.

Freelancer-1
06-09-2007, 04:54 PM
Sometimes I forget how spoiled we are of this forum.

Post here and you will get a response in a few minutes. (Granted by the end of the first page it's the usual insanity, but by then you have gotten your answer and don't need to read the next eight pages of red/blue chart wars) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Haven't gotten but 4 views on my post over at the TIR forum and, of course, no response yet.

Ah well...

WhtBoy
06-09-2007, 06:04 PM
I just threw together a quick and dirty fake vector "clip" and it works in some axes but not in all. I think that's due to the fact that my "clip" is a flat 3x5 cad with 3 round dots on it. When I get a chance I'm going to move the center dot back just like the real clip and see if it works.

I purposely made the vertical and horizontal seperations significantly different from the real clip just to see if it would still work.

If I can get a working setup I may be able to get rid of that stupid clip. I'm sick of it flying off my headset whenever it feels like it.

--Outlaw.

WhtBoy
06-09-2007, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by Freelancer-1:
Haven't gotten but 4 views on my post over at the TIR forum and, of course, no response yet.

Ah well...

Actually it's only 3 views b/c one of those was mine and I shouldn't count since I'm part of the problem and not the solution.

--Outlaw.

WhtBoy
06-11-2007, 05:12 AM
Hey raaaid, I'm still waitin' for the change in size of those distant Spitfires...

--Outlaw

raaaid
06-11-2007, 05:47 AM
on my screen gunsight (spit at 100m) measures twentysomething mm at 90º fov and 50something at 30º fov

i cant make calculations i drank too much this weekend

anyway id have a screen fov of 30º at 70 cm from screen and of 90º at 20cm aproximatively

so moving backwards 50 cm pixels for a fighter at 100 m almost triple(with my screen)

your screen is so big that moving backwards and forward will hardly change fov with my system

WhtBoy
06-11-2007, 07:39 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:
on my screen gunsight (spit at 100m) measures twentysomething mm at 90º fov and 50something at 30º fov

i cant make calculations i drank too much this weekend

anyway id have a screen fov of 30º at 70 cm from screen and of 90º at 20cm aproximatively

so moving backwards 50 cm pixels for a fighter at 100 m almost triple(with my screen)

your screen is so big that moving backwards and forward will hardly change fov with my system

My question is fairly specific and it has NOTHING to do with the gunsight or an aircraft at 100 yards. I'm asking about the size of an aircraft (specifically a Spitfire) on the screen at an in game distance of 400 yards (meters).

That's the question, and is the key to why your system is a poor one.

--Outlaw

raaaid
06-11-2007, 07:55 AM
i dont know what a yard is i know that at 100m a spit takes an angular diameter of 10º(i think)

so with a fov of 30º it will take a third of yor screen at 400m 4times smaller

i already passed trigonometry am i being examined or what

Freelancer-1
06-11-2007, 08:03 AM
I'm not sure if this is even relevant to the topic, but...

From a project I was working on a while back. 109 and Spit about the same wing span (10 meters).

On a side note.

It would be nice to have a dimmer switch for the reticles.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y189/Freelancer1/Misc/Yak.jpg

raaaid
06-11-2007, 09:14 AM
haha this is funny as usual when i research on matters of my interest i mostly find posts made by me, looks like definitly im a weirdo

WhtBoy
06-11-2007, 10:24 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:
i dont know what a yard is i know that at 100m a spit takes an angular diameter of 10º(i think)

so with a fov of 30º it will take a third of yor screen at 400m 4times smaller

i already passed trigonometry am i being examined or what

I'm asking a specific question, the answer to which will show why your system is a poor one, and you simply refuse to answer it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and post it once again...

Using your system, what is the difference in size, as measured on the screen, in millimeters (not mils or degrees or fractions of field of view, or anything else) of a Spitfire V (in profile) between your minimum field of view and your maximum field of view.

I'll even make a table you can fill out...

FOV...............Distance From Screen.............Size Of Spitfire
90 Degrees..............20cm......................??? ?mm Nose to Tail
30 Degrees..............70cm......................??? ?mm Nose to Tail



--Outlaw.

raaaid
06-11-2007, 10:54 AM
this is a question i cant answer since with 90º fov the same spit at the same distance will appear bigger on a side of the screen that in the center, so as you can understand to measure on a flat screen an angular diameter knowing the distance is difficult and can easily lead to wrong assumptions

anyway i dont see how your trap question changes the fact that a picture must be looked with the same fov it was taken and that 6dof knowing the size of screen can calculate fov the screen takes from your eyes therefore being able to match game fov and fov that screen takes from your vision

it seems to me you are willing to waste as much time as neccesary to prove me wrong, i waste time as well but is to bring an idea up not to bring somebody down

raaaid
06-11-2007, 11:23 AM
anyway if i know real size of a spit ill tell you size it should have at 400m in the center of the screen at 20cm and 90cm with my system

WhtBoy
06-11-2007, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:
anyway if i know real size of a spit ill tell you size it should have at 400m in the center of the screen at 20cm and 90cm with my system

Googling a yard is just about the only thing that can be googled faster than the length of a Spitfire.

Regardless, here it is...

9.12 m

--Outlaw.

raaaid
06-11-2007, 11:52 AM
well i just made calculation for a 20m plane so ill take half the results:

for a 20 m plane at 400 m it would take an angular diameter of 1.4º

so at 20cm from the monitor it should have a size of 9.6 mm

at 90 cm 43.8mm

so dividing by 2 it will be 4.8mm and 21.9 mm

as you see a big change on pixels that allows for better identification

the fov will vary depending on screen size a 0.5 m screen should have a fov of 30º at 90cm and a fov of 102º at 20cm

NP_Vincent
06-11-2007, 06:09 PM
For everyones info...........

The TrackIR camera does not measure the distance from the camera to the TrackClip (3 dots)

The software takes the orientation of how the 3 dots are set up, when you recenter the view(The distance from the camera itself is not releviant to this topic.) The camera then watches for changes in the orientation of the 3 dots to each other. This is how 6DOF is implemented.

The prefered object size, helps eliminate stray IR dots from being used by the software, nothing more, it doesn't tell the software how far away an object is.

DooDaH2007
06-11-2007, 08:13 PM
Originally posted by NP_Vincent:
For everyones info...........

The TrackIR camera does not measure the distance from the camera to the TrackClip (3 dots)

The software takes the orientation of how the 3 dots are set up, when you recenter the view(The distance from the camera itself is not releviant to this topic.) The camera then watches for changes in the orientation of the 3 dots to each other. This is how 6DOF is implemented.

The prefered object size, helps eliminate stray IR dots from being used by the software, nothing more, it doesn't tell the software how far away an object is.

It is all relative movement, to last time you pressed F12...

But I do think that the trackir4 with pro-clip COULD measure distance, if the software were enhanced to do so...

It is just not nesesary to do so, since it is relative movement to a standard (F12 press) which counts...

But distance between dots should be able to give approximate measurement...

raaaid
06-12-2007, 08:13 AM
if its not enough the info from np guys that the system knows the exact size of reflector implying it knows distance by triangulation what about this:

"TrackIR 3-Pro tells your game exactly where your head is, in 3D space"

from here:

http://www.spectronicsinoz.com/product.asp?product=17116

well if the system knows exactly where my head is in 3d space i guess it knows distance of my head

if im looking 45º offset and press f12 it will center the view but trackir still knows im 45º offset it just makes a correction

in fact is obvious that the real time 1:1 movement between virtual and real head wouldnt work if the system doesnt know your head distance

you press f12 then after moving your head backwards reflector appears half size on the sensor so the system knows you are at double distance than before pressing f12

so how much have you moved your head 20 cm, 1 m...? it depends on initial distance when you pressed f12

if it doesn know distance which is easy to do knowing size of reflector 1:1 ratio of movement wouldnt exist beacue system cant know how much you are moving your head 20 cm or 1 m

Freelancer-1
06-12-2007, 08:46 AM
Raaaid,

See the NP in Vincents name?

That stands for NaturalPoint...

You know, the guys who make the TrackIR.

If he says it doesn't measure the distance, then it doesn't measure the distance.

End of story.

raaaid
06-12-2007, 08:56 AM
"TrackIR tells your game exactly where your head is, in 3D space"

from the natural point guys in here:

http://www.naturalpoint.com/trackir/02-products/product-how-TrackIR-works.html

can someone tranlate me this sentence then because i understand it says the device can tell where my head is in space and that includes distance

might be my english or wrong publicity


they also say:

"because looking at your monitor is like looking through a window into a 3D world."


well it would be trully like looking through a window with my system but is not at all right now in not a single game

anyway my suggestion is to keep game fov and fov with which you look at the screen the same to give the VR feeling you are looking through a window

i dont know how known is the fact that fro VR on a picture you need both fov to be equal but i wouldnt be surprised to be the only person in the world who knows about this since it took me 3 years of research on perspective to find out

so thats my idea its posible its easy its good and its free so if NP cares about sales im sure theyll implement it

imagine the publicity: with 6dof you can have VR in which youll feel you are there looking through a window

WhtBoy
06-12-2007, 09:53 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:
if its not enough the info from np guys that the system knows the exact size of reflector implying it knows distance by triangulation what about this:

"TrackIR 3-Pro tells your game exactly where your head is, in 3D space"

from here:

http://www.spectronicsinoz.com/product.asp?product=17116

well if the system knows exactly where my head is in 3d space i guess it knows distance of my head


[edit]
This post was typed earlier this morning but not submitted until later so the info is a bit out of date...
[end edit]


raaaid,
NP_Vincent is, at the very least, a Natural Point forum administrator, and, I suspect an employee of Natural Point. He also answered this question on the Natural Point forums.

Why did you post a link to Spectronics? They are NOT the manufacturers of the TrackIR. Of course, the same statement appears on the Natural Point website so, in this case, it's a bit of a moot point but wouldn't it have been just as easy to use the actual manufacturer's site?

While the website does say that the device knows exactly where your head is, I believe that a more correct statement would be that, "...it knows the exact ORIENTATION of your head...".

While they CAN measure distance with the device doing so would REQUIRE the use of specific reflectors which, as I said before, would cut down on the flexibility and usability of the product. That, and the fact that all you need to know for head movement is the CHANGE in orientation are, IMHO, the reasons they don't measure true distance.

--Outlaw.

WhtBoy
06-12-2007, 10:05 AM
Originally posted by raaaid:
"TrackIR tells your game exactly where your head is, in 3D space"

from the natural point guys in here:

http://www.naturalpoint.com/trackir/02-products/product-how-TrackIR-works.html

can someone tranlate me this sentence then because i understand it says the device can tell where my head is in space and that includes distance

might be my english or wrong publicity


Your translation is correct. It's poor wording on their part BUT, I believe they chose that wording b/c it gets the idea across without going into details that some people might find hard to understand.


Originally posted by raaaid:
they also say:

"because looking at your monitor is like looking through a window into a 3D world."

well it would be trully like looking through a window with my system but is not at all right now in not a single game


That is also poor wording and is NOT HOW WE SEE IN REALITY. Thus, we SHOULD NOT SEE IT THAT WAY IN VIRTUAL REALITY.




Originally posted by raaaid:
anyway my suggestion is to keep game fov and fov with which you look at the screen the same to give the VR feeling you are looking through a window

i dont know how known is the fact that fro VR on a picture you need both fov to be equal but i wouldnt be surprised to be the only person in the world who knows about this since it took me 3 years of research on perspective to find out


You are NOT the only person that knows about it. ANYONE who has done any development with view transformation and projection (and that's a LOT of people) knows about it. It's just that YOU are the ONLY person who believes that it's a better way to do it.

--Outlaw.

NP_Vincent
06-12-2007, 11:16 AM
Tech Support Manager (one of my titles), to be precise.

Yes the wording could be a little different, but sometimes you have to try and use images that people will understand easily, as opposed to all the technical jargon....

Unfortunately that is why the world has marketing people........

raaaid
06-12-2007, 11:31 AM
well then my idea cant be implemented unless natural point manages to know head exact position in space which seems easy

i asked the guys at np to implement my idea to which someone said i should ask to game devs

besides then optical tracker have no advantage over acelerometer trackers because none can determine exact position

keeping game fov and fov the screen takes from your vision equal is the only way for VR to occur, that is having the feeling of looking at reality not a screen

NP_Vincent
06-12-2007, 11:42 AM
Ohh, it can be done.....

The cost of the hardware, software, cameras, would be greatly increased..........

WhtBoy
06-12-2007, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by NP_Vincent:
Ohh, it can be done.....

The cost of the hardware, software, cameras, would be greatly increased..........

Vince,
Obviously I'm no expert on the hardware, but, if there were a requirement that the vector clip conform to exact dimensions, isn't the current hardware up to measuring a fairly accurate distance? Naturally (no pun intended) NP would have to rework the software but it looks to me that even movements down to 1/2" or so are recognized by the current hardware/software (I'm going by the size of the tracked item in the tracking display).

On a side note, do y'all (I'm a Southerner) do any work with millimeter wavelength tracking units? I ask b/c I saw a write up in a magazine about someone who made some kind of thermal tracking unit and mounted a paintball gun on it for use in static defense during the tournament type games where they camp out for a weekend. It's probably beyond my technical ability and budget but it sounds like a neat project.


--Outlaw.

NP_Vincent
06-12-2007, 12:01 PM
Nothing in regards to wavelength tracking....

We do have some motion capture hardware, which is sub-millimeter, in regards to movement accuracy. But to do this, you are working in a known space, with defined limits to size, area, etc.. With the TrackIR, we are talking about a fluid enviroment, i.e. no 2 setups are the same, so we have to be concerned with relative movement, from a defined point. Hence you recenter your view, before moving around.....

raaaid
06-12-2007, 01:03 PM
then i can make a better tracker that knows your exact position in space with a webcam and a triangle of paper

take a triangle of paper of an exact size as appearing at a distance from cam of 50cm with a size of 2 cm on screen

when the triangle appears with a size on screen of 1 cm system will know you are at 100cm from cam when it measures 0.5 cm it will know you are at 200 cm from cam and so on

when the triangle moves up or down system will know exactly how much you have moved your head in the y axe by trigo calculations

left or right exact position on x axe

and rotation of 3 axes by change of shape of triangle

i think i could sell then a tracker able to determine exact position in space based on a known size triangle of paper a webcam and trigonometric software

i could sell it for ten bucks since everybody having a webcam id just need to sell the software and the known size piece of paper

does anybody know where can i post this idea so we can have 6dof with a webcam, a known size triangle of paper and trigonometric software?

who makes head trackers out of webcams?

NP_Vincent
06-12-2007, 01:20 PM
HAHAHA...........

You do amuse........

The people who do the software for webcams, tend to be using copyrighted information.......

Freelancer-1
06-12-2007, 01:30 PM
Vincent,

Do yourself a favor and just back away from this thread while you still have your sanity.

Stick around and you're in for a real hair puller http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Cheers,

NP_Vincent
06-12-2007, 01:36 PM
Yea, I think I'm going to just let it go......

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

WhtBoy
06-12-2007, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by NP_Vincent:
Yea, I think I'm going to just let it go......

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

Awww come on Vince, don't you get paid to do this stuff? Don't back out now when you've got statements like this to work with...


Originally posted by raaaid:
then i can make a better tracker that knows your exact position in space with a webcam and a triangle of paper

--Outlaw.

Freelancer-1
06-12-2007, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by raaaid:
then i can make a better tracker that knows your exact position in space with a webcam and a triangle of paper

take a triangle of paper of an exact size as appearing at a distance from cam of 50cm with a size of 2 cm on screen

when the triangle appears with a size on screen of 1 cm system will know you are at 100cm from cam when it measures 0.5 cm it will know you are at 200 cm from cam and so on

when the triangle moves up or down system will know exactly how much you have moved your head in the y axe by trigo calculations

left or right exact position on x axe

and rotation of 3 axes by change of shape of triangle

i think i could sell then a tracker able to determine exact position in space based on a known size triangle of paper a webcam and trigonometric software

i could sell it for ten bucks since everybody having a webcam id just need to sell the software and the known size piece of paper

does anybody know where can i post this idea so we can have 6dof with a webcam, a known size triangle of paper and trigonometric software?

who makes head trackers out of webcams?

As interesting as that may be Raaaid, the bigger thing is...

Does anyone but you even care, as long as it does it's job?

I know I'm happy with mine and I couldn't care less if it knows how far away I am from the camera. It performs as advertised and that's that as far as I'm concerned.

That said...

I'll be happy to be a beta tester when you have the new software written. How long d'ya figger? Couple'a days?