PDA

View Full Version : Track IR vs Cam2Pan...



italianofalco
11-13-2004, 06:07 AM
Can someone explain me what's may be the differences between the two system of looking around the cockpit - I mean only people that really have tried both- thank for suggestion/poll.. S!. Italianofalco

Heavy_Weather
11-13-2004, 09:38 AM
i've never heard of the cam2pan before. can you provide a link?

italianofalco
11-13-2004, 10:00 AM
here you are m8's

www.mousevision.com (http://www.mousevision.com)

... it worth a try as it's also FREE http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif...

RevvinUK
11-13-2004, 11:11 AM
I think it generally comes down to the refresh rate and resolution of the various devices. I think a web cam generalyl runs at around 30FPS where as the TrackIR devices specs are:

http://www.naturalpoint.com/trackir/products/images/comparison_3b.jpg

When I tried a web cam with Cam2Pan a while ago on a mates PC who liked the idea of having a head controlled view system but it did'nt work half as well as my TrackIR 1 which I've since upgraded to a TrackIR 2 and given the TrackIR 1 to my mate.

STENKA_69.GIAP
11-13-2004, 03:58 PM
I use cam2pan - I don't use Track IR cos I can't see what it will give more for $100 extra.

Seeing as the human eye sees at 30fps max all those specifications are academic.

I turn my head and it follows - trying it on several different spec machines - the real limitation is the power of your CPU + graphics card to handle all that input.

Then the real trick is fine tuning the settings - that takes time and practice - but my m8s with track had the same learning curve.

And the biggest trick is stopping your head bobbing around...

triggerhappyfin
11-14-2004, 04:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by STENKA_69.GIAP:
I use cam2pan - I don't use Track IR cos I can't see what it will give more for $100 extra.

Seeing as the human eye sees at 30fps max all those specifications are academic.

I turn my head and it follows - trying it on several different spec machines - the real limitation is the power of your CPU + graphics card to handle all that input.

Then the real trick is fine tuning the settings - that takes time and practice - but my m8s with track had the same learning curve.

<span class="ev_code_RED">And the biggest trick is stopping your head bobbing around</span>... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yes, the learning curve is very significant and so are the need of preventing your head from moving too much http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Those issues prolly are present with track ir too.

I´ve also used the Cam2pan for some years now and are pleased with it(cost is only 9.95$ for the latest version).

I´ve seen some tracks of trackir and do not see enough difference in performance to convice me to spend an other 100+ $ in getting trackir.

9.95$ and the good performance of Cam2Pan together with a swift and friendly support makes me satisfied. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Extreme_One
11-14-2004, 04:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by STENKA_69.GIAP:
I use cam2pan - I don't use Track IR cos I can't see what it will give more for $100 extra.

Seeing as the human eye sees at 30fps max all those specifications are academic.

I turn my head and it follows - trying it on several different spec machines - the real limitation is the power of your CPU + graphics card to handle all that input.

Then the real trick is fine tuning the settings - that takes time and practice - but my m8s with track had the same learning curve.

And the biggest trick is stopping your head bobbing around... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

It's got nothing to do with the human eye!

The refresh rate is how many times a second the device scans for a change in position.

To make it easier to understand imagine if the device scanned for a change in position only twice a second and then imagine what that would look like in game if you moved your head from full left to full right in one second.

The device would recognise only two points during that entire transition.

Now imagine the same scenario with the device picking up change in position six tims during that second.
Far smoother movement than the 1st example I think you'd agree.

So your cam2pan system is scanning your head 30 times a second to see if it's position has changed.

TrackIR 1 is OK (I use it) but it has definate shortcomings at only 60Hz.
If I very quickly move my head the motion on-screen is slightly jerky.

With a TrackIR3 or 3pro that has a far higher refresh rate that jerkiness is virtually eliminated.

I agree about learning to fly without bobbing your head though http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Tocca4
11-14-2004, 07:39 AM
I used Cam2Pan for a couple of weeks before i caved in and bought a Track-IR2.

It took some time getting Cam2Pan working at it's best, and even more time getting used to it. I was never really satisfied though, it was a little bit jerky and lost calibration too often for my liking.

Then i bought Track-IR2...
I'd say it was like going from an old,tired and heavily used Ford Fiesta to a brand new Ferrari 550!
The difference is enormous. Honestly, you can't even begin to compare the two.

triggerhappyfin
11-14-2004, 07:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Extreme_One:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by STENKA_69.GIAP:
I use cam2pan - I don't use Track IR cos I can't see what it will give more for $100 extra.

Seeing as the human eye sees at 30fps max all those specifications are academic.

I turn my head and it follows - trying it on several different spec machines - the real limitation is the power of your CPU + graphics card to handle all that input.

Then the real trick is fine tuning the settings - that takes time and practice - but my m8s with track had the same learning curve.

And the biggest trick is stopping your head bobbing around... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

It's got _nothing_ to do with the human eye!

The refresh rate is how many times a second the device scans for a change in position.

To make it easier to understand imagine if the device scanned for a change in position only twice a second and then imagine what that would look like in game if you moved your head from full left to full right in one second.

The device would recognise only two points during that entire transition.

Now imagine the same scenario with the device picking up change in position six tims during that second.
Far smoother movement than the 1st example I think you'd agree.

So your cam2pan system is scanning your head 30 times a second to see if it's position has changed.

TrackIR 1 is OK (I use it) but it has definate shortcomings at only 60Hz.
If I very quickly move my head the motion on-screen is slightly jerky.

With a TrackIR3 or 3pro that has a far higher refresh rate that jerkiness is virtually eliminated.

I agree about learning to fly without bobbing your head though http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This refreshing talk seem quite academical to me as the human eye can´t see any difference in some flickering on the screen above some 15-20 times a second http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif.

30 times or 60 times your eye cant differ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Aaron_GT
11-14-2004, 08:47 AM
I think the refresh rate issue is a red herring as it isn't what the eye can see, but the amount of refreshes you need to update the pan position on the screen. From what I could tell from my use of cam2pan 30fps is fine. The issue is that cam2pan is much more susceptible to interference from ambient light conditions than TrackIR is, so TrackIR is more successful. I tried cam2pan and bought TrackIR3 (non Pro).

El Turo
11-14-2004, 09:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tocca4:
I used Cam2Pan for a couple of weeks before i caved in and bought a Track-IR2.

It took some time getting Cam2Pan working at it's best, and even more time getting used to it. I was never really satisfied though, it was a little bit jerky and lost calibration too often for my liking.

Then i bought Track-IR2...
I'd say it was like going from an old,tired and heavily used Ford Fiesta to a brand new Ferrari 550!
The difference is enormous. Honestly, you can't even begin to compare the two. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This sums up my experience and opinion perfectly. I will add that in addition to being smoother and overall of much higher quality (obviously), the ability to play in a sunlit room or with "bright spots" behind me in the room was ALONE worth the extra money. Filtering out the noise with cam2pan was too much of a pain in the ****, as was dealing with recentering. The TrackIR in enhanced mode auto-centers for you which is OUTSTANDING.

Track IR was worth *every* penny.

WTE_Galway
11-14-2004, 05:56 PM
with regard to "head bobbing" and trackIR


most people find it necessary to program a "deadzone" when they first start using the device

many people stick with the deadzone but i have found after using trackir for some time you can eventually progress to a straight profile and pick up more control as you naturally learn to hold your head still and no longer need a deadzone

STENKA_69.GIAP
11-15-2004, 06:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
I think the refresh rate issue is a red herring as it isn't what the eye can see, but the amount of refreshes you need to update the pan position on the screen. From what I could tell from my use of cam2pan 30fps is fine. The issue is that cam2pan is much more susceptible to interference from ambient light conditions than TrackIR is, so TrackIR is more successful. I tried cam2pan and bought TrackIR3 (non Pro). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quite right about the red herring - it doesn't matter about how many FPS you are inputting at if the end result is only seen at 30fps. You could input at 1000 FPS and the end result is the same.

You have to spend some time tuning the sensitivity and smoothing to get the best balance - and that also goes for lighting - I use a small lightbulb mounted on my flying helmet and set flashlight mode in Cam2pan - this is very accurate and reliable.

The biggest blocker that I found was the performance of CPU and graphics processor. My first rig with XP2000+ with ATI8500 gave shearing on cockpit edges with the constant movement this dissapeared with an XP2600+ and FX5900.

As for comparing clapped out Fords with wanting to drive a Ferrari - when you drive to work in Paris traffic I can assure you that it's not the most comfortable, reliable and cheapest method. It won't even get you there faster.

Some of my chums use Track IR and are very happy with it - it's a good product. It should be at that price.

Extreme_One
11-15-2004, 10:13 AM
Duh!

I'll say it agin for those that missed it.

The TrackIR refresh rate has nothing to do with FPS or what your human eye can detect or any such thing.

It is the number of times a second the device scans for a change in position.

If it is only scanning at 60hz then then it's able to detect motion 60 times in a second.

the TrackIR3 scans at 120mhz - 120 times a second so obviously it is far smoother and more precise.

Precision being the key factor in this discussion.

Have any of you you guys got optical mice?
They have a refresh rate too. The higher the better - again it has absolutley nothing to do with FPS or how many frames a second the human eye can detect!

If you think that cam-2-pan or TrackIR1 is as good as a trackIR 2 3 or 3pro then you are sorely mistaken.

That said - I use TrackIR1 as I can't afford anything better.

If budgetary restrictions are the reason for your blinkered thinking then that's understandable.

Oh and to say that the human eye is unable to detect the differnce between 30 fps and anything higher is a total misnomer too.

24fps is enough to fool the brain/eye into seeing natural looking motion but anything higher will fool your eye/brain even more.

269GA-Maxmars
11-15-2004, 10:57 AM
Had both.

Cam2pan was a nice experience. Worked very well for me.

TrackIR 3Pro is, however, leaps and bounds better. Advantages:

1) works with any light conditions (c2p needs *decent* illumination -- trackir works also at night).

2) Much more precise and snappy. And I mean it! That's probably the most evident "plus" that's in trackir.

3) Easier to setup, both the first time and during flight. E.g. if you play during day, while the sun sets the light will change and the c2p will start working worse. You need to turn on the light to be running ok.

It's not a given that c2p will setup well for you! I was lucky but some people in my squad couldn't get it to work.

In the end I don't regret spending the money, however I was also happy with c2p.

Let's put it this way, you can be very fine also with cam2pan, but let's not be in denial: tir 3pro is a whole different experience.

My 0.02 Cents of course..

TooCooL34
11-15-2004, 11:59 AM
It's like HOTAS stick vs GamePad.
You can do it with latter but should admit it's clumsy.

Supr
11-15-2004, 12:17 PM
I love the "cant see more than 30fps" arguement. You guys really neeed to do some research and reading before you make statments like that. it makes you look foolish.

ChicagoChad
11-15-2004, 01:02 PM
Could this be a desperate promotional attempt by someone with multi-aliases?

The "30 fps/eye comments" are an obvious dodge to a not-so-subtle deficiency.

Chad

triggerhappyfin
11-15-2004, 03:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Supr:
I love the "cant see more than 30fps" arguement. You guys really neeed to do some research and reading before you make statments like that. it makes you look foolish. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's nice to see some one convinced he´s right, like you Supr. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

The performance of Cam2pan seem to be affected most by the general fps my puter manage to present with the actual settings...so if I set the game to run smooth - the Cam2pan runs smooth.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

No major effect on gameplay fps as it seem.

All come down to the owerall settings of game and Cam2pan...And thats issues i recon Trackir users will suffer under too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

RevvinUK
11-15-2004, 04:11 PM
It has nothing to do with what your eye can see as you're not viewing anything on the TrackIR. If the device was say 1FPS the it would only pick up the movement eratically but with a higher refresh rate (FPS) it tracks your movements a lot smoother which allows it with the aid of it's higher resolution to make smooth movements in your chosen game much like the resolution on a mouse.

STENKA_69.GIAP
11-16-2004, 05:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Supr:
I love the "cant see more than 30fps" arguement. You guys really neeed to do some research and reading before you make statments like that. it makes you look foolish. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your ignorance is quite remarkable Supr. The speed at which the eye retains images is one of the cornerstones of CRT based TV design.

If you want a practical example of this use a manual exposure camera and take a photograph of an image on a crt based TV at 1/30th of a second - the image will be complete. Take a second frame at 1/60th or anything faster than 1/30th - the image will be incomplete.

The fact that the image retention time of the human eye is longer than 1/30th of a second is the only reason any of you can see images on a conventional TV.

Now if any of you still can't understand the phemomena go and do the experiment.

As the eye is retaining longer than 1/30th of a second the end result of the initial tracking input scanning at a significantly higher rate than this is irrelevant to specification and mere Brochure bumf.

Just from interest you can run Cam2pan at higher input rates - as fast as your webcam can handle - I've tried it and it makes no difference to the end result.

So far - the only valid factual comments that I have seen from this discussion is that cam2pan takes a lot of setting up and that you have to take a lot of care over your environmental lighting.

These are valid points but if you address them you can get it running as smooth and accurate as your graphics card can handle.

Now Chad - I find your comment about multiple logins offensive, there are far more people in this thread campaigning for Track IR - and there is far more commercial interest in that camp. Why do you stubbornly not want to believe that another solution can work very well?

It doesn't make you a sucker - the fact that you paid $100 more for something that does the same job - after all you got the box, the written manual, the guarantee - and it does what you bought it for - that just means you took the out of the box solution - why not.

AND you also get the chance to wander around the streets and local supermarket with a big white sticker on your forehead - don't you.

Extreme_One
11-16-2004, 06:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by STENKA_69.GIAP:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Supr:
I love the "cant see more than 30fps" arguement. You guys really neeed to do some research and reading before you make statments like that. it makes you look foolish. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your ignorance is quite remarkable Supr. The speed at which the eye retains images is one of the cornerstones of CRT based TV design.

If you want a practical example of this use a manual exposure camera and take a photograph of an image on a crt based TV at 1/30th of a second - the image will be complete. Take a second frame at 1/60th or anything faster than 1/30th - the image will be incomplete.

The fact that the image retention time of the human eye is longer than 1/30th of a second is the only reason any of you can see images on a conventional TV.

Now if any of you still can't understand the phemomena go and do the experiment.

As the eye is retaining longer than 1/30th of a second the end result of the initial tracking input scanning at a significantly higher rate than this is irrelevant to specification and mere Brochure bumf.

Just from interest you can run Cam2pan at higher input rates - as fast as your webcam can handle - I've tried it and it makes no difference to the end result.

So far - the only valid factual comments that I have seen from this discussion is that cam2pan takes a lot of setting up and that you have to take a lot of care over your environmental lighting.

These are valid points but if you address them you can get it running as smooth and accurate as your graphics card can handle.

Now Chad - I find your comment about multiple logins offensive, there are far more people in this thread campaigning for Track IR - and there is far more commercial interest in that camp. Why do you stubbornly not want to believe that another solution can work very well?

It doesn't make you a sucker - the fact that you paid $100 more for something that does the same job - after all you got the box, the written manual, the guarantee - and it does what you bought it for - that just means you took the out of the box solution - why not.

AND you also get the chance to wander around the streets and local supermarket with a big white sticker on your forehead - don't you. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read either or prefrerably both of my posts carefully then actually try and understand what I'm saying.

The refresh rate of TrackIR (or cam-2-pan) has nothing to do with what the human eye can or cannpt percieve.

If you actually listened (read) instaed of talked (typed) you might learn something instead of going around calling people ignorant!

If you really think cam-2-pan is as good as TrackIR 1 then it's you that's ignorant.

Still - as they say - "Ignorance is bliss..." http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Holycannoli
11-16-2004, 09:47 AM
This is funny http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif People still think after all your posts about TrackIR and Cam2pan's FPS has something to do with graphics. And they're arguing that point to counter yours. Maybe FPS isn't the best terminology for them to use?

I want the device that scans for my head motion as much as possible every second. I don't want to get in a situation where rapid movement of my head isn't picked up by my tracking device and therefore doesn't accurately display my movement ingame.

Hence, TrackIR is the way to go for me. 30 FPS vs over 100 is huge!

Doesn't matter if my eye can't register changes above 30 FPS or so. That's not even a factor in this argument.

Extreme_One
11-16-2004, 10:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Holycannoli:
This is funny http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif People still think after all your posts about TrackIR and Cam2pan's FPS has something to do with graphics. And they're arguing that point to counter yours. Maybe FPS isn't the best terminology for them to use?

I want the device that scans for my head motion as much as possible every second. I don't want to get in a situation where rapid movement of my head isn't picked up by my tracking device and therefore doesn't accurately display my movement ingame.

Hence, TrackIR is the way to go for me. 30 FPS vs over 100 is huge!

Doesn't matter if my eye can't register changes above 30 FPS or so. That's not even a factor in this argument. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Give the man a cigar - he's got it! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

triggerhappyfin
11-16-2004, 10:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Holycannoli:
This is funny http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif People still think after all your posts about TrackIR and Cam2pan's FPS has something to do with graphics. And they're arguing that point to counter yours. Maybe FPS isn't the best terminology for them to use?

I want the device that scans for my head motion as much as possible every second. I don't want to get in a situation where rapid movement of my head isn't picked up by my tracking device and therefore doesn't accurately display my movement ingame.

Hence, TrackIR is the way to go for me. 30 FPS vs over 100 is huge!

Doesn't matter if my eye can't register changes above 30 FPS or so. That's not even a factor in this argument. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, scanning of 30 times/second of my headmovement is enough...if I move faster than that, I´ll by Trackir http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Extreme_One
11-16-2004, 10:20 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
"There is no forest here - If there is I can't see it because all these **** trees are in the way!"

STENKA_69.GIAP
11-16-2004, 10:33 AM
The purpose of all these viewing devices is to translate movement and present it to your eyes - and for most of us it is still presented via a CRT.

The limitation to response of the entire system is the bottleneck not the fastest point.

If the end result of what you see is not the most important factor you are obviously looking with another part of your anatomy.

El Turo
11-16-2004, 11:02 AM
Enhanced Mode vs. Mouse Emulation.


That's ALL you need to know.

From someone who has used both, there's just no comparison at all. Buy the Track IR.

TheGozr
11-16-2004, 11:15 AM
STENKA_69.GIAP 30 is a based number and it's like auditions mhz or even G forces.

some people can fly with a flat panel while using track ir etc.. for you would be a most exelent due to you slow scanning possibilities but for others it would be implayable.

lets make it simple do you know the difference of a japanese cartoon vs the Disney?

Aaron_GT
11-16-2004, 03:19 PM
"Quite right about the red herring - it doesn't matter about how many FPS you are inputting at if the end result is only seen at 30fps. You could input at 1000 FPS and the end result is the same."

The monitor refresh rate of FPS (which are two different things) has nothing to do with the scanning rate of the head tracking system. I would guess that the maximum angle through which you are likely to move your head and still be able to see the screen, from maximum left to maximum right is around 30 degrees in around 1/4 of a second, or about 120 degrees per second. At a refresh rate of 30 Hz you are capturing at a resolution of 4 degrees per refresh of movement. If your 30 degrees of head movement map to almost 360 degrees in the cockpit, then it is equivalent to aboout 45 cockpit degrees per capture. So if you regularly slap your head from side to side 4 times a second when simming cam2pan at 30Hz is going to be a problem. When I tried it out, though, for sensible head movements it was fine in terms of the resolution of its capture relative to head movements. The issue was simply that it is more easily distracted by ambient light and working in essentially a relative mode means that errors can gradually add up. In theory there is no reason why cam2pan should not also gain an enhanced mode, though, which would leave just the ambient light issue as the problem.

Aaron_GT
11-16-2004, 03:25 PM
"some people can fly with a flat panel while using track ir etc.."

There is no reason why a flat panel monitor with reasonably fast dot cycle rates should not be fine for sims. The refresh rates of the monitors are lower than many CRT monitors, but the persistence is effectively higher so the persistence of image for the eye is fine. Below 30 frames per second hand-eye-coordination (as determined by the US DoD for UAV flying) is impaired, above it is does not matter. So if your graphics card can provide the flat panel monitor with a minimum around 60 to 75 frames per second (the typical refresh rate for a flat panel monitor) then all is fine. Problems occur when minimum frame rates dip below these figures towards 30 or less (and a low monitor refresh rate with vertical sync on may effectively lose you a few more frames). But if you LCD monitor has a cycle speed of around 12-16ms, 75Hz refresh rate and your graphics card can kick out a minimum of above 30fps, and ideally at minimum a simple submultiple of 75Hz (e.g. 37.5 - 1/2 the refresh rate) then you should be ok.

TheGozr
11-16-2004, 04:19 PM
Aaron_GT 75hz is not good enough sorry.

italianofalco
11-16-2004, 04:23 PM
happy to see how my discussion/poll have grow up so many... point of wiew m8's ..!.. the only "black" thing I 've to register is that I don't want to grow up offensive situations.. May be that people who've spent money for Track IR want to defend" their purchase, may be people who don't have track IR and use free control vision sistem Cam2pan" would like to save money for other PC/fb Add-on 'cause they don't notice big differences between the two look-around sistem.. c'mon folks, the most important thing is to enjoy with your game/pc and only compare different sistems/experiences without attempt to convince others about our personal choice. I think . - Italianofalco

El Turo
11-16-2004, 04:35 PM
I tried out the Cam2pan software for 3-4 weeks and never got completely settled with it because of the recentering issue and the photo-sensitivity (resolution?).

I was given a TIR3 to try out to see if I liked it (buddy who was going to have to stop flying for a bit for real-world concerns) and did so for about a week before I was hooked on the difference in quality and functionality compared to the Cam2pan software.

The web-cam mouselook system would pick up any kind of lettering on my hat or shirt or bright spots on the wall, pictures or other objects behind my chair. The TIR3 has been dead-on rock solid in picking up only the singular little sticker I stuck to the end of the bill of my hat from day one.

The Enhanced Mode that auto-re-centers is an enormous improvement as well. Even if I hadn't bought it used, the full price would have been worth it in my estimation for not just IL2, but for games like WWII Online that have Enhanced mode for every crew-member in every vehicle.

It really isn't even remotely close in my experience.

If you have the money to spend and are interested in the added functionality/experience.. just do it. It's well worth the small investment.

Remember the $100 you spent on quality rudder pedals and how good you've felt about those ever since? Same feel-good buyer satisfaction.

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

Regards,

~T.

269GA-Maxmars
11-16-2004, 04:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by El Turo:
Enhanced Mode vs. Mouse Emulation.


That's ALL you need to know.

From someone who has used both, there's just no comparison at all. Buy the Track IR. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well in the latest versions, cam2pan can pose as a trackir working in enhanced mode. It still isn't as precise and smooth however..

Aaron_GT
11-17-2004, 03:32 AM
"Aaron_GT 75hz is not good enough sorry"

On a CRT, perhaps not, but an LCD display has much more persistence. If you think that you can see flicker on a 75Hz LCD display then you a very special person.

TheGozr
11-17-2004, 03:40 AM
haha about flicker is different but on lcd everything is blurry when scanning around..
75 HZ IS 75 HZ no matter what. lets talk about beyong 100hz..

LCD display has much more persistence??? explain?

because i have here a hudge dought!

I must be special then i always new it.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Aaron_GT
11-17-2004, 04:07 AM
Blurring when scanning is nothing to do with the refresh rate and everything to do with the pixel cycle time.

Persistence is the time a pixel stays lit for. If you have a CRT monitor that can manage a 150Hz refresh rate, for example, the refresh rate will need to be set such that a particular posphor dot has dimmed by the time the next CRT scan comes along else it won't be possible to potentially change the colour of that pixel. Thus if you set the refresh rate a lot lower than this maximum rate the pixels will be dimming before being refreshed again, hence flicker is visible. In the case of a CRT monitor persistence and pixel cycle rate are essentially the same. So you can pan around with a CRT monitor at 75Hz and not see blurring because the cycle time is short.

Older LCD monitors have a relatively long pixel cycle rate that is the source of the blurring, even if being run at 75Hz refresh rate. However you won't see flicker because the persistence time of each pixel is relatively long and so a white pixel doesn't get the chance to go dim before it is updated by the next scan.

Older LCD monitors typically had a pixel cycle time of 25 ms (black-white-black transition time). That's 40 cycles a second, which is less than the 75Hz refresh rate, hence you notice blurring as a pixel can't change fast enough to keep up with the monitor refresh rate. Newer monitors have sub 16ms cycle times, with 12ms being the current lower end for most monitors. This is pretty close to 75Hz.

What you won't see on the LCD screen is flicker, though.

Aaron_GT
11-17-2004, 04:09 AM
P.S. If you can't see blurring on a CRT running at 75Hz then if the pixel rate on an LCD is such that it can change from one colour to any other within the 75Hz refresh rate you won't see blurring on the LCD either.

STENKA_69.GIAP
11-17-2004, 06:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
So if you regularly slap your head from side to side 4 times a second when simming cam2pan at 30Hz is going to be a problem.When I tried it out, though, for sensible h ead movements it was fine in terms of the resolution of its capture relative to head movements. The issue was simply that it is more easily distracted by ambient light and working in essentially a relative mode means that errors can gradually add up. In theory there is no reason why cam2pan should not also gain an enhanced mode, though, which would leave just the ambient light issue as the problem. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The greatest barrier to any of these viewing devices is the learning process of not bobbing your head about rapidly - but that is the same for any form of shooting and gunnery is key in IL2.

The relative v absolute problem was dealt with at the Cam2pan v2 upgrade. However, I keep a joystick key to centre up after switching on and if you want to be realy picky - you may need to recentre after viewing the map.


Absolutely right - ambient light is the major problem particilarily when you wear glasses - which generate occasional flash reflections.

The solution I found was to mount a small flashlight bulb or LED on my flying helmet, increase the contrast on the cam, reduce the brilliance on the cam - after which the cam will only track the light.

OK - if the wife comes in and flashes a torch
behind me it jumps - but wives can be trained not to...

Now the headset mod is not dramaticaly different to that posted often on thes columns for track IR users - which seems to be half a white wooden ball on the front of a baseball hat.

Aaron_GT
11-17-2004, 06:27 AM
"The greatest barrier to any of these viewing devices is the learning process of not bobbing your head about rapidly"

Very true!


"The relative v absolute problem was dealt with at the Cam2pan v2 upgrade. "

I didn't realise this had changed.

El Turo
11-17-2004, 09:24 AM
I can't believe people are using anything bigger than the single, little (maaaaybe 1cm across) sticker I've got stuck to the end of my cap.

*shrug*

Hey, in the end.. whatever makes you happy.. do that a lot.

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

Supr
11-17-2004, 04:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by STENKA_69.GIAP:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Supr:
I love the "cant see more than 30fps" arguement. You guys really neeed to do some research and reading before you make statments like that. it makes you look foolish. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your ignorance is quite remarkable Supr. The speed at which the eye retains images is one of the cornerstones of CRT based TV design.

If you want a practical example of this use a manual exposure camera and take a photograph of an image on a crt based TV at 1/30th of a second - the image will be complete. Take a second frame at 1/60th or anything faster than 1/30th - the image will be incomplete.

The fact that the image retention time of the human eye is longer than 1/30th of a second is the only reason any of you can see images on a conventional TV.

Now if any of you still can't understand the phemomena go and do the experiment.

As the eye is retaining longer than 1/30th of a second the end result of the initial tracking input scanning at a significantly higher rate than this is irrelevant to specification and mere Brochure bumf.

______________________________________________



I dont need to do experiments, or listen to you talk about the cornerstones of motion video. For one, games and motion video are two different animals. But hey, i dont need to argue with you. Why dont you just post some links to support what your saying.

I can post some to support mine. let me start

http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html

or here
http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm


or here
http://www.daniele.ch/school/30vs60/30vs60_3.html



how about this

http://www.cdmag.com/articles/031/105/thw010113.html

thats a 2 min google search. You want me to break out the text books next? Since you like experiments, make sure you read the one about the tests conducted with pilots who could not only see an image flashed to them in 1/100th of a sec, but also identify the plane in the image.

but I'm the one with the "remarkable ignorance" , yeah right. lol I'm afraid you no longer just look foolish


BTW, I know that track ir has nothing to do with your graphics fps. I only made my original comment because someone else made the human eye cant see more the 30fps statment.

NP_TrackIR
11-18-2004, 07:07 PM
Hello:

I agree with the points that Aaron_GT makes. Refresh rate has nothing to do with the update rate of your monitor, it is all about samples per second and making sure that when the camera samples it has the most up to date head position. The whole CRT / LCD thing is funny, Aaron_GT has that right as well.

Also, you heard it here first folks, we will be releasing all new software for the TrackIR3 in December, a present to our users. This software will also feature an upgrade option to forever fix the "user must remain still" problem. So, you should no longer have to worry about holding your head still. This is all new technology and is an exclusive upgrade for TrackIR3 users, coming this December.

WTE_Ibis
11-18-2004, 10:29 PM
Maybe if it scanned the brain at 30 times a second instead of head movement it may work better. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

WTE_Galway
11-18-2004, 10:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by NP_TrackIR:
Hello:

I agree with the points that Aaron_GT makes. Refresh rate has nothing to do with the update rate of your monitor, it is all about samples per second and making sure that when the camera samples it has the most up to date head position. The whole CRT / LCD thing is funny, Aaron_GT has that right as well.

Also, you heard it here first folks, we will be releasing all new software for the TrackIR3 in December, a present to our users. This software will also feature an upgrade option to forever fix the "user must remain still" problem. So, you should no longer have to worry about holding your head still. This is all new technology and is an exclusive upgrade for TrackIR3 users, coming this December. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Exciting news .. the head bobbing problem is probably the biggest barrier to new users getting used to teh device

MD_LAGunner
11-19-2004, 04:30 AM
i have cam2pan and to get it to track better i put a the infrared led from a old TV remote on the front of a ball cap with one AA Battrie to power it infrared we cant see but your web cam can and it sticks to it like glue tracks way better than with out it
just my input on how i made mine work better http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif