Oculus Rift
-
@FNG:
Go for a large 4k curved screen instead.
Lol, funny. While on the one hand people complain about the price for the rift and a computer upgrade, there are on the other hand suggestions like this. You could as well recommend the placement of a full physical cockpit in the center of a dome with 360 degree projection so one also can look up during BFM. And while you are at it, why not make it move with some hydraulics?
You know, on the one hand there are pit buildersā¦ using physical cockpit replicas, always looking for surround screen projection solutions, so ideally they wouldnāt even need head tracking anymore. They just donāt want to pan the rendered video around their physical pit, they want it to stay aligned. And of course they dont need and dont want to see an in-game cockpit.
Then there is the majority of folks, that use the simulation with generic hardware. For those its great to have an in-game cockpit. Well, of course they have to click the switches using the mouse, but using head tracking they can pan 360 degree around, as such simulating a real cockpit.
For the latter, an HMD could be a nice gadget in comparision to a conventional monitor+track ir. While still generic hardware, suitable not only for Falcon, one might find himself virtually sitting in the cockpit and being able to look around. In full 3D and 1:1 scale!
ā¦without having to sacrifice a whole room as in-house simulation center, without having to build a physical cockpit, getting it connected with the sim, display extraction and stuff, then finding a solution for stereoscopic panorama projection and then trying to sync the alignment of the rendered video with the physical cockpit, maybe even align a physical HUD with the game. All this while trying to achive a maximum FOV because headtracking is not suitable in such a setup and is tried to be avoidedā¦ Erhmā¦ and the computer upgrade would be needed just as well. And then some.
So, comparing ups and downs, weighting required effort and money, for me the choice seems to be not so clear and straight forward towards your illustrated setup
greets!
-
I still think those of us with home cockpit setups would be able to do some kind of setup with VR mounts and taking a page from how NVGs are used in real life.
I have the utmost respect for the cockpit guys. I have seen and had the pleasure to try truly impressive setups including motor driven instruments and stuff!
Thatās why I think the true cockpit builder can have no interest in such a solution with VR glasses. After all he could not see his pit. After all that work that went into it, he would exchance his beloved phyiscal cockpit replica with the virtual ingame cockpit. That makes no sense.
If a cockpit guy was trying to simulate NVGs, he would switch out the light and use real NVGs, then again searching for a way to make the rendered video look right when seen through the NVGsI think those guys are probably looking for other solutions for their projection problem, such as dome projection, curved screens and alike.
And thatās perfectly understandable since a physical cockpit setup is an entire different approach to achieve immersion when compared to the use of VR glasses. Each with itās specific advantages and disadvantages of course.
But this thread should be dedicated the possibilites of the rift (and similar devices) in Falcon BMS. So back on topicā¦ ā¦no real news available yet, I knowā¦
-
I have the utmost respect for the cockpit guys. I have seen and had the pleasure to try truly impressive setups including motor driven instruments and stuff!
Thatās why I think the true cockpit builder can have no interest in such a solution with VR glasses. After all he could not see his pit. After all that work that went into it, he would exchance his beloved phyiscal cockpit replica with the virtual ingame cockpit. That makes no sense.
If a cockpit guy was trying to simulate NVGs, he would switch out the light and use real NVGs, then again searching for a way to make the rendered video look right when seen through the NVGsI think those guys are probably looking for other solutions for their projection problem, such as dome projection, curved screens and alike.
And thatās perfectly understandable since a physical cockpit setup is an entire different approach to achieve immersion when compared to the use of VR glasses. Each with itās specific advantages and disadvantages of course.
But this thread should be dedicated the possibilites of the rift (and similar devices) in Falcon BMS. So back on topicā¦ ā¦no real news available yet, I knowā¦
Note I am not a hardcore 1:1 cockpit builder, but I am interested in OR etc. because of A. Wide, stereoscopic view, B. 1:1 headtracking.
For me, and even I think most cockpit builders looking for B., VR is really going to be the only true solution for many years. You can talk domed 360 displays but to have the hardware to run it and for it to be at a not horrible PPI and costs, it is much further off than a good VR solution is now.You misunderstand my NVG analogy, Iām not talking about using it to simulate NVGs, Iām talking about using a similar technique of how they are used. IRL, you look under them for stuff inside the cockpit. Apparently earlier ORs had a gap that you could somewhat use that technique. It sounds like the release version will not have this gap. The Vive is taking it further by mounting a camera but then they are only having a āholodeckā effect when getting towards the edges of your play area. Another reason to have the gap is that with to get the headtracking does not equal eyetracking. Sometimes it is better to move glance down at the cockpit instruments/switch states then move your head to view them (I know eyetrack has been discussed some but IIRC it isnāt in any of the 1st Gen VR public releases). I currently do this all the time with my 2 instrument monitors and TrackIR, I need to check an MFD, overall fuel state, etc. quickly I move my eyes, if Iām going to do some more serious work like TGP I move my head down. With the proper gap, you can have your pretty cockpit still by looking under the VR headset. You may need to have a more rigid mount to the VR headset since your are losing a point of contact and play at a lower light level to not wash out the display due to the light opening, but I think it will be a usable solution.
-
Hehe, bump for Stevie, going through my old files and found all the Semper Viper articles, found the specific quote on F-16 check 6ing:
"One often-heard item concerning this new seat-back angle is that some people feel they canāt look toward six oāclock as easily as with their previous airplanes. Once again, pay some attention to the fact that this is a different airplane. With a conventional cockpit, youāre sitting erect or leaning slightly forward in the seat. The human makeup is such that the head rotates fairly well about the vertical axis. Therefore, itās fairly easy to rotate the head and eyes far enough left or right to see over your shoulder. You get comfortable with such a motion because youāre familiar with it. These very same people who are complaining seem to forget that theyāre usually doing nothing but looking at aircraft structure once they get cranked around. Looking at six oāclock in the F-16 requires a little different technique. Instead of simply turning your head, try this (donāt even think about leaning forward): use the ātowel racksā to push or puff yourself left or right as far as you can go. (Both directions will work, and, with a little practice, youāll quickly learn which direction is better at that particular moment.) Now, lean your head toward your shoulder in the same direction youāre leaning your body. With a little practice, you can get to where you can support your head with your shoulder while youāre pulling g. Now rotate your head about the now-leaning vertical axis and youāll be able to look nearly right down the back of the airplane. And better yet, those clever devils have not put any aircraft structure in your way. The only possible interference now is from the top of the seat. Amazing.
-
I think those guys are probably looking for other solutions for their projection problem, such as dome projection, curved screens and alike.
And thatās perfectly understandable since a physical cockpit setup is an entire different approach to achieve immersion when compared to the use of VR glasses. Each with itās specific advantages and disadvantages of course.
Not necessarily. Im wanting a full cockpit. I dont think a full dome projection system is possible with BMS - I dont think BMS can project both 12 and 6 oclock positions at the same time. So something like the rift is of great interest to me.
-
Hehe, bump for Stevie, going through my old files and found all the Semper Viper articles, found the specific quote on F-16 check 6ing:
ā¦hehā¦now I better understand something Iāve read elsewhere about neck stress issues with Viper driversā¦not to mention that if you have to keep your right hand on the stick, your left arm is going to inhibit your ability to do this in one directionā¦at least one direction.
Iām gonna stick to knowing the extent of just how far I can move my neckā¦sitting upright or not. And I know I have limitations in that arena - probably from pile-driving myself into a trampoline bed botching a Cody warming up during my high school gymnast days. Should have broken my neckā¦no idea why I didnāt.
-
Not necessarily. Im wanting a full cockpit. I dont think a full dome projection system is possible with BMS - I dont think BMS can project both 12 and 6 oclock positions at the same time. So something like the rift is of great interest to me.
BMS has a really great way to build a fully domed sim, built right into itā¦and it would be even that much easier if you use an EDTracker - the trick is that you have to slave a moving projector platform to your head, and make the projector move with your sightline; BMS will follow, doing what it does with any head tracker. The Night Attack Harrier trainer I flew operated this way, and it was the single most immersive one Iāve ever flown. Iāve considered doing something like this - or partially like this, maybe a single roll/nod projector slaving in order to get the full up/down look I want in my visual system.
The problem is that building such a system takes a lot of space because of the projection distance required to throw a 120 degree visual spot on the dome - 30 odd feet or more - 120 to 140 or so degrees is about what it takes to fill the visual field to your periphery, also taking eye movement off centroid into account. Big, expensive, but the experience is killerā¦
-
Yeah, JShepardās cockpit does that. We have had that discussion before. I meant with something that wouldnt have any requirements for tracking rates - something like just projecting in all directions at once, onto a dome.
-
ā¦I got way too many bookmarks. I should spend more time outdoors.
These little girls figured out a way to do thatā¦and at a somewhat reasonable cost. You still need the space for a dome, and for BMS to be able to provide a 360 degree FOV. Which might be possible using six projectorsā¦but there goes āreasonableā OTWā¦
http://www.domebase.org/building-the-mini-dome/fisheye-projection-lens
-
The hardware exists. The software does not.
-
Dunno. I think the software does exist, itās just expensive. Iāve been looking into some of that as well, and some of the professional solutions out there for handling blending of multiple cameras onto a curved screen could certainly do the job.
http://www.fly.elise-ng.net/index.php/mi-display-pro-home
But still, even with the funds available for the software youāre still back to having the space available to build something the size of a small planetarium - I have a physicist friend at work that is heavy into astronomy and started building a domed observatory in his back yard about the same time I began my cockpit projectā¦he got me looking into architectural domes, which cost surprisingly less than I might have thought. But Iāll still never have the space for something like that. So Iām trying to come up with ways to compact the setup based on what I feel is actually required to do the job. As Iāve mentioned, I take most of my cues from professional Fleet trainer setups, like L3ās geo-domes. Which are still take up a lot of space being external projection, and yet are smaller than the older 30 foot full domes Iām more familiar with.
-
The BMS software doesnt do it, is the problem. BMS doesnt display more than 140 degrees FoV at a time. And it doesnt let you have more than one camera, else it would be easy.
-
Yes - youād need one projector for every 140 degrees of sightline (and I think BMS will let you do that for at least three 140 degree fields, from what Iāve seen on VP). Not to mention that I could think of a few ways to get around that by slaving BMS physics to some other OTW model from shared memoryā¦and running multiple machines, net-slaved.
ā¦but weāre back to $$$ and space again.
-
BMS lets you have one display. Not three - otherwise Id be a lot less interested in the Rift.
-
BMS lets you have one display. Not three - otherwise Id be a lot less interested in the Rift.
howād you handle the rift in bms then, the rift needs 90+ fps at all times (same as with vive) in order to give a good experience. even if the fps that we get right now massively improves it will still dip below the 90 fps at times.
and having a pit with a rift you would have to find all buttons blind as you cannot see your own hand, i think iād prefer having a mouse and still click the buttons as opposed to having an invisible hand floating around somewhere i canāt see.i donāt think BMS is ready yet for rift even on the really powerfull rigs that are running it right now. not unless we lower the graphics by a mile and a half
-
I could run 4.32 with 90+. As for finding buttons blind, I have good muscle memory. Done enough blindfold tests practicing the piccolo and checking my other physical panels and ICP that I would be happy enough not being able to see my hand.
-
4.32 is old news now though with 4.33 out, and just for the weather engine alone iād prefer a fully immersed 3d experience in that as opposed to 4.32.
and running 4.32 at 90+ was fairly do-able except in really tough situations (not even dropping the pc buckling B61) but iāve yet to see 4.33 run 90+ on my system (unless i turn all the eye candy off)
-
BMS lets you have one display. Not three - otherwise Id be a lot less interested in the Rift.
ā¦plenty of folks over on VP are running BMS using three projectors. Thatās the Cadillac setup, and how I plan to fly.
Hereās one of the best examples - the setup here is a 180 degree surround, augmented with an EDTracker:
Heās since bought one of theseā¦at least I think itās from these folks -
http://www.simpit.co.nz/index.php/products/icarus-centurion
and is setting up to go 270 degrees, which is what I want to doā¦only I plan to build my own screen surround with some additions to this basic idea.
-
Plenty of folks use 3 monitors, too. Its still just one display, though, spread across 3 monitors. And due to the 140 FOV limit for that one display, you cant use it as a static display to look behind you.
-
ā¦how many times do I have to say I donāt care about looking behind me?
My main point is that the combined FOV is wide enough for what I wish to doā¦I donā t really care how BMS does it, I just know it does it well enough for me!