[simpits-tech] Re: 3d outside views?

Tue, 30 Jul 2002 08:28:57 -0400

--=====================_2297623==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

hi,

your observations are most probably correct, as far as fidelity to real 
life goes.

i've seen MSFS with the e-dimensional glasses. you can adjust the "depth" 
(read 3-d-ness) with some software settings, and i bet most folks overdrive 
things compared to reality.

that's where the fun comes in. you typically get "surprized" by things like 
clouds, and the virtual cockpit - but these effects are probably 
over-emphasized compared to real life.

similar to your observation concerning low flight, the e-dimensional 
hardware _does_ perform nicely in the train-sim environment, where you 
actually are low to the ground, and might find yourself dodging the 
occasional "rapidly approaching deer".

i personally feel there is no better cue than those we've already developed 
during countless hours of flight sim. we've learned to "read" the shape of 
the runway to determine whether we're high or low,  how to "feel" the 
flare, etc. like the person who has lost a sense, we have been denied input 
from our middle ear, and have heightened other senses to compensate.

the peripheral information is _very_ important, as you have described.

cheers,

  - adm -

At 12:04 PM 7/29/02 -0500, you wrote:

>Not to burst the bubble, how useful is a 3D setup in a flight simulator?
>
>I'm assuming that the main source of 3D information our brain utilizes is 
>different depending on how far away the object is we're looking at. For 
>objects close up, we probably make heavy use of triangulation, where the 
>brain sees two fairly different images from the left and right eye.
>
>However, for anything further away (no knowledge here, but a guess would 
>be anything beyond about 10-20 feet), and the images would be so similar 
>that trianguation becomes almost useless (and grows progressively useless 
>as the distance increases). At this point, the brain relies less on 
>trianguation and more on apparent size and angular velocities.
>
>One of the biggest factors (in my experience) for visual submersion is 
>getting the peripheral areas nailed down. Your eyes are much more 
>sensitive to motion at the peripheries then in the middle, and the far 
>left is not seen at all by the right eye and vice versa.
>
>The means, that unless you plan on flying hang-gliders or other birds 
>where your face is less then 10' off the ground, a full 3D projector set 
>up might be better spent getting a crisper image that completely wraps around.
>
>Now if you were building an F1 sim, 3D would absolutely rock!
>
>Just my 2 bits. File where deemded appropriate.

----------

Alan D. Mazurka                    Webspace Design & Implementation
adm.design@verizon.net

--=====================_2297623==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html>
hi, 
your observations are most probably correct, as far as fidelity to real
life goes. 
i've seen MSFS with the e-dimensional glasses. you can adjust the
&quot;depth&quot; (read 3-d-ness) with some software settings, and i bet
most folks overdrive things compared to reality. 
that's where the fun comes in. you typically get &quot;surprized&quot; by
things like clouds, and the virtual cockpit - but these effects are
probably over-emphasized compared to real life. 
similar to your observation concerning low flight, the e-dimensional
hardware _does_ perform nicely in the train-sim environment, where you
actually are low to the ground, and might find yourself dodging the
occasional &quot;rapidly approaching deer&quot;. 
i personally feel there is no better cue than those we've already
developed during countless hours of flight sim. we've learned to
&quot;read&quot; the shape of the runway to determine whether we're high
or low,&nbsp; how to &quot;feel&quot; the flare, etc. like the person who
has lost a sense, we have been denied input from our middle ear, and have
heightened other senses to compensate. 
the peripheral information is _very_ important, as you have
described. 
cheers, 
&nbsp;- adm - 
At 12:04 PM 7/29/02 -0500, you wrote: 
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>Not to burst the
bubble, how useful is a 3D setup in a flight simulator? 
I'm assuming that the main source of 3D information our
brain utilizes is different depending on how far away the object is we're
looking at. For objects close up, we probably make heavy use of
triangulation, where the brain sees two fairly different images from the
left and right eye. 
 
However, for anything further away (no knowledge here, but a
guess would be anything beyond about 10-20 feet), and the images would be
so similar that trianguation becomes almost useless (and grows
progressively useless as the distance increases). At this point, the
brain relies less on trianguation and more on apparent size and angular
velocities. 
 
One of the biggest factors (in my experience) for visual
submersion is getting the peripheral areas nailed down. Your eyes are
much more sensitive to motion at the peripheries then in the middle, and
the far left is not seen at all by the right eye and vice versa. 
 
The means, that unless you plan on flying hang-gliders or
other birds where your face is less then 10' off the ground, a full 3D
projector set up might be better spent getting a crisper image that
completely wraps around. 
 
Now if you were building an F1 sim, 3D would absolutely
rock! 
Just my 2 bits. File where deemded appropriate.
</blockquote>
<x-sigsep></x-sigsep>
<hr>
 
Alan D. Mazurka&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Webspace Design &amp; Implementation 
adm.design@verizon.net&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
</html>

--=====================_2297623==_.ALT--