[simpits-tech] Falcon views 360?

Tue Oct 14 21:49:09 PDT 2003

³The peripheral vision is much more sensative to light changes and movement
than that at the fovea.²  True, but the contrast from a projector should be
good enough.  You can always make the room dark.  Also, the projector image
speed is not an issue.

²Plus you also mention about movement of the eye.  You would be able to
focus on the "blurred" image without moving you head and that could be
pretty distracting.²  Again, make the detailed field of view large enough to
accommodate eye movement.  If I remember correctly, a normal out the window
view in Falcon 4 spans something like 60 degrees!  So realistically, how
much do you want to be able to turn your eyes before turning your head?  I
don¹t see that being a limitation and you could track eye movement if you
really want to be a stickler, but head tracking is easier and I think that
it would be 99% effective.

³Also, your head can move a lot faster than that servo mirror could.²  I am
sure that you can find a servo or some motor that will far exceed the need.

What I proposed is not a perfect solution (you would have to fly a real
jet), but think of the possibilities.  First, you only need two views.  You
could easily build this system today for under $3,000.  Probably under
$2,000.  The projectors are 80% to 90% the total cost.   What are the
alternatives?  Placing a half dozen monitors around your desk?  What about
all those seems?  How much area can 6 monitors really cover?   VR goggles?
Good field of view, but lousy resolution.  You get 60 degrees or so of FOV
at 1024 by 768 pixels on a really good pair.  Most goggles have mush less
resolution and still cost some bucks.  Of course if you have $100,000 you
buy what the military uses.  Add to that you can¹t see your cockpit (which
you just spent years putting all that detail into).  Would you rather flip a
virtual switch or a real one you can feel?

Marv

On 10/14/03 7:26 PM, "Joseph Fagner" <falcon4 at sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> You mgiht have a problem though with image intensity.  The peripheral vision
> is much more sensative to light changes and movement than that at the fovea.
> Plus you also mention about movement of the eye.  You would be able to focus
> on the "blurred" image without moving you head and that could be pretty
> distracting.  Also, your head can move a lot faster than that servo mirror
> could.  I suspect you might get some lag time between your sharp image and
> your ocular focal point.  Interesting idea.
>  
> Jay
> 
> Marv De Beque <mdebeque at woh.rr.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Here is another thought. Two views are all that are required using two
>> projectors.
>> 
>> View number 1 is a super wide angle view that spans the complete view area.
>> Obviously at 1024 by 768 this would make the view very, very pixilated or
>> low resolution, but that is perfectly fine.
>> 
>> View number 2 is also 1024 by 768, but is a narrow field of view (perhaps 10
>> to 20 degrees or so). It is aimed by a moveable mirror at the point that
>> the pilot is looking (head tracking could provide the needed information as
>> to where to aim). Two mirrors are required, but only one need move. The
>> moving mirror can be servo controlled and since it is low mass it can swing
>> the image to the desired spot as rapidly as the pilot moves.
>> 
>> View number 1 represents the peripheral vision. This is the view that the
>> eye sees outside of the fovea. As you know, you can 't read from your
>> peripheral vision, so low resolution is fine. To remove sharp contrasts
>> between pixels, I would defocus the image slightly to create a natural blur.
>> 
>> However, images that strike the fovea can take advantage of the high
>> resolution image from number 2, which is actually a very narrow angular
>> section of one's view. You need to expand the view of number 2 a little
>> beyond the normal eye's viewing angle to allow for eye movement when your
>> head is not pointed directly at the field of view, but you should have
>> plenty of resolution to spare for this. This image would be about 3 to 4
>> times sharper than what you currently see in Falcon 4!
>> 
>> Again, as Mark pointed out, it ain't dirt cheap, but it is easily
>> technically achievable using ordinary off-the-shelf components and I believe
>> the results would be spectacular.
>> 
>> Marv
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 10/14/03 12:54 PM, "Mark Doran" wrote:
>> 
>>> > I think the way Erwin describes it on his site makes most sense to me.
>>> Like
>>> > commercial simulation environments distributed processing makes this
>>> problem
>>> > tractable.
>>> > 
>>> > I don't have a lot of faith in the availability of head mounted displays
>>> > that have the right resolution, latency and transparency (you want to be
>>> > able to see the physical buttons and lights in your cockpit as you fly,
>>> > right?? ;-) anytime soon at a price I can afford.
>>> > 
>>> > However, the prospect of assembling perhaps a dozen computers in a little
>>> > network for managing and rendering multiple view fields of the same "out
>>> the
>>> > window" scene is most definitely within reach, not cheap I'll grant you
>>> but
>>> > within the bounds of possibility at today's cost points for machines.
>>> > 
>>> > The old Fighter Dual had the mode that I would want for Falcon5: a master
>>> > machine that you fly, it has your controllers and all that jazz. Like any
>> t; other game, that machine can be commanded to show any view but generally
>> you
>>> > want to pick one. To this you slave up to eight other machines (I think it
>>> > was 8) and each is a non-flyable replica of the game running on the
>>> master.
>>> > In other words, the jet modeled in the game on the slave is the exact same
>>> > one as that one the master. The slaves can be commanded to show any view
>>> in
>>> > the game also. So set up master and slaves to show a different view on
>>> each
>>> > one. This actually worked pretty well in Fighter Duel in my experience.
>>> > 
>>> > The good part of doing it this way is that the game developer wouldn't
>>> have
>>> > to change the way on-screen views are done. The default player will only
>>> > have one master machine and will see the same view types as today. The
>>> > cockpit guy with multiple slaves as well will simply have multiple
>>> monitors
>>> > (or projectors) each set to a typical 60 degree slice of view field.
>>> > ; Perhaps the only really hard part on the developer (with respect to view
>>> > rendering that is) is making sure that the views supported don't really
>>> > overlap in bad ways...if would be nice for the game engine to think about
>>> > seams in other words.
>>> > 
>>> > This sort of approach would have some pretty serious requirements on
>>> in-game
>>> > networking support of course. Syncing multiple copies of a prop-job is a
>>> > lot easier than something more sophisticated like an F-16 flying in a
>>> > missile-laden, electronic warfare rich, combat environment. Having on the
>>> > order of 10 clones of the one F-16 trying to stay in sync will require, I
>>> > would imagine, quite a lot of bandwidth. One wonders what the implications
>>> > on bandwidth and latency might be if you want to have more than one pilot
>>> > link for a multiplayer session in this kind of multi-view setup...the mind
>>> > bogles but this would be the ultimate goal I would say...think: sort of
>>> like
>>> > the twin dome sims that MacAir has at it's facility in St Louis.
>>> > 
>>> > So much for thoughts on implementation strategy...I'd actually vote for
>>> any
>>> > implementation strategy that would work, because... More generally I think
>>> > support for multiple view fields displayed simultaneously is the feature
>>> I'd
>>> > say would generate the biggest advance in the state of the art for fast
>>> jet
>>> > combat flight sims. Who needs padlock?? ;-)
>>> > 
>>> > Cheers,
>>> > 
>>> > Mark.
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>>> >> -----Original Message-----
>>>> >> From: Inventmd at aol.com [mailto:Inventmd at aol.com]
>>>> >> Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 7:42 PM
>>>> >> To: simpits-tech at simpits.org
>>>> >> Subject: [simpits-tech] Falcon views 360?
>>>> >> 
>>>> >> With all this talk about Falcon 5.0 coming out, I wonder if it doesn't
>>> > make
>>>> >> sense to discuss our wish lists out loud.
>>>> >> 
>> t;> I think the biggest detraction from realism of any flight simulation is
>>> > the
>>>> >> inability to look at the scenery around you. Whether it be multiple
>>> > monitor
>>>> >> support, or headmounted video goggles that pan around cockpit slaved to
>>> > head
>>>> >> movements, my two cents is that this issue receive some attention.
>>>> >> 
>>>> >> Perhaps the Falcon community could come to some sort of agreement in
>>>> terms
>>> > of
>>>> >> the ideal algorithm for displaying the environment as close as 360
>>>> degrees
>>> > as
>>>> >> possible.
>>>> >> 
>>>> >> Perhaps the easiest is the headmounted goggle system with some sort of
>>>> >> tracking device. This would be similar to the padlock view but with the
>>> > visual
>>>> >> display tracking in Synchrony with head movements rather than panning
>>> > about using
>>>> >> the arrow keys.
>>>> >> 
>>>> >> It would be nice to have Falcon support for scalable m ultiple monitor
>>> > views.
>>>> >> Specifically, support for a minimum of four monitors would be required:
>>>> >> front, left, right, above. (And a 5th to check six) Scalability (or
>>>> zoom)
>>> > would be
>>>> >> important so that everything could be adjusted for different monitor
>>>> sizes
>>> > at
>>>> >> different distances (or video projector scenarios). In other words, for
>>> > those
>>>> >> with four projectors and large rooms, it might be nice for the left view
>>>> >> display to merge and even overlap into the front view display and the
>>> > "above view"
>>>> >> display. For those no space and small monitors, one might need to scale
>>> > the
>>>> >> picture down to get the appropriate field of view for the monitor
>>>> position
>>> > --
>>>> >> and certainly not overlap.
>>>> >> 
>>>> >> There are some incredibly smart people on this forum-so I figure maybe
we
>>> > can
>>>> >> get your smarts into the project.
>> t;> 
>>>> >> John Li
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > Simpits-tech mailing list
>>> > Simpits-tech at simpits.org
>>> > http://www.simpits.org/mailman/listinfo/simpits-tech
>>> > To unsubscribe, please see the instructions at the bottom of the above
>>> page.
>>> > Thanks!
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Simpits-tech mailing list
>> Simpits-tech at simpits.org
>> http://www.simpits.org/mailman/listinfo/simpits-tech
>> To unsubscribe, please see the instructions at the bottom of the above page.
>> Thanks!
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Simpits-tech mailing list
> Simpits-tech at simpits.org
> http://www.simpits.org/mailman/listinfo/simpits-tech
> To unsubscribe, please see the instructions at the bottom of the above page.
> Thanks!

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.simpits.org/pipermail/simpits-tech/attachments/20031014/d26af987/attachment.html