which means big bucks.
> off you!!
> --
> Regards,
> Bruce Kennewell,
> Canberra, Australia.
> ---------------------------
> > Just because you have a patent does not make it enforceable.
> > > You can look at the patent here http://www.racesimcentral.net/
> > > patent no: 5,005,148
> > > I think it applies to a 2D dashboard display only, they describe
> scrolling
> > > it on the screen based on the forces applied to the drivers head. A
3-D
> > > moving***pit would probably be something different, however, I'm not
a
> > > lawyer.
> > > Dave.
> > > > Hi Pat et al,
> > > > I think we have discussed this before, but for all those new to RAS:
> > > > Atari Coin-op Division has a patent on the moving POV (to simulate
> > driver
> > > > head motion in reaction to car acceleration). This dates back to
the
> > > > development of Hard Drivin' (arcade game from late 1980's). I don't
> > know
> > > > if Atari has been enforcing this patent, but I've read it and it's
> real
> > > > (sorry, I don't know the patent number).
> > > > -- Doug
> > > > Milliken Research Associates Inc.
> > > > > Holy ****. You mean the West's would even consider
> > > > > releasing it without a moving POV in the***pit?
> > > > > Having a locked down view as an option is OK, but
> > > > > come on! When I first read you post, David, I
> > > > > thought "duh, that's obvious" :) I've discussed
> > > > > it here lots of times.
> > > > > BTW, I think GPL does the opposite
> > > > > of your description in that the POV moves about in
> > > > > reaction to G-forces, while the***pit does it's
> > > > > own 6-degrees-of-freedom thing.
> > > > > A moving 3D***pit is a necessity to anything that
> > > > > claims to be a sim in the 21st century. I think GPL
> > > > > and F12K are the only two car sims that have it (except
> > > > > for SODA). F12K is even disappointing in that it only
> > > > > moves fore-aft. No lateral forces affect the POV.
> > > > > The right way to do the drivers POV is to model it as
> > > > > a point with mass suspended on a 3-dimensional spring
> > > > > system. The mass of the point should move in reaction
> > > > > to any G-forces created by movement of the car. The
> > > > > spring forces suspending the point should be adjusted
> > > > > to limit POV movement to roughly that of a real driver.
> > > > > --
> > > > > Pat Dotson
> > > > > > I just got an e-mail from Chris West regarding this thread -
> > > > > > Hi David,
> > > > > > I saw your posts on ras and the Simracingnews forum. Thats an
> > > interesting theory
> > > > > > you have there. I currently have it working both ways, with a
> > > completely locked
> > > > > > camera, and one which allows the car to move, I prefer the
second
> > > view, since as
> > > > > > you say it communicates what the car is doing a little more.
> > > > > > Chris
> > > wrote...
> > > > > > >One thing I picked up on this weekend while watching the N4 lap
> > > around
> > > > > > >C***te regarding physics - and what I believe we are all
> > after...
> > > > > > >It doesn't really matter if a sim models correct physics if
that
> > > information
> > > > > > >is not passed to the user (driver). Example: Rally
> Championship -
> > > From
> > > > > > >outside the***pit the cars *look* like they are handling
> > properly.
> > > The
> > > > > > >suspension is moving with every little bump in the road. From
> > within
> > > the
> > > > > > >car though IMHO, the "feeling" is not there.
> > > > > > >I can't believe I just picked up on this but here is my
> > observation:
> > > In GPL
> > > > > > >(and forthcoming N4) the drivers viewpoint is fixed and the
cars
> > move
> > > on
> > > > > > >their suspension - up, down, left and right to a certain
degree.
> > > Because my
> > > > > > >"eyes" are staionary, the movement gives the sensation of
> > "reality".
> > > If
> > > > > > >though, as in RC the "eyes" move with the car, there is no
> > sensation
> > > (or it
> > > > > > >is very diminished).