rec.autos.simulators

by **Ashley McConnel** » Sun, 03 Mar 2002 00:59:17

Wouldn't it be awesome to be able to look around the***pit, look up at the
mirror and look left and right at your competitors. I think the realism it
would add would be priceless.

My question is, whats are the factors stopping this?

- price?
- ability to produce small screens to stick them in a pair of glasses?
- does it just feel weird?

I just think this would be awesome. I am definietly going to incorporate a
"mouselook" function in my sim in order to allow a VR device (perhaps using
a mouse driver?) to look about my virtual***pit.

All the best,
Ash

http://www.racesimcentral.net/

by **jon** » Sun, 03 Mar 2002 02:07:28

Well I read about a syndrome (don't remember what it's called-something like
binocularitus) that has effects that last for several hours after using a vr
visor. They say it can permanently damage children. This is just to the best
of my memory. Details are probably available at your local WWW.
I for one would be willing to risk it in exchange for total immersion in a
game.

by **Gerry Aitke** » Sun, 03 Mar 2002 03:09:25

Jon, Ash

Here's a good comparison site for VR stuff:
http://www.stereo3d.com/hmd.htm

BTW, did you know GPL has a 'mouselook' mode? Can only be used in
replays though, I wonder if it could ever be made the driving view.

The utility is here: http://www.gplforever.racesim.net/ccm.htm

And there's a review here:
http://www.racingnewsonline.com/story?id=44525

Cheers

Gerry

by **Gerald Moo** » Sun, 03 Mar 2002 05:57:17

> - ability to produce small screens to stick them in a pair of glasses?

The military does stuff like this with their HUDs. Not sure what the
resolution or color information is though. I read something once
about using a laser to paint info directly to the user's retina.
Something like this would probably never hold up under consumer
product liability laws.

I remember some LCD-type glasses that were 320 x 200 or something like
that. I imagine that as LCD tech improves, they might be able to up
the res.

Maybe we will eventually have affordible paper-thin display
technology. This stuff is kind of like a LCD screen that you can hang
like wallpaper. You could build a***pit, put the display material
where all the windows would be, and away you would go. There would
have to be an API so that the display information from the video
processor could be split up and sent to whatever "window" was deemed
necessary. The user would wear a tiny head-position sensor that would
allow the FOV displayed on each window to adjust realistically to the
user's perspective. I think this would stand a better chance of
"fooling the eyes" than trying to make it all work inside a small pair
of goggles.

I imagine this will be around the time we get to DirectX 47.1a...

Dunno, I've never tried it. I've often wondered what a 3D IMAX film
of the Indy500 would feel like. My guess is fun, but probably very
barfy.

Good luck with your sim,
Gerald

by **DAVID J ROBINSO** » Sun, 03 Mar 2002 08:01:58

I would bet many would get motion sickness. The one Imax movie I saw made me
a touch queezy until I looked down at the floor to confirm we were not
moving.

Dave

by **Doug Millike** » Sun, 03 Mar 2002 07:32:19

I think the head position tracker is still the expensive part.

by **Gerry Aitke** » Sun, 03 Mar 2002 08:48:36

> > necessary. The user would wear a tiny head-position sensor that would
> > allow the FOV displayed on each window to adjust realistically to the
> > user's perspective. I think this would stand a better chance of

> I think the head position tracker is still the expensive part.

$140! http://www.headtracking.com/

Gerry

by **na_bike** » Sun, 03 Mar 2002 11:17:01

>> - ability to produce small screens to stick them in a pair of glasses?

>The military does stuff like this with their HUDs. Not sure what the
>resolution or color information is though. I read something once
>about using a laser to paint info directly to the user's retina.
>Something like this would probably never hold up under consumer
>product liability laws.

Uhm, why not? Just because the description has 'laser' and 'retina' in
the same sentence?

IIRC the laser in question is in the uW range. A $10 laser pointer has
5mW. I.e. 100-1000 times stronger.

In fact, there are already products out(after a little googling):

http://www.mvis.com/prod_nomad.htm

Maybe not something one would play with, perhaps. 800x600 in red
monochrome. :) But it would make a great Terminator-sight-thingy. ;)

And it was just the same 10 years ago. I'm afraid that LCD-goggles is
a dead end.

It's a damn shame this VR stuff wouldn't catch on. I saw it the first
time in person in '91 or so. There was a company that made VR boxes
based on Amiga 3000's. I remember thinking that I would at least have
those helmets, but perhaps not the position sensing, 10 years from
then. But nooo... :(

Mario Andretti made an IMAX movie a few years back. I remember seeing
trailers of it when I was to the 'Blue Angels' IMAX movie three years
ago.

by **Doug Millike** » Mon, 04 Mar 2002 07:56:53

> > > necessary. The user would wear a tiny head-position sensor that would
> > > allow the FOV displayed on each window to adjust realistically to the
> > > user's perspective. I think this would stand a better chance of

> > I think the head position tracker is still the expensive part.

> $140! http://www.headtracking.com/

I looked through the site and this one doesn't seem to give you
all 6 degrees of freedom needed for a "classic" head mounted display.
(x, y, z, roll, pitch, yaw). Hard to believe that VR can be any good
at all if it doesn't really know your head position accurately and
in a timely manner (very low latency). Early VR that I tried (Jaron
Lanier's VPL stuff) had horrible latency, but it should be better now?

by **Gerry Aitke** » Mon, 04 Mar 2002 08:39:43

> > > > necessary. The user would wear a tiny head-position sensor that would
> > > > allow the FOV displayed on each window to adjust realistically to the
> > > > user's perspective. I think this would stand a better chance of

> > > I think the head position tracker is still the expensive part.

> > $140! http://www.racesimcentral.net/

> I looked through the site and this one doesn't seem to give you
> all 6 degrees of freedom needed for a "classic" head mounted display.
> (x, y, z, roll, pitch, yaw). Hard to believe that VR can be any good
> at all if it doesn't really know your head position accurately and
> in a timely manner (very low latency). Early VR that I tried (Jaron
> Lanier's VPL stuff) had horrible latency, but it should be better now?

It's all about application. If you just want to pan right and left in a
race car***pit view you don't need 6 degrees of tracking. The latency
would have to be spot on though.

Gerry

rec.autos.simulators

A Question : Why hasnt VR become the norm?

A Question : Why hasnt VR become the norm?

A Question : Why hasnt VR become the norm?

A Question : Why hasnt VR become the norm?

A Question : Why hasnt VR become the norm?

A Question : Why hasnt VR become the norm?

A Question : Why hasnt VR become the norm?

A Question : Why hasnt VR become the norm?

A Question : Why hasnt VR become the norm?

A Question : Why hasnt VR become the norm?

A Question : Why hasnt VR become the norm?