rec.autos.simulators

Maybe I wasnt clear enough, although most of the other guys managed to
figure it out:) I just think it should be possible for the developers to
play with as an "option".  Driving home last night, I chucked my car around
on the way home( 10km of twisty road over a small mountain) and one's
looking direction follows the "line", rather than the bonnet. It could be
disorienting in a sim, perhaps, but maybe worth trying. One's head is part
of a dynamic system which includes the car, and can be modeled.

I simrace using a projector, which gives a realistic feel to most sims, but
I think some sort of head movement, if well implemented, could make it even
better.

Or, maybe not.

Cheers
Ian

like Ruud said, it's a bad idea when you're sliding.

--
Gunnar
    #31 SUCKS#015 Tupperware MC#002 DoD#0x1B DoDRT#003 DoD:CT#4,8 Kibo: 2
        gnus don't kill people.  gnus-summary-lower-score kills people.

This points the camera in the velocity direction and is nice to get
some simple movements, until you spin.

Ruud van Gaal
Free car sim: http://www.racer.nl/
Pencil art  : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/

Assuming you're addressing the turning POV in general and not the mouse
thingy:

In tight hairpins (like the last corner at SP), it better enables you to
visualize your apex and exit line, without compromising your car control.
You surely do not keep your gaze pinned at hood center in real life in slow
180 degree turns.  While you can, of course, simply look at a different
point on the screen in a sim, FOV limitations of the monitors the majority
of us play on limit the view ahead to an unrealistic one.  Allowing POV to
follow wheel rotation in such situations changes this for the better.  I've
messed with it a good bit in F1-2002 and speak from recent experience.

But this relates only to low speeds, and I agree that large POV changes at
speed are wildly disorienting.  Thus my suggestion for settable rotational
limits and damping them down to zero as speeds rise.  That's an important
point.  Most of the guys on the HG forum have discovered that the larger
angles are indeed NOT good for general use, as I did in about 2 seconds.  As
said, mine's about 5 degrees at the moment, which is a compromise since it's
not speed-sensitive in F1-2002.  Ideally it would be less at high speed and
a more at very low speeds.

Bottom line is that I think it can be a positive addition if done properly
and with full user-adjustability.  That has yet to be done.

Cheers,

SB

PS - Do you have any experience with bike sims?  They pretty much all use a
moving POV that's not locked to the chassis in an attempt to mimic the rider
crawling around on the bike.  It's a bit different at first, but after a
short adjustment, I always choose that view over one locked to the bike.
Much more realistic, imho.

"Schooner"
   Current sims that is.   Seems like at least a year ago there was a
website showing a device you place on your forehead, using a headband, that
would induce motion sensations.  So sitting still, a sim could trigger the
proper hooks, much like force feedback and the device would cause you to
feel g-force type motion,  braking, acceleration, turning...Racing and
Flying would seem to be the two types of programs that would benefit the
most from such a mind-bender.
dave henrie

However, when the POV turning angle is limited, I really don't see why
this would cause any problems while spinning either :/  When the spin
starts the POV turns towards the movement, say max 20 degrees, and
when the car continues to spin, the POV stays at 20 degrees until the
car has spinned 180 degrees (or rather until 140 degrees and then the
POV gradually turns straight ahead). If the car keeps spinning, then
the POV is turned to the other direction until it's once again facing
the direction of the movement. Hope this makes some sense ;) I have no
idea how hard it would be to implement something like this eg. in
Racer, but IMO it sure would be cool =)

- Igor -

Surely not running under Windows! That'd be dangerous for your health
once something passes out. ;-)

Ruud van Gaal
Free car sim: http://www.racer.nl/
Pencil art  : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/

...

You said this was locked purely to the wheel rotation, right? Hm, that
seems like a nice 15-minute break I could in Racer. (speedsensitive
then; with min_pov_angle and min_speed and max_pov_angle+max_speed to
interpolate between.

Combined with G-forces that shock the head (but that isn't in yet,
although I guess I could take the pure G-forces and use that as an
offset directly, hm, another 15 minutes).

Interesting. *prints out own post*.

Ruud van Gaal
Free car sim: http://www.racer.nl/
Pencil art  : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/

max high speed rotation
max low speed rotation
speed at which to transition between the two
a nice smooth curve for switching, although linear might do if the
transition speed is low enough

I suppose you might be able to do a smoothing routine on wheel position to
damp the effects of rapid corrections; not sure what a proper interval would
be.  Probably best to leave all the above in tweakable txt settings.

Cheers,

SB

Thanks!
Ash
http://www.siroccoracing.com

You set the mouse sensitivity in a software control panel. All this
software comes with the unit, but ultimately it uses the Microsoft mouse
driver. Because you can scale how much you turn your head you don't end
up looking away from the monitor to any uncomfortable degree. I turn my
head between 12 o'clock and 10 o'clock to look from 12 o'clock to 5
o'clock in IL2 for example. The human brain can easily be fooled by
visual input, and even this small movement feels very convincing and
natural, you feel like you are turning your head much more than you
really are.

I've tried this technology on real world pilots and they both said it
added to the immersion by a factor of 10. I wouldn't use any other
method to pan the view in flight sims, if a flight sim doesn't use mouse
look then I don't buy it.

Racing sims need to allow panning left and right to be controlled by the
mouse, that's all. How hard do you think that would be? Do you think you
could work it into your sim?

Cheers

Gerry

You seem to have the most sensible approach to this issue......so I'll
respond about the whole of it......in reply to you.

Real Racing:

The driver operates the race car according to two sets of input, 1) Visual
data coming to the eyes, and 2) G-force data primarily at the small of the
back at contact with the seat.  These are the two "data input" sources the
brain accepts and uses to command driver input to race/drive the car.  The
visual data dominates the brain's decision making process (several hundred
times per second), while the brain merely "checks in" with the G-force data
from time to time (only two to three times per second), to merely confirm
the visual data's validity.  [This is why our "screen only" simulators even
work at all to produce driver immersion.]  Since we don't get any G-force
data (currently) in our sims, the brain has to be "educated" when we sim
race not to check in for this data input.  That can take a little "learning"
but its done fairly quickly.  This is the process that is the reason it is
often harder for real-world drivers to do than non-real world
drivers.....and the reason sim racing is more difficult for real world race
drivers to pick up on (at first).

Since we don't get G-force data in our sims....let's drop that part of the
equation for the remainder of this discussion, and focus only on the visual
data.  Is that fair?

The visual data we receive when racing is primarily coming from the "driver
point of reference" focus point.  I'll call this the "POR".......nickname.
Some scientist say this POR is not actually a "point"...but a focus
reference area.....a "patch" of the track, if you want to call it that.  For
purposes of discussion only, let's just say this is a "point."  That isn't
germane to the issue, in my opinion.  This POR is not a fixed distance from
the nose of the race car.....but it does have a fairly "fixed" ratio of
"distance vs. speed".....i.e., as the race speed increases, the distance the
POR is from the nose of the car increases, and visa versa.  Next, the brain
fixes the race car as static positioned.....and it then moves the world
about the nose of the race car......maintaining its focus on the POR (this
what the brain does....whether the world is doing this or not, that's the
translation made by the brain of all the movement in front of the car).
Again, the fact that our brains do this is another reason why our simulators
can have decent driver immersion....since the view on the monitor moves much
like the brain's interpretation of movement in the real world.  And finally,
the "race track" (defined by the visual area representing the left edge to
the right edge of the track....widening as it is further from the nose,
narrowing as it approaches the nose).....ALWAYS moves from the
distance.....directly to the nose of the car.  The POR is ALWAYS somewhere
inside this track POV.  Under only rare circumstances (which I will describe
later), the POR is never at a position that would require the driver to
actually turn his/her head to see it.  That....is the key issue of why this
POV movement you guys are talking about is silly.  You do not move your head
in the real world to maintain contact with the POR.....so why would
"simulating that" on our computers make them more realistic?  That's my
point.

However, moving the POV as you guys describe.....would interfere with the
brain's ability to interpret this movement as being from the car's movement
on the track.  And, since the brain can not "double check" itself by
visiting the driver's G-force center a couple times a second.....it wouldn't
take long for the brain to start becoming confused by this
"extra-curricular" movement of the screen.  If you confuse the brain in this
way, you decrease driver immersion.....not increase it.

As I said....there are a small number of unique situations where the driver
can not keep the POR within his/her POV (usually something between 75 and 95
degrees, depending on the type of car you are in, i.e., closed wheel
GT/sedan type race car.....or an open wheel race car, and the helmet's
natural restriction of peripheral vision...and so forth.

Here's the three most likely:

1.  When a turn (or even a straight part of the track with a brisk rise in
elevation) is at the top of a steep rise in the track......as the driver
approaches, his POR (based on his current speed) will want to be at point
that is "over the top" of the rise.  The driver, briefly....can not see his
POR.  Example turn like this on a real-world track:  Turn 3a at Sears Point
Raceway.

2.  When a turn is at the bottom of a steep slope......a similar thing
happens as in #1....the driver briefly can not see his POR (its blocked by
the roof of the car....and can even be blocked by the top/side of the
helmet....in an open wheel car - but open racers usually have less of an
issue with this type of POR block....than in #1.  Example of a turn like
this on a real-world track:  Coming down into the last turn (after going
under the foot bridge) at Road Atlanta.

3.  On temporary street circuits, the POR is blocked often during a lap,
because the speed of the car places it around the corner of a turn that has
tall armco in the inside radius and this blocks the POR from the driver
temporarily.  This is why drivers often describe racing on temporary street
circuits as like "racing in a tunnel".....this happens often on street
circuits...maybe 30% of the lap has the driver's POR blocked.  Some drivers
adapt well to this, others do not.

What does the brain do (temporarily) when it can't have access to the
driver's POR?  Well, the answer is varied and depends on the driver.  I
temporarily move my POR up track...towards my car.....until I can see
it.....but its still a very uncomfortable period (even though its only a
split second)....for me.  Other driver's I know just "suspend" driver
input...temporarily...until the POR is back in view at the normal distance.
I'm not going to say much more about this "adaptation" because its really
complicated.  But, not all drivers "adapt" to this situation in the same
way.  That's a whole new study (perhaps why some drivers are really good on
street circuits and others are terrible on them).

Sim Racing:

So, the only places where your guy's "POV mover" (to keep the POR on screen)
would actually help....is in one of the three situations above.  Are you
suggesting that we should implement being able to see over hills, and around
corners?  That is why I think the premise of all this is totally ridiculous!

Being able to quickly turn your head left or right....in a racing
situation....which is very rarely needed.......is already implemented with
the "look left, look right" buttons.  Automated movement of the driver's POV
would be unrealistic to the real-world and simply confuse the brain
immensely.

Now...in a flying sim, this whole concept would be very realistic.....and
would add to pilot immersion.  Because, in an airplane, the pilot
moves/turns his/her head often to sweep the skies at or near 180 degree
POV's.  But not in a racing sim.

TP

read more »