zahry

Thanks for the photos and vid - what a nice setup and what a pity to take this down! It's pretty much semiprofessional setup and I've seen some professional ones which looked worst :-). Have you tried to round up the corners with some plywood to create some radius to make it easier for the eyes to transition from one panel to other? The rest of the geometrical nuisances can be tweaked out with warping and blending software :pilotfly:. Last thing would be sorting out the projection surface for better contrast and higher ambient light tolerance. (also the optomas are not ICC calibrated and have quite poor contrast and resolution compared to BQ1080ST). I'm very sorry but the rift cannot possibly replace this - perhaps only if it the rift marketing propaganda was true... btw - just spoke with friend of mine today morning (you might know him as Hungo from Hovercontrol) - he just mothballed his rift after 10hrs and he told me I was spot on about the OR when I was telling him he is was going to get something lot different than he expected - I have his permission to quote him on it. His words were "It's like flying in lego land looking through screen door" I definitely think HMD have it's place on market in a future. I really like the idea and I'm sure as long as there will be competitions between manufactures driving the development of the HMDs forward it will eventually become useable and of good quality. The proposed reverse lighting box technology utilizing super high res screens 19,200 x 10,800 is one of the key elements and I'm so glad somebody finally figured out how to do it - perhaps my kids might be able to buy these for $300 when they'll be my age but I don't think it will happen anytime soon (and by the time we will probably have 24K projectors or startrek holodecks ;). As I said - I like the idea of HMDs but I have serious issue with what rift marketing propaganda is doing to people because it has nothing to do with rift real capabilities and it is pure unadulterated buls%^t. At the moment it is huge bubble of epic proportions - I suspect the bubble will burst after public release once people will sober up from the rift trip they are taking now in their fantasies. but back to something productive - I'm seriously starting to play with the idea for top view extension - it is doable but key issues for me are: Manufacturing price, Size Shipping size (and price) End user price. Number of projectors required Setup difficulty The biggest issue is the shipping price. I have to keep playing with designs and once I'll have something practical what can be packed down to 132cm with 42cm diameter (max size permitted by NZ post) once I get above this size the shipping price doubles. here is image what outputs the BQ1080s (the image covers 4 projectors) - the second photo is detail of the previous photo - single projector detail (just camera lens zoomed in and absolutely no photoshop or other digital tricks) -

sure - link is here. It was actually taken at the same time as the photos https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbeZuXSWwEg. - the warping was just a rough stretch but it gives you the idea. I looked through your thread earlier but no pics of it in action - lot of people asking for it though. Must have missed it somehow. Can you please post DCS screenshot as I've asked earlier from the rift you've got? the three projectors are mounted overhead, I'll take some pics today - luckily I've setup the trident for 2 projectors a week ago :-) (need to do the W/B which shouldn't take too long ) thanks druid :-) edit - bit of research is done - here is laboratory study about effects of blue light http://www.nature.com/eye/journal/v13/n4/abs/eye1999142a.html - it's related to concerns about using celphones and touchpads close to eyes for prolonged periods (those displays emit high spike in 400 - 450nm wavelength with high energy = blue light) . Thanks to the square law it will be even more relevant to OR which uses same displays in much closer proximity.

To be honest - I would rather go back to the original topic. I've started the thread to help people who want to fiddle with things to get visual surround for their cockpits and to help to bring the home simulation closer to the professional setups. I know how tricky to set up something like that for first time so if anyone needs a help let me know and I'll try to do what I can. If I won't answer straight away send me a message via website (just in case I'll get distracted by something) and just to lighten up the grim mood - here is a vid of the rift 2.0 in action ;)

Well - your previous post was making impression like you did. Anyway, here is a chance to prove your credibility and show you are not making things up. Posting the pics I've suggested would be good start - and since you are trying to make an impression that you are expert pilot with 7000 hrs which is just studying B737 I'm very tempted to ask who did you fly for and if you can post some pics...

:D Do I have to comment? - exactly the point - as long as you keep a reasonable distance from the screen - don't forget OR has to stretch and crop the the image to fill 90º/110º of your filed of view so - with that pixel density there is no way around it - it will look pixelated pretty much as you see it - and if you'll be viewing that detail on 24" screen from 24" distance that's the relative size of the pixels you'll see via rift dev 2. Thank you - that's exactly the point I'm trying to make here the whole time. I'm trying to show the two systems have completely different capabilities, suit different purposes and use and one is not going to replace the other. You can see the real deal with a rift is significantly different than what the marketing propaganda suggests. With Projector surround you will get immersion through true surround view, situational awareness, detailed scenery and high quality picture - but it will cost. OR is cheap and you get incredibly good immersion through visual isolation and 3D effect - but you will pay for it by flying with bucket on your side in "lego" world with blinders on and with restricted situational awareness - The point I'm making is that you get what you pay for and if somebody is offering you diamond ring for $20 you better check if there is a catch ...

btw, track ir and a large projection screen... that will make you sick! If you set it up completely wrong and without any clue what you doing I can guarantee you will get sick. Tracking in cube (which you think is so amazing) will make you sick regardless how you set it up and there is no way you can ever do it without getting sick because the geometry is simply wrong.Flim - please - and I really mean it - learn the basics. I know you were trying to figure out how I've done the rear projected TITAN (http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=90731&highlight=cube) some while ago and when you failed you went onto building the most easiest (and crudest setup) - the VisionaiR 3D cube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gb9ayYGM-4c. If you read about it properly beforehand you would know why it's extremely rare to use one and why nobody does it and if they do they never use headtracking. If you judging projection systems based on experience with your cube setup I'm not surprised it is bad - by the way - do you have any actual photos or videos of the cube from pilots point of view and working? I haven't been able to find any and after your statement how amazing it is I'm quite curious how it looked inside when flying ... Also - if you have the OR - can you make a screenshot from the game and post it here? DCS world SU25 T - target practice mission - when you looking straight ahead? Thanks

Thanks Kuky

Hi Blackbelter - The real specs are available if you dig well enough and what's available is enough to get fairly accurate picture - i.e the resolution is not exactly rocket science to figure out and after all rift is just a collection of known old ideas with new innovative marketing. What do you think about the resolution of the rift? (pic is on previous page) Hi Cobra847, I don't think industry giants and people who have achieved incredible things would be as excited about the Rift if it truly didn't have potential to be an amazing device. Well, why not? The hype is up and if they say rift is cool they look cool as well - same as with google glass or 3D movies - It's all about PR. Considering most of them never had 3D on before they would be blown away even from vuzix vr920.Btw - did you ever noticed how carefully the promo/demo content is created so there is no detail and just simple textures and shapes? They almost always show just the first reaction which is always quite entertaining if the person never had any prior experience with 3D goggles regardless if it is rift or any other brand. Mentioning things like motion sickness just shows that you are out of touch with the reality of the Rift and ignorant of the engineering solutions that have gone into (and already solved) many of these issues. (Specifically for motion sickness: latency reduction, low persistence, prediction. The genius himself, Carmack, is on the ball). Well - can you be bit more specific? I have to ask the same question as leafer - "So no one is going to get motion sickness using the riff then?" and I'll add one more: How many of the proposed solutions actually made it or are going make it to the rift? as for the allegations that I'm out of touch with reality and ignorant - can I ask you what is your opinion based on? I know they improved the tracking accuracy a bit but that's tiny part of what makes people sick - if you want to do your homework some good references you can find are in books about aviation psychology - particularly IFR flying or simulation use for pilot training - and in medical books about vestibular system and effects of visual vestibular interactions. Guys - hands up who owns rift or any other 3D goggles and tried fly a mission in DCS with it.

I agree, $300 bucks is not much - and that's exactly the point I'm making here. If you look at it realistically - even if Facebook will make the goggles for free (just for cost) they will have to leave some margin for the distributors = $250 manufacturing expenses. If you break it down just roughly it will give you $5 for plastic and cover, $140 for display, $50 head tracking and electronics and $55 for the optics (the distribution of expenses might be actually different). I'm absolutely baffled why everybody believes there will be parts of decent quality - especially in optics in that price range ... edit: for $300 I could actually make you projection setup of similar quality - but the image will be same quality as OR... I don't have a problems with rift as a device but with the unrealistic expectations, misconceptions and wild fantasies created by the marketing team that people accept without any proof or thought and then take it as a fact. I've started the thread to announce for those who are interested in high fidelity simulation breakthrough in front projection materials and that the front projection will be more affordable, easier to make and the picture will be better, with excellent contrast and useable even in high ambient light... Immediately there started the far too common comments indirectly suggesting that best thing for everybody would be give up everything, throw out everything people built so far and buy rift. Or suggesting that rift is better than anything else for absolutely everything and every other product or system is obsolete because rift is cheap. Sorry but I don't get it...

Hi Metalnwood the total resolution on 180º system is 3840 x 1080 with overlaps it is reduced to 3400 x 1000 = (3400 / 180 ) x (1000 / 50) = 18.888 + 20 = 38.88 pixels per 1 suare degree of view (to compare things accurately we need to talk in angular resolution) OR has in Dev2 960 x 1080 - with cropping and overlaps it is about 825 x 900 = (825/90) + (900/110) = 9.166 + 8.181 = 17.34 pixels per square degree of FOV - that means rift even in it's best will have 2,25x worst picture resolution than average projection system... Here it is how it looks and that's why I'm saying it is excellent for minecraft but not flight simulation - because this is what you see... It looks all good in mini thumbnails but not if it is stretched over 90º/110º - I would not call that acceptable resolution unless you are hard core lego fan D ... As for head tracking - I'm aware of the issues with monitors but didn't noticed any problems with projectors (image is corrected with W/B software - fun fact - the same image correction invented for projection systems is now used by rift) - you can see the corrected image and head tracking across 6 projectors here ${1}

The right technology for good 3D goggles is coming and it's on the good way - the reverse light box technology is the solution and once there will be displays with 19 200 x 10 800 resolution and GPUs to drive them we will all have what we are waiting for. As I stated earlier - so far the oculus rift is excellent for minecraft style games and occasional use - and I would bet for somebody who never had 3D goggles on it will be mind blowing, for simulation or regular use ... not good by a long shot.

yes - I borrowed one from a friend for testing and I might have here another one here that is not getting much use by the owner anymore - so people can compare things side by side. Also I owned several other designs ...

Hi Guys, thanks for the input and thank you so much for keeping the discussion civilized and informative even though there is so many different opinions. ///Rage -yes, head tracking works with the screen and I would strongly recommend it. The profiles need some tweaking but it greatly enhances the situational awareness and by using correctly calibrated head tracking in X,Y,Z you can merge virtual components of the cockpit with the hardware parts so it looks almost seamless. Haukka81 - Thanks for the explanation. Few of the things you wrote are common myths and misconceptions. In example statement that projector are expensive. In the same class of things I have to say projectors are cheap and big TVs and monitors of expensive - compare the cost of 120" curved TV to projector based solution and projectors are much cheaper. You can't objectively compare OR to projectors because of the OR small FoV, low image quality and poor resolution (will explain later). Projector bulb life - I do use projectors for commercial projects and in my experience it lasts pretty long time some of the projectors are on 4000 - 5000 hrs (predicted life span of 2500 hrs) and still no sweat - if you spend 800 hrs a year gaming (33.33 days a year non stop gaming without a break or sleep) it will last you 5 years. I would say that's pretty reasonable considering that normal person can afford maybe 200-300 hrs per year of gaming = 16 years projector life - providing they want to finish school, keep their job or stay married. "OR will have widefov about 100-120 degree + 1:1 head tracking and 1440p rez for first consumer version and next gen's even more". - If you use 3D there is significant cropping on each side due to parallax shift on each eye that means about 20% of the screen is not practically useable and considering the FoV now is about 80-85º on dev kit you might get 70º for real if you are lucky. Not sure where you got 1440p from - the dev kit has 640 x 800 resolution and the proposed release 960 x 1080 which is further more cropped by the optics and warping as anybody who tried OR and understands how it works can confirm). You can not take resolution per eye and add it together - if you do my monitor would have resolution 3840 x 1080 :D. Sure you have to make OC look bad because it's better for your sales. - I think you got it the other way around - OR is making everybody else look bad in order to stamp down the competition so they can dominate the market. Their marketing is what I call marketing scam, severe abuse of language or pure unadulterated b$#T :D - Of course - if you point out the obvious lies in their marketing and flaws and problems in the design it might seems like I'm making it look bad - but what I'm really doing is removing the wool they pulled over your eyes so you can see the product as it really is. And rift won't make your vision go bad, there may be motion sickness etc.. .. but it won't harm your vision. Human eye is not so weak. I would strongly recommend to do your homework - this is quite complicated subject so some information will be missing but I will attempt to jump to the bottom line - Yes - it won't harm your vision directly and immediately in the classical way of stabbing nail through your eye. The problems are related to eyestrain, eye muscle weakening and deterioration (with 3D goggles you stare ahead with restricted blinking into bright back lit display through less than perfect optical train) - motion sickness is immediate issue but not the worst - headaches and problems with focusing and balance are far worst, but those not immediately obvious after first few uses. I know it because I've been using 3D goggles long term and I've experienced it all first hand. Flim - I'm not trying to make case against OR - I'm making point about some statements regarding OR capabilities because those are made up based on marketing scams without actually having any experience with the product. It gets bit old to hear the barrage of attacks from the rift hyped up crowd all the time at everything old and new and I'm over hearing all the time how everything is supposedly inferior to the rift even thought the claims have nothing to do with reality. If you think my post is misleading - can you explain why? If there is a misunderstanding I'll try to clarify it and I'm happy to provide verifiable references and links to back up my statements if it seems wrong and if some of my statements were wrong I'm happy to educate myself. Most of the problems with DK1 are worked out, Yes - they "solved" them by ignoring them. and come Cv1, it will be a mind blowing experience. We can all experience how mind blowing it will be - turn your monitor to portrait, set resolution to 800 x 1000 (for CV1 version) and zoom DCS out to 110º (for cropping to 100º and I'm quite generous) - the view you'll get will be exactly the same or better than on rift - good luck with spotting airplanes without labels on, reading instruments and hud or simply recognizing building from a tank. There is no intention to make rift look bad - there is just the reality meeting the fantasy again ...

Hi Haukka81, Can you explain the thought process justifying your statement? We are talking about flight simulation. I would be particulary interested to understand how come 3 small monitors with bezzels are better than single large screen the size of a wall and with true surround view - and why do you think tiny screen (OR) with smalest field of view, worst resolution and bad situational awareness would save the day? I believe everybody is entitled to their opinion and I'm prepared to respect the opinion as long as you are able to explain it and justify it.

very flexible - let me know what you need and I'll make it. if you have soldworks/sketchup i make you a model with your room to check how it will fit Yes it can - my TV at home is giving me very worried look lately because I didn't turned it on since I've installed the screen - the photos posted here were from my home setup.

hi bnepethomas - according to NZpost website about 166NZD

Just remembered - I already had a video of the trident uploaded - but the warping and blending wasn't done. ${1}

Hi Kuky, the top area is missing -that's for sure. I found using head tracking pitch, yaw, roll very nauseating but I'm still using head tracking for the cockpit (x,y,z). With that field of view I've reverted to PoV hat and I'm using snap views (glance up 45º) - it provides the view and situational awareness I need and I'm able to stay oriented without getting queezy. I'm also working on extension for the top (making it as an inverted T) or I might add overhead panel - but that's still work in progress and it might be dead end as that solution really needs a section of a sphere and then it would cost a fortune to make and ship (unless I'll get one of my little moments and come up with something simple and compact)

Hi Rage, The plans for the frame are free – the frame material cost including projector holders will be around $20 - $100 depending on where you source the materials from and if you do it yourself. Warping and blending is $215 (pc locked license for up to 6 projectors). I’ll try to make pre-calibrated files for the setups (work in progress) BenQ W 1080ST costs from amazon $945 http://www.amazon.com/BenQ-W1080ST-1080p-Theater-Projector/dp/B00B11C6HW. The screen/display material is from 4mm lexan coated with SimPit coatings. Following numbers are for radius 1.15m (if you increase radius you can fit more things in but you’ll lose some FoV) 1x projector - 1920x1080 for ~105º FoV, = 2.3m x 1.3m (104”) ……$ 750 2x projectors - 3840 x 1080 for ~180º FoV, = 3.6m x 1.3m .….$ 1,100 3x projectors - 5760x1080 for ~270º FoV = 5.4m x 1.3m …..$ 1,550 4x projectors - and 7680x1080 360º Fov = 7.2m x 1.3m ….$ 1,950 In example if you already have 2 projectors the upgrade will cost ~$1140 for 180º setup. If you’ll have to start from scratch all up will cost ~$3,225 – the setup is equivalent to 2K 150”. Similar TV is selling now for about $150 000,- (source http://news.yahoo.com/samsung-sells-110-inch-ultra-hd-tv-150-085617127--finance.html) :pilotfly:

Hi Deadman, got it. :thumbup: It is kinda counter intuitive concept as the standard black screen is inherently black because it doesn't reflect any light - which makes it unusable for front projection that works by reflecting light from a surface. This material is black purely because it absorbs the scattered "unorganized" light around and for focused light such as from projector it is highly reflective. Following photos are from various angles with various kinds of lighting (LED, incandescent, scattered daylight, bright daylight and compared to my LED monitor). I've taken photos with large portions of black and vivid colors which is typically considered as the weakest point point of projection systems vs ambient light. The projector used was BenQ 1080ST with standard out of the box settings (set to standard image, color and contrast to 50, no RGB adjustment) The whole set is here. http://www.simpit.co.nz/videos/tridenthd_screen/ Mind you - with the bright direct sunlight in the room i couldn't use rear projection TV at all and LED TV is pretty hard to watch as well because of the glare. At the first glance it looks like there is nothing much special about the photos but I would like to point out that this is not a TV image - it is a front projection and projectors can not physically project black because black is simply just absence of light. You can imagine (or if you have a same projector you can try) that similar image on white/silver screen with lot's of light around would be just washed out colors and lot's of white/silver.

coming right up

The coatings absorb scattered light so the screen looks black when there is no focused light shining on it. I took close up with white projection material (on left and the trident HD material on right) - the view was zoomed out to 90º on the projector - this is just a few degrees section

Hi Razi, I think Oculus rift is success already - not because of technical innovation but purely because of clever marketing. Before rift kickstarter I even tried to make one of these http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=5582&start=0) and later on http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:31758 . The link you posted is actually very interesting andit is definitely educational, if these features will be introduced to 3D googles it would make it better for sure. I do not object to the idea of 3D goggles and inovation - quite the contrary - having 3D goggles was my dream since I was a kid - but what I strongly oppose is pretending to innovate by calling old things new names and fooling people with no experience or knowledge about 3D and misleading them to believe they will have Matrix style experience just like rift marketing team does - that's just not gonna happen with this equipment. At the moment Rift is just the same stereoscope as devices hundred years ago - only with much worst resolution but it moves. What eyes see are just two 2D pictures with different paralax - for the brain it is just two rough conflicting images which the brain is forced to interpret as 3D - introduce to it errors in optical train and inaccurate and incomplete tracking and you have a bunch of problems. I know the problems will get sorted in a future, same as with oled tvs did. But it is not solved yet and question is how long it will take to get to consumer market, how much it will cost and if it will be useable for certain purpose. regarding the accommodation convergence conflict - with projectors and curved displays there is actually no problem because it is 2D at constant distance. The projection screen is usually far away from eyes and in 2D it is treated by the brain just as a flat picture so there is nothing conflicting for the brain apart from lack of physical acceleration cues.

coming right up! I'm doing some models for sketchup as well that will be available for download. Attached are drawings for 2 projector version. I forgot to mention - to get 180º Fov with 2 projectors ( or ~270º with 3 projectors) you need to cover 100º-105º per projector - that was previously impossible (and with normal materials it still is unless you have purpose designed first surface curved mirrors) due to hotspotting. There is no noticeable hotspotting with the new material. :)

The unsucessfull Kickstarter was actually about F35 for DCS and it is a pity it didn't worked out. Otherwise the screens are actually mine and dave had trial dealership for USA- but then he got into the F35 project and that was about it. - unfortunately the TITAN HD is too expensive for most, too big and heavy, very complex to setup, physical cockpits just don't fit in and the FoV is so huge that correct acceleration cueing is necessity - it's OK for businesses and so on but not so much for home entertainment (ED just got one). I was using the same technology for home systems but it still required lot of space around and it required some skills to set it up. From the feedback I've got in past few years I made a wishlist and decided to lock myself in a workshop until I invent some material that would fit the bill - relatively cheap, with simple frame, with lot of room inside but compact, useable in all sorts of light conditions and easy to setup even for somebody who never done it before and cannot distinguish between nail and hammer without a label. I think the new material might be the right stuff and I'm providing free plans for the frame, projector holders and setup with it.