New material for flat and cylindrical displays

[Flim]

Well, usually I won't waste my time saying anything in post like this, but I assume you have a rift ... Correct?

Edited April 22, 2014 by Flim

[metalnwood]

There is certainly room for both types of systems in the future!

 

I don't think anyone needs any convincing as to where they should go, most who are looking at this kind of thing know where they want to be and what would suit them. Up until now a large projection system has been the holy grail for what is actually achievable for us flight and racing simmers.

 

With things like the oculus rift we now have options and these options have drawbacks, each has pro's and con's. Some can live with one and not stand another and some might see an advantage in having both.

 

It would surprise me a lot if someone who goes down the front projection path with a set up like simpits is selling doesn't get an oculus rift to try because the outlay is nothing. I could see myself using both if I had the money and space to fully utilise both properly.

 

There are a lot of guys building pits with real instruments and buttons. The OR is not practical for them unless they change their direction. A front projection screen like this looks like a very nice way to go for dedicated pits and those that want more than monitors but don't want to go the VR route.

 

Having said I think they are both great, I still think there is confusion between the two about what is coming. I think Oculus have been very up front about the issues that face VR headsets and have said well ahead of time what problems need to be solved to make it practical for a wide audience. Zahry, all the things you pointed out in the first post are things that Oculus have acknowledged and worked on. Reports say that many things have been addressed or improved a lot.

 

The DK2 kit I am getting is a 1080p version and they have said the CV1 will be higher than that. While not confirmed it would seem logical that it is a 1440p screen. It seems much more likely than not the CV1 will be higher than 1080p.

 

There are a couple of other points that relate to eyestrain etc and what can actually hurt your eyes. A brighter screen cannot give you long term damage, at least not for the amount of brightness we are talking about. The OR uses collimated optics so that the eyes are in a relaxed state. This gives you less eyestrain than looking at your monitor or a projector up close. Collimated optics are in many professional systems. The issue of depth of focus and everything being in focus is not an issue for just the rift, any screen, projector etc has the same problem. In fact with the new screenshots from EDGE with DOF this could suit the OR well as where your eyes are generally, in the centre, is in focus while other items are not. This effect does not work on a projector where you can look around with your head and most of the view will not be in focus because this is not where the centre of the 'computer' view is.

 

I have not seen a triple screen application other than iracing which allows for track ir and the three screens to stay in synch. In DCS, unless it changed recently, showing three separate views results in a lot of distortion at the seams if you change your vertical view. If you don't use three screens then a single screen has way too much distortion at the edges to work well for a 180 deg+ screen.

 

Also projectors only have a finite resolution the same as the OR, projectors will improve as well as the screens available to the OR. If the screen on the OS is 2560x1400 then that is around 1280x1440 per eye. Minus some wastage.

 

Two 1080p projectors with wastage of around 15% will give you around 1300x1080 pixels for the area you will see at any one time sitting 1150mm from a 180deg screen.

 

We are not that far off with the OR and the density of pixels in the centre is slightly more.

 

Both projection and the OR are going to continue to serve simmers for a long time to come. I can see that the OR will turn some people from projection to the OR, the kind of people that are happy with the compromises. For the rest that are going to this extreme, they will stay with projection.

 

I doubt very much that you will lose any amount of genuine customers to the rift but I do believe the rift is in a better state than you are saying ;)

[blackbelter]

I have been waiting for affordable 3d goggles that would equal or exceed the resolution of a desktop display. OR is not it. The single eye resolution would have to be on the order of 1600x1200 or 1920x1200 to beat what I am used to. I have recently gone down to 1920x1080 to use an old 46" LCD display. The size is great, but I will go quad HD the moment I own a PC that can run DCS at that resolution with full quality using only a single GPU. For OR to get my attention, they need to be at least 1920x1080 per eye and looking toward quad HD.

 

So the conclusion should be that it's not a good idea to spoil your eyes too much ahead of time...:D

[cichlidfan]

So the conclusion should be that it's not a good idea to spoil your eyes too much ahead of time...:D

 

I suspect that to be true. I am about to switch from a 27" @ 2560x1440 to 42" @ 1920x1080 and I know I am going to miss the better resolution that I will be sacrificing for size.

[zahry]

Well, usually I won't waste my time saying anything in post like this, but I assume you have a rift ... Correct?

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 ...

[zahry]

So the conclusion should be that it's not a good idea to spoil your eyes too much ahead of time...:D

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.

[Scoggs]

Well let me know if you get a set up for $300 or less like the OR and I will be first in line, well depending on how CastAR turns out. It is a dream of mine to have a dome cockpit but still $300 for the OR is pretty promising. And if Cast AR actually turns out pretty well have a 1:1 pit plus dome could be a possibility without the thousands of dollars on the screens and the whole calibration thing.

Edited April 22, 2014 by Scoggs

[zahry]

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}

[zahry]

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...

Edited April 22, 2014 by zahry

[Kuky]

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. I'm absolutely baffled why everybody believes there will be parts of decent quality - especially in optics in that price range ...

 

My thoughts also... quality lenses are expensive and there is no way to get quality lenses that cheap. And you are right about the resolution (angular res also) I find OR unless it reached 1080 at least per eye, it won't be good for (proper) flight sim.

[blackbelter]

It's too early to judge the qualities of OR, especially that of the CV, isn't it..

[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.

 

Is the rifts' resolution at 1440p fully acceptable? Not quite yet. You'd have to get to 4K to completely replace current desktop monitors. Will it happen?

Yes, and sooner than you might think. 5" 4K panels are soon to be available, and with Facebooks' billions invested into building custom hardware, the sky is the limit.

 

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).

 

As for lenses, do you honestly believe they are not accounting for every single component they roll into CV1?

Subsidizing the cost of the Rift has already been stated to be one of the big reasons why OR was sold to FB.

 

A good idea for anyone is to take a look at Palmers' own words over at http://www.reddit.com/u/PalmerLuckey

 

Relevant:

"I don't get what you mean about LEDs (Our new screens are OLED, no LED backlight), but optics technology has seen some huge jumps in the last couple decades. More importantly, it is possible to pre-correct for optical distortion in software, which allows for much better tradeoffs in lens design and manufacturing."

 

Note: I'm just jumping into the current discussion.

Your project seems excellent, and surely has a place amongst the simming community. :)

Edited April 22, 2014 by Cobra847

[leafer]

So no one is going to get motion sickness using the riff then?

[zahry]

It's too early to judge the qualities of OR, especially that of the CV, isn't it..

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.

Edited April 22, 2014 by zahry

[zahry]

My thoughts also... quality lenses are expensive and there is no way to get quality lenses that cheap. And you are right about the resolution (angular res also) I find OR unless it reached 1080 at least per eye, it won't be good for (proper) flight sim.

 

Thanks Kuky

[blackbelter]

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

 

 

Although the numbers look right (960X1080), the pictures are misleading... Granted, I have never used OR, but I did use Nvidia 3D on my 1080P TV for DCS. The two 960X1080 pictures peceived by my eyes are superimposed into a 3D image, which looks fine as long as I keep a reasonable distance from the screen. The above pictures looks simply awful, but is misleading because that is not how one would perceive a 3D image.

 

As for the qualities of OR, I still think that numbers tell you very little about user experiences, and the latter is what I am thinking about when I spelled q-u-a-l-i-t-i-e-s.

 

By the way, I also think your setup is awesome! If I had the option, I would probably go for your setup+head-tracking. But there is a 'no' printed immediately after the price tag, although some rich guys here may not see it:D

 

Finally, I don't think your product is in direct competition with OR, because of the different audience differentiated by their financial status, or their willingness to invest in this. People who are financially capable of swallowing your price tag, whether they own OR or not, WILL try yours, while people who can't simply won't do so, no matter what you say, no matter how awful OR is.

Edited April 22, 2014 by blackbelter

[Flim]

Well, the pic above looks worse than Dk1... Yes, I have flown missions in Dk1 with no issue. Now, I'm using the razer hydra for 6dot, which make it easier to lean and see instruments. The sense of immersion compared to any projector setup (excluding full dome) is not comparable in my opinion. I will gladly take less res for more immersion! The best projector option is the Cube if you want a real pit... about $3500 in cost to build.

 

In time, once the CV1 is out... I think you will have a very difficult time with your argument.

 

btw, track ir and a large projection screen... that will make you sick!

Edited April 22, 2014 by Flim

[zahry]

Well, the pic above looks worse than Dk1... Yes, I have flown missions in Dk1 with no issue. Now, I'm using the razer hydra for 6dot, which make it easier to lean and see instruments. The sense of immersion compared to any projector setup (excluding full dome) is not comparable in my opinion. I will gladly take less res for more immersion! The best projector option is the Cube if you want a real pit... about $3500 in cost to build.

 

In time, once the CV1 is out... I think you will have a very difficult time with your argument.

 

btw, track ir and a large projection screen... that will make you sick!

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

[zahry]

the pictures are misleading... Granted, I have never used OR

:D Do I have to comment?

 

The two 960X1080 pictures peceived by my eyes are superimposed into a 3D image, which looks fine as long as I keep a reasonable distance from the screen.

- 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.

 

Finally, I don't think your product is in direct competition with OR, because of the different audience differentiated by their financial status, or their willingness to invest in this. People who are financially capable of swallowing your price tag, whether they own OR or not, WILL try yours, while people who can't simply won't do so, no matter what you say, no matter how awful OR is.

 

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 ...

Edited April 22, 2014 by zahry

[Flim]

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

 

 

First off, I never used track Ir with the Cube... that was the point of having a 360 projection setup. Also, I had the cube working great; aligned, centered, and sighted for head position. If I had the space ,that is what I will build again. Since you are a visual engineer and so- called expert on this forum, I'll let you keep trying to show others how smart you are. I can't believe I'm wasting time with this crap, need to get back studying the 737... later.

Edited April 22, 2014 by Flim

[zahry]

First off, I never used track Ir with the Cube... that was the point of having a 360 projection setup. Also, I had the cube working great; aligned, centered, and sighted for head position. If I had the space ,that is what I will build again. Since you are a visual engineer and so- called expert on this forum, I'll let you keep trying to show others how smart you are. I can't believe I'm wasting time with this crap, need to get back studying the 737... later.

 

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...

[metalnwood]

This thread is getting out of hand.

 

I think the topic is worthy but maybe better suited to another thread so it feels more neutral.

 

BTW I know Flim has flown many hours as a commercial pilot and I know he is moving over to the 737 from other aircraft. I know people with more hours who have to go through the same thing going from boeing to airbus, it happens all the time. Not that you have to take my word for it either :)

[leafer]

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...

 

I wouldn't even bother with them, man. I don't buy the OR hype either. At the end of the day, you've created something you've obviously put lots of time and passion into.

[zahry]

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 ;)

[Druid_]

As a professional pilot myself I can't see myself using anything which puts backlit screens a couple of inches away from my eyes. The long term affects are concerning to say the least. Maybe v.high res OLED or unknown technology screens are better but my concerns will stand until I see a proper study done on any Rift hardware that is released to the public.

 

I'm very impressed by your setup and the quality of your screens. With 2 kids, space in my house is at a premium right now, but at some point in the future I may be in touch.

 

As for Flim's version of immersion... I can think of nothing more immersion breaking than to have to move your goggles up on your head briefly to be able to see a simpit switch or a key on your keyboard.