head paning tools VS "real" cockpit? IMO is like asking - do you prefer a movie of a pleasure cruise or the cruise itself .While there are certain advantages being able to scan the external view using a device like TrackIR, in the case of serious home cockpitters I only see disadvantages: one of the major one is that by turning your head you NEVER see the image in front of your eyes as it happens in reality. You would need to move your eyes to the other side to see that view since the monitor(s) do not move... FOr somebody watching from the outside, the entire thig would look strange: the cockpit is there, the "windows" (monitor(s)) are there but the view outside is moving while the pilot head is moving - not very realisitc to me. I would say that this would create a dangerous habit of moving the eyes away from the target in real life... I tried TrackIR and found it totally useless from this point of view (pun not intended).VR goggles /helmet- yes, I "played" w/ them too - and quite extensively I would say - but for a home cockpit they are totally useleless, if not annoying. How are you supposed to operate the cockpit when your view is "blocked" by the goggles?IMO, we are quite far from a realistic and affordable VR setup which can replace a home-built cockpit. For that to happen, we would need a fully immersive and functional VR system with "tactile feedback power gloves" which would allow us to turn the knobs, flip the switches and operate other functions (including but not limited to pedals, joystick etc.) without having to blindly search them outside the VR world.The current VR systems are more suitable for sim applications which do not require a lot of interaction with complicated controls. Arcade military fligt sims with HOTAS or even simpler are more suitable for this - and not having to interact wiuth the real world in an unnatural way, make this kind of appliation more "believable" and entertaining.MO here is that it is much more realistic AND cost effective to build a home cockpit and use any kind of multi-screen technology. Some use Fresnel or collimating displays - which can hardly be beaten for the 3D immersion they provide, and some use "simple" multi-screen or multi-projector displays. They all are much cheaper and "realistic" for OUR application than any affordable VR system can provide today.

"head paning tools VS "real" cockpit? IMO is like asking - do you prefer a movie of a pleasure cruise or the cruise itself ."I love that statement. One thing that sim-only pilots may not be aware of is the use of peripheral vision, or

:-)Never ignored the peripheral vision. On the contrary: I stated that multi-monitor or multi-projector display (that reads "peripheral vision" to me) coupled with a "real" cockpit are much better alternatives to any affordable VR.You can equally screw up a landing habits by not being able to find the controls because you lost that valuable peripheral vision thanks to the goggles blocking it.The TrackIR is NOT "peripheral vision" either - it is much worse than VR goggles in this sense. They allow you to move the view but not in a natural way - your head points one way while the eyes the other - not that realistic and "educational" from where I see it. You are better off using the joystich POV hat. At least the head and eyes point to the same direction ;-).BTW - you can get the same neck-to-eyes-(co)torsion effect also if you watch (or imagine) too many "hot" cruise scenes...

Guys, keep in mind the original poster was asking about the TrackIR for use UNTIL he gets his full flight deck built not to be used WITH it..And of course, my comments were not intended as to be used with a homebuilt flight deck either.. but only to his question about using it in the mean time. I don't have a full flight deck myself.Just to note though, My head/eye movement when using the TrackIR is only about 20 degrees max so it's really not like turning your head way past the point you have to look out the side of your face etc.

>VR goggles /helmet- yes, I "played" w/ them too - and quite>extensively I would say - but for a home cockpit they are>totally useleless, if not annoying. How are you supposed to>operate the cockpit when your view is "blocked" by the>goggles?There are some military/research projects with semi-transparent 3d goggles, where you have a realtime updated "mask" of the world - basically you see the scenery, but there is a "hole" in your glasses where your panels are. So you kind of see the world superimposed *around* your knobs and switches. It was implemented as a graphics driver where it tracked your head movements and thus changed the mask accordingly. Now, how to achieve this with sane budget is another question.. :)Anyway. The importance of wide field of view to fuel your peripheral vision is of very much importance when you want ot create a strong feeling of immersion. A good visual system that blocks outside references and has a very wide field of view can create a surprisingly strong sense of motion.However this was not about that really. Lets say there are space or budget limitations that basically make it impossible for you to have a wide field of view. This head tracking (just like POV hat) could be a way to *NOT* achieve immersion, but it could possibly give you a way to *look around* when you maneouver for landing, or do VFR navigation or look around for traffic. No peripheral vision, but still better than just one view forward. Of course it would be better to have a nice 270 degree projected collimation system... but lets get back to earth. :)I will be practicing IFR procedures with my home setup mostly, so I wouldnt even need any visual at all. But lets say I end up with a ILS plus circle to land on the opposite direction. It's pretty nice to be able to look around when circling. Its just a different thing from the immersion - this is more about practical ways to look around you.//Tuomas

>There are some military/research projects with>semi-transparent 3d goggles, where you have a realtime updated>"mask" of the world - basically you see the scenery, but there>is a "hole" in your glasses where your panels are. So you kind>of see the world superimposed *around* your knobs and>switches. It was implemented as a graphics driver where it>tracked your head movements and thus changed the mask>accordingly. Now, how to achieve this with sane budget is>another question.. :)I also did say "affordable" about 100 times, didn't I? :-)I still prefer a POV hat or basic multi-view against a "forhead-activated-sideways-eyeballing-POV" LOL. Actually I am waiting for a Benq PB2250 and if it is any good, I plan to install 2 or 3 for a truly 135 deg FOV - not 270, but better than 45.

>I also did say "affordable" about 100 times, didn't I? :-)Sure. But you know how things work in these net forums - you read the first half of the message and then start typing your reply... :)>I still prefer a POV hat or basic multi-view against a>"forhead-activated-sideways-eyeballing-POV" LOL. Actually I am>waiting for a Benq PB2250 and if it is any good, I plan to>install 2 or 3 for a truly 135 deg FOV - not 270, but better>than 45.Yeah. The issue I want to avoid is multiple computers. The parhelia is fine for ~135 degrees. You get some distortion on the edges, but brain is good at adapting into stuff, and FS's minimum zoom is just enough for it. It works okay.Wideview is an option of course, but it at least triples the pain of mainteinance, setup and uhg... I rather just try to keep my home setup on one computer. The club sim can grow if needed.Wide field of view rocks, I know. I wish I could have it at home too, but no space currently. And I dont want to spend so much on just PC crap.http://tigert.com/aviation/vatsim/cockpit-...f/pulja-800.jpg(formation flying with AI planes is some serious fun =))Even the 135 degrees is nice, but having >180 would be great since then you could see the airfield from all parts of the circuit.//Tuomas

I want to avoid multiple PCs too. Until now all I have running is on ONE PC. The multi-view is another issue, but I am sure I will manage to do that on one PC as well - I plan to use a PCIe board with two 16 bit graphics BUSes but NOT in SLI mode. That's 4 3D accelerated video channels. Then I would use a simple PCIe 4 bit board (whenever they come out) for an additional 2 vid channels for instruments - still accelerated but that is not important for 2D gauges.I plan to open 3 windows 45, 0, -45 degrees adn cover 135 deg FoV (or maybe "stretch it a bit more to 160). Did I mention that the board has to be a dual core Opteron?Boards like these are already there - quite expensive - but this is a trend that I intend to follow. Single PC and multiple GPU's.And BTW, thanks for rubbin' in that collimating stuff I ALREADY know you have. I'd kill for that so watch your back.

>I want to avoid multiple PCs too. Until now all I have>running is on ONE PC. The multi-view is another issue, but I>am sure I will manage to do that on one PC as well - I plan to>use a PCIe board with two 16 bit graphics BUSes but NOT in SLI>mode. That's 4 3D accelerated video channels. Then I would use>a simple PCIe 4 bit board (whenever they come out) for an>additional 2 vid channels for instruments - still accelerated>but that is not important for 2D gauges.The problem tends to be when you have *several* 3d *views*. The parhelia does just *one* but it is stretched accross 3 monitors.It would save a LOT of CPU to do that - since the "3d world" does not need to be projected in 3d space three times, but once.Can the PCIe stuff do one stretched window accross several monitors? Because that probably will cut the required CPU power a LOT, compared to three "true" views all in different directions.The stretch works okay on 3 screens but I think for more than that you run out of zoom, and also the distortions on the edges start getting too big.>I plan to open 3 windows 45, 0, -45 degrees adn cover 135 deg>FoV (or maybe "stretch it a bit more to 160). Did I mention>that the board has to be a dual core Opteron?FS wont be able to take advantage of dual processing though - although all your other apps like activesky and possible other stuff will run on the other cpu, which will of course help.>And BTW, thanks for rubbin' in that collimating stuff I>ALREADY know you have. I'd kill for that so watch your back.Just to get things straight: *I* dont have it. It's on the *aviation club* simulator that I have been working on with others :)I wouldnt have the space and metal working skills anyway to make much use of the mirror units. The teamwork has been awesome though. But that's not perfect either - it is good for sure, but a collimated mirror system like that is designed for one person - it is set up for the left seat, the person flying on the right will see quite big black bars between the mirrors. In the "big boys'" DC-10 sim it was on, there was two forward views, one for captain, another for first officer. Then each pilot could see their side of the side view, the other side was black. The parallax problem is pretty hard to solve on the collimation stuff. Not a huge issue for one seater sim of course.//Tuomas

No - no Parhelia for me. Been there, done it. Too slow for anything I am interested in. And yes, WinXP supports multiple monitors in the mode you mention. I really plan to use 3 of the 4 available accelerated 3D outputs and have 2-3 monitors for gauges, bringing everything to the grand total of 6 outputs over 3 cards.MultiCPU is not used on today's MSFS but I really hope that version 10 will take advantage of GPU's and the newest developments in CPU power, and yes mutiple CPU can help by adding @10-25% to the speed depending on which other tasks WinXP (or Win 64) is running.I'm not dreaming of solving the parallax problem either and I'm lucky to having chosen a one seater too (2/3 Lear)

Sorry Eric... I tried :-)You might try down in the "hardware" forum.

What about this?Head tracking and 3D vision in one with a high res!http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1879592,00.asp

Ouch! Do you have $899 to spare for an 800x600 fixed resolution with variable mileage success?My best advice to anybody toying with the idea of buying a VR set (ANY VR set) is to "try before you buy" and see how well it fits your expectations. Unfortunately you can not believe one word the manufacturer or the distributor says about performance, compatibility or "suitability" to your needs...

Eric,Run, do NOT WALK to the trackIR site and get a trackir3 with the vector add-on....I've been flying fs since it was monochrome wire frame on the first pc. TrackIR and Active Sky, and UT have changed EVERYTHING. Two MUST HAVE planes are the Level-d 767 for cross country and RealAir's SA-260. Keep in mind re: the VRglasses....they DO give you:1. real 3-d via Nvidia's 3-d driver.2. Stereo sound(fly as the wife sleeps)3. Head tracking built in...ala TrackIR 3/4 Lacking the VR head set, even with a real cockpit, you will NOT be seeing True 3d scenery.btw....I've added more than several IFR objects, on the LAGO site, available for viewing at http://www.hubbysforhire.com/Farmpage/my%2...20objects_i.htm . I am thinking of getting the new EZ scenery and converting all my Gmax stuff to that format, because I believe LAGO..while wonderful is dead and will not be supporting FSX.Good luck on your project....I'd build one but I'd never hear the end of it...Wifage...and sensible at that since we AIN't rich...hmmmmm she wants a horse....I want a full flight deck with motion base....hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm........grinKeep us posted with your latest [email protected]

The TrackIR 3 is no longer manufactured, or sold on our website.