The mere difference in aspect angles does not create any drammatic 3D effect more than there is already in 6DOF principle, no matter TIR or WII. What you ascribe to 3D is the effect of PC 3D environment that uses 6DOF projected on the flat youtube. :DDirk.

Mmm... Actually not. With the "TrackIR method" you do not have parallax effect while moving your head, so the 3D effect is not present in that case. Obviously, even with the "Wii tracker", you still lack the other component necessary to have true 3D (stereoscopic vision), so the 3D effect is indeed not complete.Marco

I believe what we are seeing is what is called "Motion Parallax". By using software that creates a "portal window" rather than a simple "head tracking with panning capability" such as used in Tracker IR, this puts one into a position where objects in the foreground move further than objects in the background as the head moves. And this creates a 3-D effect from simple "motion parallax".

Bob,I assume that you don't own a TrackIR unit. I do and TrackIR is not a simple head tracking with panning capability. Your eyepoint in the 3D cockpit moves sideways, up-down and forward-backward. If I move forward and look to the right in PMDG MD-11 VC, the sense of a 3D motion is very intense.

UlfHaving viewed the explanation, I could see where a certain amount of motion parallex could exist with Tracker IR. But clearly Mr. Lee's device creates "eye popping" video that flies off of the computer screen just as the show films at Disneyworld. I believe that's because his eye point can create more of an angle very rapidly, which is most likely also a result of restricting the pan capability which would just multiply this effect (at the expense of those applications that need pan, such as FS products).Tracker IR certainly has it's place in the market, and I would like to buy one myself at some point. But it appears this device has a place in applications as well. As I said before, I look for a Tracker IR version "x.xx" with a software upgrade for an optional portal window, toggled off of one's yoke. I don't think I would want to be moving my head all the time while flying.You guys with Tracker IR's need to stop getting so defensive. Technology changes happen..... :( Boy, do I ever know that the hard way.Bob (Las Cruces, NM)

Note, Mr. Lee very openly did say in his video that it only works for one person at a time.

That point explains WHY they had to use a camera during the presentation. Without the camera "standing in" for the actual user, no one would have "seen" the 3d effect at all!Without a camera, every single person in the audience would have had to take their turn as the "user..."

Marco, I'm not sure your diagram is right...It appears to me you've linked the Focal length to the camera dolly.At best you'd get a cool "doly zoom"...but mostly the image would treat itself apart.From the video I'd simply say the wii controller has been calibrated very well.There's no magic just a great demo of 6dof head tracking

BRILLIANT xD

Would you rather that I had posted my original thought?The one where I started to say you sounded just like a "whiny, know-it-all, fifteen year old?" :( I understand that you are passionate, but sometimes your strident and shrill replies don't serve you well at all... :(

I've been struggling to understand what the perceived difference is between the TrackIR and the Wii remote setup shown in the Johnny Lee video. Forgive me if I don't have this straight, but I believe the main difference the OP is pointing out is that the Wii setup gives the illusion that you're looking through a window, in that the closer your face gets to the window (the monitor), the more of the complete image you'll see.Conversely, if you're looking at, say, a yoke in VC mode, the closer you move your face to the monitor, the yoke will fill more of the screen, but you'll see less of the total image of the yoke as you zoom in.However, isn't the "window" perspective being pointed out out in the Wii video already incorporated in FSX by virtue of a plane's windshield in VC mode?To put it another way:In the Wii video, as you move closer to the monitor, you see more of the virtual world on the screen.In FSX using Track IR, as you move your face closer to the virtual windshield, you see more of the virtual world (outside the airplane) on the screen.I may be wrong, but it seems the same thing is going on here, and that the only thing that's different is the frame of the "window." In the Wii video, it's the actual monitor. In FSX, it's the VC windshield.

UlfHaving viewed the explanation, I could see where a certain amount of motion parallex could exist with Tracker IR. But clearly Mr. Lee's device creates "eye popping" video that flies off of the computer screen just as the show films at Disneyworld. I believe that's because his eye point can create more of an angle very rapidly, which is most likely also a result of restricting the pan capability which would just multiply this effect (at the expense of those applications that need pan, such as FS products).Tracker IR certainly has it's place in the market, and I would like to buy one myself at some point. But it appears this device has a place in applications as well. As I said before, I look for a Tracker IR version "x.xx" with a software upgrade for an optional portal window, toggled off of one's yoke. I don't think I would want to be moving my head all the time while flying.You guys with Tracker IR's need to stop getting so defensive. Technology changes happen..... :( Boy, do I ever know that the hard way.Bob (Las Cruces, NM)

Bob,Hope that I come out more offensive now. If you build a VC in FSX that consist of small 3D-targets attached on white 3D sticks, as in the demo video, you should get the same effect when using TrackIR. The problem is that this is not new technology and that people get fooled by a clever demo based on targets on white painted sticks. This is no new technology. It's just another way to simulate a 3D world.

Charlie,It appears Mr. Lee's device will not pan. I'm quite sure that is deliberate. Tracker IR will pan. So the view is created two different ways in these devices. Head movement and angle vs. head movement and simple panning. The lack of panning in Lee's system creates very quick and large angle changes thus exploiting motion parallax. Tracker IR uses very useful and simple head panning in addition to head movement at the expense of a significant reduction of motion parallax. So maybe it's a toss up ! Clearly FS products are better served with simple head movement and panning. That's what I would want first and foremost. ( By simple, I mean most practical, not less sophisticated)But with this new approach, I would like to at least see how it would work in FS where there is no panning but a head movement to a different angle is required. And would that effect for this game (FS) provide any benefit. Clearly a game built around this concept would be very interesting, but that may not be practical in FS.It would seem to me that this could easily provided by the Tracker IR people. We'll have to see it that happens.Also, I am quite certain Tracker IR people are aware of this thread. They can weight in if they want too and set the record straight !!! Surprisingly, I don't see that happening.Ulf (Above)The technology is not new. The application is. There are lots of things that will work in theory. The trick is to put it on my table at affordable prices. The pseudo lines and graphics on football fields is just one example of what I'm saying. The use of an IR head tracking device is old technology. Using this same device to maximize motion parallax is new. It may not be practical but it's a start that 10 million people (and many businesses I'm sure) have chosen to think is special enough that they have spread the word to their friends. If you are so right, where is Tracker IR's video showing the same effect. Face it, this is a serious threat to their price point over time and they need to take action. And a video from them showing the same illusion would be unbelievable free advertsing for their product. Bob (Las Cruces NM)

Hi Bob,While one has the ability to pan in TrackIR, one can also move along the X axis (horizontal), just as Johnny's doing in his video, so I'm still having a tough time understanding the perceived difference. TrackIR doesn't rely on panning to achieve the 3D effect, it's simply that panning offers two additional axis. You can turn down the axes that control panning in TrackIR, and still be left with the axes shown in Johnny's demo video.In other words, TrackIR incorporates Head movement and angle plus the ability to pan.Skip to 1:30 in this video to see what I mean. The 3d illusion is not the resulting of panning--it's the result of changing the head's angle along the horizontal axis.

Charlie,You may be right. I'm having a little trouble understanding the whole scenario myself. Clearly it's an angle thing ! The problem I am having in my mind is:1. Where is the vertex of that angle ?2. Is there a cross-over-point plane forming the "portal window" and where is that ?3. Is there a plane where no objects move, thus maximizing the motion parallax illusion ?4. Is any "no motion" plane the place where all the angle vertexes exist ?5. If a no motion plane is a requirement, can this be used in a motion game.I do think that this effect is mostly software based. I would like to see the effects in a motion game as opposed to a fixed box as viewed. The head tracking IR device is just the input vehicle and with little significant differences between products. The software for Tracker IR and this device are oviously two different things.This device could potentially have no practical value or even function (as seen with 3D effect) in certain games.Bob (Las Cruces, NM)PS.... I do not see anything coming off the screen in this video. I have only witnessed this at Disneyworld and it is beyond description. I think many people in this thread have never seen what can be done, so they have no concept of what 3D really is. One time they had a little cartoon like boat/space ship with moving characters on it floating out about 12 feet to my right at 45 degrees (and about 10 feet off the ground) and then just chugging along across the theater over everyone and only about 2 rows in front of me as it made it's way off to the left and then back to the screen. It appeared to be about 2 feet long. But I was in my seat at least 50 feet from the screen towards the back of the auditorium. This is the first and only time I have seen something that begins to compare to that.

42 :(

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View-Masterhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney_Digital_3-Dhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lsd

If you build a VC in FSX that consist of small 3D-targets attached on white 3D sticks, as in the demo video, you should get the same effect when using TrackIR. The problem is that this is not new technology and that people get fooled by a clever demo based on targets on white painted sticks. This is no new technology. It's just another way to simulate a 3D world.

Hi Ulf,you got it partly right and partly wrong. You're right on the fact that it is not new technology, infact TrackIR is capable of doing exactly the same thing, but its software would need to use different algorithms.As I already said, the difference is that TrackIR software moves the entire viewport+point of view, while the "Wii tracker" software as implemented by that guy moves only the point of view, while keeping the viewport fixed. Since the "real" viewport (i.e. the monitor) is indeed fixed in the real world, the 3D effect is more convincing than what you can obtain with the current TrackIR software implementation.

Charlie,You may be right. I'm having a little trouble understanding the whole scenario myself. Clearly it's an angle thing ! The problem I am having in my mind is:

Hi Bob,

1. Where is the vertex of that angle ?

In the Wii-thing, it's at your eyes and is costantly following them.In the TrackIR, it's fixed at some point before your monitor, and is usually not coinciding with your eyes.This is one of the reasons why the Wii-thing 3D effect is more convincing.

2. Is there a cross-over-point plane forming the "portal window" and where is that ?

The biggest difference between the two.In the Wii-thing, the portal window is fixed (and coincident with the monitor): this gives the "window" effect.In the TrackIR, the portal window wanders in the virtual cockpit while you move your head.This is the second reason for the more convinving 3D effect of Wii-thing.If you look at my diagram again, the mechanism should be clear.

3. Is there a plane where no objects move, thus maximizing the motion parallax illusion ?

In the Wii-thing, virtual objects laying on the monitor plane do not move.In the TrackIR, virtual objects always move, simply because the virtual view-port always moves when scrolling the head.

5. If a no motion plane is a requirement, can this be used in a motion game.This device could potentially have no practical value or even function (as seen with 3D effect) in certain games.Bob (Las Cruces, NM)

As I said, in my opinion this algorithm is usable in flight simulators only if you have a very large screen, even better with side-views. In this case I think you could have a nice 3D effect. In other cases, since you need panning for side-views and instruments, the TrackIR method is more functional.Marco

Would you rather that I had posted my original thought?The one where I started to say you sounded just like a "whiny, know-it-all, fifteen year old?" :( I understand that you are passionate, but sometimes your strident and shrill replies don't serve you well at all... :(

Sorry......... :( Not trying to be a know it all if that is what you think... just trying to show that TrackIR is similar when you look at the hardware, and the technology cannot really help FS any better than TrackIR and other 6DOF solutions...Just want to remind people, TrackIR does the whole X,Y, and Z axis. so that means panning horizontally and vertically, rotation, "depth"/distance, etc.