For anyone who is unsure about how hard/easy this thing is to use, here is a video after I simply installed EZDOK and left it on the default settings. All I had to do was temporarily knock off the hat switch panning assignment in FSX while it installed, and then turn that back on, via the EZDOK interface from the FSX drop down menu, and that was it.You can tweak it more if you wish of course, but here it is with no effort, in smooth weather in FSX. The smooth weather means the effect is subtle of course, but what is also worth noting is the FPS counter, which it seems to have little effect on. I locked the frame rate at 26 FPS, and it pretty much stays on that all the way to touchdown:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGlGXETlS_EAl

For anyone who is unsure about how hard/easy this thing is to use, here is a video after I simply installed EZDOK and left it on the default settings. All I had to do was temporarily knock off the hat switch panning assignment in FSX while it installed, and then turn that back on, via the EZDOK interface from the FSX drop down menu, and that was it.You can tweak it more if you wish of course, but here it is with no effort, in smooth weather in FSX. The smooth weather means the effect is subtle of course, but what is also worth noting is the FPS counter, which it seems to have little effect on. I locked the frame rate at 26 FPS, and it pretty much stays on that all the way to touchdown:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGlGXETlS_EAl

I like the EZDOK vibration effects but I spend almost all my time in the VC using TrackIR so if I understand the various discussions, I'll have wait until (if) a TIR compatible version is made.

Yup, I like it for when I can't be fussed with Track IR, and I think it's likely to be a real plus for those with a multiple monitor set up. The really odd thing is, I did a flight earlier with it not switched on, and it seemed really crappy compared to when the effect is on - I found I really missed the effect not being there. As I say, it's subtle, but I have to admit, it does have a fairly profound effect on the feel of realism, so I can well understand why people are raving on about how good it is, because they are right, it is.Al

LOL, I believe you. The videos look awesome.For some reason I have never been so hesitant to buy and install an addon as I have with this one. I guess I am scared that I will install it, have problems getting it set up, or worse, it will cause a problem with my overall FSX performance and/or install. I have reviewed the PDF a few times and am still a little unsure about the UI and the instructions. All I care about are the headshake effects. I dont need all the other views and cameras, and I am not sure if I will have to either give up the stock views that I can easily switch between. I think I am scared that when I install it and go to set it up, I am going to somehow delete all my stock views or do something bad which will result in me having to reinstall my a/c.

Let me alleviate your concerns here. This program isn't invasive enough to harm your FSX installation or your addons. It's a 9MB file that takes you from looks real to "feels" real. I used to set aside a good hour for each addon aircraft in setting up views for VC, cabin, outside, etc..With EZdok, I can set up an entire addon in 10 minutes. Then the fun is adjusting the effects to your liking. The only negative, and there's only one, is you can't cycle thru the views with the A key. You must assign hotkeys. If you can live with that, it's a must have.Curt

Let me alleviate your concerns here. This program isn't invasive enough to harm your FSX installation or your addons. It's a 9MB file that takes you from looks real to "feels" real. I used to set aside a good hour for each addon aircraft in setting up views for VC, cabin, outside, etc..With EZdok, I can set up an entire addon in 10 minutes. Then the fun is adjusting the effects to your liking. The only negative, and there's only one, is you can't cycle thru the views with the A key. You must assign hotkeys. If you can live with that, it's a must have.Curt

Ok I think I am sold then and will give it a shot.Let me ask this. After its installed can I still access the stock views like Locked Spot from right clicking an empty part of the screen and selecting the view like that? Or can the "Aircraft" views that are selectable from the right click menu still be used or do they have to be done by cycling? The reason I ask is because I usually just view from Locked Spot and when flying a plane like the LDS-767 I like to use the right click menu to access wing views. Not only that, but in the LDS 767 you need to be able to press the "A" key at the beginning of a flight and cycle thru all the view to get the GPWS to load correctly. Without doing that the sounds in that a/c wont work right.Thanks

Yup, right click still works.Al

Since the thing effectively works by shifting the viewpoint, necessitating a screen redraw, there most certainly will be a performance hit, but one would think if your frame rate is okay, it would probably be worth it for the more visceral feel you'd get. Anything which can add that which is missing from FS, is worth a little hit on performance in my opinion, so long as there is room for it on your current FPS.In any case, think I'm going to give it a shot and try it. Looks like it would add a lot to the experience.Al

Oh I agree, it won't actually force a redraw, but your monitor will have to do more work shifting pixels around if the viewpoint is changing, and that will mean more work for your graphics card for sure.Al

This isn't how graphics engines work. The screen is always "redrawing" - changing the viewpoint while looking at essentially the same scene isn't going to do anything to performance unless a high poly object comes into view as a result or something. Also monitors don't "do work", they just display what the video card gives them.

I think you've misunderstood me there, or not really read what I wrote properly. In any case, what I wrote wasn't meant to be a deep technical description of exactly how graphics cards and monitors work, merely a brief version of explaining that this add-on means more work for a computer in general. Trust me, I work for Adobe on occasion, and I certainly know how graphics engines work.Changing the viewpoint means that the information that is processed by the graphics card, and subsequently drawn by a monitor, is changing. Since it is the virtual cockpit view we are talking about, the view angle is changing as head movement is represented, as is the representation of parallax, therefore it is a different viewpoint you get of a 3D representation as the program effectively emulates your head shifting around. Therefore, just like a human eye receives information and processes it to the brain to change what you perceive as your viewpoint as your head moves around, a computer's brain (i.e the graphics processor) has to do more work if it is to process an image viewpoint that is changing as a representation of a 3D object in front of you that is shifting its position.It may of course be the case that a computer has enough RAM to store all the information for the viewpoints it is switching between, meaning it can constantly feed data it already has in memory, but it will be working harder to send that information down the pipe. And yes, monitors do do work, not in terms of processing power it is true, but they have to redraw stuff, meaning they have to change the data they display, and unless someone has managed to invent a monitor that works on no energy at all which I've not heard about, then it will be doing more work and using more energy, thus more electricity than if it is displaying a static image, since it is impossible to get something for nothing. That in itself will not affect framerates, but it is incorrect to suggest monitors don't actually do any work, which is what I was referring to. If you read what I wrote previously, you will see that at no point did I claim the monitor had anything to do with framerates itself, merely that it is the visual representation of the work the graphics card, processor and RAM is doing.Al

Be the theoretical performance effect what it may be, but in practice I've found that the effect EZDOK on performance is close to, or zero. Well worth it.

Yup, that's pretty much been my findings too, it doubtless is having some effect, but it certainly seems minimal. For once I actually agreed with a bit of the hype on Flight 1's website, where they say in the blurb for EZDOK that they think it is a 'must have' for FSX.Don't get me wrong, Flight 1 is a company I've bought tons of stuff from, but normally one takes the product descriptions on websites with a healthy pinch of salt!Al

Hi all. I badly know English language, but I will try to explain some moments about EZCA work. Fluctuations in EZCA is combination of three simultaneously working algorithm of fluctuations. Dynamic Head Movements (DHM), Random (RND) and Camera Resonance (CR). When works DHM effect, EZCA takes from aircraft the data about overloads on axis X Y Z, Pitch, Bank, Head from simconnect. Then EZCA generate new physics models of fluctuations of head of the pilot taking into weight of human body and its structure. We have applied difficult trigonometrical calculations with transformation of direction of moving of head considering review corner. These algorithms aren't connected in any way with built in in FSX "momentum Effect". During installation built in FSX mom effect is disconnected. Approximately so works DHM effect. RND is constant casual jolting. At the heart of effect there are 3 generators which modeling fluctuations. Signals from these generators arrive on distributing matrix where they are mixed and distributed on 6DOF chamber co-ordinates. Further signals pass through Dependence Processor where will be transformed amplitude and frequency characteristic (AFC) and amplitude fluctuations depending on speed of the plane. There are 2 profiles of options RND of effect - on the earth and in air. It gives very flexible adjustment of effect and further will allow to add models of jolting from release events шассии or others. CR - Camera resonance is simple splash in the camera during wheels contact to runway . The most part of algorithms has been written using Assembler inserts. Optimisation and testing of algorithms has demanded almost year of job over the project. We in details optimised each line of algorithms for keep your FPS. The utility which takes away FPS is unnecessary for simmers... Open TaskManager and look loading CPU usage when EZCA works. We don't open the documentation for adjustment of effects because the job principle can will change in the following version. After a while we will let out the documentation for adjustment of effects and you will understand all uniqueness of it addon.

Thanks for the explanation. And your English is certainly a lot better than any attempt I could make to write in your own language; I think I'd struggle to ask for directions to a bus stop, let alone describe technical stuff!In all honesty, I'm not really that bothered to know how it actually works, I'm just happy that it does.Al

I have most of the concerns expressed by cmpbellsjc above. The responses have alleviated these to a large extent, but let me ask a question - from my reading of the manual, it seems to me that, apart of installation of the EZCA executable, the only changes to FSX files made in setting up this product are to the aircraft.cfg files of each aircraft (to set up the EZCA cameras). I believe the changes are additions rather than changes, but maybe backing up these before installation might be prudent. Then of course you have to disable any View controls in FSX, which will change the controls.xml file, so maybe a good idea to back that up also.If I'm correct, then in the event of any problem, it should be possible to revert to the previous settings by restoring these files.Or did I miss something ?

I think you've misunderstood me there, or not really read what I wrote properly. In any case, what I wrote wasn't meant to be a deep technical description of exactly how graphics cards and monitors work, merely a brief version of explaining that this add-on means more work for a computer in general. Trust me, I work for Adobe on occasion, and I certainly know how graphics engines work.Changing the viewpoint means that the information that is processed by the graphics card, and subsequently drawn by a monitor, is changing. Since it is the virtual cockpit view we are talking about, the view angle is changing as head movement is represented, as is the representation of parallax, therefore it is a different viewpoint you get of a 3D representation as the program effectively emulates your head shifting around. Therefore, just like a human eye receives information and processes it to the brain to change what you perceive as your viewpoint as your head moves around, a computer's brain (i.e the graphics processor) has to do more work if it is to process an image viewpoint that is changing as a representation of a 3D object in front of you that is shifting its position.It may of course be the case that a computer has enough RAM to store all the information for the viewpoints it is switching between, meaning it can constantly feed data it already has in memory, but it will be working harder to send that information down the pipe. And yes, monitors do do work, not in terms of processing power it is true, but they have to redraw stuff, meaning they have to change the data they display, and unless someone has managed to invent a monitor that works on no energy at all which I've not heard about, then it will be doing more work and using more energy, thus more electricity than if it is displaying a static image, since it is impossible to get something for nothing. That in itself will not affect framerates, but it is incorrect to suggest monitors don't actually do any work, which is what I was referring to. If you read what I wrote previously, you will see that at no point did I claim the monitor had anything to do with framerates itself, merely that it is the visual representation of the work the graphics card, processor and RAM is doing.Al

OK, at the risk of totally derailing this thread...Despite your lengthy post, Ryan is right. Moving your viewpoint around vs. zero movement means absolutely no difference in the "work" being done by the computer. The CPU/graphics card are still working to redraw each frame just as hard, whether you are randomly looking around or just "staring" straight ahead. As Ryan said, the viewpoint movement would only have an effect if said movement brought into view more polygons overall (or the engine had to load assets that were brought into view, like textures for example). However, in the case of EZdok where the camera hardly moves at all (relatively anyway, compared to doing a full 360 degree turn or something) therefore, there is basically no change to the work your computer has to do. In this specific example though, EZdok has a very small performance hit because of the calculations being done to determine the dynamic head movements and such, but that's a different argument entirely.I can see what you are saying because "logically" it all makes sense, but that just isn't the way it works in 3D gaming engines.

Nope, if the computer has to process another viewpoint of a 3D object, as it would when a viewpoint changes due to head movement, then it would obviously have to do some work to achieve that than if not doing so, and EZDOK loads up too, so that too takes up some RAM. Therefore it is not correct to say that there is 'basically no change at all'; if there is a change, then there is a change, simple as that, minimal though it may be, which is the point I was making. So all I was pointing out is that it would require some more small effort from a computer than if the effect was not happening, nothing more than that. I'm not trying to say it is in any way going to bog down the system, as should be apparent from the video I posted where the FPS counter is barely affected.Try upping the head vibration settings in EZDOK and it will be more than apparent that a different viewpoint of the 3D object (i.e the cockpit coaming etc) will need to be processed. I'm not suggesting it is a massive weight of work on the computer by any stretch of the imagination, and that, as noted, is apparent in the video I posted. But it is still your computer having to do work. That is all I was saying, so I failed to see the need to jump on a mere off the cuff simplified description that was clearly meant to be a general passing comment rather than a technical appraisal of what is involved.In any case, semantics aside, I don't wish to derail this thread. so that's me done on that topic.Al