Does 777-P3D fix the extremely bizarre implementation of “dynamic head movement”

[KriVa 307]

Like I said... OPUS (or another developer, my mind is pretty cloudy when it comes to names) was working on adding it to the add-on they provide. However, since they didn't work it out, there may be more to it than just a few parameters. The inability to see the actual source code might have something to do with it.

[kevinh 409]

Like I said... OPUS (or another developer, my mind is pretty cloudy when it comes to names) was working on adding it to the add-on they provide. However, since they didn't work it out, there may be more to it than just a few parameters. The inability to see the actual source code might have something to do with it.

All OPUS did was provide the facility to apply a fixed offset to the eyepoint, which doesn't really help much. I requested Ezdok look at fixing it, or at least reducing it, in their suggestions forum but the developer didn't understand the problem or why he should bother adding a fix. Seemed to think any head movement was good.

 

I'm surpised LM haven't looked at fixing this for P3D given it has a professional application.

 

 

There appear to be just two variables that define the radius of the view point rotation: the aircraft's distance from the equator, and the distance of the eye point from the centre of the aircraft.

I believe it's actually the cosine of aircraft latitude rather than distance from the equator. At 90N or 90S latitude the movement radius is zero. It should be easy to predict the movement and thus an offset to apply to null out the motion.

[Bryn 72]

Anyone know if this was fixed in P3D3?

[77west 139]

Bryn, on 11 Oct 2015 - 08:28 AM, said:

Anyone know if this was fixed in P3D3?

 

No. It is part of the base engine and I don't think it is as easy as some think, to fix. It does not really bother me too much, not sure why everyone makes such a huge deal of it.

 

PS Robert will delete your posts if you don't sign them...

[kevinh 409]

No. It is part of the base engine and I don't think it is as easy as some think, to fix. It does not really bother me too much, not sure why everyone makes such a huge deal of it.

 

PS Robert will delete your posts if you don't sign them...

The maths to predict the motion isn't difficult, so if you can put in an opposite movement it should cancel it out perfectly. This has been done by a developer in beta tests in FSX recently but is not compatible with other view control software like Ezdok and opus yet. Hence not released yet.

[PerWel 23]

Hi

 

I did this in fsx.cfg and it do think it works, if you remove them I can almost be sure that it will use some default hardcoded values:

Try it, set all to 0 (zero)

 

[DynamicHeadMovement]
LonAccelOnHeadLon=-0.000000
LonAccelOnHeadPitch=-0.000000
RollAccelOnHeadLat=0.000000
YawAccelOnHeadLat=-0.000000
RollAccelOnHeadRoll=0.000000
MaxHeadAngle=0.000000
MaxHeadOffset=0.000000
HeadMoveTimeConstant=0.000000

 

/Per W

Sweden

[fakeflyer737 990]

Hi

 

I did this in fsx.cfg and it do think it works, if you remove them I can almost be sure that it will use some default hardcoded values:

Try it, set all to 0 (zero)

 

[DynamicHeadMovement]

LonAccelOnHeadLon=-0.000000

LonAccelOnHeadPitch=-0.000000

RollAccelOnHeadLat=0.000000

YawAccelOnHeadLat=-0.000000

RollAccelOnHeadRoll=0.000000

MaxHeadAngle=0.000000

MaxHeadOffset=0.000000

HeadMoveTimeConstant=0.000000

 

/Per W

Sweden

I've tried this many years ago and it doesnt completely solve the problem but it helps.

[PerWel 23]

I've tried this many years ago and it doesnt completely solve the problem but it helps.

 

OK maybe so but I do not have any crazy/silly movements after that, had that before.

I also use OpusFSIs cameras and they feel OK, no silly movements.

 

But if setting it all to zeros does not help to 100% then there is nothing more to do about it.

 

Anyway, better then nothing.

[kevinh 409]

I've tried this many years ago and it doesnt completely solve the problem but it helps.

Please read the other threads on this. The bit you can't get rid of is not a deliberate effect, it's a bug in the code.

[Bryn 72]

On the P3D forum, LM have responded positively, saying a ticket has been raised for the bug.  We shall see...  

I imagine the problem will be even worse in the very long 747-8!

[Bryn 72]

Fixed in P3D3.2!

http://www.prepar3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6312&t=12618&start=15

[kevinh 409]

That's very good news. I wonder if Dovetail will follow their lead and fix the bug in FSX-SE?

[PGBosak 4]

 

 

Fixed in P3D3.2!

http://www.prepar3d....=12618&start=15

 

fantastic news!

 

What's next, mouse over performance bug?  :wink:

[rfelger 71]

I have the Real Air Simulation of the Duke B60 Version 2. It has absolutely no Dynamic Head Movement, so I'm assuming they have figured out something to mitigate it...

[scandinavian13 5,192]

I have the Real Air Simulation of the Duke B60 Version 2. It has absolutely no Dynamic Head Movement, so I'm assuming they have figured out something to mitigate it...

I doubt it has none at all, but since the Microsoft function is based on a calculation from an aircraft (and not VC) center point, and the 777-300ER is just over 7 times as long as the Duke, the effect is that much more exaggerated.