Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
whitav8

Multiple monitors camera window calculations help

Recommended Posts

But you are saying this is not possible mathematically through more than one display?  That is exactly what my algorithm in the other thread does.  It is limited by Prepar3d's FOV limit, but if you use multiple monitors spanning up to about 155 degrees you can achieve it in one graphical view spanning 3 displays.  There is no bezel adjustment at this moment, no precise accounting for the angle of the monitors relative to each other, but that can factored into the algorithm.  If you wish to go further than the limit of 179 degree limit imposed by Prepar3d you will need another graphical view.   But that is easily accomplished by opening another view in Prepar3d.  

 

I cannot see how you could accomplish perfect geometry unless you did not use the algorithm I wrote, the math I used, and published in this and Prepar3d's forum about 2 years ago.  Can you please explain how your method is different, how specifically you achieved perfect geometry, regardless of whether it is over one display or multiple displays?

 

denali: The details of our algorithm will not be discussed... It is a commercial tool after all.

It is a solution for achieving any FOV (even 360 deg) is perfectly possible.  It you find it useful, please feel free to use it.

 

By this I'm closing this "how you did it" discussion with you. Please accept this!!!

 

Regards,

N

Share this post


Link to post

In one place you say it isn't possible.  In another you say it is, but it's a secret.  You have me so confused!  But the math is brutally honest.


 

 


By this I'm closing this "how you did it" discussion with you. Please accept this!!!

I like Milkshakes too.  I know where to get them far cheaper.

Share this post


Link to post
@denali,

      I'm not really sure at all, but I think Nikola is talking about using multiple separate views (which definitely slows down the FPS performance) - each of which is maybe 60- 70 degrees horizontal field of view. Even with that approach there is need for bezel alignment and some distortion correction so that the horizon behaves well for a certain eyepoint. Their realtime distortion correction was originally designed for multiple projectors that need distortion correction and edge blending. They are now taking their knowledge into the use of large HDTVs and LCDs.

 

      I know you were working on the use of just one very wide view.

 

Dave


PC=9700K@5Ghz+RTX2070  VR=HP Reverb|   Software = Windows 10 | Flight SIms = P3D, CAP2, DCS World, IL-2,  Aerofly FS2

Share this post


Link to post

If N is claiming that there is "no distortion" or "100% geometrically correct", then there is only one way to achieve that.  That way is using the same math I used in my algorithm.  The disturbing part to me is that I am aware of discussions between N and one of my alpha testers 9 months or so before N, after his wide search for a solution, shows up here and says he solved the problem first.  The alpha tester showed me N's original products and we tinkered with it for due diligence, asking "did they solve the problem" (which I had solved 2 years prior and published).  The alpha tester actively communicated with N for that purpose, because of the alpha's passion and interest in the problem is like mine.  Then magically N has a "never before done" solution, where he would have to use the math, and argues with me *in my own product thread* that he didn't use the same math, that it is mathematically impossible.  

 

Now I'm not planning on having Senatorial hearings nor having my former partner testifying as he did before the Nuclear Regulatory Committee about safety and security in nuclear power plant software.  And Synchronicity is just as common as De Ja Vu in this industry.   But it would just be nice for N to acknowledge even that his is not the very first software to use programmatic lensing for this display problem.  Or admit that his is the solution that is "not geometrically correct" if it does not use the same math.


I bring up my partner because after not having talked to him in many years, while were both trying to get out of a creatively stifling and financially limiting field, we both have had the same experiences and concerns practicing "in the wild" where your security clearance no longer protects your work.  He joked there should be a hearing on this.  (I am nowhere near as qualified as he is, I did not graduate near the top of my class at MIT.  I stayed a few nights in Boston at a Sheraton once though.)

Share this post


Link to post

NOT "100% Geometrically Correct".  Stretching is still visible in the peripheries of each view.  You are only minimizing it's presence with individual views.

Share this post


Link to post

NOT "100% Geometrically Correct".  Stretching is still visible in the peripheries of each view.  You are only minimizing it's presence with individual views.

 

Thank you for trying.

When you put yourself at the eye-point no more stretching.

Go to Eye-point and turn your head and you will see no stretching. The geometry is 100% from the eye-point. That;s how it works.

 

N.

Share this post


Link to post

 


The geometry is 100% from the eye-point.

Nikola,  You have a great product.  I even recommended it to someone just last night that asked me if my thing would help them with a projected image on a dome issue.  I do believe your software is exactly what people need in that situation.

 

And I will not argue with you that much that you have a solution often taken by programs like assetto corsa for flat LC Displays and it is effective.  You have worked hard in your software to present a solution.  A very pricey one, but also a functional one.   Where for projected displays your product is very worthy, but as for an LCD solution I do not think it is fair for you to charge it as a bundled price, as you do, e.i. you must purchase your flagship product at it's premium price.  However, that is not up to me, but the markets.  

 

And again, if you did not use the math that I have published, you are not getting a 100% geometrically correct solution.  Not even "when you put yourself at the designed eyepoint".    Your claim is false.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...