MarkDH

Surely this shows how smooth TrackIR is? And the puck is just a target?

I'd say you need to watch better Youtube videos 😎. The Logitech yoke is execrable, the Honeycomb one is way better. On the other hand, if your joystick works okay you might be better saving your money and just buying rudder pedals.

You can mount it behind you instead.

Make sure you get the damper kit too, it makes a big difference.

I'm not sure what the argument is here. At 10 feet from a 70" TV your FoV will be less than half what it is sitting 3 feet from a 55" TV. Either way, it's going to look sharper (obviously!)

His viewing distance is 'about 40 inches'.

I'd say yes there is a significant difference. 67ppi is just about acceptable, but it's a shame to go so low for a 4K screen. That's about the same as a 32" 1080p display, which is really on the edge of fuzzy. At 80ppi you're back in safe territory, I'd say.

Wow, that's good looking. Also kind of a cousin of the Twin Otter, if you know the history of DHC 😎

Near Aylesbury...

Groundhog day 😫

The main problem is resolution. Running a 1080p image at 55" is going to look terrible close up, it's only 40dpi. The 24" image will be 92dpi, which will look much sharper. To get the same sharpness from the TV you will need to sit much further away, which negates the benefit of using a larger screen. In my experience you can't really go above 32" with 1080p without it being too fuzzy.

Mixing the Honeycomb yoke and Saitek quadrant is no problem as long as you start from scratch. Basically you should not trust that FSX will automatically map your controls and so you will need to do it all manually. (You say you did this all before with no problems, but it sounds like you probably had a Saitek yoke quadrant combo at that time, which FSX likely mapped sensibly by default. The Saitek USB quadrant is a different device, so it's no surprise FSX treats it differently.) Perhaps you are confused by terms - 'mapping' a control is the same thing as 'binding' or 'assigning' a control (I didn't say 'map over', so I can't be more specific about what is confusing you). It sounds like your yoke axes are mapped correctly, so you should focus on the quadrant. The quadrant doesn't 'think' it is a Saitek yoke, it's just a dumb device and it's FSX that's tried to guess what it is. Based on that guess it's assigned some default mappings, which evidently are wrong, so you need to change them. This is a simple matter of going to the Control Axes tab in the Settings/Controls page and editing the assignments for Throttle, Prop and Mixture controls. On this page, make sure you have the Saitek quadrant selected in the Controller Type list, then find the axis (a.k.a. 'Event') you want in the Assignment List. Click on it, then click 'Change Assignment' and follow the instructions. This is all documented in some detail the Learning Centre.

Settings/Controls from the main menu, or Options/Settings/Controls from the in-flight menu. You map the axes on the 'Control axes' tab. Don't bother with the Honeycomb software until you manage to program the devices from the FSX menus first, then you can experiment if you can't get all the buttons and switches to do what you need.

I don't know, I haven't run the sim for a couple of months. But I'm still fairly confident any non-linearity is in the sim, not the encoder.

No it doesn't, but it's not a fault of the trim wheel, which is just a simple rotary encoder. MSFS (like FSX and P3D before it) implements some controls with an 'acceleration' feature built in.. I made a whole video on this.

I'm not disputing that it can track your eyes smoothly, I just don't see an algorithm that can use this to control the view. FYI the v1 implementation in FSX was indeed stop/start, and someone's truck sim video with v5 looks like it uses basically the same kind of algorithm. So yes, gaze tracking is exciting but let's use it for problems that need solving. And if anyone wants to claim gaze tracking will replace TrackIR, they're going to need to spell it out.

First one (already posted) shows the guy using head tracking exclusively ('you can't do much with the gaze tracking', he says). Second one has no commentary or notes so gives no clue if he is even using gaze tracking.

Yes, your truck sim video shows just how clunky and artificial it is to control the view with eye tracking. The guy even says 'I prefer to use my head, it's much quicker'. From that video it looks like the latest version uses essentially the same algoriithm as the original Tobii (I had one), which is is a binary start/stop panning of the view. So basically, an unnecessary gimmick. There's nothing wrong with innovation but the Tobii is still a solution in search of a problem. When you have head tracking, a natural and instantly intuitive solution with a 20 year track record, you're going to have to try very hard to come up with anything better. This isn't it, and the value of eye tracking lies elsewhere - if I was investing, I'd be trying to use it to fix VR. The hat clip isn't flimsy BTW, so that's just rhetoric.

Okay, I'll be that guy. What's "IQ"?

It's by no means obvious that it's a step forward. Okay, you don't have to wear a hat (really small deal) but otherwise it's currently a poor substitute for TrackIR that costs twice as much. If anybody knows what it means that eye tracking is going to be 'implemented' in MSFS, I'd like to hear it.

I'm not familiar with the MSFS camera system but when I used TrackIR with EZCA, when the hat switch was mapped inside EZCA to pan the view, it actually moved the TrackIR centre point. This tells me that TrackIR centres to a point that is, at least in P3D and FSX, controllable from software. It seems very likely that MSFS works this way too, so the short answer may be that this is not about TrackIR, rather that you are changing something in MSFS to change the view centre position. Maybe worth exploring.

Seriously though, if you get another 20 years out of that pot you can think about HE in 2041 😎

Can you not just use a 2mm machine screw and nut through each of the holes? You could use this to attach a tag or just solder your wires onto the screw.

The Honeycomb's buttons do nothing special, the auto-repeat is an issue introduced by MSFS. Any controller with buttons that can be left in the ON position will behave the same in MSFS. And conversely, the Honeycomb will work as expected in FSX, P3D and X-Plane.

Dunno what you mean by 'range', but the Alpha XPC has 10-bit sensors. That brings the resolution up to Saitek standards 😉