Posts by Sycosys

    dont you need your VR sensors to be attached to the motion simulator so that when you bank/twist/whatever that your VR self stays in your seat facing the direction you intend to face?

    If the sensors are on the wall and you turn your little motion gizmo well then the sensors think you turned even though you head is still "centered"

    This gizmo wont work really well i would wager...

    Some people have built motion sims where the sensors are attached to the motion rig and those work well it seems.

    I didnt know about FS2 when i first got my rift. I dealt with the crappy framerates, old graphic engines and expense of trying to get XP or FSX/p3d to be a reasonable experience..

    Then i tried fs2... and it all changed, hands down the best VR flightsim available at the moment.

    I am curious how XP11 with Vulkan will do with VR when they get that going... XP with flyinside was pretty much unbearable.

    Let me look into this a bit.. in a past job I created parallel reference points along pipelines. Creating points adjacent to roads with known classifications should be very similar.

    Will mull it over and give it a test on some Colorado Roads if i get a minute to sit down this weekend

    If one could generate points at set intervals along roadways of given types (Residential, secondary, artery, freeway) could those points be used as approximate street lamps?

    Tiger line transport data is very complete for each US state. Generating points along the lines would be a matter of writing a script.

    if you are new to vr and are focusing on the pixels you can be forgiven.. i find that my eyes need to relax a bit and try not to see the details.. ive been playing in vr for more than a year now and honestly i find the image is clear enough to forget that it's not perfect. If i need to read a gauge i lean toward it..

    later generations of vr will be much better but honestly this isnt much worse (resolution wise) than playing on an old low res CRT monitor. The immersion of VR makes up for the current shortcomings in resolution.

    There is nothing like flying full combat acrobatics in VR looking in all directions to make sure your butt isn't about to get lit up..

    Maybe it differs from region to region. Try taking off from Lukla Airport, go northeast to Mount Everest, and you will long for higher terrain mesh.

    BTW: it's awe-inspiring flying there.

    Getting high resolution meshes from Nepal is going to be hard i would guess. the best i know of for world coverage is the Revised SRTM (shuttle radar telemetry mission) data.. in western countries there is money for things like Lidar and photogrammetry.

    runway slopes are modeled if i am not mistaken. There is a nearly complete global mesh, the High latitudes are not done yet, unless there was an update

    Did a geoconvert on an 60 mile wide ~120 mile long strip of the Colorado Front Range from North of Pueblo to North of Boulder, 1m resolution, Converted at 9,11,12,14 levels..

    Here we are looking south from North Table Mountain (Golden Colorado) to Pikes Peak (tall snow covered mountain in the central distance), Denver is sprawled out to the left

    I Like to ridge soar the Douglas Ridge (Can be seen as the line rocks that jut up at ~45 degree angle before the start of the mountains). It looks small from here but that ridge pops up a good 300-500 feet in places. Not that that holds a candle to the Rockies next to it which rapidly go from ~5800 feet to 8500 feet

    I dont have stutters in occulus vr mode.. i7 4790k oc to 4.5ghz gtx 1080 16gb ram... i dont run cumulus clouds cause they look silly at the moment... but everything else is maxed. I like ss at 1.5 cant really tell a difference at 2.0.

    two applications in the background do have an effect.. Mouse without borders cant be running and f.lux cant be changing my screen color.. other than that the game runs nearly flawlessly in almost all circumstances (NYC brings it to it's knees but i still run smoothly)

    Ok so TMC a tiny bit larger than FSET for single areas, but not when want to connect multiple areas to make a larger area?

    I am testing this exact thing this morning. I have two large areas with overlapping coverage. I am doing one round of conversions with tmc larger than image extent, then will do another round of conversions with tmc smaller than image extent...

    will report back with results.