New material for flat and cylindrical displays

Hi Everybody.

 

I finally managed to develop something for all DIY projects with hardware cockpits.

 

The new material is suitable for making flat or curved projection displays up to 360º Fov. The quality of the image is better than rear projection TV and on par with same size plasma. The coatings absorb scattered light and amplify projector light - the base material is flexible enough to be rolled and stiff enough to support itself it is same type of plastic as F-15 cockpits (even from the same company) - that means the material is shatterproof, fireproof and even bullet and blast resistant :pilotfly:

 

Here are some highlights:

 

* Extreme ambient light tolerance

* Ultra high contrast and colors

* Excellent gain

* No glare surface

* Significantly reduces hot spotting

* Ultra wide viewing angle

 

 

 

Plans for the frame and projector holders and drawings for CNC are provided for free with the display and one sheet (for 270º FOV system same as on photos which is display with 245" diagonal is $1700).

 

PS: before posting barrage of comments about Oculus Rift please consider following:

 

I've been big fan of 3D googles and virtual helmets since the VFX and I've been using and collecting 3D goggles till 2010 - to the point when I've learned the hard way how expensive is using cheap 3D goggles (exchanged my 3D goggles for prescription glasses). After Oculus Rift announcement I've been quite excited and stopped all my projects for home DIY because I thought everything else will be obsolete - but then I've tried OCR I found that the only new and innovative thing about OCR is just marketing...

 

Whatever you do and however you look at it OC Rift is still the same tiny display with very low resolution viewed from very close proximity which allows you only stare ahead (if you want to look around you must move your head) and that will make you severely nauseated and dizzy if you don't restrict and precisely control your movement. And comparing OC rift to big surround screen is like comparing the first iPhone to IMAX cinema.

Edited April 11, 2014 by zahry

Is this different to the earlier material you had been using?

 

Cheers

 

Peter

Hi Peter,

 

Yes - This is new material (coatings) I've just finished developing (1 year of experiments and R&D) and it is for front projection = much easier to make, set up and keep calibrated than the rear projection. The base is made from much thicker material so it keeps shape and perfect curve and there is no need for tensioning. (I use it for everything now - minimum order for the plastic was couple of tons so I have plenty in stock :D )

Way cool. Do you need/have special software/hardware to compensate for the curve? How many 1080p projectors would you use to fill the view? I'm currently running 3 39" TV's for a 180 degree FOV.

John

 

HOLY CRAP! I just went to your website. Time to trash the TV's... Anyone have a bucket of cash I can borrow?

Edited April 11, 2014 by Thick8

It's cool for a full pit, but I disagree with you about OR... this from years of sim hardware experience, plus the only person to build a full cube projection display.

Way cool. Do you need/have special software/hardware to compensate for the curve? How many 1080p projectors would you use to fill the view? I'm currently running 3 39" TV's for a 180 degree FOV.

John

 

HOLY CRAP! I just went to your website. Time to trash the TV's... Anyone have a bucket of cash I can borrow?

 

Hi Thick8 - Yes- there is a software for warping and blending - it costs 180eur for PC locked license and it supports up to 6 projectors - I use one 1080p projector for 90º. I replaced my tv with one sheet that i have got "left over" :D

 

It's cool for a full pit, but I disagree with you about OR... this from years of sim hardware experience, plus the only person to build a full cube projection display.

 

Hi Flim, just a quick question - have you used 3D goggles before and have you used it extensively? Angular resolution is one killer for OCR (i would say good res is 1920pixels per 90º and OCR has only 600 pixels per 90º - that's good for minecraft and virtual world (game) but that's about it. Another killer for me is the fact it is not full fledged 3D but just another stereoscopic device. To explain what I mean - eye works like a camera (or vice versa) if you close one eye put your thumb in front of the other one and focus on the thumb it will be sharp and background will be blurred. If you'll focus on something in the background it will look sharp and thumb will be blurred. If that is not featured in the 3D googles it will mess with your vision and cause high eyestrain, headaches, nausea and fatigue (because everything will be sharp regardless if you are focusing on it or not). Another issue is the tracking system - it's incomplete and not accurate enough - I had quite good 6DoF tracking for my 3D goggles but even though I used to have problems with balance after long sessions and I still sometimes do even though I've stopped using it completely. 3D goggles (OCR included) are ok for short sessions occasionally and preferably if you sit still and watch content from fixed vantage point camera - I would not use it for long sessions, frequently or for dynamic content with frequent head movement. Definitely not in the form they are intending to sell it. I guess the guys figured these things and few of the others "little" hooks and rather passed the lemon to Facebook.

sorry. i dont have space for this.

oculus pwns curved projection because

1) i dont need a whole room to house a curved screen.

2) i have to play at low-med settings with 30 fps because i dont have a hefty beast machine to run super high resolutions on a curve screen.

 

the curve screen are good for the people who have a whole cockpit panels, switches ejection seat...

Hi hannibal, yes - the curved screens are most beneficial for people who have a whole cockpit panels, switches, ejection seat and yes - it requires some space.

 

As per your OCR comments - and I have to ask before engaging in further conversation on that subject - Are those based on personal experience with both systems or are those based on shared belief and expectations created by skilled marketing department and hyped up people on forums?

 

As I stated earlier comparing tiny OCR displays with big projection surround system is like comparing watching movies on cellphones and watching movie in IMAX cinema.

I would like to back up my claims by some verifiable experiment - Not very many people have a projection system and 3D goggles to compare but following test should be possible for most people:

 

1) Go to cinema to watch a movie

2) black out 30% of the cellphone screen on each side (60% altogether - it will give you same or better resolution than Rift)

3) Put the cellphone close to your face to make it look same size as the cinema screen and and watch the same movie.

4) compare the experience and let me know which one you think is better

 

or even easier test - ask your optometrist about watching tiny back lit screens from very close distance through cheap generic lenses - why I mention it? because my experience cost me now about $4000 in prescription glasses and my aviation medical is lot more complicated .... (just my 5 cents)

Hi Thick8 - Yes- there is a software for warping and blending - it costs 180eur for PC locked license and it supports up to 6 projectors - I use one 1080p projector for 90º. I replaced my tv with one sheet that i have got "left over" :D

 

Given I'm got a physical pit, and exploring this option right now, tell me more:

1: Did you use a short throw projector for the 90 view?

2: Whats the diameter of the curved screen?

3: And how much is this likely to cost to ship to Oz?

 

Cheers

 

Peter

Hi hannibal, yes - the curved screens are most beneficial for people who have a whole cockpit panels, switches, ejection seat and yes - it requires some space.

 

As per your OCR comments - and I have to ask before engaging in further conversation on that subject - Are those based on personal experience with both systems or are those based on shared belief and expectations created by skilled marketing department and hyped up people on forums?

 

As I stated earlier comparing tiny OCR displays with big projection surround system is like comparing watching movies on cellphones and watching movie in IMAX cinema.

I would like to back up my claims by some verifiable experiment - Not very many people have a projection system and 3D goggles to compare but following test should be possible for most people:

 

1) Go to cinema to watch a movie

2) black out 30% of the cellphone screen on each side (60% altogether - it will give you same or better resolution than Rift)

3) Put the cellphone close to your face to make it look same size as the cinema screen and and watch the same movie.

4) compare the experience and let me know which one you think is better

 

or even easier test - ask your optometrist about watching tiny back lit screens from very close distance through cheap generic lenses - why I mention it? because my experience cost me now about $4000 in prescription glasses and my aviation medical is lot more complicated .... (just my 5 cents)

 

Have you used the rift... in the current form, new update? I have used both... check out my cube thread! I tested a 5 projection (360+180 vertical) system... was cool, but still cannot compare to the immersion (rift) from a computer chair. That is why I sold all of my projectors and went with seat control mount only option. Plus... it saves so much space, which allows a person to have a fixed wing and helo setup (seat & controls) in a small space. Once Dk2 is released followed by CV1, it will be no contest and a majority of the simmers here will be using it. I called this a long time ago... ask Matt!

Not to cause any more tension, because there really are plusses and minuses to both systems, and you both have very valid points. (If I had the money, I would definitely have a projection system right now. I'll also be buying an OCR because really, it's freaking cool!)

 

However, I do have one thing I must disagree with you, Flim. You say that once they finally release the actual product that the majority of the simmers here will be using it. That one I personally don't see happening. At least for the majority of the simmers in this particular forum. (In the sense that this forum is for pit builders.) To make it as realistic as possible, with your portal to the outside and the only thing being simulated is through the cockpit windscreen, or monitor. With the OCR, that makes this space, and all we're doing here, obsolete. I don't see that happening.

 

Like I said, I'll be getting an OCR. Maybe one day it will be of a resolution and immersion that you will forget it's not real. But until that time, reality (or what we're trying to achieve here simulating reality) to me will always be better. Unfortunately, unless the curved projection system, which is the ultimate in immersion simulation for physical builds, drops in price and setup challenges, most will simply be using a monitor.

 

Now the rest of the forum? Who knows, you might be right! In fact, I wish I had an OCR right now, but not for the A-10C. My physical pit will always trump a computer one. To say otherwise would be admitting we're all wasting our time, talents, and money. :(

Everyone has their opinions... I'm just stating where I see things going! I'm all about immersion and have 300+ hours in level D full motion sims to 7000 hours of real flight time. Also, I have built and tested every home visual option available, including the so called holy grail projection system. I can tell it's okay, but for the money, space, time, immersion... the Rift will be more used than 2d monitors in the near future.

Hi Flim,

 

I agree with you that it saves space and I agree it will have bit better immersion than cube - as you might found out cube has fixed viewing point and as soon as you move from it a bit the image geometry distorts and parallax error creeps in progressively, also in cube eyes have to constantly refocus at different distance as you look around which makes it very awkward to use. From that point of view 3D goggles could be improvement but that's about it. Rift will have certainly some entertainment value for minecraft style games and some kind of private entertainment but not for simulation with any kind of fidelity or flight realism.

 

I agree with you - there will be tons of people falling to the marketing trap. My excitement from my first 3D goggles lasted about 2 months and I thought it was the best thing since sliced bread, then I started noticing the first adverse effects and after I got my prescription glasses I've spend considerable amount of time educating myself about the various issues 3D goggles bring to the table - and there is enough for a book -you can not see your hands, lifting the goggles breaks immersion immediately, no peripheral vision (sorry - rift is providing as much peripheral vision as periscope), no 3D (rift still has only pseudo 3D stereoscopy which is not suitable for long term use), it still causes nausea and headaches because of design flaws and unless the lenses in the goggles are made very precisely and by optometrist specifically for you it is very likely it will harm your vision.

In rift design - old and new - still have the same problems as all 3D goggles before. If you'll be in NZ bring your rift or I can lend you the one and I can show you things you won't find in marketing brochures :D and you can compare it with different simulation systems.

There is of course the third answer that takes elements of both concepts and combines them - real life pit and a projected display - The CastAR headset out later this year.

 

It just seems the perfect symbiosis between the love of creating/flying custom pits and the need for a working display to go with it.

 

Yes, it does still lack peripheral vision, but combine with a second headsets projectors to increase FOV and you might be on to a winner.

 

Plus, it's going to be cheap as chips! (kinda)

 

That said, I have no idea of viability until a developers kit comes out to test properly. It might not work at all :music_whistling:

If I would have enogh room space and money I would definetly vote for big curved screen and physical cockpit.

hmm, I remember that display of the old unsuccessfully Kinney Kickstarter.

There is of course the third answer that takes elements of both concepts and combines them - real life pit and a projected display - The CastAR headset out later this year.

 

It just seems the perfect symbiosis between the love of creating/flying custom pits and the need for a working display to go with it.

 

Yes, it does still lack peripheral vision, but combine with a second headsets projectors to increase FOV and you might be on to a winner.

 

Plus, it's going to be cheap as chips! (kinda)

 

That said, I have no idea of viability until a developers kit comes out to test properly. It might not work at all :music_whistling:

 

+1 on CastAR - there is a massive potential and I love their inventiveness and ingenuity. I think it has massive potential to enhance the cockpit environment

hmm, I remember that display of the old unsuccessfully Kinney Kickstarter.

The unsucessfull Kickstarter was actually about F35 for DCS and it is a pity it didn't worked out. Otherwise the screens are actually mine and dave had trial dealership for USA- but then he got into the F35 project and that was about it.

 

- unfortunately the TITAN HD is too expensive for most, too big and heavy, very complex to setup, physical cockpits just don't fit in and the FoV is so huge that correct acceleration cueing is necessity - it's OK for businesses and so on but not so much for home entertainment (ED just got one). I was using the same technology for home systems but it still required lot of space around and it required some skills to set it up. From the feedback I've got in past few years I made a wishlist and decided to lock myself in a workshop until I invent some material that would fit the bill - relatively cheap, with simple frame, with lot of room inside but compact, useable in all sorts of light conditions and easy to setup even for somebody who never done it before and cannot distinguish between nail and hammer without a label. I think the new material might be the right stuff and I'm providing free plans for the frame, projector holders and setup with it.
Edited April 14, 2014 by zahry

Given I'm got a physical pit, and exploring this option right now, tell me more:

1: Did you use a short throw projector for the 90 view?

2: Whats the diameter of the curved screen?

3: And how much is this likely to cost to ship to Oz?

 

Cheers

 

Peter

zahry,

 

This looks interesting. I need full dimension on this to check my cockpit and basement space.

 

Do you have a full recommended setup including projector mounting? One constraint I have is I can't use full screen mode for warping software as I'm not willing to give up my MFCD screens.

Yes, the dimensions for a 3 projectors setup would help us figure out if we have the room/space or not.

coming right up! I'm doing some models for sketchup as well that will be available for download.

 

Attached are drawings for 2 projector version.

 

 

 

 

I forgot to mention - to get 180º Fov with 2 projectors ( or ~270º with 3 projectors) you need to cover 100º-105º per projector - that was previously impossible (and with normal materials it still is unless you have purpose designed first surface curved mirrors) due to hotspotting. There is no noticeable hotspotting with the new material. :)

It is very interesting the screen is black I would really like to see the quality of the image .I have just never seen a black projection screen before

To explain what I mean - eye works like a camera (or vice versa) if you close one eye put your thumb in front of the other one and focus on the thumb it will be sharp and background will be blurred. If you'll focus on something in the background it will look sharp and thumb will be blurred. If that is not featured in the 3D googles it will mess with your vision and cause high eyestrain, headaches, nausea and fatigue (because everything will be sharp regardless if you are focusing on it or not).

 

Though I disagree that products such as the Rift are going to fail, I think this is a very good and fair critique. It is not unsolvable however. The technical name for this is "accommodation convergence conflict". There are already demonstrations of this being solved (

), but much progress still needs to be made. So that being said, I completely understand your desire to hold off on the Rift and build a pit. However, projectors and products like castAR do not solve this problem either, but I can understand that finding a product comfortable for the duration one uses it for to be very important. If the Rift isn't comfortable, then hold out until a company gets it right for you.

 

Think of it this way. There is a potential display out there that meets all of our requirements and will be built, but if companies like Oculus flop, it only prolongs the coming of such technology. Perhaps they will, but I think, like Flim is saying, this time it is not going to flop. Though the Oculus does not solve all the problems, it solves many of them good enough to be a viable commercial product. This industry, in an economically viable way, is only getting started--there is much beyond Oculus!

Edited April 15, 2014 by Razi

Hi Razi, I think Oculus rift is success already - not because of technical innovation but purely because of clever marketing.

 

Before rift kickstarter I even tried to make one of these http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=5582&start=0) and later on http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:31758 .

 

The link you posted is actually very interesting andit is definitely educational, if these features will be introduced to 3D googles it would make it better for sure. I do not object to the idea of 3D goggles and inovation - quite the contrary - having 3D goggles was my dream since I was a kid - but what I strongly oppose is pretending to innovate by calling old things new names and fooling people with no experience or knowledge about 3D and misleading them to believe they will have Matrix style experience just like rift marketing team does - that's just not gonna happen with this equipment.

 

At the moment Rift is just the same stereoscope as devices hundred years ago - only with much worst resolution but it moves. What eyes see are just two 2D pictures with different paralax - for the brain it is just two rough conflicting images which the brain is forced to interpret as 3D - introduce to it errors in optical train and inaccurate and incomplete tracking and you have a bunch of problems. I know the problems will get sorted in a future, same as with oled tvs did. But it is not solved yet and question is how long it will take to get to consumer market, how much it will cost and if it will be useable for certain purpose.

 

regarding the accommodation convergence conflict - with projectors and curved displays there is actually no problem because it is 2D at constant distance. The projection screen is usually far away from eyes and in 2D it is treated by the brain just as a flat picture so there is nothing conflicting for the brain apart from lack of physical acceleration cues.

Edited April 15, 2014 by zahry