Re: Virtual I/O Head Tracker

New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

Russ Navarre (rnavarre++at++ford.com)
Fri, 22 Sep 1995 07:26:34 -0400


Mechanical tracking is much more accurate. You guys should check out
Fakespace. Their 3C boom is very expensive but the new 'Pivot' boom
which was introduced at SIGGRAPH this year is less expensive. Getting
away from a head-coupled device is nice too.

On Sep 21, 7:31pm, Kent Miller wrote:
> Subject: Re: Virtual I/O Head Tracker
> > I have written a head tracker driver library for the Virtual
> >I/O Glasses. I found that the tracker is very noisy. I do an sproc so
> >that I can collect data faster than I am using it. This allows me
> >to average a few samples before they are used. I have written
> >a filter but I still get a lot of jitter. Has anyone else written
> >a decent filter for it?
> >
> I wrote a damper for our Polhemus FASTRAK. It's ok, but you always have the
> smooth vs. fast response problem. The more you damp, the more you feel like
> your head's stuck in molasses. Try playing around with the number of samples
> you average, and the cone angle of the dead spot. For the Polhemus, the best
> mix is about 20 samples with a 3-degree cone.
>
> This year's SIGGRAPH papers included one on predicting head motion - I
> suppose you could spend a couple of months turning that into code (and post
> it here!). That way you can have it both ways.
>
>
>-- End of excerpt from Kent Miller

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Russ Navarre				Phone: (313) 322-9588
Adv. Graphics Software Developer 	Fax:   (313) 594-1193
Ford Motor Company			Email: rnavarre++at++ford.com
Room 1122, Building#5			
20000 Rotunda Drive
Dearborn, MI 48121
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Mon Aug 10 1998 - 17:51:54 PDT

This message has been cleansed for anti-spam protection. Replace '++at++' in any mail addresses with the '@' symbol.