TA + Condor + Occulus Rift = Awesome

[CJ[_3_]]

http://youtu.be/ipbtMJagv5o

Whattaya say Frank? Fancy a wee bit of programming? :)

Casey Jay
B3

[son_of_flubber]

I agree that it would be awesome, but would be impossible to do without access to the source code. Condor is not open-source like XCSoar. While it was state-of-the-art 13 years ago, and it is still a very nice program, it has not kept up with advances in computer graphics.

Given the connection between Condor and recruiting young people to soar, the current locked up dead-in-the-water is extremely unfortunate. It would be a big boost for soaring if a not-for-profit bought the Condor source code for a good price and made it open source. The world of programmer who love to fly would jump in and make it a much much better program with Oculus Rift support and a host of improvements. I think that wearing cool baseball caps will also help to get young people interested in soaring, but opening up Condor would be a huge boost.

Here is some background from the Condor Forums:
Exerpt from http://forum.condorsoaring.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4338&start=135

"The Oculus Rift requires directx >= 11.0 (which was released on October 22, 2009 with Windows 7) or... OpenGL.
It is pretty clear that the current version of Condor which runs with directx 7 (more than 13 years old... released on February 17, 2000 with Windows 2000 back then) has no chance to support the Oculus Rift. (it doesn't support nvidia active 3Dvision stereo either which was released 5 years ago.)

Making Condor directx >= 12.x compatible would no only enable the use of such new technologies but also benefits everybody due to the improvements that were introduced in the last 13 years by the 3D community (nvidia, ati, microsoft, ...)
"

[Tom Gardner[_2_]]

On 29/01/14 13:28, CJ wrote:
> http://youtu.be/ipbtMJagv5o
>
> Whattaya say Frank? Fancy a wee bit of programming? :)
>
> Casey Jay
> B3
>

Last June I posted this. I welcome any comments from
people that have tried and experimented with the Oculus Rift.

A month [i.e. June 2013] ago I went to a talk and demo of a prototype Oculus Rift,
partly because of the possibility of using it with Condor, partly
because I'm a geek, and partly because I've been taking stereoscopic
photos for, gulp, 30 years.

This is my impression of five minutes using it.

When the Oculus headset is on, nothing other than the game scene
can be seen - unlike google glasses where the image is translucent
and you can see round the edge of the glasses.
I was surprised that the headpiece had no adjustments, but
nonetheless the optics gave a good field of view and respectable
stereo effect.

The demo scene was inside a room with internal
upstairs balcony and external garden with tree overlooking a lake.
The resolution was just about adequate for the demo but would,
IMHO, be insufficient for seeing sufficient ground/cloud detail.
Given the choice between stereoscopic vision and increased
resolution, I'd opt for the latter. However, it was a prototype
unit, and I see no reason the resolution could not be significantly
increased.

Rotating my head about all three axes allowed caused the scene
to change in exactly the way I would expect. This effect was
good and compelling.

The stereoscopic effect was not overdone; it looked natural so
that you didn't really notice them. That's the same as in James
Cameron's "Avatar", and unlike the "poke something through the
screen" that you see in most stereo films.

The "avatar" could be translated through the scene using a
standard "top hat" games joystick. Moving forwards rapidly
towards a wall caused me to involuntarily jerk my head back
to avoid hitting the wall - compelling.

Using the joystick to turn the avatar slowly clockwise or
anticlockwise worked as expected. However, doing that rapidly
caused me to feel instantaneously nauseous, to involuntarily
rotate my head up/down and move my shoulders. Most disconcerting.

So, if my head (and therefore my labyrinths) rotated and the
scene moved correspondingly, all was well. If the scene rotated
and my head didn't then I had problems. I conjecture this would
probably be problem when practicing spins, and possibly when
thermalling.

So, overall I really liked the panning effect, but disliked the
resolution and disliked the scene rotating unless caused by my
head's movement.

[Tom K (TK)]

http://technicalillusions.com/

I really feel that this will be the next VR tool vs Oculus Rift.

Simple flight sim demo:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3HGrclGkIE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FhdqMpTgSk

[Tom Gardner[_2_]]

On 29/01/14 16:45, Tom K (TK) wrote:
> http://technicalillusions.com/
>
> I really feel that this will be the next VR tool vs Oculus Rift.
>
> Simple flight sim demo:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3HGrclGkIE
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FhdqMpTgSk

Certainly interesting, but I wouldn't make any comments until
I'd tried it.

What would I look out for when trying it?

1) Resolution, of course. I see no reason to believe either has
a fundamental advantage over the other, although one will always
be better than the other. I suspect either will be sufficient
for basic simulations, just as the 1980s wire-frame models were
better than nothing! Even now an HD display doesn't offer as much
distance far-distance resolution as I would like. (But that may
just be my behind-the-bleeding-edge graphics card!)

2) adjustment and setup. To my surprise the Oculus Rift I tried
neither had nor needed any tweaking when different people tried it.

3) is it stereo? I see no fundamental reason why not, but in
any case I don't think it is necessary for flight simulations.

4) compelling and/or nauseous experience? My guess is it will be
just the same as the Oculus Rift in this respect, because they
both sense head movement and can both have the position of the
virtual head moved by other means. So my questions about spinning
and thermalling remain until I can try them.

The meta-question w.r.t. something like condor is what do we
need to accurately simulate, and why. I'm unconvinced stereo/VR
is necessary, though it might well be desirable.

Now, who is going to let me try those glasses :)

[son_of_flubber]

When we update Condor, VR will be a way to continue flying later in life:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAC5SeNH8jw

[Tom Gardner[_2_]]

For someone's reaction while "on" a rollercoaster (which is a good
analogue of flying a glider in several ways, some of which are
relevant to this discussion), have a look at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ax6YbaUyRi4
starting at 5:20.
His overall comments at 11:00 are worth listening to as well.



On 29/01/14 14:58, Tom Gardner wrote:
> On 29/01/14 13:28, CJ wrote:[i]
>> http://youtu.be/ipbtMJagv5o
>>
>> Whattaya say Frank? Fancy a wee bit of programming? :)
>>
>> Casey Jay
>> B3
>>
>
> Last June I posted this. I welcome any comments from
> people that have tried and experimented with the Oculus Rift.
>
> A month ago I went to a talk and demo of a prototype Oculus Rift,
> partly because of the possibility of using it with Condor, partly
> because I'm a geek, and partly because I've been taking stereoscopic
> photos for, gulp, 30 years.
>
> This is my impression of five minutes using it.
>
> When the Oculus headset is on, nothing other than the game scene
> can be seen - unlike google glasses where the image is translucent
> and you can see round the edge of the glasses.
> I was surprised that the headpiece had no adjustments, but
> nonetheless the optics gave a good field of view and respectable
> stereo effect.
>
> The demo scene was inside a room with internal
> upstairs balcony and external garden with tree overlooking a lake.
> The resolution was just about adequate for the demo but would,
> IMHO, be insufficient for seeing sufficient ground/cloud detail.
> Given the choice between stereoscopic vision and increased
> resolution, I'd opt for the latter. However, it was a prototype
> unit, and I see no reason the resolution could not be significantly
> increased.
>
> Rotating my head about all three axes allowed caused the scene
> to change in exactly the way I would expect. This effect was
> good and compelling.
>
> The stereoscopic effect was not overdone; it looked natural so
> that you didn't really notice them. That's the same as in James
> Cameron's "Avatar", and unlike the "poke something through the
> screen" that you see in most stereo films.
>
> The "avatar" could be translated through the scene using a
> standard "top hat" games joystick. Moving forwards rapidly
> towards a wall caused me to involuntarily jerk my head back
> to avoid hitting the wall - compelling.
>
> Using the joystick to turn the avatar slowly clockwise or
> anticlockwise worked as expected. However, doing that rapidly
> caused me to feel instantaneously nauseous, to involuntarily
> rotate my head up/down and move my shoulders. Most disconcerting.
>
> So, if my head (and therefore my labyrinths) rotated and the
> scene moved correspondingly, all was well. If the scene rotated
> and my head didn't then I had problems. I conjecture this would
> probably be problem when practicing spins, and possibly when
> thermalling.
>
> So, overall I really liked the panning effect, but disliked the
> resolution and disliked the scene rotating unless caused by my
> head's movement.

[son_of_flubber]

On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 12:44:51 PM UTC-5, Tom Gardner wrote:
> For someone's reaction while "on" a rollercoaster (which is a good
> analogue of flying a glider in several ways, some of which are
> relevant to this discussion), have a look at
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ax6YbaUyRi4

I don't think that riding a roller coaster and soaring are quite the same experience. You can't keep your eyes on the horizon on a coaster and that is one good way to tame motion sickness in a glider.

That said, the fact that you can get motion sickness in VR is widely accepted. As noted in your youtube clip, it especially comes to fore when the person is moving around and having inner ear sensations that don't match the visuals. Whether that will happen in Condor with VR is an open question. It's premature to 'say nay'.

I had motion sickness on my first three glider rides and then my brain adapted. Perhaps the same thing will happen with Condor. Many people experience the carry-over of skills from real flying to Condor (and vice-versa). I'd think that motion sickness in a real glider is more of a problem, because your inner ear experiences G-forces that don't match what you are seeing. Sitting in a chair and flying Condor would weaken those confusing inner ear sensations and maybe that would make them less of a problem.

Some people get motion sickness in high end aircraft simulators, but they are still rather useful.

The neurological explanation for motion sickness is pretty interesting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_sickness

[Tom Gardner[_2_]]

On 29/01/14 18:24, son_of_flubber wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 12:44:51 PM UTC-5, Tom Gardner wrote:
>> For someone's reaction while "on" a rollercoaster (which is a good
>> analogue of flying a glider in several ways, some of which are
>> relevant to this discussion), have a look at
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ax6YbaUyRi4
>
> I don't think that riding a roller coaster and soaring are quite the same experience.

**analogue**

> You can't keep your eyes on the horizon on a coaster and that is one good way to tame motion sickness in a glider.

Not always: the one time I had motion sickness in a glider
(for all of 20s in "the vomit comet"), I was in the back seat
looking sideways at the horizon.


> Whether that will happen in Condor with VR is an open question. It's premature to 'say nay'.

Agreed, but I'm not susceptible to motion sickness and have
tried an Oculus Rift - so I know how I'll lay my bet.


> I'd think that motion sickness in a real glider is more of a problem, because your inner ear experiences G-forces that don't match what you are seeing.

That's exactly what happens with an Oculus Rift, so I don't think
it is /more/ of a problem. Plus, as you noted, in a glider you can
look straight ahead at the horizon - and you can't do that with
an Oculus Rift.

> Some people get motion sickness in high end aircraft simulators, but they are still rather useful.

Agreed.

[Whiskey Charlie]

OK I have an even better idea!

Instead using this technology to make a simulator more like flying, how about we make flying more like a simulator?

Just picture it: You get into the cockpit of your glider wearing the Occulus Rift which is streaming video from a camera mounted up on the tail. (this could be wireless or hard-wired up through the fuselage... your choice). Now you can fly around in a third-person perspective!

You can even toggle the "tower view" (just like in Condor) to bring in video from your faithful crew down on the ground who is following the path of your glider with another wireless camera!

You could even switch over to the camera mounted on your friend's head who is at home watching the Superbowl so you can check in on the game during those long, uneventful glides between thermals.

[son_of_flubber]

On Friday, January 31, 2014 3:51:31 PM UTC-5, Whiskey Charlie wrote:

> Instead using this technology to make a simulator more like flying, how about we make flying more like a simulator?

I will not be surprised when pilots get a 360 degree view of the airspace around them without the annoyance of an opaque instrument panel in front of them. Whether that is done by wearing special glasses or plugging a wire into the base of their skulls remains to be seen.

Years from now when that happens, I will probably think that it is a bad thing and not "real flying".

[kirk.stant]

On Friday, January 31, 2014 4:28:46 PM UTC-6, son_of_flubber wrote:

> I will not be surprised when pilots get a 360 degree view of the airspace around them without the annoyance of an opaque instrument panel in front of them. Whether that is done by wearing special glasses or plugging a wire into the base of their skulls remains to be seen.
>
> Years from now when that happens, I will probably think that it is a bad thing and not "real flying".

You don't have to wait years, F-35 pilots have been doing it (or at least trying to do it) for several years now. Called DAS (for Distributed Aperture System), it feeds video into the pilots helmet so that he can look in any direction and see "through" the aircraft structure, day or night.

So join the Air Force (F-35A), Marines (F-35B) or Navy (F-35C) and experience it now!

Of course, it still has a few bugs, nothing a few billion dollars won't fix....

Kirk
66

[Bob Gibbons[_2_]]

On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 14:47:03 -0800 (PST), "kirk.stant"
> wrote:

>On Friday, January 31, 2014 4:28:46 PM UTC-6, son_of_flubber wrote:
>
> I will not be surprised when pilots get a 360 degree view of the airspace
> around them without the annoyance of an opaque instrument panel in front
> of them. Whether that is done by wearing special glasses or plugging a wire
> into the base of their skulls remains to be seen.
>
> Years from now when that happens, I will probably think that it is a bad thing
> and not "real flying".
>
>> You don't have to wait years, F-35 pilots have been doing it (or at least trying to do it)
>> for several years now. Called DAS (for Distributed Aperture System), it feeds
>> video into the pilots helmet so that he can look in any direction and see "through" the
>> aircraft structure, day or night.
>
>> So join the Air Force (F-35A), Marines (F-35B) or Navy (F-35C) and experience it now!
>
>> Of course, it still has a few bugs, nothing a few billion dollars won't fix...
>
>Kirk
>66

For those interested in what this might look like, Raytheon has a
competing product (ADAS) mounted in a helicopter. Here's a link to
some promotional video of flight imagery.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16iW9mKJSuc

Bob

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 8:28:12 AM UTC-5, CJ wrote:
> http://youtu.be/ipbtMJagv5o
>
>
>
> Whattaya say Frank? Fancy a wee bit of programming? :)
>
>
>
> Casey Jay
>
> B3

Well, that is definitely an awesome trucking game, and the viewing control was pretty impressive. However, the current Condor setup works very nicely with the $150 TrackIR5 Pro head-tracking system from Natural Point. Not sure that completely revamping the program for an unknown improvement in immersion would qualify for 'the best and highest' use of my time ;-)

TA

[son_of_flubber]

I agree that for the purpose of learning how to fly XC in gliders, that Condor works passably well with a head tracker.

But here is a glimpse of the competition... fly as an eagle in a photo realistic depiction of the Alps http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1y_5ceZt1-4