General Category > Unofficial F/A-18 Acceleration Pack board
Collimated HUD
Razgriz:
Good lord Scott, you like making long posts, eh?
Edit:
Would you mind also making the clipping area much smaller, the hud size smaller, and a little more transparent?
References:
http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php?topic=3093.msg26142#msg26142
http://www.fsdreamteam.com/forum/index.php?topic=3093.msg26146#msg26146
Orion:
I think long posts (with good content) are brilliant ;D.
Paddles:
That's right. ;D
Scott
thank you very much for enlightening and detailed explanation. I agree that the common sense didn't work again. :)
saprintz:
--- Quote from: fsxnavypilot on May 17, 2010, 10:03:27 am ---That's right. ;D
Scott
thank you very much for enlightening and detailed explanation. I agree that the common sense didn't work again. :)
--- End quote ---
Well, I should be more clear: I'm not 100% SURE that gauge-based can't work. I just know that so far it hasn't. And based on some of the circumstances, it seems very likely that if it could be done (done "good enough", heheh), it would have been done by now. In fact, I know people who were fooling with the gauge-only, delta eyepoint approach probably around 4 years ago, as soon as FSX came out. You can see the stir it was back in the avsim panel & gauge forum. I always like examples... and I THINK (but am not positive I'm recalling correctly) that Jon Blum was trying model-independent, delta eyepoint methods YEARS ago. Not positive. But in fact, I don't recall the model-based approach discussed much at all. (We were *gauge* people after all!) I'll admit I didn't even know enough to even consider that a model-based solution was possible. Then I get a very casual e-mail from someone, model attached, with the question: "do you think this effect could be useful?" Uhm.... YEAH!! A buried treasure. (I'm not saying he's the 1st; I have no idea.) But THAT WAS the model solution, the first time I'd seen it, and it was breathtaking to fly it the 1st time. And my *immediate* fantasy reverted back to a great F/A-18 HUD. So I'm really glad to be involved here, especially since it's strictly for the fun of it. (Enough gauge stress already, and this Hornet stuff is cathartic....)
I hope that the long post up above was illuminating. We do know what we're doing here with the Hornet collimation attempt, promise. We've just gotta play the odds. (I hope others, those lone wolf basement developers, will still pursue gauge-based though!) I want a collimated Hornet HUD possibly more than anyone. Because I was in it before even "just" conformality had been properly done. I *got into gauge design* in the first place, handful of hours a week, for the very REASON of making a good F/A-18 HUD; conformality was the goal and first big achievement (though I had no knowledge of the two actual "C" words), and IT is now somewhat commonplace, thankfully. (Those were the pre-FSX days, w/ more people still flying 2D, no TrackIR and all that, so the impetus for a "fixed" HUD (collimation) was not so great until the lack of it became so dreadfully obvious after scenery conformity.
Okay, one last thing, just to keep it positive and look on some bright sides. This is for Track IR users, probably most of us, and it may seem like common sense, but I'm positive a few TrackIRers haven't considered it... but... do consider settling for an alternate, "special" TrackIR profile, w/ significant reduction in head movement features, to be used for conformal but not collimated HUDs. By limiting left, right, up, down, in, and out, but with ROTATION, I think enjoyabilty may actually increase. I know it seems *barbaric* to start turning off things that are the very reason of the product's existence, bur when using this profile, the HUD symbols within FSX will stay not just scaled, but conformal all the time -- no annoying reminders of the lack of collimation. It's great, after getting over the initial hump. (I sent a couple of people the right kind of profile, anyone else who'd like it, I'm happy to send to them too. But all you do is disable everything but swivel.) And w/ something like JR's adaptation and enhancements of my original HUD (he is a really talented guy!), it's GREAT. Perspective, for me, was thinking back to the mid-90's and Graphsim's Hornet Korea, MiG Alley, or especially Parsoft's A-10 Attack (THE most underestimated sim of all time!!!), and imagine how incredible they would've been with just swivel-only TrackIR. Great fun. (Ahhhhh, memories of those old sims... ;-)
Okay gents (and any ladies), no *incredibly* long-winded post this time. (Right....heheh.) But thanks everyone for the feedback, the pictures, the information, and all that. It is overall very helpful and encouraging.
Paddles:
Ok guys, here's a quick (and dirty) test of this 'barbaric' approach 8)
I set an alternative Freetrack profile with only yaw and pitch axes enabled. Sure, it will take some time to get used to this setup. And Scott is right that there are no enjoyability losses, no collimation issues...
Sludge, I like your latest setup, it really gives more power, no need for burner.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version