Createing a spot style deadzone, and not cross shaped

[warrentheo]

Hello, just got my TrackIR 5, and checking it out. Trying to get used to it in ArmA 2. After playing with the controls for a while, I think I have it mostly configured the way I want, except for one thing....

I have the speeds and such working correctly, but when trying to create a "dead-zone" in the middle, I can only affect an entire axis. This works mostly, but when looking off to on side or the other, pitch is still dead-zoned. I am trying to see if there is a way to make the deadzone a spot around the X/Y origin, and not a cross....

I appreciate you help, and thank you before hand

[VincentG]

You would need to adjust the dead zone for all axis movement.

[fqa]

hmm. Vincent, I don't think you quite understood the original poster. I am on the forums looking for hints for what I think is the same thing Warrentheo is asking for:

I would like to adjust my dead zone such that breaking it for one rotation axis also broke it for the other rotation axes.

For example, if I have a deadzone on all rotation axes equal to 10 deg and I Yaw 45 deg, I would now not want to Pitch 10 deg before I can start looking up - I want that response immediately.

I.e. other related deadzones should fade as one of them approaches edge. I imagine this not being the easiest thing to implements, as the curves might have to be dynamically adjusted, or a completely new scheme for setting up input to output.

This would make it a "Spot" deadzone. Quite like the name

Same for the directional axes would make it a "Cube" (Volume) deadzone.

[NaturalPoint - Mike]

Interesting idea. We can try to look into this for upcoming versions. I'll pass it along.

[fqa]

these might be best implemented on the generated head direction vector (or rather "ray").

oowh, i've already solved the problem in my head (minor pun intended), now i can't wait to experience it..

[phildogtheman]

Had Track IR 5 for a day now and there was something about the movement I just didn't like when setting up deadzones. "One to one" with the speed up was absolutely fine and feels very natural, but for games like Arma 2 a deadzone is needed for precision.

I played about a bit and came to realise what I was after was exactly what the OP is talking about. I am stunned that this isn't a standard feature.

It feels like my head is on rails that I have to snap off of to look around and it is incredibly frustrating, the only solution I have come up with is to just enable a deadzone for yaw and not pitch, which results in head bobbing as a side effect.

I am slightly appalled that I have just forked out �130 for this equipment and it doesn't even have a feature which is strikingly obvious missing. Especially when this issue was brought to the developers attention 2 years ago?!

[fqa]

don't be so harsh now. the issue was originally misunderstood, and clarified about year and a half later; when it was also acknowledged by the support team.

but, your disappointment is still valid; so, how's it progressing, guys?

[Seth Steiling]

Hi guys,

The initial request was kind of lost in the shuffle, but we've since explored this a bit internally. In short, there are problems with it.

Creating a seamless spot deadzone would require equal scaling for all axes that the deadzone applied to. Realistically this limits it to Yaw and Pitch (which is probably OK, because those are the axes where the "rails" effect is most noticeable). Even with that limitation, it's unlikely that identical scaling for those axes will yield a desirable result, as Yaw is typically scaled more than Pitch.

If we did lock Yaw and Pitch together, we'd also need a new profile customization system to address the nature of spatially configuring a gradated dampening system in 3D. This isn't necessarily impossible, but would require a significant UI revamp and a re-conceptualization of how users customize their motion.

We're still chewing on it, and we do think the feature request is a good one. We're just trying to figure out if we can realistically implement it.

- Seth

[fqa]

I understand that the spot deadzone is easier if the axes are locked, but don't see the requirement.

Also, I think you could get away without any major UI revamp, just a "small" new (experimental) feature added.

I was hoping you would employ me to implement this , but as I need the feature more than I need the job, I'm just gonna lay out my ideas right here:

(This is difficult to explain using only words, but I will give it a go.)

Create a new kind of control point, one which can be affected by the movement of another axis. For experimental version, lets say that this control point must be closest to the middle control point and yield the same value, usually zero. Let's call these "deadzone control points".

Now imagine the two connected axes on the same graph, perpendicular to each other, crossing at each other's origin, and a spot (deadzone) area around the origins.

This spot might be circular for axes with same scaling, or oval (wider in either way) for the general case. The exact shape is determine by the distance of the deadzone control points from their respective middle points.

Create a function for one axis value at the edge of the spot over the other axis true value.

An axis current deadzone might now be calculated as the (above) function value over the other other axis true value.

This means that when yawing, the pitch deadzone will contract. I.e. its deadzone control points will "move" towards the middle.

After, and if, this works, and the quirks worked out, one could remove some restrictions from the deadzone control points and discover new and fun behavior.

[fqa]

any news?