quote:Originally posted by Charlie:
You fail to comprehend...
Thanks for proving the point I have been making all along.Haha This is getting out of hand, but just for the fun of it, I'm going to try to explain once more what i meant. (Don't like being misunderstood and stupified)
-You said it would not work with TrackIR2, due to the lower imaging resolution.
-I thought it still should be possible to code for the TrackIR2
-Jim from naturalopoint said it theoretically would work with TrackIR2, since the caculations are software, but that the lower resolution would not track the vector precisely enough, and that's just the answer i was looking for
"The TIR1/2 would work with the same math and vector clip in addition to it not being precise enough for good tracking quality"
ergo:. It would be possible to code a Vector Expansion for the TrackIR2, but it would not be enjoyable since it's not precise enough, and it would not work as good as the Trackir3.
Now, please tell me what i fail to comprehend.
TrackIR 2 Support?
Re: TrackIR 2 Support?
Maybe I can help explain MrGnome.
Basically what Jim is saying is that from a basic technical standpoint it is physically possible to pull it off with a TrackIR1 or TrackIR2.
What Charlie is telling you is that while it is physically possible it would work so poorly as to be pretty much useless.
The reason is behind the resolution of the scanning unit. It simply does not have the resolution to track the multiple targets and give a stable setup.
So Jim, being a smart businessman, realizes that it costs money to support a product. If he were a bad businessman he would go ahead and sell it to people who insist to use it on the TrackIR1/2 systems, but then he would be faced with all the people coming on here bugging him about how it works like crap. That costs time. And time is money.
Also, since Jim is a smart businessman, he also knows that reputation goes a long way in this industry. When people become unstatisfied with the performance on the upgrade on thier TrackIR1/2 they will not just complain here. They will go everywhere they can. It is a truism that a happy customer tends to say nothing but an unhappy customer will tell as many people he can that he is unhappy.
So basically Charlie is right, for the reasons that Jim presented: The TrackIR1/2 simply does not have the hardware required to support this system.
And believe me when I say I feel your pain.
I upgraded my TrackIR1 to a TrackIR2 about a week after the public announcement of TrackIR3.
Basically what Jim is saying is that from a basic technical standpoint it is physically possible to pull it off with a TrackIR1 or TrackIR2.
What Charlie is telling you is that while it is physically possible it would work so poorly as to be pretty much useless.
The reason is behind the resolution of the scanning unit. It simply does not have the resolution to track the multiple targets and give a stable setup.
So Jim, being a smart businessman, realizes that it costs money to support a product. If he were a bad businessman he would go ahead and sell it to people who insist to use it on the TrackIR1/2 systems, but then he would be faced with all the people coming on here bugging him about how it works like crap. That costs time. And time is money.
Also, since Jim is a smart businessman, he also knows that reputation goes a long way in this industry. When people become unstatisfied with the performance on the upgrade on thier TrackIR1/2 they will not just complain here. They will go everywhere they can. It is a truism that a happy customer tends to say nothing but an unhappy customer will tell as many people he can that he is unhappy.
So basically Charlie is right, for the reasons that Jim presented: The TrackIR1/2 simply does not have the hardware required to support this system.
And believe me when I say I feel your pain.
I upgraded my TrackIR1 to a TrackIR2 about a week after the public announcement of TrackIR3.
Re: TrackIR 2 Support?
Hehe. Well that wraps it up nicely, hehe
Just what I tried to say in my post too Though Yours was much clearer, I agree. Thanx
I understand Naturalpoint fully though, I would probably have made the same decision.
but for me 129+40 is just too much at this point. So I'm gonna be stuck with 1 point tracking for some time. Perhaps that's good. We'll just wait until more titles support 6DOF, and buy a better TrackIR 4 or whatever comes next.
Happy tracking, friend.
off topic:
btw, I have always wondered. What is the little hole in the side of trackIR2? looks like something can be plugged in there.
Any ideas?
Just what I tried to say in my post too Though Yours was much clearer, I agree. Thanx
I understand Naturalpoint fully though, I would probably have made the same decision.
but for me 129+40 is just too much at this point. So I'm gonna be stuck with 1 point tracking for some time. Perhaps that's good. We'll just wait until more titles support 6DOF, and buy a better TrackIR 4 or whatever comes next.
Happy tracking, friend.
off topic:
btw, I have always wondered. What is the little hole in the side of trackIR2? looks like something can be plugged in there.
Any ideas?