Hello everyone.
Got an email with a request for a full motion simulator to be used with GP Bikes.
Does anyone know of someone who could create one?
Isn't that an email from me? I have send you one couple of months ago but with no replay. I'm building a full motion bike simulator.
Or am I not understanding you correctly. You were requested to sell someone a full motion bike simulator based on GP Bikes?
Nearest i have seen is this, could try contacting the seller 8). Need a big living room though
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/MOTORBIKE-VIDEO-GAME-SIM-MOTOGP-ROSSI-MARQUEZ-MANX-TT-McGUINNESS-SBK-BSB-XMAS-/321588964953?pt=UK_Video_Games_Coin_Operated_MJ&hash=item4ae0322e59
Quote from: h106frp on November 19, 2014, 05:40:46 PM
Nearest i have seen is this, could try contacting the seller 8). Need a big living room though
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/MOTORBIKE-VIDEO-GAME-SIM-MOTOGP-ROSSI-MARQUEZ-MANX-TT-McGUINNESS-SBK-BSB-XMAS-/321588964953?pt=UK_Video_Games_Coin_Operated_MJ&hash=item4ae0322e59
not quite expensive mdr ;D
Quote from: h106frp on November 19, 2014, 05:40:46 PM
Nearest i have seen is this, could try contacting the seller 8). Need a big living room though
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/MOTORBIKE-VIDEO-GAME-SIM-MOTOGP-ROSSI-MARQUEZ-MANX-TT-McGUINNESS-SBK-BSB-XMAS-/321588964953?pt=UK_Video_Games_Coin_Operated_MJ&hash=item4ae0322e59
It was an email from a company that organizes events for manufacturers, so it must be a professional platform, not a toy.
If possible, please provide a link to a website and a contact that can be forwarded to companies asking for a full motion simulator.
http://www.simutech.de/Motorradsimulator.htm (http://www.simutech.de/Motorradsimulator.htm)
http://www.vrproject.de/simulatoren/motorbike-simulator/ (http://www.vrproject.de/simulatoren/motorbike-simulator/) !
http://www.bestsim.de/motorradsimulator_f1simulatorvermietung.html (http://www.bestsim.de/motorradsimulator_f1simulatorvermietung.html)
On the french forum, Sh@rk creates something that may be interesting.
Look into this thread (from last post up, to see his most recent creations): http://forum.motonline-france.com/viewtopic.php?f=60&t=1168&start=270
In principle, I don't really like his approach (lean angle is passive and mixes with steering angle to provide GPB "steer" input), but it seems to be pretty effective.
I think he recently snatched some "sort of pro" contracts.
MaX.
The motorrad looks good, nice if they added force feedback to the suspension with a couple of vertical rams and some torsional feedback horizontally through the front wheel
http://www.youtube.com/v/SRz7W_E0HOI
Company Manufacturer: http://motorbike-simulator.com/en/home/ (http://motorbike-simulator.com/en/home/)
Hawk.
Wow!!
Really guys? Can't you see that all of those "simulators" are useless? What are they simulating? With all that wobling left/right front/back ? Where is the usage of gravity to simulate acceleration? there is force feedback on the handlebars? Where is information about position on the bike even gathered? Every single one you have shown are shity work.
Need the rider to be putting more physical effort in though for true simulation experience, the rider in the clip does not give the impression of someone trying to tame a 200+bhp bike
Quote from: JJS209 on November 19, 2014, 06:37:30 PM
http://www.simutech.de/Motorradsimulator.htm (http://www.simutech.de/Motorradsimulator.htm)
http://www.vrproject.de/simulatoren/motorbike-simulator/ (http://www.vrproject.de/simulatoren/motorbike-simulator/) !
http://www.bestsim.de/motorradsimulator_f1simulatorvermietung.html (http://www.bestsim.de/motorradsimulator_f1simulatorvermietung.html)
Unfortunately none of these is a proper motion platform.
Also, the platform should work with GP Bikes.
There was a company at the NEC birmingham piston heads show!
F1 sim suspended in the air with hydraulics.. Best sim experience of my life.. (sit in car, size of a go-kart, 3 monitor setup in front of you) Il find out the company when I get home. Unless somebody else knows what I mean? They can post..
Quote from: Furious on November 19, 2014, 08:42:41 PM
Where is the usage of gravity to simulate acceleration?
You'll never be able to simulate acceleration unless, of course, you accelerate for real.
As already stated multiple times, I'd be already pretty happy with:
- Bike frame with usual commands for throttle, brakes, clutch.
- Handlebars controlling the GPB steering (with our without force feedback). Direct steer could be configured, but I'd tend to think usual steer (target ean angle) with reverse input (nadlebar left to turn right) would be OK.
- Bike frame lean angle dictated by GPB (i.e. not dictated by the player).
- Bike frame pitch not necessary (if present, only passive: GB dictating the bike pitch).
Having something that properly simulates the lean of the bike would be a hell of a nightmare.
MaX.
Quote from: HornetMaX on November 19, 2014, 10:12:06 PM
You'll never be able to simulate acceleration unless, of course, you accelerate for real.
That would be the hardest thing to simulate
Quote from: HornetMaX on November 19, 2014, 10:12:06 PM
- Bike frame with usual commands for throttle, brakes, clutch.
- Handlebars controlling the GPB steering (with our without force feedback). Direct steer could be configured, but I'd tend to think usual steer (target ean angle) with reverse input (nadlebar left to turn right) would be OK.
- Bike frame lean angle dictated by GPB (i.e. not dictated by the player).
Already doable or have been done just not very refined.
Quote from: HornetMaX on November 19, 2014, 10:12:06 PM
- Bike frame pitch not necessary (if present, only passive: GB dictating the bike pitch).
Do you mean like wheelieing (If that's even a word :P), if so also very achievable.
Quote from: HornetMaX on November 19, 2014, 10:12:06 PM
Having something that properly simulates the lean of the bike would be a hell of a nightmare.
Air rams would be your best bet. Or a very elaborate gear mechanism through the back of the bike, would have to be strong to hold a bike and a person moving about on a single pivot.
The real problem would be the cost, it would all be bloody expensive.
Edit- Have a look at this maybe http://m.instructables.com/id/Arduino-Pneumatic-Flight-Simulator/?ALLSTEPS (http://m.instructables.com/id/Arduino-Pneumatic-Flight-Simulator/?ALLSTEPS)
(http://i.imgur.com/KEHwzP1.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/9AbBXEm.png)
thats what me and my friends are coming up with.
Oculus rift.
Biker possition tracking.
Acceleration simulation ( upt to 80 % of the real bike acceleration)
corner simulation ( leaning in different direction than turn)
handlebars feedback
all inputs
etc.
also the part with servos drivers and plugin for GP Bikes already done.
Quote from: matty0l215 on November 19, 2014, 10:43:59 PM
Quote from: HornetMaX on November 19, 2014, 10:12:06 PM
Having something that properly simulates the lean of the bike would be a hell of a nightmare.
Air rams would be your best bet. Or a very elaborate gear mechanism through the back of the bike, would have to be strong to hold a bike and a person moving about on a single pivot.
The real problem would be the cost, it would all be bloody expensive.
The real problem is not cost, is that we don't know how to combine a lean input and a steering input.
It has nothing to do with the mechanics of the controller, it's a conceptual problem.
Quote from: matty0l215 on November 19, 2014, 10:43:59 PM
Edit- Have a look at this maybe http://m.instructables.com/id/Arduino-Pneumatic-Flight-Simulator/?ALLSTEPS (http://m.instructables.com/id/Arduino-Pneumatic-Flight-Simulator/?ALLSTEPS)
Smart !
Quote from: Furious on November 19, 2014, 11:18:19 PM
thats what me and my friends are coming up with.
Pretty cool but ...
Quote from: Furious on November 19, 2014, 11:18:19 PM
Acceleration simulation ( upt to 80 % of the real bike acceleration)
If the bike in GPB accelerates forward at 1g, how do you simulate that ?!?! Even at 0.8g ... :o
Same for a lateral acceleration. There's no way you can create that ...
Quote from: Furious on November 19, 2014, 11:18:19 PM
corner simulation ( leaning in different direction than turn)
handlebars feedback
all inputs
etc.
also the part with servos drivers and plugin for GP Bikes already done.
Which axes on your rig are inputs to GPB and which ones are only output ones (i.e. GPB dictates the value) ?
For example, your frame pitch (wheeling) is dictated by GPB: it's an output axis.
Now what about your lean axis and steering axis ?
MaX.
Pitch axis and roll axis are dictated by GP Bikes however not the actual orientation of the bike in space but two parameters combined. Main part of the motion is to use part of the gravity to imitate accelerating. when we use up to 60 degrees in roll, you can easily calculate how much G you get from it. But we also use the roll orientation to provide feedback about bike state. For example, take a look on 2 situations:
-Bike is accelerating but keeps horizontal
-Bike is not accelerating but you are doing wheelie
the senses feel almost the same thing, so we combine both informations with proper scaling to provide feedback
input for the GP bikes are all the standard controls of the bike. Everything that has part in real riding. Your position ( hard to track the bikers center of the gravity so we use head tracking) handlebars force ( or axis depends what will be working with GP Bikes direct steering) and some obvious like throtle, brake etc.
on pitch axis we want to move the bike according to the force vector.
If you are turning and keep straight on the bike the force vector is parallel to your lean angle. So to simulate it we don't have to roll to the sides at all.
But if you move your body of the bike to the center of corner you move your center of gravity so the force vector wont be paraller any more ( as it still goes trough the center of gravity of the whole setup).
So as follow, we won't change the value of the force, but, at least keep the right direction of it. That's why we will pitch the bike in opposite direction of turning if the biker moves.
Quote from: Furious on November 20, 2014, 12:17:40 AM
Pitch axis and roll axis are dictated by GP Bikes however not the actual orientation of the bike in space but two parameters combined. Main part of the motion is to use part of the gravity to imitate accelerating. when we use up to 60 degrees in roll, you can easily calculate how much G you get from it. But we also use the roll orientation to provide feedback about bike state. For example, take a look on 2 situations:
-Bike is accelerating but keeps horizontal
-Bike is not accelerating but you are doing wheelie
the senses feel almost the same thing, so we combine both informations with proper scaling to provide feedback
Very unclear: you mean that if the bike in GPB stays horizontal and accelerates, your rig will wheelie ?
Quote from: Furious on November 20, 2014, 12:17:40 AM
input for the GP bikes are all the standard controls of the bike. Everything that has part in real riding. Your position ( hard to track the bikers center of the gravity so we use head tracking) handlebars force ( or axis depends what will be working with GP Bikes direct steering) and some obvious like throtle, brake etc.
OK.
Quote from: Furious on November 20, 2014, 12:17:40 AM
on pitch axis we want to move the bike according to the force vector.
If you are turning and keep straight on the bike the force vector is parallel to your lean angle. So to simulate it we don't have to roll to the sides at all.
But if you move your body of the bike to the center of corner you move your center of gravity so the force vector wont be paraller any more ( as it still goes trough the center of gravity of the whole setup).
So as follow, we won't change the value of the force, but, at least keep the right direction of it. That's why we will pitch the bike in opposite direction of turning if the biker moves.
Totally lost. Which force vector ?
And this: "pitch the bike in opposite direction of turning" ?!
Pitch angle is the angle that varies when (for example) you do a wheeling. How can you pitch the bike in the "opposite direction of turning" ?!
Did you actually mean yaw (bike spinning around a vertical axis) ?
MaX.
QuoteVery unclear: you mean that if the bike in GPB stays horizontal and accelerates, your rig will wheelie ?
yes. Why? Cause i simulate forces. Keep the force vector on the same direction. Imagine : gravity acceleration vertical and bike acceleration horizontal vector. Sum them up and you have the angle . We Pitch the bike to make that new vector parallel to gravity vector.
Sorry. I missmatched the words. I meant pitch when writing roll and the opposite.
And the most important thing. We are using oculus rift. So we can "cheat" with forces even more. We tested it and it really works. Just hope Piboso will provide oculus support for our tests.
Quote from: Furious on November 20, 2014, 12:52:38 AM
QuoteVery unclear: you mean that if the bike in GPB stays horizontal and accelerates, your rig will wheelie ?
yes. Why? Cause i simulate forces. Keep the force vector on the same direction. Imagine : gravity acceleration vertical and bike acceleration horizontal vector. Sum them up and you have the angle . We Pitch the bike to make that new vector parallel to gravity vector.
So at best you're just rotating the bike frame in order to align the gravity with the overall force acting on the simulated bike. That's very different from saying "Acceleration simulation (up to 80 % of the real bike acceleration)".
Also, if the bike in GPB accelerate forward at 1g, the overall, force acting on the bike (roughly) is pointing down (1g gravity) and forward (1g acc) at 45 degrees: if you want to keep your rig's frame oriented so that the gravity is aligned as the overall force acting on thew virtual bike, you should pitch your bike forward (45 degrees !!), not backward. Which would be very weird: when you accelerate the rig frame would pitch forward and when you brake it would pitch backward (wheelie).
As you said you're doing the opposite (i.e. bike accelerating = rig pitching backward), you're not keeping the vectors aligned.
I don't think trying to simulate the forces is a good idea, because basically you can't and, in trying to do so, you mess up the bike attitude (your rig pitches while the bike in GPB is horizontal).
@Admins: you may want to split the discussion between Furious and me to a separate topic. But keep it, it's very interesting.
MaX.
@Piboso: you probably know this : http://www.dinamoto.it/ (http://www.dinamoto.it/)
The setup is pretty old, but ...
http://www.dinamoto.it/dinamoto/3_projects/4_SafeBike/RidingSimulator_medium.swf (http://www.dinamoto.it/dinamoto/3_projects/4_SafeBike/RidingSimulator_medium.swf)
MaX.
Quote from: HornetMaX on November 20, 2014, 07:50:01 AM
Quote from: Furious on November 20, 2014, 12:52:38 AM
QuoteVery unclear: you mean that if the bike in GPB stays horizontal and accelerates, your rig will wheelie ?
yes. Why? Cause i simulate forces. Keep the force vector on the same direction. Imagine : gravity acceleration vertical and bike acceleration horizontal vector. Sum them up and you have the angle . We Pitch the bike to make that new vector parallel to gravity vector.
So at best you're just rotating the bike frame in order to align the gravity with the overall force acting on the simulated bike. That's very different from saying "Acceleration simulation (up to 80 % of the real bike acceleration)".
Also, if the bike in GPB accelerate forward at 1g, the overall, force acting on the bike (roughly) is pointing down (1g gravity) and forward (1g acc) at 45 degrees: if you want to keep your rig's frame oriented so that the gravity is aligned as the overall force acting on thew virtual bike, you should pitch your bike forward (45 degrees !!), not backward. Which would be very weird: when you accelerate the rig frame would pitch forward and when you brake it would pitch backward (wheelie).
As you said you're doing the opposite (i.e. bike accelerating = rig pitching backward), you're not keeping the vectors aligned.
I don't think trying to simulate the forces is a good idea, because basically you can't and, in trying to do so, you mess up the bike attitude (your rig pitches while the bike in GPB is horizontal).
@Admins: you may want to split the discussion between Furious and me to a separate topic. But keep it, it's very interesting.
MaX.
Hi, I'm also working on a full motion simulator based on GPB and Oculus Rift (I'm not the one who sent the mail). ;)
Furious, you did a really nice job but I totally agree with HornetMax, it will be very hard (well, almost impossible) to simulate the gravity and simulate forces will not a give you a "instinctive" approach wich is in my opinion quite important in simulation.
Also I have a question about your plateform and how the rider will move his body around the bike...it seems that there is no lot of space.
@Piboso: Do you have more information about the company? What country ?
As I said. I messed up pitch and roll words at some point.
We are going to pitch the bike forward while breaking and pitch it backawrd while accelerating.
We do roll the bike in the opposite direction of the turn if the biker moves to the center of corner.
And as i sad. We can simulate ACCELERATING. When we pitch the bike 60 degrees backwards one vector is 0.85 G and the one to simulate gravity is 0.5 G
I'm sure you are wrong with your directions and I'll show that on the picture.
There is gonna be more space for biker to move around.
Found another link for multi DOF (2,3,6) platforms that claim to support GPB already.
http://www.motionsystems.eu/software/platform-manager
http://www.mecanitzats-muntada.com/CKU28/CKU-Maquina-entrenament-pilots-motociclisme.html
Quote from: h106frp on November 20, 2014, 01:57:57 PM
Found another link for multi DOF (2,3,6) platforms that claim to support GPB already.
http://www.motionsystems.eu/software/platform-manager
Ah, perfect, at last!
Thank you.
Surely the biggest problem for a bike motion simulator is the corners? IRL when you lean a bike right over to corner you're being held in the seat / on the bike through the g-force generated by the bike traveling away from its previous trajectory - the same way the water stays in the bucket when swung upside down - centrifugal?
All full motion bike simulators I've seen so far look odd. Looks like you would be literally hanging on to the bike when cornering - feeling gravity's pull vertically, instead of being held in the seat through g-force horizontally.
Quote from: lluisete on November 20, 2014, 02:01:20 PM
http://www.mecanitzats-muntada.com/CKU28/CKU-Maquina-entrenament-pilots-motociclisme.html
This is for me the most advanced plateform (in term of movement) you can find today...but it's not a simulator
Some GP riders tried it (see BT Sport Youtube channel)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Er8ElDPPio (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Er8ElDPPio)
QuoteI'm sure you are wrong with your directions and I'll show that on the picture.
(http://i.imgur.com/4g1BR3i.png)(http://i.imgur.com/AxyGlel.png)
Quote from: Furious on November 20, 2014, 12:39:18 PM
As I said. I messed up pitch and roll words at some point.
We are going to pitch the bike forward while breaking and pitch it backawrd while accelerating.
We do roll the bike in the opposite direction of the turn if the biker moves to the center of corner.
And as i sad. We can simulate ACCELERATING. When we pitch the bike 60 degrees backwards one vector is 0.85 G and the one to simulate gravity is 0.5 G
I'm sure you are wrong with your directions and I'll show that on the picture.
OK,now it's clearer what you plan to do, it wheelie when accelerating.
But still ... if the in-game bike does not wheelie, it will feel very weird to have the frame wheeling ... and to have 0.8 of 1g you'd need 53deg: so I have my in-game bike perfectly horizontal and your rig at 53deg ? Makes no sense.
To me you should focus on having your rig's attitude match the virtual bike attitude, that would already provide a lot of info on the bike already and it would be simpler.
Quote from: TheFatController on November 20, 2014, 02:31:24 PM
Surely the biggest problem for a bike motion simulator is the corners? IRL when you lean a bike right over to corner you're being held in the seat / on the bike through the g-force generated by the bike traveling away from its previous trajectory - the same way the water stays in the bucket when swung upside down - centrifugal?
All full motion bike simulators I've seen so far look odd. Looks like you would be literally hanging on to the bike when cornering - feeling gravity's pull vertically, instead of being held in the seat through g-force horizontally.
Exactly, that's what I mean saying that "simulating' forces is hopeless.
Quote from: PiBoSo on November 20, 2014, 02:30:30 PM
Quote from: h106frp on November 20, 2014, 01:57:57 PM
Found another link for multi DOF (2,3,6) platforms that claim to support GPB already.
http://www.motionsystems.eu/software/platform-manager
Ah, perfect, at last!
Thank you.
Looks good indeed. But if you are looking for "just" a 6dof platform, you can probably find plenty of others around, e.g. http://www.ckas.com.au/6dof_systems_36.html (http://www.ckas.com.au/6dof_systems_36.html), http://www.ckas.com.au/6dof_low_cost_systems_62.html (http://www.ckas.com.au/6dof_low_cost_systems_62.html), ...
MaX.
Quote from: Furious on November 19, 2014, 08:42:41 PM
Really guys? Can't you see that all of those "simulators" are useless? What are they simulating? With all that wobling left/right front/back ? Where is the usage of gravity to simulate acceleration? there is force feedback on the handlebars? Where is information about position on the bike even gathered? Every single one you have shown are shity work.
Thankyou Furious.....At last someone thinks like me about the motion systems out there. Even using a 6Dof unit is not correct. And how many have a spare bike to stick on one. I have been working on the design of one for years but there are so many physical points that none of the above systems even cover. I am concentrating on a static system for now, but working on a full motion system design all the time. I dont think I have ever seen a motion system built that could in anyway offer the true movements and motions of a real motorbike. If I can help in any way let me know, I do have some good ideas, real ones not toy or wheelie machine bs.
DD
Just watched the show with where they use the "Leanmachine" Im sorry but what crap is that. It flops from side to side and thats about it, oh I think he acually used the throttle because he sure as hell did not use the clutch or the brakes so are the new MotoGP bikes with auto frickin everything?????????
Sorry but I think the thing is an insult to put a MotoGP champion on!!!
Quote from: doubledragoncc on November 20, 2014, 06:02:28 PM
Just watched the show with where they use the "Leanmachine" Im sorry but what crap is that. It flops from side to side and thats about it, oh I think he acually used the throttle because he sure as hell did not use the clutch or the brakes so are the new MotoGP bikes with auto frickin everything?????????
Sorry but I think the thing is an insult to put a MotoGP champion on!!!
I agree DD..... My opinion on here is very well known by forum veterans here(We should go back to seat of the pants racing like it used to be in the good old blue ribbon days of the 500cc World Championships). Anyway that's another story..... ;D
Hawk.
Quote from: doubledragoncc on November 20, 2014, 06:02:28 PM
Just watched the show with where they use the "Leanmachine" Im sorry but what crap is that. It flops from side to side and thats about it, oh I think he acually used the throttle because he sure as hell did not use the clutch or the brakes so are the new MotoGP bikes with auto frickin everything?????????
Sorry but I think the thing is an insult to put a MotoGP champion on!!!
Actually, it's not a simulator it's just a fitness system for training...
As I understood, it's up to the rider to follow the screen...there is no link between the system and the onboard video.
Throttle is used to help the bike to go in its initial position.
I don't think this is a crap and I must say, from what I know, it's the only existing plateform which allow "real" lean angle...
Good defence wkp, sorry but it just seems so wrong to show it being used like that. Isaw the fitness video too and can understand to a point, but who care if it leans if it dont even work and isnt even connected to a sim!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you want a workout try my full sit on static system, it works with any bike game/sim on a PC and it is actually a workout to use.
Not got the motion on it yet but not that far off...........
I also think these, "bolt a real bike to a moving bench Dof systems are total waste of money as you have a real bike there, why not just ride the bloody thing instead of bolting it to a bit of moving metal............come on DOH
DD
I think that Furious is right in terms of the overall force feedback of the bike. If you watch it in a 3rd person view (outside the simulator) it will look so weird, but while using the simulator it will be nice (obviously the overall force will not be the same as in reality, but yes in terms of its direction). Obviously the key of all of this Oculus Rift, because with it you can (more or less) cheat your brain. there are tons of examples where you can see that we can cheat our brain by the sense of sight.
but now my question is, will it be safe? Lol, you will have to where a helmet using it xD.
and also how are you going to simulate for example some rear slides, or lowside crashes, where will be the limit?
Quote from: doubledragoncc on November 20, 2014, 08:43:26 PM
Good defence wkp, sorry but it just seems so wrong to show it being used like that. Isaw the fitness video too and can understand to a point, but who care if it leans if it dont even work and isnt even connected to a sim!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I totally agree, that's why I'm making my own...same principle but connected to GPB ;)
Quote from: doubledragoncc on November 20, 2014, 08:43:26 PM
I also think these, "bolt a real bike to a moving bench Dof systems are total waste of money as you have a real bike there, why not just ride the bloody thing instead of bolting it to a bit of moving metal............come on DOH
For road motorbike, you're right...not interesting.
But riding a racing bike is quite expensive and and I think it could be a good alternative, at least for learning tracks and off season. And as GPB is getting better and better (sensitive subject but still my opinion :D ), if the motion sim works well, why not using it for bike settings purpose...
Quote from: LOOPATELI on November 20, 2014, 09:39:09 PM
I think that Furious is right in terms of the overall force feedback of the bike. If you watch it in a 3rd person view (outside the simulator) it will look so weird, but while using the simulator it will be nice (obviously the overall force will not be the same as in reality, but yes in terms of its direction). Obviously the key of all of this Oculus Rift, because with it you can (more or less) cheat your brain. there are tons of examples where you can see that we can cheat our brain by the sense of sight.
Except these examples are almost all for cars, and cars basically do not pitch.
If you use the pitch movement to simulate the force, then how do you simulate the real bike pitching movements ?
In Furious approach he's basically trying to give you a sense of the forward/backward acceleration but no sense of bike pitch, while with what I'm saying you'd get the opposite (no sense of forward/backward acceleration but a sense of bike pitch).
Don't know, but having a pitch axes on the rig and not using it for real pitch looks strange. The good thing is that all this is only software, so once the rig is ready you can easily compare the two approaches.
MaX.
I dont think its possible at all... You can get close, for fun! Not a serious training simulator.. Which is why all pro riders just.. well, ride bikes!
Maybe with a strong wind tunnel and some kind of 3 dimensional rolling road to get the giro affect? (talking out my arse here lol) but again that would be on a real bike anyway..
Its all light years away.. I agree with the brain trickery approach!
Even car sims (as good as some are) cant simulate G-force! You have to be moving! Surely???
Even on my crappy excuse of a race bike.. Braking hard at the end of a straight feels like my eyes are about to pop out! So god knows what it must be like on a grand prix bike!! :o
Good luck simulating that...
Quote from: BOBR6 84 on November 20, 2014, 10:02:03 PM
Even car sims (as good as some are) cant simulate G-force! You have to be moving! Surely???
Yep, you just can't create the forces (forget the wind tunnel and the gyro effect).
It is however true that if the screen is fixed to the moving platform (or if you have an occulus rift), then you can trick (a bit) the brain into believing you're actually accelerating/braking.
MaX.
Quote from: HornetMaX on November 20, 2014, 09:51:07 PM
Quote from: LOOPATELI on November 20, 2014, 09:39:09 PM
I think that Furious is right in terms of the overall force feedback of the bike. If you watch it in a 3rd person view (outside the simulator) it will look so weird, but while using the simulator it will be nice (obviously the overall force will not be the same as in reality, but yes in terms of its direction). Obviously the key of all of this Oculus Rift, because with it you can (more or less) cheat your brain. there are tons of examples where you can see that we can cheat our brain by the sense of sight.
If you use the pitch movement to simulate the force, then how do you simulate the real bike pitching movements ?
In Furious approach he's basically trying to give you a sense of the forward/backward acceleration but no sense of bike pitch, while with what I'm saying you'd get the opposite (no sense of forward/backward acceleration but a sense of bike pitch).
MaX.
Max, please tell me. What is the point of setting the actual pitch angle of the moving machine on a steady machine ? The feeling comes from our senses. We need to use the same kind of forces as in real life. That is most important. Way more than the actual value of it. As there was an experiment with oculus rift and roler caster. Someone made a 3d model of the RC track with bends of the same lenght but with much bigger radius. Next, he driven on that RC with no motion sickness or whatsoever. That is an example that direction of the force is what counts.
If you will see on oculus rift that you are horizontal, you will believe it, If you will see you are wheeling you will believe it as well. We cheat the brain, cause both situations gives you same feeling in terms of force directions, so your eyes decide what situation is now occuring.
About the roll movement.
The thing is that you cant really feel that the bike is changing its roll value, cause force vector is changing it's direction along with the bike lean.
(http://obrazki.elektroda.net/20_1193481510.jpg)
So I'll keep Fw vector along with Gravity vector.
As Max said, the things we are now talking about are software stuff, which can be "easily" compared using both ideas. The hardware would be the same for both ideas and Furious model looks nice for that. Another good idea to cheat the brain would be when you are "leaning" in the sim you can feel the leaning limit by using somehow a surface where you can put your knee down as a kind of feeling to know where the road is. I dont know if I explain it ok. Even you can put your elbow down hahaha(just kidding)
Quote from: Furious on November 20, 2014, 11:19:30 PM
About the roll movement.
The thing is that you cant really feel that the bike is changing its roll value, cause force vector is changing it's direction along with the bike lean.
So I'll keep Fw vector along with Gravity vector.
Hmm ... I'm still not sure I understand correctly what you want to do. Let's take 2 examples:
1. Bike going straight (and staying vertical, no lean), constant speed. Track is initially flat but then there's a slope (going up): what happens to the rig ? Will it pitch backward ?
2. Flat track, bike going straight and is vertical, your rig is vertical. The virtual rider feels a vertical force of 1g, the player on the rig feels the same. Fine.
Now the virtual bike leans right: the virtual rider feels the sum of the vertical 1g + the lateral (centripetal) acceleration. What happens for the player on the rig ?
MaX.
I gotta agree with BOBR, it aint happening for a long time.
One thing that gets me is all this talk and so many points are forgoten.
1. For a real simulator should the rider be in full kit, leathers, helmet, boots and gloves?
2. How many serious young sim racers have the above or for a fact how many on here?
3. How much space should the system take up?
4. Who is it going to be for? (Just the rich from what most are saying)
5. Does it really have to be designed based on mathamatical equations (why not pure physical feeling? try and calculate that!!!)
6. Overall visual looks of the system (initial visual impact sets the mood of the rider. Having to put on Oculus Rift and a load of sensors or mind numbing gimics is a BIG put off and you dont have them on a real bike.
7. It should be fun!!! Not a slow moving riding in town in traffic DOT trainer...jeeeez god help me....
All this tech talk is good on paper, but in the real world it just dont work. It took me years to figure out the right angles and way it felt as natural as possible sitting in a room. On paper my system is wrong, but in the real world when using it, it FEELS right and thats the whole point. Not one person has said about how you would simulate when the back end slides, look at a bike in 3rd person when the back end is trying to kiss your cheek, how many types of movement does that involve? A shit load!!! To simulate it you would need so many quick action rams pushing a shoving in so many directions at one time (in the right place, not just UNDER a bike) it will take a lot of space and you better have deep pockets. So why not set a realistic point and be satisfied with simulating as much as possible in a given sized area. There needs to be some kind of goal to reach without dreaming up ideas that are just too costly for any of us. If you think of the one basic difference between real and simulation is that its for indoors and most will be in normal clothes at home, sorry to the Oculus Believers but I dont want to stick something on my head, I want to feel free from that sort of thing, so what do you do for those like me? You design something where part of its sensory system depends on forcing someone to wear something in their face!!! You have to think of the majority not the minority of people. I guess I am too old-school in many ways. I have been professionally custom building bikes for over 25 years, spent 7 years as a motorcycle medical courier and been riding for 36 years, I jsut want to get on and ride and think that is how most people want a system to be. No having to put this and that on, set up this and that (except initial control and bike settings) and RIDE the dang thing.
One thing I thought about is the best senario to test the bike and riders movement and the best I can think of is "The Corkscrew" at Laguna Seca. The uphill approach, the cork screw and then the exit curve downhill. Simulate that and you have it made lol.
Keep up all the great ideas, this is a great thread to read.
Keep it sunny side up!!!
DD
Quote from: doubledragoncc on November 21, 2014, 10:34:07 AM
On paper my system is wrong, but in the real world when using it, it FEELS right and thats the whole point.
@DD: your systems (the one I've seen, at least) are only input devices to GPB. The only output they use is (when they use it) FFB.
What Furious is trying to do is much more complex. The system he has designed could be used (on top of as an input device, of course) either to reproduce the bike attitude or to (try to) provide some overall feeling of the forces. The fact he plans to use a Rift also makes a big difference.
Quote from: doubledragoncc on November 21, 2014, 10:34:07 AM
Not one person has said about how you would simulate when the back end slides, look at a bike in 3rd person when the back end is trying to kiss your cheek, how many types of movement does that involve? A shit load!!!
Depending on the setup, some things are doable: screen fixed to the ground (i.e. no occulus), 6dof platform, rotation around the vetical Z axis (yaw) could be used (it would represent something like the "bike sideslip angle").
But it's clear to all that you can't simulate what you feel on a moving bike on a rig that, in the end, does not move as much as the real bike.
The goal is, for given a "device", to use it at best as an input device (what you do with your models) and as an input+output device (what Furious plans to do).
MaX.
Hi Max
I think Furious is really building a great system. I have not started on the motion system as far as a fully built one. I want to start by providing a static system first that is cheaper and more can afford but will eventually have a full motion system too.
I was just pointing out that it is so hard to please everyone and that compromises may have to be made for space and cost.
In the long run if the money is no question and the right people work together a really good system is possible.
There are many things I do not say as I intend to naturally keep a few tricks up my sleeve lol.
I would love to see some photos of your system Furious it is really interesting the concept you have. Fantastic work.
The one thing you dont really see looking at my systems is the fact that you do not sit still on it. Because of the steering system you are constantly leaning and moving on the system much as you have to on a real bike. Through moving about the mind sences it as an input too and in combination with the bike on the screen(I only use onboard view) it is surprising how much feeling you get from it. After half an hour you feel like you have riden a bike as you ar using the muscles in you arms, back, neck and upper legs quite a lot.
It might be a static system but you cant sit still on it lol.
DD
Quote from: doubledragoncc on November 21, 2014, 02:45:18 PM
The one thing you dont really see looking at my systems is the fact that you do not sit still on it. Because of the steering system you are constantly leaning and moving on the system much as you have to on a real bike. Through moving about the mind sences it as an input too and in combination with the bike on the screen(I only use onboard view) it is surprising how much feeling you get from it. After half an hour you feel like you have riden a bike as you ar using the muscles in you arms, back, neck and upper legs quite a lot.
It might be a static system but you cant sit still on it lol.
I do see it DD, I even think your "southern pendulum" (this is how you call it if I recall correctly) is a very clever trick for systems with no FFB.
But between your systems and his system the difference is really in the overall goal.
MaX.
iv just seen a horse simulator on tv for jockeys to train on..... :o
well.. if you can simulate a horse, a bike should be easy lol
lol BOBR think I will change to horse racing lol
https://www.youtube.com/v/bn3F1kBHlqU
lol cheesy advert but.. something along those lines would suit a bike i think..
best bet would be taking a trip to japan though lol
Thanks for the video BOB that got me thinkin, love the chain drive idea!!! Gotta hit the drawing board lol
DD
Just wondering if anyone has tried this arrangement for a simple bar controller;
Bars on normal horizontal rotational plane but with the stem on a raked vertical rotational plane with force feedback on both planes. So at low speed you push/pull on the bars and the vertical axis stays vertical and the bike just maneuvers around with low feedback forces. At speed, you initiate the turn by pushing forward on one end of the bars, the game drives the vertical and horizontal axis force feedback servos with the required force making the front want to fold and the bars tilt correctly, you push the other end of the bar to counter the force and control the turn rate before pushing back to retain upright position with the servos reducing the force accordingly.
Having owned a freestyle bar and deciding it felt weird and uncomfortable in either the turn or tilt modes this combined axis system would seem a more natural feeling solution.
Just my two penneth ;) as i'm not sure i would ever have space for a sit on sim controller.
Hi h106frp, thats a name? lol sorry
the problem is that no softwar, ie bike sim exists where there are ALL the real world inputs needed that it wont matter how real you build a system, until the programmers allow for more inputs, a controller can only do so much. I could build a system that is real if the game/sim had all the different inputs controllable by a controller. Unfortunately because there are only certain controllers on the market, the programmers limit input requirement to gamepad and wheels which will never be real. Before a real control can be made the programmers will have to think outside the gamepad limit as a controller!!!
Think guys before you shoot me down
DD
Perhaps PBBikes could; the output DLL supplies a lot of data describing the simulated forces acting on the bike, i'm sure it would not take much to have the DLL as a 2 way communications with external values overriding the computed ones if required. You would just need to agree which parameters needed to flow in which directions.
h106frp was the reg of my old NC30 many years ago ;) wish i had kept it really, i sold it and bought a road rocket 600 thats really too fast to enjoy on UK roads without a custodial sentence waiting for you on the exit of every bend ;)
I think Furious' idea is very good. It achieves it's power from using oculus rift, thus the actual position of the rig won't matter in terms of whether it fits with what is displayed on the screen. It can focus on positioning the rig so the rider can feel the forces, he should feel. What he sees is actually another part - and oculus rift is moving with the rider.
I tried oculus rift once (ego shooter) and you absolutely loose feeling for any directions. I'm quite sure you would not notice that the bike "wheelies" but instead assume it actually is accelerating.
Also concerning corner forces, the rig does not have to apply the same lean angle as the virtual bike necessarily. I bet you can simulate the centripetal forces by reducing lean angle during cornering, while the rider still sees full lean angle and assumes he's not upright.
Can't wait to see a video of this, if you really manage to do it :) Maybe this could also be done with the already mentioned 2dof motion simulator. As long as it can use both axis at the same time, it should be perfect to go. Simulating bumps and stuff would require one more axis though.
I think the big 'cheat' used by a lot of commercial motion platforms is that you only sense changes in acceleration and the eye can fool you into sensing the constant velocity movements. This limits the total travel required in the platform itself.
AND once again it means everyone HAS to have Oculus rift!!!
I dont want to stick one of those on y head when Im ridin!!! I dont want to have to buyone either!!!
I want to give a system that works on its own with no other gimmicks needed and no extra cash either!!!
Yes GPB is probably the only one to make the right codes thats why I stick with it as well as it being the only true sim!!!
DD
Quote from: h106frp on November 29, 2014, 02:10:39 PM
I think the big 'cheat' used by a lot of commercial motion platforms is that you only sense changes in acceleration and the eye can fool you into sensing the constant velocity movements. This limits the total travel required in the platform itself.
Yeah but on a bike it seems weird: to turn right the bike leans right while a car rolls a bit left. To "make you feel the force" the platform would roll left, i.e. the opposite of the bike lean. Now, I do understand the the rift will help but still ...
Anyway, as said, once the hardware is ready Furious could test.
MaX.
Quote from: doubledragoncc on November 29, 2014, 03:11:46 PM
AND once again it means everyone HAS to have Oculus rift!!!
I dont want to stick one of those on y head when Im ridin!!! I dont want to have to buyone either!!!
Oculus Rift would not be the expensive part of this system, i guess
But an Oculus is still additional expense and not for everyone. A system should be able to give what is wanted without additional hardware as it is then dependent on it and means the system alone does not work!!!
this type of simulator is not for everyone, that's the thing
For a full motion simulator I think Oculus Rift is pretty much a must have. It would greatly enhance the experience.
But a good full motion simulator is something that would take a whole room and tens of thousands of pounds. Also, it would take tons of time developing the software side. It will be great for WSBK and Moto GP racers when it's done in several years.
However, right now, for me plus a few thousand people who'd happily buy it, what is needed is just a good input controller that costs not more than a good steering wheel. What I've seen from doulbledragon would be perfect. First, really good handlebars to make riding intuitive, then people can build from there. Monitor, Rift, it can and should work with both.
Consumer electronics develop at lightning speed because tons of people use it and money just pours in. Have a consumer product to get money for further development and you can do crazy stuff. If you try to start with the crazy stuff you'll probably spend years begging investors for money to develop a product for a handful of professionals. And in the end the general consumer (me) ends up still not having a controller. :-\
In short, all you crazy skilled developers, could you please make me a good controller, make tons of money, and in a couple of years start and finish a full motion sim instead of years on end trying to make a full motion sim?
Quote from: cdx on December 01, 2014, 03:22:48 AMConsumer electronics develop at lightning speed because tons of people use it and money just pours in. Have a consumer product to get money for further development and you can do crazy stuff. If you try to start with the crazy stuff you'll probably spend years begging investors for money to develop a product for a handful of professionals. And in the end the general consumer (me) ends up still not having a controller. :-\
That right there hits nail square on the head. I remember when steering wheels for the PC were first becoming a big thing, they started out sorta flimsy and not all that great, but over the years developed into some very useful and very durable products. If for one moment, anyone really that has or could develop a moto controller just took the time to build the most bare bones, simplistic thing possible without a regard for fit and finish, but for durability and effect, the few of us that have really wanted a controller could have one. If it took off and became something in the long run where hundreds of orders a year poured in, then polishing and finishing the product into full production would be ideal and a company truly could take off. Gotta walk before you run and all that jazz.
I'm still far from intelligent enough about technology to build my own rig so I too am stuck waiting for something to take off so I can put an order in. GP Bikes on a Yamaha MS-1 moto controller, although cheap and pretty much useless to most, was the coolest experience I've had sim gaming and would love to have something far more realistic in my hands. Direct steer would be incredible with actual handlebars.
@cdx
I got your message and will email some design sheets with measurements and cutting angles today. As I said when we met I have a control board for you. You got it right about a basic system and being able to add to it thats why I designed the MTE boxes for people to do that. The most important thing people need to start is the steering system which can be mounted on a desk/table top and also be able to mount it on a frame if space and money allows. The
universal headstem design will allow the user to have the pivot for the bars on either a vertical or horizontal plain so they have the choise of which to use.
The MTE boxes mean that the hard part of building a control system is taken out of the equation as all you need is the basic controls that are simple and hook them up to the MTE box by cable or push/pull rod to turn the mechanical action into an electronic one sent to the control box. Leo's BU0836X box costs 50 GBP and gives 8 analog axis, 32 digital button and an 8way POV input. It can use potentiometers, HAL sensors and Load Cells plus rotary switches with no soldering needed!!! Still working on the docks to send Leo that he asked for so hopefully after Christmas will have good news.
Keep it sunny side up
DD
Hi Piboso...
You are doing greta things still!
http://youtu.be/xgNJ8WeKeLE
This is how GP-Bikes looks with my home-made tracking headset. If I were on a motion simulator bike, I'd be in heaven. It's WAY better to ride GPB when you're actually, psychically leaning into corners and turning your head with your lean, looking off into the apexes and chicanes, next best thing to riding for real.. Tracking gets my backing. This is what my personal POV looks like on my real bike, my VR headset and your GP-Bikes. Nothing is closer. :D
Excuse the quality of this vid, just messing with my gopro. I've been meaning to make an effort. Soon as I wanted to record my riding, I became a crashing machine but there's enough here to understand the realistic view that is inherently possible with GPB..
This Beta(6) does not allow me to view from the proper angle through the corners because the rider is too upright, denying me angles possible in other Betas(my older vids show them and the Redding photo shows it) and the higher angle in Beta6 is making me conservative because of the difference in rider's positions and reduced angles... It's quite a nice thing to be low and snug through a corner and switch through a chicane to be snug and low through the other corner and exit.
I am using mousetracking here in this session, not my headset. I am posting this here so makers know what the actual POV is. This is what is looks like. When you see in this video, me abruptly SNAP back into center position after a corner, well.. that sucks, looks like a glitch but it's me resetting center to be accurate into next corner.. For racing with out headset, I would love it just to slowly return to center left right only, not up and down(as I am often looking through undulations and DONT WANT my height angle reset.... it causes a centering back on both axis, looks bad if you're going up/downhill etc), and again, resetting it to center should be WAY slower as no rider can return to center of racing bike that quickly, nor would he/she want to. This wouldn't be an issue with a motion simulator as you would have the bike to lean on and a physical way to find your bike's center..
[Please let me know if there is a way of making my config slow the rider's 'centering cockpit reset'(default right mouse click). Maybe even stop the up/down part of the reset, leaving a smooth-centering , fluid, realistic realignment/reorientation after corners.. Riding in this mousetracking style requires knowing the center of the bike, for precision cornering, thus my need to 'reset'.. Wont be an issue with a head-tracking headset and bike.
The Scott Redding photo example:
IMO: Anyone building a sim bike for GP-Bikes should realize the new way a rider races at the top levels. What the rider actually sees from these newer, 'leaner' positions. It is not 1990 anymore. We do not navigate with reference points from the headstock. Interactive, tracking headsets are going to blossom and old, upright angles are not what I want to be limited to..
(http://images.bennetts.co.uk/Global/Social/ReddingDOWN450.jpg)
Having a synced bike and headset for GPB?.. hmmmm It will happen.. Finally, people would see this isnt so easy. The lower one gets 'off and over', the trickier it is, the sharpest cornering involves this position you see Scott Redding in! The cockpit is so far out of his line of sight and eyesight, it is impossible for him to see his own clipons, let alone, his cockpit. In reality, it feels like the bike isnt there.. There are no visual references for the corner coming from the bike! Learning to navigate through corners in this position is a visual challenge of the highest order, in real life and GPB. Its a skill all the top real riders show us every race, we could at least simulate it to see what they see. It is what is going to make a motion simulator work... leaning! Hope you put a riding position update in soon.
It is impossible to simulate this rider POV with a monitor stuck in front... period. Try to imagine seeing Redding trying to navigate through this situation by looking up to a monitor on the handlebars,, makes no sense and would be impossible. Those designs need to go the way of the Dodo, yesterday. Looking around the corners(off to your left and right/up and down.... simulating what is REALLY done, is the easy, cheaper and near future. GPB is not a Sunday cruise simulation with 22% lean angles(pivoting head view). Who wants to see what Redding and Márquez see when they lean like this? Who wants to learn their elbow scraping POVs? I do, why would I not? Thank You for the realistic views Piboso. I hope in the future you will let me see my arms and bike in my tracking headset. Let me have my face close to the track through the big turns. Elbow down.
Hopefully, I will soon start building myself.
Good luck to any and all fabricators.
Hi GOG, great input there bro. It is these points that make it so hard to build a rig for bikes. The biggest problem will be cost. The tech is there but at a very high cost. This is my biggest problem and I am in full agreement about the Oculus and such devices but its still more cost. As you say, it will be the norm in a few years, but only when prices come down.
I am trying to do things on a basic level, so that the initial point is to get a set of handlebars and real controls in everyones hands, then take it a step at a time to build on it and get a controller that feels and works right. I am designing all my components and systems to be fully modular so that people can start with the basics and then add to it as they have the money. It will be a long road but we will win lol.
I hope to reveal my full product line early next year and hope it will be the start of real bike racing sims with real controls.
Keep it sunny side up guys
DD
Hey man!
Cant wait to see your progress... Wish I could just order one of your bikes and an Occulus Headset!
:o
All you need is MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!! lol
DD
Hey GOG were you not on another forum to do with SBKX cockpit riders or something?
If it was you Hi again dude.
DD
Not sure why, but the onboard view in SBKX gives no real feeling of speed or handling of a high power bike even with no assists, feels like riding a push bike around the track, sad, i was hoping for great things when i bought it
I only use the MotoGP and SBK series to test that my system works with them and write the ini files for XBOX360 config files which Milestone and Capcom insist is needed to have anything but a gamepad work in their games.
You cant substitute GP Bikes!!!
DD
@GOG some good points in there mate!
Sometimes I wonder if it would make sense to take the netbike route..
Ie. No virtual rider.. Or a rider just for show when racing with other players..
Then lock the camera to onboard only with the ability to adjust the camera/head position. Its a simulator afterall..
At the moment its almost like having 2 people control 1 bike.. lol
Got to have riders hands and arms showing in first person though even if no rider, also the shadow of the rider on the bike otherwise the 'ghost rider' thing is a bit weird.
Maybe rider head position will be part of the 'riding style' option in the bike select menu, with 'modern' giving more extreme rider movements, 'Classic (80's)' rider might stay a bit more tucked in behind the fairing etc. Be interesting to see if this reflected as better lap times/corner speeds in the simulation. Would be nice to have a rider 'fatigue' parameter to provide a balance for the styles though ;)
yeah i agree man, thats a good point about styles.. would it affect the handling? hmmm
at the moment.. obviously its still very good but i dont like the fact the VR looks after the bars.. i want to do that lol but DST is too hard with a pad for me..
Hi guys,
yeah but its back to the VR point.........
Any system that can NOT work without VR is in itself not a full motion system. Forcing people to wear a VR set is wrong to start with. I refuse to use one as I plain and simply dont want to put something on my head..........point!!!
Iknow we ride with helmets, but its the one plus point of being in a room, you dont HAVE to wear a helmet, your not going to crash!!!!!!!!!!! So lets at least make it fun and not force people to have to spend LOTS of additional money and force them to wear something on their FACE. Some people have problems with it, I do. My face has been badly smashed structurally, and I HATE anything or anyone getting near my face. Even sunglasses bug me. I am not the only one and it should be considered. All you need is head tracking and that works fine without a frickin facebox lol.
If a system works well enough, it will immerse the rider so much they will not have the need for VR. Even on my static systems, I get so involved in riding I dont realize there is a world around me, all my thoughts are on the screen and my controls, I dont need VR. I also think many of you forget that a bike at full speed that is then thrown to the side for a curve, if simulated correctly, it could be dangerous to an unsuspecting rider. It only takes one incident and someone could get hurt. Unless you want to surround the system with rubber mats there needs to be a limit to the angle, speed and velocity of movement. If you study many of these car motion simulators, you will find many are making people sick, even professional F1 drivers have stated it. In a closed enviroment and without mother natures forces at work, the rider will quickly become sick, look at bucking bronco's from the USA.
These points must be considered, you can not just go by textbook physics and say it will work. You have to look outside of the box.
DD
I keep crashing arrgh... cant get used to the rider being so high on the bike.
http://youtu.be/mUaev91MjnQ
I think it fair to say.. GPB is getting closer and closer to high end simulation... it is, by far, the best thing going.
What will truly make VR work is a sensor for all moving parts. The turning handlebars and the pivoting chassis. If we can see our moving hands AND the bike's moving parts, we can feel planted in the VR setting and not have to roam all over looking for center... lost in space.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/controlvr/control-vr-motion-capture-for-vr-animation-and-mor
Great links GOG. I cant wait for the prices to drop so more can have this tech.
DD
Wonder how many of these will get converted ;) love the gyro front wheel, and the whole thing is very compact for multi axis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxSpWZjn3eg#t=52 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxSpWZjn3eg#t=52)
Thats impressive H. Wonder what price though???
DD
I just joined this forum and...very nice ;D
accessoires Google Nexus 6 (http://www.coquegsm.com/category-accessoires-google-nexus-6-motorola-14.html) etui Google Nexus 6 (http://www.coquegsm.com)
Welcome to GP Bikes forum Tsitakondaza. Theres plenty of Mods so you should be busy for a while. Enjoy m8.
DD
Quote from: Tsitakondaza on January 22, 2015, 08:56:25 AM
I just joined this forum and...very nice ;D
Welcome aboard Tsitakondaza! ;)
Hawk.
G'day Hawk.
I should have my business plan done this week and once I get the reply form GLE about the money I should be releasing more details on my new product lineup for bike controls. Theres a few things you guys should like!!!
DD
Quote from: doubledragoncc on January 22, 2015, 06:17:21 PM
G'day Hawk.
I should have my business plan done this week and once I get the reply form GLE about the money I should be releasing more details on my new product lineup for bike controls. Theres a few things you guys should like!!!
DD
Sounds great mate!
I look forward to hearing about all this. Keep up the good work mate... Exciting times ahead, eh! ;) ;D
Hawk.
Thanks Hawk. Yeah exciting times indeed. Just had a University in Malaysia requesting a system and I not open yet lol.
Cant wait to start dude!!!
DD