Free-track IR 2 DOF?

[SEE]

Firstly, Is anyone using Free-Track succesfully?

Second, I read that IL2 only supports 2 DOF but wondered if using a 3 point clip (6 DOF) converts slight rotation of the head to look around rather than having to move your head side to side and up and down as with a single point 2 DOF set up?

[WTE_Galway]

Firstly, Is anyone using Free-Track succesfully?

Second, I read that IL2 only supports 2 DOF but wondered if using a 3 point clip (6 DOF) converts slight rotation of the head to look around rather than having to move your head side to side and up and down as with a single point 2 DOF set up?

1. nah .. I just use a real trackIR. I know hacking up your own free rig has more street cred but meh I could not be bothered ...

2. Default IL2 (unmodded) is just 2DOF but there are 6DOF options about if you search around. Its apparently unlikely official IL2 will ever get 6DOF because the older 2D cockpits have huge problems.

3. Running a 6DOF rig in 2DOF the trackIr filters our head tilting and vertical/horizontal movement and only responds to actual head turning and nodding.

[Flanker35M]

S!

A few squad mates have built FreeTrack units and they work just fine with IL-2 and 6DOF. Sure original IL-2 supports only looking around, but even that is better than using keys or POV hat.

[swiss]

1. Yes(FT)

2. It's mandatory - once you have one (FT OR TIR) you'll ask yourself how you could fly without it.

[julian265]

Another happy freetrack user here. Just take your time, do a bit of reading and thinking, and you can have a great tracker. There are some good videos and pages around which provide construction tips which are missing from the 'official documentation'.

I'm also hoping SoW BoB will be open to generic axis inputs.

[SEE]

Cheers for the replies. I have it working in single point mode 2 DOF using FT v2.1. I read that FT V2.2 doesn't work with IL1946, (not sure if thats correct or not!) but will make a 3 point clip and try the latest version 2.2 with a better webcam.

Works with WOP too and I hope it will work with SOW - hope my computer does as well....:grin:

[swiss]

2.2 does work with 1946

I made an FT hat - I even manged to make it work with TIR3 cam and FT.

Hat, TIRcam and TIRsoftware don't work tho.

As fas is I know FT and BOP doesn't work.

[SEE]

BOP...? I have WOP working with FreeTrack. Had to download a file (link available from the Yu Play 'Wings of Prey' Forum) and drop it into the FT folder.

Not a clue what it does though other than make FT (6 DOF) work with WOP!

Thanks for letting me know that V2.2 will work, mucho appreciated!

[swiss]

BOP - WOP, sorry my bad. I thought it's called "Birds of..."

[albx]

I'm another freetrack user, it works just fine... with my 3 leds cap :-). Ah... can somebody post their freetrack settings? I configured mine and works almost perfect... but i wanted compare with other users...

thanks
Alberto

[julian265]

My settings
Small soft response curves on all rotational axes
Translational axes depend on the sim - with an optical HUD, linear, with ring and bead, small soft.

also (for IL-2):
http://www.jpfiles.com/hardware/ft/profile.png

http://www.jpfiles.com/hardware/ft/global.png

http://www.jpfiles.com/hardware/ft/model.png


This might be useful for anyone new to electronics, who is thinking about making their own:
http://www.jpfiles.com/hardware/led_steps.jpg

[albx]

thank you julian265, i'll try your settings :)

[SEE]

I have Freetrack working in IL1946 with 3 point 6DOF (mod required) and find that having a small reduction in sensitivity on the axis profile curves (as described in the FT user manual) makes a big difference! I am amazed at the difference using head Tracking makes. I used to fly in virtual view but now I am hooked into cockpit view only and re- starting all my favourite campaigns/missions.

[Avimimus]

BOP - WOP, sorry my bad. I thought it's called "Birds of..."

I'm pretty sure that BOP is the console predecessor to WOP.

[SEE]

BOP - the unfinished console version that the publishers abandoned!

WOP - the unfinished PC version that the Devs abandoned!

Thank gawd for IL1946............and its stable......:grin:

[Splitter]

Not the thread jack, just a quick review on a similar free product:

I downloaded FaceTrackNoIR last night and spent a few hours getting it set up. Today I had the opportunity to fly offline combat with it. Here are my impressions:

It has IL-2 support. All that really means is it is recognized by IL-2 and there are ready made sensitivity settings for this sim.

Unfortunately, those settings only really get you in the ballpark. I found that I had to made the "yaw" settings pretty high to be able to look over my shoulders. The 'pitch" settings (look up/down) also had to be set high.

It has taken a LOT of tweaking to get it to run.

And when it runs, it runs WELL. It's s totally different combat experience when the view changes as you move your head.

Unfortunately here again, it loses tack of your face on a regular basis. My view control then defaults to the HAT switch on my stick, which is ok.

But, it is a bit of resource hog. Really, it's just a CPU hog. As it searches again for your face, there is a noticeable slow down in performance.

So now I am betwixt and between. I now feel I NEED such a system for simming, but this one is not quite ready (it is a WiP too LOL). TrackIR may be in my future, I just hate giving my wife any more ammunition to use against me for my gaming geekiness.

Splitter

[SEE]

Have you not tried Freetrack? It certainly exceeded my expectations. I run in 'Perfect' and no problems whatsoever with performance issues or checking my 6. Never tried the Natural Point Track IR to make a comparison but at the moment I am more than happy with Freetrack and would rather spend the dosh on a Saitek X52 stick!

[Splitter]

Have you not tried Freetrack? It certainly exceeded my expectations. I run in 'Perfect' and no problems whatsoever with performance issues or checking my 6. Never tried the Natural Point Track IR to make a comparison but at the moment I am more than happy with Freetrack and would rather spend the dosh on a Saitek X52 stick!

May I assume that I could buy the TrackIR cap to use with Freetrack?

I really don't want to go through the trouble of building a cap for the game.

Splitter

[WTE_Galway]

I have Freetrack working in IL1946 with 3 point 6DOF (mod required) and find that having a small reduction in sensitivity on the axis profile curves (as described in the FT user manual) makes a big difference! I am amazed at the difference using head Tracking makes. I used to fly in virtual view but now I am hooked into cockpit view only and re- starting all my favourite campaigns/missions.

The downside of headtracking software is once you have got used to it you simply do not bother flying at all if its unavailable :D The other problem is you develop this frustrating habit when watching things like youtube clips of trying to look around by turning your head.

[WTE_Galway]

May I assume that I could buy the TrackIR cap to use with Freetrack?

I really don't want to go through the trouble of building a cap for the game.

Splitter

The trackIR cap is simply a set of reflectors whereas I suspect the freetrack design uses active LEDs (a technique the very early trackIR used but seems to have abandoned years ago)

To use the TrackIR cap you would probably need to get some sort of bright infrared light source and point it at it.

[SEE]

The FreeTrack site describes what third party items can be used and I'm pretty sure that I have seen TIR clips used as well as how to use reflective strips, etc. Best to have a browse on their website.
Quite a few seem to have a reflector set up working well.

[LukeFF]

The trackIR cap is simply a set of reflectors whereas I suspect the freetrack design uses active LEDs (a technique the very early trackIR used but seems to have abandoned years ago)

The TrackClip Pro uses active LEDs.

[albx]

I agree with SEE, on the Freetrack site you'll find everything you need... I didn't used IR leds but just white leds on a cap, with a cable to plug in to the USB. The first time i downloaded freetrack i was frustrating how difficult was to configure... but now i can't fly without it... it's just so natural to look around without press some hat switch on the joystick. I still use the 2 DOF and not the 6 DOF cause i haven't modded my IL2, but i'm fine with it right now. Another thing you'll find difficult will be the camera setup, after that you'll only have so much fun with it and will enjoy every flight.

Alberto

[Blackdog_kt]

Freetrack needs an active LED source pointing at the camera, while TrackIR works both ways. You can have active LEDs that the TrackIR camera tracks (just like Freetrack), or you can have reflectors that bounce back IR rays that the camera emmits towards you.

In the TrackIR software, there is a choice as to what kind of "target" to use. If you choose to use reflectors, there are 4 LEDs facing you on the TrackIR camera that light up, the radiation from which is bounced back by the reflectors. If you choose the trackclip pro, the 4 camera LEDs turn off and the active LEDs are 3, mounted on the clip that attaches to your headphones.

I prefer using Trackclip Pro, because it's easier and more comfortable to wear a thin set of headphones to attach it to, than wearing a cap with reflectors. In that sense, if resolution is comparable, i guess Freetrack is just as good a choice (ie, you don't lose much by lacking the option of having active LEDs mounted on the camera itself). My only gripe with Trackclip Pro is that it's too flimsy. Mine broke a mere 2-3 months after i bought my set and i have it fastened with duct tape ever since :grin:

I think a reasonably cheap and easy way to go would be to combine both. You could use a Freetrack modified camera as the tracker and buy a Trackclip pro to use as the emmiter.

[julian265]

What's stopping freetrack from using reflectors?

[albx]

What's stopping freetrack from using reflectors?

probably because you need to have a light pointing to your face? :grin:

[julian265]

probably because you need to have a light pointing to your face? :grin:

You can't see IR :)

[Blackdog_kt]

It doesn't matter whether you can see IR or not. What matters is that reflectors need something to reflect. ;)

The trackIR camera has a built in emitter, so it's both an emitter and a receiver. Freetrack cameras however mostly function as receivers only, because they lack built-in LEDs.
MSPaint to the rescue: :grin:

http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/9895/trackir.png

[julian265]

Yes I'm aware of how it works - but what's stopping you from buying some IR LED's (the same as I use on my headset), positioning them near your camera and pointing at you, and using the same sort of reflective material as TIR does to reflect the light back to the camera?

Most freetrack users make their own system anyway, so is there anything that I'm missing that's stopping them from doing it this way? It's easier to do with regard to avoiding extra wires running to your head.

[Blackdog_kt]

Yup, if you position LEDs near the camera i think there's nothing stopping you from using reflectors.

[albx]

You can't see IR :)

i was talking about normal light, not IR... and probably IR direct to your eyes is more dangerous than the normal light

[swiss]

Yup, if you position LEDs near the camera i think there's nothing stopping you from using reflectors.

There are (standard)webcams with integrated IR LEDs on the market.

[Blackdog_kt]

There are (standard)webcams with integrated IR LEDs on the market.

Didn't know that, you learn something new every day here :grin:


and probably IR direct to your eyes is more dangerous than the normal light

Actually i think it's not. IR, visible light, lasers, radio waves, it's all the same thing. What changes are the frequencies/wavelengths, which is also a measure of the energy each beam carries.

Higher frequencies means shorter wavelengths and higher energies. That's why in the 40s most radios were short-wave radios...the beam had enough energy to travel far, scatter across the top portions of the atmosphere and then come back down on another part of the continent, so that the resistance fighters in occupied europe could listen to BBC for coded messages :grin:

In all this, IR ranks below the visible light in the amount of energy it carries. In that sense, looking directly into your TrackIR LEDs is less harmful than looking at the sky and certainly harmless when compared to other higher frequency devices we carry on us or spend time around every day (like for example a 2.4Ghz wireless router).

Not playing smart**s here, i just wouldn't want people to be scared of using head tracking when it makes such a big difference :grin:

[swiss]

Didn't know that, you learn something new every day here :grin:


Night Vison webcam rings a bell? ;)

[albx]

Didn't know that, you learn something new every day here :grin:




Actually i think it's not. IR, visible light, lasers, radio waves, it's all the same thing. What changes are the frequencies/wavelengths, which is also a measure of the energy each beam carries.

Higher frequencies means shorter wavelengths and higher energies. That's why in the 40s most radios were short-wave radios...the beam had enough energy to travel far, scatter across the top portions of the atmosphere and then come back down on another part of the continent, so that the resistance fighters in occupied europe could listen to BBC for coded messages :grin:

In all this, IR ranks below the visible light in the amount of energy it carries. In that sense, looking directly into your TrackIR LEDs is less harmful than looking at the sky and certainly harmless when compared to other higher frequency devices we carry on us or spend time around every day (like for example a 2.4Ghz wireless router).

Not playing smart**s here, i just wouldn't want people to be scared of using head tracking when it makes such a big difference :grin:

it's dangerous for long exposure because you can't see it, it's different with the visible light that the eye will protect itself closing... don't say things that you can't prove for sure.. and you know exactly the IRled's wavelenght you are using? Can you measure it or just read the specs the manufacturer say?

[Korn]

Of course the small quantity of IR radiation a few LEDs will produce has no adverse effects for you eyes or anything else. Just like visible light, it takes a lot to damage your eyes. That's why there can be so many products using IR LEDs (webcams, TrackIR, remote controls)... if they were hazardous to your health would they wouldn't be on the market in the first place.

The reason IR LED cap/clip/whatever are used more than IR reflectors is very simple: they're much more effective. Reflectors will only bounce back a small quantity of the IR light. LEDs provide better tracking and are less susceptible to parasite radiation sources (although an incandescent bulb right behind you will still mess up things big time).


PS: another happy Freetrack user here. You should know that for 2 axis movement (2DOF if you wish) you only need a single LED. But why settle for that when you can have 6DOF with 3 LEDs. In other games, of course ;).

[SEE]

Better off having a three point for a standard 2 DOF IL1946 set up. The difference is that that you get panning by slight rotation of the head as opposed to moving your head sidewards and upwards (which I found really irritating!) with a single point setup. I never tried to suss if this could be remedied in the FT software as I was just checking that everything functioned with a single standard LED then made the three point set up using IR Led's. I have two installs (clean 2 DOF and modded 6DOF) and use 3 point in both.

[julian265]

it's dangerous for long exposure because you can't see it, it's different with the visible light that the eye will protect itself closing... don't say things that you can't prove for sure.. and you know exactly the IRled's wavelenght you are using? Can you measure it or just read the specs the manufacturer say?

Being around strong sources of IR such as glowing hot metals can be damaging, sure - but I do trust the data sheets for the IR leds, and I also believe that they emit nowhere near the amount needed for damage to occur. Common video cameras have IR leds to give 'night vision', there are no health warnings on them, and they put out a $%&*( load more IR than the three low powered LEDs that I used! :)

[Blackdog_kt]

it's dangerous for long exposure because you can't see it, it's different with the visible light that the eye will protect itself closing... don't say things that you can't prove for sure.. and you know exactly the IRled's wavelenght you are using? Can you measure it or just read the specs the manufacturer say?

You could be right about the fact that the retina doesn't close to protect against non-visible light, i didn't think about that. On the other hand, all IR wavelengths are still below visible light energies. You don't need manufacturer specs to tell you that, IR is on the lower end of the spectrum according to elementary physics. If it's a higher energy, it's not IR anymore but something else :grin:

To be perfectly accurate we would need to calculate the intensity and volume of the radiation and not just the energy, but like others have said it's obvious that the kind of LEDs used in head-tracking devices are low powered compared to other applications.

[WTE_Galway]

Well just don't be clever and try and use industrial IR lasers for illumination.

I would probably also avoid pointing a military night vision IR spotlight directly into your face from 1m away as well :D

In those cases near light frequency IR radiation damage occurs through focusing the IR on the retina which heats up.

Apparently the IR LEDs used in domestic appliances like TV remotes simply do not have the power to do that.

[kimura_ija]

I am here on this site looking for a link in which a few years back ,, I was able to change a file In il2 1946 and It than became 6dof , instead of 2 dof , I had a english version installed on my computer , But when I installed this new exe file ,, Or as I remember . the loading language was in russian from being In english , and What I saw Is I had 6dof In il2 using a tracker ir4 system .. Its annoying after not playing Il2 and than re-starting to keep index fingering a close up shot within the cocpit and I guess I got spoiled with that 6dof . However When I was playing Online In a warbirds server , i got kicked out of the server because I was considered modded .. well I dont especially wish to fly online anymore .. but I would like to find that exe or whatever it was that changed my 2dof to 6 dof .. I had a site that I am searching and not having any luck finding it again , My last rig got stolen and all those files were lost .. anyone have an I dea ? I think it was All aircraft Index .. Gonna search again .. Still a tracker Ir fan I have the 6dof tracker ir 5

Thanks gents

[swiss]

the 6dof mod of Jsgme/UP2.1? maybe?

[SEE]

6DOF does make a tremendous difference and it works extremely well in IL1946. I am suprised that it was never included in any of the official updates.