jbazett profile

Photographer = Me

Posted by: Ddean

How does track IR work in DCS? If youre looking right behind you, what screen are you looking at? Or do you turn your head much less than 180 to see 180 on the screen?

It's really customizable, so you can have it at about 1:1 for say a racing game, when you just need to shift your view by 10 or 15 degrees either way to see mirrors, I use something that resembles an exponential curve for flight sims, so shifting your head less than say 5 degrees, yields hardly any movement (less than 1:1 ration), but the further you rotate, the greater the rate, so if my head is turned about 20 degrees from center (which is still pretty comfortable, you're facing directly behind you. You can also have it accelerate at a linear rate too, or define different linear rates for ranges of motion. Then each preset is bound to the game, so you can have multiple profiles.

Pitch, roll and yaw curves are all customizable on the TrackIR, as well as X, Y axis movement (closer to, or further from monitor, as well as left - right parallel movement). Being able to move your head closer to the monitor to zoom in on controls for more granular control is pretty nice.

I've also build my own head tracker using an EDTracker kit that uses accelerometers to track head movement and a magnetometer to keep drift in check, but it was definitely not as accurate and couldn't track movement in X/Y and couldn't really keep track of roll as well. Fun little project though.

TrackIR actually seems really expensive compared to the VR stuff now. It only does motion tracking, no screens etc and for the unit, and the clip for your headset is about $250. An EDTracker kit is about $20 if you can solder and it does a pretty damned good job for the price.

VR goggles make me a little claustrophobic not being able to see my surroundings. I'll probably pick up a set once the framerate and per-eye resolution get a little better a generation or two from now. Right now I use a X58 Rhino HOTAS and Track IR mounted to my headset for head tracking. Works great in DCS, Arma 3, Star Citizen and Elite Dangerous. Then I can make use of a higher refesh rate panel and better resolution.

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

Posted by: tashi

“I’m just fine in left field here” = “I’m happy to remain ignorant.”

Time to stop feeding the troll folks. He’s not interested in understanding, just arguing.

Or seeing who can provide something other than the usual drivel.

And that was more to do with Bazzers attitude - I'd rather remain ignorant yet open minded and good than an agreeable condescending douche.

Smells like insecurity in here.

I answered your question. You attempted to divert the conversation with a non sequitur and then proceeded to put on a stunning display of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

Posted by: jbazett

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

That was a short lived lurk mode ;)

As for shit posting, hows this: I just think he should've landed elsewhere. If you float to the limits of not being able to fall back down, you will not fall close to where you started (not falling back down to earth obv is edge of space). I didnt even bring up any XY axial movements of our earth. He was almost spot on when you consider it. And yea, I phoned that link in. What can I say oh mighty Bazzer.

You think that he should have landed elsewhere, based on what? An incorrect assumption about the current scientific model of our atmosphere? How would you have proposed guessing where he should have landed?

He wasn't near the limit of 'not being able to fall back down', that's not even a thing. That's not how gravity works. He was 21km up, he wasn't even 10% of the way through the atmosphere (depending on which layer you're measuring to).

Seriously man, crack a book.

Did I mention flat earth or geo centrism? As for the edge, thats how it was billed and described. And how is the limits of our atmospheric induced gravity not a thing? There's gravity in space now? You might've gotten over zealous coming out of retirement.

But, you want to know whats cool about flat earth? It doesnt fucking matter. If we woke up tomorrow and for whatever in the fuck reason it's now just accepted and known its flat, do pilots have to recertify? Curved line and straight line basic stuff. Would we still get ripped off on airline gas prices though?

Crack a book? End up like you and Switch? No thanks, I'm just fine in left field here.

Wait? You think the atmosphere induces gravity and that gravity ends in space? Bahahahahahahaha

My work here is done folks.

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

Posted by: jbazett

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

Posted by: jbazett

After more than 2 years in lurk mode, just had to chime in and mention that flat-earther/geocentrist bullshit is a new low point for NBR.

Having said that, if you would like an actual, ridiculously over simplified answer for your question: Yes, The atmosphere 'spins' with the planet, it's a fluid and "An object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless acted upon by an external force. " - Newton's First Law. We can measure the rotational speed of the earth using a Foucault pendulum or a ring laser gyroscope, it's accurate and repeatable. So the very fact we don't experience the violent '1000 mph winds' (at the equator) you're talking about IS confirmation of a 'spinning atmosphere'.

A more lengthy explanation involves inertial frames, fictitious forces, fluid dynamics (because the atmosphere is a fluid) and about a dozen other concepts which require a great deal more physics knowledge than I possess. For simple physics, we can treat the earth and it's surrounding atmosphere as an inertial frame, so the only thing we really need to account for in Baumgartner's jump is local wind conditions around his capsule as he ascended. So, he landed 38 miles away because as he ascended he experience, on average, a 15 mph wind.

Expressing the rotation of the Earth as speed can also be problematic, because how far north or south of the equator you are, and your elevation greatly effects that rate. (i.e Someone standing at the north or south pole would be travelling zero mph, while someone at the equator would be travelling 1000ish mph). Elevation is also a factor. So, expressing it as angular velocity or revolutions per minute makes more sense, the earth rotates at .000694 RPM, not 1000mph.

It should also be said that just because something can't be explained to a 'simpleton', doesn't mean that it's not true, it just means that the simpleton doesn't have the requisite knowledge to understand the explanation. Complex systems generally require complex explanations.

Any-who, back to lurk mode.

Newton what now?

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1158337/ewton-wrong-science-dismiss-isaac-newton-theory-gravity-albert-einstein-black-hole

Yep, Newton, who died in 1727, was wrong about Universal Gravitation.

1) Newton couldn't observe gravity around a super massive black hole in 1727.

2) The laws of Motion are unrelated to whether gravity is universal or not.

3) Gravity not being universal, doesn't mean there is no gravity.

4) Someone being wrong or right about one thing has no bearing on whether they are wrong or right about another.

The fact that you failed to acknowledge the bulk of my post, including the verifiable, repeatable experiments that prove the earth is spinning, speaks volumes as to whether you are actually interested in having your question answered or are just shit posting.

I mean, did you just Google 'Newton wrong' and link the first article you came across without actually reading it or having the basic physics repertoire to understand what they're talking about?

That was a short lived lurk mode ;)

As for shit posting, hows this: I just think he should've landed elsewhere. If you float to the limits of not being able to fall back down, you will not fall close to where you started (not falling back down to earth obv is edge of space). I didnt even bring up any XY axial movements of our earth. He was almost spot on when you consider it. And yea, I phoned that link in. What can I say oh mighty Bazzer.

You think that he should have landed elsewhere, based on what? An incorrect assumption about the current scientific model of our atmosphere? How would you have proposed guessing where he should have landed?

He wasn't near the limit of 'not being able to fall back down', that's not even a thing. That's not how gravity works. He was 21km up, he wasn't even 10% of the way through the atmosphere (depending on which layer you're measuring to). I mean, reaching Mach one 38 seconds after he jumped is a pretty fast rate of acceleration for someone near the 'limits of not being able to fall back down'.

Seriously man, crack a book.

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

Posted by: jbazett

After more than 2 years in lurk mode, just had to chime in and mention that flat-earther/geocentrist bullshit is a new low point for NBR.

Having said that, if you would like an actual, ridiculously over simplified answer for your question: Yes, The atmosphere 'spins' with the planet, it's a fluid and "An object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless acted upon by an external force. " - Newton's First Law. We can measure the rotational speed of the earth using a Foucault pendulum or a ring laser gyroscope, it's accurate and repeatable. So the very fact we don't experience the violent '1000 mph winds' (at the equator) you're talking about IS confirmation of a 'spinning atmosphere'.

A more lengthy explanation involves inertial frames, fictitious forces, fluid dynamics (because the atmosphere is a fluid) and about a dozen other concepts which require a great deal more physics knowledge than I possess. For simple physics, we can treat the earth and it's surrounding atmosphere as an inertial frame, so the only thing we really need to account for in Baumgartner's jump is local wind conditions around his capsule as he ascended. So, he landed 38 miles away because as he ascended he experience, on average, a 15 mph wind.

Expressing the rotation of the Earth as speed can also be problematic, because how far north or south of the equator you are, and your elevation greatly effects that rate. (i.e Someone standing at the north or south pole would be travelling zero mph, while someone at the equator would be travelling 1000ish mph). Elevation is also a factor. So, expressing it as angular velocity or revolutions per minute makes more sense, the earth rotates at .000694 RPM, not 1000mph.

It should also be said that just because something can't be explained to a 'simpleton', doesn't mean that it's not true, it just means that the simpleton doesn't have the requisite knowledge to understand the explanation. Complex systems generally require complex explanations.

Any-who, back to lurk mode.

Newton what now?

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1158337/ewton-wrong-science-dismiss-isaac-newton-theory-gravity-albert-einstein-black-hole

Yep, Newton, who died in 1727, was wrong about Universal Gravitation.

1) Newton couldn't observe gravity around a super massive black hole in 1727.

2) The laws of Motion are unrelated to whether gravity is universal or not.

3) Gravity not being universal, doesn't mean there is no gravity.

4) Someone being wrong or right about one thing has no bearing on whether they are wrong or right about another.

The fact that you failed to acknowledge the bulk of my post, including the verifiable, repeatable experiments that prove the earth is spinning, speaks volumes as to whether you are actually interested in having your question answered or are just shit posting.

I mean, did you just Google 'Newton wrong' and link the first article you came across without actually reading it or having the basic physics repertoire to understand what they're talking about?

After more than 2 years in lurk mode, just had to chime in and mention that flat-earther/geocentrist bullshit is a new low point for NBR.

Having said that, if you would like an actual, ridiculously over simplified answer for your question: Yes, The atmosphere 'spins' with the planet, it's a fluid and "An object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless acted upon by an external force. " - Newton's First Law. We can measure the rotational speed of the earth using a Foucault pendulum or a ring laser gyroscope, it's accurate and repeatable. So the very fact we don't experience the violent '1000 mph winds' (at the equator) you're talking about IS confirmation of a 'spinning atmosphere'.

A more lengthy explanation involves inertial frames, fictitious forces, fluid dynamics (because the atmosphere is a fluid) and about a dozen other concepts which require a great deal more physics knowledge than I possess. For simple physics, we can treat the earth and it's surrounding atmosphere as an inertial frame, so the only thing we really need to account for in Baumgartner's jump is local wind conditions around his capsule as he ascended. So, he landed 38 miles away because as he ascended he experience, on average, a 15 mph wind.

Expressing the rotation of the Earth as speed can also be problematic, because how far north or south of the equator you are, and your elevation greatly effects that rate. (i.e Someone standing at the north or south pole would be travelling zero mph, while someone at the equator would be travelling 1000ish mph). Elevation is also a factor. So, expressing it as angular velocity or revolutions per minute makes more sense, the earth rotates at .000694 RPM, not 1000mph.

It should also be said that just because something can't be explained to a 'simpleton', doesn't mean that it's not true, it just means that the simpleton doesn't have the requisite knowledge to understand the explanation. Complex systems generally require complex explanations.

Any-who, back to lurk mode.

Posted by: switch

If you use something like Kodi, how do you deliver the content to the TV? Do you need to connect a display cable (DVI/HDMI) from the PC running Kodi? Can a device like a PS3 be used for getting content (i.e. run something like Kodi)?

There is a pretty comprehensive list of devices that will run Kodi on their wiki. http://kodi.wiki/view/devices

Basically, it runs on most linux/windows/OSX/android devices.

I personally use a dirt cheap AMD computer (FX-6100 / GTX 1050) hooked directly to my TV and download mostly 1080p & 4K content from Usenet using Sonarr (pretty much the same as PaulB) and then Kodi as a viewer. I have used much older hardware as well for 1080p content without issue (intel Core 2 duo/4gb RAM/GTX 650 Ti), I salvaged this system from a recycling bin and upgraded the GPU. Most PC's (running Windows 7 or better) will handle 1080p H264 decoding, if you want to play 4k files you're either going to need a fair bit more processing power or a more modern GPU with H265 decoding (Nvidia GTX 600 series or better). I don't stream content often, as I find the quality unbearable, but I have used the Exodus plug-in with some luck. I've also heard good things about the Alluc plug-in.

One good thing about using Exodus or Alluc, is that it takes the sketchiness out of browser based streaming.

For me, Kodi's default skin is pretty much unusable. I use the 'Amber' skin as it has features built in that I don't think I can live without. It organizes your TV tab on your homescreen into two rows, the top row being newly downloaded content and the bottom row your 'ongoing' content (the episode you're currently on in an ongoing series).

I've been having a lot of stability issues in Kodi lately though, it can be frustrating at times but I'm so used to the Amber interface now that I can bear to switch.

this is a good example of why i brought up the issue of trump mocking the reporter's disability as being questionable. if you read your article is says "they would be fired if they voted for Obama", it does not state they were actually fired as you claim. you may see this as a minor discrepancy amidst all the other evidence, but it is the same type of discrepancy wrt the claimed mocking.

being accurate with what happened and believing what you think happened are not always the same thing.

the reason i bring it up is that being inaccurate and making false claims delegitimizes the truth as to why trump should never even have been allowed to be nominee for the republican party, never mind win the presidency. every misrepresentation of the truth, no matter how small, becomes an excuse for hte "other team" to point and say hey they're lieing, they're no good! it leads to the type finger pointing and disdain we've seen over the past few pages.

if there is no respect for evidence, no matter how unpalatable the alternative may be, then we may as well just fabricate everything.

You and I see the mocking incident differently. I don't know why that is so hard for you to comprehend. This is the third time I've said this, hopefully it sinks in this time: If we can't agree on the basic premise of each other's arguments, which we don't, move on. I think I've clearly stated my reasoning, so have you. We've reached different conclusions. Let it go.

https://courthousenews.com/man-says-boss-carried-out-threatto-fire-him-for-voting-for-obama/

Sorry, my link didn't contain the information on the specific civil case I was talking about. Since intent in wrongful firing cases is very difficult to prove, I realize it's in no way conclusive. So I'll edit my initial post and remove that specific claim.

You're right, it took them a day or so before they started beating minorities, jumping people wearing Obama shirt shouting 'Ngger president' and 'Fck Obama', hanging effigies from trees and burning a predominantly black church.

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2009/racist-backlash-greets-president-barack-obama