Positional tracking calibration

"Tgaud" wrote:
... when I fart in my bed, if i dont know if it can generate radiofrequency, do I need a FCC certification too ?
look the wikipedia link, they tell you dont need any certification, thats all.

I just read the entire WikiPedia page at the link you provided. The ONLY mention of FCC certification on that page was this:

"

"edzieba" wrote:
I'm not convinced this is true. In the case of head orientation, no tracking at all IS better than sub-par tracking. With no tracking things work reasonable well, though somewhat boring without the ability to look around. But with bad tracking, any movement you make is nauseating.

What you say may be correct for some people, or perhaps for many people. I plan to continue my experiments, and then we can see how many people find it a subjective improvement, and how many people prefer positional tracking turned off. How do you know for certain that you can safely make an absolute claim such as "with bad tracking, any movement you make is nauseating" when nausea is a subjective personal experience? Where is your robust evidence to substantiate such a claim?

I have no problem with you telling me you are not convinced. I have a problem with people telling me my claims are wrong, and that I am spreading B.S., when they provide no supporting evidence nor convincing arguments with which to dispute my claims, and they also have an apparent agenda to support RF tracking while claiming that such RF devices can (apparently) be sold with no FCC certification whatsoever (despite provided contrary evidence).

Nausea is subjective, and really depends on the individual, and how much VR experience they have. Just because SOME people MIGHT have a problem, does not mean that research should be discontinued. Research and the pursuit of knowledge are a GOOD thing, even when they have an unfruitful outcome:

“I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.”
― Thomas A. Edison

“Many of life's failures are people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up.”
― Thomas A. Edison

So why attempt to discourage me? I know the research. I know the naseau (I have more than my share with an inner-ear problem). I know what I am doing. I know the encouraging results of what I have done so far. I have a half-century of experience in computer programming and electronics design. I am not a fool. I will not be discouraged from my research.

Ultra-wideband refers to radio technology with a bandwidth exceeding the lesser of 500 MHz or 20% of the arithmetic center frequency, according to the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC). A February 14, 2002 FCC Report and Order[15] authorized the unlicensed use of UWB in the frequency range from 3.1 to 10.6 GHz. The FCC power spectral density emission limit for UWB transmitters is −41.3 dBm/MHz. This limit also applies to unintentional emitters in the UWB band (the "Part 15" limit). However, the emission limit for UWB emitters may be significantly lower (as low as −75 dBm/MHz) in other segments of the spectrum.

Deliberations in the International Telecommunication Union Radiocommunication Sector (ITU-R) resulted in a Report and Recommendation on UWB[citation needed] in November 2005. UK regulator Ofcom announced a similar decision[16] on 9 August 2007. More than four dozen devices have been certified under the FCC UWB rules, the vast majority of which are radar, imaging or locating systems[citation needed].

There has been concern over interference between narrowband and UWB signals sharing the same spectrum; earlier, the only radio technology which operated using pulses were spark-gap transmitters (which were banned due to interference to medium-wave receivers), but UWB uses lower power. The subject was extensively covered in the proceedings that led to the adoption of the FCC rules in the U.S. and in the meetings relating to UWB of the ITU-R leading to its Report and Recommendations on UWB technology. Commonly-used electrical appliances emit impulsive noise (for example, hair dryers) and the argument was successfully made that the noise floor would not be raised excessively by wider deployment of wideband transmitters using low power.

China allowed 24GHz UWB Automotive Short Range Radar in Nov 2012.[17]

Can't you read properly?
There is nothing

incredibly expensive

to pay for.

So yeah, you're telling BS.
And the fact you rage until looking over all the billions of messages of "Tgaud" users over the international web where one of them is in a disagreement with someone else, prove that you're desesperate to make your point.

I can do the same a simple search on google on your nickname, first page:

geekmaster: Cant you just keep put of this thread instead of just trolling please?

And in a topic talking about oculus rift, so there is great chance, that it's you.
Anyway, I don't care about the off topic childish game you wanna play.

My point is very simple, not every usage of UWB need Licensing.
I told you my "proof" up ahead
Stop raging.

It is nice that you actually tried to supply evidence to back your claims that I am wrong and spreading B.S., but you are still getting it totally wrong yourself. Apparently, English must not be your primary language. Your "licensing" quote is not applicable to your argument because unlicensed USE means that the operator of the equipment does not need to have a radio operator's license (which I have). However, the EQUIPMENT itself must have FCC certification in order to be sold, as I mentioned repeatedly. Are you actually reading my posts before calling them "B.S."?

You seem to be confusing these two DIFFERENT things, and vehemently supporting your misunderstanding to the point of being demeaning and denigrating to others. This is very poor anti-social behavior on your part.

Regarding that "trolling" comment from virror, you pulled that out of context. That quote was his reply to a perfectly valid post I made about possible complications to deal with for that thread topic, and in his next post he appologized for having said that:

"virror" wrote:
I'm sorry, seems that it was just a misunderstanding, after reading what i wrote again in the first post i kind of understand your response : )

I have had detractors at all forums, especially for my BEST ideas that gained the most fans. Interestingly, most of these people were also quite intelligent, but did not produce much original content of their own or supply evidence to support their own claims. You seem to fall into that category in this case. Other productive and creative people suffer the same "troll magnet" fate. However, here and at other forums I have gotten plenty of supporting and positive posts too:

"K-- comes off as merely arrogant since he talks about how awesome he is at everything, but doesn't seem to actually produce much to support this while making assertions that everyone else is close minded and can't see why his unconventional thinking is so superior to what actually works.
If you talk about how awesome you are, everyone will just think you are a blowhard. If you do awesome things, people will realize you are awesome.

And I get a lot of the "you really ARE the geek master" and "you are my god" posts at various forums too, in response to some of my contributions. So although another opinionated detractor is annoying, it is not new... Sad but true. I will not let that stop my research, however.

In the case of K--, he was a big detractor at first, but we have come to understand each other and I have encouraged him to be more productive and less boastful in his posts, and my enouragement has helped him in that regard to become a useful member here. However, he occasionally returns to his old ways and needs more encouragement. That seems to be your case as well, because I see that you have provided some useful posts here and elsewhere, mixed in with your derogatory and demeaning posts that annoy others. Some people must have personal problems that make them feel the need to attack others in various forums. I do not know. I just try to inform the misinformed (like here), and to provide useful knowledge and information wherever I can, and to provide research and insight into interesting aspects of things being actively discussed. I like to explore new things, and to experiment with neglected aspects of existing methods that may simplify or enhance our knowledge and experience. In this case, I want to improve the immersion of the Rift without requiring additional hardware.

I do not know why people try to stand in the way of progress. I can only imaging that my research is perceive as a threat against RF postional tracking or something. That cannot be farther from the truth. I just pointed out some facts, and some innacuracies in your claims, and you resort to personal attacks in retaliation. You reputation seems to follow your behavior. Other forums called you a troll, and I tend to agree with them.

When googling for geekmaster, beware that there are a LOT of "pretenders" out there. I have been using this handle since 1995. A lot of my best stuff was posted under other "handles" too. That is why I questioned whether the Tgaud known as a troll at other websites was also the member here. Your behavior and quote from a prior detractor (K--, who is now a supporter), indicates that you are probably the same as the offsite Tgaud posts I quoted.

In this thread, we seem to have a contextual disagreement about the difference between user licensing and product certification. The only thing they have in common is that both are handled by the FCC.

I have tried to educate you, and yet you continue being disrespectful to me.

You may continue to be confused about the difference between an operator's license and equipment certification. And you may continue to be demeaning and annoying to others on this and other forums at other websites. I cannot change you. And apparently I have failed to educate you. You have failed this lesson.

This thread is about positional tracking using the built-in IMU, and not about RF tracking. Read the first post. My posts are in agreement with the first post. Your posts are only vaguely related, and unnecessarily argumentative.

"Rabbit" wrote:
... I suspect OP is only talking about accelerometer readings to get it reacting nicely to those small movements like when you lean forward or shift sideways a little. And when I say only, I mean the range of movement, I think it would add a tremendous amount to the sense of immersion if these little shifts in perspective were able to be added in. Definitely worthwhile if we can get something from the existing sensors in the dev kit. ...

@Tgaud: Your disagreement is with the topic of this thread, so why do you want to argue over semantics about off-topic licensing or certification of RADIO equipment?

"V8Griff" wrote:

"malfate" wrote:
geekmaster: Realizer of reality

Yep, and don't get into a discussion about semantics... you'll lose :lol:

You disagree with me BECAUSE of my agreement with the OP and the topic of this thread. You have no need to call my posts B.S. here just because I am suggesting ways that the OP's suggestions may be useful. Just because you failed in your attempts to use accelerometer-based positional tracking does not mean you need to try to derail this thread. And for that matter you do not need to call developers idiots at other forums either. Your off-topic misbehavior is not welcome.

You really should READ (and understand) my posts (and my links) before commenting on them... Especially when you use such derogatory claims and poor choice of words. You must have quite an awesome ego to feel that others are idiots, and post such claims publicly at multiple forums... What positive contributions have you made lately?

And now, for something completely different:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bbmybLeCeU

you're so in opposition with yourself.

You told me, with one hand, that the FCC certification is expansive and unaffordable
And you told me, in the other hand that Occulus rift already have a certification.......

"Tgaud" wrote:
you're so in opposition with yourself.

You told me, with one hand, that the FCC certification is expansive and unaffordable
And you told me, in the other hand that Occulus rift already have a certification.......

What are you talking about? Do you even understand English enough to justify your belligerent attitude? I already showed you the difference between licensing and certification. To ignore that and continue your argument over semantics is just ignorant. And your personal attacks against me (calling my posts B.S., and this "oppisition" comment) are uncalled for. I am not in opposition with anything but your foolishness.

What about the Oculus Rift? It does NOT have the RF postional tracking that you are pushing. And your arguments were about RF tracking FCC certification, and not Oculus Rift FCC certification. The Rift can amortize its FCC certification cost over many thousands of units. RF positional tracking hardware will add extra cost, and have a much smaller audience (and therefore, a much larger per-unit cost for certification). And RF devices that contain a transmitter (such as for tracking) need to repeat certification with each change to electronics, packaging (shielding), antennas, or cabling, adding to the expense.

So why are you bringing even MORE off-topic confusion to this thread now? First you confused licensing with certification. Now you seem to be confusing RF positonal tracking with the Oculus Rift. Why?

You never explained why you want to impede research and development of software constrained head tracking using only the Rift built-in hardware. What is your problem with such methods? Why do you not want others to succeed where you have failed?

And your post is once again rather disrespectful. But that is nothing new for you, here or at other forums. We are not amused by your antics... You are a total waste of time...

"Tgaud" wrote:
Hi,

Maybe a lot of you are like me, a lot of idea, but no game-developper skill.
And maybe some others are very good developper but have no idea...

Here is a topic, where you can regroup every Idea of game, demo, or simulation you wishe to test with occulus rift.

From my point of view :

flying is the dream of every men, so :
...

Ahh... I see... That explains a lot. You have a LOT to learn (including English), but with such disrespect for your elders and disdain for others, that is not likely to happen until you grow up...

As long as they already need an occulus rift certification until the next customer version.
I dont see why they wouldn't integrate the RF positional tracking hardware inside.

A certification is a certification.

And in the other hand, it's user-licence free.

And can you pls stop insulting ppl, and making it personnal ?
Are you a child, for trying this personnal ridiculous vendetta ? is it so important for you to not being proved wrong ?

"Tgaud" wrote:
As long as they already need an occulus rift certification until the next customer version.
I dont see why they wouldn't integrate the RF positional tracking hardware inside.

A certification is a certification.

And in the other hand, it's user-licence free.

The existing Rift certification does NOT include any retrofitted RF tracking. Trying to sell such a modified Rift would require additional (even more stringent) FCC certification.

You are sadly misinformed (or uninformed). Go study and read and learn. Perhaps in your own native language...

Even the Oculus Rift DK has such a sticker on the bottom of its controller

well you're blathering about an unbelieviable cost of a FCC hardware certification.
A certification that occulus rift Already need.

So, I dont see why, as long as they already need this certification, they wouldn't include proper RF hardware inside ?

and btw , kickstarter + 25 000 order of a devkit-rift at 300$ piece unit, it's nearly about
10 000 000$ without having sold a single "customer version" unit.

I think that for that cost, they can easily afford a little certification.