Warpalizer 3 upgrade for full motion sim at Lelystad !

[saabpilot]

Hi guys,

Just got a clip from the "Warpalizer Man"    who is Swedish and lives nearby in Stockholm.

He has just (this week) upgraded the Lelystad full motion sim (B738) with Warpalizer 3.
After upgrade they have a perfect image and no overlap issues so can use both day and nighttime without brighter borders to adjacent beamer.

I have none whatsoever commercial advantage by this post myself nor am I in any way attached with Warpalizer, but believe that it will interest all simmers with a three beamer setup.

Have a look at :  SimCenter Full motion Boeing 737-800 with upgraded visual system to Warpalizer 3.0

Best,
Bjorn

[Maurice]

The warping & deep black correction looks really great but I am truly amazed to see that in a simulator of that caliber with full motion, they are still using one view stretched over 3 projectors instead of 3 undocked windows with true right & left views instead of a stretched front view.

This however has nothing to do with the warping correction and the Warpalizer folks have to be congratulated for achieving such amazing image blending.

Maurice

[sagrada737]

I agree Maurice...  The accomplishment with a stretched display is quite impressive. 

Why would the additional expense of three computers systems for undocked L-C-R projection be justified if this kind of outside projection quality can be achieved?

Since I'm new to 737NG simulator issues, I may be missing something here.   Any comments on ultra-high-end projection vs. stretched display?

Mike

[Maurice]

Since I'm new to 737NG simulator issues, I may be missing something here.   Any comments on ultra-high-end projection vs. stretched display?

Mike

You are definitely missing something. . First, you do not absolutely need 3 three computers systems for undocked L-C-R. Most of the current simmers using 3 undocked windows including myself are doing it with one FSX PC and getting fairly good results except in very busy airports with the traffic settings set to more than about 20%.

Having said that, using 3 computers would definitely improve the fps while adding more complications as you need to update 3 computers every time you add scenery.

But really, in a simulator like this one, the cost of 2 additional PCs is truly insignificant compared to the total cost of this simulator, so that cannot be the reason why they chose not to use undocked windows. I'm truly amazed that they would have chosen that route instead of more realistic side views. Does not make sense to me unless maybe they are not finished setting up the views yet and this was just an initial test of the warping.

Maurice

[HarryZ]

I'm going to Orlando FL next week and plan to spend a day at the professional simulator show that is taking place that week.. Univisual is going to be there displaying their product with Polaris Simulations from Norway. I'm going to meet with Univisual and obviously see their latest work as well as having some other business discussions.

Currently I'm using their standard program for my sim but am aware of the professional version that they have been working on.

Will let you all know what I see and how it goes.

Harry

[fsaviator]

Wow... big improvement.  I spent an hour in this sim during FSWeekend and what struck me was how similar to my current sim view the actual view they had was... right down to the clipped lower edge on the rear of the screens.  I asked the kids running the sim what warping software they were using but they couldn't/wouldn't tell/did not know.

This is light years better than it was.

I took my first test flight tonight on my new build and now I am wondering if warpalizer is in my future

[Sam Llorca]

Hello Harry, which days are you going? I'm planning to be in Orlando on Dec. 3rd and 4th for the ASTi's audio solution simulation. Hope to see you there, Sam.

[HarryZ]

Hello Harry, which days are you going? I'm planning to be in Orlando on Dec. 3rd and 4th for the ASTi's audio solution simulation. Hope to see you there, Sam.

Hi Sam,

I'm in Orlando Dec 2-7.  I plan to go to the ITSEC conference sponsored by the National Training and Simulation Assoc. It's from Dec 3-7 at the Orange County Convention Center.  I'm meeting up with Univisual on Dec 4, just prior to the conference opening on that day. Afterwards I will be looking at the displays...and likely drooling as I walk

Harry

[saabpilot]

Hello again,

Mau is correct, the first example in this thread is a stretched frontview. The reason was that their system produced too low frame rates with 3 undocked views.
However, Warpalizer sent me the following three links where you can see three undocked views used with Warpalizer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwdhsjBJRyk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCSl441iUuI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9t8lZ0g74Y4

Best,
Bjorn

[Sam Llorca]

Thank you Harry, I'll be there also, I need to do some research for my sound system,  hope to see you there, good luck!.

[sagrada737]

Thanks for starting this thread Bjorn.  Warpalizer seems quite interesting - especially in smoothing/blending the projected image to the screen - virtually seamless!  The video links are impressive!

Thanks for the comments Maurice.  My being totally new to the 737NG sim project system requirements means I have a lot of catching up to do to climb the learning curve.  I appreciate the many comments on this forum.

Regarding the projection display:
- I now understand that the outside display can be either docked (stretched) or undocked (multiple views).
- If I understand this correctly, either of these modes (docked or undocked) can be run from a single computer running FSX (or XPlane10).
- I understand that there is also an issue of "frame rates".  It seems that from the posts I have read, there is a mininum frame rate that produces acceptable visual results.

Question:  What is the minimum frame rate running FSX on one computer (assuming a fast computer system and high performance video cards) ?

- I understand that running 3 separate computers in an undocked mode would improve frame rates, but as you pointed out, the added system complexity might be over-the-top for the average home 737NG simulator - not to mention the added maintenance for an array of computer systems.  I know from building/flying experimental helicopters, that there were roughly 8 to 10 hours of maineneance for every hour of flying.  I don't want to get into that operational mode/situation with my 737NG simulator project, so it seems like a good compromise to stay with a single FSX computer configured to run a 3-projector setup - perhaps with smoothing software like the Warpalizer mentioned in this thread.

I'm concluding that building up the fastest computer system possible for FSX (or XPlane10), including video, it key to achieving a realistic wrap-around outside display result for the flight simulator.  My challenge remains at this point in deciding what hardware/software system configuration I need to settle on for my 737NG sim project, but I think I'm getting a better understanding of some of the important requirements to achieve a nice running simulator for the final result.

Question:  How does Pixalwarp compare with other software, specifically Pixelwix?  Is anyone using this software for their simulator?
http://www.pixelwix.com/proddetail.asp?prod=Pixelwarp_DT

- Especially interesting is Pixelwix's curved high reflection screen technology for a curved 200+ degree wrap-around display.

Keep your airspeed up!
Mike

[Maurice]

- If I understand this correctly, either of these modes (docked or undocked) can be run from a single computer running FSX (or XPlane10).

Not correct. Xplane would need 3 computers to run multiple views. Read this post from Scott

http://www.cockpitbuilders.com/community/index.php?topic=2968.msg22872#msg22872



Question:  What is the minimum frame rate running FSX on one computer (assuming a fast computer system and high performance video cards) ?

No real way to answer this question except the higher the better. If you want to fly from large busy airports with the traffic tab set at more than about 30%, you will be lucky if you can sustain more than about 18 fps no matter what hardware you have. The frame rate will also dip below that quite often but once you are airborne, the frame rates will go up and are not an issue anymore.

Having said that, if you get the fastest computer you can afford running at roughly 4.5 Ghz or preferably higher, you will have very satisfactory results under most conditions so I would not worry too much about frame rates

Maurice

[sagrada737]

Thanks for the added comments Maurice.

From Scott's recent post, it seems that I should stick with FSX as the main sim platform.  There is always an itch to move into new releases of software products, but even with known issues with FSX (if any), it does  have a broad base with known history.

Also, thanks for the comments on frame rate.  I am guessing that this is somewhat subjective anyway, depending on settings such as you have mentioned.  Fastest computer it is....   I will proceed in this direction against what is posted for a stable overclocked FSX computer system.

Regarding the video hardware for the FSX computer, and keeping in mind multiple display projectors with enhancement software like Warpalizer, etc.:  I was considering using the Radeon HD 7970, which seems to have good specs and provided for up to 4 monitors.  What are you using for video cards, and do you have multiple video cards in your FSX computer?

Regards,
Mike

[Maurice]

Regarding the video hardware for the FSX computer, and keeping in mind multiple display projectors with enhancement software like Warpalizer, etc.:  I was considering using the Radeon HD 7970, which seems to have good specs and provided for up to 4 monitors.  What are you using for video cards, and do you have multiple video cards in your FSX computer?

Regards,
Mike

I really do not know if this is still true but the common knowledge about ATI vs Nvidia when running FS is that ATI was absolutely not a good choice for reasons I do not really understand. This may have changed with the latest ATI cards but I have no experience about that.

I was using a GTX 480 with a TripleHead2Go but I switched to a GTX 690 which has 4 outputs and no THG. I honestly have not been able to see any appreciable difference between the 2 setups but this could be because I do not know how to optimize the settings for the 690 card.

All I can say for sure is that even though the GTX 480 consistently showed 100% utilization when running FSX and the 690 only shows about 50% utilization, it has not made a difference that I could detect when flying.

And by the way, I only have one video card in the FSX computer. If you are thinking about SLI mode, forget about it as it will not help you.

Maurice

[sagrada737]

Thank you for the comments Maurice.

Question concerning Matrox TH2G:  If I understand how it works, it takes a single video output and allows stretching it over multiple onitors (three projectors in your setup).  Is that correct?

Mike

[sagrada737]

Also...   Along the lines of using enhancement display software like Warpalizer, etc., does the kind of type of "short -throw" projector make a difference in compatibility or display quality.

In my display plan, I was considering a 12 foot diameter 200 degree curved display screen, using the Optoma Eco-Bright ZW210ST.  Any thoughts on projectors/resolution for this type of display?

Mike

[Maurice]

Thank you for the comments Maurice.

Question concerning Matrox TH2G:  If I understand how it works, it takes a single video output and allows stretching it over multiple onitors (three projectors in your setup).  Is that correct?

Mike

With a digital THG, you end up with a maximum resolution of 3840x800 and the triple head splits it up into 3 separate outputs of 1280x800 each (same as if you had 3 video cards or one video card with 3 outputs).

Each projector runs at a resolution of 1280x800 so each undocked window has that resolution as well.

Maurice

[Flying_Fox]

Hi Mike,

Re: minimum FSX frame rates - it is what is visually acceptable to you, meaning the picture is more or less smooth and not too jerky. (from time to time you will have micro-freezes anyway, when frame rate drops below 10 FPS for a short moment.) To me - minimum acceptable frame rate is ~15 fps.

Here is my sample flight video (from videocamera) from my 3 projectors/1 PC setup. Minimum FPS ~15. See if it's smooth enough for you. This is flight around ORBX Cairns airport - pretty heavy scenery on higher settings.

Cairns2_14_55.avi


For one PC/# projectors setup you can count only on 1280x800 projectors. None of existing processors will be able to run 3 full HD 1920x1080 projectors with any acceptable frame rate. Full HD projectors  can be run reasonably fast only from 3 separate PCs.

Get the short throw projectors with throw ratio no less than 0.5 to saveyourself  a lot of troubles. I know that for sure, since I use Optoma GT720 projectors with 0.7 ratio 

And just and observation:

From what I see on the forums  the "undocked window" or "undocked view" is commonly misused term when it refers to multiple screen external view projection.  This is not correct, because, in fact they are docked windowed views and they exist only within main FSX application window.

Just to clarify what I mean again.

-The DOCKED windowed views are those that have only 1-pixel black border around them (if the view is active then the border is white) and they exist only within FSX application window. They cannot be moved outside FSX application window. This is what used for 3 projectors (or monitors) setup. 3  views within the main FSX window. For 3-screen projection purposes the main window is just hidden behind the 3 views that cannot go outside main window borders. 3 views are in foreground, and main view is in the background.

-The UNDOCKED views have also the window frame around the image with the window title and x button. They can be moved outside FSX application window. Example - flight the instruments windows that can be UNDOCKED and moved to another monitor.

Having said that, I know that everybody will still call them "Undocked views" anyway. 

[sagrada737]

Thanks Nick, Maurice,

I appreciate the detailed comments.  Hopefully they will be useful for other sim-startups.

Thanks for the video Nick.  Nice!   It seems to my subjective look, that your "frame rate" is fine.  I am not in any way being critical of your system, but a couple things I noticed are the occasional large white/black pixels, and the L-C-R blending of the images.    I'm guessing the pixels are issues with FSX updating the display or something else.  I'm guessing that the blending issue has to do with image projection overlap.  I understand that the vertical black lines are the physical screen segments.  In any case, the overall smoothness of your wrap-around display seems nice to me and would be a reasonable benchmark for what I want to achieve for my 737NG simulator.

I am showing my almost complete ignorance on FSX, but I can't sort out how you get the full left-center-right views from FSX that could be applied to a 3-projector approach either by three separate computers or a single FSX based computer with a single video card/Matrox THTG.  I apologize for my confusion, but it would be very helpful if you could explain this to me.  How do you tell FSX that you want these L-C-R views that will allow for a wrap-around display that a TH2G can process.

I think if I can get beyond this stumbling block, I can move on with my understanding of the basics.  Thanks.

Mike

[Flying_Fox]

Thanks for the video Nick.  Nice!   It seems to my subjective look, that your "frame rate" is fine.  I am not in any way being critical of your system, but a couple things I noticed are the occasional large white/black pixels, and the L-C-R blending of the images.    I'm guessing the pixels are issues with FSX updating the display or something else.  I'm guessing that the blending issue has to do with image projection overlap.  I understand that the vertical black lines are the physical screen segments.  In any case, the overall smoothness of your wrap-around display seems nice to me and would be a reasonable benchmark for what I want to achieve for my 737NG simulator.

Actually vertical black lines in that video are the edge-butted views - no overlapping/blending. This is one of the early test videos. The physical screen seams are to the right of those and far less noticeable there. L-C-R issues are to certain degree present in all FSX based simulators - I am still working on settings (zoom, projectors angle, etc.) to reduce them.

Occasional large white/black pixels are actually just video file conversion artifacts mostly introduced by Youtube.  There are also graphical artifacts in FSX.  Some FSX settings you can use to increase frame rates  at the same time may cause graphical spikes, black/white flashes (polygon droppings) and other things in the certain places of heavy sceneries.  It's a trade-off.

The thing is that FSX was not specifically designed for 3 projectors use with multiple views. It just had some possibilities that cockpit builders employed for wrap-around screens usage. So it is not perfect, but that's what it is and we have to live with its limitations and other deficiencies.

[sagrada737]

Thanks for explaining this Nick.  I wonder if XPlane10 is the next logical route from FSX - especially since FSX is no longer supported by Microsoft.  Scott was mentioning the benefits of XPlane10's 64bit capabilities, but there may be still some compatibility issues that I guess were hardware related. 

Any thoughts on migrating to XPlane10, or would it be like starting all over?

Mike

[Storola]

Also...   Along the lines of using enhancement display software like Warpalizer, etc., does the kind of type of "short -throw" projector make a difference in compatibility or display quality.

In my display plan, I was considering a 12 foot diameter 200 degree curved display screen, using the Optoma Eco-Bright ZW210ST.  Any thoughts on projectors/resolution for this type of display?

Mike

First, I am one of the founders of the company that developed Warpalizer so I will not make any comment to Warpalizer as such.

Reganding short throw projectors you should bear in mind that such projectors are designed to focus on flat screens only, hence, you should test  if the projector will actually focus across your curved screen. For the sake of good order you should also check if the projector syncs to each frame, if not you might get a breakup in the image. Finally you should also check the projector latency. Normally the supplier of the projectors should be able to answer these questions.

[sagrada737]

Thanks for the comments Olav - useful information, and greatly appreciated.  Lot of things to consider for a multi-projector display.   I had not considered the sync aspects for each projector.  I'm guessing that the lower the "throw ratio", the better the resultant image will seem in focus.

Mike

[HarryZ]

Mike,

Although we often talk about the FPS for FS X, one also has to be aware of the smoothness/stuttering problem you can have as well.  Good FPS does not guarantee smooth depiction.

With today's hardware one must tweak their FSX.CFG file carefully to obtain both maximum FPS and smooth operation.  That can sometimes be challenging because what works for one person's computer might not be the best for another.

Harry

[Storola]

Thanks for the comments Olav - useful information, and greatly appreciated.  Lot of things to consider for a multi-projector display.   I had not considered the sync aspects for each projector.  I'm guessing that the lower the "throw ratio", the better the resultant image will seem in focus.

Mike

Hi again Mike,

I think I have a small softwareprogram by which you can easily check the frame sync capabilities f the projector. I am in Orlando right now for the I/ITSEC show so I will not be able to dig it out until my return to Norway. You will find my coordinates on www.univisual.se if you are interested.

Concerning focus depth of projectors you are correct. A long throw lens will generally focus better than a short throw lens. The downside is that you need quite some ceiling height for your sim to avoid shadows from your cockpit when using long throw lenses. I should mention though, that there are plenty of expensive projectors with short throw lenses with excellent focus depth. It is such projectors we normally work with in the pro simulators, allthough the high prices seem to make more and more sim manufacturers are looking for cheaper compromises.

Regards

Olav