| Main > Lightguns |
| Lichtknarre: Unmodified Wii remote as a sight accurate Lightgun using 2/4 LEDs |
| << < (5/68) > >> |
| Fusselkroete:
--- Quote from: BadMouth on October 27, 2022, 02:03:46 pm ---Fusselkroete, thank you for providing more information. :cheers: Has there been much interest in Lichtknarre? My reaction was "Why haven't I heard of this before?" It works great! --- End quote --- :) :cheers: not sure how many ppl use this tool regular. no tracking. Downloads seems to be not that bad for this kind of geeky tool :D https://geekonarium.de/en/download-changelog-lightgun-lichtknarre-wiimote-line-of-sight-pc-windows/ |
| RandyT:
--- Quote from: Fusselkroete on October 27, 2022, 01:16:48 pm ---The white bars and the ratio number display should be the indicator so that the ratio is properly maintained. The problem here is that the program never knows where exactly the screen is. Whether there is more space on the left, right, top or bottom. The Wii simply cannot see this. Therefore, only the imbalance can be shown by the currently white lines. http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=164992.0;attach=392263;image It is also very difficult to calculate that the other way around, as multistep. If there would be a new screen where the program tries to calculate this the other way around, then the program does not know which ratio the screen has, if it would assume that the user has put the LEDs directly to the screen. --- End quote --- I understand what you are saying, and it has occurred to me that one more piece of information by the user would be required. I'll regret this (because I'll probably be wrong), but I'll try to better explain how I think this can be accomplished. If the user supplies the distance between each of the top and bottom LEDs to their respective edge of the active screen, and then also supplies the distance between the top and bottom LEDs, it would actually allow the LEDs to be mapped in relation to the screen as percentages of deviation. Those percentages could then be applied to the vertical resolution of the calibration screen which shows where to place the side LEDs, creating a "virtual screen" upon which the correct placement ratio and line position can be calculated. This virtual screen is then laid over the physical screen using the LED-to-edge deviation percentages to find the offset. The following is an example using arbitrary units: Edit: Original Example removed. It was simpler than I thought. Top LED Distance = 1 Bottom LED Distance = 2 Distance Between LEDS = 24 From this information, we know that the screen is 21 arbitrary units tall. Therefore, for a 1080p image, the number of screen pixels per unit is 1080/21=51.42857142857143 We also know that there are 3 additional pixel units we need to add to account for the LED spacing, so our virtual vertical screen size becomes 1080+(51.42857142857143 * 3)=1234.285714285714 pixels From there, we can find the pixel row at 74% with 1234.285714285714 * .74=913.3714285714286th row of pixels on the virtual screen. And finally, to equate that to a row on the physical screen, we offset the starting point by the Top LED Distance * Pixels Per Unit, or in this case 51.42857142857143, so the line would be drawn at row 913.3714285714286-51.42857142857143=861.9428571428571 or 862 rounded up. |
| Fusselkroete:
--- Quote from: RandyT on October 27, 2022, 07:49:48 pm --- --- Quote from: Fusselkroete on October 27, 2022, 01:16:48 pm ---The white bars and the ratio number display should be the indicator so that the ratio is properly maintained. The problem here is that the program never knows where exactly the screen is. Whether there is more space on the left, right, top or bottom. The Wii simply cannot see this. Therefore, only the imbalance can be shown by the currently white lines. http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=164992.0;attach=392263;image It is also very difficult to calculate that the other way around, as multistep. If there would be a new screen where the program tries to calculate this the other way around, then the program does not know which ratio the screen has, if it would assume that the user has put the LEDs directly to the screen. --- End quote --- I understand what you are saying, and it has occurred to me that one more piece of information by the user would be required. I'll regret this (because I'll probably be wrong), but I'll try to better explain how I think this can be accomplished. If the user supplies the distance between each of the top and bottom LEDs to their respective edge of the active screen, and then also supplies the distance between the top and bottom LEDs, it would actually allow the LEDs to be mapped in relation to the screen as percentages of deviation. Those percentages could then be applied to the vertical resolution of the calibration screen which shows where to place the side LEDs, creating a "virtual screen" upon which the correct placement ratio and line position can be calculated. This virtual screen is then laid over the physical screen using the LED-to-edge deviation percentages to find the offset. The following is an example using arbitrary units: -------------------- Top LED Distance= 1 Bottom LED Distance= 2 Distance Between LEDs = 24 From this information, we now know that the active screen height is 21 and the upper deviation is 1/24 or 4.1% and the lower deviation is 1/12 or 8.3% of the total distance. So if we are using a 1080p resolution screen to show side LED placement, we use the figures above to create a virtual screen which is 4.1% larger at the top and 8.3% larger at the bottom. The vertical height of our virtual screen is 1080+((1080*.041)+(1080*.083))=1213.92 pixels Therefore, the indicator line for the LEDs would be placed at the 1213.92*.74=898.30th row of pixels on our virtual screen. Then all we need to do is draw the line for LED placement on our physical screen at the 898.30-(1080*.041)=854.02th row of pixels. ------------------- Please double check my results. Even if it's correct, there are probably some shortcuts to get to the same result. I just wanted to step through it to show the process for getting there. Obviously, the measurements supplied by the user would need to be accurate for it to be perfect, but if they are close, it could aid in providing a starting point. --- End quote --- The problem with that theory is that you can't work with physical and virtual units. pixels has no reference to real life. A virtual screen with 1024x768 for example could be 4:3 or 16:9. the resolution does not care. But theoretical a screen with all exact physical messured values (width/height of the screen + offsets left/right/top/bottom) could be implemented, but i think it's too much for the user. (the missed point look update) Whats the problem with the actual screen? Get the ratios right it says :D More exact you do it better it the aiming is :D Try to satisfy the values as best as you can! Atm user only struggles with IR-Offset. The offset wizard aims to solve this problems. But it's hard to aim perfect and maybe there is still a little bug in that wizard. Need to think about it to improve it. The offset wizard knows that the dot which the user is aiming for left offset is for example 25% of the screen. So when you aim the dot and shoot in that moment the app knows where the left IR and the right IR is. assumed that this was 100% and can now see how much percent it has as offset for the left side. I think here a bug could be that it doesn't know the middle point of the screen if i remember right. so if left has different distance to right. will check on that. Also thinking about to use the mouse as a helper in the offset wizard soon. Because the mouse is the end goal. Than the user can press some buttons on the wii and iterate through the offsets in small steps in this wizard. Maybe that will improve it. To get the offset right is more a problem of the interface atm i think, to make it practical. Will see how to improve. Thanks for you'r feedback and the feedback of the others! This forum realy helps to see what users struggles hard with :) Update: Sorry i missed the point that you want the user to provide all as distances ir-offsets/ir-width(distance from left IR to right IR)/ir-heights(distance from top-IR to bottom-IR) for example in mm. Was too early in the morning :). ok maybe that will work, but i think an intuitive calibration process without letting the user measure stuff is much better? Aiming and showing whats wrong is much better imop. Will think about the advantages/disadvantages between these methods. Maybe this could be become part of offset wizard or something or an extra ir offset calculator. Thanks 4 feedback again. Your other point was to have this as initial calibration step. As more do i think about this it could work. But i still think to let the user satisfy values on the fly is much more easy for the user. Because these are real values which comes from the wii remote and not from the ruler. Some ppl make mistakes when doing measurements and are confused the other way around :D. Sounds like both ways have advantages/disadvantages. |
| RandyT:
--- Quote from: Fusselkroete on October 28, 2022, 03:10:02 am --- Update: Sorry i missed the point that you want the user to provide all as distances ir-offsets/ir-width(distance from left IR to right IR)/ir-heights(distance from top-IR to bottom-IR) for example in mm. Was too early in the morning :). ok maybe that will work, but i think an intuitive calibration process without letting the user measure stuff is much better? Aiming and showing whats wrong is much better imop. Will think about the advantages/disadvantages between these methods. Maybe this could be become part of offset wizard or something or an extra ir offset calculator. Thanks 4 feedback again. Your other point was to have this as initial calibration step. As more do i think about this it could work. But i still think to let the user satisfy values on the fly is much more easy for the user. Because these are real values which comes from the wii remote and not from the ruler. Some ppl make mistakes when doing measurements and are confused the other way around :D. Sounds like both ways have advantages/disadvantages. --- End quote --- No problem. I get "false starts" when I think I understand something all of the time (see earlier) :) The user is going to need to measure stuff for that initial LED placement regardless. As the center LED is not in-line with the sides, it's currently very difficult to start out close to the having the side LEDs at the correct locations. To do this well, the user would need a ruler, something to draw lines on the TV frame, make multiple measurements and reference marks, etc. My belief is that actual references provided on-screen, like the one you have showing the optimal placements at the screen border intersections, will always be the easiest for the user to follow and negate the need for the extra stuff. If it works out, it should also be more accurate. I'm not advocating removal of any fine-tuning screens. This is just a way to get close right from the start without needing 3 hands and a calculator to get there :). Edit: The user shouldn't need to provide measurements for everything. Just the 3 measurements I noted. Unless the active screen is not centered, the user should be able to "eyeball" the left to right dimensions of the side LEDs and place them close to where appropriate, so long as there is a line on the screen to follow for the vertical placement. Also, the actual unit of measure is arbitrary. It can be mm, inches, soup spoons, etc... so long as the same unit of measure is used. It is just used for finding the percentage of deviation with whatever the unit is that is currently being used. |
| Fusselkroete:
Here an idea how your calibration process could look like: Step1: User places top LED 50/50 horizontal. An arrow is shown on the screen for the 50/50 top edge. Step2: User places bottom LED 50/50 horizontal. An arrow is shown on the screen for the 50/50 bottom edge. Step3: let the user enter top/bottom offsets and distance between the 2 LEDs. Step4: programm calculates with the offset the screen top position for the left and right IRs. Because it knows the offsets and heights of the screen. it now can calc the percentage for the screen and apply it on the resolution. Step5: Let the user place Left/Right Leds according to the edge positions which was calculated in step4. Step6: let user enter Left/right offsets. Hmmm but to be honest i bet this still do not work. See all the stuff directly over the wii camera is the best because it translate directly to the calculation. Thats why i prefer a more try and error process over the wii cam. Like it is now. Satisfy the values by moving the leds. After this is done adjust the mouse by trying out more and less offset. The offset wizard could be improved alot to this workflow. Lets call my process the wii camera calibration process and the other one the manual calibration process: I bet if you only one mm with one thing off with the manual calibration process than it doesn't work. Also you do not need marks for moving the leds with camera. Maybe glue strips or something. I use magnets to have it a little bit variable. I should do a tutorial video how to calibrate and show it in front of the calibration process :D Will see maybe i can find a hybrid of both worlds. To summarize: - Manual process needs a ruler - Wii cam process needs to replace the LEDs. There must be a process from both worlds to eliminate both disadvantages :D Step1: Like let the wii see the leds the whole time. Step2: User places top LED 50/50 horizontal. An arrow is shown on the screen for the 50/50 top edge. Step3: User places bottom LED 50/50 horizontal. An arrow is shown on the screen for the 50/50 bottom edge. Step4: Let the user shoot two dots on the screen to find the offsets. One 10% top of the screen and one 10% bottom of the screen 50/50 horizontal. Step5: programm calculates with the offset the screen top position for the left and right IRs. Because it knows the offsets and heights of the screen. it now can calc the percentage for the screen and apply it on the resolution. Step6: Let the user place Left/Right Leds according to the edge positions which was calculated in step4. Step7: Let the user shoot another two dots on the screen for left and right offset. But shooting dots works that well as the actual IR offset wizard works haha. And now its a long process where the user is more irretated. Not so sure. Even though we are now theoretically thinking about a better calibration process, which is also super nice and helps me a lot, but I will perfect the wii camera try and error process. A better interface for the offset wizard and a tutorial video what is shown before calibrating to make it more practical. sticky tape, how try and error with IR offsets and what it all means. :D Also this is all one time calibration. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |