FlyPT Mover

Any pointers for getting this going?

Not for Elite Dangerous... Or most racing sims I guess. And just a simple mapping of throttle position to "engine" vibration and fire buttons to short vibrations are very effective in terms of immersion. I can feel the thrusters rev up in space, and lasers channeling the power when shooting

I'm interested in using Mover to let students explore the effects of motion cueing design on what it feels like to be in the cockpit of a 6-dof rig simulating flight. It'll be at a University. I'm very happy to donate - I think the software is great* - but are you ok with this? @pmvcda
* it took me a while to explore using "acceleration with gravity" vs "acceleration" but as far as I can see it's now doing a good job with longitudinal acceleration/pitch coordination and roll/turn coordination. I'd like the students to explore alternatives to using the acceleration directly as heave position, and the effects of the cueing on flight performance and perceived realism

Perfectly OK, and happy to see it used that way.

Thanks!!! That's brilliant.

Ps it turns out what I'd been thinking about heave is covered very nicely in @Dirty s thread "Flypt Filter Research (or why doesnt my rig move right?)" (sorry can't link to it as I don't have enough posts)

Hi,
Since this morning when I launch Flypt I have the following error message:
NoDriver calling waveOutOpen
What's happening?

I have this when launching VoiceMeeter before ptmover

Launching mover before voicemeeter solves that

thanks, but i dont have voicemeeter

Are you using PimaxPlay? I'm having a similar issue where Mover would show an error message on startup and would not work if PimaxPlay was launched before Mover. Launching Mover first solves the issue for me. Other than that it might be worth checking for conflicts with other software launched before instead of after Mover.

Good morning all,

probably not directly related to mover, but I'm experiencing a new issue with motion in DCS: when I'm on the ground and start moving from parking position, the moment the plane starts to move, I'll get a couple of heavy motion spikes which cease as soon as I'm actually rolling. So far I only had this spike issue when on the runway, full wheel brakes and spin up the engine before releasing brakes and going full AB.

The second issue has been there for ages, the first one first popped up some weeks ago, probably related to some DCS update. Anyone else experiencing this?

please upload mover files of what the students come up with! i'd love to try em out.

Ditto!

I'm more curious when we can try the new mover version with the interference blocking. It would give me so much more latitude on my rig.

Is the "IF" function coming with the new release? I'm always finding cases where this would be very useful and would make it a lot easier to achieve the result I'm after, sometimes I can't figure out a way to achieve what I want with the current functions.

Say for example if I wanted to do something simple like IF(Value>X, do Filter2, otherwise do Filter1)

I'm actually trying to achieve something like this at the moment and what I'm doing is to play with the Crop function for a value X, so values higher than X then Filter1 stops and then I add another "Pose from motion" with Filter2 that would start if value is higher than X (so I basically crop if value is lower than X).

However, I'm not really achieving what I want, and for example if I simply tell Filter2 to start from X value it physically moves the rig up to that value (straight away, not when active) so I then need to do a Subtract function to bring it down to neutral position, etc. And even then it's not 100% what I want, although I use the same value for the crops there are still areas where no filters are active so the rig wouldn't, etc.

Not sure if there is a better way to replicate what an "IF" function would do?

Based on the teaser screenshots there will be a lot more power in the new version, however I think the problem is that

1) The author painted themselves into a corner by doing too much all at once so they can't release an incremental change and they haven't released anything in years.
2) The closed source nature of the tool does not allow collaboration and firmly relies on a single individual, one whose priority understandably does not lie with the community.

Note: I did donate a significant amount of money to the author, and I received no additional support, not even a "hey thanks". I didn't donate for the acknowledgement of for special treatment, but I'm just putting it out there that the author is most definitely not financially motivated, they couldn't care if you sent money or not, they will do things on their schedule and their timeline.

At this point as promising as the new version looks, it might be more prudent for the community to take all our learnings from FlyPT and develop a new, open source version that is community supported rather than relying on a single person.

Well in my case, although I'd love to have a release as quick as possible so I can use it with EA WRC as well, I understand the situation and I'm "happy" to keep waiting.

I'm very grateful to the creator and to share it for free, and I really like that you can customise the effects so much (although sometimes is a real struggle for me to dial in exactly as I want it )

Anyway, I just hope he keeps working on the new release whenever he can and keeps sharing it with us. He mentioned maybe by the end of September we could have good news.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm "happy" as well. Consider my comments constructive criticism. FlyPT Mover was, and in a sense still is, revolutionary, however there are some serious items on the wishlist that have not been addressed and the lack of support is concerning. Coming in here every few weeks and posting a screenshot of what the future holds does nothing for my current setup.

I understand that it's the author's choice what they choose to do and it's their decision how they want to proceed going forward. I just don't think their current philosophy is productive in the long term or short term, for that matter.

We already had several others who wrote their own 6DOF motion cueing software, we have a few that are currently in beta, and there is a whole slew of commercial solutions that is available for 2/3/4DOF systems that don't have to rely on the complex inverse kinematics of the Stewart platform.

I have also worked with several other free/donateware products in the sim/motion world (OpenXR MC, OpenKneeBoard, etc.) and I found FlyPT Mover's developer the least approachable and/or open to any kind of support/suggestion, regardless of donation.

My main concern is that all these folks are trying to reinvent the wheel and investing precious time and energy to do the same thing over and over rather than work in a collaborative manner.

You can disagree with me all you want, I'm going to call a spade a spade; given my donation I think I earned my right to provide constructive feedback, unsolicited or otherwise.

Absolutely, and a few already have. My point is that this is a niche market with few who have the skills and the inclination to do so. A collaborative environment would benefit everyone. One man holding the key to the kingdom does not benefit anyone.

I don't think my comment was entitled. I'm marginally annoyed that we see some teasers and no tangible updates. Sure, the author has their version that they run themselves but their lack of community update demonstrates just how little they care about the audience and following they have built around their software. It also stifles any innovation by others as they, myself included, hang their hat on hope rather than to build it themselves, given that their wishlist item will be released "any minute". Open sourcing the software or allowing others with skills and abilities to contribute is the suggestion I made and I'm sticking with it.

I also think that the points I made are fair criticism given the circumstances and the audience. OP can take it to heart, or ignore it, it's worth about as much as they paid for it. But to cheer on their home-made efforts that have not seen the light of public eyes in years is not actionable to anyone here and helps nobody but strokes the OP's ego, which is the only reason I can see they keep posting teaser updates. You either take a cr@p or get off the toilet.

This is fair. I incorrectly hoped that a monetary recognition would encourage development or a quicker release. I based it on previous experience with other creators, I was clearly wrong.

I made my point. I appreciate the original release, it has given me a lot of insight and provided me with significant education into the world of motion cueing. I also see the limitations of the software, many are allegedly resolved in a version that is not publicly available for whatever reason and I see no hope in sight. At this point any future request or reporting of any issue is a dead horse, you either accept FlyPT as is, find a better alternative, or write your own. I'm going to make an attempt at the latter with the help of some existing code that someone graciously shared.

The solution was pretty straight forward, the following lines in DCS_To_FlyPT_Mover.lua perfectly solve the issue for me, only a small 'bump' remains:

Code:

    local speed_mag = math.sqrt(speed.x*speed.x + speed.y*speed.y + speed.z*speed.z)

    if (speed_mag < 1) and (math.sqrt(acceleration.z*acceleration.z) > 0.01)
        then
            acceleration.z = 0.01
        end
 
    if (speed_mag < 1) and (math.sqrt(rotationSpeed.x*rotationSpeed.x) > 0.01)
        then
            rotationSpeed.x = 0.01
        end

What it does: For velocities < 1 m/s it will check DCS raw telemetry data for both sway acceleration and roll rate and limit them if too high. The values seem pretty low, but in the sim they pan out just nicely. Keep in mind accelerations are given in g (9.81m/s2) and roll rates in rad/s.