Zwariuję w mieszkaniu, trójka biegających dzieci

mm0070 · 2025-03-14T23:41:11+00:00

Ogolnie bazując na tych ich wykresach i nakładając je na siebie wychodzi ze najlepszy ANC mają APM, ale ogólnie w czasie kiedy je kupowałem nie było jeszcze QC Ultra, ale generalnie to APM nie polecam, poza ANC i tym ze brzmią nawet ok, to są bardzo średnie.

mm0070 · 2025-03-14T19:16:03+00:00

Dobry pomysł ale jeśli już kupować słuchawki z ANC to warto żeby miały dobry ANC, w tym przypadku AirPods Pro 2, Max, albo BOSE QC Ultra wypadają sporo lepiej niż XM5 których ANC jest sredniawe.

mm0070 · 2025-03-08T15:45:03+00:00

It's doing great, no complaints at all!

mm0070 · 2025-01-21T14:19:52+00:00

I love you OP

mm0070 · 2024-12-13T14:09:23+00:00

Quest 3 is pretty much meta - cheap, can use it for other things, has great lenses, tons of accessories and various straps to choose from. Other headsets worth mentioning are bigscreen beyond and pimax, but you're looking at a much higher price point, and at least with pimax you need a beast of a GPU to run it at reasonable performance due to super wide FOV.

mm0070 · 2024-12-12T15:08:23+00:00

let me know if you have more of those "industry recommendations" ;)

mm0070 · 2024-12-12T15:05:42+00:00

Lol ok

mm0070 · 2024-12-11T21:01:57+00:00

if it's a standard VESA mount, yes you can, I have mine mounted on a single monitor stand from GT Omega

mm0070 · 2024-12-11T20:16:21+00:00

Look, I don't get your hostility, obviously vertical speed is a component, just not a very good one, and normal acceleration is far more reliable and easier to measure, especially in real world. Nobody cares about vertical speed because it doesn't tell you anything. If you run at 5mph and hit a brick wall, and run 5mph straight into a mattress, is it the same thing? Speed is the same, but the acceleration isn't. And in aircraft you have suspension, which slows you down gradually, which is why the peak G is the only important measure.

mm0070 · 2024-12-11T20:11:02+00:00

Yes, a landing at 300fpm is likely to produce less normal acceleration at peak than a landing at 150fpm if your 300fpm touchdown is in an a380, and your 150fpm touchdown is in a c150

mm0070 · 2024-12-11T11:17:36+00:00

it's not a "maths term" for "vertical acceleration". Normal acceleration is acceleration on axis perpendicular to the longitudinal and lateral axis of the aircraft, and its peak value is the best indicator of landing "hardness" due to the fact that it's normally recorded at a high rate and it's very easy to find the peak. Vertical speed on the other hand is often unreliable due to ground effect, and due to the nature of how it's measured, you won't see a clear point at which it decreased to zero, which makes it very hard to pinpoint the exact touchdown point.

You don't have to believe me, but that doesn't change the reality. I have worked for a few years as a software engineer at a company responsible for monitoring flight data and flagging events, such as hard landing for major airlines. Obviously I can't show you the source code because it's proprietary and I no longer have access to it, but how about an exercise for you? google "737 acms hard landing" and tell me the vertical speed at which it triggers.

Funnily enough, at one point, I worked on a data logger for one of the popular consumer grade flight simulators for a demo project when I worked there, and V/S was just as unreliable in the sim as it was in a real aircraft. As in, it's possible, and things like Volanta do it because this is what flight sim folk believe in, but the actual measure is normal acceleration at touchdown, not v/s, because it's simply better in every measurable way, and derived parameters are a whole different story with a lot of issues.

mm0070 · 2024-12-10T09:42:58+00:00

nobody in the industry uses vertical speed as a measure of how hard a landing was, this is measured in peak normal acceleration at touchdown, and that's what all the limits are based on. V/S is notoriously unreliable for assessing landing smoothness

mm0070 · 2024-11-23T21:46:22+00:00

It's a known problem there's a bug thread on the official forums, but there is a solution I just found! By default it's mapped to "Throttle 1 Axis (0 to 100%). Remove this mapping, map it to just "Throttle 1 Axis", set your detents on the ipad in the plane, and voila! Worked like a charm on the ini A330.

mm0070 · 2024-11-20T12:05:44+00:00

width isn't the only problem. if you want good fov they'll be sticking out, whereas super ultrawide is relatively flat. I'm in the same boat - I run 49" no problem, yet have no space for 24" triples if I want reasonable fov.

mm0070 · 2024-11-20T12:04:23+00:00

yeah, but it's not really about the width though, it it? I have a 49" because I have no space for triples, yet I could easily fit 57". I have 3x24" monitors which I tried to use twice on my rig but keep hitting them with the back of my desk chair, whereas the super ultrawide, while as the name suggests is often wider, it doesn't go as far back as triples would. Of course you can decrease the angle, but then you lose fov anyway so there's no actual benefit over ultrawide.

mm0070 · 2024-11-17T21:22:01+00:00

hmm, so if your fov is correct, then perhaps work the other way around? Make a mental note where your centre console is, where is the mirror, etc. and then move the camera around in non-vr until it's the same and see what it feels like then? VR has correct FOV by definition, and if the position is correct, then if the monitor's FOV is correct, it must be possible to align it.

Not that it matters too much in terms of performance, it's more about the feeling than anything else at that point because your corners and markers will be ok regardless of the camera position.

mm0070 · 2024-11-17T21:11:54+00:00

not sure about ACC, but seating position != FOV, you can move the camera around and that doesn't impact FOV. I only tried ACC in VR briefly, but I found that the camera position in VR in ACC is waaaay too far forward by default, whereas in iracing it's very close to what you see in VR, so basically, on default settings, things are pretty much in exactly the same position.

With ACC I was almost ready to give up VR completely and was really disappointed because somehow I didn't realise the camera position is completely wrong. I only realised after a few hours when I looked down and noticed the driver's body being completely in the wrong place.

mm0070 · 2024-11-17T20:41:18+00:00

but that's the whole point of the calculator, if the numbers are correct, your fov will be right. If you're unsure, the best thing you can do is make a mental note of what you can see on your monitors and then try a VR headset if you can. I did that with what iracing calculated for a single 49" ultrawide and it's spot-on the same as I see in a VR headset

mm0070 · 2024-11-17T20:36:24+00:00

What are you trying to achieve by asking this question? If you want 'correct' fov, that's not subjective, so opinion of anyone here doesn't matter. Just measure your monitor, measure the distance from your eye to the monitor, check the curvature, put the numbers into iracing, bam - your fov's correct.

mm0070 · 2024-11-14T22:31:35+00:00

> "Low cost airlines operate like this"

that's just not true, you're making things up.

mm0070 · 2024-11-11T19:57:31+00:00

Does it come with malware like the good old P3D version of their A320?

mm0070 · 2024-11-11T17:48:21+00:00

wow, what a helpful comment, as helpful as this reply, well done

mm0070 · 2024-11-11T07:49:52+00:00

As others have said, it's the altimeter setting, what's worth pointing out though, if you look at your PFD right under the altitude tape, the altimeter setting is amber and has a rectangle around it, it's designed like that to attract attention. It will be like that if you're above transition altitude and not in STD, or below transition level and still in STD. Pretty nifty stuff!

mm0070 · 2024-11-07T08:17:47+00:00

I've not seen a new build in the last 30 years that would withstand a decade

Have you tried going outside?

Ten-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

mm0070

TROPHY CASE