Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Input Devices

Next Generation of Gyroscopic Controllers on the Horizon 127

Jamie found a story about a next gen input device that is functionally similiar to the Wii, but instead of using IR, it gets all location information from gyroscopes and accelerometers. This has the potential to be more accurate and maybe not require me to contort my wrist to bizarre angles in order to successfully collect the stars that are like oxygen to me.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Next Generation of Gyroscopic Controllers on the Horizon

Comments Filter:
  • by nullkill ( 835502 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @12:33PM (#22293662) Homepage
    Any input device that requires you to continually keep your hands elevated will never work. Not to mention, constant movement. The reason a mouse and keyboard is so effective is because you can use them both all day long with little to no effort.
    • by MobileTatsu-NJG ( 946591 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @12:59PM (#22294054)

      Any input device that requires you to continually keep your hands elevated will never work. Not to mention, constant movement.

      The reason a mouse and keyboard is so effective is because you can use them both all day long with little to no effort.
      That's how the Wii got it right. It's like using a mouse with gesture controls. It's not 1:1 movement like people dream of, but you're not tiring yourself out with raised arms, either.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Sciros ( 986030 )

      Any input device that requires you to continually keep your hands elevated will never work.

      Whoa, whoa, in what context? Maybe for coding in Eclipse, but if you're talking about input devices in general, that's just batcrap loco. The Wii, and pretty much all game consoles ever, have been working just fine with input devices where your hands are "elevated."

      The reason a mouse and keyboard is so effective is because you can use them both all day long with little to no effort.

      Uh, no. The reason they're effective is because they're intuitive and they let you work efficiently, not because you can use them all day long. A two-button keyboard where you press the button to scroll through input characters with one and acc

      • A two-button keyboard where you press the button to scroll through input characters with one and accept them with the other can be used all day long and your hands won't get any more tired but it would NOT be effective.

        Unless you are Stephen Hawking or Jean Dominique Bauby [wikipedia.org].

        Generally I agree with your points and I don't normally post to just contradict people, but I work with clients who use computers via two-button inputs (and even one-button inputs) on a daily basis.

        • by Sciros ( 986030 )
          Fair enough. I should have probably thought of a more nonsensical example than I did, but hopefully I still got my points across.
      • by MaWeiTao ( 908546 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @03:35PM (#22296966)

        The Wii, and pretty much all game consoles ever, have been working just fine with input devices where your hands are "elevated."


        No, they aren't elevated. These controllers are held with the player's elbows resting on their knees or arm rests. The hands themselves may be elevated, but there is clearly support preventing the arms from getting tired.

        If someone is standing playing the Wii people wont face the same strain because they aren't holding their arm up, relatively motionless. They're swinging the controller around like a tool, However, I can't imagine playing a game like Metroid Prime or Zelda where someone is standing there with arms elevated for hours on end. At that point they'll be holding the controller more conventionally with arms at rest.

        And certainly, there's no way in hell anyone would want to sit in front of a computer all day at work with their arms elevated and swinging around.
        • by Sciros ( 986030 )
          Ok, what? Indeed with any remote controllers your hands are elevated, while your elbows usually aren't. And this particular new UI tool, is it unusable if you rest your elbows on something? Well, is it? (No, it's perfectly usable.)

          And who said this is for sitting in front of a computer all day in the first place? In that case, it's simply inconvenient to have to move your hands in front of your face much simply because it interferes with your vision; you'll be annoyed by that well before your arms tire.
    • by sakdoctor ( 1087155 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @01:08PM (#22294210) Homepage
      Mouse and keyboard are for old people!

      I control my computer with a 3/4 scale reproduction of a Gibson SG

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Guitar-hero-controller.jpg [wikipedia.org]
    • Your post seems to assume that standard interaction with a computer, like mousing/typing, for long periods of time is the only application for input devices.

      It might instead be argued that the available input devices drive the paradigms of input. New, improved, innovative input methodologies open up human-computer interaction to new applications and ideas.
    • Any input device that requires you to continually keep your hands elevated will never work. Not to mention, constant movement. The reason a mouse and keyboard is so effective is because you can use them both all day long with little to no effort.

      It isn't trying to be the most comfortable, it is trying to be the closest facsimile to the simulated object.

      If keeping an object elevated was always wrong, then we would never have enjoyed the use of light-guns and they are still popular in arcades.
    • by jgoemat ( 565882 )

      Any input device that requires you to continually keep your hands elevated will never work. Not to mention, constant movement. The reason a mouse and keyboard is so effective is because you can use them both all day long with little to no effort.

      Is that why no one plays real golf? What do you think people will be doing with this, or are doing with the Wii now? All games don't require constant manipulation of input controls, especially 'party games' like the Wii Sports and Wii Play collections. Playing

  • by BenJeremy ( 181303 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @12:34PM (#22293672)
    Motion sensing is all well and good, but you need accuracy with respect to the video screen, and cameras sensing infrared points is the ideal way to do it these days.

    I could see a combination providing a much more enhanced experience, though.

    The difficulty will come when developers try and create user interfaces that are intuitive and don't quickly tire the user's arms.
    • Motion sensing is all well and good, but you need accuracy with respect to the video screen, and cameras sensing infrared points is the ideal way to do it these days.
      Cameras sensing infrared points is the cheap way to do it these days.

      If it was ideal, then commercial motion capture companies would be using it. Right?
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by EvanED ( 569694 )
        I'm not sure what your point is... A camera recording positions of bright dots is one of the most common motion capture technologies [wikipedia.org].

        It's not exactly like the Wii... the Wii tracks IR emitters, whereas motion capture more commonly uses reflective spheres and a separate light source. Also the camera is stationary, and the light sources are moving in motion capture, whereas in the Wii it's the other way around.

        But I would say the two techniques are a lot closer than you seem to think.
    • by eh2o ( 471262 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @01:43PM (#22294832)
      IR tracking has zero drift, unlike accel+gyro IMUs, although, after calibration for the local magnetic field, the magnetometer (compass) can provide the necessary correction. One will have to tell it where the TV is, unlike the wiimote which already knows, but it will still work when not pointed at the IR source so there is more possibility for independent 3D motion tracking.

      The problem is, those extra sensors are not cheap (currently) -- esp. compared to the stuff in the wiimote. The $99 price projection is likely a pipe-dream or on such narrow margins that Nintendo would never take such a thing seriously.

      Note that TFA says this thing tracks absolute position which is an error -- it tracks absolute orientation. It's position sensing will be short-time relative at best.
  • by hansamurai ( 907719 ) <hansamurai@gmail.com> on Monday February 04, 2008 @12:34PM (#22293674) Homepage Journal

    it gets all location information from gyroscopes and accelerometers.
    This is exactly what the Wii remote is, except the Wii remote adds in the functionality of the IR pointing device. The Wii remote is built on two ideas: the gyroscopes and accelerometers delivering feedback on movements and the IR device allowing it to interact directly with the television. What Jamie so cleverly found is a device that is only the first half of what the Wii remote is built on.
    • by Gravatron ( 716477 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @12:38PM (#22293722)
      wiimotes don't have gyros in them, IIRC. Just an accelerameter.
      • My mistake, thanks for correcting me.
      • by Firehed ( 942385 )
        True - the Wiimote only has the three accelerometers, or one that covers all three axes (I have no idea how accelerometers work). However, it also uses the IR sensor as a makeshift gyroscope in order to initially orient itself relative to the device it's controlling - and that latter part could make it a better choice than a traditional gyro which, to my understanding, is more like a super-compass and is more based on absolutes.
        • Sort of, but a gyro is based on relatives not absolutes (ie you are oriented x degrees from the calibrated position of the gyro). Think of a compass with a moveable magnetic north - you would stand with 'north' directly in front of you and then as you move the 'north' needle stays in the same place but you move around it.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Kaeluka ( 1182731 )
        I worked on an application using quite similar accelerometers, a few years ago. We used the ADXL103, while the Wiimote uses the ADXL303, which is basically the same sensor, but with three measured directions. What we tried to do was measuring distances - quite similar to the Wiimotes goals. What we found out, however, was, that the sensor just isn't exact enough to provide reliable velocity- or even position-Information. The problem is, that the provided accelaration-data have to be integrated (even twice,
      • IIRC, the wiimote's Nunchuck/Nunchaku attachment [wikipedia.org] attachment is what contains the gyros.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by randyest ( 589159 )
          YDNRC; neither the nunchuck nor the wiimote contains any gyroscopes. Both, however, contain accelerometers, and the wiimote adds an infrared camera (which "sees" the sensor bar IR LEDs) to correct drift error. You might note that the page you linked does not contain the word gyroscope.
          • Okay, then for clarification - what would be the difference between an accelerometer and a gyroscope?
      • Sure those accelerometers aren't piezoelectric gyroscopes? Some people think gyroscopes can only be big, rotating, mechanical things, and I think that causes confusion.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by PyroMosh ( 287149 )
      It sounds to me like you're right, but this device does the first half (gyroscopic sensing) with a great deal more precision than the Wii remote is capable of.

      It's not hard to confuse the Wii remote's gyro sensors via erratic motion, or a combination of motions it doesn't understand.

      While this seems like a step up in that respect, there are very few applications that are useful on the Wii without the IR component as a frame of reference for where the screen is.

      At best, this would require a quick calibration
  • "collect the stars"? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Speare ( 84249 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @12:37PM (#22293714) Homepage Journal

    maybe not require me to contort my wrist to bizarre angles in order to successfully collect the stars that are like oxygen to me

    If that was a reference to Super Mario Galaxy, I'd have to say you must be playing wrong. SMG leverages far less Wii controller range of motion than most other Wii games I've tried. WarioWare Smooth Moves gives a bunch of cute names to various Wiimote controller positions, so it's handy to talk about other games with these terms too. SMG just uses "Remote Control" and "Umbrella" postures, and to spin you need to shake the Wiimote a little. If you want wacky untenable wrist positions, try some of the later levels of Kokorinpa (Marble Mania). There are wrist positions in that game that even Smooth Moves didn't try to name, but I'll call them "Policeman's Thumblock" and "Say Uncle."

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 04, 2008 @12:38PM (#22293718)
    The Wii is partly to blame for your wrist problems, the lack of female interaction might play a bigger part.
  • Where is the TV? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Telvin_3d ( 855514 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @12:39PM (#22293754)
    This is a fine idea for games that are purely motion based. So, the Wii Sports and Tiger Woods and driving games and such. However, for games that need to interact with the screen, AKA every shooter, adventure, action game, it will not work. The Wii sensor on the TV isn't there to tell the Wii where the controller is. It's there to tell the Wii where the TV is. Without knowing where the television is in relation to the remote, you lose the ability to move the cursor on the screen.
  • by Sockatume ( 732728 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @12:40PM (#22293774)
    As the comment title states. The acceleration due to gravity from the Earth allows it to track which way is down, too, avoiding the need for little spinning gyroscopes. What did submitter think the Wii used to track movement when the remote wasn't pointed at the IR sensor bar? Psychic powers?
    • Having been involved in the design of robotic control systems using both accelerometers and gyros, I can tell you a difference.
      An accelerometer can only measure acceleration. An accelerometer cannot tell the difference between a tilt and other accelerations. Think of the acceleration you feel that pushes you back into your car seat: you can't tell if thats due to the car accelerating or tilting (going up hill).
      A gyro, on the other hand, is immune to accelerations. A gyro tells you the attitude of the device
  • This new gyroscopic + accelerometer technology would be great if combined with camera based motion tracking and included in a VR goggle. Since you would want to physically walk forward without bumping into this .. it should be combined with a hand held game controller that can be used to propel oneself forward or in a particular direction etc. Of course in the future even the game controller can be eliminated because the VR goggles can utilize brain waves and neural signals to be controlled and told to walk
  • Next gen? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Freeside1 ( 1140901 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @12:44PM (#22293834)
    If you think gyroscopes are next gen, I have just one word for you: plastics.
  • by sirwired ( 27582 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @12:46PM (#22293866)
    The Wii Remote tracks its position via an infrared sensor that users must attach to their televisions.

    Firstly, while it is called the "sensor bar", it isn't a sensor at all, it is just a row of IR emitters. There is no receiver on the bar. Instead, there is an infrared camera in the Wii Remote that takes a "picture" of the bar to figure out which way the remote is pointed.

    Also, the IR system is only used as as calibration for the accelerometers. The accelerometers in the Wii Remote still do the bulk of the work. If the Wii Remote relied on the IR camera as the primary sensor, it would be useless every time line of sight to the sensor bar was lost. What the Wii Remote does is keep rough track of remote position using the accelerometers, and then when the camera is pointed at the sensor bar, it re-calculates the starting point for the motion tracking to start from.

    As far as this outfit using the fact that golf on the Wii leads to bad golf habits in real life: Duh! The Wii is a toy; it is not meant to be an accurate golfing simulator.

    I can fully understand Nintendo not putting gyro's in the Wii Remote. It would have driven up the cost, reduced battery life, and introduced a moving part just begging to break.

    SirWired
    • by Paralizer ( 792155 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @01:06PM (#22294176) Homepage

      Also, the IR system is only used as as calibration for the accelerometers. The accelerometers in the Wii Remote still do the bulk of the work. If the Wii Remote relied on the IR camera as the primary sensor, it would be useless every time line of sight to the sensor bar was lost. What the Wii Remote does is keep rough track of remote position using the accelerometers, and then when the camera is pointed at the sensor bar, it re-calculates the starting point for the motion tracking to start from.
      The wiimote has factory set calibrations, it doesn't recalibrate itself on-the-fly. The only thing IR is used for is limited yaw calculations, depth (distance from the sensor bar) estimation, and calculating the X,Y position you are pointing at on the screen. For these the sensor bar is used as a primary sensor because that's the only point of reference that can be used to get that information. Everything else you said is spot on though.
      • by necro81 ( 917438 )
        The Wiimote, like any device that tried to figure out position and velocity from an accelerometer, needs some outside reference that it can reset itself to. This is because of the practical difficulties in making a reliable inertial navigation unit [wikipedia.org]. In order to get position data from an acceleration measurement, you need to integrate twice. In both analog and digital implementations, errors creep into the calculations and gradually accumulate - a phenomenon called inertial drift. The only thing that can
        • This is interesting, I wasn't aware of drift.

          The only information you (the Wii) gets from the wiimote for IR is the X,Y position of each IR source (up to 4, the sensor bar has only 2). It doesn't even give you the X,Y position you are pointing at, you have to use the other information to calculate what it is.

          Given this limited amount of information, unless the wiimote does it internally somehow, it doesn't recalibrate itself. If you knew that two dots are 11 inches apart (I'm not sure if that is the d
        • by grumbel ( 592662 ) <grumbel+slashdot@gmail.com> on Monday February 04, 2008 @02:51PM (#22296088) Homepage

          The Wiimote, like any device that tried to figure out position and velocity from an acceleromete
          You assume that the Wii games do that, but they don't. There aren't games that care about the Wiimotes position in space, they care about acceleration and orientation and little else. The Wiimote simple doesn't have sensors to give position tracking, for one thing the sensorbar only gives you 2 point positions, from which you can derive distance and rotation relative to the sensorbar, but little else, so it is useless for calibration purpose. But more importantly, trying to track position with an accelerometer alone would never work. An accelerometer could only do that if you hold the controller steady, as soon you rotate it around all the accelerometer data gets messed up with gravity and you can no longer know what is gravity and what is actual movement. It also becomes impossible to properly figure out the orientation of the controller. So any try to get position data would get messed up the very second the user moves the Wiimote, which would make it a very pointless exercise to begin with.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by sirwired ( 27582 )
        The wiimote has factory set calibrations, it doesn't recalibrate itself on-the-fly. The only thing IR is used for is limited yaw calculations, depth (distance from the sensor bar) estimation, and calculating the X,Y position you are pointing at on the screen. For these the sensor bar is used as a primary sensor because that's the only point of reference that can be used to get that information

        What do you mean the "only thing IR is used for is yaw, depth... X, Y position?" What else is there besides X, Y, a
        • Oohhh.. I completely misunderstood, my fault.

          As in, the camera sees the IR bar, and notes that the Remote is currently pointed 20-degrees "up" from horizontal. Somebody then walks in front of the remote... while the signal is blocked, the user points it a further 10 degrees up, according to the accelerometers; the software then knows to send a 30-degree Y signal to the console. The interloper then stops blocking the camera, and it the remote discovers that it was really 31-degrees, it uses this new information to correct the signal and compensate for the drift.

          I don't think I follow this. If you point the wiimote at your screen then block the IR signal from reaching the camera the Wii will drop any pointing activity. So the wiimote will not send to the wii what it thinks the change was based on the previous IR data, it will only send the lack of IR data and the current accelerometer values. If this is what you meant by drift then they eliminated the problem by ignoring anything that they couldn't directly observe

    • by Knuckles ( 8964 )
      If the Wii Remote relied on the IR camera as the primary sensor, it would be useless every time line of sight to the sensor bar was lost.

      Do you have a Wii? Because that's exactly what it does. The motion sensing of course works, but pointing does not.
    • Actually the accelerometers in the Wiimote do very little of the work. They're only there to detect when you're swinging the control or when it is elevated at an angle relative to Earth's gravity. The positional pointing features are completely useless when the line of sight is lost. Try pointing slightly to the side of your screen, where's the pointer? If your on-screen character was turning when you point to the side, does it keep turning in the same direction, or does it just stop as soon as the IR L
    • it would be useless every time line of sight to the sensor bar was lost.

      In my experience this is actually true. It does become useless when it loses sight of the sensor bar. Now I've only used the Wii Twice but both times have been negative. One was with boxing and the movement on the screen wasn't even close to what I was doing with the remote. Half of the time it wouldn't even punch when I did. My other experience was with Tomb Rader which uses the Wiimote to aim the gun. Holy Crap was this craptacular!

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by BitZtream ( 692029 )
      I guess you haven't seen the stuff done by Jason Lee ... the accelerometers do not have anything to do with where your cursor is on the screen, it is all the IR.

      This is why he has a Wii remote held stationary, with infrared emitters being used in place of the sensor bar to get various neat user interfaces to work.

      Accelerometers are susceptible to cumulative errors that would make them useless for an accurate pointing device. The accelerometers in the Wii remote help it detect the angle its at (wii sports u
  • From the article:

    "There's a complaint with 'Tiger Woods' on the Wii, for example, in that some bloggers feel that it has actually harmed their ability to play golf," he says. "They've adjusted over the winter period to the Wii to play this game, and then when they actually pick up a club, they're not swinging the way they did the previous season." If the Motus can be marketed as such a realistic controller so that it helps, rather than harms, real-life game play, Riley says, it could find its niche.

    This is probably my chief complaint with the Wii Sports games: I match my motion to that on-screen, not vice-versa (which it should be). Chiefly, I'm thinking of Wii Bowling, where you press a button to "initiate" the swing, which then proceeds at its own rate irrelevant of your own arm speed and/or technique. I found it exceptionally hard to play the game, at first, because I had to change my bowling technique to match the game. Tennis, too, has problems, where any subtle flick of your

    • Check out Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2008, that game is pretty accurate. When I play golf a lot of times I slice off to the right (or is that called a hook?), and I do the same in that game. It's actually very frustrating, but also realistic. They probably do some kind of fuzzy swing matching algorithm in that game to get better results than just analyzing the raw angles and accelerations. Anyway, it's pretty well done, worth at least a rental fee.
    • by Knuckles ( 8964 )
      Chiefly, I'm thinking of Wii Bowling, where you press a button to "initiate" the swing, which then proceeds at its own rate irrelevant of your own arm speed and/or technique.

      Huh? That's not true at all. You can control the speed, direction, and spin of the on-screen ball by the way you swing. Just the point of release seems to be automatic, IIRC. Maybe you found the game exceptionally hard because you didn't figure that out ;)
      • by grumbel ( 592662 )
        No, his point is correct. The animation on screen has very little to do with your actually swing. When you finally throw the ball that has something to do with how you swung, but not the character animation. Which I found incredible confusing at first, till I learned to simply completly ignore it. But even then it doesn't really read all that much from your swing, acceleration and how much slice you want to give the ball from what I could tell, but the direction for example is something you have to change w
  • Perhaps like many, I've found Wii's Boxing game to be (part of Wii Sports, iirc) to be very frustrating. It's hard for many of us to reliably throw the punches that we want to, despite carefully studying the directions. Either the Wii's current motion sensor is flaky, or the game is badly programmed. I'd gladly buy a controller with a new technology just to make Boxing work properly.
    • It seems to me that it's more of a programming issue than a deficiency in the controller. I think that when creating the boxing game, Nintendo imposed a limit on how fast your character could punch, and that limit is much slower than your average person can move. Beyond that I think they just didn't do a very good job of compensating for all the different ways people might punch. (Some people rotate their fists as they punch, some just lunge straight out, etc.)

      Maybe they just didn't have the time to get it
    • by grumbel ( 592662 )

      Either the Wii's current motion sensor is flaky
      It is not really flaky, it is behaving as designed. The issue is simply that an accelerometer can't track the position of the controller. So instead of having 1:1 mapping of your punches, the game uses the way you hold the controller (i.e. its rotation) to figure out what kind of punch you want to make, which can lead to rather awkward behavior.
  • yes folks, you CAN get addicted to videogames

    if you don't get the stars, you get the spiders on your arms ***SHAKE***
  • by Pojut ( 1027544 )
    Anyone else tired of the phrase "next-gen", even when it is warranted?
  • by Paralizer ( 792155 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @12:57PM (#22294034) Homepage
    Motion detection and pointing are really two different features.

    The wiimote uses a 3-axis accelerometer to calculate roll, yaw, as well as gravity forces on each axis; this gives everything except for yaw. Yaw would be nice but it really isn't needed because the shape of the object in your hand doesn't feel nature (or comfortable) to rotate it in that direction. To solve the issue of pointing the wiimote uses a camera sensitive to IR light and captures it at 1024x768 resolution. Since the wii sensor bar has two dots the virtual screen resolution is actually slightly bigger than that.

    In addition to actually pointing at the screen the wiimote's IR camera can also be used to estimate the distance you are from the TV. So in all the wiimote has several degrees of freedom:
    • Pitch
    • Roll
    • Yaw (very limited with IR)
    • Distance
    • X,Y position on the TV
    With all of this you get a pretty decent idea of where the wiimote is in 3d space and at what orientation it is at.

    Now consider the distance you are from your TV. As you move further away then the angle you should move the wiimote either up, down, left, or right should also decrease because the object. The wiimote can do that because of the IR camera. If you use a gyroscope you lose this because no matter where you are in 3d space it only cares about the orientation it is with respect to gravity. So if you are aiming at the top of your TV and you move backwards with a gyroscope then it will still be aiming at the top, whereas with the wiimote it will go above the top because that's where you're actually pointing the device.

    With a gyroscope and accelerometer you would get:
    • Pitch
    • Roll
    • Yaw
    That's about it. No distance, no X,Y position.

    I think the wiimote still wins out. The only thing that I would change with the wiimote is give it a higher resolution IR camera, but maybe that was too expensive for Nintendo (that may also have been a reason they didn't do high def?)

    Also you can already use the wiimote on a PC [wiiuse.net] for free and have millions of potential customers already owning one. So why would anyone want to pay royalties to use this thing?
    • by Shados ( 741919 )
      Wouldn't you be able to get more than just pitch, roll and yaw if you have accelerometers? Let say when I start the game, I do a calibration check. Put the controller so it touch a dot in the middle of the TV or something. Then I hit a button on the controler, and its done. By calculating the speed at which the controler is moving at any given time, its position from the TV should be possible to obtain, no?

      I'm really no expert, so take that as a question, not a correction.
      • Accelerometers only give you how much gravity forces are applied to each axis. If the accelerometer is not moving then only gravity is being applied to each of those. Assuming you are holding the wiimote with the buttons facing up, then when you roll it the x-axis accelerometer will change, and when you change the pitch the y-axis accelerometer will change. The only way you can change the z-axis accelerometer is by raising the wiimote or lowering it closer to the floor. So if you change the yaw position
    • I think the wiimote still wins out. The only thing that I would change with the wiimote is give it a higher resolution IR camera, but maybe that was too expensive for Nintendo (that may also have been a reason they didn't do high def?)

      Cost is a big thing with the Wii. Currently the controller does the job for most people and at a cost that they can afford. There are better accelerometers and gyros around, but they tend to be expensive. If they could create a new and improved Wiimote, at a cost the market is
    • Remember that if you differentiate distance with time, you get velocity; differentiate again, you get acceleration.

      So, if you have accelerometer data (acceleration), you integrate once to get speed, and then integrate that to get distance. If you begin the process by seeding with a known position, then the initial known position summed with the distance calculated gives the new position.

      This is exactly how inertial navigation systems on flight vehicles work.

      However, accuracy over time is a function of the
      • I wonder if wiimotes can get spatial disorientation? In humans, the inner ear has fluid filled circular tubes used as accelerometers. When you tilt your head to the left, the fluid on that axis stays stationary, and moves against flagella in the the tubes, which your brain has learned to identify as a tilting of your head to the left. Now, if you continued to turn your head to the left at a constant rate of speed, friction rather quickly starts the fluid moving at the same rate as your head, thus the brain
        • That's a very good point, and I must rescind one of mine - that accuracy over time is a function of the accelerometers. In fact, it's a function of the gyros, and the accelerometers. Even ring laser gyros have drift, so position inaccuracies creep in over time. I think modern inertial nav gyros have appropriate control systems to not suffer the same trouble as you describe in the inner ear - but I think your point is still valid. If control limits are exceeded - for whatever reason - then the equivalent
        • The IR camera on the wiimote are like eyes in your analogy. They "see" the sensor bar IR LEDs and allow correction of the errors that build up from accelerometer drift error (not fluids in tubes, of course.)
      • by grumbel ( 592662 )

        Remember that if you differentiate distance with time, you get velocity; differentiate again, you get acceleration.

        True in theory, however when you start with inaccurate accelerometer data, it gets even more inaccurate when you integrate it to velocity and when you integrate that again to get position data you are basically left with unusable gibberish. And you also have to keep in mind that the Wiimote is not giving you acceleration in world-space, it gives you accelerations in Wiimote-space, which as soon you as you move it around ends up basically unusable for anything, since you can no longer know which acceleratio

        • I thought they were discussing a new kind of remote with orthogonal gyros and accelerometers, not necessarily the existing one - not being sarcastic, just honest and confused.
  • Infact, most robotic applications that need balancing use a system of gyroscopes and accel's. Typically the application is use to gyroscopes for percise movements, while the accel.'s are used to off-set gryo drift.
  • by necro81 ( 917438 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @01:08PM (#22294214) Journal
    FTFA:

    The Darwin, which was designed to resemble a samurai sword...

    Yaarrrrr! When be they making one to resemble me cutlass? When do we pirates get our'n?
  • There seems to be some misconception or simply a confused journalist that put down that the gyros align with the MAGNETIC North. Gyros are set up to align with the physical Latitude and Longitude. Now unless they are using a differing process to calibrate the gyros, this would be the normal procedure.
  • So either this forthcoming gyroscopic wonder will be tethered to the game console or it will run on disposable batteries which will last about fifteen minutes.

    Sorry, I don't see it.
    • by Bearpaw ( 13080 )
      Nah. The controllers will come with long strings to spin up the gyros.

      Seriously, though, I can't tell from TFA, but if they're planning on using gyro-sensors like those in some digital cameras, those probably don't draw that much power.
  • Aircraft have been using this combination of sensors for a while to handle attitude adjustments, however over time the sensors will accumulate minute errors that ultimately compound into larger ones. For this reason, an absolute reckoning system like GPS is always included.

    This is a great step forward but does not mean current IR strategies are necessarily old news. The blend of these two systems holds the future.
    • by grumbel ( 592662 )
      The IR sensor has nothing to do with fixing drift and isn't used for calibration on the Wii, it simply adds lightgun-like functionality (albeit only with relative aiming, due to lack of a second sensorbar). Adding gyros to the Wiimote would increase the ability for motion sensing a lot, since they would allow to sense acceleration and orientation independently and thus some simple relative position sensing, which the Wiimote currently can't, but a gyro doesn't replace the IR sensor, it has completly differe
  • Hacker project... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Temkin ( 112574 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @01:28PM (#22294590)


    If it can be hacked, and converted into an inertial navigation system... Then the Wii will run afoul of ITAR export regulations... Truly the mark of all sufficiently advanced video game systems. :-P

    • It's true - you could attempt to use the consumer grade sensors in the Wii to create an INS, but even with deeply-integrated, GPS-aided nav solution, it would perform so badly that it would be unusable for military applications. Inertial sensors come in several "grades", each one based on how much position drift it has - strategic (< 100 ft/hour), navigation (< 1 nautical mile/hr), tactical (< 10 nautical miles/hr), and consumer/automotive/commercial grade (worse than that). Tactical grade sensors

  • The stars are _on_ the screen, so no matter what system they use to work the pointer (sensor bar works great in my opinion), you'll have to point to the screen to collect them.

    The _real_ improvement would be the ability to use it as a light saber. Right now, games just recognize 2 or 3 movements (slash, stab, etc), and play a fixed animation, which is bullshit. That is what they need to improve (and they probably will, I know that sony and nintendo are pretty desperate for someone who can program a lightsab
    • Right now, games just recognize 2 or 3 movements (slash, stab, etc), and play a fixed animation, which is bullshit.

      You are so stuck in 2007. Welcome to 2008 [metacritic.com]. A limited repertoire of movements recognized and corresponding canned animations is a detail of the implementation, and does not necessarily indicate a limitation of the hardware.

      The _real_ improvement would be the ability to use it as a light saber.

      It's coming [gametrailers.com]. Current release date is August 2008.

  • to go boldly (Score:4, Interesting)

    by lymond01 ( 314120 ) on Monday February 04, 2008 @01:35PM (#22294732)
    Whenever I see new handheld gyroscopic devices I think of one word:

    Holodeck.
  • Relying on accelerometers would amount to Dead Reckoning. Position errors would quickly build up.
  • So the controller will weigh .75 kg, will take 6 minutes to spin up the gyros before it can be used, and needs a 12V lead to supply the motors? Progress, indeed...
    • Welcome to the 21st century [systron.com]. Things have been moving quickly lately, and they're only getting quicker. Do try and keep up. Thank you, and remember to keep your hands and feet inside the ride at all times.
    • by hey! ( 33014 )
      My late father in law worked on the gyros for the Apollo missions. When he retired back in the 80s, he was working on laser gyros. These neither have to spin up, nor do they resist motion. In fact, I believe they have no moving parts at all (I could be wrong on this, at the time the actual design details were classified), working by a form of interferometry.

      There are other physical phenomena, some mechanical, some optical, some quantum mechanical, that can detect changes in orientation. For better or wo
    • The Wii controller uses MEMS [wikipedia.org] accels - it can just as easily use MEMS gyros [wikipedia.org]. MEMS isn't particularly accurate, but it's good enough for most consumer uses, consumes very little power, and is incredibly cheap compared to ring-laser, fiber optic, or even mechanical gyros.
  • There is no thing as a perfect gyroscopic controller/accelerometer. In the long run they all tend to drift. So you're gonna need another tracking system to have a working solution.
    BTW I though that the nintendo WII controller has already embedded accellerometers and gyroscopes. At least for the nunjago attachment!
  • If I have 3 gyroscopes spinning on axes each at right angles to the others, inside a little box, does that seem to increase the mass of the object just as if it had more mass? Would spinning faster make it seem heavier, more inertial?

After all is said and done, a hell of a lot more is said than done.

Working...