Jump to content
 
Toro

Cosmos Aim tracking workaround

Recommended Posts

Thought I would share my workaround for the cosmos controller tracking issues with two handed weapons (Rifles etc...)

If you are a cosmos owner with light tracking you would probably allready have encountered these issues and "maybe" worked up a bit of frustration...

The developer of OpenVR Advanced Settings also made something called OpenVR-InputEmulator.

This is where the magic happens!

With the OpenVR-InputEmulator application you can offset your individual controller as you please.

This will plase your left controller sligthly to te right, and rigth controller sligthly up.
By doing this you will then be able to aim through sights without the controllers covering eachother! Took me about 1-2 hours to get used to it, but after that I actually can aim without loosing tracking!

Link: https://github.com/matzman666/OpenVR-InputEmulator

My best tested settings are:
Left controller: WorldFromDriver Offset to 7.0 on X axis.
Right controller: WorldFromDriver Offsett to 7.0 on Y axis.

If you should need help setting it up, just PM me and I'll gladly help.

Cheers!

  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hahahaha, I agree with you there @lamyipming. Nicely done @Toro for thinking outside the box. It's truly a sad day if Cosmos owners have to resort to an OpenVR workaround just to get good tracking. We shouldn't need workarounds and hacks to experience what aiming properly should feel like. Will definitely give this a try though to see its effect on two-handed accuracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait even with lighthouse tracking you still encounter issues like this??? Was planning on getting the cosmos Elite after refunding my original cosmos. But hearing this i might just say f it and wait the 10weeks for a index  @Toro

Yeah this is really sad, I wounder if the developers themselves are actually reading the forum and are aware of this. Because checking twitter all i can see is them praising the cosmos through misleading advertisement. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Base station tracked devices don't have that kind of occlusion issue if the stations are deployed properly. This issue happens because on an inside out tracking headset, all of the sensors are bundled into the headset and so line of sight is more important. It's much harder to occlude with outside-in (basestation) technology, especially if you're using more than 2 2.0 stations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, VibrantNebula said:

Base station tracked devices don't have that kind of occlusion issue if the stations are deployed properly. This issue happens because on an inside out tracking headset, all of the sensors are bundled into the headset and so line of sight is more important. It's much harder to occlude with outside-in (basestation) technology, especially if you're using more than 2 2.0 stations.

Real sad that htc didn't test the headset, or if they did, saw the issue.. ignored it then released it anyways. At this point i just hope they were ignorant and just didn't test the headset properly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@LuckDrvien07 - outside in (optically tracked) headsets all have the sensors in one tightly packed location (the headset). Inside-out tracked headsets like basestation tracked headsets have sensors on every single device (a dramatically higher surface area) and thus

Outside-in headsets use machine learning models to make up for their physical limitations. They basically make educated guesses about where the controllers and headsets are when the sensors can't provide good data. Rift S and Quest had the exact same issues at launch - this video does the best job at explaining what I'm talking about. Both Rift S and Cosmos have received numerous updates to the ML algorithms since launch -  Rift S has been on the market longer than Cosmos though. Every single headset that uses onboard tracking cameras have these physical limitations and relies on machine learning to smooth out the experience.

Basestation tracking has a completely different set of drawbacks - primarily that you get far higher resolution tracking at the expense of having to have external base stations that you have to mount and that that can wear down break due to being mechanical devices. Basestation tracking breaks down if you have large reflective surfaces like mirrors.

Optical is convenient and lightweight but has limitations and privacy implications. Basestation tracking is far more robust but is bulky and more expensive.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, VibrantNebula said:

@LuckDrvien07 - outside in (optically tracked) headsets all have the sensors in one tightly packed location (the headset). Inside-out tracked headsets like basestation tracked headsets have sensors on every single device (a dramatically higher surface area) and thus

Outside-in headsets use machine learning models to make up for their physical limitations. They basically make educated guesses about where the controllers and headsets are when the sensors can't provide good data. Rift S and Quest had the exact same issues at launch - this video does the best job at explaining what I'm talking about. Both Rift S and Cosmos have received numerous updates to the ML algorithms since launch -  Rift S has been on the market longer than Cosmos though. Every single headset that uses onboard tracking cameras have these physical limitations and relies on machine learning to smooth out the experience.

Basestation tracking has a completely different set of drawbacks - primarily that you get far higher resolution tracking at the expense of having to have external base stations that you have to mount and that that can wear down break due to being mechanical devices. Basestation tracking breaks down if you have large reflective surfaces like mirrors.

Optical is convenient and lightweight but has limitations and privacy implications. Basestation tracking is far more robust but is bulky and more expensive.

And yet the Oculus Rift S and Quest inside-out tracking is still soooo much better than OG Cosmos.  Why?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes indeed sad, but you have to work with the tools at hand.
@LuckDrvien07 Only affects Cosmos without basestations. (Light tracking).

It's still not 100% accurate in tracking (maybe 68-80% if I would make an estimate), but way better than no offset at all.

I've been so frustrated at times when playing with two handed rifles that I've actually tried throwing the rifle at the enemy... (Note: Does NOT work!) 🙂

But works alot better in games like Contractor$, Zero Caliber, Pavlov and Virtual Battlefield where I mostly have tested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, TomCgcmfc said:

And yet the Oculus Rift S and Quest inside-out tracking is still soooo much better than OG Cosmos.  Why?

1) As @VibrantNebula said the Rift S & Quest headsets have been out longer

2) There are far more Rift S and Quest headsets out there, so more users will initially have reported issues to Oculus.

3) Oculus has large development resources including proprietary machine learning algorithms from Facebook.

As I have said before if people are posting on here about specific tracking issues and haven't logged an issue report, then they are wasting everyone's time. 

If you have a specific example of bad tracking, please log an issue report from the Vive Console with a description of your tracking issue and include "rd_log_request" in the description - which means the report goes straight to the engineers.

I've logged several issue reports and some of the releases have addressed issues I logged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...