Slashdot Mirror
Motion Simulator for Home Theater
Dalvenjah FoxFire writes "D-Box, a Canadian speaker company, has designed a system called the Odyssee consisting of four motor-driven actuators that go under your couch and a controller box with a CD-ROM drive for the control files. The controller reads the Dolby Digital bitstream from your DVD player, and plays back synchronized motion effects designed by the company. For about $20,000, you too can add motion simulation to your home theater. They have a list on their site of the movies they've encoded, including The Matrix, Drunken Master, Star Wars Episode I, and more, though it also has an 'audio driven' mode which will work with any source."
This would make porn Soooooo much better!!!!!! -Bill
-Bill
So if I'm watching buffy, does it make the springs fly out and stab me in the back when she stakes one of the toothy evil dudes?
Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
I can't wait until they encode Debbie Does Dallas, and other high quality pr0n flicks. As usual, pr0n will take this technology to the next level!!
Ever try drinking tea in a moving car? It is almost similar to easily getting burned. Now enter the couch. If I just happen to be trying to drink some tea the couch MOOOVEESS *spill* GOT DAMN IT!....
Need I say more?
What we see depends on mainly what we look for. -- John Lubbock Now search for that bug slave!
Does Odyssee only work with action movies?
:)
Absolutely not! While there is no question that Odyssee can add dramatic effects to action scenes containing explosions, car chases and aerial dogfights, you'll find the more subtle effects it can create will add even more to your overall viewing experience. Odyssee adds fun, drama and excitement to everything you watch.
Odyssee will also likely make me spill my beer all over my girlfriend and her $1,000 leather. Yup, that'll add drama and excitement to the night...
Satanists get good grades too...suspiciously good grades
It's basically just a giant Rumble Pack?
mund freud.
I see someone else besides me watches Tech TV, they just had a segment on this in Fresh Gear this morning. You can probably catch it some other time this weekend if you want to see some video of this in action.
I have to wonder though if a motion device like this wouldn't make a movie less, rather than more, immersive. Even the motion simulator rides at Disney I find too distractng to really enjoy (and in its own category, the Back to the Future ride at Universal that smashes the heads of tall people into the walls over and over again). I get more of a sense of motion from IMAX than from motion simulators.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I can hire the neighbor's kid to stand behind the couch and jump up and down on cue, and still have $19,980 left over.
This technology has the same old problem TONS of extremely cool failed entertainment techs have had.
Force feedback, HDTV, 3d displays, head mounted displays, smell devices, and many others. I suspect the first true V.R. rigs (with wires jacking right in to your nervous system) will suffer it too.
The old chicken and the egg. This tech is not quite good enough for the early adopters with the big budgets to buy it, and because of that prices will never come down enough so the rest of us can afford it.
Only when a new technology is SO much better than the current available do the earlier adopters buy it and the tech takes off. But there also has to be convincing content for it.
For $20,000 I will come to your home theater, put the Drunken Master DVD in your player, and punch you in the face in perfect synch with the on-screen fighting. Now that's reality!
"I think all foreigners should stop interfering in the internal affairs of Iraq"
-- Paul Wolfowitz, 7/21/2003
I saw a demo of this system at a local A/V megaplex. Basically, the system consists of a control box hooked up to four lifts. The lifts sit under a simple platform that you put your couch on. Each lift has two or three inches of travel and can accelerate at up to 2 Gs. Needless to say, it packs quite a punch.
The dealer played a scene from Jurassic Park 3 where an airplane tries to take off and then subsequently crashes in a jungle. As the plane took off, it felt like the couch had some bass shakers on the bottom. Not a big deal.
Well, when the plane hit a tree and spun around, my friend and I were nearly thrown from the couch. It felt like a Universal theme park ride. The only downside is that you are really involved in the movie, almost too involved -- it's tough to lay on the couch and relax to an action-packed blood-fest while you're being violently tossed around.
The motion system is totally standalone. The video and motion sync up through the A/V connection from your DVD player. To start a movie, hit play on the DVD player and select the movie in the Odysee. It does the rest by iteself. I think the sales guy said they had a couple hundred movies already preprogrammed.
The system costs $20,000 (list) and comes with a year of free updates. After that, if you want more movies, it's $500/year. Not exactly cheap.
If you're near a Soundtrack/Ultimate Electronics store, they probably have a demo room. It's worth the trip.
If this technology is anything like the "rumble packs" in today's joysticks, I'll take a pass.
Anyways, half the time when you would want the sensation of motion (jet plane taking off ? explosions ? car accelerating ?), there's a lot of noise coming out of your speakers, andif you have a half-decent system, your sofa's probably shaking already.
Hell, I can simulate you into motion for free, by kicking your fat ass off the couch for once.
sic transit gloria mundi
I was cruising through this months Widescreen Review Magazine few weeks ago and read a detailed review of this system. My first impression was that it was gimmicky bull$hit, further reading changed my mind and I am now looking to demo one of these units in person. I will not be buying it though, just want a test drive.
e v5 .html
You can read part of the article by going to
http://www.widescreenreview.com/attractions/eqr
Pick up this months Widescreen Review for the full article and a whole lot more.
It's better to improve recording technology rather than producting expensive speaker systems to improve 'natural sound'. As long as people have two ears, two signals are enough to recreate 3D sound in our brains. As long as I'm sitting on a couch while listening to the soundtrack of a movie while watching the screen, I don't want to move my head to listen to the superfluous speakers.
:wq!
Letsee for $20,000 you can do what? Make the couch vibrate gently. Methinks that the system you are after is gonna cost a whole lot more.
In comparison for roughly $200 you can go get the real thing in a legalized establishment in Nevada. So for the price of your automated bonk-o-matic you can have a bonk a week for over two years.
In Europe of course your capital investment will go a lot further. Invested in an interest bearing account you could engage the Euro 50 services of a window girl 32 times a year - about once every 10 days from the interest alone.
At least that is what a cursory search of the Internet implies.
Of course you may say that it is a real sad type who goes to visit prostitutes, but what does that make the folk using the bonk-o-matic???
Of course life being unfair it turns out that the female anatomy is considerably more compatible with artificial coitus. Examples may be found on the Web. Unfortunately it appears that these guys are rather more interested in the subject from the male point of view. For example one would think that from the pure engineering point of view, solenoids would provide a more effective basic technology for their purposes than rotory motors with sun and planet drives.
Also rather than have the device synchronized to a video track one would think that biometric feedback to determine what types of stimulation are being best received.
Sorry but I don't think I want to put any part of my anatomy into a device of that kind (or for that matter have it inserted into me).
But they are a little bit more interesting than yet another case mod hack.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
... one would want to check the box to make sure it wasn't an MS bonk-o-matic which might give a whole new meaning to "blue screen of death".
-- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
The side effects might even include a guest appearance on "Cops!" as "Male Corpse #2".
-- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
Obviously, I'm only speaking for myself here. I don't have the magic formula for determining at what price frivolity becomes irresponsible.
But I don't think it's a matter of perspective, or at least that's too easy.
Just because you have a ton of money and give a bunch to charity doesn't mean that spending $20,000 on a home motion simulator isn't a shocking waste of the value that money could provide. I guess I just think the more disposable income you have, the greater a responsibility you have to make sure that it's used in the most beneficial ways.
Here's an analogy for you: The most expensive painting ever sold was a Van Gogh that went for $85.2 million to a private collector. You can buy a reproduction of this painting for $649.
What do you think? Is it moral to pay $85 mil for a painting for yourself, considering the enormous amount of good that money could do if spent wisely? I don't think so, even if you are Bill Gates. (Or Ghandi, for that matter.)
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
We have natural motion simulation here in California. We call the technology "earthquakes".
The only hard part is synching them to the picture. But there are plenty of unemployed Silli Valley techies here to help figure that part out.
Table-ized A.I.
I don't have the magic formula for determining at what price frivolity becomes irresponsible.
I see what your saying, but really, it's an issue of what you have vs. what you spend. If you were to follow the logic that $20,000 for something that is purly for entertainment/status, then you'd have to chastise anyone with a luxery car knowing full well a cheap Honda gets you from point A to point B just fine.
That having been said, I'd probably never buy one even if it wouldn't effect me financially, but that's only because it wouldn't appeal to me. But if that floats your boat and you've got the cash, by all means get one.
The Internet is generally stupid
You can pretend you already have it, but the only movie you can watch is My Dinner With Andre.
Just bury $5,000 worth of subwoofers under your couch, same thing.
Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
Well, is it the old Drunken Master movie with a young Jackie Chan, or the newer Drunken Master movie with an older Jackie Chan?
No sig for the moment.
If you were to follow the logic that $20,000 for something that is purly for entertainment/status, then you'd have to chastise anyone with a luxery car knowing full well a cheap Honda gets you from point A to point B just fine.
I don't know that I'd say the same thing, since a car has some utility as well as entertainment value. But, yeah, the high end of luxury cars I do find a little troubling.
I've toyed with the idea that maybe some CEO somewhere needs a $100,000 Mercedes to keep up his status with other rich CEOs, so that his company flourishes, but I can't make myself buy it. You can justify anything if that's your standard.
But if that floats your boat and you've got the cash, by all means get one.
I just can't buy into that attitude, either. The $85,000,000 that the private collector paid for the Van Gogh painting is revolting to me. I can't see it as anything other than ethically wrong. That $85 mil could've made a real difference in people's lives, a real difference in stem cell research or cancer research. But some guy just wanted to own a picture instead. It floated his boat, so he got one.
I figure if I have some responsibility to spend $42.50 correctly, the guy who bought the Van Gogh has 2,000,000 times greater a responsibility. If all the wealthy people in the world put as much emphasis on other human beings as they do on jewel-encrusted cellphones, Christopher Reeve (and many others) might be walking by now.
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
The point is that there is an entire culture of luxury garbage supported by rich people for their own egos. Rich people own the corporations that make the crap; rich people sell the crap to each other, rich people fawn over each other's crap. While other people starve, die, remain paralyzed, etc.
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
You forget that most people who buy expensive art do so (at least partially) as an investment.
Granted, when the Van Gogh sold for $85M it probably was at the height of conspicious consumption, but chances are if he chose to sell it, he wouldn't lose that much as a percentage.
The problem is, too many people in this world are motivated by greed, and some of our best advancements to humanity are motivated by that same greed (or lust for power, or fame) above and beyond the pure humanitarian inspiration.
I would bet that a large number of the doctors who develop a cure for cancer, aids, or help cure Christopher Reeves wouldn't be in that profession if A:) they weren't paid handsomly (and enjoy the luxery items afforded by that salery), and B:) weren't receiving acces to the resources or facilities unless they worked for big medical companies motivated again by money.
Of course there is that level of extravagance that just seems insane to people like you and me. I would have no want (or need) for jewel encrusted cellphones, but then again I can't understand the attraction towards jewerly that many women have. (Though my favorate example, which made me laugh and slightly nausated at the same time was the diamond covered hand bag emblazed with the star-fleet emblem at the gift shop near the Star Trek experience in Las Vegas).
But I don't have a problem spending thousands of dollars a year on technology equipment. I really don't need it, I'm not using it to help anyone. I just like it. I derive pleasure from it. This is a pretty large expenditure in relation to my income, and I don't care.
We all spend large sums of money on things we don't need. All we REALLY need, if we don't have a family, is a roof over our heads and some food. The average single person could afford that working part time at a mini-mart. Instead we create a cycle of consumption that (eventually) trickles over to humanitarian persuits.
If every technophile slashdot user stoped buying new computers and devoted that money to charity, they would raise far more then the $85 million one man spent on a painting. But they won't, and in certian respects, they shouldn't. Stop buying consumer electronics and computers, economys start to suffer, less money to charities in the long run.
And that $85 million did make somewhat of a difference in peoples lives. It continued to cement the idea that art is a legitimate asset. If artists can make more money (or money flows to all artists), we end up with more art. I know that seems like a hudge expenditure for a very small and subtle impact on a community, but hey, it's better then nothing.
The Internet is generally stupid
The problem is, too many people in this world are motivated by greed, and some of our best advancements to humanity are motivated by that same greed (or lust for power, or fame) above and beyond the pure humanitarian inspiration...
This is a really good point.
I think there's a lot of validity to the idea that we need to harness our own greed in order to solve some of humanity's problems, and that perhaps $85 million dollar paintings are a part of a bigger system that needs greed to function.
But it's hard to ignore the fact that I still think $20,000 is too much to spend on a motion simulator for a home theater.
I guess, ultimately, this conversation about greed and excess is really just a way of expressing some disappointment in humanity. There's that Hamlet quote that I always find inspiring:
What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason! how infinite in faculty! in form, in moving, how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension how like a god!
I feel that way, too. We have the capacity to do almost anything, solve any problem... and yet, we don't. Sometimes we prefer to buy things instead, even if it means others of us will suffer. Me included.
But I think we can change some of that by pointing it out. Not too many years ago, we were burning witches and practicing trial-by-ordeal. Now we accept that those sorts of things are both ludicrous and horrible. I think maybe by talking about the selfishness and absurdity of some forms of spending, we can get closer to the day when not solving problems like paralysis seems as ludicrous and horrible as witch-burning.
Anyway, didn't mean to get quite so heavy. Thanks for the thoughtful responses.
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
I had a chance to experience this at this summer's Street of Dreams in Portland, OR ($750K-$2M+ spec homes open to the public for a few weeks). They were showing part of the Quidditch match from Harry Potter. After sitting through about as much time of ads as they showed of the clip, it actually did a respectable job, but I don't think I'd actually like to watch an entire movie being bounced around --- it's much better technology for a few minute ride than a 2-hr movie.
Well it is an important discussion. But I still cling to the idea that wasteful spending is only as absurd in relation to how much money you have to begin with.
I like to gamble. And for the longest time, it blew me away that there would be people in the middle of the casino betting $10,000 a hand. How can anyone bet a third of the average persons salery and not bat an eye. Then I realized, to these people they are taking out of it the same pleasure and risk that I do making my measly $5 a hand bet.
And I can't begrudge them that. It's all relitive, and that's a fact of life. The truth is, nobody who's been there can understand the motivation of the extrodinarly wealthy. But from what I've observed, the wealthy have the same ideocyrancies, abitions, or insecurities as the rest of us.
The billionare who spends $85m on a rare painting is no different then the record store clerk who spends $200 on a rare comic book he's been dreaming of.
I think I understand where you're coming from, however. There is that issue of having a social responsibility, and spending so much at once at one time seems like a betrayal of that responsibility. To me it doesn't. What is worse in the aggrigate, a billionare spending $85m in one day, or 85 million average Americans throwing away a dollar on a can of soda or cup of coffee they don't need?
Not only do the super rich spend more money on charity, they spend more of their income as a percentage on them (ok, the motivation may be for taxes, but still). So yeah, it's hard to put it the right perspective, but in the end it works out.
As a footnote, keep in mind I only absolve them when they don't hurt anyone. (I guess you could argue that they are hurting people by not giving their money up to humanitarian causes... but no more then your average slashdot reader harms them by buying the latest video card instead of throwing the cash into a collection plate). I don't begrudge the super rich for indulging when they can afford it. But when a corporate CEO throws a $3 million birthday party for his wife while crushing the hopes and dreams of thousands of people, that I can never condone.
I guess I'm going way off an a tangent here, but the point is, it doesn't bother me that some people would spend $20,000 on a motion simulator home theatre. It can't, when I could see myself spending 20% of that on my non-motion enhanced home theatre system.
The Internet is generally stupid
Mordor...a magical, mythical land where women are more rare than dragons--but where every man would rather find a dragon
>That $85 mil could've made a real difference in people's lives, a real difference in stem cell research or cancer research.
Yup. That's why the money changed hands. Eventually it will get there. It all takes time. Eventually the money will pass into someone's hands who will decide to pass it on to those charities.
If the buyer were to keep that money instead of spending it then those charities would never see a dime from it.
Money is only good when spent. It's people like Bill Gates, who keep money locked up rather than moving it about that sicken me. The economy, which includes every organization and charity that needs money, can't function with a steady flow of money. Sinking it into a big pit is a waste that does no good.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
Yeah just mount 2-3 of those to the bottom of your couch. It would work just as well, and only end up costing you $19,425 less.
/usr/games/fortune