Topic: I just had a thought.

[KnowsNothing]

It's not a very good one, and it's probably been thought before.  I just didn't feel like figuring out which useless thread to put it in and whatnot.  So here goes.

You know how Matt said that the Wii sensor bar thigner isn't always there?  Well at first I took it simply to mean that some games won't use the special remote functionality, but the more I think about it, the more I drift from that idea.  Why would he say that?  What's the point.  The sensor bar must have some other function.

Furthermore, in some recent talkback threaed, a few dudes were trying to figure out WHY the Wii would need the sensor anyway.  It uses bluetooth and gyros and accelerometers and other STUFF, but none of those need a bar.  Infrared needs a reciever, but why would the Wii use infrared?  It's old technology that doesn't have a very wide data bandwidth.  It seems stupid to use it.  But then again, the Rev does have what appears to be an infrared signal thingy on top of it.  SO WHY, YOU ASK?

Well, I was watching that augmented reality video and something popped into my head.  What that guy was holding in his hand was basically a wand with a projector on top, right?  Isn't that what the remote looks like?  And the sensor you place by your TV, that's could be a projector of some sort.  The two could work in tandem to create an immersive envirnoment.  Say you're playing a baseball game.  You get up to bat and the remote turns into a baseball bat, and out of your TV pops a ball.  WHACK.  Huzzah!

Now I have no idea whather this is all even feasible, but it sort of fits everything.  The sensor isn't always there because not every game has a need for this technology.  It explains why we need the sensor, and why the remote has that strange thingy on top which we all assumed was for pointing.  Remember that Ninty patent a while ago, with the multiple planes and whatnot?  Where it showed a picture of a Link type character and somesuch?  I know you do.  Did we ever figure out what that was for?  I sure as hell didn't understand it.

So anyway, those are my thoughts!

[Strell]

I basically posted this a few days ago...but still, interesting idea.

[Caliban]

I too thought that the bar could be some kind of projector but then a shrugged off that idea 'cause I think that would be way too cool and quite an expensive technology to be available commercially.

[KnowsNothing]

Well, yeah, that's what I was thinking.  I don't  100% believe that this is the final secret, but I'm not ignoring the possibility.  A lot seems to fit together pointing towards technology of this type, so I'm keeping my mind open.

-A lot of people think the last secret is with the display.
-If the sensor isn't always there then it's probably not functioning like we all think it does, which measn the controler probably doesn't function like we all think it does.  Augmented reality sort fits in there.  I'm not exactly sure how it works, all I know is that it needs at least two seperate components, and one of them looks suspiciously like the remote.
-It's certainly the most exciting aspect of the console
-3D control = 3D display.  Fits.
- Don't always need the sensor.
-That Ninty patent thingy could be irrelevent, but it could not be!  I don't remember.
- Other things....?
- No HD
- Works on any size TV
- Stuff.

[KDR_11k]

The sensors are necessary so the rod knows where it is in relation to the screen and can tell when and where you point it at the screen. Lightguns use a photodiode for that, the rod uses that sensor bar. Bluetooth and accellerometers don't help with that at all.

If it's not always there, maybe it was hidden behind the TV or the game in question didn't use the screen pointer functionality?

[KnowsNothing]

But then how would it work with any size TV?  It made sense when there were two sensors because you could put one on either side of the screen and the game could determine where you're pointing.  But now we know there's only one sensor that you put in the middle of the TV...how does that work?  I figured with gyros it would calibrate itself at start-up and then move from there as a center point.  If the controller moved relative to itself then you could play on any screen size, only that on bigger screens you'd have to move more.  If controller movements directly related to the relative distance the cursor moved on screen, then you'd have problems.  Either way, no need for a sensor bar.

Not sure if that made sense =s  I mean, say I moved the controller an inch, then the cursor on the screen would move one inch.  For most screens I wouldn't have to use anything more than wrist movements, but if I were playing on a huge theatre screen I would be swinging around like a monkey.  Good thing none of us play games at the theatres.  Whereas if it were relative to distance travelled in proportion to the game, on any screen moving an inch would move the cursor half-way across the entire screen, which would be madness on a huge xbox-sized screen.

This makes even more sense with augmented reality, since you'd be interacting in the real world, with real dimensions.  Maybe.

Ever need to recalibrate mid-game?  Just hit the 'home' button

I probably sound like a retard or something, but it makes sense to me ;___;

Besides, if you only need one sensor, does it even need to be in the center of the screen?  Why not just put the sensor in the Rev itself?  That might as well be what the base is for...

[UltimatePartyBear]

I've been wondering if the bar even has to be by the TV.  Even with the sensors surrounding the TV, the system still needs some way to know where the screen is in relation to them.  Unless the sensor bar has to be placed at the bottom corners of the screen exactly, which is unlikely if it's a solid bar instead of two separate units as originally shown, then a one-time calibration in the system menu would seem to be necessary.  It would be as simple as touching the remote to the screen's corners and pusing a button, and would only have to be repeated if the bar or TV moved.  To make moving the bar less likely, it might be a good idea to put it somewhere where it wouldn't be nudged accidentally, which wouldn't be right next to the TV.  Attaching it to the wall would be more foolproof, or it could at least be put behind the TV with the dust bunnies.  Since it's presumably used to triangulate/trilaterate the remote's relative position to the sensor bar, it could be anywhere within range, in any orientation, and the math could be done to figure out the remote's relative position to the TV just as easily.  It might affect accuracy a little, especially if it were in line with the remote.

I haven't done the math to see exactly how possible all this is, but it seems like there are enough points for 3D positional calculations.  Points A and B are in the sensor bar, and because it's one piece, they are a known distance from each other.  Points C, D, and E are in the remote, and likewise a known distance from each other.  We can use the timing of radio waves to get the distance from the points in the remote to the points in the sensor bar, which should be enough information to calculate the exact position of the remote (including rotation if the points in the remote form a triangle) relative to the sensor bar.

Does anybody see a problem with this?

[trip1eX]

Yep that's how it works.  The sensor bar is used to determine where in 3d space you are.  The Wii uses that info in confunction with the gryos to determine where you are pointing on the screen.  If your game doesn't have need of the pointer then there is no need for the bar.    Hence some demos didn't have the bar.

IT's not a projector.  This is pretty obvious.  

If I'm wrong I'll ignore Ian's advice and buy a Wii at launch.


There's also the slight possiblity IGN's reference meant that the 3d (from the TV) obscured the sensor bar at times.  

I wouldn't put it past them to put a camera in the end of the wiimote either.  Find something purple and bring it back to your TV.  Take a picture of your room and put in as a background for a game.  Put your face on MarioKart in the arcade.  

Or the end of the wiimote could have a sensor that measures the size of your TV automatically (basically detecting brightness and using some image edge enhancement type calculations) and it's placement relative to the position of the wiimote in 3d space.  

Or maybe it's nothing or it can power the TV on/off.  OR used to make sure they know which way the controller is pointing.

[IceCold]

Quote
For most screens I wouldn't have to use anything more than wrist movements, but if I were playing on a huge theatre screen I would be swinging around like a monkey. Good thing none of us play games at the theatres. Whereas if it were relative to distance travelled in proportion to the game, on any screen moving an inch would move the cursor half-way across the entire screen, which would be madness on a huge xbox-sized screen.

Well, that's what the sensitivity adjustment is for

[BigJim]

http://revolution.ign.com/articles/694/694785p1.html

According to the artist rendition, the "bar" still has two antennas, even though they may be integrated onto one stick.

I don't think the antennas have any direct connection to the TV.  I can't fathom how they could. But it's a convenient place to put them, more or less, since the controller is generally facing that direction in the first place.

[UltimatePartyBear]

Quote
Originally posted by: trip1eX
If your game doesn't have need of the pointer then there is no need for the bar.    Hence some demos didn't have the bar.

What I was trying to get at is that I don't see any reason that the sensor bar has to be put someplace visible.  It would work just as well hidden inside a cabinet.

Quote
Or the end of the wiimote could have a sensor that measures the size of your TV automatically (basically detecting brightness and using some image edge enhancement type calculations) and it's placement relative to the position of the wiimote in 3d space.

Coincidentally, that's something I was just about to posit here.  It seems unlikely, but not impossible.

Quote
Originally posted by: KnowsNothing
Not sure if that made sense =s I mean, say I moved the controller an inch, then the cursor on the screen would move one inch. For most screens I wouldn't have to use anything more than wrist movements, but if I were playing on a huge theatre screen I would be swinging around like a monkey.

An inch of movement is an inch of movement.  The size of the TV would only matter if the remote was being used as a pointer.  You wouldn't have to move any more to control your jetpack in Pilotwings on a 100" screen than you would on a 20" screen, but you might get quite a workout in Red Steel.

[Louieturkey]

I think the sensor bar is only there for precise aiming, like with FPS's and doesn't need to be there when precise aiming is not needed.