yes if you have an actual Z input you could create a 3D image of sorts in which case the name is pretty much right I just never realized that someone would think to modulate the brightness.
There are two meanings of "3D". The real one that has been around for >150 years, and the computer weenie one which is really 2D or, to stretch a point, 2.5D.
There are two meanings of "3D". The real one that has been around for >150 years, and the computer weenie one which is really 2D or, to stretch a point, 2.5D.
you use pencil and paper for 2D if your going to use a computer you might as well make the most of it. the introduction of 3D has brought an increase in productivity, why should I redraw something the manufacturer already drew ? I get no end of 3D models from suppliers of their products and it means I only worry about my bits and not theirs and they are so much more accurate than guessing and getting it wrong.
Thank you everyone. I guess I should only consider X-Y for any modern day scopes.
actual 3D display won't come for a long time as it's complicated and costly.
Working in 3D I can design with close fit tolerances that I can't in 2D so well and would take much longer. The other thing with 3D is that you don't have to redraw each view because it can be automatically generated from the computer. Back in the day, one guy had an idea (the engineer) and loads of others (draftsmen) had to put it on paper for them. Where I work I get told horror tales of the days of pencils and paper where they would spend two weeks doing a drawing and just as it's finished they get told a dimension changed. so they spend days changing the drawing. It can take me seconds to minutes to alter a 3D model and that automatically changes the views on the 2D drawings of it.
There are two meanings of "3D". The real one that has been around for >150 years, and the computer weenie one which is really 2D or, to stretch a point, 2.5D.
Ah yes they came out with 3D cinema too, so maybe its close for the home user.
There are two meanings of "3D". The real one that has been around for >150 years, and the computer weenie one which is really 2D or, to stretch a point, 2.5D.
Perhaps this might be of your interest https://www.oculus.com/en-us/ ? (Or any competitor in field of head mounted displays, there are plenty and consumer versions are just behind the horizon.)
I loved the PM3394B - amazing scope. If you get chance the to get one GET IT.
3D displays on an analogue X-Y scope:
http://www.glensstuff.com/3dpu/3dpu.htm
3D displays on an analogue X-Y scope:
http://www.glensstuff.com/3dpu/3dpu.htm
2D display of a (nominally) 3D object.
I loved the PM3394B - amazing scope. If you get chance the to get one GET IT.I know exactly what you are saying.
Over the years I have bought every single one that had a good price and was in good condition.
Right now I probably have at least 10 of them.
The specialty was with "all options" and I was lucky enough to get 6 of them in a bundle from a
government sale in the US a few years ago.
These days, people have less and less appreciation of this amazing scope.
I usually use 6 of them at once on my high voltage bench.
There are two meanings of "3D". The real one that has been around for >150 years, and the computer weenie one which is really 2D or, to stretch a point, 2.5D.
Perhaps this might be of your interest https://www.oculus.com/en-us/ ? (Or any competitor in field of head mounted displays, there are plenty and consumer versions are just behind the horizon.)
In early 2013 I tried an early Oculus when they kindly brought it to show my local HackSpace and University. I spent 5/10 minutes playing a VR video game. The resolution was low, but that's not a fundamental and I believe they have already improved it. I was interested in whether it might eventually work with the Condor gliding simulator, where you spend a lot time going in circles and/or spinning towards the ground e.g. real life
or simulation
http://www.condorsoaring.com/media/movies/Discus2%20spin%20cockpit.zip
.
3D displays on an analogue X-Y scope:
http://www.glensstuff.com/3dpu/3dpu.htm
2D display of a (nominally) 3D object.Is this kind of pedantry supposed to make you look smart? Read the introductory paragraph.
Half of the experience of gliding is the near silence,with only the slight sound of air rushing over the aircraft.
In straight & level flight,there is very little sensation of forward motion.
I joined a Gliding club back in the day,but it didn't fit well with shift work,& then,when I met my wife,that was goodbye to Gliding!
3D displays on an analogue X-Y scope:
http://www.glensstuff.com/3dpu/3dpu.htm
2D display of a (nominally) 3D object.Is this kind of pedantry supposed to make you look smart? Read the introductory paragraph.
Clear and accurate, not smart.
Read the thread drift.
Note, I have been taking 3D photos for 30 years (with a 1940s vintage camera https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereo_Realist ), so I have some experience of the subject.
I loved the PM3394B - amazing scope. If you get chance the to get one GET IT.I know exactly what you are saying.
Over the years I have bought every single one that had a good price and was in good condition.
Right now I probably have at least 10 of them.
The specialty was with "all options" and I was lucky enough to get 6 of them in a bundle from a
government sale in the US a few years ago.
These days, people have less and less appreciation of this amazing scope.
I usually use 6 of them at once on my high voltage bench.
Surely you meant stereoscopic photographs.
Half of the experience of gliding is the near silence,with only the slight sound of air rushing over the aircraft.
In straight & level flight,there is very little sensation of forward motion.
Noise depends on how fast you are going; it is a good way of assessing large changes in airspeed without looking at the ASI. Too quiet => wake up fast!
What's straight and level flight? I'm always hunting for lift, chasing after buzzards, or just having exuberant fun. It is claimed that glider pilots that transition to powered flying have two problems: realising they can fly straight and level , and then managing to stay awake while doing do.
Half of the experience of gliding is the near silence,with only the slight sound of air rushing over the aircraft.
In straight & level flight,there is very little sensation of forward motion.
Noise depends on how fast you are going; it is a good way of assessing large changes in airspeed without looking at the ASI. Too quiet => wake up fast!
What's straight and level flight? I'm always hunting for lift, chasing after buzzards, or just having exuberant fun. It is claimed that glider pilots that transition to powered flying have two problems: realising they can fly straight and level , and then managing to stay awake while doing do.
The old Blanik I learnt in seemed quite capable of flying very slow & straight & level,& was very quiet.
I wasn't up to chasing buzzards,even if we had any around here.
I had one adventure while learning,when the tow parted at 400ft(my fault).
The instructor got us down with a minimum of fuss,but those big jarrah trees at the end of the paddock were looking bigger all the time!
Surely you meant stereoscopic photographs.
Evenly divided. Some clubs are 3D, some stereoscopic, some stereo-3D. Here's a list of "3D clubs worldwide" http://www.stereoscopy.com/clubs/
3D photographs and projection systems have been around for >100 years. The only way of seeing 3D is to have two images, one for each eye.
Surely you meant stereoscopic photographs.
Evenly divided. Some clubs are 3D, some stereoscopic, some stereo-3D. Here's a list of "3D clubs worldwide" http://www.stereoscopy.com/clubs/
3D photographs and projection systems have been around for >100 years. The only way of seeing 3D is to have two images, one for each eye.LOL. The Stereo Realist camera took 2D stereoscopic photographs (which merely give a very limited illusion of depth when viewed with the correct apparatus) , not 3D photographs in the true sense of the term. In that regard "3D" is a misnomer and a pendant like you shouldn't be using it. Or perhaps you managed to modify your Stereo Realist for holography.
Everything is "limited" in some way or another, so that isn't a distinction that throws any light (ho ho) on the subject.
As you correctly imply, holography != stereoscopic/3D - but that rather invalidates your point. Yes, I realise that many people are now starting to grossly misuse the term "holographic" - but that's irrelevant to this discussion.
I'll take holography seriously when it can show me an image of a candle or a chandelier or the sunset.
I'll take holography seriously when it can show me an image of a candle or a chandelier or the sunset.
That's not really how it works.
+1 for the Philips/Fluke CombiScopes. I have one here, though only a 2-channel model, and use it often. Would definitely pick up a 4 channel 200MHz version if the price was right. But then Philips were making great 'scopes long before the Fluke association.