1 or 2 point tracking for combined MEMS/IR solution?

[Dan Howell]

Question - how hard would it be, or would there be any interest, in implementing a 1 or 2-point tracker option? Here's where I'm going with this...

Use MEMS for rotational tracking, then simplify the hardware build for the IR emitters to a single or two-LED setup. Obviously 1 point would only give lateral tracking in the X and Y dimension, or with a 2-point setup you could get the third (Z) depth dimension.

Then, using your concept of a secondary tracker, we could have MEMS doing the rotational stuff and point-tracking doing the translations. I fancied knocking up a little DIY EDTracker but didn't want the hassle of a large 3-point model when it wasn't really necessary....

[Wim Vriend]

Hello Dan,

I'm reluctant, because I fear that 2-point tracking will never be as good as 3 or even 4-point tracking.
Saving just 1 IR-led does not seem worth the trouble...

But to answer your question: it is possible to create a 1 or 2-point tracker (based on PointTracker for example).

Moving to Inertial Motion Tracking is the future, I think.

[Dan Howell]

Fair enough. Had to ask! Creating a 3-point model with enough separation between the LEDs was what was annoying me, as it means I need to design and print a rather larger 3D model than I really wanted strapped on my head... when, to be honest, I'd be happy with a single point tracker so I could just have lateral movement. Then the head-mounted device could be incredibly small, that was my thinking. Even with two LEDs, with a suitably small separation between them, I was hoping the device could be kept small and with minimal "spindly arms" protruding :)

Thanks anyway...