Hi, I’m planning on picking up a TrackIR5 soon to replace my TrackIR3 w/vector. My question is, how does the TrackClip Pro compare to the basic hat TrackClip? I don’t mind wearing the hat, and sometimes I like to play without a headset. However, if the TrackClip Pro improves performance noticeably, I’m willing to shell out a few extra $$ and commit to headphones all the time.

The main issue I have with the TrackIR3 is when I’m looking down at the instruments in a cockpit. When pitching down, head tracking seems to drift more and is generally a bit wonky compared to up, left, or right. I assume improved resolution will help this, but does LED vs. reflective patch make much of a difference? Has anyone done a head-to-head comparison between the two with TrackIR5? Thanks!

Scott

I can only say that the basic clip works so well for me on 4Pro that I see zero need to always wear a headset. I couldn't imagine what kind of improvement the clip might give me since it's already that fine without it.

I find the TrackClip Pro better but build quality is poor, mine got broken after 2 months use.

Hi scottike,

There's a similar thread over at AvSim, actually. I asked the same question when I got mine and the real deciding factor is whether you're in a lighted room. The reflectors need light to reflect, unless they can get enough ambient light it won't work. The clip provides it's on light and so if you fly in a darkened room it's a necessity.

BTW, do check the test screen where it shows the reflector. If there are blotches on it not related to the reflectors, you've got light coming from behind you and you need to block that. Hanging a blanket or something behind your head to block Window light, etc. is usually enough to fix it up.

Best regards,

- Bob

The StickWorks
http://www.stickworks.com

Bob, the first part of your post is incorrect, sorry. The reflectors work off the IR light sent out by the little Alien Head. Ambient light (which is 99% non-IR) doesn't help any, in fact as you say other light sources can interfere as you correctly write.

I think for a lighted room with ambient "error" lights the clip might be better.

Hi RSColonel_131st,

>> Bob, the first part of your post is incorrect, sorry. <<

I'm the one that should be sorry, but it's certainly not the first time. I had a TIR4, not a TIR5, and figured it was essentially the same. My bad, and my apologies for the misinformation.

>> The reflectors work off the IR light sent out by the little Alien Head. Ambient light (which is 99% non-IR) doesn't help any, in fact as you say other light sources can interfere as you correctly write. <<

Ah. Is that new? Mine just seemed to care that it had some light on the reflectors, but I don't know the particulars and I gave it away anyway. Made me airsick.

>> I think for a lighted room with ambient "error" lights the clip might be better. <<

Could very well be. I suppose he'll get it working someway (and I'll stop jumping in where I don't belong).

Thank you for the correction and, again, my apologies for the misinformation.

Best regards,

- Bob

The StickWorks
http://www.stickworks.com

Thanks for all the input guys. Got the Tir5 in the mail today, with the clip. Initial results seem to show the clip pro is a bit more stable, though the hat clip works well enough too. Neither is bothered by ambient light or darkness (no direct sunlight obviously). Much better than the Tir3. I think it will cut down on fatigue in the FSX cockpits.

Cheers!

Bob, just as additional info: I too have a TIR4Pro. When you switch the software in, you see four red leds coming to life under the black cover - these leads provide the reflections off the clip that the camera tracks.

I'd love to give the active clip a try since I'd like to keep my background room lights on when playing (or rather, the GF would like to not have me put her in the dark ;)) but I don't usually wear headsets, and I don't want the cables.

Hi RSColonel_131st,

I never had much use for the clip, either. It didn't really seem to work any better, I was hoping for greater range but one seemed much the same as the other and you were tied to the PC with the USB cable. It's kind of a moot point now, though. I did a driver for the original iGlasses back around '95 for PAW and to this day I can't look at that sickly green cockpit in PAW without feeling a little nauseous. It probably would be fine with the TIR, but not being able to see the room with the iGlasses made it just that much worse. Anyway, I suppose tje LEDs were the light source for the reflectors, At the time it seemed to be ambient and the thread, I wish I could remember where it was. seemed to support that. Oh well, live and learn.

In any case, thanks for the clarification! It always comes in useful eventually.

Best regards,

- Bob

The StickWorks
http://www.stickworks.com

Another update on my new setup. I sat down yesterday to tweak the response curves and I noticed something about the clip set-up. With the sensor mounted on top of my monitor, the clip is at a significantly lower level than the sensor. This causes problems when I "zoom" in and out on the z-axis. As I zoom in, my viewpoint drops downward as well. As I zoom out, my viewpoint rises considerably. This seems to be due to changes in the angular relationship between sensor and clip.

Switching back to the hat resolved this, since the reflectors are in the same plane (top edge of the monitor) as the sensor.

I also conducted some quantitative testing between the clip and the hat as well. I monitored the X, Y, Z, and translation numerical feedback in the setup screen while moving my head and keeping it still. The clip was rock solid when my head was still, the hat was nearly as stable, with occasional deviations of 0.1 deg of rotation or 0.01 cm translation. In the end, I don't think I'll be able to tell the difference in practice.

So, since I don't mind the hat, I dislike another cable, don't always wear a headset, and am bothered by my perspective jumping through the canopy when I pull my head back I am sticking with the hat clip for the time being.

Scott