|
Post by the light works on Feb 10, 2014 1:02:22 GMT
Here is a possible testing method: First, you need some sort of simulation. Either a Virtual reality setup, or s very large closed track. Have cars coming in the opposite lane and direction of the test car. Have a button on the dash that the driver would hit as soon as they see the oncoming car. Test the average time before passing for both cars with and without headlights. 0rder would be randomized with 15-20 of each. A VR setup would be easy to incorporate simulated fog into the reality. A real life test tract could be impractical to do fog over the whole track. You could do fog over part so that you have a simulated daylight run and a simulated fog run on the same circuit. With a VR setup, you could also easily calculate the distance between the two cars when they are acknowledged. Aren't there a number of high end driving simulators in the california area? any virtual reality scenario will result in a "you did it wrong because you didn't get the results I wanted" response.
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on Feb 10, 2014 12:15:13 GMT
Common, you should know that ANY testing method will result in that complaint.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Feb 10, 2014 12:20:58 GMT
That is true, but VR testing is open to far to much criticism and not without reason. We would, after all, be watching what someone else thinks you would/should see. (That is whoever programmed the simulator) Change the contrast or brightness of the display or models and you could get a different result.
There is also the 'TV' factor - watching MB sit there in a small box isn't going to be all that interesting. Yes, they have used a flight simulator but part of the fun was watching them trying to work out the controls. That is rather clearly not going to be the case with a car simulator. Besides which, using a flight simulator was the only real option for that particular myth as they couldn't use a real aircraft. In this case while there may be problems using real 'cars' it is practical for them to look at doing so.
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Feb 11, 2014 10:38:35 GMT
I like the idea of the indoor track with go carts, but I think you're overcomplicating the part about replicating weather.
Every weather condition doesn't have to cover the entire track. It just needs to cover enough of the track that it can produce a result. So, we need fog, rain and snow, right?
As some of you have already pointed out, they've made a rain rig on several occasions. Yes, if it needs to cover an entire airplane hangar, it's going to be difficult and time consuming to make, but how about making one that just covers about 2-300 feet of track? Here's what I propose:
Make a 2-300 foot track with rain that begins just after a 90 degree turn. Set up a wall along the far end of the rain track, so you obscure the last 50-100 feet of it from being seen before turning into it. Place a couple of car shells with working head lights behind that wall at the end of the track. Turn them on during some runs and off during others and place a button on the dash that you have to push every time you see an "oncoming car". If you want to make it even less complicated, place a camera in the car with the driver, positioned so it can see the side of the track. Visibly mark the side of the track every 10 feet and just have the driver call out the second he/she sees oncoming traffic and how many cars he/she can see at that point. If the myth is true, having one of the cars with headlights on and the other with headlights off at the same time should result in the driver calling the headlights on car at an earlier time than the headlights off car.
For fog you could do the same thing, except this time it's a a build that's a little more complicated. Build a long tunnel with plastic dividers at each end that you can drive through (the kind you see in refrigerated warehouses) to contain the fog. Could be a simple case of setting up some scaffolding and putting sheets of plywood on the sides and top. For safe fog you heat up some rocks - like in a sauna - and pour water onto them, which then turns to steam that's contained within the tunnel. It'll be hot, but you won't suffocate and the cleanup afterwards won't be any more difficult than cleaning up after the rain track, since it's just water.
Do a similar setup with a snow tunnel and you're good to go (I'm sure they have a better idea of how to do that than I do).
If you do it this way you won't have to build any one thing that covers the entire track, but can drive in different weather conditions during the same run, alternating between which cars are lit up and which aren't on each run and see the difference.
Thoughts?
Addendum: It just occured to me that I actually don't know if 2-300 feet of track will be enough/more than needed to create the right conditions of poor visibility for each type of weather. Maybe that's something they should test in small scale before building the larger rigs. If it's not enough, the results are invalid and if it's more than needed, they'll end up wasting a lot of time on building something that could've been smaller.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Feb 11, 2014 12:55:02 GMT
300 feet of rain-rig would still be 10 times the size of the rigs they have made before, but the real problem is the amount of water that would be needed for even that amount of 'rain'. The amounts they have used before have either been fairly small when indoors, or used updoors. A large indoor rig that is attempting to duplicate very heavy rain is going to flood the building. Which might not be a problem for the building but is going to cause problems with filming.
That said I wonder if there might not be such rigs already in place in Hollywood, since they do have to duplicate rain indoors fairly frequently. If so it is possible that MB might be able to run their tests on a studio lot where they already have such a rig in place. That would save them a lot of time and effort, even if they had to go down to LA to film.
Fog and Snow are not likely to have the same problems, as the systems are designed and used in 'normal' studio lots without them having to be modified and when the desire is to fill a large space. For snow the devices are usually ground based, so cameras could be mounted above them. For Fog...I *think* that artificial fog usually stays low to the ground - unlike steam - so this again would mean that they could place the cameras above the level of the 'fog' for filming.
Other than the fog, both snow and rain (If they decide to test that) would have clean up costs attached. So using an abandoned building makes more sense than trying to hire out a track.
The 'tunnel' idea isn't bad, but does have the problem of lighting. Even if they added additional lighting inside the tunnel the sudden switch from 'brightly light, clear skies', to 'heavy snow, lower light' would cause problems and discrepancies in the results. Even at a fairly slow speed the human eye would only just have started to adjust to the lower light conditions and (in the case of snow and rain) distractions caused by the falling 'water' by the time they exited the tunnel. It would be better if the conditions are as close to uniform as possible over the entire track, since we are looking at what makes cars more visible in those conditions rather than how fast the human eye can adapt to new conditions. It also makes the (already large) build a lot simpler, as they will only need to concentrate on one set of lighting.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 11, 2014 14:44:30 GMT
Rain: yes, Hollywood has rain machines suitable for large scale events.
fog: yes, Hollywood has fog machines suitable for large scale events.
snow: yes, Hollywood has snow machines suitable for large scale events.
there are two kinds of fog systems in Hollywood: dry ice systems create a fog that hugs the ground, since it is heavier than air. "fog juice" systems create a fog that is neutrally bouyant, so it flows where it is blown.
steam, in that density, is going to cause more trouble than either of the kinds of fog that equipment is readily available for - if not already in M5's inventory.
the problems of adapting to different visibility is why I originally suggested the cameras be stationary, and the lighted and unlighted vehicles be in motion.
as for cleanup - the rain set and the snow set can be built on the runway at the preferred outdoor location, making cleanup as simple as using a street sweeper for the snow - and letting the rain run off naturally. if the fog is done at the go cart track they have already used, then all they have to do is turn off the machine and open the doors.
addendum: the machines are portable for filming on location.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Feb 11, 2014 15:53:10 GMT
Using an indoor location would give the full control of the lighting conditions, as well as allowing them to set up the track without the test subjects knowing what the layout of the obstacles is before hand. It also removes any problems that may occur should there be a strong breeze, which could badly affect 'Fog' and 'Snow'.
The comments about adapting the lighting and visibility was in relation to the driver, not the cameras.
Hollywood 'Snow' can be a variety of substances, wood pulp is one I seem to recall being used on Band of Brothers. While the materials used are non-toxic and biodegradable they might not be allowed to use such materials outdoors in SF. (One gust of wind and they could end up littering half the bay.)
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 11, 2014 16:03:27 GMT
Using an indoor location would give the full control of the lighting conditions, as well as allowing them to set up the track without the test subjects knowing what the layout of the obstacles is before hand. It also removes any problems that may occur should there be a strong breeze, which could badly affect 'Fog' and 'Snow'. The comments about adapting the lighting and visibility was in relation to the driver, not the cameras. Hollywood 'Snow' can be a variety of substances, wood pulp is one I seem to recall being used on Band of Brothers. While the materials used are non-toxic and biodegradable they might not be allowed to use such materials outdoors in SF. (One gust of wind and they could end up littering half the bay.) regardless, my point stands that there is no need for us to be reinventing the wheel for them. we can come up with an effective way to use the weather simulators for the scenario, but trying to invent a weather simulator for them is like trying to tell me how to invent a device to turn lights on and off. they also have access to a large hangar, if the go cart track is not available to them.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Feb 11, 2014 16:19:48 GMT
I agree, and in fact that is why I brought up the idea of using modified Go-Carts, as these would make indoor testing viable. Using real cars would not be practical simply because of the risks involved in driving them around an enclosed space that is intended to have poor visibility.
Using the Go-Cart track would limit them to only being able to test Fog, and even then the owners might have concerns that it could leave residue on the track (or for that matter over the inside of the entire building). Snow would not be practical, since cleaning things up afterwards would take hours and they would most likely be filming at night when the business is closed. (They'd also be limited to when the track was available. This wasn't a problem for the earlier testing, as that was straightforward and quick. But would be here when you take into account set and clean up times.)
Rain is, of course, out of the question at the existing track. While they *might* be able to waterproof everything so the building doesn't flood. By the time they'd finished doing that they'd have to pack up and go home.
So using another building makes more sense on all levels, as they can consider testing all of the above conditions without having to be too worried about cleaning up afterwards. It would be a lot easier to clean up 'snow' inside a building that try to clean it up from the runway, especially if a breeze scatters it across half the bay area and into the sea. (Remember that they had to take precautions to make sure ping-pong balls didn't end up in the bay)
It is also possible that they might not be able to borrow a Go-Cart for testing here. In part because they'd have to modify the cart so it had a shell, which might require alterations and connections that could cause minor damage to the cart. The other part was because if they did decide to create a large rain-rig in one of the hangers then the simplest solution to the water problem would be to pump it straight out of the bay. However Go-Carts are not designed to deal with salt water, and it could cause corrosion issues if not with the frame then with the electrics and engine. This was part of my thinking as to the possibility of buying their own Cart or two rather than hiring them from someone else. They can do what they like with their own carts without having to worry.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 11, 2014 16:34:40 GMT
I agree, and in fact that is why I brought up the idea of using modified Go-Carts, as these would make indoor testing viable. Using real cars would not be practical simply because of the risks involved in driving them around an enclosed space that is intended to have poor visibility. Using the Go-Cart track would limit them to only being able to test Fog, and even then the owners might have concerns that it could leave residue on the track (or for that matter over the inside of the entire building). Snow would not be practical, since cleaning things up afterwards would take hours and they would most likely be filming at night when the business is closed. (They'd also be limited to when the track was available. This wasn't a problem for the earlier testing, as that was straightforward and quick. But would be here when you take into account set and clean up times.) Rain is, of course, out of the question at the existing track. While they *might* be able to waterproof everything so the building doesn't flood. By the time they'd finished doing that they'd have to pack up and go home. So using another building makes more sense on all levels, as they can consider testing all of the above conditions without having to be too worried about cleaning up afterwards. It would be a lot easier to clean up 'snow' inside a building that try to clean it up from the runway, especially if a breeze scatters it across half the bay area and into the sea. (Remember that they had to take precautions to make sure ping-pong balls didn't end up in the bay) It is also possible that they might not be able to borrow a Go-Cart for testing here. In part because they'd have to modify the cart so it had a shell, which might require alterations and connections that could cause minor damage to the cart. The other part was because if they did decide to create a large rain-rig in one of the hangers then the simplest solution to the water problem would be to pump it straight out of the bay. However Go-Carts are not designed to deal with salt water, and it could cause corrosion issues if not with the frame then with the electrics and engine. This was part of my thinking as to the possibility of buying their own Cart or two rather than hiring them from someone else. They can do what they like with their own carts without having to worry. they borrowed and modified a go cart for the fishing reel myth. - and I would expect them to use a vacuum formed shell for their modification - which would be fast, light, and wouldn't require an significant modification of the cart. - and as I said, the shells would make great obstacles as well. - on the other hand - they might buy a cart, anyway, too. this IS Adam and Jamie we are talking about. as for water - they would not pump brackish water from the bay. considering the drought, they might have trouble sourcing clean water - but no rain crew would run brackish water through their equipment - it costs more to clean all the gear than to pay for water to be trucked in. (don't forget I am in a fire department in a coastal area - I understand the cost of bringing brackish water in contact with the equipment)
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Feb 12, 2014 8:00:14 GMT
Fog, well, they do make fog machines, they used them a lot in 80's Music industry.
Rain rigs, they used one on the top up or down myth....
Specialised training to drive in such conditions, for the price of a ticket, I am available.... But I dont think I can fly that far?... unless they pay for upgrades to extra extra leg room, lets just call that first class.....
Or, Cross thread pollution, if they came here on the "World tour", we can always shut off Manchester Airport Runway and let them do it there?... you wont need a rain rig either, if it isnt raining already, just wait ten minutes.
They have shut Manchester Runway for Top-Gear.... or rather "Closed for maintenance", which they do once a day anyway, but that is at night.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 12, 2014 12:54:36 GMT
Fog, well, they do make fog machines, they used them a lot in 80's Music industry. Rain rigs, they used one on the top up or down myth.... Specialised training to drive in such conditions, for the price of a ticket, I am available.... But I dont think I can fly that far?... unless they pay for upgrades to extra extra leg room, lets just call that first class..... Or, Cross thread pollution, if they came here on the "World tour", we can always shut off Manchester Airport Runway and let them do it there?... you wont need a rain rig either, if it isnt raining already, just wait ten minutes. They have shut Manchester Runway for Top-Gear.... or rather "Closed for maintenance", which they do once a day anyway, but that is at night. I believe if you search around, you will find that statistically, Oregon rains three times as much as Manchester. Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Feb 13, 2014 8:00:22 GMT
Something like One centimetre per day rainfall at the moment. Thats National rainfall average... I know its extraordinary weather, but are you beating that?... And no, we havnt had it this wet for the last 260 years.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 13, 2014 14:55:44 GMT
Something like One centimetre per day rainfall at the moment. Thats National rainfall average... I know its extraordinary weather, but are you beating that?... And no, we havnt had it this wet for the last 260 years. our local average is a cm per day, more or less. 47.6 cm in this past January. manchester averages 3 mm per day. the UK averages 4 mm per day. and here is the picture to settle the myth. Attachment Deletedcan you easily spot the car that doesn't have its lights on?
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Feb 14, 2014 7:50:11 GMT
The latest weather is producing 7 to 8 CM a week..... more in some places.....
Lets not get into a rain fight over this, we BOTH get it wet. But I must dispute the 3mm a day?... we can get an inch in one day at times, sure we get drier summers than that, but 3mm days are dry days here, when it really tries, it can be bad. That photograph, I have seen weather so bad you would only see as far as that second dotted line on the right here.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 14, 2014 11:44:57 GMT
The latest weather is producing 7 to 8 CM a week..... more in some places..... Lets not get into a rain fight over this, we BOTH get it wet. But I must dispute the 3mm a day?... we can get an inch in one day at times, sure we get drier summers than that, but 3mm days are dry days here, when it really tries, it can be bad. That photograph, I have seen weather so bad you would only see as far as that second dotted line on the right here. well, the fog did get worse that day. I think at worst, i had visibility on taillights at 100 feet. - it was an unusually bad day - and that spot was the photo opportunity. worst day I have seen involved creeping along with only fog lights illuminated, and looking at about a foot of fog line past the hood. - but that was once.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Feb 14, 2014 14:11:35 GMT
The latest weather is producing 7 to 8 CM a week..... more in some places..... Lets not get into a rain fight over this, we BOTH get it wet. But I must dispute the 3mm a day?... we can get an inch in one day at times, sure we get drier summers than that, but 3mm days are dry days here, when it really tries, it can be bad. That photograph, I have seen weather so bad you would only see as far as that second dotted line on the right here. The figures given will be average rainfall, calculated by taking the overall amount of rainfall that was recorded over twelve months, and then dividing by 365.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 14, 2014 15:06:51 GMT
Oregon's wettest month on record was 49 inches of rain in one month. I couldn't find the record for the wettest day though I recall it being over 3 inches.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 14, 2014 15:08:05 GMT
that said - refer to my above picture for the fog proof. perhaps one of our snow country members could (safely) procure us a picture in a snowstorm.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Feb 15, 2014 10:01:00 GMT
I could, but, well, I use the photograph I have for white balance calibration... it isnt worth posting, as all you can see is out-of-focus white flakes..... depth of focus three feet, and nothing past that.
I have navigated in zero visibility, on foot, but feeling for a wall I knew was there, and using that to find shelter.... I have no idea what would have happened if I had missed that wall?....
|
|