Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I've been throwing around an idea to play Warhammer 40k (and any tabletop for that matter) remotely for some time. I am a professional software developer by trade and I know several ways that this could work. The problem is that Microsoft has patents on two of them and I don't see them purposing them for use on a large surface ANY TIME SOON. Actually, they haven't even announced any intention to release any product whatsoever.

(Google Microsoft IllumiShare)

Basically, Microsoft has patented any way that you could conceivably get two simlutaneous video feeds on a tabletop (from a projector). So if anyone were to release and/or sell a product accomplishing this task they would basically be in violation of Microsoft's patent. Also, getting these algorithms for simultaneous video to work are considerably complex.

The basic issue here is that you cannot have two surfaces that simultaneously transmit a remote picture and display a remote picture. The result is an infinite loop which basically will cause the entire video feed to be unusable.

So why not just do video on one end at a time? Whenever there is motion on one player's table, the remote models would disappear for him and a video of whatever is happening on his table will be sent to the other player. The limitation here would be that you can only see the remote models when your hands are off the table.

What do you guys think of this approach? Here is the hardware that could be used to accomplish this:



If anyone else is interested, maybe we could partner up. I could create the software which makes this work and also a player matching service. Maybe this could be used to link game shops together even? The way this is set up it would work in full daylight conditions due to the ultra short throw projector.

vvortex3 wrote:
The basic issue here is that you cannot have two surfaces that simultaneously transmit a remote picture and display a remote picture. The result is an infinite loop which basically will cause the entire video feed to be unusable.

How long a window do you need to record the remote picture? If I was going to try to resolve this problem, I'd see if you could blank the screen, record, and display again fast enough for it not to be noticeable. This is how light guns work, like the ones in some arcade shooters, and it might work here.

 AlexHolker wrote:

vvortex3 wrote:
The basic issue here is that you cannot have two surfaces that simultaneously transmit a remote picture and display a remote picture. The result is an infinite loop which basically will cause the entire video feed to be unusable.

How long a window do you need to record the remote picture? If I was going to try to resolve this problem, I'd see if you could blank the screen, record, and display again fast enough for it not to be noticeable. This is how light guns work, like the ones in some arcade shooters, and it might work here.

This approach is also patented by microsoft :-)

vvortex3 wrote:
This approach is also patented by microsoft :-)

Oh. The patent office really sucks at their job, if they'll grant a patent for something I can come up with from scratch in about five seconds.

 AlexHolker wrote:

vvortex3 wrote:
This approach is also patented by microsoft :-)

Oh. The patent office really sucks at their job, if they'll grant a patent for something I can come up with from scratch in about five seconds.

There's clauses for obvious advances though, I think defined roughly as something reasonably obvious to someone with expertise in the field (i.e. something anyone could come up with), but I think most of the time it's up to the defendant in the patent suit to prove the patent is invalid in the first place.

Which more or less means someone like Microsoft can patent whatever they want as it's probably cheaper to license the patent than disprove it.

Time slicing was my first though about the simultaneous recording/projection thing too.

vvortex3 wrote:
I've been throwing around an idea to play Warhammer 40k (and any tabletop for that matter) remotely for some time. I am a professional software developer by trade and I know several ways that this could work. The problem is that Microsoft has patents on two of them and I don't see them purposing them for use on a large surface ANY TIME SOON. Actually, they haven't even announced any intention to release any product whatsoever.

(Google Microsoft IllumiShare)

Basically, Microsoft has patented any way that you could conceivably get two simlutaneous video feeds on a tabletop (from a projector). So if anyone were to release and/or sell a product accomplishing this task they would basically be in violation of Microsoft's patent. Also, getting these algorithms for simultaneous video to work are considerably complex.

The basic issue here is that you cannot have two surfaces that simultaneously transmit a remote picture and display a remote picture. The result is an infinite loop which basically will cause the entire video feed to be unusable.

So why not just do video on one end at a time? Whenever there is motion on one player's table, the remote models would disappear for him and a video of whatever is happening on his table will be sent to the other player. The limitation here would be that you can only see the remote models when your hands are off the table.

What do you guys think of this approach? Here is the hardware that could be used to accomplish this:



If anyone else is interested, maybe we could partner up. I could create the software which makes this work and also a player matching service. Maybe this could be used to link game shops together even? The way this is set up it would work in full daylight conditions due to the ultra short throw projector.

In case you missed it, you can add a small camera to your computer. People have this thing that has been around for a few years, called... Skype. Theres another thing called a head set, you can talk to people on different programs out there, not the least of which THOSE.... are free.

Grot 6, I think you're completely missing the point. As entertaining as it'd be, maybe I won't bother to ask you exactly how you'd go about playing 40k via Skype.

vvortex3 wrote:
Grot 6, I think you're completely missing the point. As entertaining as it'd be, maybe I won't bother to ask you exactly how you'd go about playing 40k via Skype.

Same way you play on any other board. Of course your going to have to have some placeholders for army sets, and smaller boards, to show you not fudging rolls, distance measurements, but a good camera, a table.... Your not even seriously saying "Give me 800.00 for hardware."


Or are you?

Are you proposing that you project a skype feed onto the table? I think that myself (and those interested in such a tool) would want a bit more. I'd rather see the enemy models on my table. Sure you could play via skype or even telephone, it's just not the same experience.

I am not asking for any money for hardware. I'm just saying the cost of the necessary pieces to achieve a projection/recording on a table. The only piece that I'd consider selling could possibly be the software. I'd obviously give it away for free or even share any money made to anyone involved early on.

There may be technical difficulties, such as models in lower levels of terrain.

Given that half of the 'models' on the table would be projections, I think that most people (although not necessarily wargamers) would just prefer to use something like Vassal.

I think you're totally misunderstanding this Grot 6....

How would you get around the terrain issues? This isn't something you could show with an image, short of having bother players having exactly the same terrain.

My thoughts on the best way to do what you are thinking is have a camera and a projector above each table.

Honestly, I wouldn't really be interested. A big part of the entertainment about wargaming is actually interacting with a person while doing it. I wouldn't want to waste the space and money setting up something like that.

I'd rather see PC games that better capture the wargaming style. If Warhammer: Mark of Chaos had of been turn based instead of RTS, that's pretty much exactly what I want.

Well one way you might be able to do this is by mounting a projector over our game table, and a camera next to it as well, that way you get a birds eye view of the thing. you could have it project next to the table, that way you dont get the loop problem

+ it would cost only around....idk 500 bucks to set up

Is there any reason why mounting a cheapo picoprojector over each table, with a cheapo webcam and Skype wouldn't do what you're getting at? There wouldn't be feedback, because each table is only getting the projection of the other's models on it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Or would there. Hmmm.

I don't see why you would need a feed from the projector over 'your' gaming table as you have the table in front of you.

The discussion on another forum has actually resolved most of the issues discussed here. The image that I posted at the beginning of this thread shows a camera and projector over the table. The reason that you'd need to use these models specifically is that they can support a field of view which will completely cover a 6x4' table at a distance of only about 44 inches. Any other projector/camera may need up to 10 feet and most ceilings are not that high.

The feedback loop can be resolved by having only one player transmit video at a time. When the system detects motion on only one end then the player who is moving "has control". The opposing player(s) would see his video feed until he/she releases control by moving his hands off the table. In order to allow the player with control to still see opposing units I would display an image which is a combination of every opposing player's last transmission frame onto the player with control's table. All of the opposing players would see a video of the player with control along with an overlay containing every other player's table, but they will not also be transmitting so there will be no loop.

Terrain: I think it'd be necessary/worthwhile to build a standard terrain "bundle" which contains terrain pieces which are projection friendly. This would allow all players to physically have the same terrain. Of course, this could also include standard GW terrain. Maybe the player matching service will actually show a profile and you can filter by users who have this or that terrain piece in order to improve the experience.

Final issues: In order to avoid network complexity, I most likely need to route the video feed(s) through a series of servers for each locale. This would require this system to have a monthly fee to support bandwidth. Though it could be as low as $10-20/mo. Or maybe tiered based on framerate/bandwidth usage.

Foster: if you didn't have a projector, you wouldn't see your opponents models.

Foster wrote:
I don't see why you would need a feed from the projector over 'your' gaming table as you have the table in front of you.

You wouldn't need a direct feed, but since you'd be receiving a feed from their table at the same time they're receiving a feed from yours, you'd be getting a feedback loop that way.

To put it in audio terms, it's like you each have a speaker and a microphone. Whenever you make a sound, their speaker repeats it, then their microphone picks it up and your speaker repeats it, then your microphone picks it up and repeats it, etc, etc.

vvortex3 wrote:
When the system detects motion on only one end then the player who is moving "has control".

Why not just have a button that swaps control, the "end of turn" button?

Eggs, I think I know what you mean. Project to the side of the table instead of directly on to it?

AlexHolker, I wasn't aware of that but I know what you mean about the speaker and microphone issue.

Does anyone know of a shop who would be willing to dedicate a table to this equipment if I give them the hardware for free? I'm thinking to set up one at home, one at a local shop in Tokyo, and one elsewhere.

Also, I am going to start up a separate thread asking for suggestions for standardized terrain:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/504375.page#5235961

If I'm not mistaken, infinite loop occurs because of the projected surface is sent back. Maybe you can use a polarizer in your camera which is perpendicular to the projector polarizer therefore filtering the projected surface from the real surface.

I don't see why you can't just sync the frame rates to miss each other. Like the old machine gun shooting through the propeller.

Here is a rough sketch of a potential design. I'm still determining what materials to use. With this design the package would be about 32"x24" and needs to include 4 32x24" plates for use as the table surface (although this could be covered with something like a mat of grass or terrain. I need a strong material since this will be a table that people would most likely lean on and also because of the 90 degree angle of the projector mount. Any reccomendations for design revisions, materials or suppliers would be helpful.

This is a really cool idea, but the terrain would be a significant problem. Wouldn't both players have to have their tables set up almost precisely the same way, with the exact same terrain? Those are significant obstacles....

Due to the nature of this, both players could see one another's terrain. It would, however, be ideal if they both owned the exact same piece of terrain in order to give a better 3d affect. That's why I'd like to include a standardized terrain package.

You know I actually can't see this catching on. Surely the whole idea of playing remotely would be to gain a larger pool of opponents. With this you can only play against other people who have the table, which probably won't be that much larger than a gaming group (perhaps smaller if you need the same terrain). Then you also have to wonder about the quality of the projection itself. It's not like this going to be holograms. Miniatures reduced to 2D blobs of light. Then you also have the problem of shadows and distortion. Tall terrain, and other models in CC will block the projection. Then what about vehicles blocking line of site? Flyers are going to be displaced, all miniatures towards the edge of the table are going to be stretched out 4 inches long etc...

This is actually a perfect example of what will happen:


The glass represent a miniature, which is standing in 3 dimensions. The shadow shows how the glass is projected onto a 2D surface from an angle. Any miniatures that are not directly under the camera and projector are going to suffer this kind of distortion, getting worse towards the edges. Furthermore projected enemies on your side of the table, you will see an elongated projection of their back, even though they are facing towards you.

I think Grot6 was kind of right. Even though it is not exactly the same: Skype + some markers, will give you an equally crappy gaming experience. And it doesn't cost $800.

Although we are all entitled to our opinion, I can't help but point out how much a gross exaggeration of the shadow/angle effect your image is. The projector and camera stand almost 4 feet over the table. Your image shows an extreme angle which would never exist on this gaming table as designed. At the edges there could be a very small shadow at best. Neither the camera nor the projector ever face terrain at such an extreme angle from the height as designed.

It's sorta my opinion that if you don't like it, then don't build/buy one.

Now, I'll attempt to use the constructive piece of that reply. I can completely avoid shadows via a bottom-up projection. This will make it so that only compatible terrain can be used with the system. This is a possible solution, however the same issue will remain with the camera angle. I'm using a Stormraven on a flyer base to test how things would work at certain angles.