On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 7:14:57 PM UTC-8, James wrote:
On 14/12/17 17:04, Oculus Lights wrote:
On Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 2:34:34 PM UTC-8, James wrote:
https://www.bike24.com/p2144878.html

--
JS

oops forgot to answer questions.
The ray trace is from design software called Zemax.
Every other ray trace has some red center. This beam is so even that it has early no red anywhere.

The Nasa Lunar Resource Prospector development unit has a few Oculus mounted on it in a layout that resulted from trial and error til we made a light field with virtually no variation in the region the robot "sees". The light field dimensions aren't public info so can't say, but you can probably make a rough guess from the picture.
The new Roverscape indoor area with synthetic lunar "soil" and "moonrocks" is mores secure than they can get me a clearance for. Latest update is they're moving ahead with their algorithms based on how my lights light up the region for the vehicle's cameras.
Maybe once this baby sends back the first pics of the Dark Side (small south polar region) of the moon, an aerospace giant will buy up my patent and I'll finally get to cash in instead of scraping away with a flashlight and bike light industry that doesn't like new guys or technology that would make them change their tooling and infrastructure.



You could try to reply to the message where I asked these questions.

If I could find your original mixed in a few days of digest, else, here's your reply, stop being an asshole about it.

A ray trace projected on to a surface perpendicular to the light source
is not representative of how the light will be used in the real world.
Hence, your picture is of no practical use.

--
JS

All beams are designed to ray traces. You also have that picture from the NASA grounds showing the beam on ground. "Hence" go **** yourself and you bull**** character attacks.
Stay the **** on topic here of get the **** off this forum.