Jump to content

Dagwoodyt

Members
  • Content Count

    162
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

23 Excellent

About Dagwoodyt

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

403 profile views
  1. Downloaded new update without problems. No complaints from Kaspersky. P38, Tempest, P51 and physiology additions much appreciated!
  2. There is no point in entertaining this question. TF 5.0 does not exist. If it did and TFS were beginning work on a VR implementation they would soon see for themselves whether the 2D/3D gauge mix would be acceptable to VR users. Assuming TF 5.0 were to actually come to pass the team would likely be overwhelmed by urgently needed fixes and would be in no position to begin working on VR. Further, if TFS knows its' target audience does not use VR why would they expend resources on its' implementation? Would any answer re 2D/3D gauge mix given in September 2019 even be remembered by the time TF 5.0 were to surface?
  3. What I've said is that VR is not a relevant issue for the target audience. VR would "delay" TF 5.0. Delay cannot be tolerated even though a completion date cannot not be stated because the initial release must be flawless and the team is only able to work when and as time to work becomes available. As such, pace of development is problematic. I am not able to identify any point of disagreement.
  4. "implemented sooner" than when? Sokol1 long ago described the 2D gauge problem. As you are asking about implementing VR in a post TF 5.0 world, we are talking years in the future. I do not think that any "new" flight sim that does not have VR implementation will be marketable by then. It is perplexing that you are able to ballpark completion time for VR implementation but are contractually unable to ballpark expected completion date for TF 5.0. NA is most easily understood as CloD with new map and plane/vehicle set. That should be enough for those still active in the CloD online world.
  5. I've come to believe NA is being tailored for those who might still be playing CloD online. Things like BoX quality graphics and ease of use are not necessary in that setting. I have no idea how furiously TFS is working and I do not know how much there is left to be done. Why would I hold myself out as knowledgeable about such things if I am not a Team member? It seems that certain fixes that have been requested forever such as anti-aliasing improvements and one-click track recording will be ever forthcoming. VR is not important for online clientele. If anti aliasing correction is not possible why is VR implementation possible? 6-12 months to implement VR after NA is completed? How was that determination made?
  6. Spitfire sights can be adjusted in-game as your distance to target changes. Set target wingspan first then change target distance as needed.
  7. Finally got with the program and started monitoring windsock before attempting landings in QM's. Of course that cut my ground loops to almost nil. Now I'm realizing that many BoK airfields don't have windsocks. Would be nice if at least one runway on every airfield had a windsock.
  8. Thanks for the correction. Nonetheless I've no idea what has been "sorted" so i'll continue to monitor Reverb user reports. I think the Index with one 2.0 base station would equal the price of the Reverb kit, so not much difference there. The larger fov and provision of hardware IPD adjustment would seem to favor the Index.
  9. I question whether there has been any real update of the Reverb hardware. Maybe all that has been changed is addition of the cable clip. If HP has contracted out manufacture of the hmd HP may have little control over who the manufacturer subcontracts for components. If so that could create a lottery as to how well an individual Reverb example will function. It seems like a relatively high stakes gamble at this point. I think I will probably go with an Index whenever they go on sale. Thanks for your input.
  10. Another concern I have is tracking. Over last few days my Odyssey is starting to have tracking issues. My hope is that it is related to a recent Win10 update and will eventually resolve itself. Frequently I am having to disconnect the USB cable and reinsert it before the Odyssey is recognized. I have had to revert to the O+ which seems not to have the tracking issue for now. I am imagining a situation in which the Reverb might also become camera glitchy and thinking how that might be worsened given its' smaller fov. I am wondering if it is possible to get by using an Index with one 2.0 base station placed above my monitor. The Index larger field of view sounds attractive.
  11. Well, hard to argue with those images. If I were going to choose, the Reverb would win on combination of image clarity and lack of base station requirement. I am using VR exclusively for BoX. I don't see a need to buy now however. Maybe if the Reverb were on sale I might give it a try. Newest offerings still look to be at gen 1.3 to 1.5. Lack of mechanical IPD adjustment is just insulting. It cannot be justified as a responsible practice and the range of adjustments should be increasing not diminishing.
  12. Looking forward to both physiology module and Tempest. Great work!
  13. Well, my experience with the O+ could be due in part to the fact that they changed the minimum IPD setting on the O+ to 63mm. I can use ~60mm on the original O. It might help to know the IPDs of Reverb users.
  14. The way I understand the significance of "sweet spot" is that a small sweet spot forces the wearer to constantly refocus the eyes in situations such as the landing pattern where you are needing to line up with the runway while simultaneously flying the gauge numbers. If the sweet spot is too small this process quickly results in eyestrain. A narrow sweet spot also makes positioning the hmd fiddly because you are always trying to find an elusive perfect positioning. That is why I still use the original Odyssey and have shelved the O+. Given my own experience I am concerned that the issue of sweet spot is even mentioned in regard to the Reverb.
×
×
  • Create New...