Jump to content
RustNeverSleeps

The cockpit thump in VR

Recommended Posts

First off, VR is fantastic in this sim. Don't hesitate. Buy it. Buy BOK, buy BOM, buy BOS. Support these guys. 

 

I have one major critique about the VR implementation. The darn head collision and resulting thump!  It happens so frequently i can barely move.  It is as if my head is twice the size it is in reality, or the canopy hit box is much smaller than displayed. The bigger issue however seems to be the effect that happens when you collide with the canopy with your head:  the movement relative to your actual head movement seems to reverse momentarily and get  out of sync. For instance if I am moving away from the cockpit and hit the canopy, the camera stops and then starts to move back in towards the cockpit even though my head is continuing outward.  This is a problem as it is undesirable in VR for your perceived movement to not match your movement in real life... motion sickness results! Between the non-stop thumping and my camera going awry every time i get within 5 inches of the canopy, I have to basically avoid any turning of my head or moving beyond a degree or two in any direction.  

 

I think the idea of preventing VR folks from leaning out of their cockpit is good. But the execution is problematic (in my humble opinion). I know that you can turn off the canopy restriction, but in multiplayer it is a server side option that seems to be synonymous with no external camera. Therefore all serious sim servers have this option off.

 

My suggestions:

1.I think the canopy restriction should be a separate option from external views, so that they can be set separately.  

2. I also think that the THUMP should be an option, as I'd prefer not to have it.  Let players set this on their own. 

3. The reversal of direction of motion effect when the collision happens should not happen (maybe this is just me). I think it would be alright for the camera to stop completely, but it seems when you hit the canopy, the camera tends to move on its own in much the same way as it does when you pause. Or, my preferred option, instead of stopping the motion of the camera at all, have the screen flash black or grey to indicate the player is out of bounds, as many vr games do to indicate you are somewhere you shouldn't be. This prevents the discrepancy between the perceived motion and the actual motion.  

 

Once again, I love the VR implementation and this one thing is preventing me from really immersing myself and playing online seriously.  I would love to hear the thoughts of other VR users to see if they are also encountering these issues and how they recommend addressing them?

 

Thanks all!

Edited by Live_Rust
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must be one of the few who likes the thumps and movement restrictions. I noticed that in some planes they seemed to be a bit off. I'm not sure which one it was, maybe the yak 1b. The movement was restricted, but the thump sound was not always played.

 

I also wondered why the devs coupled external views and free movement the way they did, but then I realized the mixed setting where you force restrictions and allow external views is meaningless: everybody can just look behind using the external views. The setting without external views and without restrictions might give an edge for VR owners, which is not considered acceptable.

 

The option to remove the sound but leave restrictions enabled would be good, I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do agree with all your points. The box where you're allowed to move your head does seem smaller than the canopy itself. It's much easier to check your six using a TrackIR than it is in VR, and this is not only due to the fact that I need to turn my head more. It seems to me that I can not find a good angle to look back (i.e I can not stick my head to the sides of the canopy when looking back) as I can do with TrackIR. Like you said, it feels like my head is much bigger than it should be.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I completely agree with the OP. On all points. This just needs a little love. I'd be fine with the restriction even allowing just the very start of clipping through the canopy with the above mentioned dark screen. Kind of like Onward when a player tried to clip through a building.

 

Vr is awesome. Hope it keeps getting good better!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thump is novel but it gets annoying after a few minutes. I just leave it off and try not to poke my head out of the canopy.

 

I've just been flying the 109 G2 but the cockpit does seem very small. I figured it was just that the 109 had a very small cockpit in real life (from pictures it certainly seems cramped) but in all honesty, when I look down in VR it feels like the bucket seat is like 12 inches from my face. When I peek through the headset, the bucket seat appears to be in my lap.

 

I try to re-center my HMD position so that the seat is at the proper distance, but then my head is almost sticking through the top of the canopy. I can't seem to get it right.

 

And when the cockpit thump is enabled, it feels like I'm wearing an F-35 helmet instead of a leather cap!

 

I wonder if the "sense of scale" within VR needs a little bit of tweaking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do agree with all your points. The box where you're allowed to move your head does seem smaller than the canopy itself. It's much easier to check your six using a TrackIR than it is in VR, and this is not only due to the fact that I need to turn my head more. It seems to me that I can not find a good angle to look back (i.e I can not stick my head to the sides of the canopy when looking back) as I can do with TrackIR. Like you said, it feels like my head is much bigger than it should be.

 

This is the main issue. Just played on Wings of Liberty for about an hour in the Yak 1.  I was not able to find a good angle to consistently look behind me. VR should offer an advantage in situational awareness, given the disadvantages it can potentially cause otherwise (tougher spotting, more difficult accessing hardware/keys, etc.). I think at the very least the hit boxes for the canopy need to be significantly larger.

 

Also I notice you can't lean forward very far before hitting an artificial restriction. I see no reason for this. If i want ot get up close to my gauges, why not let me do so? Even if pilots had harnesses in real life, they could loose those harnesses anytime they wanted if they wanted to get down low or lean forward to the extent of the cockpit.  Perhaps the major issue here is really then making the collision point more precise so we have a more range in every direction.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys don't understand the technology behind this. We cannot widen the restrictions. We'll need entirely new tech to do that and we don't have time or resources. We have to move on to the next items on the list. I may just do away with it all together.

 

Jason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys don't understand the technology behind this. 

 

Hmm I'm sensing a pattern here...

 

Don't expect us to understand the technology. We're the consumers, not the producers. We play the game and respond to it with whatever observations we might have, it's just feedback. If you can't fix it then so be it, no need to suddenly get so defensive. Can't you see that we're all generally very happy with your VR implementation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just read the words. Not ascribe so much emotion to it. I hate the internet on top of complaints. Just enjoy what we've built for 5 minutes please.

 

Jason

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys don't understand the technology behind this. We cannot widen the restrictions. We'll need entirely new tech to do that and we don't have time or resources. We have to move on to the next items on the list. I may just do away with it all together.

 

Jason

Certainly I do not understand the tech in use here as I am not the developer. I am only offering what I perceive as constructive criticism and thoughts on how to improve a new feature. I would assume that kind of input from the community would be wanted but if not I can withhold it in the future.

 

My thoughts are if there is no time to refine this feature, it would better not be in at all yet. Maybe it's just me but in the yak among other fighters I really can't find an angle to clear my six without running a foul of the canopy.

 

That said, obviously I really love the VR implementation so far and think it is head and shoulders above the competitors even at this early stage. Impressive work so please don't get disheartened by any input we provide. That only shows how much we care about the product.

Edited by Live_Rust
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not complainig Jason, I swear!.  Just a constructive criticism from somebody used to this technology.

 

First, the VR implementation you made is really great. Interface, options, menus, map, etc...Not going back to non-VR. But..I agree with the other guys.

 

- The "Bump" or "Thump" is a great idea, but, as the virtual walls inside the cockpits are too close to the pilot, its really annoying after some minutes. Even the slightest head movement in combat finishes in a BUMP. Also, I like to move close to my gunsight for targeting, and now its not possible. BUMP. Even if left and right walls were ok, too narrow, but ok, the front wall is really too close from the pilot. Depends of the aircraft you choose, but it seems that this happens on all of them.  Offline flying its not a problem. I have disabled the limits, but online...

 

If you can solve it, great. If not, its ok. But think that VR technology will increase your sales. An even better or improved implementation helps with selling this sim to more people. And maybe to make some tweaks on it, worth it.

 

Thanks for this great sim.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same here, did not want to complain. Love the VR so far, just thought to make some suggestions that in my opinion would add value. But I do see that after so much work this could be seen as whining. So again, great work and take your time, prioritize things however you think it's best. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The perception of narrow boundaries may be due to the fact that the head tracking sensor is in fact tracking the visor sitting four inches in front of our face. If this is the case a simple vector correction in the sw would solve the problem for all cockpits at once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, lighten up on your suggestions. For all we know, the VR bounding box could be linked directly to the model's bounding box and that would make it impossible to change. It is probably annoying to listen to us speculate. 

These forums were infrequently trafficked before the VR patch began trending. I've been here a month or so waiting for VR. Like many others I only recently found out IL-2: BOS was out of Beta, and did so through the Oculus Rift forums. Adding the bump and restriction to canopy movement were suggestions from the players that were implemented into the game. Don't like them, blame the guys who live here. Blame yourself for not coming to the forum and posting about it. 

The perception is that game design happens instantaneously, when really it happens over the course of many 8-12 hour days for months. Not by one person, or even one fluid team. Many, many, many ideas are considered in that time, many problems arise and hurdles to jump, rings of fire, juggling chainsaws and balancing lawnmowers on chins before we see what looks like a patch. This one was for VR, it was a popular request of the fans. Us being so negative about what is frankly a brilliant implementation probably hurts.

If you played the original IL-2 you know how kick ass these guys are at their job. This is why IL2 has been my most favorite of simulations ever since its initial release. It took a lot of time and effort to complete, their patches were constant. Even BOS had been labouriously poured into the cast before release. Give them some time and good press too.

Half, or nearly 3/4 of the VR complaints stem from either, people incorrectly installing the software, confusion about how to use Steam VR, incorrectly setting up their playing space, or other problems not within the team's power to fix.  

However, they "have" to play the same game we "get" to play and by and by things will be fixed. I know that because I've seen these guys in action. Stop poking the badger. By the way, there is a "Canopy Open" switch if you want to poke your head out over the wing. You'll be deaf by the time you come back in though as the air passing is rather loud. 

Edited by ShoeHash
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the canopy restriction should be a separate option from external views, so that they can be set separately.  

 

Hello,

 

Let's look to the future a bit in case if we will do this. :)

 

5c2fbe__e_520x390x0.jpg

 

- Ok, we have removed VR in-cockpit head camera moving restriction link to "external views" option.

 

- After a week (or may be a day) after releasing this - hardcore multiplayer 2D-monitors community will complain that VR customers have no limits in looking backward and downward as monitor users have - you may to lay VR helmet down on the floor and look on your monitor what is happeingng below your airplane belly. Or you may stand up and look behind what is happening behind and below your plane tail, while it's impossible in reality and on monitor. Or you may move aside of canopy and look forward-below your plane nose. Or you even able to move view outside the closed tank armour. And so on.

 

- After two weeks (or may be in two days) after releasing this - hardcore multiplayer 2D-monitors community will complain that Developers got to add an option to not allow VR customers to connect to hardcore servers, where external views are locked. "Or we will quit!" - they will say. And again we will be "opened to community" and we will add this "lock for ability of VR users to connect to hardcore servers" to Multiplayer

 

- After three weeks (or may be in three days) VR customers will complain again - "Why we can't play on hardcore multiplayer servers with our lovely VR?". "Remove this restroction too or we will quit!" - they will say.

 

- So in final, everyone will be angry in a month. And only possible compromise in this situation, which allow VR and 2D customers to play together in hardcore multiplayer and don't be angry - is a current solution, when VR and 2D monitor have the same limits in total field of view from cockpit. :(

 

So... We hope on community here - we hope that everyone understand that this is no our "evil will" but this is only possible compromise.

  • Upvote 13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

 

Let's look to the future a bit in case if we will do this. :)

 

5c2fbe__e_520x390x0.jpg

 

- Ok, we have removed VR in-cockpit head camera moving restriction link to "external views" option.

 

- After a week (or may be a day) after releasing this - hardcore multiplayer 2D-monitors community will complain that VR customers have no limits in looking backward and downward as monitor users have - you may to lay VR helmet down on the floor and look on your monitor what is happeingng below your airplane belly. Or you may stand up and look behind what is happening behind and below your plane tail, while it's impossible in reality and on monitor. Or you may move aside of canopy and look forward-below your plane nose. Or you even able to move view outside the closed tank armour. And so on.

 

- After two weeks (or may be in two days) after releasing this - hardcore multiplayer 2D-monitors community will complain that Developers got to add an option to not allow VR customers to connect to hardcore servers, where external views are locked. "Or we will quit!" - they will say. And again we will be "opened to community" and we will add this "lock for ability of VR users to connect to hardcore servers" to Multiplayer

 

- After three weeks (or may be in three days) VR customers will complain again - "Why we can't play on hardcore multiplayer servers with our lovely VR?". "Remove this restroction too or we will quit!" - they will say.

 

- So in final, everyone will be angry in a month. And only possible compromise in this situation, which allow VR and 2D customers to play together in hardcore multiplayer and don't be angry - is a current solution, when VR and 2D monitor have the same limits in total field of view from cockpit. :(

 

So... We hope on community here - we hope that everyone understand that this is no our "evil will" but this is only possible compromise.

I mean I've flown this sim for quite awhile and have purchased all three editions and today purchased the yak1b to further show my support for your effort in adding VR. I agree this is a tricky subject. However, I implore you to get in the cockpit and really feel the restrictions the current setup puts on VR. I think in the long run this will be untenable and it may pay to get out in front of it now. I realize this not a trivial task and am not expecting it would be.

 

If the hitboxes truly can't be modified, I still think the best solution here would be to grey/black out the user's view if they stick their heads out of the canopy. One of the most essential joys of simming in VR is the freedom to move your head around the cockpit in a way track IR cannot replicate. You can get right up against hte gauges or the gunsight. Currently you can't do that and it is unfortunate.

 

We should not let the limits of older technology (track ir) dictate the parameters for new technology. VR is the future and any time spent perfecting this will not be wasted I am confident.

Guys, lighten up on your suggestions. For all we know, the VR bounding box could be linked directly to the model's bounding box and that would make it impossible to change. It is probably annoying to listen to us speculate.

 

These forums were infrequently trafficked before the VR patch began trending. I've been here a month or so waiting for VR. Like many others I only recently found out IL-2: BOS was out of Beta, and did so through the Oculus Rift forums. Adding the bump and restriction to canopy movement were suggestions from the players that were implemented into the game. Don't like them, blame the guys who live here. Blame yourself for not coming to the forum and posting about it.

 

The perception is that game design happens instantaneously, when really it happens over the course of many 8-12 hour days for months. Not by one person, or even one fluid team. Many, many, many ideas are considered in that time, many problems arise and hurdles to jump, rings of fire, juggling chainsaws and balancing lawnmowers on chins before we see what looks like a patch. This one was for VR, it was a popular request of the fans. Us being so negative about what is frankly a brilliant implementation probably hurts.

 

If you played the original IL-2 you know how kick ass these guys are at their job. This is why IL2 has been my most favorite of simulations ever since its initial release. It took a lot of time and effort to complete, their patches were constant. Even BOS had been labouriously poured into the cast before release. Give them some time and good press too.

 

Half, or nearly 3/4 of the VR complaints stem from either, people incorrectly installing the software, confusion about how to use Steam VR, incorrectly setting up their playing space, or other problems not within the team's power to fix.

 

However, they "have" to play the same game we "get" to play and by and by things will be fixed. I know that because I've seen these guys in action. Stop poking the badger. By the way, there is a "Canopy Open" switch if you want to poke your head out over the wing. You'll be deaf by the time you come back in though as the air passing is rather loud.

 

I frequented the forums for a long time but havent posted. Was a lurker. This is the first issue that really drove me to post (as I am not a squeaky wheel). Still I realize that the players asked for this feature. Do you not agree that the implementation is a bit more restrictive then perhaps you desired? Sometime's ideas are better on paper and don't turn out in execution. It's okay to get rid of it for a bit till more time can be applied to address these issues. It is clear that many in the community feel the same as I do.

Edited by Live_Rust
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And here we go again.  Customers bring up a real problem that should be fixed and how does 777/1C respond.  Instead of saying, "yes, we understand how the way that this is implemented right now is completely unreasonable and can see how it really takes the shine off of the whole VR experience.  We will look into it and do our best to fix it when we get a chance" (and mean it)

Instead, they take an offended "why are you always complaining?  We can't fix it, just deal with it.  blah blah blah" response.

Seriously guys, I would have thought that, by now, with all the stupid PR mistakes you've made thus far, you'd be better at evaluating legitimate critics and just unreasonable whining and respond appropriately.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct me if I'm wrong, it's been a while since I've used trackir, but isn't the cockpit limitation universal and not just a VR thing? If I remember correctly one cannot lean out of a closed cockpit with trackir. Also the zoom function allows one to "lean" into the gunsight.

Edited by Rolling_Thunder
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct me if I'm wrong, it's been a while since I've used trackir, but isn't the cockpit limitation universal and not just a VR thing? If I remember correctly one cannot lean out of a closed cockpit with trackir. Also the zoom function allows one to "lean" into the gunsight.

Unfortunately in VR artificially restricting movement of the head is a big nono. It introduces a disconnect between perceived motion and actual motion which causes discomfort at best and VR sickness at worst. Whether the devs want to address it or not, this is an issue that will not go away as it is a fundamentally physiological issue.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See if sticking with it helps. Everyone is different I know but I haven't had any sickness issues with the VR implementation. It seems to me that your body adjusts to VR after some time. For instance on H3 I used to get a bit sick when walls were "solid" and if you moved into one you would physically move in reality but your view in game would not. It's disabled now (don't know why) but within 15 minutes or so I was using that feature to help myself get into a good position to enter a room. DCS World gave me a bit of sickness too the first few times I went upside down. Now it doesn't, and I found IL-2 didn't make me feel sick or uncomfortable once.

 

The biggest issue I've had is the head bonk noise sounds like I'm getting hit. It freaked me out the first few times (I was wondering who was shooting at me while I was on the ground in a quick action!) but I'm getting used to it. Just give it more time and see what happens. Worst case I'd say play with cockpit restrictions off whenever possible and try not to cheat, even though there's something about standing up through a cockpit or walking outside of a flying aircraft that's oddly thrilling. I'd recommend trying that once or twice just for fun!

 

Obligatory I'd pay $100 or more to help get RoF into VR. I know, different engine and such, but hell even if you guys just started importing the planes into IL-2 I'd buy them again, and I own all the planes and their equipment packs. No other flight sim has done what RoF did for me. I think it's the slow planes that can get up to speed quickly and fight at low altitudes part. Anyway can't wait to see what you all bring in the future, and can't wait for tomorrow so I can spend hours over virtual Russia. Keep up the great work!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good feedback I think. To be clear I don't get motion sick/VR sick as I've been using VR for over a year now. Those days are behind me. Im more concerned for simmers who are just starting out and are most susecptible to it and may not realize it's just the motion disparity that causes it, not VR in general.

 

Glad to hear you are getting used to it. I've taken to flying the i-16 and avoiding the yaks as they seem to exhibit a particular propensity for the THUMP! The i-16 keeps me free as a bird.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone is different (...)

 

I for example don't feel sick hitting restrictions in the cockpit, although I'd like to have an option to disable thump sound.

But taxing on grass airfields is a vomit machine for me!  :wacko:

Funny enough, I have never had a problem in DCS, but taxing on concrete is very smooth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree about the thump but cockpit restriction doesn't really bother me as I always were my seatbelt and even without zoom have no problem finding targets! I much prefer it as it is, than in the DCS mig 21, putting my head through the AC all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

VR sick flying? One solution that seems to work for me is tricking the brain into thinking you ARE turning.

How?  Well, start the turn (bank) and then move your head slightly in the direction of the turn.  Ears and brain now both think you're turning.

 

Yes, the bump forward is too close.  Oh well.  Now I have the problem of not liking flying without VR.  I'm spoiled after only a couple of hours of BoS in VR.

 

My latest problem was when I tried to lean on the cockpit frame to rest while waiting for someone to taxi to the runway....almost fell out of my chair.  ;-)

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Either I, or some others are confused as to what the OP was saying.  It was my understanding that the OP did NOT have a problem with limits (and neither do I, I actually think that limits are essential), but that the limits were overly restrictive; as if the virtual pilot's head was WAY too big.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the visor is tracked, rather than the actual eyes position, the head IS too big. The visor is actually bumping against the boundaries. This could be corrected taking into account the actual position of the players eyes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the visor is tracked, rather than the actual eyes position, the head IS too big. The visor is actually bumping against the boundaries. This could be corrected taking into account the actual position of the players eyes.

 

Jason has already stated they have gotten the movement as best they can within the boundaries of what they can do in the game itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So they turned down the thump volume in patch D. I don't have vr but I'm curious, is it better now? Ironically, the idea of some sort of noise for when you hit your head on the canopy may have come from a VR user who warned that a sudden stoppage with out some sort of auditory cue would be a problem. If they overdid it, perhaps now they've fixed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jason said they cannot widen the restrictions, which are probably dependent on each plane geometry. But in my hypothesis the problem is not the restrictions, but rather the point which is being tracked, that lies maybe 10 cm in front of our eyes. This results in a head which is maybe 50 cm or 20 inches in diameter :-)

Anyway I maybe wrong, and it seems a minor issue. Can't wait for my OR to try it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And here we go again.  Customers bring up a real problem that should be fixed and how does 777/1C respond.  Instead of saying, "yes, we understand how the way that this is implemented right now is completely unreasonable and can see how it really takes the shine off of the whole VR experience.  We will look into it and do our best to fix it when we get a chance" (and mean it)

 

Instead, they take an offended "why are you always complaining?  We can't fix it, just deal with it.  blah blah blah" response.

 

Seriously guys, I would have thought that, by now, with all the stupid PR mistakes you've made thus far, you'd be better at evaluating legitimate critics and just unreasonable whining and respond appropriately.

Salutations,

 

I have to concur. What has been brought up clearly isn't whining just to be whining. Players are reporting something that is continually annoying during their VR game play. No offense should be taken or inferred.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to admit the thumping sound becomes onerous . . . Even though I thought it would be a good idea at first the visual affect of hitting the boundary is usually enough for me. I am actually impressed with the solution the devs came up with in this regard. The entire view moving as your head hits the boundary is an elegant solution to the problem. As for your view being more restricted than track IR I would need to see comparisons. Finding the perfect angles to look from is a process of discovery not unlike what a pilot would need to learn. Once I have banished the niggling technical issues I can learn how to get the most of each cockpit in VR.

 

von Luck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree and I feel this is the best way to describe the issue.

 

 

This is probably something that can be checked easily.  Get the measurements inside the cockpit of a IRL plane (e.g. 109 cos its cockpit is pretty square) and also measure how far your head moves in VR before hitting the sides.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using some not very scientific checking I have determined that the width of a BF109 canopy is 54cm at the bottom tapering to 27cm at the top.  According to google the average human head is 20cm across from ear to ear.  If your head was touching the top of the canopy you would only have around 5 cm either side of your head to move.  Even if it was at the very bottom you would only have 13cm either side to move.  

 

Don't have VR but using 1:1 trackIR on the x,y and z this feels pretty close.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using some not very scientific checking I have determined that the width of a BF109 canopy is 54cm at the bottom tapering to 27cm at the top. According to google the average human head is 20cm across from ear to ear. If your head was touching the top of the canopy you would only have around 5 cm either side of your head to move. Even if it was at the very bottom you would only have 13cm either side to move.

 

Don't have VR but using 1:1 trackIR on the x,y and z this feels pretty close.

 

Not allot of room in a 109. She's a tight squeeze for sure.

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JGhMGQst4lo

 

 

On another note I am vindicated to see the pilots left facing six check @ around 10 minutes is almost exactly how I move to make that check. You can also see his difficulty in the right hand six check needing to get your chin above your shoulder to twist far enough. Here is where the lack of periphery vision in VR hurts.

 

von Luck

Edited by von-Luck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I quickly got used to the limits. And totally on board after a few minutes. It was just the infernal "Bump"! As if I was trying to bust out the window with my noggin. Even with just a slight rub.

 

I'm glad to see its been turned down. I'll be eager to try it when I return home.

 

I'd also suggest to the development to make it a separate tick box, that isn't linked to exterior views. So that server runners can have a little more say.

 

Track ir users currently have a whole host of advantages over vr. So a "it's not fair" argument doesn't really hold water, to me anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not allot of room in a 109. She's a tight squeeze for sure.

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JGhMGQst4lo

 

 

On another note I am vindicated to see the pilots left facing six check @ around 10 minutes is almost exactly how I move to make that check. You can also see his difficulty in the right hand six check needing to get your chin above your shoulder to twist far enough. Here is where the lack of periphery vision in VR hurts.

 

von Luck

Thanks for this video Von Luck, this perfectly illustrates the confines of a WW2 cockpit. For me the point of VR is immersion; the solution the devs have employed to create the experience of what it was like to fly and fight a WW2 warbird works well, after a few hours flying one aircraft you learn the restrictions and view points. Watching the video Von Luck posted I see the pilot of the 109 doing exactly what I've been doing in VR to check 6: lean forward slightly and turn my shoulders. An option to turn the bump sound off completely would be nice as I don't believe this adds to the immersion, turning the bump sound down has helped but it still sounds like your aircraft is taking fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

 

Let's look to the future a bit in case if we will do this. :)

 

5c2fbe__e_520x390x0.jpg

 

- Ok, we have removed VR in-cockpit head camera moving restriction link to "external views" option.

 

- After a week (or may be a day) after releasing this - hardcore multiplayer 2D-monitors community will complain that VR customers have no limits in looking backward and downward as monitor users have - you may to lay VR helmet down on the floor and look on your monitor what is happeingng below your airplane belly. Or you may stand up and look behind what is happening behind and below your plane tail, while it's impossible in reality and on monitor. Or you may move aside of canopy and look forward-below your plane nose. Or you even able to move view outside the closed tank armour. And so on.

 

- After two weeks (or may be in two days) after releasing this - hardcore multiplayer 2D-monitors community will complain that Developers got to add an option to not allow VR customers to connect to hardcore servers, where external views are locked. "Or we will quit!" - they will say. And again we will be "opened to community" and we will add this "lock for ability of VR users to connect to hardcore servers" to Multiplayer

 

- After three weeks (or may be in three days) VR customers will complain again - "Why we can't play on hardcore multiplayer servers with our lovely VR?". "Remove this restroction too or we will quit!" - they will say.

 

- So in final, everyone will be angry in a month. And only possible compromise in this situation, which allow VR and 2D customers to play together in hardcore multiplayer and don't be angry - is a current solution, when VR and 2D monitor have the same limits in total field of view from cockpit. :(

 

So... We hope on community here - we hope that everyone understand that this is no our "evil will" but this is only possible compromise.

Sorry but the final point that the current solution having the same limits in total field of view for 2d and 3d just  isnt my experience with it.  

With the FOV being narrower by virtue of the HMD, plus the 1:1 head movement, its actually harder to do things like check six because you need to turn further. and by turning further you are more likely to do so with some lateral body movement (whole body twist), the result is clunking around in the cockpit. 

 

Currently it is my perception that i have more limited view in VR than i did in 2d with trackir with FOV zoomed out to max. Im very curious whether its the same empirically. what is the fov when fully zoomed out with mouse wheel in 2d?

 i understand the reasoning but i don't think the fairness calculation is all that valid. 

 

i dont get any physiological reaction from the hard limit, i just find it overly restrictive, not equivalent to 2d trackir freedom of movement and it doesnt match the dimensions i see in the cockpit in 3d. 

 

 

The reduced audible thump is an improvement but i would prefer it off completely. (and i can't see a reason to enforce it as it has nothing to do with fairness)

Edited by =WFPK=chappyj
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not allot of room in a 109. She's a tight squeeze for sure.

 

 

 

On another note I am vindicated to see the pilots left facing six check @ around 10 minutes is almost exactly how I move to make that check. You can also see his difficulty in the right hand six check needing to get your chin above your shoulder to twist far enough. Here is where the lack of periphery vision in VR hurts.

 

von Luck

 

The way he moves his head in the 11th minute of the video he would hit a restriction box in the game and hear a thump sound. He would also hear a wind like his head was outside of the cockpit. This is BoX, a bit too far from reality.

Edited by marklar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

his head movement (in the vid) is also only to the extent that allows him to look behind him with peripheral vision..to get the same vision behind a VR user has to turn further

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...