Why you are still not in VR?

[Dave]

 

 

There are a lot of companies making good money off of the PC heavy users, Intel AMD Nvidia EVGA MSI Gigabyte Asus Corsair etc etc.  I think Oculus priority is to capture the majority of the overall market for VR, which high end PC would certainly be a part of. I believe they want to grow their business using all the pieces of the pie. And they are certainly continuing to invest a ton of money into development of VR titles to run on the PC.

Consider this - BMW, Mercedes, Audi (and all the others) spend fortunes in motorsport from F1 down to touring cars.

 

What percentage of their target markets own an F1 team?

An infinitesimally small one.

 

Then why do they throw all that money away?

Because the R&D wins trickle down to mass-market  products and for the prestige which convert to brand recognition and market mind-share. Ask Apple how important those last 3 are.

 

Before you discount this based upon the old observation that motorsport is the worlds most lucrative spectator sport, be advised that title is fast being usurped by e-sports.

[Dave]

I have tried VR and it is fantastic, but I am waiting for next generation for better performance, mostly visual resolution quality.  If I purchase now I get a product that is about to be superseded and has poor resolution for the combat environment.  Most of my squad don't have VR yet, so I don't want to be the one who cant spot contacts as well as every one else. 

 

Happy landings,

 

56RAF_Talisman

While this assessment is certainly reasonable and realistic, you can't yet qualify or quantify the boost in SA and ACM effectiveness afforded by having things in your visual environment rendered life-sized and spatially the way your brain has evolved to expect - because you haven't experienced it you can't know yet. This is why people who try VR generally don't go back even with screen-door artefacts, reduced FOV (relative to real-life only) and resolution. The value of your ability to accurately track and predict the location of other objects not in your field of view absent the visual distortion of a flat projection and the dynamic spatial distortion of TrackIR cannot be overstated. And everything in the cockpit comes more naturally - from scanning the cockpit instruments (I never enable the HUD or techno-spam) to being able to look down and easily confirm coolant flap position and fuel state, get on the gunsight or look under it to see the gyro-compass. The feeling of accurate physical proportion really improves your judgement of distance from and closure with the environment and other aircraft. Beyond the usual complaints of pixel density and FOV (and rig demand) the only thing I'm less than happy with is that your eyes still focus at a fairly constant distance regardless of whether you are looking at your instruments, your wingtip or the horizon. While this isn't sufficient to break the illusion for your brain it probably isn't great for your vision.

 

FWIW I detect contacts at about the same or longer range than non-VR players I fly with (very slightly closer than I did on a 2560x1440 IPS monitor) but I find it significantly harder to positively ID contacts until they are much closer. I have managed to improve this a bit after a few rounds of tweaking VR and game graphics settings.

The only problem spotting in VR with Il-2 is due to the game not being adjusted to compensate for the screen door effect.  This effect washes out the plane silhouettes so they look fuzzy and very similar in colour as the screen door effect.  They need to make the planes pure black so they pop more for VR, and balance them so they're equally visible for everyone with or without VR.

I have found recently that disabling in-game AA completely and setting gamma to 1.2 have really improved this specific situation without negatively impacting visuals.

[Drum]

 

 

I have found recently that disabling in-game AA completely and setting gamma to 1.2 have really improved this specific situation without negatively impacting visuals.

Thanks for the information, Dave.  I'll setup those settings this weekend, this sounds really good.

[chiliwili69]

 

 

but also the racing sim enthusiast,

 

They don´t need to spot or ID we require. They complaint less about resolution and FOV.

[chiliwili69]

 

 

There are a lot of companies making good money off of the PC heavy users, Intel AMD Nvidia EVGA MSI Gigabyte Asus Corsair etc etc.  I think Oculus priority is to capture the majority of the overall market for VR, which high end PC would certainly be a part of. I believe they want to grow their business using all the pieces of the pie. And they are certainly continuing to invest a ton of money into development of VR titles to run on the PC.

 

Intel release different level of CPUs for all kind of pockets (i3, i5, i7, K, X, etc). The same for Nvidia. Do you know that the 1060 has 15% market share, and 1050Ti 10%. They are not High End like 1080 with 1% or 1080Ti with 0.5%.

 

The problem for Oculus is that they only release a device for PC (currently the Rift or CV1). If they will release a single device for CV2, they will try to cover the full spectrum of users, from 960 to 1080Ti (or whatever Nvidia has at that time). So, it will be a general device for the masses, so, unless they play a trick (like foveat redering) it will not increase resolution or FOV too much since it will reduce their target market. 

Certainly they could release two devices, one mid and one high like Pimax is doing (5K and 8K).

 

In any case, God hear you (or just Mark Z.). I really hope that Oculus surprises all of us flight simmers with a super device with awesome resolution and FOV. We will need to wait for Oculus connect in October 2018 to see if they announce something after all this 3 years of hard research and work...

[chiliwili69]

 

 

high-end hardware and robust software for science and engineering developers, they dumped us all overnight to chase the lower paying (per sale) but seemingly endless mobile market. In doing so they also shifted focus from industry-leading quality to marketing and pointless "gadgets" as fashion accessories for the vain.

 

Wow!, this had be hard. Fortunately we still have the PC for the serious software.

 

 

It doesn't reduce their market - it diverts development resources from a much larger potential market to enhance the satisfaction of their existing smaller consumer base. I wager tat everyone owning a HMD today would trade it for the new product so they aren't "losing" anything. They just aren't realising the enormous potential increase to their consumer base for a roughly equivalent commitment of money and resources

 

As it was shown in the reddit comment I mentioned, the number one reason for Rift not reaching 1 Million users in 2017 is just the price of the Rift and the price of the required PC.

Oculus has learnt this lesson. That´s why they are producing now the Oculus Go.

And the CV2 will be a device able to run in at least 50% of existing PCs at release date.

 

 

As a hardware vendor Nvidia particularly has jumped all-in on VR. It is in their interest to stimulate demand for their newest GPUs with specific VR enhancements which they have already paid for in R&D, and to maintain demand for successive generations by pushing current hardware beyond its capability.

 

I would love NVidia launching their own device taking benefit of all VR works. But compatible with OpenVR and IL-2 !! 

[chiliwili69]

 

 

I disagree completely here. Head on over to Reddit and any other forum with channels for VR and the pervasive complaints/wishes from ALL desktop VR users today concern resolution, FOV and pixel density (these are tightly coupled).

 

The people who write in these forums are heavy PC users, techies and gurus, not the general Rift user. I have demoed several games like The Climb or Lone Echo or Space Pirate to friend or family or friends of my kids (10 year) and nobody complaint about resolution or FOV.

 

I recently bought an Atari vintage console with 101 games installed. I played the "Combat" game (tanks and planes) with the Atari joysticks with my kids. The resolution of the game is 160 x 192, but the game itself is very fun because you play against the other.

 

So, for most of the current Oculus store games, resolution and FOV is not important for the avg user.

[Lusekofte]

Another point I have to not choose VR at this time is my opinion on what is immersion and what is not. 

To me is the feel of real buttons and good control stick or yoke. Much more costly than VR. 

fingertip manouvering with a desk joystick simply wont do it for me. VR flyers say they cannot go back to screens. . And I say I cannot go back to warthog devices or similar desk top sticks. You need to feel resistance and full movement . That truly is immersion to me, I sacraficed a new rig for this feeling far too long. There is many opinion what immersion is, this is mine, for others that is VR

[chiliwili69]

talking about immersion I put a post about that to increase it in VR:

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/30722-ergonomic-details-increase-immersion-vr

 

Warthog with extension play the trick for me (no force-feedback though). Pedals, stick, seat and throttle are the four key items to max the VR experience.

 

For me, next level of immersion would be to feel the rolls and loops a bit more:

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/32635-one-more-reason-travel-newyork-moveo-experience

[Holey_Tail]

Comes down to cost for me.  I'm going to need a new PC, and then all the hardware, etc.  I'd be interested to try VR, but I'm not crazy excited about it.

[Talisman]

While this assessment is certainly reasonable and realistic, you can't yet qualify or quantify the boost in SA and ACM effectiveness afforded by having things in your visual environment rendered life-sized and spatially the way your brain has evolved to expect - because you haven't experienced it you can't know yet. This is why people who try VR generally don't go back even with screen-door artefacts, reduced FOV (relative to real-life only) and resolution. The value of your ability to accurately track and predict the location of other objects not in your field of view absent the visual distortion of a flat projection and the dynamic spatial distortion of TrackIR cannot be overstated. And everything in the cockpit comes more naturally - from scanning the cockpit instruments (I never enable the HUD or techno-spam) to being able to look down and easily confirm coolant flap position and fuel state, get on the gunsight or look under it to see the gyro-compass. The feeling of accurate physical proportion really improves your judgement of distance from and closure with the environment and other aircraft. Beyond the usual complaints of pixel density and FOV (and rig demand) the only thing I'm less than happy with is that your eyes still focus at a fairly constant distance regardless of whether you are looking at your instruments, your wingtip or the horizon. While this isn't sufficient to break the illusion for your brain it probably isn't great for your vision.

 

FWIW I detect contacts at about the same or longer range than non-VR players I fly with (very slightly closer than I did on a 2560x1440 IPS monitor) but I find it significantly harder to positively ID contacts until they are much closer. I have managed to improve this a bit after a few rounds of tweaking VR and game graphics settings.

I have found recently that disabling in-game AA completely and setting gamma to 1.2 have really improved this specific situation without negatively impacting visuals.

 

Hi Dave,

 

Thanks for your response to my post, but I just wanted to say that, as I said in my first post, I have tried VR.  Perhaps I could have been more clear and said that I have tried VR with OR and experienced it with DCS and BoX in the DCS Mig-15 and DCS Spitfire, along with the BoX I-16, Bf109, Spitfire and Yak 1.  So what I posted in the first instance was actually on the back of me experiencing VR.

 

Happy landings,

 

56RAF_Talisman 

[Dave]

Another point I have to not choose VR at this time is my opinion on what is immersion and what is not. 

To me is the feel of real buttons and good control stick or yoke. Much more costly than VR. 

fingertip manouvering with a desk joystick simply wont do it for me. VR flyers say they cannot go back to screens. . And I say I cannot go back to warthog devices or similar desk top sticks. You need to feel resistance and full movement . That truly is immersion to me, I sacraficed a new rig for this feeling far too long. There is many opinion what immersion is, this is mine, for others that is VR

 

This is very true, but I have found that VR hasn't really taken away any of this for me.

Having had my control setup for a fairly long time I can fly by feel without needing to look at any of the controls.

A HOTAS setup like the Warthog certainly simplifies this, perhaps at the expense of a more authentic WW2 experience, but it isn't significantly harder to fly other fixed setups by feel. I used to think not being able to see my hands would be an issue (I even bought a hand tracking system with the idea that I might be able to integrate it somehow) but it hasn't been a problem at all. I personally don't see any problem using a HOTAS setup as it is no less realistic than not having a full simpit for each type in the game - which is of course absurd.

[Dave]

I look forward to the full Holodeck experience myself, but I'm not going to wait for it.

[F/JG300_Gruber]

Like lusekofte, I don't fly fighters much and I need to see what I'm doing with my consoles and keyboard. And I like having to fiddle with switches all around like I do on real planes. Keeping my hands on a desk Hotas is definitely not something I'm looking for in a flight sim.

 

I would be curious to try it out for fun, but will never switch to it

 

Plus I have some neck problem and swiveling my head all around for more than an hour like you do in a fighter patrol often results in headaches. I can't really imagine what I would get with heavy goggles.

[Pict]

15 options for this poll and not one of them mention that fact that Steam is required to use VR in BOX

 

That's the only reason I don't have VR in BOX.....Steam is required and I will not have Steam

Edited March 25, 2018 by Pict

[SCG_motoadve]

Its just a matter of time, in 5 years most of us will be flying in VR, and flying in a monitor will feel ancient.

[chiliwili69]

1 hour ago, Pict said:

Steam is required and I will not have Steam

Well, in fact you only need SteamVR but to install SteamVR you need to install first Steam.

 

I have installed steam and steamVR in my PC and in the last years i have not run Steam a single time.

 

When you launch IL2, then SteamVR launchs automatically. 

 

What is the problem with installing Steam?

[Pict]

4 hours ago, chiliwili69 said:

Well, in fact you only need SteamVR but to install SteamVR you need to install first Steam.

 

Therefore Steam is required, just like I said...I don't want Steam, also like I said. And I don't need to offer any reason as to why not.

 

I posted to point out that there was an important option missing from the poll.

 

What's your point?

[SCG_motoadve]

2 minutes ago, Pict said:

 

Therefore Steam is required, just like I said...I don't want Steam, also like I said. And I don't need to offer any reason as to why not.

 

I posted to point out that there was an important option missing from the poll.

 

What's your point?

He is trying to be helpful, you are missing VR because of a reason that does not makes sense to anyone.

Your loss my friend.

VR is amazing, I never use Steam either and it just starts on its own and I close it when finished.

[Pict]

4 minutes ago, II./JG77_motoadve said:

He is trying to be helpful, you are missing VR because of a reason that does not makes sense to anyone.

Your loss my friend.

VR is amazing, I never use Steam either and it just starts on its own and I close it when finished.

 

It might not make sense to you or him or a few others, but it makes sense to me and plenty other people, or don't you think that's important?

 

I don't think he was trying to help at all, and if he was, he failed.

[unlikely_spider]

Makes me sick. I'm happy with trackIR and 1440p at the moment

[chiliwili69]

31 minutes ago, Pict said:

I don't think he was trying to help at all, and if he was, he failed.

Peace brother.

Clearly I failed.

 

I only wanted to understand the reasons for not installing Steam. I also didn´t want to install it (I hate to open new accounts for everything or install third party software) but after all it was not as tragic as I thought, since Steam doesn´t appear when you launch IL-2, only SteamVR which is an small application to handle the OpenVR. But in any case, you are right, you don´t need to explain your reason in this forum.

 

Going through OpenVR (so Steam/SteamVR is required) was the most practical way for the developer to deploy VR for all the devices supporting OpenVR, Rift included. I don´t think they are going to develop custom interfaces to Oculus in the short term, so OpenVR standard (which is own by Valve) is the only current way. It seems that others VR devices (Windows MR, VivePro, Pimax 8K) have taken that route as well. So if you want IL-2 in VR you will not escape from Steam for the short term. Future standards like OpenXR might skip Steam but this is moving slow.

 

In any case, I never imaged that not installing steam was going to be the cause for not going to VR, but as you can check my imagination is very limited after all.

So, I will be very pleased to add that reason to the poll so you and others can properly make their fair vote. The problem is that with the ne version of the forum old poll can not be edited . (unless someone explain me how to do it)

[Pict]

12 hours ago, chiliwili69 said:

Peace brother.

Clearly I failed.

 

No worries, I neither needed nor asked for help. I just offered another reason for not going with VR and thereby help you with what is looking more & more like market research.

 

Since then I have come up with yet another reason why someone wouldn't go with VR, and that is a question of portability. Track IR is small, light, portable and can be set up or removed quickly & easily almost anywhere.

 

And Track IR is not the only solution in it's class, there are many similar options, even a free one!, and they are mostly supported by BOX

 

12 hours ago, chiliwili69 said:

I only wanted to understand the reasons for not installing Steam.

 

For this, I'm the wrong venue.

 

A more efficient way to understand this would be to copy and past the last 5 words of your statement into an internet search engine, then scroll down (a long way to below the steam paid adverts) and read what people who are willing to put the time into writing about that have to say.

 

Edited March 26, 2018 by Pict

[J2_Trupobaw]

The poll misses the most important reason for a simmer - "I want to build a simpit then sit in it, not pretend I wear one on my head."

 

Besides, I already did the VR think back in 90s and it was disasterous, not falling for it again. I'm not "still not" in VR, I'm waiting the fad out.

 

Edited March 26, 2018 by LsV_Trupobaw

[A_radek]

1 hour ago, LsV_Trupobaw said:

The poll misses the most important reason for a simmer - "I want to build a simpit then sit in it, not pretend I wear one on my head."

 

Besides, I already did the VR think back in 90s and it was disasterous, not falling for it again. I'm not "still not" in VR, I'm waiting the fad out.

 

Thing is, once you've built a full simpit, will you place a tv in front of it? Or perhaps have 6 projectors fur a full 360 view around you?

The latter would be closer to current VR than the first. But what your viewing outside your simpit will still be a flat image rather than a stereoscopic one. With next gen vr and it's wider fov it becomes the best of both worlds.

The interesting thing about VR is that I't doesn't have to exclude simpit building as it might seem it does. With the stereoscopic vision you get a sense of scale not there on a monitor. It feels as If you could reach out and grab that virtual stick and throttle. If I built a similar throttle and had the stick in the same place I really could.

And regarding the head swiveling comments. It's definitely a bother after a while. Even with a swivelchair to compensate for the limited peripheral vision. Vr users tend to appreciate rear view mirror equipped aircraft just like real pilots did

Edited March 26, 2018 by a_radek

[=EXPEND=Tripwire]

1 hour ago, LsV_Trupobaw said:

The poll misses the most important reason for a simmer - "I want to build a simpit then sit in it, not pretend I wear one on my head."

 

Besides, I already did the VR think back in 90s and it was disasterous, not falling for it again. I'm not "still not" in VR, I'm waiting the fad out.

 

 

 

Seems those that have invested in a simpit have a hard time letting go of that investment.

 

VR isn't going away.

 

Lucky for us VR users,  we get to sit in a virtual cockpit that perfectly matched 1:1 to the plane we have chosen to fly.

 

 

 

 

 

[J2_Trupobaw]

28 minutes ago, =EXPEND=Tripwire said:

 

 

Seems those that have invested in a simpit have a hard time letting go of that investment.

 

VR isn't going away.

 

Lucky for us VR users,  we get to sit in a virtual cockpit that perfectly matched 1:1 to the plane we have chosen to fly.

 

 

 

 

 

Seems that people who invested in VR sets need others to justify them by buying in too :P. Sunk cost fallancy works both ways.

And no, my pit does not predate headsets. I'm just more interested in recreating all things  aviation related, and putting my plane on my head instead is step away, towards gaming. 

VR was there already 20 years ago, and quietly went away. I see no reason to believe this time it will be different.

[Brano]

Not interested in this technology at all.

[=EXPEND=Tripwire]

14 minutes ago, LsV_Trupobaw said:

VR was there already 20 years ago, and quietly went away.

 

It wasn't "there" 20 years ago. It was terrible and went away because it was unable to function in a way that was acceptable for the majority. Technology has changed over 20 years.

 

 

 

[Sambot88]

I was given a VR headset as a gift but it makes my PC run like a racehorse and the resolution is not so good. It was also difficult to see the controls, but I am sure that could be overcome with practice.

 

One issue that I did not check off but which could be an issue for others is the "weight/eye fatigue/discomfort" option. In my limited experience with the headset (before I decided the resolution was too poor) I noticed the clear potential for it to become uncomfortable over time. It was not so different from wearing a helmet and eye protection in hot weather. From a combat sim immersion point of view this can actually be a good thing, but for most I reckon that would be a problem.

[Niggut]

Dear developers, please don't make decisions that would make the use of VR necessary to play Il-2! The equipment would way to expensive for me and I prefer to spend my limited money on game-content anyway.

[Nocke]

It's not there, yet, the tech. I am now running a rtx2080 and an i7 9700 with a 2k monitor. With all maxed out, 4x multisampling + 4x sparse grid supersampling the game is finally approaching the visuals I want at a good framerate. I want that on both eyes in VR, and that just seems to be impossible at the moment. Maybe in 3 or 4 years.

[Lusekofte]

2 hours ago, Niggut said:

Dear developers, please don't make decisions that would make the use of VR necessary to play Il-2! The equipment would way to expensive for me and I prefer to spend my limited money on game-content anyway.

Will never happen in this sim. I enjoy vr now and then. But it is simply not the “hallelujah” experience some claim it to be. 

I fly it with Huey in DCS and some qmb missions  here but not as much as I fly with screen. I seems to have OR on permanent loan now. And I sometimes simply do not bother to reset to vr in this game. 

I got a 1080ti and need to tweak graphics a bit. 

Low fps or stutter spikes are very uncomfortable in vr 

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Until image quality and performance (gaming PC) of 1080p on monitor  will be  comparable in VR then yes , now I can enjoy only games made especially  for VR not games which have just support of VR.

[Bremspropeller]

I'm a late adaptor.

 

Also, ma momma told me not to go too close to the screen...