Jump to content
mazex

Realistic spotting

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
43 minutes ago, Go_Pre said:

DCS users can’t come to a consensus over resolution vs spotting.

 

I don't think resolution plays a role in it other than make things bigger [and easier to spot]. The problem is contrast, boundaries that have no depth, shadow, volume (back in 2017, DCS was even worse). The human eye is left without any reference to hold on to and ends up losing sight of nearby objects that would be impossible to lose in real life. ROF has a different rendering, glossier (I think CloD as well), and this makes objects contrast more against the terrain, plus the reflection, because the sunlight often indicates where the plane is in ROF.

Edited by SeaW0lf
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

 

I don't think resolution plays a role in it other than make things bigger [and easier to spot]. The problem is contrast, boundaries that have no depth, shadow, volume (back in 2017, DCS was even worse). The human eye is left without any reference to hold on to and ends up losing sight of nearby objects that would be impossible to lose in real life. ROF have a different rendering, glossier [I think CloD as well), and this makes objects contrast more against the terrain, plus the reflection, because the sunlight often indicates where the plane is in ROF.

 

Agree. Looking at the LA shot I posted it blurs into the trees almost completely. This green pixel on the wing is the same color as the green pixel on the tree... There is no "edge" at all. looking at a real plane (with camo) over a forest there is a flat lighted surface with an edge that will not disappear that simply don't look like that mass of trees below - and there is depth etc where the plane a couple of hundred meters above the forest is closer to us.

 

I agree with the comments from @SharpeXB about HDR / Increased color range that would improve this - but its still a heap of green pixels above another heap of green pixels below. Adding "additional shine" like you say @SeaWolf is probably the easiest way. Or if a halo / outline is possible...

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Cpt_Siddy +1

 

This is why I am a proponent of wide FOV VR headsets as done by PImax.  You have your forward sweet spot and then less clear periphery vision and with FFR at high render targets - it works very well akin to natural vision.

 

Some seem to think one need clear display from edge to edge of the HMD FOV, then again others think it is necessary to have 90+Hz in VR to stop from throwing your stomach contents up all over the place...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

 

VR is the new gold standard of simming :crazy:

 

 

You need crazy setup made of screens to get even close to the same immersion first gen HMD offered. Now we have second gen coming out in force and we got nice developments in this field and more to come! 

 

Actually triple screens give you a better FOV than a current HMD. That’s why racing sim and even pro drivers in sims prefer the screens. They need a life sized FOV and peripheral vision in order to perceive speed correctly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Actually triple screens give you a better FOV than a current HMD. That’s why racing sim and even pro drivers in sims prefer the screens. They need a life sized FOV and peripheral vision in order to perceive speed correctly. 

 

 

You know nothing, John Snow...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

 

 

You know nothing, John Snow...

It’s veering off topic but go look into the question on racing sims. Why triple screens are preferred over VR

doesn't have much to do with the topic here. But it’s interesting. 

Edited by SharpeXB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

Dearly beloved, posting still images of objects in distance is moot and pointless.

 

I agree that the eye detects movement; but the problem with tracking a nearby plane against a forest is that everything appears to be moving - since you are. This is not comparable with tracking a moving object against a stationary background. That is part of the reason why more distant planes are sometimes easier to follow that ones right in your windscreen in gun range: the further away both background and target are, the less your own motion will create apparent background motion. Anyway we are not just talking about peripheral vision, but the difficulty of making out shapes in the centre of vision even when you know exactly where they are.   

 

Since switching to 4K I have had to turn the landscape option down to blurred or I could not spot anything at all. What 4K does is make identification of spotted plane types easier, since the details are sharper. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

It’s veering off topic but go look into the question on racing sims. Why triple screens are preferred over VR

doesn't have much to do with the topic here. But it’s interesting. 

lol dude. Come on. You have never played a racing game in VR, you haven't played il2 in VR, yet you talk as if you are an authority on this stuff, care to post sources that pro drivers and most sim racers prefer triples? I doubt it. Racing games are even better with VR than il2. You get depth perception, which last I checked was a huge factor in hitting apexs and braking markers. I don't know why you even comment on anything that has to do with VR, you haven't used it besides the "headset at work". Just stop.

 

9 hours ago, blitze said:

@Cpt_Siddy +1

 

This is why I am a proponent of wide FOV VR headsets as done by PImax.  You have your forward sweet spot and then less clear periphery vision and with FFR at high render targets - it works very well akin to natural vision.

 

Some seem to think one need clear display from edge to edge of the HMD FOV, then again others think it is necessary to have 90+Hz in VR to stop from throwing your stomach contents up all over the place...

 

Having a headset with a large sweetspot is paramount. It provides the ability to look around the world without moving your head, which last time I checked that's how people look at stuff. Maybe I am wrong and I actually move my head all the time instead of my eyes, I certainly would believe it from somebody that plays a ton of VR. The index is probably the only headset giving a massive clear picture from edge to edge right now. That's a massive plus. We don't need headsets to simulate poor periphery vision when our eyes do that just fine, give us the clear edge to edge display so we can let our eyes do their own thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Index sweet spot <130 degrees FOV

 

Pimax sweet spot < 130 degrees FOV

 

Tracking objects and awareness doesn't need absolute clarity on the edges of vision.  Task - look forward at your monitor, keep your head in same position and now try to look at 150 degrees left or right with eye movement only. 

How clear is what you see? 

 

How about 170 degrees?

 

Is there a point trying to replicate clarity over such a FOV if ones eyes don't benefit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, blitze said:

Index sweet spot <130 degrees FOV

 

Pimax sweet spot < 130 degrees FOV

 

Tracking objects and awareness doesn't need absolute clarity on the edges of vision.  Task - look forward at your monitor, keep your head in same position and now try to look at 150 degrees left or right with eye movement only. 

How clear is what you see? 

 

How about 170 degrees?

 

Is there a point trying to replicate clarity over such a FOV if ones eyes don't benefit?

Yeah I just said it. You can look around the world with your eyes instead of moving your head just like in real life. Not sure what you aren't getting about this. Let your eyes give you the focus not the headset.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, JonRedcorn said:

Yeah I just said it. You can look around the world with your eyes instead of moving your head just like in real life. Not sure what you aren't getting about this. Let your eyes give you the focus not the headset.

 

Yeah - ok. 👍

 

BTW, I was talking real world vision with my eye to the side visual clarity brain fart.  My peripheral vision is not as clear as my forward vision but it is great for spotting moose trotting from the forest onto the road in low light allowing me to tap the brakes and scare the cr.p out of my wife whilst missing said moose. 😁

Edited by blitze
Clarity of conversation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, JonRedcorn said:

lol dude. Come on. You have never played a racing game in VR,

I can read... 🙄

And I do play racing sims. 

The issue is that FOV affects your perception of speed, you can see this in this sim by just zooming in and out while you taxi. Not a big deal here. But in a racing sim this is really important. You could never use zoom view in a racing sim. So hardcore racing sim player set up their screen for a 1:1 FOV. That basically requires you to have triple screens otherwise you’d have tunnel vision. I’m not that hardcore, I have a single screen, but I get the issue. 

VR actually has quite a narrow FOV like wearing a scuba mask. You need to be able to see cars beside you and your mirrors etc. and turning your head to look at high speed is not a good idea. Racing is so demanding that training your eyes where to look is important. 

Yes seeing in 3D has an advantage but it’s countered by a lot of disadvantages. Low resolution to where you can see down the track.

Racing sims are very realistic, even more so than flight and they are used by pro drivers. These guys might put in six hour sessions where the hot mask is a problem and they can’t see their cockpit. Bottom line real life drivers don’t wear scuba masks. 

Can you imaging a real airline simulator using VR? No. Same reason. 

 

Start a different thread on flight vs racing sims. Racing sims are freaking awesome. But they are difficult as $&#@

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
51 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

I can read... 🙄

And I do play racing sims. 

The issue is that FOV affects your perception of speed, you can see this in this sim by just zooming in and out while you taxi. Not a big deal here. But in a racing sim this is really important. You could never use zoom view in a racing sim. So hardcore racing sim player set up their screen for a 1:1 FOV. That basically requires you to have triple screens otherwise you’d have tunnel vision. I’m not that hardcore, I have a single screen, but I get the issue. 

VR actually has quite a narrow FOV like wearing a scuba mask. You need to be able to see cars beside you and your mirrors etc. and turning your head to look at high speed is not a good idea. Racing is so demanding that training your eyes where to look is important. 

Yes seeing in 3D has an advantage but it’s countered by a lot of disadvantages. Low resolution to where you can see down the track.

Racing sims are very realistic, even more so than flight and they are used by pro drivers. These guys might put in six hour sessions where the hot mask is a problem and they can’t see their cockpit. Bottom line real life drivers don’t wear scuba masks. 

Can you imaging a real airline simulator using VR? No. Same reason. 

 

Start a different thread on flight vs racing sims. Racing sims are freaking awesome. But they are difficult as $&#@

 

 

 

 

Just put a second gen HMD on once and race or fly, then we talk. The things you say puts your source material you have been reading in to suspect. 

 

And no, real drivers don't wear scuba mask, they wear helmets, and FoV from, say pimax, is bigger than FoV you get from some helmets. 

 

courtney-force-in-helmet.jpg.657cf5f389475c126bcbbbc807634781.jpg

 

 

 

And one more thing, Airline simulators are as much about the cockpit operations as it is for flying. Airliner windows are tiny.

 

However, i got on record, USAF pilots saying that modern first and second gen HMD are better than what USAF currently has as VR. 

That's because USAF stuff is from 90's and they were expensive and they want to use them till the contract runs out... Armies are weird like that, they don't go out buy new stuff until the lifespan of old stuff is done. 

 

The current HMD's are not perfect, but they are head and shoulders above what we had before. 

Edited by Cpt_Siddy
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

My brother is a paratrooper and they have some sort of VR rig for parachute training. I’m sure it sucks compared to current tech. 

37 minutes ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

 

And no, real drivers don't wear scuba mask, they wear helmets, and FoV from, say pimax, is bigger than FoV you get from some helmets. 

No kidding. But they can see out of them. 

Racing sims are actually easy to relate to because although we don’t all fly airplanes, we do all drive cars. It feels very real with the force feedback wheels. So imagine driving your car at high speed through traffic wearing a scuba mask. Not too great huh. Racing is 100% stress and adrenaline. Flying is calm and relaxing by comparison. 

 

That observation about VR was from a real driver. Read the first comment

 

 

Edited by SharpeXB
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, you drive trough traffic with one eye? 

 

Because, you know, having flat screens is exactly that, one view port. No stereo depth information. Fogging up is issue for some people, true, but there is ways to mitigate it. 

 

A proper, wide FoV high res HMD is the future. It takes considerably more effort (that translates in to money) and MASSIVE displays, or projectors, to even come close to immersion the cheapest HMD offer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

So, you drive trough traffic with one eye? 

 

Because, you know, having flat screens is exactly that, one view port. No stereo depth information. Fogging up is issue for some people, true, but there is ways to mitigate it. 

 

A proper, wide FoV high res HMD is the future. It takes considerably more effort (that translates in to money) and MASSIVE displays, or projectors, to even come close to immersion the cheapest HMD offer. 

Read the comment from a real driver updated above. Kinda says it all. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Read the comment from a real driver updated above. Kinda says it all. 

 

Yeah, he prefers comfort and fidelity of current monitors to immersion and poorer fidelity. 

 

Who knew, there is different kind of people. I bet i can find you a *real* drivers who prefer HMD over screens, namely Rally drivers, who don't need long range resolution and need a lot of stereo information and are not afraid to turn their head to look. 

 

And holy moly, what did you know, a 5 second google search shows plethora of pro drivers saying that HMD is better... wow, who knew. 

 

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=Pro+driver+in+VR

 

Heres a first result.

 

 

So there, i won the argument because my driver look sexier than your driver. 

 

 

so....

 

How about, you put on real HMD for once, fly a bit and then we talk. 

 

 

Edited by Cpt_Siddy
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

170 Degrees FOV - enough said for Track Sims.

 

Same for flying but will have to wait a little for stability and PP elimination to occur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

 

Yeah, he prefers comfort and fidelity of current monitors to immersion and poorer fidelity. 

 

Who knew, there is different kind of people. I bet i can find you a *real* drivers who prefer HMD over screens, namely Rally drivers, who don't need long range resolution and need a lot of stereo information and are not afraid to turn their head to look. 

 

VR is not the solution for BoX.  For the next few years, or probably much longer, VR users will be in a small minority, since so many of us need to be aware of telephone, GF, cat etc while playing, quite apart from not wanting the expense and discomfort.  The game has to work for everyone, which means it has to work well on a monitor.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, unreasonable said:

 

VR is not the solution for BoX.  For the next few years, or probably much longer, VR users will be in a small minority, since so many of us need to be aware of telephone, GF, cat etc while playing, quite apart from not wanting the expense and discomfort.  The game has to work for everyone, which means it has to work well on a monitor.   

 

Yeah, well, in Russia we have this saying: Bad dancers blame the testicles for being in the way. 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

 

Yeah, well, in Russia we have this saying: Bad dancers blame the testicles for being in the way. 

 

In the forum we have this saying: Better to have real testicles than virtual testicles. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

I can read... 🙄

And I do play racing sims. 

The issue is that FOV affects your perception of speed, you can see this in this sim by just zooming in and out while you taxi. Not a big deal here. But in a racing sim this is really important. You could never use zoom view in a racing sim. So hardcore racing sim player set up their screen for a 1:1 FOV. That basically requires you to have triple screens otherwise you’d have tunnel vision. I’m not that hardcore, I have a single screen, but I get the issue. 

VR actually has quite a narrow FOV like wearing a scuba mask. You need to be able to see cars beside you and your mirrors etc. and turning your head to look at high speed is not a good idea. Racing is so demanding that training your eyes where to look is important. 

Yes seeing in 3D has an advantage but it’s countered by a lot of disadvantages. Low resolution to where you can see down the track.

Racing sims are very realistic, even more so than flight and they are used by pro drivers. These guys might put in six hour sessions where the hot mask is a problem and they can’t see their cockpit. Bottom line real life drivers don’t wear scuba masks. 

Can you imaging a real airline simulator using VR? No. Same reason. 

 

Start a different thread on flight vs racing sims. Racing sims are freaking awesome. But they are difficult as $&#@

 

 

You are too much my dude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, unreasonable said:

 

VR is not the solution for BoX.  For the next few years, or probably much longer, VR users will be in a small minority, since so many of us need to be aware of telephone, GF, cat etc while playing, quite apart from not wanting the expense and discomfort.  The game has to work for everyone, which means it has to work well on a monitor.   

You know you can play in VR without relying on earbuds or headphones right?

Speakers work just as well and allow for background noise to be processed if needed like GF (god knows why), cat, telephone or S.W.A.T. unexpected friendly visits.....🤣

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

 

Yeah, he prefers comfort and fidelity of current monitors to immersion and poorer fidelity. 

 

Who knew, there is different kind of people. I bet i can find you a *real* drivers who prefer HMD over screens, namely Rally drivers, who don't need long range resolution and need a lot of stereo information and are not afraid to turn their head to look. 

 

And holy moly, what did you know, a 5 second google search shows plethora of pro drivers saying that HMD is better... wow, who knew. 

 

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=Pro+driver+in+VR

 

Heres a first result.

 

 

So there, i won the argument because my driver look sexier than your driver. 

 

 

I stand corrected. If Driver61 likes it then that means a lot. I subscribe to that channel and somehow hadn’t seen this one

He’s excellent and has a fantastic instructional series. 

 

Whats amazing about those racing sims is how real they are. See how he’s at a pro training facility running Assetto Corsa. He has favorable reviews of iRacing and Project Cars as well. 

 

The headsets still need need to improve in resolution and game performance before I’m willing to bite though. 

41 minutes ago, JonRedcorn said:

You are too much my dude.

If I recall, Haven’t you given up VR due to the terrible performance?

Edited by SharpeXB
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

I stand corrected. If Driver61 likes it then that means a lot. I subscribe to that channel and somehow hadn’t seen this one

He’s excellent and has a fantastic instructional series. 

 

The headsets still need need to improve in resolution and game performance before I’m willing to bite though. 

If I recall, Haven’t you given up VR due to the terrible performance?

If I recall you haven't ever used a VR headset in a gaming environment, you neither own one nor have used one for racing sims or flight sims. So how you can sit here and talk about it is beyond my comprehension. Maybe give it a try before you chat shit about it mate. I wouldn't touch a racing sim without a VR headset again. It's that big of a difference in driving. My consistency went up 10 fold. Depth perception is much bigger in racing than it is in flight sims. I've been sim racing for YEARS, far longer than I've been flying.

 

For racing it's no contest. Flying is totally different. I don't just fly for the thrill of the fight, I fly because I love the planes and the history, and the beautifully recreated scenes you can enjoy, all that goes a long way to making a beautiful monitor worth using in flight sims. Racing is totally different, I don't bother with singleplayer in racing sims, Iracing was my go to. It's two totally different things to compare. Iracing ran flawlessly in my headsets. Il2 not so much. Let's not even mention how far ahead racing peripherals are compared to flight sticks, we have easily accessible force feedback in racing, not so in flight simming. Having that racing wheel move around in your hands and fight you like the real thing while in a headset is beyond anything else. It's like you are really driving the damn car.

 

I am just trying to understand your incessant need to jut your head into a conversation every time VR is mentioned and dog it when you haven't even used it. It's like somebody telling a real life pilot they don't know shit about flying when all they've done is played a video game. Sadly I've seen it before on this very website.

Edited by JonRedcorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

 

 

Just put a second gen HMD on once and race or fly, then we talk. The things you say puts your source material you have been reading in to suspect. 

 

And no, real drivers don't wear scuba mask, they wear helmets, and FoV from, say pimax, is bigger than FoV you get from some helmets. 

 

courtney-force-in-helmet.jpg.657cf5f389475c126bcbbbc807634781.jpg

 

 

 

And one more thing, Airline simulators are as much about the cockpit operations as it is for flying. Airliner windows are tiny.

 

However, i got on record, USAF pilots saying that modern first and second gen HMD are better than what USAF currently has as VR. 

That's because USAF stuff is from 90's and they were expensive and they want to use them till the contract runs out... Armies are weird like that, they don't go out buy new stuff until the lifespan of old stuff is done. 

 

The current HMD's are not perfect, but they are head and shoulders above what we had before. 


I am one of my squadron’s VR program managers in the USAF. We have Vive Pros which aren’t great (hopefully upgrading soon, I’m trying to get a StarVR to demo), but even then, the visuals and sense of “being there” are so, so, so much better than our 360 sims. And I don’t just mean one particular sim; it exceeds the visuals for our T-6, T-38, F-16, F-15, and F-22 sims (yes I have extensive experience in all but the F-15 ones which I’ve only flown once). 
 

Where VR falls short for the AF has nothing to do with the HMDs, but the rest of the commercially available hardware. Our Lockheed / Boeing sims have cockpits that are 100% (or nearly so) accurate, and pilots can train to move the actual switches and levers just as they will in the actual jet. This is especially critical for 5th gen training where you need to be able to interact with your displays in a realistic way. 
 

Right now, the sims work best when used together. The HMDs are amazing and the USAF recognizes that. We’re still a long way off from them taking over our legacy sims, though. 
 

People who don’t believe in VR make me laugh. I’m humble enough to admit I could be wrong, but I think they’ll end up in same pages of history as those who though the airplane would never be more than a flying novelty. I’m not saying they’re stupid, I just don’t think they’ve used the units enough or can’t use their imagination to see where this tech is going. 
 

44 minutes ago, JonRedcorn said:

It's like somebody telling a real life pilot they don't know shit about flying when all they've done is played a video game. Sadly I've seen it before on this very website.


Haha. Shack. I sometimes take 3-6 month breaks from this forum for that very reason. 

Edited by Go_Pre
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, Go_Pre said:


I am one of my squadron’s VR program managers in the USAF. We have Vive Pros which aren’t great (hopefully upgrading soon, I’m trying to get a StarVR to demo), but even then, the visuals and sense of “being there” are so, so, so much better than our 360 sims. And I don’t just mean one particular sim; it exceeds the visuals for our T-6, T-38, F-16, F-15, and F-22 sims (yes I have extensive experience in all but the F-15 ones which I’ve only flown once). 
 

Where VR falls short for the AF has nothing to do with the HMDs, but the rest of the commercially available hardware. Our Lockheed / Boeing sims have cockpits that are 100% (or nearly so) accurate, and pilots can train to move the actual switches and levers just as they will in the actual jet. This is especially critical for 5th gen training where you need to be able to interact with your displays in a realistic way. 
 

Right now, the sims work best when used together. The HMDs are amazing and the USAF recognizes that. We’re still a long way off from them taking over our legacy sims, though. 
 

People who don’t believe in VR make me laugh. I’m humble enough to admit I could be wrong, but I think they’ll end up in same pages of history as those who though the airplane would never be more than a flying novelty. I’m not saying they’re stupid, I just don’t think they’ve used the units enough or can’t use their imagination to see where this tech is going. 

 

 

That's pretty much what i figured out myself. But the gist of thing is, dollars for dollars, going HMD over 3 screens + cockpit paraphernalia is no brainier. You can use new Vive finger thinggys to push buttons in DCS. With little work, you can couple those two to real buttons. This way you don't have to make cockpit look real, just make it feel real enough and let the computer worry about rendering. Ofcorse there goes allot more consideration than just that when we talk about military grade sims, but with current HMD tech and availability of cheap and reliable interface tech like Arduino, a hobbyist can come close to 80%-90% what USAF had just few years ago with a fraction of a fraction of the same budget :biggrin:

 

And don't get me started on the potential for adult entertainment when it comes to HMD's ;)

 

PS: i am happy that USAF got on with the times, the interviews i saw with the pilots were from early 2017 i think, just after the first gen HMD's came out and they were using Oculus if i remember it correctly. Nothing like fat military contract for some HMD manufacturer to push the technology forward for all of us simmers! 

 

Edited by Cpt_Siddy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, JonRedcorn said:

If I recall you haven't ever used a VR headset in a gaming environment, you neither own one nor have used one for racing sims or flight sims. So how you can sit here and talk about it is beyond my comprehension. Maybe give it a try before you chat shit about it mate. I wouldn't touch a racing sim without a VR headset again. It's that big of a difference in driving. My consistency went up 10 fold. Depth perception is much bigger in racing than it is in flight sims. I've been sim racing for YEARS, far longer than I've been flying.

 

For racing it's no contest. Flying is totally different. I don't just fly for the thrill of the fight, I fly because I love the planes and the history, and the beautifully recreated scenes you can enjoy, all that goes a long way to making a beautiful monitor worth using in flight sims. Racing is totally different, I don't bother with singleplayer in racing sims, Iracing was my go to. It's two totally different things to compare. Iracing ran flawlessly in my headsets. Il2 not so much. Let's not even mention how far ahead racing peripherals are compared to flight sticks, we have easily accessible force feedback in racing, not so in flight simming. Having that racing wheel move around in your hands and fight you like the real thing while in a headset is beyond anything else. It's like you are really driving the damn car.

 

I am just trying to understand your incessant need to jut your head into a conversation every time VR is mentioned and dog it when you haven't even used it. It's like somebody telling a real life pilot they don't know shit about flying when all they've done is played a video game. Sadly I've seen it before on this very website.

I mentioned before I actually use VR professionally in architecture. I’ve worn the headsets and know what they’re like. 

If there’s is a game I might consider it with, that would be racing because it seems to have less of the performance challenges than flight. 

But the tech isn’t there for me yet. And there are too many threads like this one complaining about visibility and resolution. 

I won’t buy into the “Motorola Brick” headset, I need the “iPhone” version if that ever happens. 

28 minutes ago, Go_Pre said:

People who don’t believe in VR make me laugh. I’m humble enough to admit I could be wrong, but I think they’ll end up in same pages of history as those who though the airplane would never be more than a flying novelty. I’m not saying they’re stupid, I just don’t think they’ve used the units enough or can’t use their imagination to see where this tech is going. 

It’s safe to never say never when technology is involved. But I don’t see much positive news about VR where gaming is concerned. If pro or industry uses develop the tech which then trickles down to gaming that’s certainly possible. But gaming by itself lacks the apps to encourage the purchase of these expensive headsets and powerful PCs. Flight and racing sims are ideal for VR but are niche gaming products. Silly stuff like Beat Saber and Lucky’s Tale don’t exactly make the average person jump for a $$$ headset. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

I mentioned before I actually use VR professionally in architecture. I’ve worn the headsets and know what they’re like. 

If there’s is a game I might consider it with, that would be racing because it seems to have less of the performance challenges than flight. 

But the tech isn’t there for me yet. And there are too many threads like this one complaining about visibility and resolution. 

I won’t buy into the “Motorola Brick” headset, I need the “iPhone” version if that ever happens. 

 

 

You are too focused on one aspect of human vision system. The reason HMD is so powerful is because human vision system is actually a audiovisio system, it incorporates together things . Things like head relative position from your body, what is important to be 1:1 instead a TrackIR like 1:7+- (meaning 1 degree head turn corresponds to 7 degree head turn on screen). (Also things like inner ear balance organ, and actual stereo hearing to make a audiovisual world in our head that we navigate every day)

One of the biggest thing is the stereo vision, this enables depth vision which is something many bigger land predators have for a good reason, it also allows you to see trough most cockpit elements because of stereo vision! Screen users completely miss out on this feature. Also, the peripheral vision is covered in believable way, what enables our peripheral vision system to correctly interpret visual cues... there is books worth of stuff on this alone. Its more immersive to think that you are wearing thick flight goggles when in VR, than making your brain believe that those screens in front of you are actually not screens.

 

The image fidelity, aka resolution is like the second or maybe 3rd most important vision layer when it comes to this. Because really, when things are whizzing by, and you are in high speed car chase or combat, your brain compresses a lot of data, and you wont even notice the bad resolution because your brain will fill in the blanks like in built GFX card. I mean, the pencil trick i posted earlier is proof that you don't see the color until your forward vision yet you still see your periphery as color image. And HMD's cover most of those nuanced aspects of our vision system in a way no screen or projection ever could. You need literally need ball shaped room, covered from all sides in OLED panels to get the same effect as HMD... 

5 hours ago, Go_Pre said:


I am one of my squadron’s VR program managers in the USAF.

 

Have you dabbled in galvanic vestibule stimulation?  You can simulate some aspects of feeling of acceleration this way. 

Edited by Cpt_Siddy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/20/2019 at 8:50 AM, mazex said:

So - even though the full real crowd (being the majority here) will flame me I mean that we for a realistic full real "simulation" of what a real pilot sees when he looks down at an aircraft below him over a forest, we needs enhancements to the current aircraft spotting.

 

I'm really enjoying some of the discussion in this thread. I play a fair bit of IL-2 (it's more or less the only thing I play) and in my personal life I'm a spotter for search and rescue (and training to be a pilot). I'd like to share some insights:

 

1. There's real benefit learning some eye scanning techniques. I can tell you from experience that looking for a target, whether it's a tarp, an actual wreck of a plane, a canoe or a parachute, it's exhausting. It's even harder if they're stationary, because everything blends into scenery. I'll try and find some diagrams to edit/paste in but it really does make a difference.

 

2. The resolutions of monitors below 4K and VR HMD's (at least with the Vive -- my Index will be here next week and I'll likely see an improvement) are currently pretty big handicap. Not only that, believe it or not, I even consider 60fps being a handicap.

 

When I'm looking for traffic IRL (or birds.. so many birds at our airport), half the time I don't pick them up because of the colour etc -- I pick up the movement. That's even harder to do when it's just blurry pixels with blurry trees that always shift to follow you like sprites -- thus blurring the movement even more, causing distraction. Once your even above 1000ft a car is pretty tiny (but you can still see it, and you'll still know hey -- that's a car). Small planes aren't much larger -- don't even bother to try and look for a person, they're smaller than ants from that high up... this is compounded by the resolution issue. At that distance? It's a pixel unless you're on a 4K monitor.

 

3. I actually play with markers on in single player -- it's a game, right? Play for fun, don't worry about the markers -- they exist to make the game more playable. In multiplayer I actually tend to follow groups. If you're flying high enough online (3km-ish) there isn't much ground to distract you (even on the full real servers).

 

4. This is where I wholeheartedly think the devs should actually put some time into the issue -- the clouds & their impact on spotting. This is why lefuneste's mod is such a big hit. There's some kind of shader issue where the clouds are inadvertently masking things in front of them.. I'm sure it's a low priority, devs are busy on the big stuff -- but there's no denying it's an issue. I'm sure it'll get ironed out in the future -- hell we're getting 10km+ aircraft rendering... and we never thought we'd see that at all!

 

In summary? Yes, I do agree -- spotting is legitimately hard. Maybe down the road we'll see radar with general reports of where enemies are (there's a great idea -- AI spotters and radar reports via radio!), but I don't think we should give enhancements to the visuals beyond the current markers. I think the markers are just fine (though I wish they were automatically masked by the cockpit like lefuneste's mod does) -- and I'd rather let the full-real servers not add any pilot assists if they don't want to. If they do? Eh, turn on markers.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

 

I won’t buy into the “Motorola Brick” headset, I need the “iPhone” version if that ever happens. 

 

Oh you sweet summers child

 

we

Disney-Quest-VR-1.jpg.376f285b1205630b6ace58343d757a9f.jpg

 

already

 

tumblr_p5b51kQFuT1wwow3bo1_400.jpg.0c30c2b833055e4385b4efc1be170e5b.jpg

 

had those

 

038d81ef19507f4346e91aa943c059ce.thumb.jpg.efcda624f59fc4320364f1416102600e.jpg

 

Motorola bricks 

 

We are now in early nokia territory, and that was not that bad. 

92004956-vintage-phone-nokia-3310-isolated-on-white.thumb.jpg.335ea0f78fcc5fbd5bc22dd03fe02fd2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

 

Oh you sweet summers child

 

we

Disney-Quest-VR-1.jpg.376f285b1205630b6ace58343d757a9f.jpg

 

already

 

tumblr_p5b51kQFuT1wwow3bo1_400.jpg.0c30c2b833055e4385b4efc1be170e5b.jpg

 

had those

 

038d81ef19507f4346e91aa943c059ce.thumb.jpg.efcda624f59fc4320364f1416102600e.jpg

 

Motorola bricks 

 

We are now in early nokia territory, and that was not that bad. 

92004956-vintage-phone-nokia-3310-isolated-on-white.thumb.jpg.335ea0f78fcc5fbd5bc22dd03fe02fd2.jpg

Yeah... I’ll just stay tuned... this isn’t VRs first rodeo. “Architects could use the device to draw buildings in 3D” <— that’s me 😉

23 minutes ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

You are too focused on one aspect of human vision system.

Yes I get it. The immersion part of it is really fantastic. And in my work using VR nobody cares about gaming level graphics or resolution. 

But it’s a real deal breaker here. So is the game performance. Again the whole topic of this thread is how difficult it is to see distant aircraft. Until VR has that solved I don’t have much enthusiasm for it. 

Edited by SharpeXB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Yeah... I’ll just stay tuned... this isn’t VRs first rodeo. “Architects could use the device to draw buildings in 3D” <— that’s me 😉

Yes I get it. The immersion part of it is really fantastic. And in my work using VR nobody cares about gaming level graphics or resolution. 

But it’s a real deal breaker here. So is the game performance. Again the whole topic of this thread is how difficult it is to see distant aircraft. Until VR has that solved I don’t have much enthusiasm for it. 

 

Fair enuff. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, blitze said:

You know you can play in VR without relying on earbuds or headphones right?

Speakers work just as well and allow for background noise to be processed if needed like GF (god knows why), cat, telephone or S.W.A.T. unexpected friendly visits.....🤣

 

That may very well be the case, but it is not the point. It is none of your business why other people have the preferences that they have.  As long as most potential or current players - or even a substantial minority of players - of this game do not want to use VR the game needs to be able to deal with these spotting issues on conventional monitors. I expect that if it were able to do that, the experience in VR would also be better.  

 

Perhaps @mazex's specific suggestion of a "halo" to improve contrast would work, perhaps not. But it is that kind of suggestion that could solve the problem.   

 

Unfortunately, this thread has turned into yet another opportunity for the VR evangelists to sneer at others because they do share the same preferences, so I will leave you all to it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
43 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

 

Unfortunately, this thread has turned into yet another opportunity for the VR evangelists to sneer at others because they do share the same preferences, so I will leave you all to it. 

 

 

What what? When? Also, being VR evangelist is like being internal combustion engine evangelist in the age of horse and buggy, so many Luddites clogging the road. 

 

Its a bit same that no one today have direct right degrade you if you use horse instead of a car. But if you start complaining how hard it is to use a horse and someone tell you to switch to a car, and you say "oh you are just car evangelist". I, then, would regard you in similar manner as with your current comment about us VR enthusiasts. Want a part of your spotting issues solved? Switch to VR. (Most VR screens also have very good contrast reproduction, this also helps immensely with spotting against ground clutter)  

 

But really, all i said is that spotting about more than what still images could convey, and that peripheral vision plays very important part in it. And mentioned as a passing glance that VR has at least one spotting hurdle figured out. No where in this thread does anyone say that people who use screens are somewhat inferior or wrong to do so. 

Edited by Cpt_Siddy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, unreasonable said:

 

VR is not the solution for BoX.  For the next few years, or probably much longer, VR users will be in a small minority, since so many of us need to be aware of telephone, GF, cat etc while playing, quite apart from not wanting the expense and discomfort.  The game has to work for everyone, which means it has to work well on a monitor.   

 

Not to mention the dozens of keys binded to important controls. I for one cannot "braille" my way over engine management and other things like that. Some forum members were nice to explain me how they do it, and I get it, bur its not for everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Realistic spotting depends how to recodnize that pixel as plane as tree or as unknown object?

 

Here my problem you can see in both screenshots a 109 close around 500m if you are here unaware in the next turn from the 109 you are down for sure. Now look take a closer look at the screenshots on the left side do you notice that the 109 not has even his plane skin compared to the right screenshot. Another point in the left screenshot the 109 is transformed into black 2D Sprites but on the right screenshot fully 3D as it should be. As last point on the left screenshot the 109 look strange compared to the right screenshot

 

Example-1.thumb.jpg.17589b6f07a570d6b78ad2e9dc1f4cd5.jpg

 

Edited by Livai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, unreasonable said:

 

That may very well be the case, but it is not the point. It is none of your business why other people have the preferences that they have.  As long as most potential or current players - or even a substantial minority of players - of this game do not want to use VR the game needs to be able to deal with these spotting issues on conventional monitors. I expect that if it were able to do that, the experience in VR would also be better.  

 

Perhaps @mazex's specific suggestion of a "halo" to improve contrast would work, perhaps not. But it is that kind of suggestion that could solve the problem.   

 

Unfortunately, this thread has turned into yet another opportunity for the VR evangelists to sneer at others because they do share the same preferences, so I will leave you all to it. 

Oh dear - so much hatred for new tech.

 

You Monitor "Evangelists" just need to realise that some people prefer to fly / drive with depth perception.  Something a Monitor will never give, nothing personal just the way of the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, JonRedcorn said:

If I recall you haven't ever used a VR headset in a gaming environment, you neither own one nor have used one for racing sims or flight sims. So how you can sit here and talk about it is beyond my comprehension. Maybe give it a try before you chat shit about it mate. I wouldn't touch a racing sim without a VR headset again. It's that big of a difference in driving. My consistency went up 10 fold. Depth perception is much bigger in racing than it is in flight sims. I've been sim racing for YEARS, far longer than I've been flying.

 

For racing it's no contest. Flying is totally different. I don't just fly for the thrill of the fight, I fly because I love the planes and the history, and the beautifully recreated scenes you can enjoy, all that goes a long way to making a beautiful monitor worth using in flight sims. Racing is totally different, I don't bother with singleplayer in racing sims, Iracing was my go to. It's two totally different things to compare. Iracing ran flawlessly in my headsets. Il2 not so much. Let's not even mention how far ahead racing peripherals are compared to flight sticks, we have easily accessible force feedback in racing, not so in flight simming. Having that racing wheel move around in your hands and fight you like the real thing while in a headset is beyond anything else. It's like you are really driving the damn car.

 

I am just trying to understand your incessant need to jut your head into a conversation every time VR is mentioned and dog it when you haven't even used it. It's like somebody telling a real life pilot they don't know shit about flying when all they've done is played a video game. Sadly I've seen it before on this very website.

I think its his main hobby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stopped using Rift nine to 10 month ago. Bought a Rift S a couple of days ago. 

I had forgotten all things about setting up and well get it to work properly on those month. 

 

First off Rift S or any VR I guess do not inspire 

to the same relaxed flying as monitor use. 

It is to me a sweaty warm gadget not too comfortable and not very practical. In Taw I switch off engine in the attempt to raise gear. 

And this is something that dawned on me and I got why I stopped using Rift in the first place. 

It is to me not a eureka moment flying with VR it is sitting with a scuba mask tight to your face and bring in awe how big the plane really is. 

It give a huge advantage aiming and many good experiences. But it is not a must have.

I guess Pimax got better fow for racing sims 

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...