Jump to content

The issue with VR is not the magnification


Recommended Posts

OK, I know there is an big dustup about 3Dmigoto and the seeing aid it provides for VR. I am of the opinion it should have been provided by the developer and not by a third party. This would have eliminated any controversy about legality.

 

I as a VR user have read all the comments and think many have missed the point. Its not about magnification. Not at all. Its about seeing and a crutch to level the playing field and make VR viable.

 

Just so you know, I was CEO of ICI, the developer of Warbirds 20 years ago. What the player sees has always been a subject with controversy. I did racing games too (NHRA drag racing) and there were no issues, I think its unique to flight sims

 

1) Clarity - 2 D viewing will always win. It has many more pixels available and those pixels are sharper, better contrast, and well defined. No way i'm told. Angle of view is same. Ok, one has to dig deeper into the subject to understand. A monitor screen is all good sharp pixels. The distance you sit away from the screen will allow you to see the majority of the screen in high detail provided by your fovea in the middle of one's eye. This is the zone of sharp focus. What your missing is the area to the right and left where ones far less sharp portion of vision exists. The peripheral vision portion. Unsharp, blurry, used for clues to what's beyond the sharp vision. If you create a circle with your hands circling the brightness of the computer screen, you'll see there is much vision just cut off by using a monitor.

 

Now those using vr see all of it, including the area beyond the computer screen. It's in ones peripheral vision and not very sharp, but makes a huge difference in the feeling of flying and being there. But note, half of the pixels (and more on some headsets) are just wasted as there not in the sharp part of ones vision, the fovea is only in the very center of your eyes and the eyeball darts around to fill in as much as it can. VR users move there head not eyeballs and it can't be done to fill in detail very well.  

 

The net result is we use only the center portion of the VR screens with our sharp vision and the sharp pixel count is vastly different than the nominal amount. In comparison, monitor players have 4k vision , VR users have 640x480. The math is not accurate but the principle is correct.

 

Clarity doesn't exist for VR, we just don't see …    Why some magnification was a crutch to bridge the gap.

 

2) Contrast  - A monitor is just beautiful in comparison to a VR headset, Some headsets are better , some are worse. I can tune a monitor to give me the saturation, color volume, sharpness I desire at will. VR headsets are from my experience a very low contrast device. We all tweak the gamma to 0,7 to get some vision. Its still not very good. The game is optimized for monitors, what is a little bit of glare flying towards the sun, is a totally glared out low contrast field of whiteness. What say the monitor users, we see glare too. Its a matter of degree I promise. I have both available to me and I promise the typical VR user cant see 30%  what you see. How about a dirty plexi screens on planes. Same issue, the lower contrast VR makes the lightly crazed windscreens near possible to see through in certain light conditions.

 

The developers should address these issues in settings, if you flying VR the screen texture should be adjusted to equilibrate the condition. 

 

Note we don't have any ability to adjust screen contrast, saturation, brightness as do monitor users. Its just baked in and the developers just don't see a need to make this a level playing foeld.

 

3) Playability - Here the subject takes a turn. The feeling of flying and spatial clues fall toward the VR headset. The immersion is amazing and the reason VR users live with the handicaps. While the seeing doesn't compare (not even close) to a monitor, the game play is just over the top amazing. Other games have recognized this and have found ways to adapt. Some day all player will be using VR. There are just some things to  fix along the way.

 

Now 2d monitors do have there "advantages", looking behind coming to mind. They can see far more than a pilot ever could in a proper airplane. Far more than a VR player can. And do it a the snap of a control (thumb or Trackir), is unrealistic and a huge advantage,

 

4) Illustration - I marvel when I watch videos of the better players . Sherriff comes to mind. His vision is so remarkable compared to what I see. He is also a master at using zoom to search wide areas, and when the sees a target (victim?) he can just zoom in and see much about his target, is it friendly, is it a specific plane, what speed and angle off is it flying. etc. etc.   I see none of that, none. If I even spot it.

 

Ok, we're back to the kludge developed to try to make VR competitive with all it's handicaps. These adjustment should be done by the company. If they want to get (and pay) a player for their assistance, go for it. That would be better for all. It would be an official release, it would be approved by the people who have a vision to the future when VR becomes cheap, can be driven by most PC's and with better routines to allow the present handicaps to disappear. Foveated rendering is close. Eye tracking is coming, prices will continue to fall.

 

Other companies are not fighting it and are embracing the immersion of VR.

 

please fix this mess

 

jokkr

Edited by JG51_jokkr
  • Like 5
  • Upvote 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good post jokkr.  This is why, in the past, I have suggested a separate VR version of the IL-2 flight simulation, separate from the standard version and with separate VR game version MP servers for MP fans using VR.

 

I think that would be a good solution given the prevailing circumstances.  Trying to match flat screen users with VR users for competitive MP flight simulation is likely not too work well at all.

 

A separate VR version of IL-2 would seem like a logical conclusion to me.

 

Happy landings,

 

56RAF_Talisman

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I fear that would be too complicated for a small development team. Keeping everything coordinated and moving together would complicate software flow. Cost and delay would creep in.

 

i think an added menu option of VR low (current vr magnification) and VR high (5x) would eliminate most  of current issue.

 

The low contrast issue and windscreen issues could be sorted separately.

 

also a rear view limiter for 2d would go a long way to equalizing the game experience.

 

VR gamma and/or screen color saturation could be bound to 2d and VR.

 

we gotta keep this simple or it won’t happen.

 

what I just listed could happen quickly and get this back on track with minimal effort on developer.

 

jokkr

Edited by JG51_jokkr
spelling
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

@JG51_jokkr  These problems you are describing are all due to the nature of current VR tech and not in the sim itself. Low resolution, poor screens and the necessity of moving your head 1:1. If any player feels this is a competitive handicap they have the choice of not using VR. These shortcomings need to be addressed by the HMD makers, not 1CGS. Aside from providing a better zoom view none of this is in their control. 

32 minutes ago, JG51_jokkr said:

also a rear view limiter fir 2d would go a long way to equalizing the game experience.

No. It’s not reasonable for 10% of the players to ask that the other 90% be handicapped.  Pilots can turn their heads IRL, it just requires more effort and such effort can’t be simulated in a PC game. Again, nobody is forcing you to use VR. If you feel that competitiveness is more important you should stick to using a monitor. 

  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you. These are the early days of VR and they are inferior in many attributes  to a good monitor.

 

but technology changes and we have always accommodated these advances. 
 

Examples  are everything we use. Joysticks went from very simple ch joysticks to my current thrust master hotas, monitors went from my original 16 inch 640x480 rgb  to my current 32 high refresh. And on and on. 
 

some were on bleeding edge, some were behind. It’s all about moving forward.

 

VR is going through it’s growing pains but I promise in 5 years we’ll all be using it.

 

the game developer, if he wants a long lifespan has to support it or someone else will 

 

BTW, I don't see how a trackir/monitor player is in any way handicapped. Just the opposite in my opinion. You can do stuff not humanly possible. This is a simulation which is supposed to be based on some sense of reality. The most optimum way to play at present is the trackir/monitor setup no matter what the developers do to VR.

 

jokkr

Edited by JG51_jokkr
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, JG51_jokkr said:

VR is going through it’s growing pains but I promise in 5 years we’ll all be using it.

That remains to be seen. Currently VR adoption in flight sims has held at about 11-12% for the last two years and isn’t growing (according to the Navigraph survey)
If VR proves to be a handicap then that’s going to doom it in gaming. 
In the meantime...
Giving VR players more ability = OK

Taking away abilities from other players (the majority) to “level the field” = Not OK

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SharpeXB said:

That remains to be seen. Currently VR adoption in flight sims has held at about 11-12% for the last two years and isn’t growing (according to the Navigraph survey)
If VR proves to be a handicap then that’s going to doom it in gaming. 
In the meantime...
Giving VR players more ability = OK

Taking away abilities from other players (the majority) to “level the field” = Not OK

 

 

 

LOL. 

There is no way whatsoever VR gaming in flight sims has not grown in the last two years.

VR was more of a handicap in 2016/2017 than it is now. It survived that, I think it is going to be ok lol.

Don't worry, no one is going to handicap you and your monitor.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you concerned about your rear view? I fear I touched a nerve.

 

But back to the original thought, I think we agree we shouldn't handicap the 2D player. You should be able to tweak your monitor, do reshade, etc.

That's part of what makes it fun.

 

As for VR, its going to remain marginal until cost is solved. Not just headset, but cost of computer to run it. Then there will be a flood of participation. Its still in the early adopter phase. Big improvement over past 2 years...

 

jokkr

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 56RAF_Talisman said:

Good post jokkr.  This is why, in the past, I have suggested a separate VR version of the IL-2 flight simulation, separate from the standard version and with separate VR game version MP servers for MP fans using VR.

 

I think that would be a good solution given the prevailing circumstances.  Trying to match flat screen users with VR users for competitive MP flight simulation is likely not too work well at all.

 

A separate VR version of IL-2 would seem like a logical conclusion to me.

 

 

While separate VR and monitor servers might be a partial solution It would unfortunately split most of the squads , or even friends, but it might be one small, temporary step. The other thing is, of course, that VR users regress to playing using their monitors; after all, we all have one, although I'd be pretty upset if my expensive piece of VR kit (or any other part of my rig) was no longer useable.

It all comes down to what we want and what we think we can afford. There are guys playing this on laptops without a joystick; people with all sorts of different HOTAS from the dirt cheap to the fairly expensive. People with good pedals, ok pedals or no pedals. People with simpits and people on the kitchen chair. Etc.

 

There never has been, or ever will be, the 'level playing field' that some people desire. We just have to hope that VR improves - at the moment it's only partially fit for purpose as jokkr points out.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a new version of game up. Trades out the low magnification view for a higher one. It does help with the detail issue. I'm for one am hoping its not ended here. I would like the other issues addressed ie contrast, color saturation.

 

This game is amazing , but there are issues that can be improved.

 

Thanks 1C

 

jokkr

Edited by JG51_jokkr
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well thanks to your whining about zoom and 3Dmigoto - the Devs have now released 4.006d which has screwed up VR to pander to the blind and those who don't understand how to set up their headsets.

 

Thanks.

Least I have a pre patched version I can fly offline with.

 

You with your new FOV in VR will be easily able to Id enemy aircraft to a km and more with the zoom.  Just you'll feel like your face is up against the Instrument Panel and horizon distance view point is screwed throwing out forward geometry.

 

Nice work.:clapping:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Version 4.006d increased the VR zoom magnification but I'm experiencing (Reverb) the same problem I had with the original zoom. The background is magnified but the object remains the same as the non zoom image. This makes the zoomed object appear smaller than without zoom. The new zoom is effective on close objects but 3km and beyond you're only making the background larger by zooming.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gordon200 said:

Version 4.006d increased the VR zoom magnification but I'm experiencing (Reverb) the same problem I had with the original zoom. The background is magnified but the object remains the same as the non zoom image. This makes the zoomed object appear smaller than without zoom. The new zoom is effective on close objects but 3km and beyond you're only making the background larger by zooming.

 

That is working as intended and is the same for 2d.

Very distant objects take up a minimum number of pixels on the screen. That means that they are artificially enlarged at no zoom, but when fully zoomed they are no longer as enlarged as they already take up the minimum number of pixels. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just remember this isn't a VR game.
It's a game that supports VR.


The devs don't own you anything simply because you chose to play it that way.

 

Then again, i don't see any big changes between my 2D and VR performances since i get killed  pretty quickly either way ^^ .

  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, [DBS]Browning said:

 

That is working as intended and is the same for 2d.

Very distant objects take up a minimum number of pixels on the screen. That means that they are artificially enlarged at no zoom, but when fully zoomed they are no longer as enlarged as they already take up the minimum number of pixels. 

Are you using Alternate Visibility?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Gordon200 said:

@-IRRE-Belmont Is your statement a personal opinion or that of the IL2 developers?

 

Are 1C Game Studios and 777 Studios telling VR users to hit the f'ing road if they aren't happy?

I think what he means is: the game was not intended to be a full VR title (like Alyx for example), VR is an extra in a way and related issues may not be at the top of the to-do list.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, -IRRE-Belmont said:

Just remember this isn't a VR game.
It's a game that supports VR.


The devs don't own you anything simply because you chose to play it that way.

 

Then again, i don't see any big changes between my 2D and VR performances since i get killed  pretty quickly either way ^^ .

 

This is not entirely true. I bought my first early access edition of BOS in 2013 or 2014 because there were talks about potential VR support in the DEV Blogs. VR support is (quite rightly) a selling point that is capable of pulling in more customers. Since 2017 quite a lot of people bought GB only because of the VR support. 

 

I woudn't use the term they owe anything but VR support is important for the game too not just for VR users.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, -IRRE-Belmont said:

Just remember this isn't a VR game.
It's a game that supports VR.

 

 

I understand the nuance of what you say, but very fundamentally the principle behind the comment is wrong.

 

If a game supports VR then it is a VR game.  At the same time it is a 2D game but that is not what VR users look at.

 

If a game is a VR game (or a game that supports VR) that is obviously a massive selling point for VR users.  If it is broken then the developers do "owe" the VR users to fix it because if they don't nobody will play or support it.

 

Not having a go - just pointing out the fallacy in the "dev's don't owe nothing" argument.

 

von Tom

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you read between the lines of what Jason has said, it is quite obvious that VR is seen has an interesting (business/tech) domain but it is not part of the main structure of this software. Il2 GB has not been created with that in mind.

 

From a business point of view, yes, VR users should be heard but I am uncomfortable with the demanding and insistent attitude of certain VR users here.

I have been confronted with the same feeling when Dirt 2 Rally was just produced (toxic spamming of ''No VR, No buy" in every threads and social networks).

 

It gives VR user a bad image of ''spoiled child'' and elitist gamer. Don't get me wrong, I will for sure become a VR user in the next years but it is a bit sad to see such attitude today.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, von_Tom said:

 

If a game supports VR then it is a VR game.  At the same time it is a 2D game but that is not what VR users look at.

It’s not a VR-only game. It wasn’t designed from the ground up to use VR only. And about 90% of flight sim players use monitors.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

It’s not a VR-only game.

And it's not a 2D game only. It may be adapted with all VR features what it's need. Like zoom (look for example how zoom works in 3 letter sim), screen adjustment, hud adaptation etc etc.

Rendering of 2 images for 2 eyes is not enough to be a VR supported game, do you agree?)

Edited by 1/JG601_1ngvaar
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, molodoi said:

It gives VR user a bad image of ''spoiled child'' and elitist gamer.

 

Just imagine something that would prevent 2d users play the game online. You would see spoiled child elitist 2d players all over the forums. There is no difference.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Are you using Alternate Visibility?

 

No. In AV the minimum pixel width is larger, but in both, planes never render under a certain size, regardless of distance. Until they are beyond tender range altogether. 

Edited by [DBS]Browning
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, 56RAF_Talisman said:

Good post jokkr.  This is why, in the past, I have suggested a separate VR version of the IL-2 flight simulation, separate from the standard version and with separate VR game version MP servers for MP fans using VR.

 

I think that would be a good solution given the prevailing circumstances.  Trying to match flat screen users with VR users for competitive MP flight simulation is likely not too work well at all.

 

A separate VR version of IL-2 would seem like a logical conclusion to me.

 

Happy landings,

 

56RAF_Talisman

I wonder where all is?

about 3000 registered in taw campaign

but 3 not entirely full servers on evening Europe. 
How many of them fly VR? 
And what do we fly early war or late war? 
We are not enough people on multiplayer

to make roomfor any choices on daily bases 

In my point of view a few VR users are so vocal about their competitor needs and obsession on what 2D users have and they choose to leave. That they think they represent us all. 
They do not. This problem they created is not really a problem , it is a place in a continuous development. And their continuous threats of not buying and go to DCS seem to have a effect. I myself hope they go to DCS and convince them selves it is so much better. 
we will get better product and better spotting asap give them time 

Edited by 216th_LuseKofte
Link to post
Share on other sites

Fwiw, our squad is now close to 50% vr. And it seems like most of our new squad mates are coming vr equipped.

 

They are more active in hours on server. 

 

Just an observation...

 

Jokkr

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

DangerDogz too. Some are very enthusiastic about it. We run a private squad server with mods on so if you want icons you can use a limited style say small grey triangle or the full hit or none and nobody gets too uptight about it. We are pretending to be fully trained 20 year old pilots with 20/20 vision. I am 70 and need glasses but VR lets me have a taste of what it would have been like. A flat screen will never do that. My 2p

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, HunDread said:

 

Just imagine something that would prevent 2d users play the game online. You would see spoiled child elitist 2d players all over the forums. There is no difference.

 

In our recent case the problem was not being unable to play online but being uncompetitive.

The difference with your example is that VR users, being less competitive, should accept a bit more easily their situation, knowing that their gear is in an adaptation period in IL2 GB and not a native tech.

In other words, I believe that VR users should be more patient when confronted to this sort of handicap because :

- VR adaptation has not been the top priority for IL2 GB developments (even if it is becoming more and more important in this market)

- solid solutions (ie without mods) seem harder to find because it is not native in this software and probably devs are less skilled with this tech

 

I am not saying that VR problems should be ignored but that VR users should understand that they cannot be considered, for the moment, as equal as monitor users when it is a question of online competition.

 

But who am I to judge them when I casually fly online with my brother or play SP 80% of the time ?  ;-]

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

In our recent case the problem was not being unable to play online but being uncompetitive.

 

This is playing with words. People are people. VR or 2d. No difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, 1/JG601_1ngvaar said:

And it's not a 2D game only. It may be adapted will all VR features what it's need.

Sure but flight sims are primarily 2D games. Look at MSFS2020, it isn’t even supporting VR at launch. For an example of a VR specific flight game look at VTOL VR. Note how simplistic the graphics are in order to run smoothly in VR. Any of the higher fidelity flight sims are lucky to just run in continual re-projection mode at half the frame rate of the HMD. To make these sims ideal for VR would mean stripping their graphics down to a point where they wouldn’t appeal the the majority of buyers who are using monitors. 

20 hours ago, 56RAF_Talisman said:

This is why, in the past, I have suggested a separate VR version of the IL-2 flight simulation, separate from the standard version and with separate VR game version MP servers for MP fans using VR.

That would indeed be the ideal solution. Both for performance and competitive fairness. But there probably aren’t enough VR users to justify it. And it might require way too much rework in order to hit the performance goals. But yes, that’s what VR would really need. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately it looks like you lost discussion line. At least i didn't talk about smoothness and FPS (i'm flying with solid full hz of HMD fps 95% of time without reprojection in il2 for example). There is discussion about gameplay and features which define VR support :)

And again, not looking for other sims - BoX is not only 2D game as you said about VR too :)

I think we going for some flood about it, so i'll stop it for myself.

Good day to you. 

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...