Status of VR for now

[YoYo]

So hello TF Team after 5 months, 

 

any news about VR? How this process is advanced now? Any info / video about it?

 

After the purchase, unfortunately, I cannot fly, 2D is not for me, but I supported the project for future VR and Im waiting for this patiently (for sure, sooner or later).

 

Thank you for reply. 

 

Edited December 29, 2020 by YoYo

[9./JG52_J-HAT]

Hi YoYo, 

 

look at the sticky above about planned improvement for CloD, about page 3 or 4 there is a longer discussion about this where Buzzsaw made some comments. There are other posts scattered here, on Steam and ATAG’s too with bits of info, bit iirc the most recent info is in the sticky I mentioned. 

 

Here is the link to a summary Buzzsaw made from posts up to that point. Then Buzzsaw answered and MP corrected his initial post called something like „It‘s official, VR delayed“ (somewhere here in General Discussion from maybe a month ago).

 

 

[Enceladus828]

According to the latest update here, the new weather engine will be released 2-3 months from now. So, with them estimating 6-9 months for VR we should see VR in mid-late 2021.

 

 

[Mysticpuma]

22 hours ago, YoYo said:

So hello TF Team after 5 months, 

 

any news about VR? How this process is advanced now? Any info / video about it?

 

After the purchase, unfortunately, I cannot fly, 2D is not for me, but I supported the project for future VR and Im waiting for this patiently (for sure, sooner or later).

 

Thank you for reply. 

 

 

I summarised the updates from across the posts as follows:

From Buzzsaw:
August 15th 2020:

 

 "Addition of the TrueSKY weather engine, with new cloud system, as well as weather effects, and water effects.
We had a working beta of this new weather system tested in December 2019, but it needs improvement and the addition of additional features and was not ready for release.
 The expectation is we should have this new weather system in place in Fall/early Winter of 2020.
 Addition of a Virtual Reality viewing system.
 This is a larger project, and will take a great deal of work and development.  At earliest, it will be added in early 2021... and it is more than likely it will be some time into the new year."

 

 

69th_Spiritus - October 7th 2020:
"VR is a long ways off. We are focusing on finishing tessellation, seeing if we can give the option of 4k textures for aircraft, and implementing the new clouds/weather system.
Then we can start messing around with VR."

 

October 8th 2020:
 9./JG52_J-HAT
"Is the original timeframe for VR still current, i.e. early 2021?"
ATAG_Pattle:
"VR timeframe is likely to be pushed back at this time."

 

November 13th 2020:
Buzzsaw:
"VR is a priority for the development of the game.
It has not been pushed back... all development is proceeding on the plan as listed in the following post:
https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/.../64430-planned-future.../
At this point VR is between six and nine months away assuming the work goes as planned."

 

December 11th 2020:

Mysticpuma:
"Over a year since a single image of TruSky was shared. Any news?"
Buzzsaw:
"We are currently in an Alpha... when we have material we can share Pattle will post it in an update."

 

December 22nd 2020
Buzzsaw:
"We licensed the software approx. 13 months ago and only got full access to the support we needed at that time.
And we created a proof of concept Alpha after about 2 months.  We then put TrueSky development aside to complete TOBRUK.  Otherwise TOBRUK would have been a  9 months later release.
We only re-started work a few months ago.
Plus as mentioned, Simul has changed the background programs which support TrueSky to new versions and updated which meant we needed to start again."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Next we have the comments about discussions happening with 1C:

 

December 11th 2020:
"Assuming we are able to continue with our work, VR will be in the list of elements we will add."
Buzzsaw - December 17th 2020
"Hello All
Once we finish our discussions with 1C there will be an update on the planning for our next module."
"There will be an update on upcoming developments and TF 6.0 once TF has finished its discussions with 1C."
Buzzsaw on the Steam forums:
""Hello Super Hans
We will be introducing the FW-190A in our next module, assuming we can go ahead and do that."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

To summarise the way I read that. TrueSky was in Beta a year ago but is now back in Alpha. VR is not coming until TrueSky is implemented. It's a year since TrueSky was in Beta and now back in Alpha, so it's most likely another 6-months before we get the new weather and then development begins on VR, which at that rate will be another year-and-a-half after, so around the middle of 2022?
However, with very little communication about what is going on with the TFS roadmap, also the odd comments about "if" we are allowed to continue, very little being shared of the work in progress, all we can do is speculate, so that's all this is.

Cheers, MP

 

[Dagwoodyt]

Thanks MP! I find this all just perplexing. Other than trueSKY I don't know how priorities are ranked. Where would a FW190 be used? Seems a "new" module might need a new map or would that be part of a DLC for a current map? If DWT release diverted work from trueSKY implementation what would impact of work on a FW190 module be? Any videos of the trueSKY alpha would be a hopeful sign. Something lost in this discussion though is what will happen with regard to basic things that need to be fixed for SP use such as radio commands. They still routinely generate log file errors.

[kraut1]

until VR is implemented I will fly CLOD / Tobruk with these prelimenary VR settings:

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/68142-my-current-vr-vorpx-opentrack-settings-for-rift-s/

some Offline campaigns seems to work well / see link

[FTC_Karaya]

47 minutes ago, Dagwoodyt said:

Thanks MP! I find this all just perplexing. Other than trueSKY I don't know how priorities are ranked. Where would a FW190 be used? Seems a "new" module might need a new map or would that be part of a DLC for a current map? If DWT release diverted work from trueSKY implementation what would impact of work on a FW190 module be? Any videos of the trueSKY alpha would be a hopeful sign. Something lost in this discussion though is what will happen with regard to basic things that need to be fixed for SP use such as radio commands. They still routinely generate log file errors.

 

What does TrueSky have to do with the implementation of the FW190A in a possible future expansion and why would one take away ressources from the other? The people working on TrueSky are different from those working on aircraft. A coder doesn't do 3D models and a modeller doesn't do coding.

As for maps that the 190 can be used on: the existing Channel map with a few modifications

[Mysticpuma]

26 minutes ago, Karaya said:

 

What does TrueSky have to do with the implementation of the FW190A in a possible future expansion and why would one take away ressources from the other? The people working on TrueSky are different from those working on aircraft. A coder doesn't do 3D models and a modeller doesn't do coding.

As for maps that the 190 can be used on: the existing Channel map with a few modifications

 

The mention of the 190A was not the point of the quote, the end of the text was the point. Currently there have been quite a selection of posts mentioning that TFS have to be allowed to continue their work, that was one of them.

[Dagwoodyt]

1 hour ago, Karaya said:

 

What does TrueSky have to do with the implementation of the FW190A in a possible future expansion and why would one take away ressources from the other? The people working on TrueSky are different from those working on aircraft. A coder doesn't do 3D models and a modeller doesn't do coding.

As for maps that the 190 can be used on: the existing Channel map with a few modifications

Thanks for your input as a Team member(?). I am just trying to understand the relationship in this quote from MP's post:

 

" We then put TrueSky development aside to complete TOBRUK.  Otherwise TOBRUK would have been a  9 months later release."

 

Any allusion to a new module, regardless of intent, is problematic as there is so much already on the "plate". I did also mention a long standing issue regarding radio commands. Perhaps you can provide some input as to where radio commands rank on the Team's "to do" list.

Edited December 30, 2020 by Dagwoodyt

[enyak]

I've only recently begun playing Blitz in earnest but I love the game so far. Bought Tobruk too to support the project.

 

Unfortunately as much as I tried I get a serious jolt of neck pain of playing via TrackIR in Blitz after 30 minutes. I just can't do it and it feels like I am just hurting myself. I don't have these problems in VR so I think my problem is trying to hold an unnatural head position for too long and straining my neck. I guess some people have better neck health but I am close to giving up as much as it pains me to forego this fantastic sim for now.

[Dagwoodyt]

9 minutes ago, enyak said:

I've only recently begun playing Blitz in earnest but I love the game so far. Bought Tobruk too to support the project.

 

Unfortunately as much as I tried I get a serious jolt of neck pain of playing via TrackIR in Blitz after 30 minutes. I just can't do it and it feels like I am just hurting myself. I don't have these problems in VR so I think my problem is trying to hold an unnatural head position for too long and straining my neck. I guess some people have better neck health but I am close to giving up as much as it pains me to forego this fantastic sim for now.

My issue with TIR is that, even when the mission is running without hiccup, TIR can suddenly start glitching so that my view changes from straight ahead to looking at my headrest. It just totally destroys immersion because I never know when the glitching might start or end.

[FTC_Karaya]

27 minutes ago, Dagwoodyt said:

Thanks for your input as a Team member(?). I am just trying to understand the relationship in this quote from MP's post:

 

" We then put TrueSky development aside to complete TOBRUK.  Otherwise TOBRUK would have been a  9 months later release."

 

Any allusion to a new module, regardless of intent, is problematic as there is so much already on the "plate". I did also mention a long standing issue regarding radio commands. Perhaps you can provide some input as to where radio commands rank on the Team's "to do" list.

 

I am not a team member, never really was. I just help with research and translations whenever I can.

  

1 hour ago, Mysticpuma said:

 

The mention of the 190A was not the point of the quote, the end of the text was the point. Currently there have been quite a selection of posts mentioning that TFS have to be allowed to continue their work, that was one of them.

 

I was replying to Dagwoods post. 1C will of course have to give the green light because TFS remain under contract with them. Should 1C decide to pull the plug then that'll put an end to any further development, VR and TrueSky included.

 

4 minutes ago, Dagwoodyt said:

My issue with TIR is that, even when the mission is running without hiccup, TIR can suddenly start glitching so that my view changes from straight ahead to looking at my headrest. It just totally destroys immersion because I never know when the glitching might start or end.

 

That sounds like an issue with your camera setup (camera not seeing the clip) or an issue with interfering light sources. From personal experience LED clips are far better for tracking than the reflector clip that comes with TIR.

Edited December 30, 2020 by Karaya

[Dagwoodyt]

Each  mod to or alternative for TIR seems to come with its' own caveats. I can find numerous creative ways to drop my earphones to the floor. That might affect the life expectancy of an LED clip.

[9./JG52_J-HAT]

3 hours ago, enyak said:

I've only recently begun playing Blitz in earnest but I love the game so far. Bought Tobruk too to support the project.

 

Unfortunately as much as I tried I get a serious jolt of neck pain of playing via TrackIR in Blitz after 30 minutes. I just can't do it and it feels like I am just hurting myself. I don't have these problems in VR so I think my problem is trying to hold an unnatural head position for too long and straining my neck. I guess some people have better neck health but I am close to giving up as much as it pains me to forego this fantastic sim for now.

It sounds like something I had when I first started using TIR. It was too sensitive so I would just hold my head at the same position and not move it because everything would make my view also move on screen.

 

Have you tried increasing the deadzone at the beginning of the movement?
What I did was put the closest points around the center line in the TIR program profile for every axis very low (closer to the horizontal line at the bottom). Like 5 and the rest at something like 30. So my profile looks like a —v— for all axis, with some being way less sensitive (like x and z, for example) than others.

A small rotation right or left will make my view go almost 150 degrees but breathing or just adjusting my head won‘t make it jump around.

And I also have the reset command at hand (joystick button) and use it all the time when needed. Whenever I feel like my head needs to stay in an unnatural position in order for my view to be centered on screen I just reset the TIR view while holding my head in the most comfortable, relaxed and natural position. 

 

[343KKT_Kintaro]

I am surprised at the amount of speculation that this VR thing generates in the Dover series community. We should stop talking about it and wait for TFS to bring it to us whenever TFS brings it. Personally, if I have to wait one or two more years... I'll wait.

[Dagwoodyt]

I recall this line from a Bill Withers' song:

 

"Tomorrow depends too much on today and yesterday..."

 

For TFS "tomorrow" may depend to a substantial degree on game design decisions made long before TF/TFS came into existence. I have stopped asking myself why the game UI has not been overhauled to function as a work-alike with Il-2 GB and why there is no career system. Don't compare the current Blitz situation with the start of the BoX series. While BoX may have had unlocks at the start it came from the same game engine as RoF which I believe did include a career system. Why not just accept that such updates to Blitz are just too heavy a lift for ANY team? Look at what has happened with MSFS2020. Early on the FS2020 PR team was responding with surprise when asked about VR implementation. I am a bit skeptical that there was any real surprise at receiving such inquires. It seems like there has been a relatively rapid implementation of VR for MSFS2020. Why make that investment since the big draw of FS2020 seems to be the detailed scenery possible with high res 2D monitors? I suspect that the reasons for rapid VR implementation in FS2020 are simply that the game engine had been designed with VR in mind, the development resources were available if called upon and that lack of a VR implementation was simply too big a drag on the MSFS "brand". MS simply didn't need to take the "hit" every time anyone on the forums broached "the VR subject". It may be simply that MS could not tolerate the prospect of having the question of VR implementation raised endlessly. The only way out was available to MS and they took it.

Edited January 2, 2021 by Dagwoodyt

[Fox3Japo32]

I would like to put my vision on this. 

I am developer for xplane. Has been inside Laminar Research and now I sell planes for the sim. 

One day after I was out of Laminar, they said that they were doing to implement VR. No work was done before, and they did it quick. Then I just tried my planes and they worked perfectly inside. Why? because I usually do every pointer and gauges in 3D. 

 

And now here is comes IL2 CoD. How many gauges are 2D draw in a 3D geometry panel? How many screws are draw in the texture? How many 3D fake 2D textures around each plane? Those things do look bad in VR and not in 2D monitors. 

What I believe is that easily they can implement the VR in IL2 CoD blitz edition, BUT they will have these issues, plus all the menus options and 2D xp style "floating" windows. They would need to make new geometries for cockpits, new menus and new commands to manage the planes with the VR hand controllers.

 

That is huge. What I recomend them is to just make the minimun VR change. We will have the horendous menus, but we do have also awfull menus in Rfactor2 and we enjoy the VR.

Then, if everything is right, little by little change things. But remember I preffer more time spent in gameplay than technology.

 

"I have spoken"

 

Edited January 2, 2021 by Japo32

[Buzzsaw]

5 hours ago, Japo32 said:

I would like to put my vision on this. 

I am developer for xplane. Has been inside Laminar Research and now I sell planes for the sim. 

One day after I was out of Laminar, they said that they were doing to implement VR. No work was done before, and they did it quick. Then I just tried my planes and they worked perfectly inside. Why? because I usually do every pointer and gauges in 3D. 

 

And now here is comes IL2 CoD. How many gauges are 2D draw in a 3D geometry panel? How many screws are draw in the texture? How many 3D fake 2D textures around each plane? Those things do look bad in VR and not in 2D monitors. 

What I believe is that easily they can implement the VR in IL2 CoD blitz edition, BUT they will have these issues, plus all the menus options and 2D xp style "floating" windows. They would need to make new geometries for cockpits, new menus and new commands to manage the planes with the VR hand controllers.

 

That is huge. What I recomend them is to just make the minimun VR change. We will have the horendous menus, but we do have also awfull menus in Rfactor2 and we enjoy the VR.

Then, if everything is right, little by little change things. But remember I preffer more time spent in gameplay than technology.

 

"I have spoken"

 

All new aircraft gauges have been done in 3D.

 

Some of the older aircraft from the original game had a few gauges done in 2D... these need to be corrected.  (Spitfire and Hurricane)

 

But this is actually the smallest part of the work required.

 

Writing the code changes to properly implement VR is the largest part of the work and requires a great deal of skill and time.

[Buzzsaw]

In the meantime, as has been posted on these forums, there is a work-around to allow VR with the use of the VorpX software.

 

This is unofficial and not supported by TF as yet, but Kraut1, the tester, does report success in using his equipment.

 

As mentioned, there are early aircraft which have some 2D gauges in the cockpit.

 

We cannot guarantee the user's experience will be comparable with an official fully implemented VR system.

 

Please see Kraut1's post here:

 

 

[kraut1]

On 1/3/2021 at 11:46 PM, Buzzsaw said:

In the meantime, as has been posted on these forums, there is a work-around to allow VR with the use of the VorpX software.

 

This is unofficial and not supported by TF as yet, but Kraut1, the tester, does report success in using his equipment.

 

As mentioned, there are early aircraft which have some 2D gauges in the cockpit.

 

We cannot guarantee the user's experience will be comparable with an official fully implemented VR system.

 

Please see Kraut1's post here:

 

 

New simplified settings released, tracking only with VorpX, smoother, better head movement / visibility backwards.

Best regards

Edited January 8, 2021 by kraut1

[YoYo]

Thank you for those answers.  It's a pity that it takes longer but I can wait, it's not on fire. Fingers crossed for this project and VR support :). 

Maybe we can all contribute to VR for @Buzzsaw and @Mysticpuma and if they will try VR we will recive VR mode very quickly .

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

23 hours ago, kraut1 said:

New simplified settings released, tracking only with VorpX, smoother, better head movement / visibility backwards.

Best regards

Could you post a video of this? I am considering buying VorpX, but $40 is a lot to waste if it isn't good.

[kraut1]

1 hour ago, Drewm3i said:

Could you post a video of this? I am considering buying VorpX, but $40 is a lot to waste if it isn't good.

Hi,

with the Video I have some problems, Fraps does not work together with Oculus / VorpX.

I will try to find a solution. But not this weekend.

 

In the meantime some pro / contra reason to try out VorpX

negativ:

-costs 40$

-maybe does not work on your system

-maybe you have to spend many hours for testing

-the VR Graphic quality is inferior to the Great Battles Sims that you already have (no stereoscopic vision)

-if you are used to play modern VR games you will be disappointed of the graphic quality,

positiv:

-if you already like CLOD Blitz/Tobruk because it is a great simulation you can fly now with your Rift-S Headset and you see everything from the cockpit (for me very importent)

-the cockpit elements, the gauges, the gun sight are in 3D (but no stereoscopic vision), you can see  that when you move your head sidewards close to them

-from my point of view the head tracking works good

-It is better than Great Battles in battles with many planes and the number of planes has no negativ impact on distant spotting

-very fast starting / loading of game

-if you are already using the older IL2 1946 you can use VorpX for that game too (with stereoscopic vision!, but less detailed cockpits)

 

Alternative:

If you just want to fly in VR in the Battle of Britain / Mediterrean region you can try War Thunder, it for free, many nice historical planes and from my point of view good VR graphics.

 

I will report when I find a solution for the video

Best Regards

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

14 hours ago, kraut1 said:

Hi,

with the Video I have some problems, Fraps does not work together with Oculus / VorpX.

I will try to find a solution. But not this weekend.

 

In the meantime some pro / contra reason to try out VorpX

negativ:

-costs 40$

-maybe does not work on your system

-maybe you have to spend many hours for testing

-the VR Graphic quality is inferior to the Great Battles Sims that you already have (no stereoscopic vision)

-if you are used to play modern VR games you will be disappointed of the graphic quality,

positiv:

-if you already like CLOD Blitz/Tobruk because it is a great simulation you can fly now with your Rift-S Headset and you see everything from the cockpit (for me very importent)

-the cockpit elements, the gauges, the gun sight are in 3D (but no stereoscopic vision), you can see  that when you move your head sidewards close to them

-from my point of view the head tracking works good

-It is better than Great Battles in battles with many planes and the number of planes has no negativ impact on distant spotting

-very fast starting / loading of game

-if you are already using the older IL2 1946 you can use VorpX for that game too (with stereoscopic vision!, but less detailed cockpits)

 

Alternative:

If you just want to fly in VR in the Battle of Britain / Mediterrean region you can try War Thunder, it for free, many nice historical planes and from my point of view good VR graphics.

 

I will report when I find a solution for the video

Best Regards

Thanks for the info. Are the menus useable? That would be a deal breaker is the mouse is invisible. I'm thinking of giving it a try. I do have 1946 in BAT also, but Great Battles is just so much more immersive. I really like CLoD and tobruk--maybe even over great battles--but I may just wait for native vr. Decisions, decisions.

 

Edit: I bought it lol...gotta give it a try.

Edited January 10, 2021 by Drewm3i

[Buzzsaw]

On 1/8/2021 at 2:03 PM, YoYo said:

Thank you for those answers.  It's a pity that it takes longer but I can wait, it's not on fire. Fingers crossed for this project and VR support :). 

Maybe we can all contribute to VR for @Buzzsaw and @Mysticpuma and if they will try VR we will recive VR mode very quickly .

We have members with VR equipment.

 

I will not be writing the code for the implemention so I don't need a headset.

 

Mysticpuma is not a member of TF.

 

We will be asking for Beta testers for our implementation at some point and will post here asking for volunteers when that happens.

[Dagwoodyt]

Per the August 14 development schedule it seems VR implementation is contingent on sales success. Does that contingency status still apply?

[354thFG_Leifr]

I wonder if the average fifty players per month would suddenly double once all of those mystical VR-players come out of the woodwork.

[Dagwoodyt]

34 minutes ago, Leifr said:

I wonder if the average fifty players per month would suddenly double once all of those mystical VR-players come out of the woodwork.

Once a feature effectively becomes "standard", your "brand" is affected negatively if you are unable to provide it. That affects decisions made as to how you price the product. If the strategy is to increase sales and Steam activity by adding more aircraft variants and vehicles without first addressing longstanding playability issues I think we are seeing the fruits of that strategy. Anyway, the current Steam stats may be considered a "success" story for all I know.

[kraut1]

17 hours ago, Drewm3i said:

Thanks for the info. Are the menus useable? That would be a deal breaker is the mouse is invisible. I'm thinking of giving it a try. I do have 1946 in BAT also, but Great Battles is just so much more immersive. I really like CLoD and tobruk--maybe even over great battles--but I may just wait for native vr. Decisions, decisions.

 

Edit: I bought it lol...gotta give it a try.

Hi, as I said:

the mouse is visible when you start CLOD, when starting CLOD you use only your Monitor, you select with mouse your mission, confirm one or two times and when the mission begins (when you hear the engine sound) it's time to put on your vr headset. after you have finished your mission you press escape and you pull off your vr headset. Now the mouse pointer is invisible but you can still see whem it`s over a menu button because the colour of the menu button changes.

Best regards

 

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

I'm encouraged by all the attention this thread is getting...

 

I tried vorpx and while CLOD worked pretty well for me, I'd rather just play GB for now. If anyone ones my code, PM me.

[Dagwoodyt]

9 minutes ago, Drewm3i said:

I'm encouraged by all the attention this thread is getting...

 

I tried vorpx and while CLOD worked pretty well for me, I'd rather just play GB for now. If anyone ones my code, PM me.

I think it might be helpful if you could tell us more about your Vorpx experience. Buying it nearly doubles the cost of DW-T so any details you might add could help others avoid wasting money on something that might be more trouble than its' worth.

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

3 hours ago, Dagwoodyt said:

I think it might be helpful if you could tell us more about your Vorpx experience. Buying it nearly doubles the cost of DW-T so any details you might add could help others avoid wasting money on something that might be more trouble than its' worth.

Well, it definitely isnt real 3d so it doesnt feel like you are "there." The head tracking worked pretty good, but it definitely shudders and distorts a bit when turning my head which makes me a little queasy. With settings adjusted, it may vary. The menu is also bad before the disappearing cursor...with that, it just ruins the experience for me when I can boot up great battles and have no fuss. The image is pretty clear and the aliasing isnt too bad. Dogfighting was reasonably smooth and the CLOD AI is much harder than GB.

Edited January 11, 2021 by Drewm3i

[Dagwoodyt]

32 minutes ago, Drewm3i said:

Well, it definitely isnt real 3d so it doesnt feel like you are "there." The head tracking worked pretty good, but it definitely shudders and distorts a bit when turning my head which makes me a little queasy. With settings adjusted, it may vary. The menu is also bad before the disappearing cursor...with that, it just ruins the experience for me when I can boot up great battles and have no fuss. The image is pretty clear and the aliasing isnt too bad. Dogfighting was reasonably smooth and the CLOD AI is much harder than GB.

TY!

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

15 minutes ago, Dagwoodyt said:

TY!

It's not bad at all...in fact it worked better than 1946 and I havent it fooled with it much, it's just Great Battles is so much better with native vr.

[kraut1]

6 hours ago, Drewm3i said:

It's not bad at all...in fact it worked better than 1946 and I havent it fooled with it much, it's just Great Battles is so much better with native vr.

Hi,

I am glad that clod works with vorpx on your system and that the graphic quality seems to be acceptable.

The stuttering when turning your head is a new issue for me, which resolution are you using?

Have you selected  "full screen" or "pseudo" ( pseudo is a new mode for me, higher res. possible but maybe with stuttering/ tested 1st time yesterday)

and check if mouse=1 in conf.ini

If mouse settings are =2 vorpx head tracking runs in a wrong mode and recentering is not possible or chaotic. When flying switch "INDEPENDEND MODE" (default key F10) so that the mouse pointer is active.

 

The menu with the diasappearing mouse is common for me, but it should be possible to select a mission, fly and quit it.

Is that possible for you or do you need support?

 

For IL2 1946 I use for head tracking addionally Opentrack because I have problems with the recentering. There are helpful posts by UeberDemon on SAS/BAT/BAT Lounge

Best Regards

 

 

 

 

[Dagwoodyt]

I am thankful that someone stepped up to give the app a try and reported back. Maybe there's someone with an Index or G2 :-)

[Enceladus828]

Can we please let this whole VR thing go, or at least tone it down?

TFS has heard your voices and has heard people say " not buying Tobruk until VR is added". They do not have 'short-term memory loss'. They are well aware, or perhaps beyond well aware for the desire of VR. If they were able to add VR when Desert Wings-Tobruk was released, then they would have added it. Also, if they thought that adding VR before adding the new weather engine and 4K tessellation to the game was better, then they would have gone that route.

 

How many people here put on a VR headset almost every single time that they play DCS, or IL-2 Great Battles, etc.?

 

Cheers.

[DD_Arthur]

1 hour ago, Enceladus said:

How many people here put on a VR headset almost every single time that they play DCS, or IL-2 Great Battles, etc.?

 

Er...well I do.  Are you asking everyone who uses VR to post that fact here?

[Dagwoodyt]

1 hour ago, Enceladus said:

Can we please let this whole VR thing go, or at least tone it down?

TFS has heard your voices and has heard people say " not buying Tobruk until VR is added". They do not have 'short-term memory loss'. They are well aware, or perhaps beyond well aware for the desire of VR. If they were able to add VR when Desert Wings-Tobruk was released, then they would have added it. Also, if they thought that adding VR before adding the new weather engine and 4K tessellation to the game was better, then they would have gone that route.

 

How many people here put on a VR headset almost every single time that they play DCS, or IL-2 Great Battles, etc.?

 

Cheers.

You could start a new thread with title equivalent to: Please Desist from References to "VR". That entreaty might prove counterproductive though ?

[=420=Syphen]

3 hours ago, Enceladus said:

How many people here put on a VR headset almost every single time that they play DCS, or IL-2 Great Battles, etc.?

 

 

I do..    EVERY time.