VR matters...

[5urvivalis7]

 

Without knowing the numbers/stats, I would stay that VR is here to stay, and it is the future of simulations, flight or otherwise. If I were to assume that immersion / realism / accuracy is one of the key objectives of simulators, then VR experiences should be highly prioritized, especially given that the VR & graphics market is heating up. While IL2's VR experience is one of the best, I do feel like it was a checkmark that was ticked off a while ago and not really been refined ever since - it works & it is good enough, but it isn't great.

 

If I was a PM or someone that had some input into the roadmap for improvements, I would prioritize improving the VR experience and just to get started here are some low hanging fruits that I would address right off the bat:

 

• Allow entering VR at will (like MSFS's alt-Enter). Navigating through menus is not very immersive and it is better suited in 2D. Also if you have the VR goggles on, you miss those great artwork that shows when the game is loading!
• Settings for VR
  • Auto setup option - VR players spend countless hours in fine tuning their headset. Fix this at the game level as much as possible to help out
  • Allow FOV reduction for performance increase - many players feel that higher FPS is key to immersion and are willing to sacrifice FOV for this (you don't need an Nvidia 4090 get 60 fps!)
• VR only multiplayer servers - there are some clear disadvantages when playing VR, e.g. checking six in VR vs TrackIR. Plus knowing that other players are also "in their cockpits" would increase the immersion
• F10 button issue
  • Allow easy head position reset / adjustment (not just in VR)
  • Allow custom head position, according to each persons seating height

 

What do other VR simmers think? I also would like to hear some of your biggest paint points / wishlists.

[MoleUK]

My biggest wish is to see some of the head movement restrictions eased off. They're inconsistent from plane to plane, as many don't allow you to get your head anywhere near the stick or the instruments.

 

Being able to get a few inches closer to the glass would be a big deal.

[76SQN-Minimayhemtemp]

Yes yes oh my god yes.

 

I picked up VR two years ago.  My first VR experience was IL2.  I've tried playing other games, including flight sims, that are non-vr.  But VR is the only type of game I play now; everything else is inferior.

 

I like everything suggested here.  I would also add that it would be great to see the output from one eye on the screen, rather than two.  It's very hard to co-pilot with someone when they are using VR and you are not when two images are shown.

[TheWarsimmer]

I'm pretty satisfied with vr implementation. Mole's idea to ease the restrictions on head position would be nice. The ability to have a knee board and write on it would be cool too. I 100% believe that the next step for VR Sims are clickable cockpits with your fingers, but that's only when they develop reasonably priced and effective haptic feedback. Of course you should never bring this up on the forum because it makes people highly upset?

5 minutes ago, 76SQN-Minimayhemtemp said:

Yes yes oh my god yes.

 

I picked up VR two years ago.  My first VR experience was IL2.  I've tried playing other games, including flight sims, that are non-vr.  But VR is the only type of game I play now; everything else is inferior.

 

I like everything suggested here.  I would also add that it would be great to see the output from one eye on the screen, rather than two.  It's very hard to co-pilot with someone when they are using VR and you are not when two images are shown.

You can render to one eye. It's in startup.cfg. Something like vr_rendereye or similar. A value of 1 for one eye, 2 for the other.

[HansBlitz]

About the "Settings for VR" --- That auto setup option is one of those things that sounds nice, but in reality would be a nightmare for the Devs. Too many different headsets, CPUs, and GPUs for that to be practical from a coding stand point.

 

I also do astrophotography and most of the astro stuff comforms to the Ascom standard, with is a standard where the equipment has an Ascom driver (hardware maker usually makes that), and the equipment and software use that as a translator between them. That is so the software devs only program for basically talking back and forth to that Ascom driver (and the info/methods expected from the Ascom standard) and that driver handles the hardware specific info/methods to that hardware. That way the Devs don't have to program or every different piece of hardware out there, then update their software every time someone creates a new piece of hardware. I don't see such a standard happening for VR, so that idea likely will remain impractical and not happen.

 

I've flown VR since 2016 and don't find it the disadvantage some say it is for them. I miss ID less than i used to (happens much more rarely now). It was something I just had to get used to and I didn't find that took too long. Haven't flown as much in a while now due to my schedule but the guys I flew with had me lead as I often spotted contact before them.

 

I do mean this part in a friendly way and do feel it needs said (many people don't code so aren't familiar with what some things ask for would take) -- remember every idea like these takes development time and each thing would take away dev time from bug fixes (others are asking for those sorts of things) and any new content. Many things sound nice to have but what price would those come at (dev time)? I do different sort of software than this but do cringe at some of the things ask for when I think of what that would take to add, considering the small dev team they have.

 

 

Edited October 27, 2022 by HansBlitz

[firdimigdi]

I'd probably add: separate settings for VR and screen - as seen in MSFS (and others) would be nice. Not a huge priority as you can mimic it by keeping multiple startup.cfg files but nice to have if combined with the enter/exit VR at will feature above.

 

FOV reduction isn't going to give you much in terms of performance, you can already try this in SteamVR or the OpenXR Toolkit if you're using OpenComposite.

 

From my limited experience in MP: I don't particularly care about VR-only MP servers but I can see how some might. Not sure if there's a big enough playerbase to accommodate for further division; plus servers are player-hosted, so that limits it even more. What I wouldn't mind though is more servers with no technochat/HUD (a la TAW which I thought was great when I had tried it briefly).

 

31 minutes ago, HansBlitz said:

I don't see such a standard happening for VR, so that idea likely will remain impractical and not happen.

 

OpenXR aims to fix this, it's slowly picking up speed in that direction. MSFS uses it as we know and in the combat flight genre War Thunder does as well, there are a few VR-only games that have shipped which are OpenXR titles, and both Unreal and Unity game engines support it. It's really a no-brainer for any new game as it completely does away with having to accommodate all the different HMD platforms.

[Jade_Monkey]

I dont share the pain points that Survivalist posted, I think there are more important ones for myself:

 

• Better (more vibrant) reticles in VR. Right now they are hard to see.
• Sky glare is really bright. THis is not VR exclusive but it's most painful in VR.
• The need to launch SteamVR First and then the game instead of just launching the game and have it take care of the process. You get used to it but it's nonsense.

[76SQN-Minimayhemtemp]

1 minute ago, Jade_Monkey said:

I dont share the pain points that Survivalist posted, I think there are more important ones for myself:

 

• Better (more vibrant) reticles in VR. Right now they are hard to see.
• Sky glare is really bright. THis is not VR exclusive but it's most painful in VR.
• The need to launch SteamVR First and then the game instead of just launching the game and have it take care of the process. You get used to it but it's nonsense.

 

If you switch to OpenComposite you dont need to do the last point.  My game starts up seamlessly in VR every time.

[dburne]

7 minutes ago, 76SQN-Minimayhemtemp said:

 

If you switch to OpenComposite you dont need to do the last point.  My game starts up seamlessly in VR every time.

 

You can force Steam VR to launch if desired with the game shortcut by adding the following to the end of the shortcut properties:

--force_steam_VR

Note there is a space before the two dashes.

So for IL-2 my shortcut properties look like this:
"D:\1C Game Studios\IL-2 Sturmovik Great Battles\bin\game\Il-2.exe" --force_steam_VR

Edited October 27, 2022 by dburne

[HansBlitz]

24 minutes ago, firdimigdi said:

OpenXR aims to fix this

I've not used that yet. Am still flying with my old CV1 Rift. Wanting to upgrade but haven't yet.

 

Hopefully that will help. A good standard and all the manufacturers using such would be a big plus. Ascom was such a big improvement on the astro equipment.

[Voyager]

I think most of these are going to solve themselves over the next couple of hardware generations. 

 

For spotting, I think we're finally at the hardware level where the spotting differences are more to do with how the sim handles resolutions. That's a much more universal and complex issue than VR. 

 

However, I do think it would be best to implement some form of VR Necksafer in sim. I don't think it needs to be huge, just a couple of buttons that add 90 degrees to the left or right rotation of the viewpoint. As we get wider FoV headsets it will become less important, but we've already got a long history of the pilot view being only loosely constrained. Plus, I'd think it's better and more controlled to just build it in than leave it to all the weird kludge jobs we're doing right now. 

 

On standards, that's more of a VR industry question rather than an Il-2 dev question. While I think the Il-2 dev team would do well to make sure they are represented in any VR standards development body, eventually the industry will settle on one or two basic standards. That hasn't happened yet, and it isn't really in their scope to make it happen. 

[56RAF_Roblex]

3 hours ago, Voyager said:

However, I do think it would be best to implement some form of VR Necksafer in sim. I don't think it needs to be huge, just a couple of buttons that add 90 degrees to the left or right rotation of the viewpoint.

 

I would not want something so basic.  I use Necksaver but all I do with it is tell it that when I turn my head past 110 degrees (which would normally allow me to see to about 150) I want another 30 degrees added.  That way I don't get any 'jumps' during normal use but if make the effort to twist a little further to see my tail then it will help me.    Suddenly jumping 90 degrees would be very disorientating for me.

[[CPT]Crunch]

9 hours ago, 76SQN-Minimayhemtemp said:

I would also add that it would be great to see the output from one eye on the screen, rather than two.  It's very hard to co-pilot with someone when they are using VR and you are not when two images are shown.

Well than, some great news for you, it's already been done.  In your startup.cfg file set the (or_render_eye = 1) in the graphics section and you'll get only the right eye view.  Think 2 is the left eye and 0 both.

[Comrade_Weng]

I would be especially keen for a kneeboard or map that I could scribble headings on. I've not quite got around to setting up open kneeboard up yet.

[Thorne]

Quite a few of the suggestions by OP would not be practical - an integrated necksafer would be great