Head Tracker vs VR - do you get better peripheral vision with VR?

[Ken5421]

Head Tracker vs VR - do you get better peripheral vision with VR?

[Patricks]

I would say (assuming  no head movement) no, VR has a more limited FOV in the vertical and horizontal, and this would be especially pronounced using ultrawide or triple screens.

Edited October 14, 2023 by Patricks

[dburne]

The thing with VR is it puts you in the plane. FOV is dependent on headset. However one just looks around with their head naturally like you normally would, to see .

The two really can not be compared.

Edited October 14, 2023 by dburne

[Patricks]

58 minutes ago, dburne said:

The thing with VR is it puts you in the plane. FOV is dependent on headset. However one just looks around with their head naturally like you normally would, to see .

The two really can not be compared.

 

Don - I fully agree that VR is better, but as he asked specifically about peripheral vision and I assumed "far" peripheral vision as that is what most people think of. Sitting at my triple 32" setup (7680x1440) my peripheral vision actually extends beyond my monitors by about 20-30 degrees on each side, close to 160 degrees. The Aero has a listed FOV of 135 degrees, and that spec may be a bit optimistic.. 

 

Edited October 14, 2023 by Patricks

[slikslik]

I have TracKir 5 and the Pimax 8kx.  I say VR is way better, IF you have the HMD with a super wide FOV.  That would be the Pimax 8kx..  Up to 200 degree FOV.  

[Patricks]

1 hour ago, slikslik said:

I have TracKir 5 and the Pimax 8kx.  I say VR is way better, IF you have the HMD with a super wide FOV.  That would be the Pimax 8kx..  Up to 200 degree FOV.  

Not sure, but I think 200 degrees of FOV means you can see behind you, but I would not doubt Pimax would claim that! ?

[slikslik]

The 8kx does do the FOV at 200.  The FOV can be set to "normal" which is about 170 degrees.  Personally, I don't see ANY difference between 170 and 200 so I set it to the normal mode.  I can tell you one thing though, the FOV, when sitting in the cockpit is as real as real can get when it comes to what you see when looking up,down left or right etc..  Not too different than if you were sitting in a real WW 2 fighter aircraft like the Spitfire and Hurricane.  I know because I sat in the cockpit of both those fighters at an air show in Th Bay Ontario.  For flight and race sims, a FOV of at least 170 degrees is optimal and has NO binocular effect.  This, of course, is my opinion only.  Thanks for the response...take care...Eddie.

[Ken5421]

thanks for the feedback. Yeah I'm using Head Tracker but field of vision feels narrow.  

[Patricks]

8 hours ago, Ken5421 said:

thanks for the feedback. Yeah I'm using Head Tracker but field of vision feels narrow.  

 

I'm so used to using triples I sometimes forget most are on single screens. Is that the case, and what size and resolution? If a standard screen (ie 2560x1440) your FOV may certainly be better in (some) VR headsets. 

Edited October 19, 2023 by Patricks

[Barn-Owl]

Maybe set your default FOV to 105 degrees (within the game) as your default FOV, with a couple of buttons available for zooming in/out to your preferred level of zoom.  Personally, I like VR far better because of the easier gunnery and because of being in the cockpit.  It just feels much more natural.  As for the commentary about the Pimax 8kx, is the FOV really that wide?!  Because if that is real, then I should jump at it.  My Reverb G2 view is diffinitely limited, but the picture resolution is to my liking.  For those who use the Pimax 8kx, what sort of resolution are you getting--is at acceptable?  I am coming from the Reverb G2, so is the Pimax 8kx close to that resolution and does it run well in IL-2 and DCS?  Note: I have top of the line processor, graphics card (4090) and plenty of RAM.  The feedback is appreciated, thanks.

[slikslik]

Yes.  The FOV really is that wide.  When you're in a cockpit in IL 2 at "normal" FOV, it's the same FOV you would have sitting in a real WW 2 fighter. 

[kestrel79]

So compared to TrackIR at least for me no, I get less FOV in VR compared to using TrackIR with the FOV all the way back.

 

I think when flying online most people you watch on Youtube use TrackIR and have the FOV jacked way back so they can see contacts easier all over, but I find this highly unrealistic to me and don't like that FOV. VR feels right, natural, real. Your FOV makes it so you are sitting in the cockpit like you are really there, not zoomed all the way back.

 

So online you might be a little less competitive, but the realism it offers makes it the best imo.

[Ken5421]

On 10/19/2023 at 4:39 AM, Patricks said:

 

I'm so used to using triples I sometimes forget most are on single screens. Is that the case, and what size and resolution? If a standard screen (ie 2560x1440) your FOV may certainly be better in (some) VR headsets. 

 

I'm in 1920 x 1080. So would multiple screens give me a wider POV?

 

I guess bottom line is what is the most realistic set up? I'm not looking for any advantage 

[Patricks]

5 hours ago, Ken5421 said:

 

I'm in 1920 x 1080. So would multiple screens give me a wider POV?

 

I guess bottom line is what is the most realistic set up? I'm not looking for any advantage 

 

Realism = VR, no way around it.

In 2D it's not the monitor resolution per se, it's the game FOV setting (This is "adjustable" in 2D by zooming in/out and saving the view with F10). The standard 16/9 screen (1.777777777777778 aspect ratio) just displays more pixels (i.e vs. one of my 2560x1440 monitors) on a higher resolution panel than your 1920x1080. I would have to add, especially since you are running this monitor, you will need a high HP system to enjoy VR. My minimum would be 3080 on a 12th gen Intel with 32GB, others MMV.. A lower end system may be better off with a widescreen monitor (I have triples but that adds a lot of extra costs and you WILL get stretching on the outer monitors) like the Samsung G9 (49") or G5 (34") and a TIR5..

Edited November 1, 2023 by Patricks

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

6 hours ago, Ken5421 said:

 

I'm in 1920 x 1080. So would multiple screens give me a wider POV?

 

I guess bottom line is what is the most realistic set up? I'm not looking for any advantage 

Ultra wide monitors give wider view ,choose 21:9 or 32:10 monitor and enjoy bigger peripheral view  compared to standard 16:9 or VR . Bigger is  better so 34 inches minimum.

Compered to VR everything is crispy clear and you don't need to worry about FPS and neck pain. I had Samsung Odyssey+ , Reverb G2 and now Quest 3 and always choose my 21:9  monitor and TrackIR to play this game for competitive multiplayer gameplay. 

 

 

Edited November 1, 2023 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[Barn-Owl]

On 2D screen, my curved gaming AOC 34 inch monitor gives me great resolution with an FOV of 120 degrees.  My Reverb G2 gives me a horizonal FOV of about 94 degrees.  The Graphics are obviously not as good as 2D monitor, but they are acceptable.  That said, the immersion and the gunnery is one thousand fold greater in VR than in desktop.  The future will only be in VR, as newer headsets achieve desktop fidelity graphics and wider (desk-top level) FOV.  I do not see this as being in the very distant future, since manufacturers are approaching this soon.

Edited November 1, 2023 by Friction

[Lusekofte]

I got a 47” curved screen on my island house and use G2 on city house. I probably more used to VR so chopperflying in DCS is much better with vr. But I will buy smaller touch screens and tobii eyetracker for my other setup. I do like not having the moist bucket strapped to my face

[Barn-Owl]

lol, buy a fan you greasy bastage

[Patricks]

11 hours ago, Friction said:

lol, buy a fan you greasy bastage

Or a Varjo Aero, has one built in.. I have both! ?

[DD_Arthur]

On 11/1/2023 at 4:58 AM, Ken5421 said:

I guess bottom line is what is the most realistic set up? I'm not looking for any advantage 

VR….no contest.

I have both TrackIr and VR and what dburne said at the top of this thread is correct; you can’t really compare, they are two different things.

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

Using TIR equivalent aka FreeTrack and works for me. Screen could be bigger, now a 27" but with good 240Hz refresh rate. 32" curved felt optimal for me, both in image quality and pricing. Had one before.

 

VR is nice but to fully enjoy it, and just not "managing", requires way too much monetary investment. You either go all in or nothing, I would not settle with anything less. But that is just me?

[horendus]

The other thing about VR is things are to scale. Scale as in the sim world is 1:1 with you and not some weird scale looking at a screen.

 

One more thing, a 3D world on a 2D screen is not really 3D. Not in the same way as it is with stereoscopic vision like what you get in VR. 
 

Fully agree with Flanker, VR is go hard or go home specs wise. Not for a light wallet.

 

 

Edited November 22, 2023 by horendus

[[CPT]Crunch]

I'll trade a crisp image any day for true depth perception.  Can run a intercept, shoot, put a rocket or bomb on target, fly formation, and judge energy states all better with proper depth perception.