Brief Room Episode 3: Questions and Answers Session

[Youtch]

Checking the new website design (which is quite different with his dark theme but nice in my opinion), VR support seems to be presented as part of the 3 main selling points of IL2 GB, together with the fact that there is over 100 planes.

 

So VR support seems to be something that matters. I hope it also means that they won t close the door on VR improvements.

 

 

[Blitzen]

Reminds me a bit of the originalIl-2 1946:

[von_Tom]

On 1/21/2024 at 12:55 PM, DD_Arthur said:

Yeah. Let’s leave the A3 alone.

 

 

This, especially after the early teething problems caused by chord calculations or whateevr it was.  Kudos to whoever did the proper report on that, and to the devs for putting it right.

 

von Tom

[Dagwoodyt]

47 minutes ago, Youtch said:

Checking the new website design (which is quite different with his dark theme but nice in my opinion), VR support seems to be presented as part of the 3 main selling points of IL2 GB, together with the fact that there is over 100 planes.

 

So VR support seems to be something that matters. I hope it also means that they won t close the door on VR improvements.

 

 

I am experiencing decreased VR performance in the latest BoX version. Takeoff from Manston in I-16 shows framerate in low to mid 70's and gpu frametimes in 13-14 ms range with solid orange gpu graph in fpsVR. Used to have near constant 80fps in similar simple scenarios. In DCS default takeoff I-16 mission I am getting 90fps in cockpit view at takeoff and 70-80's in air using Aero in MT version with DFR. DCS visuals also seem sharper.

[kestrel79]

Wow dig the redesign well done! Looks real slick.

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

22 hours ago, Lusekofte said:

You know there is a sort of fanatical thing going on when it comes to vr. 
I know a lot of simmers going on for twenty years and had 3 or 4 vr goggles and are now building themselves sim pits that in the end will cost them between 7 to 15 k$ 

And they are constantly get peppered by vr users typically simming for a few years and gone into vr latest years asking them why they not go into vr instead. 
Get one thing into your heads , vr is not the saviour of flight sims. Flight sims is just one small reason for using vr. 
I seen too many purchase vr , gpu , psu and ram and new motherboard in order to get new ram. Just to sell it again because doing this every second year had drained their economics into a crisis. It is like you guys are on heroin or into some kind of heavy church stuff.  To me a sim pit is immersion. Right now I own 4 sticks and one yoke. Probably worth 2 k alone. I am still not quite where I want to be on the feel on controls. I know how to be an addict. But I am not religious about it

We get it: you dislike VR. The anti-VR folks are resorting to bizarre arguments these days it would seem. VR is resource-intensive? You can run it on a top spec gaming laptop or mid-range gaming pc these days (aka 4080 and up laptop or 3070 and up desktop)and if you do, you can fly IL-2 at a $50 desk with a basic stick, hotas, and pedals (aka under $500 all-in) and have no need for building a ridiculous sim-pit which is way more difficult, would take way more time, and cost way more! It also isn't portable in the least, whereas a VR headset, laptop, and stick can be taken ANYWHERE!

 

Also, if you're running 3x 4k monitors like they did back in the Stone Age (Il-2 1946 circa 2011ish), you're still going to need a monster gpu to drive all of those pixels and instead of being seated in the plane, you will be looking at a picture of the plane. I get that for some of you, you don't like actually being in the cockpit of the simulated plane you're flying? But for me and many others, we will never fly flatscreen again, period, even if it means giving up sims or sticking with GB forever. Why should the devs not support it more since there are few good VR games and fewer well-made VR flight sims? The potential is definitely out there, especially as headsets become cheaper and more dual-purpose (aka the Quest 3), but the tech needs more development, although a lot of the leg-work has been done. For IL-2, DFR should be added, native OpenXr, and also FSR/DLSS at minimum. Multithreading would also help a ton and these engine improvements would benefit all, not just VR users. Just look at CLoD...in many ways it is a better sim than GB, but it's DEAD because it doesn't have VR and thus, many folks have moved on and will never look back and a prime reason is a lack of VR support. 

Edited January 27, 2024 by drewm3i-VR
Toned it down.

[LukeFF]

Let's watch it, especially with the comments about those who don't use VR for whatever reason. If you like VR, then that's great, but there is more than one way to enjoy playing the game.

[IckyATLAS]

On 1/25/2024 at 2:21 PM, Dagwoodyt said:

Prices of hardware are not going to decline. That is a "pipe dream".

We should mean price/performance. Today for the best VR experience you need top gear which is expensive.

But for the same price in a few years you will have that same performance with an average or standard gear which will be cheaper than the top gear of the moment.

This means that the average consumer may start looking more into it as he will not need to upgrade and use his everyday rig to get an excellent VR experience.

Inevitably this will enlarge the base of VR simmers.

 

[IckyATLAS]

On 1/25/2024 at 5:42 PM, LukeFF said:

I'll also add that a certain former producer used to remark not that long ago that he preferred a high-quality 4K monitor over VR, simply because the picture quality is still superior.

As he said "is still superior". The difference will diminish over time. The reason is that many parameters will start leveling up for screens. This because it does not bring anything very visible anymore. As VR improves, because it has a larger room for improvement, it will catch up as screens have not much to improve. Contrast can be so much as with Oled screens or microLeds your basically infinite. Framerates 144 Hz or so is absolutely enough for everybody. Maybe professional gamers may make use framerates of 240, 300 or more. Resolution at 4K will level up. Sure if 8K comes at same price people may switch to 8K, but on 32" or even 40" frankly it does not bring much.

So the gap between VR visual quality and a monitor will decrease in the coming 5 years. This also means that VR has to improve more on horizontal and vertical field of view,  very low latency and low lag between head motion and image motion, have a proper 4K per eye resolution with a clear, crisp image, 120 or 144Hz is also to be expected.

 

[Lusekofte]

4 hours ago, drewm3i-VR said:

We get it: you dislike VR

Do you read? I use vr in this game and enjoy it. I just don’t Get all hallelujah about it 

[Aapje]

16 minutes ago, IckyATLAS said:

As VR improves, because it has a larger room for improvement, it will catch up as screens have not much to improve.

In theory VR displays can be way better, since flat screens are immensely wasteful, sending light out in all directions, rather than just your retina. I'm most excited about technology in development where they shoot low power lasers into your eyes:

 

https://kguttag.com/2021/07/13/exclusive-eyeway-vision-part-1-foveated-laser-scanning-display/

 

This is far from production-ready, but it would solve many of the issues with the current technology, including power draw, brightness, GPU requirements (due to foveated rendering), varifocal displays, and being able to have VR glasses that look no different from normal glasses. But that is probably at least 20 years out.

 

In the short term, the real big advancement is micro-OLED (not micro-LED!), which is what apple is using in its new headset. Samsung is working on a better version of micro-OLED where instead of having only white micro-OLEDs with color filters on top (which removes a lot of brightness* and lowers quality), they have colored Micro-OLEDs and thus no need for color filters. Apparently this technology is pretty close to mass production.

 

Apple is using the white micro-OLEDs with color filters in the Apple Vision Pro and rumor has it that they intend to use the Samsung displays in the Apple Vision Pro 2, assuming that Samsung delivers.

 

My expectation is that we'll get one or big companies following in the footsteps of Apple (although probably with a decent delay), but with a more open headset with very high qualiity screens that will work for simming. It may be very expensive at first though, especially if they also design it to be a powerful standalone headset like the Apple Vision Pro, which has a laptop-chip inside (basically the same chip as the MacBook Air), plus another chip to drive the AR stuff.

 

* Brightness is a big challenge for VR because the optics required to make it seems like your not looking at a tiny screen up close cause a big loss in brightness, so you have to start with a very bright screen.

[Lusekofte]

20 minutes ago, Dagwoodyt said:

and you want others to calm down and be respectful

Was that disrespectful? I am confused , sorry I did not mean to be disrespectful. 
But the praise and attitude towards other not seeing the light looks to me being a missionary endeavour. 
But this is not a vr topic and I seem not to get my message through the way I want. So I leave it as is. I was not trying to be rude. I am sorry if I was, this is not a fight for me, I just can’t comprehend what you guys on about 

[Dagwoodyt]

4 hours ago, IckyATLAS said:

As he said "is still superior".

I have no idea as to when such statement may have been made or in reference to what headset(s). In any case that is simply one person's perference at a single unspecified point in time.

Edited January 27, 2024 by Dagwoodyt

[Mtnbiker1998]

Been avoiding this thread for the past week or so (and looking back through it, remembering exactly why) However the tidbit about Enigma's survey caught my eye and I watched his video. 46% VR users, eh? Much higher than I expected, especially for a multiplayer centric crowd like his. Always suspected the percent would be higher among simmers, but damn! Really puts into check the "VR is a gimmick" crowd for sure.

 

Only gonna get better with time! 

[JG4_Deciman]

Ok guys...

 

Now I'm outing me:

 

I love to play this game

And I'm not able to buy a new computer including a new GPU and some VR goggles,

because I'm not willing to pay more than 2 month salaries for that.

 

I know that many of my squad mates are playing in VP and are very pleased with what they see and how it feels.

I also know that many of my squad members use additional software (neck saver or so) to reduce some of the VR restrictions in head movement.

 

But I'm also absolutely tired of reading 'we want more VR support or...'

You all bought the game at a state far beyond where it is now!

You can play the game in VR!

And I believe the devs when they said: Our game is looking much nicer in VR than other games!

 

For me it's much more important that the game can be played

and that hardware (like joysticks) is supported for the major functions.

There is a big step in progress (announced in the latest dev blog)

Not all I was hoping for was announced, but a really good start and maybe there will follow more...

 

So I an play the game (even without VR)

Others can play it _with_ VR (and are even satisfied)

Some want more...

 

And even if the 'VR fraction' will shoot me now and here...

Maybe the Devs should consider an update you can buy...

More VR support...

 

Anyone who has no VR will not need

Anyone who is satisfied with the VR support right now don't has to buy

And anyone who wants more (because he was able to buy the hardware) can buy!

 

And in fact there are much more 'global' things to be touched:

Net code (maybe they can optimize it)

D-Server (maybe it can use multiple cores)

...

And all of these would benefit _all_ players, no matter if they use VR or not.

 

And about the 'VR players only online servers' (even if is was written differently)

because you feel 'disabled' compared to 'normal' players)?

seriously?

 

Kill me, shoot at me, dislike me, I don't care.

But I do write what I think.

And you cannot forbid me to do that!

 

Deci

[DD_Arthur]

31 minutes ago, Mtnbiker1998 said:

However the tidbit about Enigma's survey caught my eye and I watched his video. 46% VR users, eh? Much higher than I expected, especially for a multiplayer centric crowd like his. Always suspected the percent would be higher among simmers, but damn! Really puts into check the "VR is a gimmick" crowd for sure.

No, VR is certainly not a gimmick and comparisons between flat screens and VR as we’ve been having here I always find ludicrous.

There is no comparison; they are two totally different ways of playing this game.

With that said, I’d be very cautious about drawing any conclusions from surveys like this. The sample size and the source of these samples are a pretty exclusive group.

 

33 minutes ago, JG4_Deciman said:

And about the 'VR players only online servers' (even if is was written differently)

because you feel 'disabled' compared to 'normal' players)?

seriously?

Yeah, I thought that was  pretty daft. Beside not being technically possible a VR only server would be an empty server.

In my opinion any alleged ‘owl neck’ TrackIR advantage is far outweighed by vastly superior gunnery and airmanship that VR gives its users.

I’m one of those people who could never go back to a flat screen in CFS’s. VR in IL2 and DCS is a truly breathtaking experience.

However, I’m heavily invested in MSFS at the moment and I don’t use VR for that.

It just doesn’t work for me there……

[JG4_Deciman]

27 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

In my opinion any alleged ‘owl neck’ TrackIR advantage is far outweighed by vastly superior gunnery and airmanship that VR gives its users.

I’m one of those people who could never go back to a flat screen in CFS’s. VR in IL2 and DCS is a truly breathtaking experience.

However, I’m heavily invested in MSFS at the moment and I don’t use VR for that.

It just doesn’t work for me there……

 

I'ld like to see the game in VR (and I know how to do that by moving just 100 km from my home)

But it would nether my (not present) option to buy the hardware

nor the not present option to handle any kind of hardware without seeing it.

And all my hardware is setup to have 'visual' identification of 'what to set' and 'how it is set'

And in addition I'm neither able nor willing to lean blindfolded typing...

I'm used to see my hardware and to use it by seeing what I use and what I touch

 

Deci

 

PS:

And No. going to the evening school to learn blind typing is not an option.

That is what my country tried to teach me during my 'forced' time in the troops... without success...

[Dagwoodyt]

My concern is that VR support in GB might begin to suffer through benign neglect. Without any change in game settings I have lost about 10fps in simple scenarios starting with Update 5.201. In the hills north of Novorossiysk in 1v1 DF's my fps now gets down into the 60's. Gameplay is still smooth in my Aero, but the degraded fps is unsettling. I am wondering what Update 5.202 might bring.

     I previously wrote that the DFR mod no longer works in GB, but the mod's debug mode indicates that the mod can still be activated in GB. However even if GB were to provide full support for that mod or a GB equivalent, the mod would be inconsequential in overcoming a major VR fps downgrade.

[Lusekofte]

2 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

I’m one of those people who could never go back to a flat screen in CFS’s. VR in IL2 and DCS is a truly breathtaking experience.

However, I’m heavily invested in MSFS at the moment and I don’t use VR for that.

It just doesn’t work for me there……

I am pretty much in that alley too. I use vr in GB enjoy it in DCs with some modules like the Huey and mi 8   And probably in the phantom that is coming. 
But vr is still sort of not settled in. I feel we yet to see its potential 

The run for hardware and tweaks are simply not the way to go

[Aapje]

4 hours ago, JG4_Deciman said:

But I'm also absolutely tired of reading 'we want more VR support or...'

You all bought the game at a state far beyond where it is now!

You can play the game in VR!

And I believe the devs when they said: Our game is looking much nicer in VR than other games!

This topic is about the new version of the game, that people will have to pay for. IMO, it is perfectly valid for people to talk about what they would like for that new version, especially since VR was a topic in the Q&A.

 

I personally think that the answer in the Q&A rubbed many people the wrong way because it felt very dismissive for something that is one of the 3 big points that the company advertises the game with on the home page. This is different to DCS and MSFS, neither of which makes any prominent mention of VR. If you market a product with a certain feature front and center, it is logical that people expect that feature to be front and center in development as well. And not for the goal to merely be to not be worse than products that don't advertise VR support.

 

Even if the team feels that other parts of the game have bigger issues than VR and need the priority at first, I think that it could have been answered in ways that would have gone over better.

 

And I think that some people do make the very valid point that some of the things that could help VR users are probably not that much work. For example, the necksaver app is something that a forum member has created for free. He suggested that people buy a different edition of the game rather than donating to him. So I strongly suspect that this person would be very receptive to having his tool be integrated into IL2 with no compensation needed. So the team could take advantage of his work.

 

And I also think that for a game engine of the future, OpenXR support is important. It's where the PCVR industry is moving towards. Unreal Engine, Unity, Steam VR and Oculus/Meta all seem to standardize on OpenXR for their future API. DCS already switched to OpenXR a year ago and MSFS also uses OpenXR. So in this aspect, IL-2 is lagging behind the other games and at the very least, it causes a bad experience for VR users who first have to fiddle with the OpenComposite thing to get better performance.

 

I think that the answer in the Q&A that VR looks better in IL2 than in other games ignores the issue that people do not care just about the looks, but also about having an overall good experience, which includes not having to install and fiddle with a million things before something works well. For example, the jank in Cliffs of Dover is probably the most common reason I've heard why people shun that game. Going to OpenXR removes at least one bit of jank from the VR experience.

 

Anyway, moving to OpenXR may take some serious effort and I can see that it may not be the highest priority, but I do think that the team could get some goodwill among the VR crowd by making a commitment to bringing their game up to the new standard for the new engine, either at launch or later.

Edited January 27, 2024 by Aapje

[DD_Arthur]

9 minutes ago, Aapje said:

Anyway, moving to OpenXR may take some serious effort and I can see that it may not be the highest priority, but I do think that the team could get some goodwill among the VR crowd by making a commitment to bringing their game up to the new standard for the new engine, either at launch or later.

I agree very much that going to  OpenXR would be a good move but I also think it important for the team to invest heavily in the game engine to improve performance across the board.

In my view increasing performance for all users is the best thing for VR.

I don’t see why this cannot be done either. The performance of MSFS on very average hardware is phenomenal in my opinion. The developers built upon the old FSX engine to do this.

They’ve taken the time to include PBR, the latest developments in Nvidia and AMD technology and it’s really paying off with DLSS and Frame Generation.

If the 1CGS team want to keep up their competitors they need to exploit these developments.

[ST_Catchov]

10 hours ago, Aapje said:

I'm most excited about technology in development where they shoot low power lasers into your eyes:

 

Cool.

 

10 hours ago, Aapje said:

and being able to have VR glasses that look no different from normal glasses. But that is probably at least 20 years out.

 

Bugger. That counts me out then.

[Mtnbiker1998]

2 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

I don’t see why this cannot be done either. The performance of MSFS on very average hardware is phenomenal in my opinion. The developers built upon the old FSX engine to do this.

They’ve taken the time to include PBR, the latest developments in Nvidia and AMD technology and it’s really paying off with DLSS and Frame Generation.

If the 1CGS team want to keep up their competitors they need to exploit these developments.

I 100% aggree with you but for the sake of playing devil's advocate, I will argue that the old FSX base is exactly what limited them and was a big reason cited for moving to MSFS2024 in the future. Just something to keep in mind.

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

7 hours ago, Dagwoodyt said:

My concern is that VR support in GB might begin to suffer through benign neglect. Without any change in game settings I have lost about 10fps in simple scenarios starting with Update 5.201. In the hills north of Novorossiysk in 1v1 DF's my fps now gets down into the 60's. Gameplay is still smooth in my Aero, but the degraded fps is unsettling. I am wondering what Update 5.202 might bring.

     I previously wrote that the DFR mod no longer works in GB, but the mod's debug mode indicates that the mod can still be activated in GB. However even if GB were to provide full support for that mod or a GB equivalent, the mod would be inconsequential in overcoming a major VR fps downgrade.

This. Like I said earlier, stuttering in MP after the latest update is so much worse! We are now getting full-on freezes frequently on CB when the server registers information (like players exiting, entering, bullets registering as hits, targets being bombed, etc.)! This is unacceptable for MP and it has been going this way for the last year or two through additional updates without additional optimizations.

4 hours ago, Aapje said:

This topic is about the new version of the game, that people will have to pay for. IMO, it is perfectly valid for people to talk about what they would like for that new version, especially since VR was a topic in the Q&A.

 

I personally think that the answer in the Q&A rubbed many people the wrong way because it felt very dismissive for something that is one of the 3 big points that the company advertises the game with on the home page. This is different to DCS and MSFS, neither of which makes any prominent mention of VR. If you market a product with a certain feature front and center, it is logical that people expect that feature to be front and center in development as well. And not for the goal to merely be to not be worse than products that don't advertise VR support.

 

Even if the team feels that other parts of the game have bigger issues than VR and need the priority at first, I think that it could have been answered in ways that would have gone over better.

 

And I think that some people do make the very valid point that some of the things that could help VR users are probably not that much work. For example, the necksaver app is something that a forum member has created for free. He suggested that people buy a different edition of the game rather than donating to him. So I strongly suspect that this person would be very receptive to having his tool be integrated into IL2 with no compensation needed. So the team could take advantage of his work.

 

And I also think that for a game engine of the future, OpenXR support is important. It's where the PCVR industry is moving towards. Unreal Engine, Unity, Steam VR and Oculus/Meta all seem to standardize on OpenXR for their future API. DCS already switched to OpenXR a year ago and MSFS also uses OpenXR. So in this aspect, IL-2 is lagging behind the other games and at the very least, it causes a bad experience for VR users who first have to fiddle with the OpenComposite thing to get better performance.

 

I think that the answer in the Q&A that VR looks better in IL2 than in other games ignores the issue that people do not care just about the looks, but also about having an overall good experience, which includes not having to install and fiddle with a million things before something works well. For example, the jank in Cliffs of Dover is probably the most common reason I've heard why people shun that game. Going to OpenXR removes at least one bit of jank from the VR experience.

 

Anyway, moving to OpenXR may take some serious effort and I can see that it may not be the highest priority, but I do think that the team could get some goodwill among the VR crowd by making a commitment to bringing their game up to the new standard for the new engine, either at launch or later.

This, x1,000. Even a snap view for VR look behind would suffice.

3 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

I agree very much that going to  OpenXR would be a good move but I also think it important for the team to invest heavily in the game engine to improve performance across the board.

In my view increasing performance for all users is the best thing for VR.

I don’t see why this cannot be done either. The performance of MSFS on very average hardware is phenomenal in my opinion. The developers built upon the old FSX engine to do this.

They’ve taken the time to include PBR, the latest developments in Nvidia and AMD technology and it’s really paying off with DLSS and Frame Generation.

If the 1CGS team want to keep up their competitors they need to exploit these developments.

Us VR users agree with these sentiments generally. We WANT the engine to be improved first and foremost to leverage DX12/Vulkan, DLSS/FSR, Frame generation, multi-threading, PBR, etc. But we also want to see Foveated Rendering, better anti-aliasing/sharpening techniques, and native open XR support. I would glad re-buy all modules if they were updated to the new standard I might add.

 

 

This is actually a really good thread. Some debate is not bad for the community. We can also call out (at times) but still support and approve of the devs. Disagreement is not destructive as we are all just really passionate here. Cheers to my flat-screen brethren. ?

Edited January 28, 2024 by drewm3i-VR

[CountZero]

On 1/22/2024 at 9:35 PM, CUJO_1970 said:

The British RAE considered the FW190 to be more agile and more maneuverable than the Spitfire V in everything but turning. Harmonization of controls? You do realize RAF test pilot Eric Brown said they were superb, among the best of any WW2 aircraft he flew. 
 

It also had the highest instantaneous rolling velocity and over all roll rate of any WW2 piston engine fighter the RAE tested and documented. The FW190A does not reach its historic rolling velocity in this sim and it never has…and the RAE tests were not even done with their best rolling FW…Many other aircraft roll way too fast and so the typical historic advantages the FW190 had historically do not exist in this sim. The later A-series A5, 6 and 8 should fly more like the A3 in this sim, not the other way around.

A mythology has grown up around the FW190A is this title where people think the FW190 must be a dog that can’t maneuver. These people don’t read books or flight reports from the era. The FW190 was every inch an air superiority dog fighter in WW2. 

 

thats all nice but game still after so many years uses old FM on 190A3, that makes it one of best high alt axis fighter, sure historicly correct ?

 

 

 

There is reason why players online pick A3 to DF

[CUJO_1970]

13 hours ago, CountZero said:

thats all nice but game still after so many years uses old FM on 190A3, that makes it one of best high alt axis fighter, sure historicly correct ?

 

 

 

There is reason why players online pick A3 to DF

 

Yes, and? Let them fix that as well while they’re at it. 

 

Because if they make an accurate FW190 you gonna have much bigger problems than you got right now. 

[tvcasualty]

I just wanted to say thanks to the Devs for the Q and A, and for answering some of my questions on maps.

I think they should do more of this type of stuff going forward, and I like the new web space design too.

 

I do want to chime in about VR because to me it's a very big deal and is the reason I got back into IL2.

I've been flying VR in IL2-GB since the Oculus One in the 1060GTX days... Resolution was horrid, but the magic was there, I let all my friends have a crack at it everyone felt like it's was an amazing (even if not competitive in MP due to spotting issues).

In those days frame rate and resolution was lagging because of the hardware, tags were a must.  Time went on and better stuff became available.

Upgraded PCs to a 3090GTX setup and upgraded to the Reverb G2 and I felt like I could finally see.  Friends were getting air sickness and one even fell out of the chair when he went to lean over the edge of a biplane before he realized the cockpit really wasn't there.  OpenXR improved resolution even more, and I no longer required tags to spot.  The game looked great, but settings were not maxed out, and frames averaged around 50 in the city / 70 on the highway at my detail level. 

Brother got into it and we both built sim rigs and he put together a 4090GTX rig to use with the G2, and after seeing what 90FPS felt like consistently with everything at MAX, I had to do the same...  I truly wish everyone who enjoys warbirds could experience this.  Having 90FPS is an absolute game changer.

With the money put into my system, upgrading to an Aero was a given especially with the recent price drop.

Unfortunately with the bump in resolution I also lost my steady 90FPS. ?

I feel as though, with my eyes, resolution in the Aero is good enough where the monitor is no longer something needed to be competitive in MP.  I'm am sure every extra bit of detail will help but it's no longer black and white so to speak and VR has major advantages in terms of judging distance.  But now, I am in a position where to get the 90FPS back I have to drop details / draw distances...  The game is absolutely playable, but the silk feeling of moving your head around in the VR cockpit is gone.  A software fix is needed before the hardware catches back up again.

 

I've used bold here not to show off my spending habits but to illustrate just how long and how far the hardware has come -the fact is that a lot is owed to titles like this one when it comes to selling computer hardware.  And to some people VR is paramount when it comes to flight sims.  I know I am very fortunate to be in a position to afford such a setup and I'm not complaining about IL-2 GB.  I'm very happy to hear the devs are sticking with VR.  Foveated Rendering could fix my lag in performance and give a big boost to a lot of other people, and I'm a big advocate of implementing it into titles moving forward and really think it is very much worth the effort in getting all of GB up to spec.  I can certainly lower the amount of eye candy I see on my system and better hardware is always right around the corner, but not everyone can always afford it.  Having the very best experience possible is what it's really all about because it's what sells.

 

Also I would like to comment on my take on the IL-2 flight model.  I purchased MSFS 2020 (after VR was released for it) because I have been pursuing a real license and they put out a lot of hype on how accurate it was supposed to be, however, to me the flight model in MSFS, landing especially, is sorely lacking when compared to IL2-GB.

-I do my pattern work in C-47s now.?

[jnfrombigt]

Agree with about everything tvcasualty mentioned.  I too have a system with a 4090 using an Aero.  Before that a 3080ti and a G2.  Never could get the Rift to function with a 1080ti but since the G2 I've been hooked on VR.   Depth perception.   In 2D it's just not there where as with VR I can get much closer too targets both air and ground with less fear of impacting the target,  which I often did before VR.  If you're happy with a monitor great.  I'm not telling anybody they need to switch but it certainly improved the flight sim experience for me.

Edited January 29, 2024 by jnfrombigt

[Dagwoodyt]

The deafening silence in reaction to any mention of VR support upgrades such as DFR is worrisome. ?

[Aapje]

1 hour ago, Dagwoodyt said:

The deafening silence in reaction to any mention of VR support upgrades such as DFR is worrisome. ?

Companies generally don't react that quickly and the devs don't react on this forum, also because they don't speak English.

 

It would be nice if they address the concerns during the next Q&A.

[LukeFF]

3 hours ago, Aapje said:

Companies generally don't react that quickly and the devs don't react on this forum, also because they don't speak English.

 

It would be nice if they address the concerns during the next Q&A.

 

The developers do speak English and do communicate in English here, but it's their second language so their preference is to communicate in Russian on the Russian forum.

 

That said, that's why I'm here - to relay their responses to your guys's questions and then post them here. I communicate with them in English behind the scenes just fine. ?

[Gambit21]

They speak and type in English quite well

[Panzerlang]

They speak a damn sight more English than we speak Russian. 

I can speak Japanese though. Quick, PTO! ?

[BigC208]

On 1/24/2024 at 5:46 PM, 86th_Leifr said:

VR will never be the future of video gaming, any more than 3D screens took off at the cinema or at home.

Maybe not for mainstream video gaming. For combat flight simmers it’s the holy grail though. DCS and Il2GB are just not enjoyable anymore on a flat screen for me.

[IckyATLAS]

7 hours ago, LukeFF said:

That said, that's why I'm here - to relay their responses to your guys's questions and then post them here. I communicate with them in English behind the scenes just fine. ?

I don't want to minimize you contribution, so don't be offended, but on the longer term we will have direct translation by AI built translators like DeepL or GPT or other. DeepL is more efficient as it is a specialized tool. And the quality of the translation is becoming very good.

The devs can type in Russian and we get directly the text in English or German, French, Italian say in our mother tongue. VIce versa we type in our language and they get it in Russian.

More and more this will be the case. We have already systems used on mobile phones used by tourists.

 

Here under my original text:

 

Je ne veux pas minimiser votre contribution, alors ne soyez pas offensé, mais à plus long terme, nous aurons des traductions directes par des traducteurs construits par l'IA comme DeepL ou GPT ou autre. DeepL est plus efficace car c'est un outil spécialisé. Et la qualité de la traduction devient très bonne.

Les développeurs peuvent taper en russe et nous obtenons directement le texte en anglais ou en allemand, en français, en italien, c'est-à-dire dans notre langue maternelle. À l'inverse, nous tapons dans notre langue et ils obtiennent le texte en russe.

Ce sera de plus en plus le cas. Nous avons déjà des systèmes utilisés sur les téléphones portables des touristes.

 

Those who like me speak both of these languages will be surprise how good it is.

 

For russian here it is but I cannot judge the quality., I leave it to those that can comment: 

 

Я не хочу преуменьшать ваш вклад, так что не обижайтесь, но в долгосрочной перспективе у нас будет прямой перевод с помощью переводчиков, созданных искусственным интеллектом, таких как DeepL, GPT или других. DeepL более эффективен, поскольку является специализированным инструментом. И качество перевода становится очень хорошим.

Разработчики могут набрать текст на русском языке, а мы получим его на английском или немецком, французском, итальянском, скажем, на нашем родном языке. И наоборот, мы набираем текст на нашем языке, а они получают его на русском.

И так будет происходить все чаще и чаще. У нас уже есть системы, используемые на мобильных телефонах, которыми пользуются туристы.

 

[Flying_Anchor]

25 минут назад, IckyATLAS сказал:

or russian here it is but I cannot judge the quality., I leave it to those that can comment: 

 

Я не хочу преуменьшать ваш вклад, так что не обижайтесь, но в долгосрочной перспективе у нас будет прямой перевод с помощью переводчиков, созданных искусственным интеллектом, таких как DeepL, GPT или других. DeepL более эффективен, поскольку является специализированным инструментом. И качество перевода становится очень хорошим.

Разработчики могут набрать текст на русском языке, а мы получим его на английском или немецком, французском, итальянском, скажем, на нашем родном языке. И наоборот, мы набираем текст на нашем языке, а они получают его на русском.

И так будет происходить все чаще и чаще. У нас уже есть системы, используемые на мобильных телефонах, которыми пользуются туристы.

As a russian i can confirm: that's a very accurate translation. 

[Aapje]

6 hours ago, BigC208 said:

Quote

VR will never be the future of video gaming, any more than 3D screens took off at the cinema or at home.

Maybe not for mainstream video gaming. For combat flight simmers it’s the holy grail though. DCS and Il2GB are just not enjoyable anymore on a flat screen for me.

I remember when people dismissed mobile phones. "No one will walk around with a brick-sized phone in their pocket" "If I need to call, I'll just find a phone booth."

 

These people didn't foresee how mobile phones would improve in ergonomics and become far more capable beyond just a device to make calls with. In fact, calling may be one of the least important features of phones for many people. 

 

Of course I cannot predict the future, but I already see things clicking into place or being in early development for AR glasses that are no worse to wear than regular glasses and which support hand gestures. I find it hard to imagine that people would not want to be able to create a virtual screen anywhere they please of their desired size.

 

Want to watch TV in bed? No need to install a TV, which costs money and is unlikely to be in the optimal spot. Just create a TV where you want. Want to watch a movie in your self-driving car? The same. Want to see multiple documents side by side? Boom, another screen in 1 second. Traveling? You have a HUD that tells you where to go. Shopping? Another HUD that tells you where the product is in the store and optionally shows you the reviews for the product. All without having to get out your phone and without the small screen.

 

And it allows for new features, like having facial recognition at a party so you don't have to awkwardly fumble for a name, but the headset just tells you that it's Janine and you last met her at a certain date and in a certain place.

 

With more advanced AI you could even just lie on your own couch and have a therapist appear to do a therapy session at your convenience for barely any money.

 

And you can do meetings with your work colleagues from home, but with all the non-verbal communication of actually being at work.

 

In this future you won't spend money on a headset for VR gaming, because you already own it and use it all the time. You probably won't own flat screens anymore and this entire debate that we have will be gone, because it will be a choice between flat screen (retro?) gaming in a 3D-capable headset or 3D-gaming in that headset (or mixtures of the two).

11 hours ago, LukeFF said:

The developers do speak English and do communicate in English here, but it's their second language so their preference is to communicate in Russian on the Russian forum.

 

That said, that's why I'm here - to relay their responses to your guys's questions and then post them here. I communicate with them in English behind the scenes just fine. ?

Thanks for the correction.

 

That said, it doesn't negate my claim that the devs are not actually active on this forum, so they won't just communicate here when people have concerns. At most they will pass something on to Luke to relay to us, but that takes time.

Edited January 30, 2024 by Aapje

[Lusekofte]

To be clear.
Any sim would loose by not supporting VR. 

But that humid bulky stuff we use now is not what going to be the revolution that turned sims dependent on VR. 
I like msfs for its in game swap from 2 D to VR. That is a feature I hope can be supported by other sims. It would help   
 

[Blitzen]

I can't wait for the new stuff you are talking about!

[Koziolek]

absolutely, this would be super useful during my high school reunion after 20 years, when I did not recognise my former girlfriend ?

Edited January 30, 2024 by Koziolek