metalnwood

With Flims plans being only $25 (last link from Sabre) that gives you a lot left from $1k to get someone to cut them in to something you can assemble yourself.

They might not see it. The for sale is under the hardware section here http://forums.eagle.ru/forumdisplay.php?f=144 Although the right people are probably going to see it right here where you posted it...

They must have a steady flow now as you can get them off amazon now. Cheaper to NZ than buying from oculus direct, taxes pre paid as well.

I have not tried night flying in the CV1. I certainly remember that in the DK2 it was dark, disorientating dark.

Mr Burns, just my 2c.. I do my simulations e.g. flying and racing in the rift but for first person stuff I am very happy jumping on my other computer and playing them on a regular monitor. For sims, especially racing I dont want to use a monitor anymore and wouldnt as they are very well suited. I dont think that VR is quite the same experience for something like americas army at the moment.

I did,I think it will be OK after using it for a while but I think I would prefer it to go directly to the zoom rather than do the transition which my brain doesnt like a whole lot right off the bat :) It is good looking out at the landscape and getting a closer look on an object.

The debug tool doesnt relate to it. The debug tool just tells the software to render at a larger resolution. That will create more work for ATW because at a higher resolution you will get less FPS. ATW kicks in when the frame rate is less than 90 by doing some magic to try and kick the framerate back up to 90 by filling in the 'gaps'.

But.. They dont lock you to their platform? Their API is freely available to consumers and competitors. In fact thats how steam VR can support oculus in the first place. Remember, valve have steam only content as well. Valve/htc have the same issues so I am not sure I see your point exactly the same as you do. Where is the exclusivity part? What example has any developer not been able to support a platform other than oculus? They dont even have to support oculus home if they have their own distribution methods.

In the past we were able to modify the lua files to change the size and position of the text. I remember doing it some time back. If the option is still there then perhaps there is a way to still be able to do it for radio and perhaps for the text in the tutorials.

I agree. In the DK2 the SDE was very evident but after using it for a while it seemed to just disappear and not be a problem. Even if the CV1 has some it sounds a lot better so I look forward to it. Hopefully, the racing and flying with constant movement will limit any instances of it as it appears to be more noticeable in some still scenes.

I am not sure that your new prescription will hide them then! If you have not used a rift before than it's quite possible you have heard the pixels are gone but also compared to the older models. I can imagine that someones expectation from reading forums could be quite high if you have not seen inside one before. How was it otherwise?

Screen door is the effect when you can see the individual pixels or rows of pixels on the screen. Not sure if you have had much to do with projectors but earlier on it is something that you might have seen on some projectors where you could see the individual pixels when close. For the dev kits it was there, I am still a few weeks from getting the CV1 so I cant say first hand but you will have read a lot of people say it is much improved that it is not really an issue any longer. The god rays appears to be an artefact caused by the hybrid lenses they are using. In high contrast scenes where something bright could be on a dark background you will get an image like this one http://doc-ok.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/CrepuscularRays.jpg This image was put together to demonstrate the effect but they note it doesnt represent the intensity, just a demonstration of the effect.

You are just wasting peoples time. I am not here to waste your time but you seem to want to play a game. Good for you. Even though you have said you are unbiased it really doesn't come across that way. I will put my hand up and say I am unbiased. I have built the pit, I have made copies of all the instruments in the A10, I have helped a lot of people do it and I have also done the same for accommodating something like the rift with nice pits. I get fun in both. There are definite advantages to the rift that work for me, like space and $$ although I love the pits. I wouldnt have spent so many hours on them if I didn't. For someone like me who is happy in either environment I don't understand your perspective. I can only coming to the conclusion that you sell projection systems and this is the reason behind it. Anyhow, what is mixed VR you have coined? Given you know the definitions I am keen to hear.

What is mixed VR then? semantics seems to be very much a part of this debate. You are arguing with people but didn't let them know you are working to a completely different set of definitions then you know they are. Whats the point? I dont think debating that way gives any credibility to what you were originally trying to convey and I dont think calling people out as 'PC' while saying you only speak the truth is effective either.

This is just my opinion but I suspect that the majority of people don't view it the same way as you are (I am not talking about pit vs no pit). Perhaps, and it seems, you are just talking semantics about what is VR and dont care to adopt what most people and the media are referring to with respect to vive and oculus. OK, thats fine but it should not be any surprise to you why people see things differently if you are working on a different set of definitions than you know other people are and have not made it clear to them. What you are talking about in the software makes no practical sense to me. There are some titles that people are working on that are VR only, sure. They could be made to work on a monitor but they have chosen to exploit some features of VR that set it apart from monitors while not caring to release a 2d version. So what? I dont think the world is missing anything there. Probably some games that are enjoyable in VR are damn right boring on a screen as the game specifically exploits strengths of VR. I also doubt anyone using DCS with a vive or rift cares one bit that it wasnt made specifically for VR. Once again, what is the practical difference here? It supports many options and that is great. It's great with a joystick and monitor, its great with a pit, it's great with VR. I only see you imposing artificial limitations on your definitions.

You are telling people who are already using VR and like it that they dont know what they are talking about. Often people that have tried both sides of the fence and made a decision themselves but for some reason you you think they have become brainwashed. Your definitions of what something is has become made up. DCS doesn't do VR because it wasn't made from the ground up? While 'coining' your own product as 'Mixed VR' looks like you are trying to jump on the bandwagon of the publicity. @agrasyuk I think I have agreed with everything you have penned. At heart, I like making stuff and still think pit building is a great thing. I would happily encourage anyone to continue with a pit if thats what they wanted to do and help them if I could. If I could comment on one thing, your reply to digitalengine. I guess out of context it might seem as you said but in responding to Zahry, who was so biased with his response that I give him a little wiggle room myself.

Zahry, what is it that I cannot do in DCS with a HMD? Are you just comparing to people that dont have lots of switches and projectors? Is it also rude to call it a simulator for people at their desk with nothing more than a hotas and a mouse? I dont understand why you say simulators dont count as VR titles? They are great examples of VR titles. Rude to call them such? I am lost in your reasoning. DCS is sim where I can hop in the A10 and perform roles with full interaction with the virtual pit. There is nothing that cannot be done in the virtual pit. There is obviously some other reason that is not obvious to me why you think that way. PS, that video cut, green screen was just a way to show what I have seen in a number of videos of people throwing and catching controllers with no real view of them other than that shown to them in VR. Things have to work reasonably well for you to be able to do that.

Then my influence will hopefully to be help people be informed. I guess I am taking the view that a pit is when you take yourself away from a desk. We have examples on this forum from simple to very complex. VR is going to be on the simple side as it wont necessitate a lot more. You are right, people are not going to have tens or hundred of switches that are impractical to use in VR. Most pits made for VR I see will put the user in a somewhat simulated seating position with controls they do use in a realistic place and then often a button box of some kind in a position that is easy to access with muscle memory without looking. A pit like that also represents many that have been shown off here in the past and I wouldn't be one to be elitist about it if it was to be used for VR or just a modest pit by anyone else. With respect to software. You can look at it from two angles. There is the new software, not a lot of simulation has come from new titles but how long did it take to develop DCS for example? I wouldn't expect an immature technology to have such software made from the ground up at this time. A lot of software is currently simple and exploring what can be done well in VR. Then look at it from this point of view. Some of the most popular and complex simulations are already supporting VR. DCS, FSX, P3D, various racing titles. How can you say these are dumbed down? They have all the functionality available. Very early on it was said that VR would be very suited to this genre and there is already very good support happening in simulation for it. You can fly in VR and have the most complex pits modelled available to you to fly. Whats the difference? The only difference is that I interact with them in a different manner. If I know the a10 inside and out, i.e all the systems thoroughly and use them in VR and you tell me I am not 'really' doing it right because I didn't flick a real switch then I think you have the wrong idea about what most of us are trying to simulate. At the end of the day, it's not only the display or the buttons.

Definitely, the air force will stay with pits and for good reason. I sometimes see people say why have formula 1 teams not gone to VR from their projector setups if it is so good. Also for very good reasons. For some enthusiasts who dont really fly f35's or race F1 cars we have different requirements and it is mostly to have fun :) F1 racers have specific requirements and that is familiarity of their car, their complex wheel and that is a lot of what they spend time in the simulator for. VR wouldnt work as they use is specifically for working with replicas of their hardware. Even things like track familiarity are not top of the list in their simulators. The same goes for the airforce, VR doesnt work because the goals are differen't. Which is also like some enthusiasts as well.

It's not really quite as simple as that though is it? If I was still building pits then your kind of display is without a doubt, what I would have wanted to add to it. In the end, a lot of people are not going that way. Actually, racing people and a lot on iracing are going to VR only. I use that as an example as it's what you have in the videos. It works exceptionally well in racing and controls are not an issue for anyone that I know about. There are no issues not being able to use the wheel, pedals, H-shifter, sequential shifter or buttons. I love having the motec and other displays in VR for the different cars wheels, thats something you can't do with a projector as per your video. I have a rather simple wheel I built, it is not a F1 rim with many, many controls but it does represent what most of us are dealing with and dont have problems interacting with. There are a number of threads here of people who have changed their pits for VR and in other forums there are many people who never had pits but are making something that accommodates VR better than a desk set up but people that would not have built a full flight sim pit. It's already come up in the thread, it's each to their own and guys who are doing VR, including myself, don't have the same issues people not doing VR reference all the time WRT VR. As long as we are all happy doing what we are doing, I wont try to influence anyone one way or another.

The leap motion may not be nirvana yet but have you seen some of what can be done with their new VR drivers? See something like this and you can tell that it is much improved than before. [ame] [/ame]

I agree with Anton as well, it was a good summary. Some pits wont be built because of VR but because of the issues integrating the two, a pit builder is unlikely to change his approach to building a pit that doesnt use VR. Regarding real buttons in virtual pits.. As mentioned, it doesnt take too long to move your hand to where a mouse or a small button box is placed. In VR when racing and I move to my shifter, I never miss it and I never look in my car for the real one. Muscle memory is learned involuntarily and works wonders. I made a small button box that is to the right of my stick a little and I put a couple of rotary knobs and a button on it. With my VR headset on I can reach for it and get it 100% of the time. It's useful for something like looking at a dial in the sim to put the cursor on it and then turning the real dial. I look at another knob, e.g. the obs and use the same real knob. Little things that you might not do for a pit without VR but work very well. Reading Mr burns response about the glass cockpit had me wondering if I could make it work where you have a piece of board representing the mfds's and using the leap motion have it placed in the right spot so that when you are pressing the buttons you are actually having some tactile contact as well. This doesnt currently work in DCS but there is support in FSX. I am sure that soon we will see a lot of crafty ways people put together to interact inside of VR. I have to admit that I myself am not a fan of the augmented reality in a VR headset so I dont want to see the outside world superimposed.

I dont think the distinction is quite like that. I could quite happily post my current pit in this section and it would fit in nicely. It is a home cockpit, more than a hotas on a desk but it is now geared for VR. Most of everything I was doing on my a10 pit is gone as I dont need it in VR yet it is very much more of a pit than a basic home setup. As VR interaction gets better it will no doubt change and perhaps the next thing for me is to add a collective. Using VR as my main display doesn't take me out of this section at all. Also I dont see the distinction between hardcore simming and other being the fact that there are real buttons. My flying has not changed from having no buttons, to having lots of buttons to doing it all in VR. What makes it hardcore simming has much more to do with the software platform and the procedures you follow. Not if you flip a real switch or a virtual one.

Yes for sure, some people will go with VR and less on the pit. I had the full size pit cut and did a few for friends but right now I just have an aces II seat with mounts for hotas and pedals. I love the VR and am happy to press virtual buttons for the gain in immersion. Building the pit was a hobby in itself and fun to do but now I don't have a need, that time is easily spent on other interests. I fully understand that for a lot of people in to pit building that the pit building is of more interest than the flying so VR is unlikely to sway them away. One thing I really like about VR is that I can get in any pit and be there no matter what my real pit, or lack thereof, really looks like.