kablamoman

You've formatted your post to show 4 arguments against, so let me readback what you're saying and you tell me if I misunderstand: Options "don't work that way" and so proposal is incompatible with DCS Resources taken away from other things for VR fix Resources taken away from other things for 2D fix Arguments in favor come from people who don't know what they're talking about Arguments 2 and 3 seem awfully similar -- ie. "resource misappropriation" -- and this proposal has nothing to do with 2D head tracking, nor am I advocating for any change to 2D tracking solutions. Argument 4 seems less of an argument than an attack, so I will disregard that, so what we're left with is: Options "don't work that way". Resources taken away from other things. Regarding the "Resource" argument, nobody is advocating that any resources be taken away from showstopper bugs, or that this issue be given priority over anything else. Simply, I am advocating for a better VR implementation and I do not think the changes as they are proposed would entail some herculean effort. On the contrary, I think they are relatively simple changes that would go a long way towards improving the quality of life for all VR players, and are applicable to the core sim now and going forward. As such I believe they are worthwhile changes, and the fact that the devs have said they are looking into what can be done, leads me to believe they tend to see the merits of better VR support in terms of immersion, fidelity, and comfort options. I can dismiss this argument as one that is trying to sow discontent at the mere idea of the changes by fear-mongering that some other long standing bug or feature will be left ignored at the expense of this VR thing. No, we can absolutely hope and push for positive changes across the board, including in VR support. Regarding the "Options don't work that way" argument, I have tried to explain that you're way out to lunch on this one, and frankly it's a bit exasperating that you keep bringing it up as some kind of justification for not improving the VR experience. After reading your assertions I question whether you yourself actually have an understanding of how computer systems work, specifically in the context of the client-server framework we have here in the game. For every "enforceable" setting in an online server, it is actually the client that contains the logic to allow or disallow whatever feature it is in question. The server simply passes along variables that can be as simple as "true" or "false" or whatever numerical value is needed for the client to interpret the server admin's intentions. I brought up the external view flag, because logically it works in much the same way as any proposed limits would. For example, we have our view on the screen. The client contains the logic to display these views, whether they be from the cockpit, any number of external views, or even the map. These views can be considered analogous to our proposed "VR cockpit limit modes". With one variable in the mission, the server can pass along the information "allow external views" true or false, and the client is what allows the player to actually switch between views -- if a server admin has allowed external views, a client can cycle cameras from f1-f10 to their hearts content, and see the changes on the screen. If the admin has disabled these views, a client may only be allowed to view the cockpit (f1) and the map (f10). In the same way, a single variable to "respect cockpit boundaries" could be set in the mission, on the server, and relayed to the client, which then interprets it and contains the logic to allow only the appropriate modes. The key point is that the client is what contains the logic (allow cockpit, allow map, but not external views) to decide what the user can display on their screen. Even if there was some kind of problem with the client-server architecture in DCS that would prevent such a thing, it would again be trivial for a team that has developed a complex aerodynamics simulation to figure out how to propagate "realism" settings from server to client and adhere to certain logical constrains, and you suggesting otherwise is again another way of distracting from the actual argument and trying to convince people the solution is harder to implement than it is. So I also disregard your argument number 1, "DCS options don't work that way" as a valid counterpoint. --- Again, I have yet to read any compelling reason not to implement the proposed solution.

I have read everything. Being able to stick your head through canopy geometry in VR is jarring, immersion breaking, and should absolutely be disallowed if the server admin on a multiplayer server wishes to do so. There is literally no argument that supports not implementing features to fix this, aside from the risk of hard limits inducing motion sickness. No amount of mealy-mouthed equivocating about traditional 2D head tracking solutions (with their own long established standards and inherent set of limitations) being able to do silly things changes that. It's a red herring, and just muddies the waters of the discussion, which is about improving upon VR support in DCS. I play in VR, and I think it's important to my enjoyment of the sim, as do many others. For those that don't care, discussion and/or implementation of these limitations would have zero impact on their enjoyment unless their enjoyment is predicated upon being able to stick their head through solid objects like a ghost, in a multiplayer environment that is supposed to be an accurate simulation of air combat. Otherwise, absolutely nothing would change about their experience.

This topic is about the VR implementation of the game and making it more robust and immersive. To the people posting pictures of high FOV from the flat screen mode as if it has anything to do with VR, please take it somewhere else. If there is a real argument for allowing heads to pop through solid canopies aside from the risk of motion sickness (which this proposal was meant to address), I have yet to hear it.

Please stay on topic, guys.

@Tippis You are lost in the weeds here. It is a trivial programming task to set up the logic in line with the proposal. For instance, the client could have a drop down box in VR settings for "VR Canopy Limits Preferred Method" with two options: "Hard Canopy Bounds" or "Fade To Black". ED could even offer several additional options (eg. "pixelate world outside of canopy", "blur world" etc.) There can be a separate setting that disables the "limits simulation" entirely unless the client opts in anyway : eg. "Disregard VR Limits" . This second setting would be a simulation setting and a single boolean value that can be enforced in the mission parameters in the exact same way the external view setting is controlled and enforced and propagated to clients when they join servers. I really don't see what it is you're advocating for or against. Do you not want to see limits? Do you want things to remain the same? If you do, what would having these options available to players do to detrimentally affect your personal experience? I just don't see how it can possibly be a bad thing to have these options available. They seem to me like they should have been a key part of of the VR implementation to begin with.

@Tippis Yeah, and? The server would lock the "no limits" option. It would work similarly to the "allow external views" setting. I'm not sure what it is you're trying to tell me, here.

Do you fly the warbirds? Because it's almost impossible to not inadvertently stick your head outside. If you have never done it, then great! the discussion or implementation of limits will have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on your experience or enjoyment of the game!

@Tippis Apparently, you didn't. To reiterate... One. More. Time: Client Options: No Limit Hard Limit Soft Limit (Comfort) Client Options On Server Enforcing View Restrictions: No Limit disallowed Hard Limit Soft Limit (Comfort)

Nope. As a VR user I'd still be gagging for an option to keep my head from poking through the canopy even if I only played offline. Regardless, if you read the OP there was nothing about forcing limitations on single player.

Oh man, again I just feel this is more F.U.D. Implying we would have to sell our virtual souls and chose an evil to have a good VR experience! C'mon! There are good solutions that have been demonstrated in countless other VR titles. An entire community plays VR online competitively in warbirds with hard limits, with no qualms, even without any "comfort" option. This is DCS's opportunity to out-do them and make an even more robust implementation. What's more, is that out of the 3 proposed modes, the only time the user would be forced to choose a limiting mode would be on specific servers -- the vast majority of players wouldn't be impacted as they don't even go online, and the option for hard limits would be welcomed by those that play SP and want a more immersive experience. For those online, this choice would not mean certain nausea!!! It would simply mean you can't burn a hole in the sky with your head sticking 2 feet outside your canopy, or you'd see black! Be reasonable, I implore you all.

@cfrag Forgive me, but everything you've said about your experience would mean these changes would have absolutely zero impact on you or your enjoyment. If you have never accidentally popped your head through the canopy, and all the modules you fly have big roomy cockpits there would be absolutely nothing different to you if these changes were implemented. Zero. You would be losing nothing. So I really don't understand this tendency of others to spread the fear, uncertainty and doubt about improving DCS's VR implementation. My personal stance -- from my experience with the warbirds in this sim, and comparing it to my experience with other VR warbirds, playing competitively online -- is that DCS can do better. There is an opportunity for it to add some features to its VR implementation that could elevate it to first-in-class, with benefits that would extend to the entire platform. Simulated head limits for the cockpit environment along with comfort options is a big part of this. It's the first thing me and many others notice when making the jump from that other title. Given the current experience with the ultra high fidelity sounds and visuals, it is an absolute misstep for VR to have a players head simply pass through the aircraft geometry. It stands out like a sore thumb on that experiential side, but also in the multiplayer environment for practical reasons when engaging in combat. If you're flying a Hornet and engaging in BVR fighting and rarely have to check six, of course this isn't going to be an issue for you. But if you're curious, I'd say go try the free trial of the BF109 or the FW190 and fly it around for a bit. Maybe even take it online in Storm of War and see just how frequently you have to check your blind spots and how often your head accidently pops outside the confines of the cockpit. You eventually have to fight back the urge to intentionally pop your head outside for a quick look. It's just not in line with the rest of the sim experience.

@Tippis Did you actually read the OP? I must not be communicating effectively. Key point: Limits are needed so people don't stick their head through their canopy. The proposal says there should be 3 client-side user selectable modes: No Limit Hard Limit Soft Limit (comfort mode so nobody gets sick) If a server chooses to enforce cockpit view restriction, the client has to select one of the two limiting modes: Hard Limit Soft Limit (nobody gets sick as translational movement is not affected, the screen would just fade-to-black as limits were exceeded) That's the gist of it. For SP or servers that don't care, people can choose whatever the hell they want. For servers that do care, people don't get to stick their head through the canopy -- people that want an immersive and accurate experience can bump their head against the glass, and nobody is forced to get sick because those who prefer it can choose the soft limit option in that circumstance (their view would fade to black as their head exceeded canopy limits).

@Baldrick33 Fair enough -- there are people who prefer teleport in Half-Life for the same reasons you mentioned and actually consider it more immersive. Although I do think it's safe to say that the vast majority of VR players find teleport or clipping through solid surfaces to be the less immersive option when presented with options for hard clipping or artificial locomotion. More often than not, it is discomfort with the motion that sways them to choose a telelport mode, for instance. But some may of course simply prefer to teleport. And so it should be for the Hard limit vs. Soft limit when it comes to view restrictions in DCS VR.

On the contrary, in the early days of room scale VR development many developers and enthusiasts did hold these dogmas to be absolutely true. The general consensus was that any kind of artificial vection was a recipe for immediate discomfort and your target audience running away in terror. Many also asserted that sim sickness was not something that could be overcome: The "VR legs are not a thing" comment, was a great example of some of the early ignorance and hang-ups related to this. I think the developers at ED have understandably been a little bit reticent to push any boundaries here, but many titles have shown you can successfully implement features that would have traditionally been considered "bad practice" and a surprising number of users are fine with and even prefer them. While a small minority may have trouble, a robust system of comfort options should eliminate any concern (Half-Life: Alyx is a prime example of this). In the time since 2016 and the Vive's release, we have seen some very amazing strides made, particularly in the area of artificial locomotion, and how different users show different levels of tolerance -- a surprising portion of users are able to tolerate much more than was initially thought feasible. Games like Onward and Pavlov feature full, unimpeded artificial translational movement as a part of their core game. Games like Echo Arena have a variety of advanced movement options that can be unlocked by players that are unaffected or have developed their tolerance for sim sickness. What we know is that artificial rotational movement seems much likely to induce sim sickness in those who are prone, but also even in those with a high tolerance and so this, more than anything else is what should be avoided. The translational stuff -- lateral, side-to-side, up-down, forward-back -- as would be experienced in a "Hard limit" canopy limitation, or in a game like half-life (with artificial locomotion instead of teleport) has a pretty high degree of user tolerance. Indeed, you can see the entire online community in the "other sim" playing with these same restrictions, quite happily, though I am sure there are a small number of players that don't find it comfortable, still. For those that still have real issues with discomfort, there should be the option for a soft limit, or a fade-to-black, so I really don't understand where all the protest is coming from. I can only assume people get prickly at the mere notion that somebody else may want to make them sick, or take away their enjoyment of the game they love. But I can assure you that is not what I am looking to do. I would amend your common sense guidelines: Some things may restrict who can use your title. Do not unnecessarily restrict your potential client base by not implementing features for fear of making a small minority sick, if you want to maximize sell-through. (Unless it is an option) Moving the head is likely to restrict your user base to those who can stomach it To reach maximum VR user potential, implement exciting and immersive features when appropriate, with comfortable alternatives when warranted

Hey guys, a lot of info and concerns flying around, but I would like to re-iterate: My intention with this post was to propose robust options that bring the VR implementation of the game to a modern VR standard, with an emphasis on maximizing immersion and functionality. This standard includes things like comfort options for those that need them, without sacrificing the desired high-fidelity and immersion. Again I re-iterate: I am not proposing a hard limit on head movement be enforced or enforceable by server operators, so please keep the fear, uncertainty, and doubt out of the thread and debate on the merits. As proposed: Single player = 3 options for VR cockpit limits, user selectable: No Limit Hard Limit Soft Limit (Fade out) Multiplayer = Those same 3 options -- or -- 2 options* (if the server operator choses to restrict views outside of the canopy by clipping through canopy): No Limit (if server operator prefers to keep this option available) *Hard Limit *Soft Limit (for those who may have motion sickness concerns) There is never an instance where hard limits would be forced on an individual user. It would be up to the individual pilots if they chose to use a hard limit. I do believe it is crucial and very important to have both options for hard and soft limits for a first-in-class VR experience. As a pretty die-hard VR and sim guy for the last 5 years, I have found that the old attitude or "never move the player head" is antiquated and proven false over the last half-decade of VR development, and adhering to it dogmatically negatively impacts and lowers the potential VR experience for many users. However, it is absolutely essential that comfort options be included, as is evidenced by the many voicing their concerns in this thread. Hard limits allow for accurate depictions of combat and how cockpit and canopy design of individual aircraft factor into it. You could also implement cool things that add to the immersive experience of VR by adding sounds of bumping into the perspex, or changing the sound quality slightly if your head is up against it (hearing more low frequency vibrations conducted through the surface itself) -- the possibilities are really quite cool if you wanted to really get into it. I challenge anybody to fly one of the warbirds -- it's most notable with the german aircraft -- and to simply check six without having your head inadvertently stick outside the canopy. The effect is jarring as you suddenly get a blast of slipstream in your ear and see the graphical glitch of clipping through the geometry. To many this is an instant immersion killer, and can indeed be abused online. Soft limits would function in much the same way as hard limits to prevent abuse, but be immune to motion sickness, at the expense of some amount of immersiveness. I don't understand how anybody can be opposed to having these options available to every individual so they can tailor their VR experience to their own comfort level. And if you absolutely insist on sticking your head through the window with no penalty to have an unimpeded view (maybe just to admire the scenery) -- the option is still there for you to play single player or find a server admin that allows it. Motion sickness would no longer be an excuse for habitually poking heads out of the canopy in online adversarial servers as admins could enforce limits to cockpit bounds, and there would be the soft limit, fade-to-black comfort option available to those players worried about motion sickness on those particular servers.

Miserable to you is not being able to stick your head through solid material to have an unimpeded view of the guy trying to shoot you down? In a simulator which has the defining characteristic of realism? No need for the personal attacks, and I think you need to rethink what it is you're actually going on about. What I proposed takes nothing away from anybody's experience except being able to stick their heads through solid objects.

Please leave the Track IR talk out of here, boys. We're talking about the VR implementation in the game. @cfrag Hey, friend. I actually meant for this to be posted in the DCS WW2 forum originally. I posted it in the spitfire bug reports section by mistake, and asked the mods to move it to the western front wishlist, but I guess they moved it to the DCS general wishlist!! Ooops! All the same, I think it is still appropriate here, as it would mean a more robust VR implementation for the game in general. My experience in larger cockpits is that this is almost a non-issue (I have the F86, and it's so roomy, I almost couldn't peek through the glass if I wanted to), as it's really rare to accidentally pop your head through the canopy, and for the same reasons might be prohibitive to abuse it to do things like check six unobstructed by the seat, canopy back, or empennage. But yeah in warbirds I believe it's a pretty big issue. The proposed solution was meant to satisfy all parties. Some may not have a problem with the current implementation, but many VR users do, and this solution takes nothing away for the former group except for the ability to cheat, essentially. Nobody would be forced to use a mode that would result in motion sickness, but the option for hard limits to translational movement through solid surfaces and the increased immersion that comes along with that would be there for those who prefer it.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how VR works. That 4k is spread over a much greater field of view, and so pixel density per arc minute is still a lot lower than it is when you're looking at a flat monitor, even a monitor that's technically a lower resolution panel than the one(s) in your HMD.

Of course, If the canopy is open on the ground you would be able to stick your head outside without a problem regardless of the limits setting. Glad you brought that up. It's not a big deal to tackle this by simply enforcing limits on lateral head movement into the slipstream at high speeds (perhaps even to be progressively restrictive as speed increases). Drag penalties for flying with an open or missing canopy should also be an issue for anyone trying to do something less than realistic like intentionally popping off their canopy and flying around like that to get around restrictions. In cases where it may be appropriate (ie. If the aircraft in question could be flown with an open canopy at slower speeds for better visibility, ventilation, or as part of normal procedures for take off and landing), limits on head movement outside the cockpit should still apply based on speed. All of these exceptions and conditions to limit head movement mentioned have been implemented and work as expected in the other sim (just without the "Fade-to-black" comfort mode), so I can't think of any reason why it shouldn't be done.

Edit: This was originally posted in the WW2 forum, and so many of the concerns apply mostly to the canopies of the aircraft from that era. If you have no experience with these warbirds and their cramped cockpits you may not realize what an issue it is to inadvertently clip through cockpit geometry during the course of regular combat, nor realize how easy it is to poke your head outside to quickly check six with an unimpeded view to the rear. --- I wasn't able to post this before the other thread was locked, but was excited to share a proposed solution that should make everybody happy. --- In line with the feature-set offered in the best modern VR titles available (think Half-Life: Alyx and its Comfort vs. Locomotion options), I would propose three modes: No Limit -- no different than what we have now. Hard Limit -- physical limits in the simulation to prevent translational movement outside the canopy bounds (could lead to motion sickness with some users). Fade-To-Black -- A motion sickness friendly mode, that gradually fades the view to black as the pilot progressively exceeds the canopy bounds. It would be ideal if multiplayer servers had the option to enforce a limit. Canopy limits On or Canopy limits Off. With Limits On: Method 2 or 3 would be allowed. Whichever was most comfortable to the user. With Limits Off: All three methods could be used allowing for unrestricted head movement through and beyond the confines of the canopy. To me this seems like a solution that should make everybody happy, allow for reasonable multiplayer limits to be enforced on multiplayer servers, while also avoiding any fear of inducing motion sickness. The benefits over the current system would be maximizing immersion and making the sim that much more friendly and robust with regards to VR and accommodating varied user experiences and use cases (eg. single player vs. multiplayer; hardcore sim vs. casual fun).

With respect, this attitude is the minority, though I understand it, I really do. There is a real problem here, though, and that is that players can simply phase their heads through cockpit geometry to do things like check six -- this completely disregards the very important factor of how a fighter's canopy was designed, and how it compares with its contemporaries in the context of a combat encounter. In a game that strives to incorporate and faithfully reproduce all of an aircraft's performance and design features, the fact that this is completely made irrelevant is a glaring omission. I do acknowledge that there is a real disadvantage (when it comes to the potential for motion sickness) to enforcing hard cockpit limits with regards to translational movement in VR, but it is my opinion that it would healthier for the overall experience and for the vast majority of players in adversarial online environments if it were enforced. Single player, or servers that don't care to enforce the rule, I have absolutely no problem with. But at the very least it needs to be an option for players that wish to have it. Perhaps a reasonable alternative for those prone to motion sickness on servers that choose to enforce a limit, would be an alternative method for "fading out" the player's view when exceeding boundaries. This would satisfy the requirement for those sensitive to motion sickness, and could be available as an alternative option for them. The vast majority of players would prefer the other method (hard limits on translational movement that would collide with the canopy), I do truly believe. Regardless: Limits, however implemented, are absolutely required when it comes to flying these otherwise beautifully simulated warbirds online.

It's abrupt and jarring when your ear accidentally moves outside the confines of the canopy and you get blasted with the slipstream sound. I absolutely want realistic limits on head travel -- even if it was just for myself and nobody else was restricted -- for this reason alone. The big problem aside from this is that people actually do stick their heads outside the canopy intentionally to get a clear and unobstructed view of their six, around the nose, or just to see without having to look through the material of the canopy itself. This completely nullifies any advantages or disadvantages that may be inherent in a particular cockpit design (the closed in and confined canopy of a 109 vs. a big old roomy bubble canopy with the american fighters). Being able to completely ignore the physical boundaries of the tiny bird cage you're stuck in is gamey to the max, and antithetical to any kind of immersive sim experience. Doubley so if you're playing online against other people. The limit is sorely needed. At least as an option for those that want it. At best as something available for server admins that actually wish to enforce the rule. The old "anything that artificially moves a players head in VR" rule of thumb is both outdated, and completely ridiculous in a VR sim experience that is entirely based on artificially moving the player's head through the air and over the ground at over 500 miles per hour. This is just one of many things that could be done to improve the VR implementation in DCS. For god's sake please implement it ASAP.

Game absolutely needs head limits for closed canopy. It is implemented just fine in the other sim. I should be an option for single player just like any other realism setting and enforceable by server admins. For those worried about nausea the simple solution is to... not put your head through the canopy!!

For what it's worth, Wikipedia (referencing p. 292 of this book: JG 26: Top Guns of the Luftwaffe: Caldwell, Donald) even mentions it here: underwing 20 mm Mauser MG 151/20 cannon gondola pods (R IV) or 21 cm (8.3 in) Wfr.Gr. 21 rockets (as on the Gustav models) could be carried after minimal preparation; the latter two were rarely used by Bf 109 units at this stage of the war, although III./JG 26 were almost completely equipped with K-4s which were fitted with R IV: