SharpeXB

When I’ve tried Frame Generation in MSFS it can cause this flickering on textures and some cockpit displays. I found that I preferred to leave it off. The frame rate boost is kinda amazing but not worth the artifacts.

This worked on all the aircraft I’ve tried it with.

Yeah those numbers are like a year old. The original PSVR had a 4% attach rate apparently. That’s not really anything to crow about. I’m surprised they would double down on a PSVR2 with sales like that. The Kinect had a 30% rate and flopped. That’s hard to see because half the consoles brands have no VR at all. VR adoption there seems just as low as with PC. As far as I can see MS/Xbox has not much interest in VR at all. The HoloLens is their only thing. I’ve tried that one too I was kinda cool. But I don’t see it used at all in my industry.

Right, in the context of that mission it's a bit confusing, since there's nothing else displayed on the radar. The narrator says "triangle" and the triangle on your screen is a steerpoint. ok that explains it then

https://virtualrealitytimes.com/2024/01/20/varjo-aero-headset-discontinued-but-support-to-run-to-2025/#:~:text=Varjo is no longer selling,and was launched in 2021. Console VR adoption is about the same as PCVR. PlayStation has 4% with half the market ie about 2% https://www.tweaktown.com/news/91001/playstation-vr2-launch-sales-may-be-outpacing-original-psvr1-headset/index.html#

These are incorrect

No contacts are displayed on the radar according to what the narration states. Also the narration incorrectly says the contact will be a triangle when triangles denote Steerpoints.

Everyone I know who tries that on has the same impression. That’s the difference between VR enthusiasts and average consumers. Apparently average consumers also think the Apple Vision Pro is cripplingly heavy when it’s actually lighter than the Quest 3. Enthusiasts will put up with stuff that average people won’t.

What’s interesting about that Navigraph survey is that it shows the most popular graphics card is the 4090 at 16% Cleary that’s a sample of enthusiasts (Navigraph users) and not players in general. But among that demographic it seems the same % own a VR HMD as own a $1,600 graphics card. No doubt poll results here would be skewed similarly.

This was actually a Quest 3 that I tried and yeah I was pretty surprised how bad it looked. I figure VR would have advanced more by now. That’s always going to be the case with PC games which are primarily designed for 2D. That’s the reality of PCVR unless you’re looking at VR specific games.

1080p is still by far the most popular resolution in PC gaming. According to Steam it’s 60%, 1440x2560 is 17% and 2160x3840 is 4%. https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam 1080p can look just fine on a monitor but even 2000x4000 in VR looks quite pixelated since it fills just a large FOV. Sadly both those headsets have been discontinued. PCVR seems to be moving to very expensive enterprise level HMDs

But again, the other flight sim which uses Vulkan gets 30-50 fps just like DCS. VR is always going to require stereoscopic rendering by its very nature. Whether some of that load falls on the GPU or CPU. Expecting Vulkan to double the performance seems very wishful indeed. You need to run VR at a quite a high resolution for it to look decent compared to a monitor. The most common resolution for a monitor of 1080x1920 looks fine and 2160p looks fantastic. A VR headset with the same 2,000x4,000 pixels looks pretty horrible, so low you would have trouble reading instruments or identifying distant aircraft. I tried on a Quest 3 the other day and was really surprised how poor the resolution was (it’s 2064x2208) I couldn’t imagine playing a flight sim in that. Definitely DFR is a needed thing but VR needs maybe 4x the resolution of what I saw to make it appealing IMO

With a 40% decline in HMD sales it’s not hard to see why. Yes it was a great headset for flight sims but this tiny segment can’t keep a headset brand afloat. So considering those along with 50 million PS5s sold that’s an attach rate of 10%. The PS5 is 44% of the console segment. That gives consoles as a whole a 4.4% adoption. Just a bit better than PC but not astounding. Ease of use and cost are no doubt a factor there. Simple math would say it’s always going to be more demanding to run a game in 3D with dual views, higher consistent frame rates and higher resolution compared to 2D. There is actually another flight sim that utilizes Vulkan and supports VR. Performance accounts from that game seem similar to DCS. This game would need a rough doubling or tripling of performance to make VR comparable to 2D. Of course then you’d have an underutilized 2D game getting 300FPS. I fear complex games like this will never work well in VR but I would be glad to be proved wrong.

I think PSVR sales were 5 million which sounds like a lot until you compare that with the 50 million PS5s sold. Then consider the other half of the console segment has no VR component at all. Overall then you’re looking at about the same % as PC adoption. More like a “challenging category” than a tremendous success https://mixed-news.com/en/playstation-vr-2-challenging-category/#:~:text=Playstation VR 2 was released,million sales in December 2017.

Right. We’re talking about PCVR here which is more relevant to flight sims. VR headset sales dropped by 40% in 2023. Meta has moved on to AI instead of the Metaverse, they’ve lost $25 billion on VR since becoming “Meta” https://apple.news/Az7NzKuSrT7a-dFCJ6JLOog No wonder many of the lower cost PCVR headsets like the G2 have been discontinued, that was by far the most popular headset for flight sims according to Navigraph.

Eyesight is the most simple explanation of why one person can see something that another person can’t. In order to prove that this isn’t the reason we need screenshots etc.

This discussion certainly has run its course. Any further “I can’t see the planes” anecdotes need to be accompanied by tracks and screenshots as well as game settings. Show us an actual screenshot of an “invisible” plane at .38 miles. Let’s see a label floating over empty sky to prove this claim. This is in fact a bug thread so show us an actual bug with documentation. Otherwise it’s apparent that some people just have poor eyesight. And if ED can’t arrive at an actual solution then just give us a genuine OFF option that’s server enforceable. Then we can all move on.

The results you see in the Steam Hardware or Navigraph survey aren’t likely relevant to DCS in terms of exact %. But one thing you can glean from them is that the % has never increased. It’s remained fixed at <2% or 12-16% respectively for the entire lifetime of VR. It’s never budged. For flight sims MSFS gave it the boost from 12% up to 16% back in 2020 but then it remained stuck there. VR has actually been around in its current iteration for 8 years now but has barely moved the needle for gaming usage.

I don’t think the results you get here sampling enthusiasts will be representative of the player base as a whole. In flight sims generally the only large survey I’ve seen indicates about 16% using VR.

Currently the “Off” setting for the Spotting Dots actually just reverts the feature back to its 2.8 values. The game should have a true Off setting. And this should be a mission setting enforceable in multiplayer. Furthermore if it’s decided to keep the different versions of the Spotting Dots they should be clarified by calling them “Suitable for Low Resolutions” (v2.8) and “Suitable for Higher Resolutions” (v2.9). But Off should mean Off.

It doesn’t matter how much real life data you cite. Players have been convinced by video games over the years that they’re supposed to easily see aircraft at great ranges. Cause that makes video games “fun”

In my industry, architecture and construction, I could have imagined VR just being the thing. And for a short time in 2017-2020 it got some attention. You can go walk around the building with a client and just see everything like it’s completely real. Pretty amazing. We did this in room-scale in a big special VR room with the lighthouses and such. Today of course everything is built virtual before it’s built for real. But the hype died or so it seems for these reasons. First the pandemic made every meeting remote. In fact the last thing I did before everything was locked down was this VR meeting. Ironically VR has to be in-person due to all the hardware. Now it’s all Zoom, everything has gone virtual. Offices are gone and everyone works remote. People aren’t going to share headsets either, what a laugh to reflect on those days. And the company isn’t going to buy everyone a $500 headset let alone a $3,500 one. Then the tech is too complicated for remote users to set up themselves even if they all had their own headsets. And then of course all this software we would use is Windows based so an Apple headset is a no-go. And it amazes me that given the type of work I do and the tech industry clients I work with that they aren’t all enthused with this stuff. But nope, it’s gone.

Yeah, these are likely reviews from typical people who think it should be like a pair of glasses. I thought the Oculus was about as heavy as a baseball cap. This tech is kinda dead regardless. I can’t see people wearing this to watch an entire movie or use as their computer monitor. In my industry it seems VR hype died with the pandemic because people won’t share headsets anymore and everything is Zoom calls.

This is more like asking someone else to drive you to work every day when you’re perfectly capable of driving yourself.

Well the cockpit view is a default snap view. Doesn’t matter what it’s called in an .lua that’s just how it works.