Chivas

The motion sickness is definitely a problem that has been partially addressed thru the development of the Oculus DK1, and DK2 protoypes. There is no way of knowing if the Oculus Crescent Bay prototype or the Vive prototype have ironed out the motion sickness issue, as both units have only been used by the public for a few minutes at Events using controlled demo software, in fact its impossible as certain software will cause motion sickness issues no matter how good the VR hardware is. One of the Oculus CEO's has had a huge motion sickness problem in VR, but says that is no longer a problem in the latest Oculus prototypes, and I have no reason to believe that motion sickness hasn't already been largely addressed by the latest Valve prototypes, but it always be an issue for some people. Everyone has different motion sickness levels. Motion sickness is related to a combination of the VR hardware specs, VR software used, and user susceptibility. The consumer versions should definitely see improvements in the latencies, resolutions, and tracking that effect motion sickness. It shouldn't be too much of a problem with combat flight sims software, when users fly with cockpit on. The cockpit framework will work much like the modelling of a users nose which apparently helps greatly in alleviating motion sickness.:) The cockpit framework is not as solid a reference point as a persons noes, but it should still work satisfactorily enough for most people..

I doubt that there is a laptop available today that will run DCS when using next years high resolution high hertz VR headsets. The demands are too great, and even highend PC's will struggle. That's not to say that future laptops, and VR hardware/software optimizations won't make it possible at some point.

I never had the feeling, and found my sense of depth much better which made it much easier to grease the landing.:)

One thing is for sure they both have more than enough money to R&D VR, not to mention they are going to make far more money from VR than any investment they make.

I think Samsung has a lot more money than Facebook. :)

Yes, the Samsung partnership should be a win/win for both parties. Samsung gets Oculus technology for their smartphone VR headset, and Oculus gets customs displays for their PC VR headset. Hopefully Oculus at some point will get dual curved high DPI, potentially high FOV displays.

I don't see the benefit of a 4K phone, but like you suggest it will definitely benefit future VR headsets, when systems are improved and optimized enough to push them.

I don't think DCS would stop an individual from gaining 3rd party status if they have a history of making decent maps in other sims. There might be an obstacle for an individual if there is a cost for 3rd party status, but if the individual is giving the map back to DCS for nothing I don't see a problem.

Some people are prone to favor one headset, or another for various reasons, sometimes irrationally, but I doubt many people will blindly throw their money at Vive, Sony, or Oculus etc. without checking the VR specs, system requirements, and the available software.

The consumer version will be much better than the Crescent Bay prototype, just as the Crescent Bay is much better than the DK2. The pricepoint of the initial consumer version will be relatively low, between 200, and 400 dollars, with the developer suggesting they will try to sell the Oculus at cost. Vive has suggested their hardware will be more expensive, but include an input device, that flight simmers won't require. No word yet if Vive will be supported by any flight sims. That said its way to early to make a decision on which headset to buy. The bigger question and probably one that will cost us much more money, is the computer system required to run VR effectively. Hopefully the VR hardware/software, and CPU/GPU drivers/software can be optimized enough to not require very expensive Titan etc parts .

The emersion is great, and some people might find the DK2 resolution works good enough for them, but I don't, and much better headsets/optimized for CV1 software/drivers will be available by the end of this year, or early next year. Once people see the new headsets, most people will forget about their DK2, and buy a new one. If you want a DK2 now, by all means buy one, but you will be spending another three hundred dollars in less than a year for the consumer version.

I have the DK2, but would never recommend it, as the resolution isn't near good enough. The consumer version will probably have two displays like the Crescent Bay, and will quite likely be higher resolution custom displays built especially for VR now that Oculus has partnered with Samsung, and helped them develop the tech required for their GearVR Samsung headset.

I think it will be quite sometime before we will have AR good enough for combat flight sims. It will also be quite sometime before we have VR that equals the visual quality of a good monitor. Abrash himself says that VR will have to be 16K per eye before it equals a good monitor, because the eye is so close to the display. That said, even at 2K per eye VR headset will have far more immersion, and 3D depth than any 3D monitor, TrackIR solution. You can still see that your in a room in your house with a monitor, while a VR headset removes all outside influences, and immerses you into the game. BUT VR won't be perfect for probably more than a few consumer versions.

Oculus has bought a Haptic feedback company so one of their consumer versions if not the first could have haptic feedback. Personally I'm not sure any of this type of tech is necessary for flight sims. The real tactile feedback of a pit or Hotas would feel much more realistic. There might be a immersion disconnect between the switch position in the virtual cockpit and the Hotas/pit switch position, not to mention all the different cockpit types, but I think most would just concentrate on the gauges in the virtual pit, and easily find their switches by feel. I would find it very hard to believe that if someone were able to build their own pit , and couldn't quickly find the rotaries, levers, and switches.

I guarantee you that finding those switches is easy and real pilots do it all the time. A see thru option is an experience killer.

Things could change, but Oculus is still talking a pricepoint between 200 and 400 dollars, and have talked about selling the Oculus Rift at cost. Oculus is creating all the custom parts themselves, and have access to Samsung custom displays at a decent pricepoint because of their partnership with Samsung. The Oculus headset will be far cheaper an more immersive than any monitor/trackIR setup. Although a headset resolution would have to be 16K to compete with the clarity of a decent monitor, but most people who have tried VR prefer the presence of virtual reality headset. We have to assume Oculus plans to gain revenues from the sale of the software for VR, and probably why they have invested so heavily in software development. Selling their hardware at cost will put a serious crimp in their competition. HTC has said their unit will cost more, but I assume their price will include the input wands. Oculus has bought a Haptics company and are working on their own input devices, but no word yet if those inputs will be ready for the headset release. That said, input wands are not a priority for the flight sim community.

Most people can find a light switch in the dark, and invariably its the first think they put their hand on. Most switches in a cockpit are unique, so most people if they initially missed the switch they were looking for would realize by feel that the switch they want is just to the left/right/etc etc. Muscle memory would soon have them doing it without having to consciously think about it. And your not in the dark, your in a virtual world. That said, all the headset companies are looking and implementing pass thru options. I don't believe the pass thru option is optimal in a lot of cases, as it immediately kills the holy grail of VR presence.

It should be very easy for Wags to get a free Valve headset. That said, it may be another thing altogether for them to change HMD support, or add support for two headsets. I would imagine its way to early for Wags to know which would be the better option, and will probably stay the course with Oculus support until more is known on both options.

The VR market for those with full pits is so tiny it isn't worth worrying about. That said it should be quite easy for those with full pits to find their switches without having to look for them. I have a three piece Hotas system not including the pedals, with hundreds of possible options, and I've never have to look for a switch or button after a few days use. People with full pits are looking for the highest realism possible, so having to learn how to fly in the dark like a real pilot won't be an issue for most of them. Not being able to see inputs is just a fear of the unknown, and a Tempest in a Teacup.

Here are some interesting posts from Palmer Luckey founder of Oculus on HMD hardware, software compatibility. We will probably have to look closely on what hardware runs the software we want to run before buying. [–]palmerluckeyFounder, Oculus VR 31 points32 points33 points 4 days ago (33 children) There is going to be software that is exclusive to the Rift, some of our first party content especially. We have been spending time and money on software for our system for years now, it is not "best for VR" for us to spend those finite resources compromising around lowest common denominator feature sets in an attempt to support all headsets. Other companies will do the same, creating and funding content that is designed around the strengths of their particular system. Most software developers will end up supporting all available headsets to some degree, but you can bet on VR hardware companies (headset, input, capture, and otherwise) funding development of things that show off the cutting edge - expect that to accelerate as things like eye tracking, body tracking, emotional state sensing, and other technologies start to become part of VR hardware, and accelerate further as competition drives people in different directions. It is hard for any dev (especially bigger, slower moving devs) to spend their own resources on new technologies before they are proven out, and that is true even for the relatively limited VR tech that exists today. P.S. The Rift is not closed. [–]palmerluckeyFounder, Oculus VR 17 points18 points19 points 3 days ago* (8 children) It is not just about headset/hardware features, it is about software support as well - different VR companies are taking very different approaches to rendering, as just one example, and some techniques won't easily port over to other sets of hardware/software/SDK/etc. Even when it can be done to high enough quality, taking resources off other projects to integrate and maintain support for all kinds of other hardware is often hard to justify, especially when you can't control future changes/updates/restrictions to that hardware. That can turn into a massive nightmare with huge downside and little upside, and once you commit to supporting a customer, you are on the hook to support them forever. That is not a political decision, it is a business decision driven by technical realities. Also keep in mind that apparent feature support is not a good way to measure if a title "should" be on other hardware. It is normal for games and applications to have update cycles stretching far beyond release, and sometimes those updates are driven by specific technology rollouts of both hardware and software. Committing to supporting all hardware at launch because the launch featureset is capable of doing so can make for a difficult situation further into the update cycle - do you put resources into updating for new features that only one company provides and piss off customers who bought your software to use on other hardware? Do you split development of your game into multiple parallel tracks and support new features from every company? Do you stick with the lowest common denominator, or just call it a day and move on to the next project? The equation gets harder and harder with each additional set of hardware to support, and while many (probably most) developers will try to solve it, some are going to want to take some development risk off and make a bet on supporting something to the best of their abilities. There are going to be very good reasons for some people to focus on a single platform, and everyone is going to win in the long run for it. For a good example of what can happen when devs support every platform vs a single platform, just look at crossplatform console/PC/mobile games VS dedicated PC titles, single-console titles, and dedicated mobile titles. Developers can manage to pull off a great game that translates well across everything, but the very best software for any platform is usually the software targeting it directly.

If I recall right, there is an avid DCS fan on the Oculus development team, and DCS has been working with Oculus for sometime especially during DCS development of their new EDGE graphic engine. I doubt very much that Valve has been working with DCS, as Valve has just recently started working with game software developers. Xplane, WarThunder, and DCS have been working with Oculus. No word yet if any flight sims are working with Vive. That could come at some point, but I'd be surprised if it happened before Vive releases at the end of this year. If in fact Vive does manage to deliver on time. We all know how that usually works out.

The Oculus SDK and updates has been open to anyone that wants one from day one. I know its not optimal or easy to convert existing games to support VR. The best solutions are games built from scratch specifically for VR. DCS might be OK, as they have been building a new graphic engine with support from Oculus for quite sometime.

I think VR might actually make the flight sim genre big again. If VR is good enough most current flight simmers will never want to go back to a monitor and Track IR. Most people will eventually try a few VR demos this year or next, and flight will probably be one of the demos available, as flight is a particularly good experience in VR. If the VR hardware and flight demo is well done, many people who were never interested in gaming will be hooked, and many of those people will move on to more complex flight sims. :)

Their is no doubt Valve's and Oculus benefitted from their partnership, but neither together or apart had the monies to create what they wanted. Their partnerships with HTC, Facebook/Samsung is better for both them and for us with the competition it created. Oculus will get along just fine after hiring Valve's lead VR tech in Abrish. spell? Not to mention Carmack, and hiring another three hundred of the top VR/3D/ hardware/software gaming techs and managers in the sector. Oculus might have a slight edge in the display department, since their partnership with Samsung gives them access to very highend custom displays at a cheaper pricepoint.

There probably won't be a DK3 available to the general public. Its possible they might send a close to CV1 prototype to major gaming developers. I have the DK2 and it is immersive, but it simply isn't good enough for flight sims due to the low resolution and the major factor of my IPD being too large. It looks like the CV1 will have a much larger IPD sweetspot, which I will be looking for before buying, no matter how good the unit is for those with average IPD's. I'd definitely wait for the Oculus CV1, but if the Vive consumer version looks like a winner, has DCS support, and Oculus hasn't released, or posted its specs for their consumer version then I would definitely look seriously at Vive, even if it is more expensive than the CV1's project price. If Vive actually manages release their hardware this year, before Oculus. Oculus may post their CV1 specs, and pricepoint especially if their specs are better and cheaper. Although I think Oculus was more worried about developers releasing poor VR headsets early, souring the market, which Valve is unlikely to do.