Damocles

Some modules are better than others, VR wise, not intentional obviously, it's just that VR obviously shines a light on deficencies that weren't apparent before. Some modules, while they look good using a traditional monitor setup really don't quite come up to scratch when used in VR. It's certainly not a criticism, just an unplanned for perspective. Some modules don't work so well because areas not normally seen can now be observed and others, usually the more complex cockpits, mix 3D parts with 2D parts detracting from otherwise good pits. These are simply my observations and in no way do I consider them definitive, as I fly around more I may very well begin to appreciate different aspects or that my initial thoughts were incorrect, so please just accept them as such and please add your thoughts on the modules that you've tried. So far of the modules I've tried my favorites, would be: The 109k , Good, well rendered pit, wings look solid and made from what they are when reflecting light and if you stand up in the cockpit the aircraft appears complete. If there is one small niggle about the 109 it is, when you stand the external surfaces don't have the same metallic look as the wings. Bravo to whoever made the 109, 8 out of 10. The Mig 15, Again very well rendered pit and the aircraft looks complete when standing in cockpit. The only area that I think lets it down is the external surfaces, visible from the cockpit, they don't reflect light as well as on the 109 making them appear less realistic. Still, an excellent VR ride, 7 out of 10 F86, Much the same as the MIG 15 above so again 7 out of 10. It will be interesting, as I go through the WW2 aircraft, to see if, because the pits are less complex, they by and large make for a better, more complete, VR experience. I hope, whoever is modeling the Spitfire, spends any extra time he might have giving the aircraft a VR polish. A very fitting aircraft to usher in a new Flight sim era.

I've noticed lots of clipping at the edges of my view when using the Rift in 1.53. Anyone else notice this ?

I suspect, the view, while standing up in the cockpit will also need to given consideration by module developers in the future. They're not bad, but obviously not a consideration in the past, but now, artifacts, clipping etc take away from what is otherwise a quite surreal experience and a whole new perspective of immersion and enjoyment. Wow, I hadn't realized how small the Mig 15 was, it's tiny.

Well, just open the canopy like you normally do, with whatever button or default key you have set, and then just, actually physically stand up. I presume you could try it without opening the canopy but it might not help with immersion. I've only had time to try the 109 thus far.

When you're parked, obviously, although it might be quite tripy when flying, if you can hold on to your lunch "Hey, bloomin eck !, I'm in an aircraft". It's fun to look at the aircraft your actually sitting in from this perspective, it gives you another feeling of being in/part of something.

I was a little concerned, before getting my Rift that I would feel restricted because of the "limited" field of view. I used to play with triple screens and TrackIR and given all the chatter during development of the Rift I expected to have to temper my experience to allow for this. I needn't have worried. The view can certainly be compared to looking through a ski mask or dive goggles but having said that, 90% of the time, it's just not a factor that you're really aware of. The restriction only really makes itself apparent when checking six or trying to look up and you have to make an extra effort, if possible, to try and get that little bit extra that you would expect to see. There is a big plus side though. My experience suggests that you notice far more of what is actually going on around you. A lot of the little details of what was happening in the cockpit, in the past, went largely unnoticed by me, even when using a triple monitor that maybe showed more of the cockpit than normal. Now I notice far more of what is happening in the cockpit and possibly, once I have a little more going on around me, outside the cockpit as well. Peripheral vision within the environment seems to be working more naturally within the sim, with movement and contrast helping to pick out events that before might very well have passed, completely unnoticed unless I happened to be looking directly at them or was expecting them, and probably looked directly at them anyway.

Ok, so just tried the Huey with the CV1. Some aspects are fantastic, I get a real sense of movement which helps greatly and within a couple of minutes I was flying much better than I could mange without the googles. I mastered the controls and the aircraft far quicker, thankfully. The bad however is that until you get a good handle on controlling the helicopter and you wobble all over the place it's very nausea inducing. The question is which takes precedence first.

My fringe is really bugging me when I put on my CV1. Having a swivel chair helps add a few degrees to checking six, not many, but some although the same can't be said for looking out the top of the canopy.

Ok, I stand corrected. I thought that detailed external views of the players aircraft might be superfluous with the advent of VR. I was wrong. Two reasons, first I just enjoyed flying around in the 109 and the externals of my aircraft where very enjoyable. I'm not sure if I got the same feeling flying any of the other modules I've tried or if it was just the particular environmental circumstances. Secondly, jumping to external helped suppress feelings of queasiness.

Things that might need to be reworked specifically for the VR experience. Just a couple to kick it off. 1) Sun glare, the sun is there but not overly shiny. Two reasons, better spatial orientation of player and also tactical. 2) Tracers, aren't very obvious and could do with a visual solidity enhancement.

.??? Not sure what you mean. I suppose the first question one might ask is WHY, why do we have external views ? I don't necessarily mean the obvious answer but a deeper, feeling of physical presence, need that maybe jumping into externals provides . I just wonder if the VR experience makes external views, a legacy of computer flight sims from the year dot, redundant ? It's obviously nice to see the external aircraft flying around, but will they really be needed in the same way as before ? Like I mentioned earlier, it's not purely a philisofical question, while I think the cockpits are great in VR, I think as VR fidelity improves, they will increasingly look only adequate and the bar will need to be raised in terms of finess and quality. If. External views, or at least in the extreme detail we now have are redundant then maybe resources can be directed to that end instead. Maybe external views of a players aircraft would only need to be on a par with A.I aircraft, saving both development resources and also computational resources ?

Does the VR experience add, or change, the flying experience enough that external views aren't really needed any more when flying ? I'm not saying you wouldn't ever get to see a 3D representation of the aircraft, but maybe just not once you hit the fly button. It would be still nice to have a sense of your aircraft, livery etc, but once you fly, the notion of being in the cockpit and physically present is very strong and thus flipping to external views may, in future be less important. One reason I ask is because I wondered if it might lead to modules being easier to develop if developers don't need to go into the fine detail and animation that might be required for traditional external views.

I wonder if/when a module will come out that will really, specifically makes the most of the new VR cockpit perspective. I'm not suggesting any are bad, but I think if a developer was designing primarily from a VR pilots perspective they might put more effort into some refinement/detail aspects that standard, monitor users, wouldn't really appreciate.

I really like the way it is far easier to orientate myself in an environment now. I always struggled, in the past, to look at the same spot/target orientation, if I looked away and then back again. Dogfighting will be far from perfect with the CV1, but the sense of space will certainly help in years to come, with spotting a target, quickly checking the airspace around the aircraft for potential threats, and then reacquiring the target and launching an attack, because you know where, in physical space the Bogie is.

Really giving my neck a real work out, it's quite challenging checking 6. Not quit realistic, because normally your eyes and peripheral vision would add a little more, but I would say more realistic than using TrackIR to checking six and a bit more. Might need some Neckcercise warm up routines before flying.

Agreed, not a good idea to split the code base. I was thinking more along the lines of possibly a module, like those of the aircraft, but a series of optimizations that tidy up the game for VR users. VR changes the emphasis of what you experience and how you perceive things. I wasn't thinking of anything that specifically tailors the game to VR, just polishing what is already there so that it reflects that new perception. I suppose one simple step, for example, might be ensuring that each aircraft has a pilots body. While it's not totally essential, it is really thrilling seeing a body in ED, although it does feel a little disconcerting when it doesn't move when you move, but cool non the less. The VR user base might be small to start with but it will surely grow and I would have thought that it will soon compete with numbers to match the sales of an aircraft module. If money was involved, as part of a paid for module, then maybe ED could even pass some of that on to third party aircraft developers to help bring up their existing modules to VR gold standards.

Would it make sense to have a DCS VR edition/module ? Experiencing DCS in VR is incredible, but not without it's challenges or specific anomalies. Work could be done to specifically tailor the DCS experience to VR, whether it be as simple as removing the baked on reflections on gauges or giving the gauges a more glassy effect to rethinking how other aircraft, targets, are represented to make them more obvious (that would potentially look rubbish outside of VR) . Given that DCS is more specifically a deep study sim and the feeling of being IN the cockpit is excellent it seems sensible to concentrate, embellish and improve on that feeling of presence, I was particularly impressed, when flying the 109, how the light reflected off the skin of the aircraft wings. It really made me think "metal wings" in a way that I hadn't before. I for one, and remember, I come from Scotland, would be prepared to stump up extra cash if ED were prepared to put extra effort into tailoring a specific VR module. VR might not be a big revenue stream initially, but it will grow and the more compelling the experience the quicker it will grow. Potentially, in a couple of years time, with the release of second generation devices, with better resolution, VR will be an absolute must, period. It seems like common sense to start crafting the product to meet that eventuality, using early adopters to test pilot the results in anticipation of that future.

Got my Rift CV1 today and gave DCS a whirl, all I can say is WOW. It's far from perfect, but the feeling of being in the pit is just phenomenal. I can't wait for CV2. The 3D pit's are utterly wasted on non VR users, they're just incredible, I never truly appreciated the work that goes into them until now. The down side, obviously is the resolution. Yes it sucks, and yes I can see screen door quite clearly, guns combat will be a pain, but you know what, I couldn't go back, I've glimpsed the future and it's just awesome. Funnily enough, while the pit's look considerably better, the externals look worse, not because they're bad, but you just don't see the glorious detail that we've become accustomed too , because of the resolution and screen door. Another thing I like, although I've got a bit of a stiff neck at the moment, so it's not ideal, is the real world limitations of looking around over your shoulder etc. It will definitely add a fatigue factor to air combat.

Originally Posted by Kurfürst It kinda opens Pandora's box when you consider that quite typically 5-10% of the USAAF's planes aborted their missions due to some mechanical trouble, and that's the USAAF with its well built planes. Imagine the RAF. Using sortie abort rates as an indicator of mechanical reliability is a bit silly really.

I think, because the vibration is directly felt through the seat cushion rather than through the chair, that the BK is attached to, then the BRRRRRRRRRRT is more than adequate. Not, maybe the full punch of a BK at full power but still very satisfying. Ill just add that I haven't adjusted any of the effects strength sliders, all of which are 50%, so presumably if I wanted more punch for certain effects, or less, I could do that in the Simshaker software .

Thanks, that's good to hear.

To answer some of your questions: No, the motors vibrate independently depending on the programed effect. Yes, you can feel them in there various locations. The only caveat to that, from my own experience, is I don't noticeably feel any difference between the front and rear motors under my bum, but that might just be my sitting position. I would say it's a definite step up from the buttkicker but mainly because of the Simshaker software that specifically targets different events in the sim, wheels, flaps etc. Simshaker is also potentially it's weakest point as it is entirely dependent on some fella,out there, on the internet and what he feels like doing, or not and which games he invests his time in. I haven't tried the Audio only method of input but I expect it works very much like the BK except that the Gameseat more directly shakes YOU, like a massage, rather than shaking the chair through which you feel it's effects. This to my mind is quieter, although it does still make a noise, so is far more household friendly. I don't expect audio input would differentiate between different motors, either they're on or off, but I might be wrong.

Not that I'm showing my age or anything. (Whirlybirds seems like a millennia ago) I've always struggled with helicopters, will, does VR revolutionize the experience, that flying helicopters becomes more fun and less graft ?

Thanks =Andre=, Very efficient service and Jetseat works like a charm. Only one small issue ! Because it wasn't wrapped, just taped up box, covered in pictures of tanks and aircraft, there was absolutely no way I could get it past the wife as anything other than what it was intended for. :doh:

Try hitting the ground, it works for me every time. :joystick: