Baldrick33

It is close enough. If the devs want to be pedantic they can clip/fade/break tracking a few cm before my eye extrudes to allow for my helmeted head hitting the glass!

I think it is just that I have subconsciously trained myself to not ghost my way through the aircraft. The initial clipping through glass is pretty subtle and the moment I see it I know I am at the limit and keep my head in. With hard limits the aircraft has already started moving with my head which for me is much more immersion breaking. Once that happens I kind of think darn it and carry on moving the cockpit around with my head until I get to see behind me but that is probably me being obstinate because I don't like the method

As a long term sim fan I too have found VR a revelation. I first started with a DK2 in 2014 and still get wowed by it in race and aircraft sims! One of the biggest bugbears beyond getting good enough resolution and performance has been tracking. The almost daily threads on some forums from people starting out in VR of "why does my car/plane move with me?", which is answered by environment settings, lighthouse setup, lighting etc. This gets more confusing for new users understanding what is broken 6dof tracking (most people don't get 6dof vs 3dof tracking) and what is by design. Each to their own but I find stopping tracking in its tracks (pun intended!) the "janky" implementation, especially when it is far more likely for the user to come across in an aircraft compared with a race car. It just comes to show how preferences can differ so wildly in VR. Which of course is resolved by options as you have put forward so we should be covered, yet... ...the devil is in the detail And we have no shortage of detail on these forums, it is the nature of the DCS fan! Whilst I am sure many agree with your premise of providing options, you do wish to remove the existing option in multiplayer (or at least give server owners the opportunity to do so). You provide an alternative "soft" option but that remains an unknown both in terms of VR comfort and anti cheat effectiveness. In my view that is why you are surprised people aren't advocating such a proposal. Without seeing a prototype or even more detail as to how it would work I can understand the concerns on the impact it may have, so although I think most of us might agree in principle, we voice these concerns about the detail to ensure the developers are aware.

I think some on these forums have replaced PCBs on Warthog joysticks. @GunSlingerAUS has if I recall, they may be able to help you with getting one and how to get it working.

Oh dear, sounds like the stick is dead. This is a similar case - shows up in devices but not game controllers and the unfortunate conclusion was the stick had failed: https://forums.mudspike.com/t/hotas-warhog-stick-not-detected/13749

Out of interest, what is your personal goal in preventing cheating? Is it to prevent blatant abuse like sticking your head way out of the cockpit to be able to see beyond the airframe or is it to prevent any vision outside of the cockpit at all even if a fraction? The reason I ask as I think this will affect the impact of the fading/blurring on inadvertently going beyond the limits. I find the initial clipping of the glass an unintrusive indicator of the limits, beyond that the change in sound is more intrusive. Most of the time the mild clipping is sufficient but occasionally craning one's neck following an aircraft the whoosh noise appears! Not very often but that might be a pretty frustrating time for the screen to go black or pixelate. So I think a little leeway could be allowed. As suggested if the the initial clipping was accompanied with a nice sound of your head hitting the glass it would serve as a warning but you need some allowance to change direction before the vision blanks out.

I guessed so! I appreciate the frustration so happy to try to help What is curious is that Windows can clearly recognise the device is plugged in but fails to recognise it as a games controller. As others have said maybe installing TARGET will give you the option of updating the firmware?

Have you tried removing the stick from the base and re-connecting it?

The tricky bit is balancing the immersion factor with the need to prevent people abusing the privilege of immersion. There is a risk of solving one problem and creating an issue for those not abusing the system and we need to think about accessibility in multiplayer where we have people of all ages and mobility. I think it is just a case of fleshing out your suggestions into a full design which ED may well be on top of, most specifically how the “soft” option works in practice from both a competitive and comfort perspective.

Do you have the Thrustmaster software TARGET installed?

If you run Set up USB Game Controllers do you see the Joystick listed there? If so and you click on properties do the axis and buttons work? (In the English Windows version I would just type USB in the Search bar bottom left and then click on the Set up USB Game Controllers option)

I decided to revisit the head limits in the other sim. The odd thing was I found it easier to look behind me and less constrained than with the same BF-109 in DCS. Why? Because I can move my head and body as much as I like and simply "push" the aircraft with my head to get to the position I want and twist my body rather than my neck. Yes I am constrained virtually to remain inside the cockpit but physically I can move as much as I like. In DCS I am conscious of not pushing through the cockpit limits so I actually feel more constrained in my physical movement and need to twist my neck more. I guess with more time I would try to avoid pushing the aircraft around and the result would be much the same but I still would find those occasional times I pushed the limits a less immersive experience where the positional tracking stops. It also raises a concern of the blacking out being a worse option competitively. We can move our head and body unconstrained with hard limits, yet will need to keep within physical limits to avoid triggering the black out. The player who is simply trying to look over their shoulder my find the view blacking out whereas hard limits would keep them in the cockpit with the same physical movement.

I use Joy2Key too for mapping mouse buttons and wheel to HOTAS buttons as well as mouse centre I use the CMS hat on my stick for mouse control - Fwd Right button, back left button (assigned in DCS) and press for mouse centre (Joy2Key) and left and right for mouse wheel. In order to be able to press the button and repeat mouse wheel movements I use Joy2Key to assign keys which repeat 5x per second. It gives me enough control to say turn the rotary knob of an altimeter. Mouse movement I also use the Warthog throttle slew. I also assign mouse wheel movement to a rotary on a button box

I do think you have to use VR to understand how it feels when the world suddenly shifts with your head. It affects some very differently to others and until you have experienced it I would suggest it impossible to know which option you would prefer.

That all sounds great but the only real constraint that would work for me (and others have stated the same) is a proper physical constraint and that is beyond any developer's gift! The options as I see it are: 1/ Stop positional tracking at the limits (otherwise referred to as hard limits). You can continue to move your head but the cockpit and world view outside all shift with your movement. For some (myself included) it feels horrible (like positional tracking breaking which of course it is). For some this causes motion sickness 2/ Disable the view outside as you push through the limits be it by fading the screen to black or pixelating the outside view so you can't use it to an advantage. This is an unknown as to my knowledge no developer has implemented this as of yet. 3/ As you push through the limits the sound changes to being outside the cockpit but you can continue to see as you move beyond the limits and clip through cockpit glass and objects. This is what we have now. In all three cases there is a disincentive to push through the limits from an immersion perspective. None feel right so in my case at least I try to avoid it. That said if I inadvertently stick my head a few inches outside the limits I would pick option 3 as option 1 is just a nasty experience (in my view) and I don't know how option 2 will work. Without a real cockpit to hold onto things to swivel around and with the limited neck movement of some of our older and less able sim pilots applying real world constraints for fit young fighter pilots maybe asking a bit too much. So moving one's body a bit more to peer around may be deemed quite reasonable from an accessibility perspective. Option 2 (fade or pixelate) is intriguing because gradual fading as you move further out could be abused to allow the cockpit to be extended a little bit. If the goal is to prevent any movement outside of the cockpit to prevent cheating then it need to be immediate. In order to give the pilot back their vision as they move back within limits it needs to instant too. This is unlike the g force blackout and will need to be a switch which could create a flickering type effect as the screen blacks out for a very short duration. I am not sure how this would feel in VR and I am not convinced it would such a "soft" option if implemented as an anti cheat device - unless some leeway is given in which case it would be an advantage over hard limits (positional tracking stopping). It just depends upon the goal of anti cheating.

I believe checking the VR option when launching from Steam is exactly the same thing as checking the enable VR headset in DCS. It just launches DCS in VR mode.

Re read the original post which proposes limits (either hard or soft) as an option for server settings. So the proposal isn't just about immersion but to negate the perceived advantage VR users have. As for nausea it is a personal thing. Some find any breaking of tracking (which hard limits effectively does) messes with their minds!

My thoughts are that for the physics it might be a nice to have but very low priority over aircraft & systems development. As for the shooting parachutists suggestion this is against the Geneva Conventions - look up "Hors de Combat" and even prior to the Geneva Conventions in WW2 was widely regarded as unacceptable by pilots of both sides. I can't see ED endorsing this.

The many threads requesting pilot bodies for VR in those aircraft that don't have them would suggest otherwise. My anecdotal evidence from these forums is that in VR it is a popular option. I always have the pilot body on and turn it off momentarily if it is in the way. Being able to move the offending limb out of the way (or have it moved automatically as suggested) would be a more elegant solution

It has been asked for some time....

I will give a slightly alternative view DCS is whatever you want it to be. The DCS community is amazing - it has real world fighter pilots with many years of training and experience. It has the best sim pilots again with many years experience and aviation knowledge that could test some of the best real world fighter pilots! Not surprisingly they are very good at aviation combat in DCS. The risk is they become the benchmark. You can be a bit of a star at your local squash, tennis or football club even though so far from the top tier it just isn't comparable. A golfer with a 15 handicap may seem pretty good to the people he plays with yet way off being a Pro. That all seems pretty accepted. In the online world we are exposed to the best in the world - be it through multiplayer or even just comparing single player performances where difficulty levels need to cater for the very best. Of course challenge is good and striving to be better is part of desire to play realistic sims. Yet it can be a route to frustration. With the golfer analogy the desire is always to get better but aiming for a scratch handicap is unlikely to be a target because it is for most obviously unachievable and that is accepted, the average player is way off the top, that is how it works. IMHO there is nothing wrong with setting sights a bit lower in sims. Accept the fantasy. Many fit, bright young men & women fail to make the grade as real world fighter pilots, of those that do there is a small percentage who are the best. We can all be fighter pilots in DCS! The average DCS simmer is exactly that, average and beating themselves up about not being a DCS ace is only going to end in frustration. I would suggest setting achievable goals, don't rush into campaigns which maybe too difficult. Having a basic level of competence in a number of aircraft can be fun too, just find what you enjoy doing, there is no right way to play IMHO. Enjoy the fantasy of being a fighter pilot and put the fact it would never have happened in the real world behind you!

I have always found the head tracking on my Reverb G1 to be as smooth as other headsets I have had using lighthouse tracking. The issues arise when either the PC performance drops to a level it can't seem to keep up or hardware issues (I needed a replacement cable due to tracking issues). By default the G2 pushes the PC harder (higher resolution due to the change in lenses). I don't think there is a fundamental issue with Reverb tracking due to using inside out tracking.

I guess until we see an alternative to hard limits working in practice it is hard to advocate for it. You state that "either the options would be welcomed, or you wouldn't use them and their existence wouldn't affect the way you enjoy the game" yet your proposal is to give server owners the option to force limits, so they would affect the way we enjoy the game on those servers. The question is whether soft limits would work for those that find hard limits nauseating (or simply horrible). Judging by the reaction to the Apache helmet visibility in VR it could create more problems than it solves. Maybe not but I think it is why some are luke warm to the proposal.

Agreed. I just think some think this is a simple quick and easy fix - just like the "other" sim, whereas it needs a properly thought out design IMHO which is more involved (and time/resource consuming)

It depends whether the implementation is deemed for immersion - those that hate it the sim lets them accidentally stick their head out of the window - and is a totally user controlled option Or is a "realism" option to cater for those who believe VR users have an unfair advantage wing walking to spot the enemy in the blind spot so demand it is a server controlled option. Once the option is added client side how long before it is demanded to be a server side option? It isn't risk free - it could become a barrier to entry on multiplayer servers for those that would get nauseous if the world suddenly moves with the headset which fixed limits would do.