Will VR change sim cockpits?

[metalnwood]

If we talking only about 3D goggles based VR (oculus and so on) - it can't change cockpit building in any way - it's something suitable for Wii, playstation or xbox (if you have no friends and family) - you put it on and you are looking through a hole at 3D graphics and can't really interact with anything or anybody around.

 

Projector based Mixed VR is a different mater - that could potentially have massive impact on cockpit building as you can be physically inside the VR, take controls with you as well as retain the ability to interact with everything and everybody in normal manner.

 

I've got it working now with the SimPit Black Pearl and Icarus

 

(some photos have 3D vision off)

 

 

It's not really quite as simple as that though is it? If I was still building pits then your kind of display is without a doubt, what I would have wanted to add to it.

 

In the end, a lot of people are not going that way. Actually, racing people and a lot on iracing are going to VR only. I use that as an example as it's what you have in the videos.

 

It works exceptionally well in racing and controls are not an issue for anyone that I know about. There are no issues not being able to use the wheel, pedals, H-shifter, sequential shifter or buttons. I love having the motec and other displays in VR for the different cars wheels, thats something you can't do with a projector as per your video.

 

I have a rather simple wheel I built, it is not a F1 rim with many, many controls but it does represent what most of us are dealing with and dont have problems interacting with.

 

There are a number of threads here of people who have changed their pits for VR and in other forums there are many people who never had pits but are making something that accommodates VR better than a desk set up but people that would not have built a full flight sim pit.

 

It's already come up in the thread, it's each to their own and guys who are doing VR, including myself, don't have the same issues people not doing VR reference all the time WRT VR.

 

As long as we are all happy doing what we are doing, I wont try to influence anyone one way or another.

[zahry]

It's not really quite as simple as that though is it? If I was still building pits then your kind of display is without a doubt, what I would have wanted to add to it.

 

In the end, a lot of people are not going that way. Actually, racing people and a lot on iracing are going to VR only. I use that as an example as it's what you have in the videos.

 

It works exceptionally well in racing and controls are not an issue for anyone that I know about. There are no issues not being able to use the wheel, pedals, H-shifter, sequential shifter or buttons. I love having the motec and other displays in VR for the different cars wheels, thats something you can't do with a projector as per your video.

 

I have a rather simple wheel I built, it is not a F1 rim with many, many controls but it does represent what most of us are dealing with and dont have problems interacting with.

 

There are a number of threads here of people who have changed their pits for VR and in other forums there are many people who never had pits but are making something that accommodates VR better than a desk set up but people that would not have built a full flight sim pit.

 

It's already come up in the thread, it's each to their own and guys who are doing VR, including myself, don't have the same issues people not doing VR reference all the time WRT VR.

 

As long as we are all happy doing what we are doing, I wont try to influence anyone one way or another.

 

As soon as you express opinion in any way you are influencing people - but that is absolutely alright. Having opinion about something is not a bad thing and if it is expressed in civilized manner it is actually great thing because it adds value to the discussion. Personally I don't like the political correctness because people now are either too scared to say anything uncomfortable or are flat out crazy rude - and none of that is good)

 

back to the subject. I'm assuming you are taking exclusively about 3D goggles based VR (3D). With that I can't imagine what would be even the point of building any kind of cockpit - you can't see it or use it - it's like painting a nice picture, put it in-front of you and poke your eyes out. And I can't really imagine anybody spending time on wiring monitors, switches, huds and MFDs they will never be able to use. For that matter I can't even imagine what would be the point of making sophisticated games anymore.

 

The question that hasn't been asked yet (and should) is how the 3D goggles are affecting games and simulation - so far every "VR" title is pretty simple, shallow and boring. What's worse the 3D goggles manufacturers just take and don't give anything back. If that will be the only way to go the future will be pretty sad - soon we will have just 4 button "simulators" for simpletons with cartoon graphics and physics + complimentary big labels "vr ready", pompous CGI marketing that has nothing to do with reality and all drivers/hardware improvements locked out ( i.e. as you might already know AMD recently locked out VSR for projectors as a support for VR goggles) ... not sure how that suppose to improve anything and I really like my sophisticated and challenging simulation.

[5e EVC Chappy]

The problem with VR in flight simulation is that we will still need to use a keyboard for some shortcuts.

[giei]

The problem with VR in flight simulation is that we will still need to use a keyboard for some shortcuts.

 

No <-- click :pilotfly:

[metalnwood]

Not much will change. The USAF is not using VR for their flight simulators and are building more realistic pits for the F-35 as we speak.

 

Pitbuilding will go on for those who want to build them and want to have a tactile simulator experience like the Air Force uses. VR is for those who do not, so nothing much will change.

 

Go to Viperpits website. VR is barely mentioned.

 

Definitely, the air force will stay with pits and for good reason. I sometimes see people say why have formula 1 teams not gone to VR from their projector setups if it is so good. Also for very good reasons.

 

For some enthusiasts who dont really fly f35's or race F1 cars we have different requirements and it is mostly to have fun :)

 

F1 racers have specific requirements and that is familiarity of their car, their complex wheel and that is a lot of what they spend time in the simulator for. VR wouldnt work as they use is specifically for working with replicas of their hardware. Even things like track familiarity are not top of the list in their simulators. The same goes for the airforce, VR doesnt work because the goals are differen't.

 

Which is also like some enthusiasts as well.

[metalnwood]

As soon as you express opinion in any way you are influencing people - but that is absolutely alright. Having opinion about something is not a bad thing and if it is expressed in civilized manner it is actually great thing because it adds value to the discussion. Personally I don't like the political correctness because people now are either too scared to say anything uncomfortable or are flat out crazy rude - and none of that is good)

 

back to the subject. I'm assuming you are taking exclusively about 3D goggles based VR (3D). With that I can't imagine what would be even the point of building any kind of cockpit - you can't see it or use it - it's like painting a nice picture, put it in-front of you and poke your eyes out. And I can't really imagine anybody spending time on wiring monitors, switches, huds and MFDs they will never be able to use. For that matter I can't even imagine what would be the point of making sophisticated games anymore.

 

The question that hasn't been asked yet (and should) is how the 3D goggles are affecting games and simulation - so far every "VR" title is pretty simple, shallow and boring. What's worse the 3D goggles manufacturers just take and don't give anything back. If that will be the only way to go the future will be pretty sad - soon we will have just 4 button "simulators" for simpletons with cartoon graphics and physics + complimentary big labels "vr ready", pompous CGI marketing that has nothing to do with reality and all drivers/hardware improvements locked out ( i.e. as you might already know AMD recently locked out VSR for projectors as a support for VR goggles) ... not sure how that suppose to improve anything and I really like my sophisticated and challenging simulation.

 

Then my influence will hopefully to be help people be informed.

 

I guess I am taking the view that a pit is when you take yourself away from a desk. We have examples on this forum from simple to very complex. VR is going to be on the simple side as it wont necessitate a lot more.

 

You are right, people are not going to have tens or hundred of switches that are impractical to use in VR. Most pits made for VR I see will put the user in a somewhat simulated seating position with controls they do use in a realistic place and then often a button box of some kind in a position that is easy to access with muscle memory without looking.

 

A pit like that also represents many that have been shown off here in the past and I wouldn't be one to be elitist about it if it was to be used for VR or just a modest pit by anyone else.

 

With respect to software. You can look at it from two angles. There is the new software, not a lot of simulation has come from new titles but how long did it take to develop DCS for example? I wouldn't expect an immature technology to have such software made from the ground up at this time. A lot of software is currently simple and exploring what can be done well in VR.

 

Then look at it from this point of view. Some of the most popular and complex simulations are already supporting VR. DCS, FSX, P3D, various racing titles. How can you say these are dumbed down? They have all the functionality available. Very early on it was said that VR would be very suited to this genre and there is already very good support happening in simulation for it.

 

You can fly in VR and have the most complex pits modelled available to you to fly. Whats the difference? The only difference is that I interact with them in a different manner.

 

If I know the a10 inside and out, i.e all the systems thoroughly and use them in VR and you tell me I am not 'really' doing it right because I didn't flick a real switch then I think you have the wrong idea about what most of us are trying to simulate.

 

At the end of the day, it's not only the display or the buttons.

[vicx]

I have seen some comments in previous threads which ask a pretty silly question. Why do you need a physical pit for VR when you can't see where the controls are anyway?

 

Only someone who has NEVER used a modern VR system would consider this a serious question. It's silly question because in VR it is possible to sit inside a PERFECT VIRTUAL REPLICA PIT AND sit inside a PERFECT PHYSICAL REPLICA PIT at the same time. If the physical and virtual matchup then you CAN most certainly operate the PHYSICAL pit using your VIRTUAL vision. Why you would want to do this is also completely obvious. It becomes intensely real and this approaches the IDEAL.

 

---

 

This guy in VR is NOT using a pass-through camera. He sees a virtual replica of a vive controller flying in his HMD and he catches the physical controller. What makes this possible is that the virtual copy matches the physical in ALL visual characteristics. The concept also works in reverse. A virtual rock in that scene could have a physical copy placed into the room. In so much as the physical characteristics of rock matched up with its virtual representation you could sit and stand on it from inside VR and it would feel very real.

 

 

---

 

We can (if we want to) make physical and virtual objects match up. Syncing virtual and physical replicas is not that hard (and a pit is simple for being almost static).

 

What is hard is the process of making a PHYSICAL REPLICA PIT. It is true that by not modelling the purely visual elements (for a physical pit made for VR use), you COULD save a lot of time and money. Still, creating perfect physical replicas of real cockpits will remain hard.

 

For this reason many people will not pursue this type of VR immersive cockpit. Others will pursue as far as their budget and skills will allow. The more things change ...

[hansangb]

I can't wait for gloves to have that kind of granularity. To use with a pit. Would be AWESOME!

[zahry]

 

For this reason many people will not pursue this type of VR immersive cockpit. Others will pursue as far as their budget and skills will allow. The more things change ...

 

This is brilliant example of totally misleading marketing that has absolutely nothing to do with real product or its capabilities - Green screen, CGI and video cuts to fool gullible people :) ...

 

regarding the "VR" titles - I'm not talking about DCS, p3d, xplane, arma, iracing, assetto and so on - those are NOT in any way VR titles and it is quite rude to call them that - those are proper simulators for PC enthusiasts (you can put 3D goggles on but you will be very limited in what you can do) - one of examples of game seriously suffering from being "VR" title for 3D goggles is Elite dangerous - the first one was pushing the boundaries what computers, second and third were pretty advanced and really close to space simulation, Elite now? very pretty and detailed (at least on monitors, TVs and projectors) but very dumbed down - if it was made properly for PC and the 3D goggles completely ignored the game would have been as good as promised on kickstarter ...

[metalnwood]

Zahry, what is it that I cannot do in DCS with a HMD? Are you just comparing to people that dont have lots of switches and projectors? Is it also rude to call it a simulator for people at their desk with nothing more than a hotas and a mouse?

 

I dont understand why you say simulators dont count as VR titles? They are great examples of VR titles.

 

Rude to call them such? I am lost in your reasoning.

 

DCS is sim where I can hop in the A10 and perform roles with full interaction with the virtual pit. There is nothing that cannot be done in the virtual pit.

 

There is obviously some other reason that is not obvious to me why you think that way.

 

PS, that video cut, green screen was just a way to show what I have seen in a number of videos of people throwing and catching controllers with no real view of them other than that shown to them in VR. Things have to work reasonably well for you to be able to do that.

[zahry]

simulators are not VR titles in any way - it wasn't developed for those displays, it would be here without it and 3D gogles had no effect on the development or the function - and there is no reason to hijack it.

 

"VR" title is something specifically developed for 3D goggles and to compensate for the handicaps when you wearing them.

 

3D goggles "VR" support and VR (3d) title is substantial difference.

 

* What you can do with 3D goggles on is the same what any person can do in the virtual cockpit on monitor (providing you don't knock the mouse of the table). wearing them just makes using peripherals limiting, difficult and quite an anoying exercise (and I'm talking from first hand experience because I was wearing 3D goggles for quite some time),

 

I do understand why people like the idea and the novelty but it's nothing special - it's 150 years old design that hasn't changed in century and half and periodically goes through hypes like this one when people forget why they stopped using it the first time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereoscope (still the same SBS stereoscope - technology improved some bits but the limitations are still the same)

 

* The cut is just a slide of hands...

 

I've spent well over decade and half doing r&d and experiments with 3D goggles and i'm just pointing out the most obvious nonsense and brainwash from facebook and valve - the crowd of managers and marketters from failed 3D TV companies just moved into new field - 3D goggles - and it really shows.

 

don't get me wrong - I have nothing against 3D goggles as a display device - I have issue with the companies and their followers ruthlessly stomping everything in their way trying to claim 3D goggles are the only and best way to go and everything else is a just useless garbage. In that case it's not surprising I feel like clearing up some facts.

Edited May 11, 2016 by zahry

[KLR Rico]

the crowd of managers and marketters from failed 3D TV companies just moved into new field - 3D goggless - and it really shows

 

"The horse carriage guys moved into a new field - automobiles" :pilotfly:

[vicx]

3D goggles "VR" support and VR (3d) title is substantial difference.

...

I've spent well over decade and half doing r&d and experiments with 3D goggles and i'm just pointing out the most obvious nonsense and brainwash from facebook and valve - the crowd of managers and marketters from failed 3D TV companies just moved into new field - 3D goggles - and it really shows.

 

This is a conflation. Valve most certainly CANNOT be bundled with managers and marketters from failed 3D TV companies. Where did you get this nonsensical idea? Don't let your passion for your area of interest make you lose your mind when you make comments on the internet.

 

don't get me wrong - I have nothing against 3D goggles as a display device

 

Your characterization of VIRTUAL REALITY systems as "3d goggles" indicates an anachronistic understanding. Modern VR system have capabilities that place them far beyond mere stereoscopic displays.

 

I think you need to revisit your understanding of this subject matter so you don't come across as ignorant. Yes you have experience but a lot of that knowledge and experience is old and dated. On the subject of VR your prejudice is obvious and is more limiting to an honest discussion than the contributions of a person who comes claiming less, but more current knowledge and experience.

 

The maturation of sensor fusion tracking is what distinguishes modern VR from efforts at VR in the past. The head and other objects are now tracked with HIGHER levels of fidelity and images delivered to the HMD now match this movement and are presented at low latency.

 

People catching objects while in the HTC Vive is not a special effect. The fidelity of the Vive tracking system is a technological reality and the videos are just showing a logical result.

 

I have issue with the companies and their followers ruthlessly stomping everything in their way trying to claim 3D goggles are the only and best way to go and everything else is a just useless garbage. In that case it's not surprising I feel like clearing up some facts.

 

This is the MOST honest thing you have said. I think we can agree that many display technologies are valid and specialty displays will retain their value for very good reasons. If you were simply to make this point without all the other nonsense I think you will find many people you thought opposed to your views ... actually agree with you "on this point".

[trigen]

With a HMD and accurate tracked VR gloves you would really only need dummy switches. Pit building can get a whole lot cheaper for those who wants the best experience with their loved aircraft.

[agrasyuk]

But, truthfully and in defense of those who "don't get it" until a person actually uses DCS World in Virtual Reality, a person really can't comprehend what we're talking about.

So we'll just have to have a little understating....:smilewink:

I think you are getting a tad high on yourself there with "can't comprehend". It doesn't take a lot to realize that what VR offers is excellent system for visual component. But as important as it is there is more to simpit building then visual component. As someone who primarily interested in it it looks like you "really can't comprehend" that someone else can be primarily interested in other aspect of it.

[VincentLaw]

I think what VR does is allow for a realistic experience with much more minimalist home cockpits. The visual fidelity is all in the goggles, so the cockpit just needs the HOTAS, pedals, and seat in the right place to be a good experience. accurately placed switches and buttons would be is the next step for more a more serious home VR cockpit. One thing I don't really understand is the persistent mentality that traditional PC controls (mouse and keyboard) are not suitable for VR. I can type accurately while blindfolded, and I can find a key pretty quickly even if the keyboard is moved.

Edited May 11, 2016 by VincentLaw

[metalnwood]

simulators are not VR titles in any way - it wasn't developed for those displays, it would be here without it and 3D gogles had no effect on the development or the function - and there is no reason to hijack it.

 

"VR" title is something specifically developed for 3D goggles and to compensate for the handicaps when you wearing them.

 

3D goggles "VR" support and VR (3d) title is substantial difference.

 

* What you can do with 3D goggles on is the same what any person can do in the virtual cockpit on monitor (providing you don't knock the mouse of the table). wearing them just makes using peripherals limiting, difficult and quite an anoying exercise (and I'm talking from first hand experience because I was wearing 3D goggles for quite some time),

 

I do understand why people like the idea and the novelty but it's nothing special - it's 150 years old design that hasn't changed in century and half and periodically goes through hypes like this one when people forget why they stopped using it the first time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereoscope (still the same SBS stereoscope - technology improved some bits but the limitations are still the same)

 

* The cut is just a slide of hands...

 

I've spent well over decade and half doing r&d and experiments with 3D goggles and i'm just pointing out the most obvious nonsense and brainwash from facebook and valve - the crowd of managers and marketters from failed 3D TV companies just moved into new field - 3D goggles - and it really shows.

 

don't get me wrong - I have nothing against 3D goggles as a display device - I have issue with the companies and their followers ruthlessly stomping everything in their way trying to claim 3D goggles are the only and best way to go and everything else is a just useless garbage. In that case it's not surprising I feel like clearing up some facts.

 

 

You are telling people who are already using VR and like it that they dont know what they are talking about. Often people that have tried both sides of the fence and made a decision themselves but for some reason you you think they have become brainwashed.

 

Your definitions of what something is has become made up. DCS doesn't do VR because it wasn't made from the ground up? While 'coining' your own product as 'Mixed VR' looks like you are trying to jump on the bandwagon of the publicity.

 

@agrasyuk I think I have agreed with everything you have penned. At heart, I like making stuff and still think pit building is a great thing. I would happily encourage anyone to continue with a pit if thats what they wanted to do and help them if I could.

 

If I could comment on one thing, your reply to digitalengine. I guess out of context it might seem as you said but in responding to Zahry, who was so biased with his response that I give him a little wiggle room myself.

[hansangb]

To plays devil's advocate, if I could get 180deg view (like what the video shows) *and* it's in 3D *and* it tracks my head movement - 6DOF, I'd like that. I'd prefer it over HMD. But if it's just projector showing a large 2D image, I'll pass. After experiencing VR and the sensation of speed, there is no going back. I'm just not sure clear what the hybrid VR solution entails (in the other thread)

 

EDIT: OK, saw the updated video...interesting....I wonder if it has the same problem of every failed 3D movie. meaning the images are always fuzzy and not crisp at all. I don't know active glasses make a difference or not.

Edited May 11, 2016 by hansangb
EDIT part

[zahry]

You are telling people who are already using VR and like it that they dont know what they are talking about. Often people that have tried both sides of the fence and made a decision themselves but for some reason you you think they have become brainwashed.

 

Your definitions of what something is has become made up. DCS doesn't do VR because it wasn't made from the ground up? While 'coining' your own product as 'Mixed VR' looks like you are trying to jump on the bandwagon of the publicity.

 

@agrasyuk I think I have agreed with everything you have penned. At heart, I like making stuff and still think pit building is a great thing. I would happily encourage anyone to continue with a pit if thats what they wanted to do and help them if I could.

 

If I could comment on one thing, your reply to digitalengine. I guess out of context it might seem as you said but in responding to Zahry, who was so biased with his response that I give him a little wiggle room myself.

 

Well, in general, from the reactions it sometimes it feels like I'm talking about somebody's girlfriend ...

 

Quite large portion of users have act as if 3D goggles are VR (virtual reality) and not a 3D display (SBS 3D) with 6dof head-tracking. they will go on arguing even when you take the display apart, show them the bits and how it all works. I would say that's quite compelling evidence of hard conditioning. You can use even old CRT monitor to make something true believers would call "VR" just need a duct tape, Fresnel lens and TIR)

 

DCS does support side by side 3D and warping for the 3D goggles - but its not subservient product or made solely for the devices. (although oculus is getting quite obtrusive with the "automatically detect oculus" marketing in game menus and so on) i.e. DCS it's made for everybody - you can still export displays, use panels and switches and export data. There is no knife on a neck to use anything and you can use it and enjoy it the way you want and fancy - which is absolutely fantastic and I hope it will stay that way.

 

The "VR Titles" on the other hand have all that prohibited and actively preventing users unlocking it or take any advantage of features that meant to be only for 3D goggle users. They are made in the way they exclude everything but the 3D goggles. - THAT is the difference.

 

While 'coining' your own product as 'Mixed VR' looks like you are trying to jump on the bandwagon of the publicity..

 

By definition the VR (virtual reality) is the software so i call it mixed VR because I'm mixing the game in 3D (the virtual reality) with real 3D objects. Virtual reality is what it says - Virtual Reality - not a 3D goggles. Holocockpit could be bit better term but then people jump to conclusion that it might have something to do with microsoft hololens (which it doesn't of course)

 

sorry to point it out again - 3D goggles are devices for displaying virtual reality (same as monitors, tvs and projectors).

Edited May 12, 2016 by zahry

[zahry]

To plays devil's advocate, if I could get 180deg view (like what the video shows) *and* it's in 3D *and* it tracks my head movement - 6DOF, I'd like that. I'd prefer it over HMD. But if it's just projector showing a large 2D image, I'll pass. After experiencing VR and the sensation of speed, there is no going back. I'm just not sure clear what the hybrid VR solution entails (in the other thread)

 

EDIT: OK, saw the updated video...interesting....I wonder if it has the same problem of every failed 3D movie. meaning the images are always fuzzy and not crisp at all. I don't know active glasses make a difference or not.

 

I've posted more detailed answer in the other thread - it's a real 3D with 5 dof tracking (roll is not necessary)

[metalnwood]

Well, in general, from the reactions it sometimes it feels like I'm talking about somebody's girlfriend ...

 

Quite large portion of users have act as if 3D goggles are VR (virtual reality) and not a 3D display (SBS 3D) with 6dof head-tracking. they will go on arguing even when you take the display apart, show them the bits and how it all works. I would say that's quite compelling evidence of hard conditioning. You can use even old CRT monitor to make something true believers would call "VR" just need a duct tape, Fresnel lens and TIR)

 

DCS does support side by side 3D and warping for the 3D goggles - but its not subservient product or made solely for the devices. (although oculus is getting quite obtrusive with the "automatically detect oculus" marketing in game menus and so on) i.e. DCS it's made for everybody - you can still export displays, use panels and switches and export data. There is no knife on a neck to use anything and you can use it and enjoy it the way you want and fancy - which is absolutely fantastic and I hope it will stay that way.

 

The "VR Titles" on the other hand have all that prohibited and actively preventing users unlocking it or take any advantage of features that meant to be only for 3D goggle users. They are made in the way they exclude everything but the 3D goggles. - THAT is the difference.

 

This is just my opinion but I suspect that the majority of people don't view it the same way as you are (I am not talking about pit vs no pit). Perhaps, and it seems, you are just talking semantics about what is VR and dont care to adopt what most people and the media are referring to with respect to vive and oculus.

 

OK, thats fine but it should not be any surprise to you why people see things differently if you are working on a different set of definitions than you know other people are and have not made it clear to them.

 

What you are talking about in the software makes no practical sense to me. There are some titles that people are working on that are VR only, sure. They could be made to work on a monitor but they have chosen to exploit some features of VR that set it apart from monitors while not caring to release a 2d version. So what? I dont think the world is missing anything there. Probably some games that are enjoyable in VR are damn right boring on a screen as the game specifically exploits strengths of VR.

 

I also doubt anyone using DCS with a vive or rift cares one bit that it wasnt made specifically for VR. Once again, what is the practical difference here? It supports many options and that is great. It's great with a joystick and monitor, its great with a pit, it's great with VR.

 

I only see you imposing artificial limitations on your definitions.

[zahry]

This is just my opinion but I suspect that the majority of people don't view it the same way as you are (I am not talking about pit vs no pit). Perhaps, and it seems, you are just talking semantics about what is VR and dont care to adopt what most people and the media are referring to with respect to vive and oculus.

 

OK, thats fine but it should not be any surprise to you why people see things differently if you are working on a different set of definitions than you know other people are and have not made it clear to them.

 

What you are talking about in the software makes no practical sense to me. There are some titles that people are working on that are VR only, sure. They could be made to work on a monitor but they have chosen to exploit some features of VR that set it apart from monitors while not caring to release a 2d version. So what? I dont think the world is missing anything there. Probably some games that are enjoyable in VR are damn right boring on a screen as the game specifically exploits strengths of VR.

 

I also doubt anyone using DCS with a vive or rift cares one bit that it wasnt made specifically for VR. Once again, what is the practical difference here? It supports many options and that is great. It's great with a joystick and monitor, its great with a pit, it's great with VR.

 

I only see you imposing artificial limitations on your definitions.

 

linguistics ;) I've noted you are using the politically correct term "adopted" instead of "hijacked and abused for marketing" which would be far more accurate and truthful. ;-)

[metalnwood]

What is mixed VR then?

 

semantics seems to be very much a part of this debate. You are arguing with people but didn't let them know you are working to a completely different set of definitions then you know they are.

 

Whats the point? I dont think debating that way gives any credibility to what you were originally trying to convey and I dont think calling people out as 'PC' while saying you only speak the truth is effective either.

[zahry]

What is mixed VR then?

 

semantics seems to be very much a part of this debate. You are arguing with people but didn't let them know you are working to a completely different set of definitions then you know they are.

 

Whats the point? I dont think debating that way gives any credibility to what you were originally trying to convey and I dont think calling people out as 'PC' while saying you only speak the truth is effective either.

 

semantics is very important.

 

if you say "somebody killed my wife and stolen her money" it definitely soundsharsh and different than you say "somebody killed my wife and adopted her money" - even though it's the same thing. The trouble with euphemisms is that those are often misleading and create lot of confusion - i.e. calling 3D goggles "VR"

 

and i fully agree that I'm not saying things in a most popular way (analogy that springs to my mind: it's bit like telling kids santa is not real - it's true but it won't make you very popular - but that's life)

[metalnwood]

semantics is very important.

 

if you say "somebody killed my wife and stolen her money" it definitely soundsharsh and different than you say "somebody killed my wife and adopted her money" - even though it's the same thing. The trouble with euphemisms is that those are often misleading and create lot of confusion - i.e. calling 3D goggles "VR"

 

and i fully agree that I'm not saying things in a most popular way (analogy that springs to my mind: it's bit like telling kids santa is not real - it's true but it won't make you very popular - but that's life)

 

 

You are just wasting peoples time. I am not here to waste your time but you seem to want to play a game. Good for you.

 

Even though you have said you are unbiased it really doesn't come across that way. I will put my hand up and say I am unbiased. I have built the pit, I have made copies of all the instruments in the A10, I have helped a lot of people do it and I have also done the same for accommodating something like the rift with nice pits.

 

I get fun in both. There are definite advantages to the rift that work for me, like space and $$ although I love the pits. I wouldnt have spent so many hours on them if I didn't. For someone like me who is happy in either environment I don't understand your perspective.

 

I can only coming to the conclusion that you sell projection systems and this is the reason behind it.

 

Anyhow, what is mixed VR you have coined? Given you know the definitions I am keen to hear.