Jump to content

How much better is Rift than Vive for DCS World?


captainkoloth

Recommended Posts

Actually, in VR you can spot airborne targets from further afar than in high res 2D screen due to how DCS engine works. Lower res is better in this case, to the point of being unrealistically silly.

 

It's the identification and distance estimation that causes problems in current gen VR. From a couple hundred feet, an aircraft is still barely recognizable blob of pixels, while in real life at the same distance you can easily tell the shape and read the markings.

 

Motion sickness is not an issue for most people, especially after first few days of using VR as you get used to the tech.

 

As for Rift causing near sightedness, I think that's another urban legend. The focal point is not closer than your typical 2D monitor, probably a bit further. As with everything, prolonged use may cause health issues, but that also applies to sitting at your desk staring at monitor.

Actually I have tested that (2.0.5 IIRC) and 3840x2160 was way better than FHD or anything below. Instead suddenly coming 1px, you had 1px many times further than turned to 2-3px and then even more before the 1px appeared on low res.

 

When low res shows a 3-6px that there is a aircraft sideways, UHD allows to identify it to F-15 or a Su-27.

 

That is why UHD is just superior in combat as spotting and identification is easier.

 

You can even identify Mig-23 from F-15 from about 7-10km range when heading toward by how wide the fuselage​ is.

 

When VR can offer the same, then it is clear winner.

 

--

I usually post from my phone so please excuse any typos, inappropriate punctuation and capitalization, missing words and general lack of cohesion and sense in my posts.....

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 142
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yep the near sighted thing is total and utter rubbish, probably invented by people with 4K monitor buyers' remorse.
So say a person who thinks that wearing a few cheap lenses couple cm from your eye, staring a screen few cm from the eye is magically such that you do not suffer anything to eye....

 

Sounds more that it is again the new toy that is causing blind defence how "it is perfect without side effects..." Like kids use to say to their parents....

 

 

 

--

I usually post from my phone so please excuse any typos, inappropriate punctuation and capitalization, missing words and general lack of cohesion and sense in my posts.....

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont tweak anything in DCS. All set max except heat blur, lens effects and model enlargement disabled.

 

I don't even use any zooming but just default FOV that is combined with trackIR.

 

The VR is huge step back in comparison to reality what you can spot. It does give immersion but in combat the immersion ain't so important than is to see the enemy and track them visually.

 

And that is hateful in DCS when it comes to ground units as you can spot them from 10-20km distance as dots depending terrain and it makes them way too easy to destroy, while you should be able spot them only at 50-1500m at most cases in Caucasus depending terrain (not roads) and do they have a camouflage (oh if they just would have).

 

 

 

--

I usually post from my phone so please excuse any typos, inappropriate punctuation and capitalization, missing words and general lack of cohesion and sense in my posts.....

 

Well, enjoy your drone operating experience then. It's a huge step back in terms of emulating actually flying, imo, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So say a person who thinks that wearing a few cheap lenses couple cm from your eye, staring a screen few cm from the eye is magically such that you do not suffer anything to eye....

 

Sounds more that it is again the new toy that is causing blind defence how "it is perfect without side effects..." Like kids use to say to their parents....

 

More scaremongering. My optician didn't have anything negative to say about VR. 'Just get your eyes tested regularly as per normal' she said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15km Mig-23 coming toward (0-20° angle) without any assistance or trickery (not even zooming in).

 

It is a slight grey pixel that can be spotted.

 

The 4K was biggest improvement I have experienced even compared to VR.

It radically changes how you can see and find enemy and keep them in sight while dogfighting as you can spot them so quickly. See their position, angle etc. With VR it is like going back to 1024x768 era hunting pixels compared to 4K.

 

The VR huge benefit is that as you turn your head 1:1 ratio, you will have far better situation awareness how you are positioned to enemy when there ain't anything in your aircraft visible than just the cockpit glass. But when you can lose the target or not spot early enough, it is own problem.

 

--

I usually post from my phone so please excuse any typos, inappropriate punctuation and capitalization, missing words and general lack of cohesion and sense in my posts.....

Sorry I wasnt clear enough, I was talking about real life . If you think you can spot a Mig 23 from an F15 at 15km without a radar at a 0 to 20 degree aspect then I am afraid 95% of the time you wont, 5% maybe cos even a blind squirrel finds a nut occasionally. With a radar at that range vid is impossible in real life, most VID come well inside 5nm and for a 0-20 aspect well inside that.

So my point was that DCS has made it too easy with a sufficient Rig, VR is actually closer to real life.

About the lower resolution making it easier in VR that doesnt work if you use a High PD like most of us do as your spotting pixel dissappears.

 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I7 3930 4.2GHz ( Hyperthreading Off), GTX1080, 16 GB ddr3

Hotas Warthog Saiteck Combat Pedals HTC Vive, Oculus CV1.

 

GTX 1080 Has its uses

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So say a person who thinks that wearing a few cheap lenses couple cm from your eye, staring a screen few cm from the eye is magically such that you do not suffer anything to eye....

 

Sounds more that it is again the new toy that is causing blind defence how "it is perfect without side effects..." Like kids use to say to their parents....

 

First of all, they are not cheap :)

 

Second, monitors contribute to short-sightedness more than anything else in the world, due to the fact that you're staring at the same focus distance (which is pretty short, for that matter) for hours and hours without flexing any of your eye muscles.

 

In VR, you're actually changing the focus distance all the time as you shift from instruments to horizon to landscape to wingman.

 

Third, even though they are a few cms from your eyes, their focus distance is set farther away due to the lenses.

 

VR is a LOT healthier than a monitor.

 

Please stop trolling, you seem to be alone with your opinion here. (Not to mention it's completely off topic.)

PC HW: i5 3770k@4.6GHz | Asus 1080Ti | 16GB DDR3 | Samsung 850 EVO | MSI MPower Z77 Input: MS FFB2 w/ F-16 FLCS grip | CH Pro Throttle | MFG Crosswind | HTC Vive DCS modules: F-14, FW-190, P-51, Bf109, UH1, Mi-8, FC3, CE2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In VR, you're actually changing the focus distance all the time as you shift from instruments to horizon to landscape to wingman.

 

No you aren't. The distance is the same regardless of the 3d effects fooling your brain.

ASUS ROG Maximus VIII Hero, i7-6700K, Noctua NH-D14 Cooler, Crucial 32GB DDR4 2133, Samsung 950 Pro NVMe 256GB, Samsung EVO 250GB & 500GB SSD, 2TB Caviar Black, Zotac GTX 1080 AMP! Extreme 8GB, Corsair HX1000i, Phillips BDM4065UC 40" 4k monitor, VX2258 TouchScreen, TIR 5 w/ProClip, TM Warthog, VKB Gladiator Pro, Saitek X56, et. al., MFG Crosswind Pedals #1199, VolairSim Pit, Rift CV1 :thumbup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15km Mig-23 coming toward (0-20° angle) without any assistance or trickery (not even zooming in).

 

It is a slight grey pixel that can be spotted.

 

The 4K was biggest improvement I have experienced even compared to VR.

It radically changes how you can see and find enemy and keep them in sight while dogfighting as you can spot them so quickly. See their position, angle etc. With VR it is like going back to 1024x768 era hunting pixels compared to 4K.

 

The VR huge benefit is that as you turn your head 1:1 ratio, you will have far better situation awareness how you are positioned to enemy when there ain't anything in your aircraft visible than just the cockpit glass. But when you can lose the target or not spot early enough, it is own problem.

 

--

I usually post from my phone so please excuse any typos, inappropriate punctuation and capitalization, missing words and general lack of cohesion and sense in my posts.....

 

 

Fri13, not sure why this thread is devolving in a sorta-flamefest. Whether you use VR or not is no skin off my back. But I did want to clarify something. The huge benefit of "you turn your head 1:1 ratio" isn't correct. It's technically correct but the statement is like saying that VR is "a better TrackIR" The truth is that there is no tracking. You are just there, in the cockpit. And your brain now EXACTLY what is happening in 3D. So the situation awareness you speak of is spot it. It's something you CANNOT experience with a 2D monitor. Not even with 4K monitors. And not with 3 4K monitors. And not with projectors throwing 100" screens. You can't experience it because your brain knows it's not real.

 

The best way I can put it is the way the Chief Scientist at Oculus described it. When you see a picture of a ledge on a skyscraper, no one flinches. Do it in VR and you immediately grab to steady yourself.

 

Again, if you're happy with 4K, that's awesome. I'm not here to sell you VR! :D But as a long time simmer, it's the first transformative thing that knocked my socks off. More than going from monochrome to VGA. More than going from 286 to 386. TrackIR was awesome for its time. But it isn't even in the same ballpark when compared to VR. IMHO.

hsb

HW Spec in Spoiler

---

 

i7-10700K Direct-To-Die/OC'ed to 5.1GHz, MSI Z490 MB, 32GB DDR4 3200MHz, EVGA 2080 Ti FTW3, NVMe+SSD, Win 10 x64 Pro, MFG, Warthog, TM MFDs, Komodo Huey set, Rverbe G1

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, they are not cheap :)

 

Second, monitors contribute to short-sightedness more than anything else in the world, due to the fact that you're staring at the same focus distance (which is pretty short, for that matter) for hours and hours without flexing any of your eye muscles.

 

In VR, you're actually changing the focus distance all the time as you shift from instruments to horizon to landscape to wingman.

 

Third, even though they are a few cms from your eyes, their focus distance is set farther away due to the lenses.

 

VR is a LOT healthier than a monitor.

 

Please stop trolling, you seem to be alone with your opinion here. (Not to mention it's completely off topic.)

 

Unfortunately, you're wrong. As cichlidfan said, Focal point in VR helmets is fixed. There's no official data on that but people claim it to be something around 3-4 meters, not much more than in front of a monitor. The issue is also magnified by the fact that in VR you don't have any other reference points, so the eye muscles you write about don't have to work at all. With a conventional monitor, at least you can look away from time to time and focus on different objects around you.

 

The lenses are cheap - they only cost a fraction of the whole headset and, unlike prescription glasses, they are of fresnel type. They are responsible for most of the image degradation, chromatic aberration and additional flares. Not that this is a health issue, more an annoyance.

 

But another health issue you forgot about is sitting in a poorly ventilated helmet that quickly gets very humid inside. That can increase the risk of skin and eye infection.

 

Anyway, I don't consider this a big problem for occasional usage. But of course there will be people (esp. kids) sitting in VR several hours straight day after day, and experiencing health issues because of that.

Hardware: VPForce Rhino, FSSB R3 Ultra, Virpil T-50CM, Hotas Warthog, Winwing F15EX, Slaw Rudder, GVL224 Trio Throttle, Thrustmaster MFDs, Saitek Trim wheel, Trackir 5, Quest Pro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ask him about negative long terms of using a computer monitor then. Same rules apply, really.

Hardware: VPForce Rhino, FSSB R3 Ultra, Virpil T-50CM, Hotas Warthog, Winwing F15EX, Slaw Rudder, GVL224 Trio Throttle, Thrustmaster MFDs, Saitek Trim wheel, Trackir 5, Quest Pro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think what you say about the eye muscles not working in VR is true at all. Since you're forced to focus on different distances in the virtual environment, it should be pretty much the same as in real life.

PC Specs / Hardware: MSI z370 Gaming Plus Mainboard, Intel 8700k @ 5GHz, MSI Sea Hawk 2080 Ti @ 2100MHz, 32GB 3200 MHz DDR4 RAM

Displays: Philips BDM4065UC 60Hz 4K UHD Screen, Pimax 8KX

Controllers / Peripherals: VPC MongoosT-50, Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS, modded MS FFB2/CH Combatstick, MFG Crosswind Pedals, Gametrix JetSeat

OS: Windows 10 Home Creator's Update

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think what you say about the eye muscles not working in VR is true at all. Since you're forced to focus on different distances in the virtual environment, it should be pretty much the same as in real life.

 

Your eyes are at a fixed focus distance when using a VR headset, so the eye's focus muscles aren't changing. However the eye is using it's accommodation reflex to converge the eyes on objects at apparent different distances. This is the reason it is advised that very young children don't use VR headsets because their focus and convergence coordination is not fully developed.

Intel Core i7 6700K @ 4.5GHz. Asus-Z170-PRO MB

CORSAIR H105 HYDRO CPU COOLER.

EVGA GTX 1080Ti FTW3 Elite.

16GB DDR4 2666MHZ HYPERX SAVAGE.

SAMSUNG M.2 SSD 128GB SM951 Boot Drive.

SAMSUNG SSD 500GB EVO Working Drive.

Windows 10 Professional

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct. That's something not very obvious even to people who use VR, because our mind is very quick to adapt, and also because the eye accommodation plays only tertiary role in determining object distance by our mind. But it's quite noticeable to short-sighted people, because they can't see clear in VR even when staring at objects that are seemingly a few centimeters from their face.

 

Of course the rest of you eye muscles which are responsible for eyeball movement and convergence have to work in VR.

Hardware: VPForce Rhino, FSSB R3 Ultra, Virpil T-50CM, Hotas Warthog, Winwing F15EX, Slaw Rudder, GVL224 Trio Throttle, Thrustmaster MFDs, Saitek Trim wheel, Trackir 5, Quest Pro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, they are not cheap :)

 

Second, monitors contribute to short-sightedness more than anything else in the world, due to the fact that you're staring at the same focus distance (which is pretty short, for that matter) for hours and hours without flexing any of your eye muscles.

 

In VR, you're actually changing the focus distance all the time as you shift from instruments to horizon to landscape to wingman.

 

Third, even though they are a few cms from your eyes, their focus distance is set farther away due to the lenses.

 

VR is a LOT healthier than a monitor.

 

Please stop trolling, you seem to be alone with your opinion here. (Not to mention it's completely off topic.)

First of all, they are cheap. Compare those lenses to any high quality photographic equipment lenses and you understand they are cheap. Or compare to normal eye glasses lenses and you will see those are ultra cheap.

 

Secondly, with monitor you are constantly changing viewing distance from monitor to infinity, to close range, to medium range etc. That is the benefit of display that you can look to environment instead just the display. The VR requires you to remove the goggles from head to alter the distance. And most eye sight weaken comes from everything where you look close range, at this era it is smartphones and still books.

 

In VR you are NEVER changing focus distance! That is the problem! You are all the time staring monitor at same couple cm distance! Backlight etc all in front of your eye, focused to your eye!

 

The 3D effect is done by rendering two different points in space and then both projected to eyes. In real world the 3D recording separation is done by altering the distance between the cameras (I know, I have worked for company 12 years ago doing f3D demos for current get movies etc) and with 3D modeling it is far easier as you just can do the virtual perspective rendering just with some settings and let go.

 

The military that has done very much VR testing for decades found out as well that VR aint a solution as long as you can't physically get person eyes move cross when they focus closer and return parallel when looking to infinity. The eye muscles are there to inform brains the distance they are looking and what motion is going. Remove that and people will suffer from motion sickness with VR (even the experienced test pilots doing VR with far more expensive tools than commercially available!).

 

Third, even when cheap lenses are used to move the distance further, they are still in few cm from eye. Facts are facts, and with optics that doesn't change much of the negative effects.

 

Fourthly, there are already enough studies to show the danger of VR as it directly works differently by feeding a unrealistic information about motion, distances, accuracy etc to the brains and it starts to cause reprogramming to brains how do you even experience the real world as your brains are started to think VR is the new reality.

 

For decades the 3D and VR has been developed, tested and sold, the current fifth generations are first ones for wide public about light weight and higher resolution with graphics that weren't possible previously without millions worth equipment. And we do not have a long term affect information what happens to developing brains and eye sight overall.

Thinking that VR is somekind a silver bullet and better than computer displays in normal usage is just dangerous. And because it is "new", it can sound safer than previously has been.

 

Always reminds such attitudes about X-rays and many similar inventions before widely used public devices showed the longer term results...

 

Fifthly, as you already planned to go to Ad Hominem and start calling by names, you lost the argument.

 

Sixthly, it ain't off-topic at all.

As topic is about quality of the DCS to play it enjoyable. So you can spot enemy, you can see enemy, you can read the instruments and operate the aircraft easily etc. And VR is not the best solution (yet) for many things that is wanted from combat flying.

 

As I said (and as you claim I am alone with my opinion) that VR is best if wanted to get a experience to be inside a cockpit, but it ain't great when talking about the quality to be able see things well like good displays do offer.

 

Even after using Rift, I went gladly back to display as it is superior to the experience to fly combat... And it isn't just mine opinion but others who tested them against good display as alternative.

 

This isn't "VR sucks" but about the compromises with the VR that it makes to gain the feeling in cockpit with narrow field of view. If I would had compare VR to 1080p 24" display at 80cm distance, I would gladly take a VR for the experience as IQ doesn't suffer so much. But when you compare it to something else than such legacy displays, the gameplay is different.

 

And as I said it depends a lot from other things too, like flying only sight seeing with L-39 it ain't bad. Or just doing something similar or playing other VR capable games as well, it isn't bad choice to own.

But change many other of the factors and add other requirements and VR quality and the benefits starts to be questionable at the current tech and generation.

 

The whole VR needs to be put in the context, the experience of DCS as overall. Not just as sitting in cockpit.

 

Once the display gets better, optics gets far better and many other problems are fixed and features added, it will become viable option with motion chairs as that is required for better experience:

 

 

That with a future VR generations could be the experience so many wants...

 

--

I usually post from my phone so please excuse any typos, inappropriate punctuation and capitalization, missing words and general lack of cohesion and sense in my posts.....

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Skin and eye infection' what a load of tosh. Anyway, my optician, who's more knowledgeable than you, some1, wasn't concerned about negative long term effects of VR, probably because there aren't any. Sad to see so much scaremongering going on.
Actually not....

 

Many can't use anykind headsets or earplugs because their starts to generate vax and can lose hearing because that or even balance!

Many can't even touch near their eyes without getting somekind mild infection.

Singers don't use others microphones because bacteria can cause infections to their throats etc.

 

If you use VR headset, it is better to clean them in short periodicals just like any other tool you are using, especially if you are sharing them with others.

 

And sorry to tell but most opticians don't know anything about VR optics.

Even the normal eye glasses are huge compromises to quality if you know how lenses are made and designed.

 

Like my friend has such situatuon (common) that she needs to explain it to every new optician that she can't use a measured lenses because her brains do not accept the "corrected" vision, so to get things right, she needs lenses that are wrong so her brains can do the correction and everything is then fine.

 

The brain and eyes are even today so mysterious and complex, even when the eyes are so well known by basics, but lots of things happens that are even psychological.

 

The idea that VR is somekind new tech that doesn't have healt problems or will not have any dangers etc is just foolish.

 

We don't even know what all kind problems there are between Rift and Vive implementations or what Sony has etc.

 

It wouldn't be a shock to me if in 5-10 years VR is gone totally, again like previous four generations...

 

--

I usually post from my phone so please excuse any typos, inappropriate punctuation and capitalization, missing words and general lack of cohesion and sense in my posts.....

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No comment. Just check this comparison between 4 different VR today.

You need to have in mind this is not represent individual impression when you use one of tham but represent accurate and exact SDE difference between them because it is record under same condition with same camera.

 

 

Vive and CV1 have exact same displays only CV1 is dealing with SDE with plastic layes over the display which blurring picture little bit more but that blur reducing SDE as well. compare this 4 displays Vive/CV1 have 460PPI, Deepoon E3 have 540PPI and Pimax have 807PPI. PPI and it is only responsible for SDE.

 

All this displays have its pro's and con's and it is on user and his expectation which one he will prefer most.

 

VR is more depend on impression than on technical characteristics and impression is made by everything not just display or positional tracking and controllers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All valid arguments. Except maybe the skin rash part. You should have seen my CVC when I had participate in mounted operations! You didn't want to go near them! LOL.

 

But seriously, it comes down to this for me. Do I enjoy DCS more with current generation of VR? And the answer is without a doubt. I shelled out for DK1, DK2 and CV1 and Vive (then returned to Vive because CV1 was beter for me).

 

As for the 3D rendering, I *hate* 3D movies with those stupid glasses. Active or passive. It gives me a headache and my brain knows its BS. With Rift, it's different. My brain constantly gets fooled. To this day, at times, I try to grab the cockpit when checking six.

 

This is like the the debate that audiophiles have about cables and the weight of Class-D amplifiers etc. No one seems to ask "But do you enjoy the music?" I was like that once. I had to make sure I got a flat response, got myself an SPL, etc. etc. etc. In the end, I realized I just needed to enjoy it and not worry about tweaking it so damn much.

 

So for me, I enjoy VR immensely and consider myself lucky that I have the resources to have a PC that can run VR/DCS etc.

hsb

HW Spec in Spoiler

---

 

i7-10700K Direct-To-Die/OC'ed to 5.1GHz, MSI Z490 MB, 32GB DDR4 3200MHz, EVGA 2080 Ti FTW3, NVMe+SSD, Win 10 x64 Pro, MFG, Warthog, TM MFDs, Komodo Huey set, Rverbe G1

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoa, let's not get emotional about the subject. Some points are valid, but you're overthinking things.

 

The 3D effect is done by rendering two different points in space and then both projected to eyes. In real world the 3D recording separation is done by altering the distance between the cameras (I know, I have worked for company 12 years ago doing f3D demos for current get movies etc) and with 3D modeling it is far easier as you just can do the virtual perspective rendering just with some settings and let go.

 

The military that has done very much VR testing for decades found out as well that VR aint a solution as long as you can't physically get person eyes move cross when they focus closer and return parallel when looking to infinity. The eye muscles are there to inform brains the distance they are looking and what motion is going. Remove that and people will suffer from motion sickness with VR (even the experienced test pilots doing VR with far more expensive tools than commercially available!).

 

Not sure how you imagine VR works or even if you ever had one on your head. The image in VR is created from two cameras positioned right where your eyes should be at a correct spacing (the renderer knows the IPD you've set in the helmet). That's the main reason VR is so performance consuming, everything has to be rendered twice. It's not a cheap 3D postprocessing done like when converting previously recorded 2D movies to 3D. There are also none of the tricks done in 3D cinema to increase the 3D effect for purpose of the "wow" factor. Everything is rendered like it should be in real life.

 

You also have to cross your eyes when focusing on near things and move them parallel when looking to infinity, that's the fundament of stereoscopic vision and one of the things that are done right even in the current generation of VR helmets. So don't know why you bring those military tests.

 

One thing that's missing, as discussed above, is the variable focus distance for your eyes. But most people don't even realize that if you don't tell them.

 

 

You are all the time staring monitor at same couple cm distance! Backlight etc all in front of your eye, focused to your eye!

 

Guess what, that's how eyesight works. All the light that comes to you is focused in your eyes. It doesn't matter if the source is 5 cm or 150 milion kilometers away (like sun). What matters is the light intensity, spectrum, uniformity. By those criteria, the light that comes from VR screens is pretty harmless, it's not more powerful than what you get by looking at a computer monitor or working in an offlice. If anything, it should be brighter to better simulate the intensity of the light outside, right now it's still quite dim.

 

Third, even when cheap lenses are used to move the distance further, they are still in few cm from eye. Facts are facts, and with optics that doesn't change much of the negative effects.

 

What facts? What negative effects? Again, the distance to the screen or lenses does not really matter, see above. I wear lenses that are even closer to my eye (glasses), people wear lenses right on top of their eyes (contacts) and everyone is exposed daily to a light that is orders of magnitude stronger in both visible, infrared and ultraviolet spectrum, by just going outside. Even on an overcast day.

Hardware: VPForce Rhino, FSSB R3 Ultra, Virpil T-50CM, Hotas Warthog, Winwing F15EX, Slaw Rudder, GVL224 Trio Throttle, Thrustmaster MFDs, Saitek Trim wheel, Trackir 5, Quest Pro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, they are cheap. Compare those lenses to any high quality photographic equipment lenses and you understand they are cheap. Or compare to normal eye glasses lenses and you will see those are ultra cheap.

 

Secondly, with monitor you are constantly changing viewing distance from monitor to infinity, to close range, to medium range etc. That is the benefit of display that you can look to environment instead just the display. The VR requires you to remove the goggles from head to alter the distance. And most eye sight weaken comes from everything where you look close range, at this era it is smartphones and still books.

 

In VR you are NEVER changing focus distance! That is the problem! You are all the time staring monitor at same couple cm distance! Backlight etc all in front of your eye, focused to your eye!

 

The 3D effect is done by rendering two different points in space and then both projected to eyes. In real world the 3D recording separation is done by altering the distance between the cameras (I know, I have worked for company 12 years ago doing f3D demos for current get movies etc) and with 3D modeling it is far easier as you just can do the virtual perspective rendering just with some settings and let go.

 

The military that has done very much VR testing for decades found out as well that VR aint a solution as long as you can't physically get person eyes move cross when they focus closer and return parallel when looking to infinity. The eye muscles are there to inform brains the distance they are looking and what motion is going. Remove that and people will suffer from motion sickness with VR (even the experienced test pilots doing VR with far more expensive tools than commercially available!).

 

Third, even when cheap lenses are used to move the distance further, they are still in few cm from eye. Facts are facts, and with optics that doesn't change much of the negative effects.

 

Fourthly, there are already enough studies to show the danger of VR as it directly works differently by feeding a unrealistic information about motion, distances, accuracy etc to the brains and it starts to cause reprogramming to brains how do you even experience the real world as your brains are started to think VR is the new reality.

 

For decades the 3D and VR has been developed, tested and sold, the current fifth generations are first ones for wide public about light weight and higher resolution with graphics that weren't possible previously without millions worth equipment. And we do not have a long term affect information what happens to developing brains and eye sight overall.

Thinking that VR is somekind a silver bullet and better than computer displays in normal usage is just dangerous. And because it is "new", it can sound safer than previously has been.

 

Always reminds such attitudes about X-rays and many similar inventions before widely used public devices showed the longer term results...

 

Fifthly, as you already planned to go to Ad Hominem and start calling by names, you lost the argument.

 

Sixthly, it ain't off-topic at all.

As topic is about quality of the DCS to play it enjoyable. So you can spot enemy, you can see enemy, you can read the instruments and operate the aircraft easily etc. And VR is not the best solution (yet) for many things that is wanted from combat flying.

 

As I said (and as you claim I am alone with my opinion) that VR is best if wanted to get a experience to be inside a cockpit, but it ain't great when talking about the quality to be able see things well like good displays do offer.

 

Even after using Rift, I went gladly back to display as it is superior to the experience to fly combat... And it isn't just mine opinion but others who tested them against good display as alternative.

 

This isn't "VR sucks" but about the compromises with the VR that it makes to gain the feeling in cockpit with narrow field of view. If I would had compare VR to 1080p 24" display at 80cm distance, I would gladly take a VR for the experience as IQ doesn't suffer so much. But when you compare it to something else than such legacy displays, the gameplay is different.

 

And as I said it depends a lot from other things too, like flying only sight seeing with L-39 it ain't bad. Or just doing something similar or playing other VR capable games as well, it isn't bad choice to own.

But change many other of the factors and add other requirements and VR quality and the benefits starts to be questionable at the current tech and generation.

 

The whole VR needs to be put in the context, the experience of DCS as overall. Not just as sitting in cockpit.

 

Once the display gets better, optics gets far better and many other problems are fixed and features added, it will become viable option with motion chairs as that is required for better experience:

 

 

That with a future VR generations could be the experience so many wants...

 

--

I usually post from my phone so please excuse any typos, inappropriate punctuation and capitalization, missing words and general lack of cohesion and sense in my posts.....

 

You should stop trolling the VR section. VR is already beyond viable, it has become totally essential, as in, many of us just wouldn't bother with the like of DCS if we had to use monitors and Trackir. I was using trackir and monitors back in 2000 but things have moved on since then.

 

Also, your comments are rendered worthless by virtue of the fact you clearly don't understand how VR works. The moment you started scaremongering about skin infections you lost the argument. Yeah, lots of people are allergic to modern life, maybe you're one, but I think your case will only appeal to people who wear tin foil on their heads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should stop trolling the VR section. VR is already beyond viable, it has become totally essential, as in, many of us just wouldn't bother with the like of DCS if we had to use monitors and Trackir. I was using trackir and monitors back in 2000 but things have moved on since then.

 

Also, your comments are rendered worthless by virtue of the fact you clearly don't understand how VR works. The moment you started scaremongering about skin infections you lost the argument. Yeah, lots of people are allergic to modern life, maybe you're one, but I think your case will only appeal to people who wear tin foil on their heads.

First of all, you don't even know what trolling means, but you are good at least in Ad Hominem.

 

Secondly, I didn't start taking about skin infections, meaning you don't even know who say and what.

 

And thirdly, you don't even read what other has written, instead you claim something totally opposite that was written.

 

Meaning you are the one who is trolling.

So I can ignore you very well.

 

The thread is about VR quality, a miniscule difference really between Rift and Vive.

Yet there are far better solutions for a simulation fans that are far sharper, wider FOV and without same optical distortions, with only drawback being not offering a position tracking and only a 2DOF.

 

Meaning the TrackIR added to it (or even better the OS IRless motion sensor) will add the 6DOF good enough for flight and driving simulation players as they anyways sit in stationary chair and only need to look around and move head in 50x50x20 cubic.

 

What is the point? The whole idea of Rift vs Vive difference needs to be kept in the context of quality of flying and what is the starting point for comparison.

If Vive and Rift doesn't offer best experience nor have the difference that other solutions does, their difference two each other becomes moot.

 

 

You can overcome the 6DOF limitation by other means (other sensor) if wanted. But result is sharper and nicer than Vive or Rift and far closer to 4K display benefits than either one of those two.

 

 

But don't worry, you can keep going how I hate VR or am against it.. (not true).

Or how I dont have experience of it (had multiple devices like the rift CV1 and Vive).

Etc etc.

 

If someone thinks the Vive vs Rift difference is mattering one, then just don't try other ones as some can blow those two away by quality and experience in VR for flight simulations!

 

So go ahead and continue.... Please!

 

--

I usually post from my phone so please excuse any typos, inappropriate punctuation and capitalization, missing words and general lack of cohesion and sense in my posts.....

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So after a couple days of messing around I have decided to stick with the Vive and sell my Rift.

 

To me, the difference is pretty small between them in the end, with Rift having the slight advantage. The one thing I am bothered by with this decisions is when I want other people to use the headset I can expect them to have a very hard time getting in the sweet spot. This was an issue even with the Rift, and with Vive it is much more difficult to get it right.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Demo of my 6DOF Motion VR Sim:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
hard time getting in the sweet spot. This was an issue even with the Rift, and with Vive it is much more difficult to get it right.

 

On Vive I was able to reduce the this problem by a lot by modifying the gasket (A LOT) to bring the lenses closer to the eyes. I trimmed my gasket using scissors but anyone shy about doing this can buy thinner gaskets from places like VRCOVER.

 

A much better sweet spot for me but YMMV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And VR is not the best solution (yet) for many things that is wanted from combat flying.

 

As I said (and as you claim I am alone with my opinion) that VR is best if wanted to get a experience to be inside a cockpit, but it ain't great when talking about the quality to be able see things well like good displays do offer.

 

Even after using Rift, I went gladly back to display as it is superior to the experience to fly combat... And it isn't just mine opinion but others who tested them against good display as alternative.

 

This is your opinion and can be a choice. Anyway mine is different. I think flight simulation is EXACTLY "get a experience to be inside a cockpit". What else? Without VR I would not even have begun to study a-10c manual, I came back to flight simulators after many years because I think VR is the biggest revolution in flight-simming since... I was born? (40 years ago). Maybe if you want to play DCS world championship, with a 4K monitor or a three 1080p monitor config and track-IR you d'get an in-game advantage (better spotting targets from far away, better reading instruments, etc) vs VR, but since you don't win any trophy playing DCS, I can gladly give up on these things in exchange for a better situational awareness and the impression of being really there. Without mentioning the fact that if you go multiplayer only against VR equipped people this stops to be a problem. You are right: some people are back on monitors because it is an in-game advantage. Some other people (I know many) still prefer VR for the reasons I've just written. To each his own.


Edited by nessuno0505
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is your opinion and can be a choice.

 

As I said, it is my and many others opinion too who have tested DCS with VR at me.

 

Anyway mine is different.

 

Good. As we all have different expectations and requirements.

 

I think flight simulation is EXACTLY "get a experience to be inside a cockpit". What else? Without VR I would not even have begun to study a-10c manual, I came back to flight simulators after many years because I think VR is the biggest revolution in flight-simming since... I was born? (40 years ago).

 

As you can find, I stated the same thing as the VR is the thing to feel to be in the cockpit. But even now currently there is the problem that the VR mouse is locked to center of viewpoint, instead a 1/3 of the bottom part, meaning it is impossible to click every function below the knee line. So example in the A-10C operating the radio channels on left or ILS on right becomes difficult or impossible at those positions and to aft. And it is annoying as you can't so easily look there as you are so ackward position and then you just enjoy that you can grab the VR and pull it downwards etc.

But everything that happens outside of the cockpit, that is another story.

 

Maybe if you want to play DCS world championship, with a 4K monitor or a three 1080p monitor config and track-IR you d'get an in-game advantage (better spotting targets from far away, better reading instruments, etc) vs VR, but since you don't win any trophy playing DCS, I can gladly give up on these things in exchange for a better situational awareness and the impression of being really there.

 

That is the thing. You don't have situational awareness that is even close to realism! You can't spot targets, you can't even spot the smoking and burning targets easily from couple kilometer distance! The A-10C gun sight is so big that it blocks the ground units at 0.5nm (1km) distance that you have difficulties to aim accurately (at least good thing is that gun has the spread unlike Su-25 that doesn't, so your change to hit with the GAU are higher). This is with DP values from 1.0 to 2.0 and it is difficult to find what works across the world outside of the cockpit.

 

And it as well touches to cockpit, as you can't glance or look the most cockpit instruments from normal seating as textures and all are too fuzzy (even if set all to high) and requires third party texture packs etc to fix all problems, ones that will enlarge texts and make some things easier to read, but still requirement to lean forward toward the panels and switches is nothing else than painful experience to learn an aircraft.

 

It is like having a 1-1.5 diopters wrong set glasses and you feel old even if you don't need glasses to read things.

 

 

 

Without mentioning the fact that if you go multiplayer only against VR equipped people this stops to be a problem. You are right: some people are back on monitors because it is an in-game advantage. Some other people (I know many) still prefer VR for the reasons I've just written. To each his own.

 

It is not "in-game" advantage but more realistic by the spotting, situational awareness and simply operation capability of the aircraft as you can see things by a glance in a cockpit and it is nicer to see the cockpit textures etc fidelity.

 

I enjoy some things about the VR, but it is frustrating many times as I am spending far more head down time than without. As you can't read things (like reading what does the Su-25 weapons status panel say, K, 1/2 or a 1/4 and it is just frustrating in some moments when you just can't lean forward enough to read.

 

The VR is yet there. We can't say "Okay boys... No need to increase the resolution or FOV" as there are already HMD on market that has more clarity and are just nicer to use and you can actually start reading the cockpit and start to spot objects at grounds.

 

When we get at least 6K VR, meaning at least 4K per eye. and we get the 210 degree FOV to cover the 75% of the 180 degree FOV (current ones are more like a 55 degree at the moment, together around 110 degree) we start to see improvements for the immersion and the readability.

When we get 5K per eye, it will be then at the very acceptable level. But that needs maybe 10 years. And before that VR might very well be minority like LP or even CD sales.

 

We just need better hardware than Oculus Rift or HTC Vive offers at the moment. If you want to get great experience on those systems, ED should redo all the textures and many 3D cockpits in every aircraft and enlarge all, simplify them and adjust colors and contrast so they are as readable as on 2D.

 

Yeah, displays and trackir etc doesn't bring the immersion of sitting in a cockpit. But heck it will increase the situational awareness and operation capability to more realistic levels.

 

I even today fly every change I get with the VR (Rift) in DCS, but it is a not so pleasant in many situations as the resolution is just too small and it is too narrow FOV.

 

The clarity of the Rift vs Vive was surprising one, as I thought that Vive would have been much much better or even clearly better.

 

Free flying, acrobatics (sight seeing) and just enjoyment of the flying is totally own kind in the VR. But for a combat (even in single player) it ain't there yet if you can't use just the targeting systems to do the aiming.

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...