Keep My Head in the Cockpit, Please!

[streakeagle]

In another sim, when you hit the limit, the cockpit moves with you, i.e. you don't see any further movement displayed.

A checkbox that enables limits but if off by default is the way to deal with motion sickness.

Give the option to have limits without removing the option to have no limits, then everyone wins.

[Fri13]

On 5/28/2021 at 10:02 PM, StormBat said:

   Love DCS World in VR, and am really glad they fixed it for Combined Arms...

 

Does the CA support now the VR?

[Vintageflyer01]

 

If have an WMR headset, I have notice when changing from 90hz to the 60hz it does simulate a “never be outside the cockpit” effect. I know its not perfect, because your cockpit is also moving and you will reduce your FPS limit to 60, but could be interesting to give it try.  

[Baldrick33]

26 minutes ago, Vintageflyer01 said:

 

If have an WMR headset, I have notice when changing from 90hz to the 60hz it does simulate a “never be outside the cockpit” effect. I know its not perfect, because your cockpit is also moving and you will reduce your FPS limit to 60, but could be interesting to give it try.  

I believe you are losing 6dof tracking rather than simulating never being out of the cockpit, so getting to positional tracking. Some cope with 3DOF and being limited to rotational tracking ok but it isn’t a nice solution for many, myself included.

Having limited head movement works ok in race sims which prevent you from having any kind of view advantage but the positional head movement is far less, cranking you head over a bit into corners etc. compared with combat flight sims. I guess an option would be ideal, defaulting to no limit so as not to cause VR nausea.

[=475FG= Dawger]

Please don't waste development time on this non-issue.

[draconus]

It is an issue because it's unrealistic and should be taken care of.

[=475FG= Dawger]

2 hours ago, draconus said:

It is an issue because it's unrealistic and should be taken care of.

Build yourself a cardboard canopy to suspend  over your head. This would be much more “realistic” than any software solution to this non-issue.

 

If “realism” were to be the test, ED would be Be out of business very shortly. There are countless “unrealistic” aspects, starting with interacting with the virtual cockpit via mouse or hand controller versus building a precise functional replica. 

[Tom Kazansky]

It is also unrealistic to try to get your head through the canopy. So for me it is enough to keep it inside (if I want to) as it is. Please leave the current state as an option if you need to limit head "movement" some day.

Edited July 17, 2021 by Tom Kazansky

[Fri13]

1 hour ago, pmiceli said:

Build yourself a cardboard canopy to suspend  over your head. This would be much more “realistic” than any software solution to this non-issue.

 

That is for one to do if so wanted.

 

1 hour ago, pmiceli said:

If “realism” were to be the test, ED would be Be out of business very shortly. There are countless “unrealistic” aspects, starting with interacting with the virtual cockpit via mouse or hand controller versus building a precise functional replica. 

 

There are various levels of realism. Like example we have a dirty canopy or fragmented/scratched glass instead perfectly clean. It doesn't mean that one needs to have a real glass to get the realistic effect from it. 

 

Same thing is with the controlling the aircraft. There are four different levels:

 

1) Keyboard or Joystick use where all systems are used with a device that doesn't belong to real cockpit, and doesn't require to know where the functions are in real cockpit.

Example a landing gear lever is set to joystick button so it can be easily operated when landing, without requiring to look at it or reach to it.

The unrealistic part is that player use functions with joystick that shouldn't have them or use a device like keyboard that has all of them. 

 

2) Mouse use where all systems are used with in their real cockpit locations and corresponding order. Player needs to know where the function is and how to operate it (is switch up or down etc) and this is limited by realistic modeling of the cockpit. Because player use display and mouse and mouse cursor is locked to inside visible view, it requires that player will always look the function (have it inside FOV) so it can be clicked, and player can't have method to click something without looking at it (like landing gear lever by reaching it and operate it by touch). The unrealistic part is that player hand is always put on the control device that is elsewhere than the real function is inside the cockpit (like using right hand to click a landing gear lever on the left side on the cockpit). 

 

3) hand controllers, hand trackers. This is the most realistic method without building a complete cockpit with everything. It is best compromise for VR because it allows to fly all aircraft by using corresponding 3D modeled cockpits virtually.

Player is required to move hands around the cockpit, like if they can't reach a button on right side with left hand, then they need to use right hand. The downside is that there is no physical feedback to touch, so it is based to audio and visual feedback that something did happen. But example hand controller supports to operate landing gear lever without looking at it by knowing that "it is just next to my kneecap" and so on allows to focus for landing and trigger function by reaching it with hand like in real thing. Learning is second best this method because player needs to learn where everything is and quickly learns the order as well, and the limitations/advances in designs because everything is limited by the real hands reaching capabilities. Downside is that you might need to grab a controller first (faster than moving hand on mouse) if not having a small device attached to hands. 

The hand tracking is almost best of these, but often requires to have hand inside HMD FOV to be usable, but nothing is required to have in hands.

 

4) Simpit. That is the ultimate. Skilled builder has everything properly done and wired, for the scale so that VR matches with the physical. This doesn't mean that physical needs to be painted or anything, as long the proper function is at proper place and it is proper kind (button instead a switch if a real one is a button).

But downside is that every aircraft requires a own unique physical simpit. So it is limited to 1-2 per room. If someone would be smart, they would build a flexible and modifiable platform that has just plates that you can switch around and each has proper buttons and switches and all. These are mounted on "arms" that are adjustable from bottom of the seat. So they can be moved and tilted to proper positions of the real cockpit. A panel size doesn't need to be proper shape or size to have functions in proper position, so they can be larger or different shaped (like square instead triangle). But it would take time to swap the plates (each with on USB micro controller, so cable to USB hub and to PC) so it is cheap and valid option for VR use. 

 

Argument that because real thing can't be reached without the real thing and hence no realism should be ever be tried to improved or even reached in other parts where it could be possible to be made experience as such is just invalid. This is not about self-control where player is willing to keep their head inside canopy, but it is as well a multiplayer anti-cheat where other player will put their head out to see what they shouldn't see, overcoming restrictions or reality limitations like dirty canopy by looking through it. 

This is similar thing as how g-forces should be restricted for TrackIR, that higher the g forces are, then camera view movement and speed is restricted. Even forced to center. So that player that is pulling 8-9 g can not do so by looking 180 degree to their rear because that is unrealistic. The similar restriction can be made for VR users by making the g forces effects (that should anyways be improved with blurring, desaturation etc) surround the player head and only usable area to see something is the front part. Call it "virtual blinders". So here trackIR user camera is pulled to center and effect is applied, the VR user effect is applied by blocking view to around him than ahead. Or even making effect much worse on both when they move their head away from the center position so further you are away from center and longer, then worse the recovery is from g forces. 

 

In reality in high g forces you are trained to breath, hold body, head etc properly. You don't swing head around like a 5 year old child with sugar overdose. Community agreeing with the values and then applying a adjustment levels for it so some players/servers can disable it and everything could be put on same level.

 

Because you can't feel and experience the real g forces, it doesn't mean that it is stupid to try to make the systems that would simulate those experiences....

 

 

[=475FG= Dawger]

52 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

 

 

 

 

There are various levels of realism. Like example we have a dirty canopy or fragmented/scratched glass instead perfectly clean. It doesn't mean that one needs to have a real glass to get the realistic effect from it. 

 

 

 

 

Dirty or scratched glass isn't "realistic". It's added purely for dramatic effect. Canopy reflections are severely overdone in DCS for the same reasons. People "think" its realistic and cool but out in the real world, the canopy/cockpit glass is carefully maintained to make it as invisible as possible. Canopy reflections like what we see in DCS only appear on camera, never what you would actually see in the aircraft.

 

Any software solution to this non-issue will be just as un-realistic as its current implementation. The only "realistic" solution is an actual, physical canopy.

[Fri13]

5 minutes ago, pmiceli said:

Dirty or scratched glass isn't "realistic". It's added purely for dramatic effect. Canopy reflections are severely overdone in DCS for the same reasons. People "think" its realistic and cool but out in the real world, the canopy/cockpit glass is carefully maintained to make it as invisible as possible. Canopy reflections like what we see in DCS only appear on camera, never what you would actually see in the aircraft.

 

I didn't say that they are realistically done, I said that the realistic effects are applied. I didn't either talk about reflections, so don't build strawman arguments.

 

If you think that every single canopy is crystal clear and they do not have any light diffraction and bending characters and no scratches and such, and you want to use it as argument then it would be foolish.

 

We can't currently have effects like DOF calculations for the eyes, but such blurring should regardless be done for all canopies as you are to look throught them instead at them. 

 

5 minutes ago, pmiceli said:

Any software solution to this non-issue will be just as un-realistic as its current implementation. The only "realistic" solution is an actual, physical canopy.

 

Again, you are making just hyperboles without any substance. If you are not willing to read and try to understand, it is your fault.

 

Your argument now is solely based that no one else understand that DCS World is just a simulator and not a reality. And you are insulting everyone's intelligence by doing such hyperboles that "only real thing is realistic".

[draconus]

5 hours ago, pmiceli said:

Canopy reflections like what we see in DCS only appear on camera, never what you would actually see in the aircraft.

 

Any software solution to this non-issue will be just as un-realistic as its current implementation. The only "realistic" solution is an actual, physical canopy.

Man, you have no idea what you're talking about. Physics apply the same both to eyes as the camera. Reflections are a thing the pilots have to consider when visibility is important. Simulation of canopy reflections and boundaries can be made better or worse but is much needed and is realistic effect to have in a detailed study sim. If you need options to make it easier for you then it's fine for me - there are mods, external views, whatever you like.

[Sr.]

On 3/10/2021 at 5:57 AM, cfrag said:

To me, I find the way that Alyx (the game, my gold standard reference to all things VR UI related) implements this: mask out (in grey or black) those parts of the view that are outside. That doesn't trigger motion sickness (although it's surprising the first time you come across it, some kind of aural 'bump' feedback would be appreciated) and keeps the UI clean. 

 

I encourage making outside-blanking optional, because I love sticking my head out of the 'office' every once in a while to enjoy the incredible view that DCS affords us. VR is so much better for flying, and we should allow the players to take advantage of the new possibilities instead of enforcing 'legacy' limitations

 

Please don't implement bright brownish orange (like HL Alyx on my system). First time I experienced that, I thought my room was on fire. 

[=475FG= Dawger]

On 7/17/2021 at 2:44 PM, draconus said:

Man, you have no idea what you're talking about. Physics apply the same both to eyes as the camera. Reflections are a thing the pilots have to consider when visibility is important. Simulation of canopy reflections and boundaries can be made better or worse but is much needed and is realistic effect to have in a detailed study sim. If you need options to make it easier for you then it's fine for me - there are mods, external views, whatever you like.

I guess my 30 years flying airplanes were wasted. 

[cfrag]

On 7/17/2021 at 4:29 PM, pmiceli said:

Dirty or scratched glass isn't "realistic". It's added purely for dramatic effect. Canopy reflections are severely overdone in DCS for the same reasons. People "think" its realistic and cool but out in the real world, the canopy/cockpit glass is carefully maintained to make it as invisible as possible. Canopy reflections like what we see in DCS only appear on camera, never what you would actually see in the aircraft.

 

Any software solution to this non-issue will be just as un-realistic as its current implementation. The only "realistic" solution is an actual, physical canopy.

 

This is a point that I have wondered about: what are these cockpit glass panes are made of? The amount of scratching I see in the F/A-18 for example positively makes it look like some plastic (the material the window panes in the Pipers, Mooneys and Cessnas I've flown are made from and that are scratched after 20 years of use). Does a fighter's cockpit glass really scratch that easily, do these scratches look like that, and don't ground crew polish the glass when scratched? I've read that modern glass is coated with substances for better shielding, so maybe that coating scratches easily (a design flaw if true and not cared for perhaps). So, how scratched is a real fighter cockpit? And what scratches it (a helmet seems unlikely, as it is round and by nature of safety has few if any sharp protuberances)?

 

WRT cockpit reflections I agree that they seem excessive - I can't say for sure that I've never seen them in RL, but during daylight I'm not sure I've ever seen any that obvious because - the glass (plastic) in the cockpits I've flown in is old, scratched, and therefore doens't reflect well. So it would be unlikely to have a glass that is both heavily scratched and highly reflective.  I turn them off whenever possible (e.g. F/A-18, F-16, unfortunately not an option in most). 

 

And lens flare (which wasn't talked about but is a DCS feature) - well, of course that's ridiculous for human eyes (they are created by refractions from multiple lenses, while the human eye has but one) and thankfully can be disabled.

[draconus]

6 hours ago, cfrag said:

This is a point that I have wondered about: what are these cockpit glass panes are made of?

Most are Poly methyl methacrylate (PMMA). Raptor has polycarbonate. In the right sunny conditions and angles canopies are like mirrors and full of scratches and other stuff - they are not perfect at all.

 

Yeah, lens flares effect is weird - pilot has only one glass on the helmet (idk about HMDs). I guess it was made for video rec purposes but it comes with great sun blinding effect so turn it on if you want more realistic look. Lens ghosts are not intrusive that much.

Edited July 20, 2021 by draconus

[cfrag]

25 minutes ago, draconus said:

Most are Poly methyl methacrylate (PMMA). Raptor has polycarbonate. In the right sunny conditions and angles canopies are like mirrors and full of scratches and other stuff - they are not perfect at all.

 

Thanks, @draconus, that's a very educational video wrt reflections! They are much more visible than I remember. It may have to do with the fact that the curvature is much more pronounced than any cockpit I fly in, but that does not in any way influence the physics. I'll have to be more observant in the future. Oh, maybe wearing polarized glasses cuts down on some of the reflections, I'll have to check that too.

 

[draconus]

27 minutes ago, cfrag said:

Oh, maybe wearing polarized glasses cuts down on some of the reflections, I'll have to check that too.

It may help with reflections but it can screw with LCD's visibility.

[=475FG= Dawger]

55 minutes ago, cfrag said:

 

Thanks, @draconus, that's a very educational video wrt reflections! They are much more visible than I remember. It may have to do with the fact that the curvature is much more pronounced than any cockpit I fly in, but that does not in any way influence the physics. I'll have to be more observant in the future. Oh, maybe wearing polarized glasses cuts down on some of the reflections, I'll have to check that too.

 

What you see on camera is not what you see in real life. Yes, the reflections are there but the human eye and brain have the ability to shift them almost entirely out of focus.

 

To quote a very recent opinion on the subject from someone who spent a career in tactical aircraft "These reflections are f*****g stupid!"

 

As I said before, the reflections in DCS are overdone for dramatic effect.

Edited July 20, 2021 by pmiceli

[cfrag]

47 minutes ago, draconus said:

It may help with reflections but it can screw with LCD's visibility.

 

That's luckily not a problem with the little glass I have in the cockpit (GPS, iPad, Stopwatch)  

 

[Hartsblade]

On 6/3/2021 at 5:39 PM, streakeagle said:

In another sim, when you hit the limit, the cockpit moves with you, i.e. you don't see any further movement displayed.

A checkbox that enables limits but if off by default is the way to deal with motion sickness.

Give the option to have limits without removing the option to have no limits, then everyone wins.

I fly that other sim as well, and think it is a great feature. I would love to be given this option in DCS.

[iFoxRomeo]

I really dislike the IL2 implementation of hard cockpit limits. For me it is annoying, causes discomfort and I always think my tracking system stopped working, because the virtual head stops unexpectedly, too early -> bad for my immersion.

I do not move my head out of the cockpit in on purpose. But I understand that people do it.

A) On purpose to get an advantage

B) Unintentionally

 

Now to adress these problems it might help to do two things:

1. Add a blurr/pixelize effect (but not blackout) to the eye/eyes that leave the boundaries of the cockpit. Server-side enforceable option, and for SP client-side option.

2. Add a hard cockpit boundary similar like the one in IL2. But NOT Server-side enforceable option, only as client-side option.

 

This way all sides would get what they think are best for them and no one could "cheat" anymore by checking 6 outside of the cockpit if the server admin decides so.

 

Example for pixelization:

The pixelization starts, when the eye hits the glass and moves further out.

 

 

 

Fox

[Baldrick33]

Sometimes seeking fairness in multiplayer can be a bit of a route to insanity. One of the big challenges with most VR headsets with FOV limitations is looking behind, something easily achieved with minimal effort with Trackir, without even turning as far as a real pilot. Rather than trying to impersonate an owl it can be easier to peer around which sometimes can inadvertently get you on or over the limit of the cockpit. If we had the FOV of our eyes it would be less hard. Regardless turning with our body tends to be more comfortable than swivelling our head around.

 

Some of us don't have the flexibility of young, fit fighter pilots so that needs to be taken into account too. If we say that we shouldn't due to realism most of us wouldn't endure the g forces in the real plane either. That is the beauty of simulations we can do stuff we would neither have the opportunity or in some cases the capability to do in real life.

 

Of course some will abuse the privilege and use it to see around obstructions and create some form of dreaded arcade view. Whether the perceived advantage makes up for the disadvantages in resolution and view options of VR compared with monitors is an endless debate but realism should always be a goal if it is achievable without creating unnecessary barriers to entry.

 

I agree with the poster above, for me switching from 6dof to 3dof is not a nice experience. It works ok in sim racing as the movement should be comfortably confined within the limits once the headset is centred. In combat flight sims the possibility of triggering it is much higher. So an alternative pixelating or fade out of the area outside of the cockpit would seem preferable as an option.

 

Personally I gained my VR legs in race and flight sims many years ago but still struggle with other forms of locomotion where my virtual body is moving and I am not. So the switch from 6dof to 3dof I find nauseating. I never otherwise have an issue with seated sims regardless of the crazy manouevers I perform!

[draconus]

This pixelization effect is awful. It should be something awful so no one would do it intentionally but not like this.

[iFoxRomeo]

18 minutes ago, draconus said:

This pixelization effect is awful. It should be something awful so no one would do it intentionally but not like this.

This is just an example to demonstrate what I meant. How it would/should look like in a potential final version is a totally different topic.

 

 

Does this version look better to you? (Youtube still processing HD version)

 

 

Fox

Edited August 13, 2021 by iFoxRomeo