BFM, and VR rear arc of view v's real pit.

[Fish]

Hi All, 

I'm a TIR user for as long as the technology has existed, and have benefited from the ability to look behind without too much effort, by glancing left or right. Very useful in a CAC fight, not withstanding its limitations 

 

Recently tried BFM after some time with VR, and after a quick engagement with a mig29, i almost tore my neck from its socket, trying to strain to look around (also nearly fell off the chair with shock when his bullets ripped through my jet!). I also pivoted in the chair, but tried to hold on to my hotas.

 

While combat pilots are very fit, and agile, i'm guessing there's still limitations to how far over their shoulder they can look. Be interested in any real pilot commenting on the distinction with real/vr during BFM's. 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 27, 2021 by Fish

[Dragon1-1]

Not (yet) a real pilot, but what headset do you have? Depending on that, your horizontal FOV is either less or much less than you normally have. That makes checking six more of a chore than it should be. Also, the stick and throttle positions on the desk don't lend themselves to looking backward as well as in the real jet. Making a simpit improves your ergonomy quite a bit.

[Gronank]

Pilots have normal human fields of vision, I have an office swivel chair. Swings and roundabouts, really.

[Fri13]

8 hours ago, Fish said:

While combat pilots are very fit, and agile, i'm guessing there's still limitations to how far over their shoulder they can look. Be interested in any real pilot commenting on the distinction with real/vr during BFM's. 

 

You get already a good idea with this from F-16 and F-35 pilot:

 

 

Every human is different by their eyes physical part, but the field of view is generally same for everyone. 

So that is what is the normal good area to look at for relaxed steady head position just to look with eyes. 

Why important avionics are placed in forward section (blue) and critical ones are wanted to be in the green area (HUD and so on) as when you have head supported for high G, you have easy time to look at the HUD.  

 

The next one is about the field of view of your eyes when you have head straight ahead.

You have great focus capability only 30 degree forward from your head. You have 60 degrees for the 3D vision as both your eyes will see there (this is little variable by the people eye sockets depth, nose ridge size etc). And 120 degree is your peripheral vision that how much either your eye can turn in eye socket to see something sharply by getting eye fovea in that position, it is just about 60 degree left or right. Then after that you don't see sharply anything. You only can see a high contrast objects (lights, glares and such), movement and similar. 

 

So to see 180 degree backward position, you need to turn head 180-60 = 120 degrees to either direction so you can have your fovea in the area, that is 30 degree further than just looking straight left or right with nose pointing there. Typically people do not turn their head 90 degree to look side but they turn like 40 degree and then rest they look by moving eyes just so that they get both 60 degree vision area there. And they assist it with torso movement so head doesn't need to move much. 

 

Here is a example screenshot from a pilot checking his six. 

Blue line is where the vertical stabilizer is located.

 

 

On me with the Rift S, I can see yellow line with just turning my head, no shoulder movement, no torso twisting, just turning my head.

The orange line is how far I can see when I do similar movement as the pilot does by twisting my torso so my opposite side shoulder comes off the seat like he does have.

Then I can turn my head so far that Rift S edge is on the orange line and I can see past the vertical stabilizer. 

 

I don't have the harness, I don't have any G forces, I don't have heavy helmet, I don't have basically any similar challenges in VR that the pilot has.

You can see example here what the pilot does naturally to look further at his right side: 

 

 

That is just casual flying, staying in formation and observing the area and checking times for overfly specific place with a second accuracy.

 

Now think about it all in the higher G's. You are not turning your head around and constantly keeping G's and check your six like with TrackIR you can.

Why the VR already brings it closer to realism by requiring you to physically turn head and limit you. 

Some people have installed the harness straps with pullers, so when the G increases in DCS, their seat straps will pull them tighter to the seat, restricting more their head movements as there is tension in harness trying to keep their back in the chair. 

 

 

 

 

[Foka]

9 hours ago, Fish said:

While combat pilots are very fit, and agile, i'm guessing there's still limitations to how far over their shoulder they can look. Be interested in any real pilot commenting on the distinction with real/vr during BFM's. 

 

I'm not a pilot, but the problem is not your ability to turn your head, but tunnel vision of VR gogles. VR FOV is much, much smaller then every one of us have IRL.

Edited April 27, 2021 by Foka

[Fri13]

2 minutes ago, Foka said:

I'm not a pilot, but the problem is not your ability to turn your head, but tunnel vision of VR gogles. VR FOV is much, much smaller then every one of us have IRL.

 

VR field of view for most is not narrower than their fovea field of view. You lose the extreme peripheral vision that doesn't have colors or shape recognition. You can spot a movement on high contrast objects but nothin small. 

 

Example take a normal sun glasses, they already cover a larger area than you can see properly. You would need to get those sun glasses field of view over the 6'clock position to see properly there.

That is why if we could get the black VR edges colored and lit at the proper values then we would be fooled that we have full wide field of view. To do that it could be possible to have just a some very low resolution panels around changing just proper patterns and illumination and it would look more realistic. 

 

[Dunx]

I can't spot outside VR sweet-spot, my eyes have to stay in the small central zone (Reverb G1, others are better/worse), neck rotation is therefore exagerated.

[Fri13]

22 minutes ago, Dunx said:

I can't spot outside VR sweet-spot, my eyes have to stay in the small central zone (Reverb G1, others are better/worse), neck rotation is therefore exagerated.

 

I can spot in Rift S from anywhere the lenses just show (except the very edge of lens). I can't VID them but I can spot. Against sky it is easy as they are dark spots. Against ground it depends that what is the surrounding. I like to use a Caucasus terrain texture mods that add more variation to ground and so on more challenges to spot things, as otherwise they would be too easy to see a dark object under a tree or anywhere open. 

 

At least the shadow system works well in the desert maps as coming from sun direction (obscured shadow) the vehicle can be very challenging if impossible to spot. But coming from other directions and you can see the shadows for multiple kilometers. 

 

[Foka]

5 hours ago, Fri13 said:

VR field of view for most is not narrower than their fovea field of view. You lose the extreme peripheral vision that doesn't have colors or shape recognition. You can spot a movement on high contrast objects but nothin small. 

Oh, they are narrower. I have Rverb G2 and I have feeling of looking thru a tube. I simply see black sides of limitations of goggles.

[G.J.S]

I have not used VR, I use TrackIR as it just clicks with me.

However, first and foremost from your description of twisting and nearly losing your HOTAS, I would certainly recommend a NON swivel chair! As for having to twist your head around to extremes, that I can attest to, is realistic.

It can also be used to a aggressor fighters advantage, in trying to make the pilot of the aircraft being hunted in close WVR to cross control.

Welcome to the other facet of air combat . . . . Neck pain!

[Fri13]

1 hour ago, Foka said:

Oh, they are narrower.

 

So how is that many can not roll their eyes further than the VR lenses show to them?

They can not roll their eyes so they could get their fovea (the only thing in focus in whole field of view, about 2 degree) further than their VR gets. Again, some people faces are shaped so that their eyes are further from the lenses and so on they can see accurately the edges, but many can't as the get lenses closer and around their eyes. 

 

1 hour ago, Foka said:

I have Rverb G2 and I have feeling of looking thru a tube. I simply see black sides of limitations of goggles.

 

Yes but when you can not see details outside of the lenses, and you wouldn't be seeing colors or patterns on the current VR goggles black areas, it is very much waste of time to try to get those areas in high resolution and detailed as even if we would get a 270 degree VR vision around the head, our eyes can not roll so much. If we would be a rabbit or a horse, then we would benefit from such ultra wide view but we wouldn't be seeing well to front section. 

 

This is what someone tried to solve by having a color leds to illuminate the edges with colors that edge of the screen had. And they say it was immersive as you couldn't see anymore the blackness there but neither anything accurate but it just helped in immersion. 

 

 

[Dragon1-1]

When checking six, the extremes of your FOV that you lose in VR are important. You don't need recognition (that just comes into play when you spot something), you need to spot movement, and that the human eye is extremely sensitive for that. Just a quick glance to the rear is enough, especially if you have a wingman. Both a SAM and an incoming bandit will be moving rather quickly across your field of view, and a quick glance with the edge of your vision is effective in those scenarios.

[G.J.S]

12 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

When checking six, the extremes of your FOV that you lose in VR are important. You don't need recognition (that just comes into play when you spot something), you need to spot movement, and that the human eye is extremely sensitive for that. Just a quick glance to the rear is enough, especially if you have a wingman. Both a SAM and an incoming bandit will be moving rather quickly across your field of view, and a quick glance with the edge of your vision is effective in those scenarios.

. . . As a little caveat to this, while generally true and accurate - it’s the things that DONT move across a field of view that can be very dangerous.

Another aircraft on a crossing path can appear to not move relative to your canopy bow for instance, and can indicate a collision course aspect. Missiles will lead you, but a direct collision from a crosser will appear to not move at all relative to you. 
From the rear, a non mover can also indicate a pure pursuit inbound, but with a much less chance of collision.

[Tholozor]

Remember your ABCs in a missile fight: Always Be Cranking!

[Dragon1-1]

3 hours ago, G.J.S said:

. . . As a little caveat to this, while generally true and accurate - it’s the things that DONT move across a field of view that can be very dangerous.

Unless you're in WWII (or Korea, at the latest), by the time the threat stops moving, your best bet is to go for the ejection handle, because you can't do a whole lot by that point. And if you are in WWII, you'll notice a great big blob of the enemy aircraft slotting in on your six. Pretty much the only dangerous things that will sit largely unmoving on your deep six is an enemy lining up a guns shot. Things like missiles or other aircraft on a collision course will have no apparent motion, but they typically won't be on your six, but rather in a location you'll be surveying with your fovea.

[Fri13]

13 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

When checking six, the extremes of your FOV that you lose in VR are important. You don't need recognition (that just comes into play when you spot something), you need to spot movement, and that the human eye is extremely sensitive for that.

 

Movement, that the chasing fighter doesn't have. 

When you have a fighter behind you, it is maintaining a pure pursuit, then it is stationary relative to you. 

Even if the pilot would be pulling slight lag or lead pursuit, it is still relative to stationary to you. 

 

And the human eye is not so sensitive that it can so easily detect a similar colored (again, aircrafts camouflages and all) low contrast tiny speckle that barely moves at all. 

That is why you need to get that fighter in your fovea and keep it there. Do not lose eye contact with it. Maintain it or you lose it.

You can acquire it when it is so obvious that it is making huge movement across your field of view. 

But not when it is almost stationary to you.

 

 

13 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Just a quick glance to the rear is enough, especially if you have a wingman. Both a SAM and an incoming bandit will be moving rather quickly across your field of view, and a quick glance with the edge of your vision is effective in those scenarios.

 

No it is not enough. That is in TrackIR because you have unrealistic rearward visibility, you have resolution that increase nicely objects contrast to whole field of view and you can just fix your fovea on your six without any problems at all. 

 

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/former-vfc-13-adversary-pilot-explains-how-you-can-fly-and-fight-in-the-iconic-f-5-tiger-ii/?fbclid=IwAR2wH1JMsU4EzlRDc_9hj8IXkDQuWrUe_kYn6QUnK70Q92-lDRACGlTK-Sw

 

"The F-5E was a peculiar bird (VFC-13 currently flies F-5Ns, most of which were procured after 2006 from Switzerland). It was tiny for a fighter, especially one with two engines. It had no modern systems, unless you consider hydraulics to be modern. No Anti-Skid. No INS nor GPS. No HUD. Just a simple old-fashioned pulse radar and a basic gunsight. It had no defensive systems, no RWR nor expendable countermeasures, other than the fact that when pointed nose-on to an adversary it completely disappeared, like a cloaking device being activated. There was no sophisticated technology required to enable the disappearing act, just the fact that the pilot sat in a cramped little cockpit on the head of a needle with tiny, razor thin wings behind him. And when that needle was nose on to a Tomcat or Hornet pilot who had lost radar lock or situational awareness, his skin would crawl and the hairs on the back of his neck would bristle. Because he knew that the very next time he was sure of where the bandit was, was likely to be when he heard the dreaded, “Trigger down, tracking, tracking…” It was a plane perfectly suited to the role of adversary; fast, simple, nimble, eminently beatable by a competently flown front-line fighter; but capable of pouncing on an error and creating a learning point in the form of a simulated kill. If you lost to the F-5, you had something to learn, and that’s the way it should be."

 

When you are trying to find someone that you know is at your six, coming straight behind you. You need to get your fovea in that target. You need to get it separated from the background by some means like rolling while pulling, and if that means you lose air speed etc, then you likely die for that you are searching it.

 

That is the greatest feature of the backseater that they will keep their eyes on the threat all the time. Their job is to focus to that one thing and not to lose it because they needed to check a HUD or something.

 

The VR does block the extreme peripheral vision, but you wouldn't be pulling high G's and pushing your head behind the seat to see your six. You are not there pulling 9 G's and having body rotated out of the seat and having excellent peripheral vision as you can't move your body. Your 5 kg head weights 45 kg at that moment. Your whole 80 kg body weights 720 kg. You can't move your arms, you can't move your legs... You just concentrate for the pulling the high G. 

 

Your vision is already blurred, it narrows down. You lose colors, you lose vision to around. And more G's you pull, more you need to use your center cone of your vision. You have all the glares, all the reflections and such from your canopy. From the surrounding environment, the sun and all. And you need to try and find that one slight grey speckle somewhere at your six where you don't know in which side or where.

 

TrackIR is like parkin a SUV in empty parking slot. You can easily reach back of the seat to look back and you can put your head out of the window to look outside and you can have all time to look the mirrors and everything. And you do this all just by moving head by 15-20 degrees around. All the time your eyes are fixated to forward section to narrow less than 50 degree field of view.  You can glance back and worth at instant speed and have automatic head movement behind the seat. 

 

The VR does nothing of that.

You need to get your fovea on the target and that is in the limits of the eye muscle rotation. You can not just flick head 10 degree to left to check six but you need to actually turn your head that 120 degree to side. And that is not enough because you only see that the ejection seat is blocking your view. You need to actually lift your body from the chair to move further to your side so you can look around the ejection seat. 

Then what if you find the target at your six? What does it really matter? Why not use the mirrors in your fighter that shows it nicely? Why not use some piloting skills to actually shake the threat away? Make it overshoot, make it challenge for him to get the lining shot?

 

The whole concept of the "Look at your six" is unrealistic because you can not do that when you are maneuvering for your life. You need to find ways to move head and support it. You need to know already where the target is going to appear based your move and have eyes looking in there instead just "I can just look 45 degree to my left and I will spot it because my eyes are extremely sensitive to movement at my six". 

 

Even when driving a car, there is a such a thing as "blind spot". That is the area between the mirror and your flank. And if you do not literally look over your shoulder that what is happening behind your 8-4 line, you can crash on someone else just next to you. A hue large truck, a van, a big orange ambulance... It doesn't really matter because your field of view is extremely poor at your peripheral vision.

 

When you are stressed, focused to find something, you might not realize it even if you are lookin straight at it.

 

Yes they are not highly experienced ones, but it doesn't get so that they start to avoid all the G forces effects to their vision and to their breathing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUsyeKAZvxQ

With experience you get to be comfortable at the 6-7 G forces but it is still very heavy for the body as 5 kg head weights 30-35 kg. And you can get easily injured by doing radical moves. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuDji9a_dqU

 

 

The TrackIR problem is that it is way too easy and fast to look your six.
The VR at least forces you to use your real head movements. 

And what you can't see in the extreme peripheral vision is not critical if you have already threat to your six as you shouldn't be flying by lookin to your six. 

 

If I need to look to six in turning fight, I don't do it to look around my sides as seat is blocking my wing. There are support struts an all on the way.

It is easier to just put head to side of the headrest and look above the whole airplane. You get good visual to where your threat is as it is not straight at your 6, but higher than that as you are pulling upward from it. 

 

VR requires to move body totally different realistic manner but as we don't have G forces, we don't have restrictions for that either. But it is more realistic and immersive than TrackIR is ever. 

And thinking that dog fighting in DCS with TrackIR is realistic, it is not. It is just far more easier when you don't need to actually look around and find the target. It is almost same thing as using a snap view to closest enemy aircraft "Ah, there it is" and then back. 

It can be seen easily in youtube videos like:

 

 

 

 

[Dragon1-1]

1 hour ago, Fri13 said:

Movement, that the chasing fighter doesn't have. 

If you've got a fighter chasing you in such manner that it doesn't move across your field of view, you're already dead unless you're in WWII, in which case you're about to be dead unless you're really lucky. "Checking six" is meant to spot an aircraft that's about to pounce on you and help you keep SA. And yes, it's done with peripheral vision. If you need to survey the part of the sky directly behind you more closely, you just turn the aircraft.

 

When you know there's something back there, and you're in process of fighting it, then you need your fovea on target. And if the bandit is on your six at any point besides right after the merge, that's a good cue to extend (the merge itself is fairly predictable, I've rarely had trouble reacquiring the bandit even in VR even if I did briefly lose tally at that point). Your great big wall of text conflates checking six to keep SA with keeping tally during dogfighting.

[Fri13]

Just now, Dragon1-1 said:

If you've got a fighter chasing you in such manner that it doesn't move across your field of view, you're already dead unless you're in WWII, in which case you're about to be dead unless you're really lucky. "Checking six" is meant to spot an aircraft that's about to pounce on you and help you keep SA. And yes, it's done with peripheral vision. If you need to survey the part of the sky directly behind you more closely, you just turn the aircraft.

 

When the aircraft is coming at you, it is stationary no matter is it a WW2 or is it a Eurofighter Typhoon.

It doesn't move relative to your view point no matter where it is around you. 

 

And that is why you perform the turns to check your six because you can't see there well when flying still. You do the turn, the wingman does the turn. If your wingman is not like 2 miles to your side, they can't see much behind you. 

 

Just now, Dragon1-1 said:

When you know there's something back there, and you're in process of fighting it, then you need your fovea on target.

 

What is not helping you because 1) you can't move your head to even see there anyways. 2) You can't spot something moving that is stationary relative to you.

 

Just now, Dragon1-1 said:

And if the bandit is on your six at any point besides right after the merge, that's a good cue to extend (the merge itself is fairly predictable, I've rarely had trouble reacquiring the bandit even in VR even if I did briefly lose tally at that point). Your great big wall of text conflates checking six to keep SA with keeping tally during dogfighting.

 

Your whole argument point is covered and countered in my "great big wall of text". You just didn't read it to accept that your argument has no point. 

[Dragon1-1]

1 hour ago, Fri13 said:

When the aircraft is coming at you, it is stationary no matter is it a WW2 or is it a Eurofighter Typhoon.

When the aircraft is "coming at you", then it's too late. Nobody except some old missiles flies pure pursuit all the way to target. The proper way is to fly lag until the moment you're in range and have a good angle for a guns shot, at which point you pull lead, and this is when your aircraft stops moving across enemy's field of view. Pure pursuit at any point before that just wastes energy. Even in a WWII-style bounce, you don't dive on the target right away, far more time is spent flying above the enemy into a position to start your dive.

1 hour ago, Fri13 said:

And that is why you perform the turns to check your six because you can't see there well when flying still. You do the turn, the wingman does the turn. If your wingman is not like 2 miles to your side, they can't see much behind you. 

Proper separation in combat spread is 1 to 1.2NM to the side, for this exact reason. 2NM is a possibility in some other tactical formations (albeit usually between elements in a 4-ship). That gives the wingman more than enough room to see what's behind you, and you can see anyone trying to sneak up on your wingman. No need for "Crazy Ivan" unless you fly in an administrative formation in a combat zone (they are called administrative and not tactical for a reason).

 

And yeah, I skimmed through the wall of text, one or two sentences "addressing" that I might have missed. Do you seriously want me to read that? I've got better things to do with my time. I used to do line-by-line refutations of such posts back in the day, but I know better now. If you want people to get the point, then stick to the point.

Edited April 28, 2021 by Dragon1-1

[Fri13]

56 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

When the aircraft is "coming at you", then it's too late. Nobody except some old missiles flies pure pursuit all the way to target.

 

When the aircraft is coming at you, it is so far away that you can not spot it by any means from peripheral vision. You need to get your fovea on it. And you need to actually spot it. 

That is why there are trained search patterns and methods to scan visually the areas. You can not just turn head on generic direction and spot everything in 90 degree field of view that is moving. 

 

We are talking here about dog fight, the enemy is "coming at you" just in a couple kilometer radius. It is tiny, it is small, and it is stationary relative to your position.  

 

56 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

The proper way is to fly lag until the moment you're in range and have a good angle for a guns shot, at which point you pull lead, and this is when your aircraft stops moving across enemy's field of view. Pure pursuit at any point before that just wastes energy. Even in a WWII-style bounce, you don't dive on the target right away, far more time is spent flying above the enemy into a position to start your dive.

 

The aircraft stops moving already in the lag or lead or pure pursuit modes at the distance. It is question of relativity of the distances. How many degrees per second does the target move, how strong contrast it has to even become visible even. A black object on bright smooth blue sky is easy to spot, but that same black object on confusing background like ground and it becomes almost invisible.   

 

56 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Proper separation in combat spread is 1 to 1.2NM to the side, for this exact reason. 2NM is a possibility in some other tactical formations (albeit usually between elements in a 4-ship). That gives the wingman more than enough room to see what's behind you, and you can see anyone trying to sneak up on your wingman. No need for "Crazy Ivan" unless you fly in an administrative formation in a combat zone (they are called administrative and not tactical for a reason).

 

And are you doing a combat spread in a 1 vs 1 dog fight?

This is not about flying in a patrol and searching possible aircraft. This is about BFM and such. You have already been engaged, you have already merged, the enemy is at your six coming for the kill. You can't see it because you are maneuvering and pulling G's and you have no means to move your body to get a required good visual to your rear on target that is stationary to your point of view, possibly even almost invisible.

 

And in the such scenarios it is not enough that you spot where possibly a enemy fighter is, you need to recognize its pattern, you need to see the details so you can see that what is its attitude, so you can estimate its energy state, you can see what it can do. And nothing of those you can do with peripheral vision, you need to get the fovea on the target to get the idea of it.

 

56 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

And yeah, I skimmed through the wall of text, one or two sentences "addressing" that I might have missed. Do you seriously want me to read that? I've got better things to do with my time. I used to do line-by-line refutations of such posts back in the day, but I know better now. If you want people to get the point, then stick to the point.

 

So you do not respect others because you are trying to refute things that you didn't read... Good thing. 

If you think you have better things to do in your time, it is better then start to read so you are not just repeating your arguments that has been countered in the first place as you are just wasting even more your time.

 

Fact stands, TrackIR does not have the limitations that the real pilots has. And the VR is far closer to the reality in respect of those limitations.

Players has custom to use TrackIR because it gives them artificial capability to look around, a advantage that is unfair over VR users.

No one wants to be blind to enemy that is behind them, that is why you do not want to give that position for them. That is why you don't give them a means to get to be at your six. Why you don't need to look at there.

 

The common youtube channels dog fights etc are boring as people uses trackIR and they give the picture that real fighting is without G effects and that you can just turn around your vision perfectly while pulling maneuvers and have perfect visibility to rear without any challenges. It just leads to the air quake elements.  

[Mover]

9 hours ago, Tholozor said:

Remember your ABCs in a missile fight: Always Be Cranking!

Why?

[Tholozor]

Pulling Gs and changing your aspect means the missile flying at you has to pull Gs to correct its intercept. The more Gs you make the missile pull, the more energy it has to expend, reducing its ability to maneuver.

[Mover]

7 hours ago, Fri13 said:

The common youtube channels dog fights etc are boring as people uses trackIR and they give the picture that real fighting is without G effects and that you can just turn around your vision perfectly while pulling maneuvers and have perfect visibility to rear without any challenges. It just leads to the air quake elements.  

 

This is correct.  There is no realism with Track IR.  And the Reverb G2 (Valve index is a little better) feels like fighting using NVGs.  

48 minutes ago, Tholozor said:

Pulling Gs and changing your aspect means the missile flying at you has to pull Gs to correct its intercept. The more Gs you make the missile pull, the more energy it has to expend, reducing its ability to maneuver.

No.  There's open source information on what a crank is and why we do it (I'm not getting into it here but CNATRA has put out some T-45C AWI info for NFOs that explains in detail), but this is not correct.  

Edited April 28, 2021 by Mover

[SharpeXB]

On 4/26/2021 at 7:29 PM, Fish said:

While combat pilots are very fit, and agile, i'm guessing there's still limitations to how far over their shoulder they can look. Be interested in any real pilot commenting on the distinction with real/vr during BFM's. 

Pretty much this. 

 

Edited April 29, 2021 by SharpeXB

[maxTRX]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Pretty much this. 

 

 

 

Nice vid. Thanks for posting. Somehow I missed that one. My neck hurts without pulling G's in my VR but I do have some pieces of 'furniture' around me that I can grab for leverage when twisting my body around... then my ribs hurt, lol.