reported VR Head Restrictions to Within Cockpit

[Magic Zach]

What do you think about having restrictions in-game to your view, while in VR in the cockpit?  Have you had experience with such limitations on your view before in other sit-down games?  Do you believe that such limits will increase the immersion?

Words and comments appreciated as well.  Feedback doesn't have to just be from the poll alone.  Preferably, it'd be both.

[sirrah]

I know that other WW2 sim/game (with its name dedicated to a Russian ww2 aircraft ) has, or at least had, such a feature and it was awful (to put it mildly)

 

You'll have to imagine, what would such a boundary look like in VR. For those that haven't experienced it, let me try to explain:

 

1. You sit in the cockpit and start to move your head (physically) to the left
2. Everything looks normal while your head closes in on the left side of the canopy
3. Then at some point suddenly, your virtual head clashes with the virtual canopy and the VR image stops moving, while your actual head is still moving to the left (away from your body)
4. In VR this will look like the entire plane is moving away from your body, which is a total immersion killer and for some may even be nauseating 

I much rather occasionally stick my virtual head "through" the canopy, although in my past 4 years of flying DCS in VR, this maybe happened 10 times to me..

 

The only proper way to simulate canopy boundaries, is to actually create them in real life. Maybe be inventive with some cardboard or something.. Not what you want to hear, but really, this is the only way

 

Edited August 11, 2021 by sirrah

[æck]

It's a widely agreed rule in VR game design to never break the coupling between head movement and displayed image. It almost always causes major motion sickness.

 

But there's another way, they could make the outside world invisible when your head is clipping out of bounds. So you would still see the cockpit and the head tracking would keep working but everything else would be gray. That would prevent disorientation while still making "cheating" impossible.

[Knock-Knock]

Tried it, and it was very intrusive and nausea inducing, and I never get motion sick in VR.. well except that time. Horrible.

If that shit got forced on, I would stop playing in VR, instantly.

[Major Bug]

I totally agree with upsaid 3 comments (sirrah, egg2142, knock-knock).

Nothing more left to say!

 

[sirrah]

hehe, it's funny to see that all those who stated to have experience with virtual boundary restrictions, voted against it

 

 

[dsc106]

Yup, 50% don't want it and have no experience.

 

Try Rogue Squadron VR, this has limitation. Also, while very different, Half Life Alyx uses similar virtual boundaries to prevent clipping movements.

 

Long & short: there are great examples out there which work very well. It should be implemented into DCS World, at the very least, as a toggleable option.

 

[sirrah]

10 hours ago, dsc106 said:

Yup, 50% don't want it and have no experience.

 

Try Rogue Squadron VR, this has limitation. Also, while very different, Half Life Alyx uses similar virtual boundaries to prevent clipping movements.

 

Long & short: there are great examples out there which work very well. It should be implemented into DCS World, at the very least, as a toggleable option.

 

 

Perhaps you (intendedly?) misunderstood me, but what I meant was, ut looks like all those who experienced VR restrictions, don't like it.

 

But, ok, I'll give Rogue Suadron a go and report back here if it convinced me.

[dsc106]

Ah ha, I did misunderstand! I'll be curious what you think of Rogue Squadron.

[cfrag]

I personally don't like restrictions to HMD, even if done 'right'. The way Alyx does it is clever, least intrusive yet still disorienting for me (almost fell over the first time I encountered it). I would be able to tolerate it if it was an option, but I'm no fan of artificial restrictions that unnecessarily mimic the real-world. I also want to point out that I like being able to stick my head out of my F/A-18's 'Office' every once in a while to enjoy the incredible view...

 

Edited August 13, 2021 by cfrag

[Lurker]

We are already restricted by our backs and our necks. All this would add is nausea. And more workload on developers who should be concentrating on making VR more scalable and perform better. 

[=475FG= Dawger]

@NineLine Since this appears to be a thing now, Where do we go to get refunds for the modules affected by this stupidity? 
 

Specifically, the Spitfire, 109 and 190.

 

 

[RED]

Just play a good old "clunk" sound when you would have hit your head.

[bies]

I like the "other game's" VR head restriction, it works good for me and it gives me no nausea or other negative effects.

 

I know both options are compromise: nausea for some guys vs. "cheating" by looking outside the cockpit and immersion breaking.

Edited August 13, 2021 by bies

[sirrah]

10 hours ago, dsc106 said:

Ah ha, I did misunderstand! I'll be curious what you think of Rogue Squadron.

 

Just tried it and, as I expected, my vision goes black once I stick my head through the canopy. Each their own (and yes, much better than what I described in my first post from that ww2 sim), but I don't like it at all.

Accidentally sticking my head through the canopy, which as I said, happens to me nearly never (I don't fly ww2 birds in DCS), is far less disruptive, or immersion breaking, than my vision going black.

 

Optional, sure.. I'm ok with it as long as I can switch it off

 

 

Oh and on the matter of things not being fair... who cares. MP balance is not DCS' strongpoint anyways (nor does it need to be imho)

[=475FG= Dawger]

18 hours ago, sirrah said:

 

 

 

Oh and on the matter of things not being fair... who cares. MP balance is not DCS' strongpoint anyways (nor does it need to be imho)

Absolutely agree. I'd much rather just give server operators the option to prohibit VR or prohibit non-VR from their servers than screw around with this. A lot less programming effort to achieve the same result.

Edited August 14, 2021 by =475FG= Dawger

[æck]

6 hours ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

Absolutely agree. I'd much rather just giving server operators the option to prohibit VR or prohibit non-VR from their servers than screw around with this. A lot less programming effort to achieve the same result.

Wouldn't it be much simpler to just add the VR head restriction as a server option?

 

That way people who don't like it can play without it in singleplayer and in their own missions. While people who don't mind the head restriction can still play VR in competitive servers.

[=475FG= Dawger]

4 hours ago, EGG2142 said:

Wouldn't it be much simpler to just add the VR head restriction as a server option?

 

That way people who don't like it can play without it in singleplayer and in their own missions. While people who don't mind the head restriction can still play VR in competitive servers.

From a coding standpoint, its a helluva lot easier to create a switch to exclude VR users than it is to properly implement a head limits system for every module in the game. There are so many variables that need to be accounted for that it’s fairly likely what gets implemented is going to be less than ideal. 
 

And since the implication of this is that all VR users are cheaters, it makes more sense just to exclude them from the server. 

[cfrag]

53 minutes ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

From a coding standpoint, its a helluva lot easier to create a switch to exclude VR users than it is to properly implement a head limits system for every module in the game. There are so many variables that need to be accounted for that it’s fairly likely what gets implemented is going to be less than ideal. 
 

And since the implication of this is that all VR users are cheaters, it makes more sense just to exclude them from the server. 

 

I'm aware of the heavy sarcasm in above quote, and I think that people wo don't play VR are heavily over-estimating the 'VR advantage' when it comes to sticking your head outside of the cockpit. There may be other advantages VR players have, but this thing? It really adds nothing. It would be interesting to hear what people imagine this 'advantage' incurs. 

 

I also appreciate @=475FG= Dawger's insight: some people believe VR players are cheaters - and agree that it's time to disabuse people from that misapprehension. It's like claiming other people who play with rudders are cheating when I don't have one. If you don't fly VR, you voluntarily limit yourself; it's like playing golf with only a Driver and a 5. It's hardly the VR player's fault that you use subpar equipment and are flying pancake. Should servers also disable advanced joysticks? Players with rudders? That would be silly. My advice to those complaining: shut up, go VR, and then be surprised how much more fun, and how little advantage VR really bestows on you, especially when sticking your head out of the window. Oh, and what is that 'padlock view' you flat guys keep speaking of (and yes, I know that can be disabled because it *is* an assist)? 

 

 

Edited August 14, 2021 by cfrag

[sirrah]

14 minutes ago, cfrag said:

 

I'm aware of the heavy sarcasm in above quote, and I think that people wo don't play VR are heavily over-estimating the 'VR advantage' when it comes to sticking your head outside of the cockpit. There may be other advantages VR players have, but this thing? It really adds nothing. It would be interesting to hear what people imagine this 'advantage' incurs. 

 

I also appreciate @=475FG= Dawger's insight: some people believe VR players are cheaters - and agree that it's time to disabuse people from that misapprehension. It's like claiming other people who play with rudders are cheating when I don't have one. If you don't fly VR, you voluntarily limit yourself; it's like playing golf with only a Driver and a 5. It's hardly the VR player's fault that you use subpar equipment and are flying pancake. Should servers also disable advanced joysticks? Players with rudders? That would be silly. My advice to those complaining: shut up, go VR, and then be surprised how much more fun, and how little advantage VR really bestows on you, especially when sticking your head out of the window. Oh, and what is that 'padlock view' you flat guys keep speaking of? 

 

 

 

Spot on @cfrag  (especially the "padlock" part )

 

Oh, and on the matter of having server side restrictions (be it VR boundaries on/off, VR only, flatscreen only, ...or whatever..)

I just took a picture of the MP servers currently running, on a regular Saturday, around noon (CET)

 

Hardly crowded, if you catch my drift..

 

Do you really think it's wise cutting up MP even further?

 

(but yet again, I think I wandered a bit off topic here maybe )

 

Edited August 14, 2021 by sirrah

[Harker]

I don't see how this is even an issue. I physically need to stand up in order to see above my canopy in VR. I cannot do that during ACM, for example. And I can't look through the fuselage, under the aircraft, because I'd need to sit down on the floor. At best, I can stick out my head out the side, when seated, which might offer a very minimal advantage, if any. It's certainly not something I've ever thought about during gameplay, it always fell into the "ah, that's neat" category.

[Lurker]

Much ado about nothing. I mean using TrackIR you can basically swivel your head around for a 360 degree view, and no one considers that to be an issue, so....

[BIGNEWY]

The team are looking into options for VR and canopy boundaries.

 

Thanks 

[=475FG= Dawger]

2 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

The team are looking into options for VR and canopy boundaries.

 

Thanks 

Hopefully, one of the options is doing nothing.

[Magic Zach]

I've had extensive experience using the head limits from other titles, and for those that don't give up in the first couple minutes, it is fairly simple to acclimate to them.  90% of the other title's VR users now don't get nauseous.  It helps a lot also that for our sit-down games, it is much harder to get any kind of nausea than standing up.  There may be an adjustment period, but long term, as elsewhere, I see no reason why most would be not acclimate either.  Besides, some of the most popular games from the Oculus store (that I don't think I'm allowed to name) already practice moving the character's view independent of the user.  Adding limits and independent camera movements is nothing new to the VR world.

Aside from that, being trapped in a small box is part of the experience of flying our aircraft...probably the most tangible one, in reality.  This entails other effects of being within a small box, largely your visibility outside of it.  This is a problem mentioned rather often by our old warbird pilots.  This also means that we can't experience these recreated aircraft as full as possible.  The lack of feeling like you're being locked in a box completely aside, some aircraft had their own solutions for these visibility problems (if visibility around the aircraft wasn't a problem, they never would have made solutions during the war anyways).  Such as our Spitfire, that comes with the Malcom hood canopy.  This was made to give taller pilots some head space, but also to permit better rear and surrounding visibility by the pilots.  A very real feature of the Spitfire, we cannot properly utilize this feature as of now, as we can merely bypass the glass entirely, and there are no defined edges.  Might as well pop the canopy...but that's ridiculous and just further ruins the gameplay (need to be serious here because some individuals have honestly suggested this).

As far as development time, it's overexaggarated.  We already have all the cockpit models to use as a template, and the shape for creating such a box does not need to be complicated.  As the case for the Spitfire; create the initial cube, slant the back for the seat angle, extend the front until the dashboard, use a sphere and additionally merge it (for the Malcolm hood), make an intrusion from the front for the gunsight, add collision properties for the VR cameras and model.  The boundary box itself for each cockpit does not have to be complicated at all.  To really shortcut things, the limit could be defined by the current box for flat-screen cameras...but that doesn't offer much fidelity with the cockpit's dimensions.

Aside from all this, I also see no reason to not provide options for the effects at the boundary.  Aside from a hard-stop, I've also heard of the earlier mentioned fade to black.  Some suggest just blurring the view outside the boundary.  This would be a swell option for the individual client-side, allowing them to pick the option they prefer when limits are going to be on, wherever they play.

I cannot say if I rather the control for boundaries on or off be given to the client only or priority given to the server's settings.  At least if with the above mentioned options, if a server is given priority over client, the client can still pick the effect at the boundary that suits them best.

Edited August 16, 2021 by Magic Zach
typo