requested Proposal for VR head limits implementation

[kablamoman]

Edit: This was originally posted in the WW2 forum, and so many of the concerns apply mostly to the canopies of the aircraft from that era. If you have no experience with these warbirds and their cramped cockpits you may not realize what an issue it is to inadvertently clip through cockpit geometry during the course of regular combat, nor realize how easy it is to poke your head outside to quickly check six with an unimpeded view to the rear. 

---

 

I wasn't able to post this before the other thread was locked, but was excited to share a proposed solution that should make everybody happy.

---

 

In line with the feature-set offered in the best modern VR titles available (think Half-Life: Alyx and its Comfort vs. Locomotion options), I would propose three modes:

 

1. No Limit -- no different than what we have now.
2. Hard Limit -- physical limits in the simulation to prevent translational movement outside the canopy bounds (could lead to motion sickness with some users).
3. Fade-To-Black -- A motion sickness friendly mode, that gradually fades the view to black as the pilot progressively exceeds the canopy bounds.

 

 

It would be ideal if multiplayer servers had the option to enforce a limit. Canopy limits On or Canopy limits Off.

 

• With Limits On: Method 2 or 3 would be allowed. Whichever was most comfortable to the user.
• With Limits Off: All three methods could be used allowing for unrestricted head movement through and beyond the confines of the canopy.

 

 

To me this seems like a solution that should make everybody happy, allow for reasonable multiplayer limits to be enforced on multiplayer servers, while also avoiding any fear of inducing motion sickness. The benefits over the current system would be maximizing immersion and making the sim that much more friendly and robust with regards to VR and accommodating varied user experiences and use cases (eg. single player vs. multiplayer; hardcore sim vs. casual fun).

Edited August 19, 2021 by kablamoman

[Nealius]

Canopy-open also needs to be taken into account for S-turns during taxiing. Furthermore, the only aircraft that has modeled structural limits on open canopy at high speeds is the Jug. If we enforce canopy DOF limits, what's preventing someone from simply opening/jettisoning the canopy and sticking their head out?

[kablamoman]

Of course, If the canopy is open on the ground you would be able to stick your head outside without a problem regardless of the limits setting.

 

Quote

 If we enforce canopy DOF limits, what's preventing someone from simply opening/jettisoning the canopy and sticking their head out?

 

Glad you brought that up. It's not a big deal to tackle this by simply enforcing limits on lateral head movement into the slipstream at high speeds (perhaps even to be progressively restrictive as speed increases). Drag penalties for flying with an open or missing canopy should also be an issue for anyone trying to do something less than realistic like intentionally popping off their canopy and flying around like that to get around restrictions. In cases where it may be appropriate (ie. If the aircraft in question could be flown with an open canopy at slower speeds for better visibility, ventilation, or as part of normal procedures for take off and landing), limits on head movement outside the cockpit should still apply based on speed.

 

All of these exceptions and conditions to limit head movement mentioned have been implemented and work as expected in the other sim (just without the "Fade-to-black" comfort mode), so I can't think of any reason why it shouldn't be done.

Edited August 23, 2021 by kablamoman

[Creep]

I feel that this implementing head restrictions in such a way that they can be toggled on/off would be a win-win for everyone. For me personally, not having head limitations breaks immersion and feels like a pretty big "cheat". Hard to sneak up on anyone when all they have to do is stick their head through the plane to get a perfect view of their low 6.

[cfrag]

OK, I looked into this a bit more closely to see how big this issue really is. My conclusion: The VR advantage of sticking your head out is zero. Here's why: Remember that you must move your head in the real world to the position that reflects the position outside and below the cockpit in the game. That spot is the same distance from the default head position in both worlds. I'm not sure if @Creep has tried this themselves (and if so, please tell me which plane, so I can update the table) - if I want to see my low 6, I have to move my head either sufficiently below the airframe, or far enough through the seat backrest. That distance can be some 3 feet *below* my seat's surface. If you try that stunt in a dogfight and win, you'll also have a great career as a contortionist *and* magician. Reason being that 3 feet below my seat is also almost 1 foot below the floor. 

 

So to get some concrete numbers I tried this with multiple planes. I mounted a chair on a box that gave me the ability to move below the floor, and then rigged my VR accordingly. "Below Seat" means below airplane's seat surface, behind backrest means turn to face the backrest, and then move that distance. I recorded the 'easiest' (shortest distance) spot that I had to move my head to be able to check low 6 (or be in principle able to see that spot, often some weapons will block the view)

 

- Hornet: 70 cm below seat

- A-10A - 1m behind backrest, but any carried weapons will obscure view

- A-10C - 1.3m behind backrest, any carried weapons block view

- Harrier - 1.2m (!) below seat

- F5E - 45 cm behind backrest, but fuel tanks or weapons block view

- Huey, Hind, Hip: very funny

- Tomcat: As Pilot: 60 cm below seat

 

Important: For me, none of these positions are easily attainable while still touching your HOTAS (remember, you can't see your room when you have the HMD on your nose).

 

So I think that "Head outside plane" is a non-issue in combat. No VR user can get an advantage that way 

Edited August 17, 2021 by cfrag

[Shallot]

@cfrag,

 

I know Creep and Kablamoman are both approaching this from a Warbirds perspective. Those aircraft have far smaller cockpits, sometimes to the point where a user may accidentally clip their head through the cockpit while tracking a target.

 

@barry_c was charming enough to make a video displaying roughly how much one had to move in order to peek outside in a 109K. Granted it's probably the most restrictive cockpit in the game, but still shows that one can do it without needing to contort to unreasonable lengths.

 

 

[Germane]

+1

[cfrag]

1 hour ago, Shallot said:

@cfrag,

 

I know Creep and Kablamoman are both approaching this from a Warbirds perspective. Those aircraft have far smaller cockpits, sometimes to the point where a user may accidentally clip their head through the cockpit while tracking a target.

 

@barry_c was charming enough to make a video displaying roughly how much one had to move in order to peek outside in a 109K. Granted it's probably the most restrictive cockpit in the game, but still shows that one can do it without needing to contort to unreasonable lengths.

 

Thank you for that very interesting demonstration video, @Shallot! Indeed, with warbirds this seems plausible - it helps that often their cockpits/pilots are positioned behind the wings, giving a much better view of what is behind (a modern fighter's wings would completely block that view). I completely forgot about them old stormcrows; in those cockpits, "pushing" your HMD through the canopy may indeed afford an unfair advantage to VR players.  

[Knock-Knock]

Just keep it simple. Poke your head outside, and just apply the visual asphyxiation effect already in the game. Blur, fade, desaturate etc. and after 5 seconds or something, black out. But fade back fast, when back inside the boundary. 

 

No head movement restrictions, no instant black out. It'll only disorientate and make it very tough to correct the movement, and not to mention motion sickness.

Checking six is already tough enough in VR, no need to restrict it further by stopping motion and what not, when trying to get a glimpse back there in the narrow pits, and accidentally hitting the canopy.

[Shallot]

@Knock-Knock Yeap, I was discussing this subject with folks who are concerned with disorientation or motion sickness that could be associated with a hard limit. A good alternative option would be to have the HMD rapidly fade to black when you exceed the limits of the cockpit. Obviously the more options available to the player, the better. 

[Baldrick33]

5 hours ago, Creep said:

I feel that this implementing head restrictions in such a way that they can be toggled on/off would be a win-win for everyone. For me personally, not having head limitations breaks immersion and feels like a pretty big "cheat". Hard to sneak up on anyone when all they have to do is stick their head through the plane to get a perfect view of their low 6.

Immersion breaking maybe, a “pretty big cheat” seems an over exaggeration. Compared with trackir contorting around in VR to look behind is much harder and stretching out of the cockpit and rubber necking to see the lower six seems a stretch of the imagination, certainly beyond my experience with VR.

[LithiumR]

53 minutes ago, Knock-Knock said:

Just keep it simple. Poke your head outside, and just apply the visual asphyxiation effect already in the game. Blur, fade, desaturate etc. and after 5 seconds or something, black out. But fade back fast, when back inside the boundary. 

 

No head movement restrictions, no instant black out. It'll only disorientate and make it very tough to correct the movement, and not to mention motion sickness.

Checking six is already tough enough in VR, no need to restrict it further by stopping motion and what not, when trying to get a glimpse back there in the narrow pits, and accidentally hitting the canopy.

This... best solution imo. I fly only in VR the past few years... I'll admit that when I'm cranking my neck around and my head goes outide the canopy it is currently a great view. I don't recenter and do it on purpose ever but with a bandit on your 6 it's hard to just stick your head back in and pretend you didn't see him haha. I also don't think it's that big of an issue for mp. Trackir peeps check 6 easy barely turning thier head and keeping their HOTAS right in front of them, Vr peeps crank their head around uncomfortably far controling hotas that's now behind them/ hard to reach and get outside the cockpit sometimes. Even trade imo (mostly, I'm sure some folks abuse it but i really don't care honestly).

 

But I digress... if it's that big of a problem Knock-Knock is on the right track I think! (Maybe after that's implemented we'll get a server option to force TrackIR into 1:1 tracking hahaha)

[kablamoman]

Please leave the Track IR talk out of here, boys.

 

We're talking about the VR implementation in the game.

 

@cfrag

 

Hey, friend. I actually meant for this to be posted in the DCS WW2 forum originally. I posted it in the spitfire bug reports section by mistake, and asked the mods to move it to the western front wishlist, but I guess they moved it to the DCS general wishlist!! Ooops! All the same, I think it is still appropriate here, as it would mean a more robust VR implementation for the game in general.

 

My experience in larger cockpits is that this is almost a non-issue (I have the F86, and it's so roomy, I almost couldn't peek through the glass if I wanted to), as it's really rare to accidentally pop your head through the canopy, and for the same reasons might be prohibitive to abuse it to do things like check six unobstructed by the seat, canopy back, or empennage. 

 

But yeah in warbirds I believe it's a pretty big issue.

 

The proposed solution was meant to satisfy all parties.

 

Some may not have a problem with the current implementation, but many VR users do, and this solution takes nothing away for the former group except for the ability to cheat, essentially. Nobody would be forced to use a mode that would result in motion sickness, but the option for hard limits to translational movement through solid surfaces and the increased immersion that comes along with that would be there for those who prefer it.

Edited August 18, 2021 by kablamoman

[Baldrick33]

It is hard not to compare with TrackIR when this is being labelled as a cheat. By necessity TrackIR doesn't require you turn your head like in VR, unless you have a wrap around 360 monitor which of course isn't the case. It doesn't detract from the skill required to use TrackIR effectively but compared to VR or real life it could be labelled a cheat being able to look behind you  facing a monitor in front of you. It speeds up the process and allows people with restricted movement to easily turn their heads to look behind them. The latter would seem a good thing - most of us aren't the fit young fighter pilots we might imagine we are!

 

The suggested solutions seem fine, especially from an immersion aspect but the thorny issue will be if multiplayer servers determine cockpit limits are deemed a cheat whereas any form of TrackIR profile is fair game. My personal view is that the VR aspect as a cheat is being somewhat blown out of proportion, though of course it depends just how far people will go and if it is possible to program arcade views purely for the purpose of getting an advantage then maybe some limits need to be applied in terms of just how far the head can stray outside of a cockpit.

 

My concern would be it might impact the player with limited movement who finds it more comfortable to move their body to assist neck movement which might cause them to stray fractionally outside of a cockpit and hit the proposed limits which may cause nausea, when the same player could comfortably use TrackIR. So having a little leeway might be the solution. This would only be for multiplayer servers that force it on so the numbers may be so miniscule as to not be worth worrying about but I do see accessibility as a key aspect of sims we can do in our homes and restricting people should only be done if considered a big enough issue in terms of fairness.

[draconus]

All of that has been discussed here and we have even ED stance on the matter.

 

I personally would like a VR head hard limit option with a big bang sound and some rebound

Edited August 18, 2021 by draconus

[BIGNEWY]

Hi all, 

 

we are discussing VR cockpit limitations internally with the team, when we have something to share we will let you all know. 

 

thanks

[sirrah]

In my opinion, ED (or third parties) should send us a physical canopy when we purchase a module! 

 

(ok, this would cost a few bucks, but hey, they'd save on coding costs! )

[SharpeXB]

I don’t use VR but if I did, the ability to move my head through the aircraft would be a big no-go. I find that very immersion breaking using TrackIR in sims which don’t have limits. You can inadvertently move your head into the headrest etc and blind yourself. It makes the aircraft seem unreal and ethereal. For me to even consider VR there would have to be cockpit boundaries. 

[Tshark]

Perhaps a modified version of the VR canopy limits used in Aces High III.  When your head hits the canopy limit the whole cockpit view just moves in the direction of the head movement.  This lets you know you have hit the canopy limits without causing disorientation.  It also does not give the VR player any visual advantage.  Modify that feature with redefined head tracking limits when the canopy is open.

 

Just an idea 

[Baldrick33]

32 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

I don’t use VR but if I did, the ability to move my head through the aircraft would be a big no-go. I find that very immersion breaking using TrackIR in sims which don’t have limits. You can inadvertently move your head into the headrest etc and blind yourself. It makes the aircraft seem unreal and ethereal. For me to even consider VR there would have to be cockpit boundaries. 

For me it is a non issue for 99.9% of the time. It is just those rare occasions when you might be straining your neck trying to follow an opponent and get a whoosh of air sound as your head has gone just out of the boundary in a plane with tight cockpit (typically WW2). In my case it is more trying to avoid a painful neck rather than trying to cheat. The sound acts a bit like an alarm and I quickly tuck back in. It is a bit immersion breaking but without a physical stop, better (in my view) than stopping positional tracking and the whole plane moving with me.

 

Once you have centred the VR view in your seat, most normal head movement won't get you into trouble with objects like you describe, whereas trackir by design will exaggerate head movement.

 

Bear in mind this isn't like Half Life Alyx where you move up against a wall and it stops motion, because you see the wall. The cockpit boundaries are largely invisible, making it more visible would cause greater issues. Glass is meant to be clear, hence all the videos of people running into closed patio doors! Add the limitations of VR resolution to the mix and it is no surprise we have little or no visibility of the boundary.

 

 

24 minutes ago, Tshark said:

Perhaps a modified version of the VR canopy limits used in Aces High III.  When your head hits the canopy limit the whole cockpit view just moves in the direction of the head movement.  This lets you know you have hit the canopy limits without causing disorientation.  It also does not give the VR player any visual advantage.  Modify that feature with redefined head tracking limits when the canopy is open.

 

Just an idea 

That is the bit that causes nausea for some - 6dof tracking converting to 3dof so positional tracking comes to an abrupt end

Edited August 18, 2021 by Baldrick33

[=475FG= Dawger]

40 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

I don’t use VR but if I did, the ability to move my head through the aircraft would be a big no-go. I find that very immersion breaking using TrackIR in sims which don’t have limits. You can inadvertently move your head into the headrest etc and blind yourself. It makes the aircraft seem unreal and ethereal. For me to even consider VR there would have to be cockpit boundaries. 

The ability to snap your virtual head 180 degrees by moving your real head 3 degrees is immersive, but hearing a bit of wind noise (the way VR is now in DCS) if you occasionally poke your head through a window is immersion breaking?

[Creep]

22 hours ago, cfrag said:

So I think that "Head outside plane" is a non-issue in combat. No VR user can get an advantage that way 

 

This is patently false. I can get a 100% unobstructed view of my low six in a P-51. FYI, I have been a VR user for 3+ years - I have had an Odyssey+, Reverb G1, and now a G2. I have used these headsets in XPlane11, MSFS2020, IL2, and DCS. I love VR, and the ability to have an out of body experience and easily check your low six for WW2 aerial combat breaks immersion and provides an unfair advantage for those that use it. 

[Magic Zach]

1 hour ago, BIGNEWY said:

Hi all, 

 

we are discussing VR cockpit limitations internally with the team, when we have something to share we will let you all know. 

 

thanks

Thanks BIG 

[Dunx]

... just pop your canopy... or just jink

[cfrag]

2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

I don’t use VR but if I did, the ability to move my head through the aircraft would be a big no-go. I find that very immersion breaking using TrackIR in sims which don’t have limits. You can inadvertently move your head into the headrest etc and blind yourself. It makes the aircraft seem unreal and ethereal.

 

It really isn't - in VR this is is almost a non-issue, mostly because (unlike TIR) you never move your head where you don't intend to (turn too far in TIR). You see the canopy and struts and automatically, just like in real life, keep clear without even thinking about it. You almost never go though any boundaries - unless you consciously, really, really want to (it literally takes determination to "break though the walls" since you are going against your own reflexes). "Going outside" can be used in some warbirds to get a slight unfair advantage (check low 6); in modern planes that doesn't give you an advantage because the planes are bigger, and the cockpit is positioned so far in front of the wings that they block the view. So there is next to no chance that you accidentally move your head out of the cockpit. If you do it voluntarily, you can get a small advantage in some warbirds. Immersion is only broken if you involuntarily do this, so there is little risk of that happening.

 

2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

For me to even consider VR there would have to be cockpit boundaries. 

 

It's of course up to you if and under which conditions you choose to use VR, and I recommend you try yourself before making that call. If you have the time, check also some VR demos for developers on what not to do; it's very educational and fun (and some demos are very vomit-inducing ) - one of the worst things to do is to restrict movement of the HMD. Using graphical effects for out-of-cockpit situations (blur, grey out) are less intrusive. The only question here is if it's worth the effort to develop. It does not add to immersion. It merely can reduce the likelihood of a small exploit in warbirds to happen.

 

47 minutes ago, Creep said:

 

This is patently false. I can get a 100% unobstructed view of my low six in a P-51. FYI, I have been a VR user for 3+ years - I have had an Odyssey+, Reverb G1, and now a G2. I have used these headsets in XPlane11, MSFS2020, IL2, and DCS. I love VR, and the ability to have an out of body experience and easily check your low six for WW2 aerial combat breaks immersion and provides an unfair advantage for those that use it. 

 

Yes, my apologies for that - I completely forgot warbirds. I only tried this in modern planes. 

 

Edited August 18, 2021 by cfrag