requested Proposal for VR head limits implementation

[Baldrick33]

1 hour ago, kablamoman said:

In the time since 2016 and the Vive's release, we have seen some very amazing strides made, particularly in the area of artificial locomotion, and how different users show different levels of tolerance -- a surprising portion of users are able to tolerate much more than was initially thought feasible. Games like Onward and Pavlov feature full, unimpeded artificial translational movement as a part of their core game. Games like Echo Arena have a variety of advanced movement options that can be unlocked by players that are unaffected or have developed their tolerance for sim sickness.

 

What we know is that artificial rotational movement seems much likely to induce sim sickness in those who are prone, but also even in those with a high tolerance and so this, more than anything else is what should be avoided. The translational stuff -- lateral, side-to-side, up-down, forward-back -- as would be experienced in a "Hard limit" canopy limitation, or in a game like half-life (with artificial locomotion instead of teleport) has a pretty high degree of user tolerance. Indeed, you can see the entire online community in the "other sim" playing with these same restrictions, quite happily, though I am sure there are a small number of players that don't find it comfortable, still.

 

For those that still have real issues with discomfort, there should be the option for a soft limit, or a fade-to-black, so I really don't understand where all the protest is coming from. I can only assume people get prickly at the mere notion that somebody else may want to make them sick, or take away their enjoyment of the game they love. But I can assure you that is not what I am looking to do.

 

I have no objections to your suggestions to cater for all. However, I do find your suggestions they should be for those with "real issues" somewhat derogatory, which may explain the negativity received. I personally find removing tracking at hard limits an immersion killer. In the other sim it is pretty impossible to feel where the limit is until the plane literally starts to shift. From an immersion perspective I prefer to just see the onset of clipping to know to pull back a fraction, not have the tracking broken. Maybe just having a thud sound before the limit as my head hits the glass would be enough! Some may find the movement induces induce motion sickness, for me it just looks like broken tracking.

 

It is personal preference but compared with titles like Onward seated games like flight & race sims are a relatively safe choice for VR users. There are many who don't get on with simulated body motion which is why we have such a myriad of locomotion options with each title and even then it can be vomit inducing. The beauty about flight and driving sims is that we can have a true 1:1 matching of our physical movements which makes it much more natural than any form of simulated locomotion. I have tried numerous shooters, so keen to have a VR variant of old favourites but every one has disappointed because it feels so unnatural and whilst I have my VR legs for seated applications I guess I just are not wired for locomotion games, not through lack of trying.

[kablamoman]

@Baldrick33

 

Fair enough -- there are people who prefer teleport in Half-Life for the same reasons you mentioned and actually consider it more immersive. Although I do think it's safe to say that the vast majority of VR players find teleport or clipping through solid surfaces to be the less immersive option when presented with options for hard clipping or artificial locomotion. More often than not, it is discomfort with the motion that sways them to choose a telelport mode, for instance. But some may of course simply prefer to teleport.

 

And so it should be for the Hard limit vs. Soft limit when it comes to view restrictions in DCS VR.

 

Edited August 19, 2021 by kablamoman

[Mars Exulte]

11 hours ago, barry_c said:

I have genuinely won dogfights where I have lost Tally and regained by sticking my head outside briefly, it 100% occurs.

 

  It doesn't matter.

[barry_c]

31 minutes ago, Mars Exulte said:

 

  It doesn't matter.

Okay so we have all these High Fidelity models, designed to accurately depict an aircraft, but we don't have any of the visual problems the real pilots had because we can just stick our heads outside.

 

If this doesn't matter at all, can you please explain why an F-35 pilot has a helmet that let's him see through the aircraft, or why an F22 and an F16 have 100% clear canopies?

 

Essentially what you are saying is This is a simulator. But we should only simulate some things.

 

Keep in mind DCS is trying to be the highest fidelity/most realistic combat flight simulator out there...

Edited August 20, 2021 by barry_c

[draconus]

17 hours ago, cfrag said:

DCS is a game, and ED have to make some compromise between reality and game to make the product appeal to as many people as possible.

The proposed options make it appeal to everyone. Now it only serves those who don't care about VR head limits. And btw, in this game we pretend to be real pilots not ghosts!

[cfrag]

3 hours ago, draconus said:

The proposed options make it appeal to everyone. Now it only serves those who don't care about VR head limits. And btw, in this game we pretend to be real pilots not ghosts!

 

Yes, we pretend. End of discussion. 

 

[draconus]

11 minutes ago, cfrag said:

Yes, we pretend.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation

[SharpeXB]

FWIW there’s a poll in that other sim with cockpit limits, 91% have never experienced sickness from it. 

[Tippis]

12 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

FWIW there’s a poll in that other sim with cockpit limits, 91% have never experienced sickness from it. 

FWIW, other simulations don't matter — indeed, there's even a rule against discussing them. You know this because you love reporting people who bring up other games.

FWIW, polls in general are irrelevant because of self-selection and universally poorly written questions and options. You know this because of your preference for cherry-picking ones that are designed to support your stance, and dismissing ones that are designed not to.

FWIW, even if polls weren't inherently worthless, unless that figure is 0%, the result doesn't matter — those who aren't affected are irrelevant to the accommodation of those who are. You know this because it has been explained to you in full.

 

 

So it's not actually worth anything, and you know this too.  

[cfrag]

1 hour ago, draconus said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation

 

DCS is a simulation, agreed - as I'm sure you have read that the definition says nothing about the quality nor medium of simulations, so no disagreement here. But you did not really expect me to dignify "we pretend to be real pilots not ghosts" i.e. (my interpretation) "it's ok to pretend one completely unrealistic thing, yet one arbitrarily unrealistic aspect out of many is a bridge too far" with a serious comment. To be honest, I thought you were trolling. 

 

I accept your assertion that you don't want to pretend to be a ghost, and that is not something that we can gainfully discuss in the context of DCS; DCS isn't billed as a ghost simulator, nor is it billed as a "Magic 3 Minute Airframe Repair Shop". Both are completely unrealistic, both happen as a matter of course to create a game. That being said, I'm not even sure what your point is; I'm not opposed to remedies for when people stick their head out of the plane; I'm merely pointing out that this can be fraught with risk of bad player experience, and that if such a feature was implemented, I would welcome if it was optional.   

[Mr. Big.Biggs]

For a group of people who continually poopoo VR users and their requests for help making the game more VR friendly because “it’s such a fringe user base”. Sure is a whole lot of concern now about that fringe group. 
If the focus is suddenly shifted to the VR guys, focus that energy on playability please. If you’re a VR user and it bothers you, keep your head in your cockpit…..

It’s all about priorities and time allocation. They need to deal with big issues first 

[draconus]

1 hour ago, cfrag said:

I would welcome if it was optional

That was said in OP and repeated a few times. So who's trolling?

My point is if we're simulating aircraft and pilot as close to reality as possible there are some basic laws that should not be crossed like head should not go through canopy. We already have that implemented for TrackIR but not for VR. Same with trees that aircraft were flying through before - fixed since a few years. And, yes, I don't like other unrealistic things either, like the quick repairs but they are optional. This thread is about adding another option for VR and since you don't need it then what' your point?

[Tippis]

23 minutes ago, draconus said:

This thread is about adding another option for VR and since you don't need it then what' your point?

The point is that if it's made an option the way most seem to be suggesting, it won't be your choice and your need that dictate whether you use it or not, and forcing people to feel ill is an option that should never exist. So the “don't use it” argument does not really apply.

 

If it's an option, it must be strictly client-side, and that immediately leaves to the question of why even bother? The option to take care not to stick your head out already exists, and the whinging from people who aren't affected by it in any way will just continue.

[Gunslinger22]

6 hours ago, barry_c said:

Okay so we have all these High Fidelity models, designed to accurately depict an aircraft, but we don't have any of the visual problems the real pilots had because we can just stick our heads outside.

 

If this doesn't matter at all, can you please explain why an F-35 pilot has a helmet that let's him see through the aircraft, or why an F22 and an F16 have 100% clear canopies?

 

Essentially what you are saying is This is a simulator. But we should only simulate some things.

 

Keep in mind DCS is trying to be the highest fidelity/most realistic combat flight simulator out there...

 

This has been done to death with oh how realistic DCS is trying to be, people need to stop playing this trumpet. When are they going to model neck pains for the F-16? Or having to use a piddle pack when nature calls? 
 

Aircraft are simulated to a very high fidelity yes, but beyond that DCS is a long way from being realistic in many aspects. It doesn’t seem like it’s going to get there in a very long time either. 
 

I would counter point that TrackIR gives an unrealistic ability to move your head and observe all around you with minimal effort. Whereas when in a fixed seat it’s somewhat difficult to look over your shoulder in VR. 
 

I think this option should be added, but I’d like to similarly see TrackIR be limited to a realistic aspect also. 

[cfrag]

 

35 minutes ago, draconus said:

This thread is about adding another option for VR and since you don't need it then what' your point?

 

There are two points that encourage me to partake in this discussion:

• If it really is implemented as an option, no issue. if. 
• Also, if it doesn't take effort away from other items that I 8perosanlly) regard as more urgent, no issue.

To elaborate to avoid being misunderstood: Keeping the head inside the canopy is easy to implement: just clip the HMD's movement to the cockpit colliders, but this is known to cause problems with some VR users. And there are other possible fixes that aren't that easy to implement and with potentially lesser impact on a user's well-being. Many people here, including me, who would be directly impacted because we are VR-only users, point out that unless optional, there is no quick fix that would make the result better for everyone than the current situation is. Truth is, we have no idea how ED will proceed: make it optional (more code, more difficult to maintain and test), or one size fits all for easier maintenance across all modules (it's somewhat a given that to implement this, there is a high likelihood that all models must at least be tested, if not modified).

That is my argument: 1) please don't make DCS a worse experience by "fixing" something that 2) I personally regard a near non-issue. I accept that this is quite personal: how many times have I accidentally clipped through anything in my Hornet, Tomcat, Hind, Hog, Harrier, Huey, Hip, Tiger or Zelle in the past 6 months? I can't remember because it almost never happens, and if it does happen, then only for a split-second. I agree that this may be an issue with MP warbirds (that I don't personally fly often, hence I withhold judgement wrt urgency). So to Point 1): If it's an option, fine. If not, I'm heavily invested. To Point 2) Should it be a priority over other urgent fixes in DCS? Without passing judgement on warbirds, no.

 

That is why I'm so invested in this issue. I love DCS, and VR is the way I play. I may be the odd one out here, but regard DCS's VR implementation as very, very good. This discussion cuts disturbingly close to the bone for me if there is any risk of making it worse.   

 

Edited August 20, 2021 by cfrag

[Gunslinger22]

I think people who are largely clipping through pits are playing on swivel chairs where it is very easy to move off your axis. If you have a fixed chair and keep your shoulders somewhat squared, as they would be when strapped to an ejection seat, it’s very hard to clip from the cockpit. 

[SharpeXB]

17 minutes ago, Gunslinger22 said:

I would counter point that TrackIR gives an unrealistic ability to move your head and observe all around you with minimal effort. Whereas when in a fixed seat it’s somewhat difficult to look over your shoulder in VR. 

Pilots can indeed turn to see their 6:00. The effort required to do this can’t be simulated in a PC game though. DCS does a pretty good job of simulating the head and shoulder turn when using head tracking. 
 

[cfrag]

43 minutes ago, draconus said:

My point is if we're simulating aircraft and pilot as close to reality as possible there are some basic laws that should not be crossed like head should not go through canopy.

 

I don't think that anyone would disagree much with your statement. The conundrum is: which evil to choose? If you prevent moving your virtual head through the walls while your physical head does, the in-game result - no matter which way you choose, will be jarring. The problems isn't so much that we can't figure out what the issue is. Clipping through the cockpit is an issue. The real problem: while there are many possible solutions, we currently have no good solution. If you haven't done so already (and have that option), experiment with the many ways that developers have come up to resolve this. There are some very clever attempts (one of the best I saw in Alyx). Unfortunately, to me, there's a long way to go from 'clever' to 'actually good'. I don't pretend to have an answer. The problem exists. But it's not (in my mind) a high priority.

 

[kablamoman]

@Tippis

3 hours ago, Tippis said:

The point is that if it's made an option the way most seem to be suggesting, it won't be your choice and your need that dictate whether you use it or not, and forcing people to feel ill is an option that should never exist. So the “don't use it” argument does not really apply.

 

If it's an option, it must be strictly client-side, and that immediately leaves to the question of why even bother? The option to take care not to stick your head out already exists, and the whinging from people who aren't affected by it in any way will just continue.

 

 

Did you actually read the OP?

 

I must not be communicating effectively.

 

Key point: Limits are needed so people don't stick their head through their canopy.

 

The proposal says there should be 3 client-side user selectable modes:

• No Limit
• Hard Limit
• Soft Limit (comfort mode so nobody gets sick)

 

 

If a server chooses to enforce cockpit view restriction, the client has to select one of the two limiting modes:

• Hard Limit
• Soft Limit (nobody gets sick as translational movement is not affected, the screen would just fade-to-black as limits were exceeded)

 

That's the gist of it. For SP or servers that don't care, people can choose whatever the hell they want.

 

For servers that do care, people don't get to stick their head through the canopy -- people that want an immersive and accurate experience can bump their head against the glass, and nobody is forced to get sick because those who prefer it can choose the soft limit option in that circumstance (their view would fade to black as their head exceeded canopy limits).

Edited August 20, 2021 by kablamoman

[Mr. Big.Biggs]

14 minutes ago, kablamoman said:

@Tippis

 

 

Did you actually read the OP?

 

I must not be communicating effectively.

 

Key point: Limits are needed so people don't stick their head through their canopy.

 

The proposal says there should be 3 client-side user selectable modes:

• No Limit
• Hard Limit
• Soft Limit (comfort mode so nobody gets sick)

 

 

Servers can enforce cockpit view restriction, but client can select one of the two limiting modes:

• Hard Limit
• Soft Limit (nobody gets sick as translational movement is not affected, the screen would just fade-to-black as limits were exceeded)

 

That's the gist of it. Nobody is forced to get sick, nobody gets to stick their head through the canopy if the server admin choses to disallow it

 

It should also limit track ir users to a 1:1 ratio….

[kablamoman]

@cfrag

 

1 hour ago, cfrag said:

 

 

[...] Many people here, including me, who would be directly impacted because we are VR-only users, point out that unless optional, there is no quick fix that would make the result better for everyone than the current situation is. Truth is, we have no idea how ED will proceed: make it optional (more code, more difficult to maintain and test), or one size fits all for easier maintenance across all modules (it's somewhat a given that to implement this, there is a high likelihood that all models must at least be tested, if not modified).

That is my argument: 1) please don't make DCS a worse experience by "fixing" something that 2) I personally regard a near non-issue. I accept that this is quite personal: how many times have I accidentally clipped through anything in my Hornet, Tomcat, Hind, Hog, Harrier, Huey, Hip, Tiger or Zelle in the past 6 months? I can't remember because it almost never happens, and if it does happen, then only for a split-second. I agree that this may be an issue with MP warbirds (that I don't personally fly often, hence I withhold judgement wrt urgency). So to Point 1): If it's an option, fine. If not, I'm heavily invested. To Point 2) Should it be a priority over other urgent fixes in DCS? Without passing judgement on warbirds, no.

 

That is why I'm so invested in this issue. I love DCS, and VR is the way I play. I may be the odd one out here, but regard DCS's VR implementation as very, very good. This discussion cuts disturbingly close to the bone for me if there is any risk of making it worse.   

 

 

 

Forgive me, but everything you've said about your experience would mean these changes would have  absolutely zero impact on you or your enjoyment. If you have never accidentally popped your head through the canopy, and all the modules you fly have big roomy cockpits there would be absolutely nothing different to you if these changes were implemented. Zero. You would be losing nothing. So I really don't understand this tendency of others to spread the fear, uncertainty and doubt about improving DCS's VR implementation.

 

My personal stance -- from my experience with the warbirds in this sim, and comparing it to my experience with other VR warbirds, playing competitively online -- is that DCS can do better. There is an opportunity for it to add some features to its VR implementation that could elevate it to first-in-class, with benefits that would extend to the entire platform. Simulated head limits for the cockpit environment along with comfort options is a big part of this. It's the first thing me and many others notice when making the jump from that other title.

 

Given the current experience with the ultra high fidelity sounds and visuals, it is an absolute misstep for VR to have a players head simply pass through the aircraft geometry. It stands out like a sore thumb on that experiential side, but also in the multiplayer environment for practical reasons when engaging in combat.

 

If you're flying a Hornet and engaging in BVR fighting and rarely have to check six, of course this isn't going to be an issue for you. But if you're curious, I'd say go try the free trial of the BF109 or the FW190 and fly it around for a bit. Maybe even take it online in Storm of War and see just how frequently you have to check  your blind spots and how often your head accidently pops outside the confines of the cockpit. You eventually have to fight back the urge to intentionally pop your head outside for a quick look. It's just not in line with the rest of the sim experience.

 

Edited August 20, 2021 by kablamoman

[kablamoman]

58 minutes ago, cfrag said:

I don't think that anyone would disagree much with your statement. The conundrum is: which evil to choose? If you prevent moving your virtual head through the walls while your physical head does, the in-game result - no matter which way you choose, will be jarring. The problems isn't so much that we can't figure out what the issue is. Clipping through the cockpit is an issue. The real problem: while there are many possible solutions, we currently have no good solution. If you haven't done so already (and have that option), experiment with the many ways that developers have come up to resolve this. There are some very clever attempts (one of the best I saw in Alyx). Unfortunately, to me, there's a long way to go from 'clever' to 'actually good'. I don't pretend to have an answer. The problem exists. But it's not (in my mind) a high priority.

 

Oh man, again I just feel this is more F.U.D.

 

Implying we would have to sell our virtual souls and chose an evil to have a good VR experience! C'mon!

 

There are good solutions that have been demonstrated in countless other VR titles. An entire community plays VR online competitively in warbirds with hard limits, with  no qualms, even without any "comfort" option. This is DCS's opportunity to out-do them and make an even more robust implementation.

 

What's more, is that out of the 3 proposed modes, the only time the user would be forced to choose a limiting mode would be on specific servers -- the vast majority of players wouldn't be impacted as they don't even go online, and the option for hard limits would be welcomed by those that play SP and want a more immersive experience.

 

For those online, this choice would not mean certain nausea!!! It would simply mean you can't burn a hole in the sky with your head sticking 2 feet outside your canopy, or you'd see black!

 

Be reasonable, I implore you all.

 

 

[Mr. Big.Biggs]

12 minutes ago, kablamoman said:

@cfrag

 

 

Forgive me, but everything you've said about your experience would mean these changes would have  absolutely zero impact on you or your enjoyment. If you have never accidentally popped your head through the canopy, and all the modules you fly have big roomy cockpits there would be absolutely nothing different to you if these changes were implemented. Zero. You would be losing nothing. So I really don't understand this tendency of others to spread the fear, uncertainty and doubt about improving DCS's VR implementation.

 

My personal stance -- from my experience with the warbirds in this sim, and comparing it to my experience with other VR warbirds, playing competitively online -- is that DCS can do better. There is an opportunity for it to add some features to its VR implementation that could elevate it to first-in-class, with benefits that would extend to the entire platform. Simulated head limits for the cockpit environment along with comfort options is a big part of this. It's the first thing me and many others notice when making the jump from that other title.

 

Given the current experience with the ultra high fidelity sounds and visuals, it is an absolute misstep for VR to have a players head simply pass through the aircraft geometry. It stands out like a sore thumb on that experiential side, but also in the multiplayer environment for practical reasons when engaging in combat.

 

If you're flying a Hornet and engaging in BVR fighting and rarely have to check six, of course this isn't going to be an issue for you. But if you're curious, I'd say go try the free trial of the BF109 or the FW190 and fly it around for a bit. Maybe even take it online in Storm of War and see just how frequently you have to check  your blind spots and how often your head accidently pops outside the confines of the cockpit. You eventually have to fight back the urge to intentionally pop your head outside for a quick look. It's just not in line with the rest of the sim experience.

 

Your conveniently ignoring the fact that a multi flat screen guy with track IR can watch his six and airspeed indicator at the same time in the tomcat. Should we limit track IR and multiple screens??? 
is winning that important?    

[Mars Exulte]

8 hours ago, barry_c said:

Essentially what you are saying is

  This is a video game.

 

8 hours ago, barry_c said:

 This is a simulator.

  Which is a type of video game.

 

8 hours ago, barry_c said:

But we should only simulate some things.

  We can ONLY simulate some things. This is a distinct limitation of video games vs real life. I'm not particularly for or against any of the stuff being discussed here, but every few days somebody raises some imagined imbalance or cheat because of *insert crisis*. I've heard everything, including resolution, screen size, and control quality, presented as various ''cheats''. It's a video game, with all the limitations (and concessions to reality) that usually entails.

 

8 hours ago, barry_c said:

Keep in mind DCS is trying to be the highest fidelity/most realistic combat flight simulator out there...

  Which is a great goal and why we're all here. But it's still a video game, most of us aren't real pilots, and our experience varies dramatically based on the hardware we're using and personal aptitude. Losing a fight isn't a noteworthy event, especially if the excuse for how it happened was ''He was wearing a low res VR helmet that clipped through the canopy and THAT was the deciding factor''. Pretty damn cringe, like most rationalisations for ''why I lost that wasn't my fault''.

[Nealius]

Honestly tired of games these days being so focused on PvP and competitive playing. The only reason this is an issue is because some PvP players are salty about their opponents allegedly exploiting lack of view limits in VR. Despite VR having such crappy spotting it literally doesn't even matter if they could stick their heads out. Some of us like single player and PvE. Don't force limitations that only exist for PvP players onto everyone else. If it's that big of a deal, then make it an option. A server-enforceable option. Done. 

Edited August 20, 2021 by Nealius