Jump to content

Proposal for VR head limits implementation


kablamoman

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, Baldrick33 said:

The only true to life simulation is a physical constraint.

Yes* but that is beyond scope of VR implementation and DCS.

*It also is imperfect as the HMD can stick out more than RL helmet thus limiting one's pov.


Edited by draconus

🖥️ Win10 i7-10700KF 32GB RTX3060   🥽 Rift S   🕹️ T16000M HOTAS   ✈️ FC3, F-14A/B, F-15E   ⚙️ CA   🚢 SC   🌐 NTTR, PG, Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, draconus said:

Yes* but that is beyond scope of VR implementation and DCS.

*It also is imperfect as the HMD can stick out more than RL helmet thus limiting one's pov.

 

The point is that any VR implementation of simulating physical limits is going to be a compromise. It is determining which suits individuals the best and comparing the solutions with flying through buildings is irrelevant.

AMD 5800X3D · MSI 4080 · Asus ROG Strix B550 Gaming  · HP Reverb Pro · 1Tb M.2 NVMe, 32Gb Corsair Vengence 3600MHz DDR4 · Windows 11 · Thrustmaster TPR Pedals · VIRPIL T-50CM3 Base, Alpha Prime R. VIRPIL VPC Rotor TCS Base. JetSeat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Baldrick33 said:

The point is that any VR implementation of simulating physical limits is going to be a compromise. It is determining which suits individuals the best and comparing the solutions with flying through buildings is irrelevant.

It is relevant within simulation realms. It may be a compromise but such is that wish to have something instead of nothing and for those who care.

🖥️ Win10 i7-10700KF 32GB RTX3060   🥽 Rift S   🕹️ T16000M HOTAS   ✈️ FC3, F-14A/B, F-15E   ⚙️ CA   🚢 SC   🌐 NTTR, PG, Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, draconus said:

It is relevant within simulation realms. It may be a compromise but such is that wish to have something instead of nothing and for those who care.

Frankly it isn't. Flying through solid buildings is something that under no circumstances can be considered a simulation. Easy to agree on. A bug if it occurs.

Moving through a virtual cockpit in VR needs some careful thought about. You can't restrict the player's physical movement so have to make choices as to what happens should it occur. Those solutions are compromises, hence the debate about how best to deal with it. The hard limits option (stop positional tracking at limits) as used in other sims is the worst of those compromises In my experience.

Now as long as I don't have it forced upon me I don't really care but being told over and over this is a fix to a bug is in my view not grasping how VR works for many people.

  • Thanks 1

AMD 5800X3D · MSI 4080 · Asus ROG Strix B550 Gaming  · HP Reverb Pro · 1Tb M.2 NVMe, 32Gb Corsair Vengence 3600MHz DDR4 · Windows 11 · Thrustmaster TPR Pedals · VIRPIL T-50CM3 Base, Alpha Prime R. VIRPIL VPC Rotor TCS Base. JetSeat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, draconus said:

It doesn't matter how easy or hard it is to work around the problem. It simply doesn't solve the problem.

What problem?

Realism isn't a problem — it's a balance between usability and presentation, and the same balance has to be struck with all control methods. A design choice is not a problem, it's just… well… a choice. It becomes a problem if it makes the feature useless because it elicits an adverse physical response, like hard limits would.

Game balance isn't a problem — whatever advantage can be had is utterly minute compared to the advantages you get in pancake mode, so it really just evens out. If anything, it's pancake mode that is in desperate need of fixing for balance purposes.

And it certainly isn't a problem in in the sense of being a bug — it works like this for a very good reason. You may not like that the balance has been struck this far towards usability, but that doesn't mean it's broken or unintended.

So it's not actually a capital-P “Problem”. It's more a case of you being unhappy with the implementation for one reason or another (in your case, it sounds mostly like immersion, but I may have read that wrong). In that case, the work-around may indeed be the solution to your problem. It may not be the solution to the problem, which I understand if you feel is frustrating, but that would be because in that situation, there is no “the problem” to solve, only your personal one that you, personally, have to work around. And you can work around it.

If you want an option to take the problem-solving off your hands, that's fine and all, but this is where DCS' limitations become troublesome and we have to be very careful about how that is being implemented. And this is where it matters whether we start messing with it or leave it as something the player has to deal with on their own.

4 hours ago, draconus said:

It's a simulation and there's no place here for such neglect.

It's a simulation. It needs to take into account that it's not the real thing and accommodate the various techniques and methods used to deliver the experience in spite of that, and there will therefore always be compromises. Such compromises are not neglect — they're unavoidable and necessary. It is also a game and thus needs to accommodate the player without inconvenience them or make them physically ill. This is also not neglect — it's good game design. If you want to put a period on anything, it's on those two facts.

Since you're declaring physical restraint out of scope of the conversation, you only arrive at one possible solution: live with it. Learn to handle it. There is no neglect. There are only the inherent limitations of the medium, and the best practices to deal with those limitations. Making a significant portion of the users ill is not good practice.

4 hours ago, draconus said:

Your line of defence against an option - which makes it not affecting anyone that does not want it - depends on only one type of limit implementation - while there are others and you even don't know which one ED will choose.

The option I'm arguing against would affect those who don't want it as well, and it would affect them in a very bad way. Notice how often it's about a server dictating client-end behaviour and about limiting movement. That's what I'm against. You'll also notice if you read carefully that I'm not arguing against fading or similar techniques — only cockpit limits and moving the player's head around, and taking the VR experience out of the player's hands.

4 hours ago, draconus said:

What you do now is rather malicious behavior because it's something that you'd simply not use and doesn't affect you.

You're confusing me with SharpeXB. Once you've been around this topic long enough, you'll notice the vast majority of arguments in favour of making people ill comes from people who wouldn't be affected by this option, exactly per your complaint here — they're just people who want to nerf the other guy because they got beat in PvP and imagined that this largely irrelevant advantage that some VR players may occasionally have must absolutely be at fault for that humiliation and therefore the advantage must go. They themselves must all keep their advantages, obviously — just nerf the other guy and all is good in the world. 😄

There are a small handful of players who want it for immersion purposes, and that's fine and all, but that's not where the support for the idea is really coming from. It's mostly the nerf-the-other-guy crowd. If you want to talk about maliciousness, look there…

You're assuming that it will be a fully player-controlled soft or no-limit option. That's fine. What I'm taking a stand against is the contingent of people who want something very different from what you want.


Edited by Tippis
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

❧ ❧ Inside you are two wolves. One cannot land; the other shoots friendlies. You are a Goon. ❧ ❧

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^Exactly

There is a small number if folks in the VR world that can’t seem to control their heads movements and would like someone to do it for them. And if that’s the way they feel they are absolutely entitled to that opinion/request. 
Looking at the history of most of the posts by the main drivers of this complaint, they are the 2d crowd that feel like they are at some disadvantage that in their worlds make them feel inadequate. Now they may hide behind their need to post pages of useless words to fog the situation but deep down we all know that is their main issue. So again to that I say 2 things:

1. If it’s an advantage and you are going to insist they waste the man hours to fix it, fix both that “advantage ” and the greater than 1:1 “advantage” of track IR at the same time.  Only allow wrap around  screens in 2d and eliminate snap views. In SP its fine but Maybe implement a MP server control function that allows the creators to block multiple screens on a server. 
2. If they really have manpower to waste, maybe instead lobby to have them fix the imaginary slideshow problem that us VR guys continue to make up stories about because that gives us the “advantage” of studying each frame before we formulate our next Controll movement. Thanks to our “rivet counting” folks, I simply look at the frozen image of the aim120 fins to see exactly which way the seeker is looking and avoid it.  Complete cheat!!

 


Edited by Mr. Big.Biggs
  • Like 1

I9 (5Ghz turbo)2080ti 64Gb 3200 ram. 3 drives. A sata 2tb storage and 2 M.2 drives. 1 is 1tb, 1 is 500gb.

Valve Index, Virpil t50 cm2 stick, t50 base and v3 throttle w mini stick. MFG crosswind pedals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

     At the request of my good friend Draconus, I have opened up a new wishlist thread as the other was getting clouded with off topic posts. 
Its apparent that everyone recognizes two major cheats in the game that are both emersion breaking as well as giving the bad pilots an advantage over the real bonafide excellent ones.
     Problem 1 is the VR guys who continue to actually sit outside the cockpit looking back as they dogfight. Not only does this give them an unfair advantage over the 2d guy when he’s on the six, but also it prevents the 2d guy from sucking him in and hitting the brakes causing a fly by, because well obviously, the VR guy is facing backwards.  
The second issue is the 2D guy who uses track IR. He can simply move his head, ever so slightly and see behind him, some times for  miles. This not only helps to give the advantage in 2d dogfighting, but they also have the advantage of being able to keep their mouth on their drink box straw the whole time preventing dehydration and malnutrition during long sorties. 
    Obviously, the powers that be need to stop all developments until this is corrected as it’s screwing up multiple log books and quite frankly, makes it hard to determine the best of the best while sitting in the virtual squad room spinning my pen. 
     We suggest the following fixes. 
1. server side implementation of a limit on head movements in VR on MP servers. Easiest way would be to restrict entry to a MP server until user puts up 2x4 boards to simulate a physical window or verification of a HANS device to restrict head movements eliminating this cheat. 
2. likewise server side implementation of limitations to track IR. My thoughts would be to mandate the mounting of the IR transmitter  on the monitor instead of my cool squad hat so that the pilot has to physically move the monitor around. (Sorry, not a virtual engineer so not exactly sure how to confirm that would work). 
How about we just fix the core…

Have a great day! 


Edited by Mr. Big.Biggs
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

I9 (5Ghz turbo)2080ti 64Gb 3200 ram. 3 drives. A sata 2tb storage and 2 M.2 drives. 1 is 1tb, 1 is 500gb.

Valve Index, Virpil t50 cm2 stick, t50 base and v3 throttle w mini stick. MFG crosswind pedals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mr. Big.Biggs said:

There is a small number if folks in the VR world that can’t seem to control their heads movements and would like someone to do it for them

If it’s so easy for VR players to keep their heads within the cockpit then this whole debate is pointless. Since you have such control over your head movement you shouldn’t care about this one way or the other. 
Unless you want to preserve it as a cheat…

1 hour ago, Mr. Big.Biggs said:

Looking at the history of most of the posts by the main drivers of this complaint, they are the 2d crowd that feel like they are at some disadvantage that in their worlds make them feel inadequate.

Every time I see this topic started, it’s by a VR player who wants the limit. 


Edited by SharpeXB
  • Like 2

i9-13900K @ 6.2GHz oc | ASUS ROG MAXIMUS Z790 HERO | 64GB DDR5 5600MHz | iCUE H150i Liquid CPU Cooler | 24GB GeForce RTX 4090 | Windows 11 Home | 2TB Samsung 980 PRO NVMe | Corsair RM1000x | LG 48GQ900-B 4K OLED Monitor | CH Fighterstick | Ch Pro Throttle | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

If it’s so easy for VR players to keep their heads within the cockpit then this whole debate is pointless. Since you have such control over your head movement you shouldn’t care about this one way or the other. 
Unless you want to preserve it as a cheat…

Every time I see this topic started, it’s by a VR player who wants the limit. 

 

I’m an adult, I don’t need to cheat. 
Only dog I have in this fight is that I’m tired of waisted time on frivolous crap while my 5k investment in recreation goes unused because it’s unplayable and not interested in flat screen. 
To paraphrase our looser of a governor who was elected to do great  things but is now a woke piece of garbage” fix the damn core!” 

I9 (5Ghz turbo)2080ti 64Gb 3200 ram. 3 drives. A sata 2tb storage and 2 M.2 drives. 1 is 1tb, 1 is 500gb.

Valve Index, Virpil t50 cm2 stick, t50 base and v3 throttle w mini stick. MFG crosswind pedals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Mr. Big.Biggs said:

I’m an adult, I don’t need to cheat. 

Look at it this way. Like the playing field and “out of bounds” in any sport. Most athletes will not step out of bounds routinely but that doesn’t mean that the line should be removed. It’s still there. Giving players the ability to cheat but just assuming they won’t is a bit wishful. And all players want the assurance that everyone is abiding by the same rules. 

On 8/12/2021 at 6:30 PM, kablamoman said:

Fade-To-Black -- A motion sickness friendly mode, that gradually fades the view to black as the pilot progressively exceeds the canopy bounds.

Going back to the original topic. This would be a problem because if you inadvertently clip the canopy you’d black out your view in the middle of a dogfight. Not a great idea. 

i9-13900K @ 6.2GHz oc | ASUS ROG MAXIMUS Z790 HERO | 64GB DDR5 5600MHz | iCUE H150i Liquid CPU Cooler | 24GB GeForce RTX 4090 | Windows 11 Home | 2TB Samsung 980 PRO NVMe | Corsair RM1000x | LG 48GQ900-B 4K OLED Monitor | CH Fighterstick | Ch Pro Throttle | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

If it’s so easy for VR players to keep their heads within the cockpit then this whole debate is pointless.

Ding ding ding! 😄

55 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Since you have such control over your head movement you shouldn’t care about this one way or the other.

Nor should you care so much about having it implemented since, not only is it pointless, but you're not affected anyway. And yet, here you are, trying to dictate how others must play the game… And no, it's not just VR users trying to make this happen as you yourself prove so amply.

32 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Look at it this way.

Look at it the other way. This is not a cheat by any definition of the word. It may in a vanishingly small fraction of circumstances give one specific advantage to a small number of players, but that is completely drowned out by the far bigger advantages gained by far larger number of players if far more common circumstances. So it would be utterly idiotic prioritisation of work — which you're also very fond of arguing over — compared to those much more important cases. You always trot out the “not worth wasting ED's time on” argument when it's something other players want that would benefit them; now it's suddenly completely fine to waste their time on something that would not benefit the other guy, but which would benefit you.

And of course, going after the actual larger, and thus worth-while issue, would mean addressing your advantages and nerfing you, and that must definitely not happen, right? It must be the other guy who gets shafted, even if (especially if?) it makes them sick because of it.

32 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

his would be a problem because if you inadvertently clip the canopy you’d black out your view in the middle of a dogfight. Not a great idea

…and it would be just as trivial to avoid while having the far more important benefit of not making the player ill, which is an even worse idea. I understand that you desperately want to nerf a different group of players than the one you belong to, but guess what? You have no point of reference and your baseless opinion of what is and isn't a good idea is inherently worthless.

Also, no, it wouldn't be a problem because you could just choose not to use it if it was correctly implemented. But again, you don't want it to be correctly implemented — you want it to be forced on others because they must always be dictated to conform to you, never the other way around.


Edited by Tippis

❧ ❧ Inside you are two wolves. One cannot land; the other shoots friendlies. You are a Goon. ❧ ❧

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you think it breaks your immersion that you can stick your head out, then a client side option would be okay, but not a server side option.

To prevent hard limits that can cause nausea or discomfort, yet to prevent cheating by looking outside of the cockpit boundaries, I propose blurring the outside world as a solution, as a server side enforceable option:

Both points together give back the immersion to the individual that has his/her immersion broken by leaving the cockpit boundary, and those who don't like hard boundaries in VR are not forced to have them. And no one can use this to cheat if the server restricts outside views.

 

Fox

  • Like 2
Spoiler

PC Specs: Ryzen 9 5900X, 3080ti, 64GB RAM, Oculus Quest 3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, iFoxRomeo said:

If you think it breaks your immersion that you can stick your head out, then a client side option would be okay, but not a server side option.

To prevent hard limits that can cause nausea or discomfort, yet to prevent cheating by looking outside of the cockpit boundaries, I propose blurring the outside world as a solution, as a server side enforceable option:

Both points together give back the immersion to the individual that has his/her immersion broken by leaving the cockpit boundary, and those who don't like hard boundaries in VR are not forced to have them. And no one can use this to cheat if the server restricts outside views.

That's a pretty neat idea as a compromise. The only worry I can think of is the rendering workload on something that is already pushing the limits of performance. Do you happen to know off the top of your head how much this effect (especially if it needs to be applied in a limited fashion along a geometry boundary like that), would cost in terms of processing power?

❧ ❧ Inside you are two wolves. One cannot land; the other shoots friendlies. You are a Goon. ❧ ❧

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, iFoxRomeo said:

If you think it breaks your immersion that you can stick your head out, then a client side option would be okay, but not a server side option.

To prevent hard limits that can cause nausea or discomfort, yet to prevent cheating by looking outside of the cockpit boundaries, I propose blurring the outside world as a solution, as a server side enforceable option:

Both points together give back the immersion to the individual that has his/her immersion broken by leaving the cockpit boundary, and those who don't like hard boundaries in VR are not forced to have them. And no one can use this to cheat if the server restricts outside views.

 

Fox

As long as the “server side option “ also blurs the outside world of the track IR user who tries to look behind him without turning his head all the way back….

see what I did there?


Edited by Mr. Big.Biggs
  • Like 1

I9 (5Ghz turbo)2080ti 64Gb 3200 ram. 3 drives. A sata 2tb storage and 2 M.2 drives. 1 is 1tb, 1 is 500gb.

Valve Index, Virpil t50 cm2 stick, t50 base and v3 throttle w mini stick. MFG crosswind pedals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Tippis said:

That's a pretty neat idea as a compromise. The only worry I can think of is the rendering workload on something that is already pushing the limits of performance. Do you happen to know off the top of your head how much this effect (especially if it needs to be applied in a limited fashion along a geometry boundary like that), would cost in terms of processing power?

I don't know how much processing power it would cost. Perhaps the heatblur effect could be used or something like the MSAA masking in a negative way. 

5 minutes ago, Mr. Big.Biggs said:

As long as the “server side option “ also blurs the outside world of the track IR user who tries to look behind him without turning his head all the way back….

see what I did there?

 

Honestly, I don't care about Track IR since I fly VR. And I fly VR only and the hard limits in the other game are crap. I don't want this to be forced on VR players in DCS. 

  • Thanks 1
Spoiler

PC Specs: Ryzen 9 5900X, 3080ti, 64GB RAM, Oculus Quest 3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, iFoxRomeo said:

I don't know how much processing power it would cost. Perhaps the heatblur effect could be used or something like the MSAA masking in a negative way. 

Honestly, I don't care about Track IR since I fly VR. And I fly VR only and the hard limits in the other game are crap. I don't want this to be forced on VR players in DCS. 

I’m with you. I don’t want to see another second wasted on frivolous crap until the core works. 
That said, it drives me to distraction that the people that call it a cheat that can be used maybe 1 in 10million encounters yet ignore that they themselves use a cheat every single second of every single flight.  
Can’t stand hypocrisy.  

  • Thanks 2

I9 (5Ghz turbo)2080ti 64Gb 3200 ram. 3 drives. A sata 2tb storage and 2 M.2 drives. 1 is 1tb, 1 is 500gb.

Valve Index, Virpil t50 cm2 stick, t50 base and v3 throttle w mini stick. MFG crosswind pedals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Mr. Big.Biggs said:

As long as the “server side option “ also blurs the outside world of the track IR user who tries to look behind him without turning his head all the way back….

You’re not making any sense with this stuff. Turing your head with TrackIR, a mouse or hat switch isn’t unrealistic ie “cheating”

If you feel that VR puts you at a disadvantage that doesn’t justify cheating. And using VR is a choice, you don’t have to use it. If being competitive is more important to you then you can always play on a monitor. 

i9-13900K @ 6.2GHz oc | ASUS ROG MAXIMUS Z790 HERO | 64GB DDR5 5600MHz | iCUE H150i Liquid CPU Cooler | 24GB GeForce RTX 4090 | Windows 11 Home | 2TB Samsung 980 PRO NVMe | Corsair RM1000x | LG 48GQ900-B 4K OLED Monitor | CH Fighterstick | Ch Pro Throttle | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

You’re not making any sense with this stuff. Turing your head with TrackIR, a mouse or hat switch isn’t unrealistic ie “cheating”

Sure it is. If you can look behind you by turning your just head 5°, that's clearly unrealistic and a “cheat” in exactly the same way that going through the glass is.

Just because you're using it as your baseline doesn't mean it's suddenly “correct” to any larger degree than any other means of manipulating your viewport — it comes with its own limitations and accommodations, and from the point of view of a different choice, those are just as unrealistic and cheat:y. It makes all the sense in the world, and it's more that you don't like to acknowledge the fact that your preferred method of control can be judged by the same standards for the same conclusion as the one you want to see nerfed for no intelligent or cogent reason.

You're a cheater. Accept it. Or don't, but then you also don't get to label other people as cheaters either.

20 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

If you feel that VR puts you at a disadvantage that doesn’t justify cheating. And using VR is a choice, you don’t have to use it.

Again, works both ways: if you feel that TrackIR puts you at a disadvantage, that doesn't justify cheating by ignoring the limits of body mechanics. Just choose VR instead if you want its advantages and its higher level of realism. It's a choice, after all.

But above all, your most important choice is whether or not you want to be a hypocrite about it and judge the different methods unequally.


Edited by Tippis
  • Like 2

❧ ❧ Inside you are two wolves. One cannot land; the other shoots friendlies. You are a Goon. ❧ ❧

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And to boot, nobody puts their head thru the glass to cheat. If they do, they still have to strain their necks and they STILL see the tail!  
With track IR you cheat by not having  to strain your neck to look backwards. Clearly an advantage to the track IR user.  So, either see both sides or zip it. 
Make more sense??

The real issue was pointed out earlier. Winning in some people means more than being honest, even with themselves. Keep your cheat, don’t matter one bit because absolutely nobody on this planet gives a rip about how good of a digital pilot you are (or anyone really) Just be honest dude, your embarrassing yourself. 
FIX THE DAMN CORE!


Edited by Mr. Big.Biggs

I9 (5Ghz turbo)2080ti 64Gb 3200 ram. 3 drives. A sata 2tb storage and 2 M.2 drives. 1 is 1tb, 1 is 500gb.

Valve Index, Virpil t50 cm2 stick, t50 base and v3 throttle w mini stick. MFG crosswind pedals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Mr. Big.Biggs said:

With track IR you cheat by not having  to strain your neck to look backwards

This isn’t “cheating” because

1. Every other player can do it

2. it’s not unrealistic. 
And there are many other ways to free-look from the cockpit including mouse and keyboard. Are those cheating?

Choosing to play in VR is your choice. And it’s a choice that makes the sim a physical effort. You want virtual reality, you got it. But asking to handicap the other players because of your choice isn’t reasonable. 

29 minutes ago, Mr. Big.Biggs said:

FIX THE DAMN CORE!

Which has nothing to do with this topic. Honestly there’s no way to “fix” the fact that VR makes this game so physical which in turn puts you at a disadvantage. Again it’s your own choice. And this is in the very nature of VR so as much as the tech and game engine improve this aspect will always remain. 
Why don’t you just use Necksafer?

i9-13900K @ 6.2GHz oc | ASUS ROG MAXIMUS Z790 HERO | 64GB DDR5 5600MHz | iCUE H150i Liquid CPU Cooler | 24GB GeForce RTX 4090 | Windows 11 Home | 2TB Samsung 980 PRO NVMe | Corsair RM1000x | LG 48GQ900-B 4K OLED Monitor | CH Fighterstick | Ch Pro Throttle | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

This isn’t “cheating” because

1. Every other player can do it

2. it’s not unrealistic. 

#1 applies equally to the other control schemes. It's a choice, remember?
#2 is just blatantly untrue.

8 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

And there are many other ways to free-look from the cockpit including mouse and keyboard. Are those cheating?

Less so, probably, but given the unparalleled speed and precision they offer as an advantage, absolutely, if you're looking at it from the perspective of the control options that don't have that.

8 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Choosing to play in VR is your choice.

…and if you feel it gives the player some advantage (hint: it doesn't), you can choose to use it. Just because you choose not to doesn't make it cheating. If you're going to use that logic, then we can once again trivially reverse it: choosing to play with TrackIR is your choice — that doesn't mean its cheats suddenly become acceptable, and it would be right to implement limits to remove those cheats. But here you are, arguing in favour of keeping those (because they're your cheats), but definitely removing some other cheat (that you don't even know how it affects anything because you have no experience with it).

8 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

But asking to handicap the other players because of your choice isn’t reasonable. 

You understand that this is exactly what you're doing, right? And far more literally than the facetious counter-example he's offering to demonstrate the hypocrisy of the complaint. You've come to the conclusion that your unsubstantiated whinging is unreasonable. Maybe you should stop it, then, hmmm…?


Edited by Tippis
  • Like 1

❧ ❧ Inside you are two wolves. One cannot land; the other shoots friendlies. You are a Goon. ❧ ❧

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly couldn't care less what happens to TrackIR.  There are some inconsistencies with where head limits are for it in some birds, but that's a bug issue that's just one of those hopefully in the pipeline to be addressed so it's consistent across the aircraft.

VR though, I wouldn't be a fan of enforcing the limits to all.  It's not even that way in the other game.  But I'd rather individuals can be allowed the personal choice of having them on or not (or server enforced, that depends on where you draw the line but that's another thing).  I would absolutely run with them on.  If I'm in a tight cockpit, I want to be immersed and feel the restraint of movement it has.  190s were especially notorious for this, and the 109 close behind.
It would also be really awesome actually with the Spitfire if the malcolm hood shape was included in the restrictions.  That would actually give the canopy some value that was intended in reality, allowing a razorbacked aircraft better 6 o'clock visibility

Hardware: T-16000M Pack, Saitek 3 Throttle Quadrant, Homemade 32-function Leo Bodnar Button Box, MFG Crosswind Pedals Oculus Rift S

System Specs: MSI MPG X570 GAMING PLUS, GTX 1070 SC2, AMD RX3700, 32GB DDR4-3200, Samsung 860 EVO, Samsung 970 EVO 250GB

Modules: Ka-50, Mi-8MTV2, FC3, F/A-18C, F-14B, F-5E, P-51D, Spitfire Mk LF Mk. IXc, Bf-109K-4, Fw-190A-8

Maps: Normandy, Nevada

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this really the best explanation you guys have got for losing a fight? You weren't outflown... IT WAS A VR GUY!!! The low res and disorientation is just a clever cover for 360 no-scopes!

The mental gymnastics people go through around here trying to rationalise their bs pet peeves as anything other than a pet peeve. You guys need to get laid or something.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I don't understand is, how NON VR user try to make a case to ruin MY VR experience. Go, mess in the TrackIR section.

 

I chose VR and the way it is implemented because I like it and I pay for it by being in a disadvantage in the "check 6" department. I'm 50+ and my neck hurts after every session due to the workout I have to put in to keep somehow a visual lookout, and yeah, trackIR is very different in that department, I was using it since the late 90's, and one could consider it cheating, since there is literally nothing realistic about it. Do I cry cheater to the users....NO, because I know it is a concession to make to somehow get a "kinda real live" feeling in 2D mode.

Now, to make it clear for the non VR user :  Shut up in this thread.

 

VR users with different opinions, OK, but don't force them on me. I'm perfectly able to keep my head in the cockpit and if it happens...so what. I don't care if there is a boundary on some way implemented or the other, but I don't want to have it forced on me, neither in SP nor in MP. That stupid stuff is one of the reasons I stopped using the other ww2 sim.

 


Edited by Lt_Jaeger
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...