requested Proposal for VR head limits implementation

[sirrah]

12 minutes ago, Magic Zach said:

Well, VR users will typically get VR for the purpose of immersion.  It doesn't really have too many advtanges in combat effectiveness versus flatscreen.  So already the most definite answer will be immersion. Fairness is knowledgebly thrown out of the window the moment you put on VR.  Trying to make everyone use the same setting isn't the goal.  It's for personal level of immersion.  And it's broken horribly every time I look back and my head pops out the glass.  But this is why this option is best used as a client-side option.

Not sure what's being implied by "soft limits" but if this that suggestion where the display is just made black when you poke your head outside the canopy, that is even worse than the problem originally trying to be solved.

And frankly it's not even that bad or nauseating, hard limits on your view in VR.  And if you do initially feel that way, you get used to it incredibly quickly.  This isn't a standing VR game where that kind of stuff has that big of an effect.  Our butts are planted, we're always grounded to where we are.

 

I see you do use VR yourself. Not judging in any way, but purely out of interest;

Do you like the VR "head limiter" in Il-2? (the feature I think is being referred to as a "hard limiter" in this thread. So, the moment your head protrudes the canopy class, the entire cockpit starts moving along with your head). Do I understand correctly that's what you wish for in DCS?

 

Personally, I hate that feature and I find it much more immersion killing than accidentally briefly sticking my head through the glass. I suppose the nauseating effect is not the case for everyone and would indeed wear off after a while, but if I had to choose, I would prefer the "black out" option.

 

Anyway, I'm glad to see you write that you don't want this feature because you think VR users are cheating, but only for personal preference .

[Baldrick33]

4 minutes ago, Magic Zach said:

Well, VR users will typically get VR for the purpose of immersion.  It doesn't really have too many advtanges in combat effectiveness versus flatscreen.  So already the most definite answer will be immersion.  So this will be regardless of server settings.  Trying to make everyone use the same setting isn't the goal.  It's for personal level of immersion.  And it's broken horribly every time I look back and my head pops out the glass.

Not sure what's being implied by "soft limits" but if this that suggestion where the display is just made black when you poke your head outside the canopy, that is even worse than the problem originally trying to be solved.

And frankly it's not even that bad or nauseating, hard limits on your view in VR.  And if you do initially feel that way, you get used to it incredibly quickly.  This isn't a standing VR game where that kind of stuff has that big of an effect.  Our butts are planted, we're always grounded to where we are.

 

Re read the original post which proposes limits (either hard or soft) as an option for server settings. So the proposal isn't just about immersion but to negate the perceived advantage VR users have.

As for nausea it is a personal thing. Some find any breaking of tracking (which hard limits effectively does) messes with their minds!

[cfrag]

30 minutes ago, Magic Zach said:

And frankly it's not even that bad or nauseating, hard limits on your view in VR.  And if you do initially feel that way, you get used to it incredibly quickly.

While I tend to agree with much of your post, above is simply an assertion, probably based on personal experience. I'm not sure if we even have data on this; I personally know two people who feel strongly otherwise.

30 minutes ago, Magic Zach said:

Our butts are planted, we're always grounded to where we are.

Which for some people is exactly the reason why they react so strongly when the information delivered by their eyes and that from their balance sense suddenly, and unexpectedly diverge. Their brain concludes that they are suffering from a neurotoxin, and preemptively empties their stomach. It's a reflex some can suppress, and arguably many may learn. I assert that it's not something many people would willingly subject themselves to while trying to be entertained. 

I'm cautiously optimistic that once these effects are better studied, understand and mitigated we'll eventually have a good solution in DCS.

Edited January 19, 2023 by cfrag

[kablamoman]

I still don't understand why there is any discussion at all about nausea inducing effects -- nobody is advocating that a hard translational limit be imposed on any player, whether offline or otherwise. It's a moot point.

[=475FG= Dawger]

This thread validates my lack of desire to start DCS for the past two months.

[Magic Zach]

21 hours ago, sirrah said:

Do you like the VR "head limiter" in Il-2? (the feature I think is being referred to as a "hard limiter" in this thread. So, the moment your head protrudes the canopy class, the entire cockpit starts moving along with your head). Do I understand correctly that's what you wish for in DCS?

I do use it, and I'm very happy with it and helps give the cockpits a more tangible aspect to them, when you're constrained within the finite space of the cockpits.  This is essentially the same thing I'd love to see in DCS, at least as an option for VR.  To feel the cramped, confined space (particuarly in the 190 when the canopy narrows considerably towards the top around the head) and have to actually S-turn and swerve like the real pilots did to view their 6-o'clock, and then immediately feel the liberation of the roomy American aircraft.  Or be able to use the Spitfire's malcom hood canopy (bubbled up and to the sides, a good modification to razorbacked aircraft that allowed better visibility) properly and experience it as an actual feature of the aircraft and module.  Would be incredible!

Edited January 20, 2023 by Magic Zach

[Baldrick33]

2 hours ago, Magic Zach said:

I do use it, and I'm very happy with it and helps give the cockpits a more tangible aspect to them, when you're constrained within the finite space of the cockpits.  This is essentially the same thing I'd love to see in DCS, at least as an option for VR.  To feel the cramped, confined space (particuarly in the 190 when the canopy narrows considerably towards the top around the head) and have to actually S-turn and swerve like the real pilots did to view their 6-o'clock, and then immediately feel the liberation of the roomy American aircraft.  Or be able to use the Spitfire's malcom hood canopy (bubbled up and to the sides, a good modification to razorbacked aircraft that allowed better visibility) properly and experience it as an actual feature of the aircraft and module.  Would be incredible!

 

That all sounds great but the only real constraint that would work for me (and others have stated the same) is a proper physical constraint and that is beyond any developer's gift!

The options as I see it are:

1/ Stop positional tracking at the limits (otherwise referred to as hard limits). You can continue to move your head but the cockpit and world view outside all shift with your movement. For some (myself included) it feels horrible (like positional tracking breaking which of course it is). For some this causes motion sickness

2/ Disable the view outside as you push through the limits be it by fading the screen to black or pixelating the outside view so you can't use it to an advantage. This is an unknown as to my knowledge no developer has implemented this as of yet.

3/ As you push through the limits the sound changes to being outside the cockpit but you can continue to see as you move beyond the limits and clip through cockpit glass and objects. This is what we have now.

In all three cases there is a disincentive to push through the limits from an immersion perspective. None feel right so in my case at least I try to avoid it. That said if I inadvertently stick my head a few inches outside the limits I would pick option 3 as option 1 is just a nasty experience (in my view) and I don't know how option 2 will work.

Without a real cockpit to hold onto things to swivel around and with the limited neck movement of some of our older and less able sim pilots applying real world constraints for fit young fighter pilots maybe asking a bit too much. So moving one's body a bit more to peer around may be deemed quite reasonable from an accessibility perspective.

Option 2 (fade or pixelate) is intriguing because gradual fading as you move further out could be abused to allow the cockpit to be extended a little bit. If the goal is to prevent any movement outside of the cockpit to prevent cheating then it need to be immediate. In order to give the pilot back their vision as they move back within limits it needs to instant too. This is unlike the g force blackout and will need to be a switch which could create a flickering type effect as the screen blacks out for a very short duration. I am not sure how this would feel in VR and I am not convinced it would such a "soft" option if implemented as an anti cheat device - unless some leeway is given in which case it would be an advantage over hard limits (positional tracking stopping). It just depends upon the goal of anti cheating.

Edited January 20, 2023 by Baldrick33

[SharpeXB]

2 hours ago, Magic Zach said:

I do use it, and I'm very happy with it and helps give the cockpits a more tangible aspect to them, when you're constrained within the finite space of the cockpits.  This is essentially the same thing I'd love to see in DCS, at least as an option for VR.  To feel the cramped, confined space (particuarly in the 190 when the canopy narrows considerably towards the top around the head) and have to actually S-turn and swerve like the real pilots did to view their 6-o'clock, and then immediately feel the liberation of the roomy American aircraft.  Or be able to use the Spitfire's malcom hood canopy (bubbled up and to the sides, a good modification to razorbacked aircraft that allowed better visibility) properly and experience it as an actual feature of the aircraft and module.  Would be incredible!

 

I don’t use VR but I can understand the point. Some sims let your head move through the plane when using TrackIR and the effect makes the aircraft feel completely fake. It spoils the reality. In aircraft with very small canopies you can’t help putting your head into that or the headrest. It feels unfinished and cheap in the game. If DCS did this with head tracking it would be awful. It’s not just about this being a cheat but a quality issue in the game. 
Theres a poll (your poll it looks like) in that other sim and 87% of the respondents say it doesn’t make them sick. So that’s not as widespread a concern as it seems. 

Edited January 20, 2023 by SharpeXB

[Baldrick33]

Just now, SharpeXB said:

I don’t use VR but I can understand the point. Some sims let your head move through the plane when using TrackIR and the effect makes the aircraft feel completely fake. It spoils the reality. In aircraft with very small canopies you can’t help putting your head into that or the headrest. It feels unfinished and cheap in the game.

I do think you have to use VR to understand how it feels when the world suddenly shifts with your head. It affects some very differently to others and until you have experienced it I would suggest it impossible to know which option you would prefer.

[SharpeXB]

1 minute ago, Baldrick33 said:

I do think you have to use VR to understand how it feels when the world suddenly shifts with your head. It affects some very differently to others and until you have experienced it I would suggest it impossible to know which option you would prefer.

I’ve used VR although not for gaming but I can understand the issue. Apparently the majority don’t experience sickness from this though. My only stake in this is just to say, don’t make things equal by taking away the limits for the other players. That’s not a solution. 

[sirrah]

18 minutes ago, Baldrick33 said:

I do think you have to use VR to understand how it feels when the world suddenly shifts with your head. It affects some very differently to others and until you have experienced it I would suggest it impossible to know which option you would prefer.

Exactly, we're talking about 6dof suddenly changing to 3dof. Imho one of the most awful things you can experience in VR (it also sometimes happens when your headset's tracking is failing).

 

@kablamoman; don't get me wrong, I'm all for adding more user side options. No problem there. It's just when MP servers are able to enforce this, it will result (for me) in even less available servers to join/enjoy. The amount of properly populated servers with an acceptable ping, is already scarce as it is. So, if just an option on the user side, I'm all for it (why wouldn't I be). If you want it as an option to be enforced on MP servers, I'll keep objecting it, as it will (literally) limit my experience  

Oh and about "why there's a discussion". Well, this is a forum  

Edited January 20, 2023 by sirrah

[cfrag]

28 minutes ago, Baldrick33 said:

2/ Disable the view outside as you push through the limits be it by fading the screen to black or pixelating the outside view so you can't use it to an advantage. This is an unknown as to my knowledge no developer has implemented this as of yet.

This is how Half Life Alyx does it: those parts of the view that are outside the limits turn grey. It's slightly disorienting and unpleasant (especially if it only affects that one eye that is transitioning through a wall); it can give players something akin a mild head-ache when it happens multiple times (the scene where you are hiding from the blind monster is notorious for giving players head-ache for exactly that reason), and many players reflexively recoil when that sensation sets in. Having experienced it myself I can say that it doesn't make me ill, and I do feel the phantom 'pain' when parts of my vision turn grey.

17 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Apparently the majority don’t experience sickness from this though.

Unfortunately I have no authorative documentation on this, and would love to follow any pointers you may have on that subject.

-ch

Edited January 20, 2023 by cfrag

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, cfrag said:

Unfortunately I have no authorative documentation on this, and would love to follow any pointers you may have on that subject.

There’s a poll about it in that other sim. 

[kablamoman]

On 1/20/2023 at 7:46 AM, sirrah said:

don't get me wrong, I'm all for adding more user side options. No problem there. It's just when MP servers are able to enforce this, it will result (for me) in even less available servers to join/enjoy. The amount of properly populated servers with an acceptable ping, is already scarce as it is. So, if just an option on the user side, I'm all for it (why wouldn't I be). If you want it as an option to be enforced on MP servers, I'll keep objecting it, as it will (literally) limit my experience

Seems to me, we're in agreement. 

[Baldrick33]

On 1/20/2023 at 11:40 AM, Magic Zach said:

I do use it, and I'm very happy with it and helps give the cockpits a more tangible aspect to them, when you're constrained within the finite space of the cockpits. 

I decided to revisit the head limits in the other sim.

The odd thing was I found it easier to look behind me and less constrained than with the same BF-109 in DCS. Why? Because I can move my head and body as much as I like and simply "push" the aircraft with my head to get to the position I want and twist my body rather than my neck. Yes I am constrained virtually to remain inside the cockpit but physically I can move as much as I like.

In DCS I am conscious of not pushing through the cockpit limits so I actually feel more constrained in my physical movement and need to twist my neck more. I guess with more time I would try to avoid pushing the aircraft around and the result would be much the same but I still would find those occasional times I pushed the limits a less immersive experience where the positional tracking stops.

It also raises a concern of the blacking out being a worse option competitively. We can move our head and body unconstrained with hard limits, yet will need to keep within physical limits to avoid triggering the black out. The player who is simply trying to look over their shoulder my find the view blacking out whereas hard limits would keep them in the cockpit with the same physical movement.

 

[kablamoman]

3 hours ago, Baldrick33 said:

Yes I am constrained virtually to remain inside the cockpit but physically I can move as much as I like.

I hear what you're saying about your actual physical movements being unimpeded, so I understand what you mean by saying it can be less immersive for you (I don't personally agree), but the actual result in-game is the key factor that we don't get in DCS.

Because you can pop half or even all of your head out into the slipstream in DCS -- and invariably do so by accident -- factors that should affect aircraft in the sim like visibility being limited by armor plate or canopy shapes and frames are less a factor. Whereas in the other sim, you can strain all you like, but you often can't get your head out far enough to achieve tally without having to maneuver. The result of this is that different canopy selections or options for armor plate (or lack of it) actually have real tradeoffs with benefits or consequences.

My own personal experience flying online (in the other sim) is that there have been many times where I was bugging out, with bandits hot on my tail in a deck chase, wishing I could see more behind me (or lamenting the fact that a bubble canopy was not available in the mission), but also not willing to slip or help the bandits cut the circle with even a small turn. A lot of times you don't dare look back until you get back to friends in the air or on the ground -- in DCS, this doesn't happen because you can just poke your head out back and look yourself.

And as you mention, when it comes down to it, if one does not want to bump up against the limits, whether hard, soft, or just the jarring visual and auditory effect of your head sticking out into the air -- one simply doesn't. All I want are options, with comfort left up to the client (nobody being forced to decide between playing and being nauseous), and server operators able to decide for themselves what they want to allow on their server in terms of people exceeding those limits.

Edited January 21, 2023 by kablamoman

[Baldrick33]

5 minutes ago, kablamoman said:

And as you mention, when it comes down to it, if one does not want to bump up against the limits, whether hard, soft, or just the jarring visual and auditory effect of your head sticking out into the air -- one simply doesn't. All I want are options, with comfort left up to the client (nobody being forced to decide between playing and being nauseous), and server operators able to decide for themselves what they want to allow on their server in terms of people exceeding those limits.

The tricky bit is balancing the immersion factor with the need to prevent people abusing the privilege of immersion. There is a risk of solving one problem and creating an issue for those not abusing the system and we need to think about accessibility in multiplayer where we have people of all ages and mobility. I think it is just a case of fleshing out your suggestions into a full design which ED may well be on top of, most specifically how the “soft” option works in practice from both a competitive and comfort perspective.

[kablamoman]

22 minutes ago, Baldrick33 said:

The tricky bit is balancing the immersion factor with the need to prevent people abusing the privilege of immersion. There is a risk of solving one problem and creating an issue for those not abusing the system and we need to think about accessibility in multiplayer where we have people of all ages and mobility. I think it is just a case of fleshing out your suggestions into a full design which ED may well be on top of, most specifically how the “soft” option works in practice from both a competitive and comfort perspective.

I agree.

I think there is a lot of room for innovation there that dovetails so well with the concept of a simulator. The suggestion you had about an audible bump sound is something that could work very well as a subtle, but also powerfully immersive and effective cue that you are about to exceed a boundary. I can also imagine the sound simulation feeding in more bass frequencies if the player's tracked head was in contact with the canopy as well. Other ideas such as blurring vision may well end up doing a better job than a pure fade-to-black ever could, and I would be just as happy with that. It should go without say that a good implementation should take into account all the variables you mentioned, to achieve the best outcome according to player preference.

[draconus]

On 1/20/2023 at 3:25 PM, SharpeXB said:

Some sims let your head move through the plane when using TrackIR and the effect makes the aircraft feel completely fake. It spoils the reality. In aircraft with very small canopies you can’t help putting your head into that or the headrest. It feels unfinished and cheap in the game. If DCS did this with head tracking it would be awful. It’s not just about this being a cheat but a quality issue in the game. 

Yep, this is exactly what happens in VR currently and I feel like experiencing a bug or cheap unfinished game. Even a bump sound would be good as improvement.

[Baldrick33]

16 minutes ago, kablamoman said:

I agree.

I think there is a lot of room for innovation there that dovetails so well with the concept of a simulator. The suggestion you had about an audible bump sound is something that could work very well as a subtle, but also powerfully immersive and effective cue that you are about to exceed a boundary. I can also imagine the sound simulation feeding in more bass frequencies if the player's tracked head was in contact with the canopy as well. Other ideas such as blurring vision may well end up doing a better job than a pure fade-to-black ever could, and I would be just as happy with that. It should go without say that a good implementation should take into account all the variables you mentioned, to achieve the best outcome according to player preference.

Out of interest, what is your personal goal in preventing cheating? Is it to prevent blatant abuse like sticking your head way out of the cockpit to be able to see beyond the airframe or is it to prevent any vision outside of the cockpit at all even if a fraction? The reason I ask as I think this will affect the impact of the fading/blurring on inadvertently going beyond the limits.

I find the initial clipping of the glass an unintrusive indicator of the limits, beyond that the change in sound is more intrusive. Most of the time the mild clipping is sufficient but occasionally craning one's neck following an aircraft the whoosh noise appears! Not very often but that might be a pretty frustrating time for the screen to go black or pixelate. So I think a little leeway could be allowed. As suggested if the the initial clipping was accompanied with a nice sound of your head hitting the glass it would serve as a warning but you need some allowance to change direction before the vision blanks out.

[kablamoman]

On 1/21/2023 at 2:16 PM, Baldrick33 said:

Out of interest, what is your personal goal in preventing cheating? Is it to prevent blatant abuse like sticking your head way out of the cockpit to be able to see beyond the airframe or is it to prevent any vision outside of the cockpit at all even if a fraction? The reason I ask as I think this will affect the impact of the fading/blurring on inadvertently going beyond the limits.

I find the initial clipping of the glass an unintrusive indicator of the limits, beyond that the change in sound is more intrusive. Most of the time the mild clipping is sufficient but occasionally craning one's neck following an aircraft the whoosh noise appears! Not very often but that might be a pretty frustrating time for the screen to go black or pixelate. So I think a little leeway could be allowed. As suggested if the the initial clipping was accompanied with a nice sound of your head hitting the glass it would serve as a warning but you need some allowance to change direction before the vision blanks out.

My motivations:

Personally, it strikes me as an extremely “janky” and poor VR implementation after having experienced other ways titles have handled clipping issues in VR. It reminds me of some of the first rudimentary titles you’d see in the early days of PC VR, where there was a lot of fear and dogma surrounding the issue. As devs and players got a bit more comfortable with the medium, the old “do nothing and just let the user clip through things unimpeded” method — a kind of lazy non-solution, in my eyes — started to give way to more robust solutions with proper comfort options.

That’s my main motivation as someone who enjoys VR immensely.

As for the cheating aspect of it, I would put the unrestricted cockpit boundary in VR on the same level as using external views — something some sim pilots argue should be available at all times, for varying reasons. Nevertheless, server operators can and do sometimes restrict the use of external cameras as they see fit. I would request that the same be allowed when it comes to poking your head through canopies.

I think something special happened to simming with the advent of 6 DOF headtracking — suddenly playing from inside the cockpit without needing external views became very feasible. It wasn’t perfect, and nor is VR, but I do see the latter as a marked improvement in almost every way when it comes to simulating what it’s like to actually fly in an aircraft. I think it deserves some more consideration when it comes to how it’s actually implemented and integrated into the sim to enhance the overall experience.

As to the specifics of the implementation (eg. how far can you push through before it affects your visibility; what cues the player receives; etc): I leave that up to the devs and testers to iron out, trusting that they wouldn’t be satisfied with mechanics that would be a step backwards, and that they wouldn’t remove options that we already have and enjoy.

 

Edited January 22, 2023 by kablamoman

[Baldrick33]

11 hours ago, kablamoman said:

My motivations:

Personally, it strikes me as an extremely “janky” and poor VR implementation after having experienced other ways titles have handled clipping issues in VR. It reminds me of some of the first rudimentary titles you’d see in the early days of PC VR, where there was a lot of fear and dogma surrounding the issue. As devs and players got a bit more comfortable with the medium, the old “do nothing and just let the user clip through things unimpeded” method — a kind of lazy non-solution, in my eyes — started to give way to more robust solutions with proper comfort options.

That’s my main motivation as someone who enjoys VR immensely.

As a long term sim fan I too have found VR a revelation. I first started with a DK2 in 2014 and still get wowed by it in race and aircraft sims!

One of the biggest bugbears beyond getting good enough resolution and performance has been tracking. The almost daily threads on some forums from people starting out in VR of "why does my car/plane move with me?", which is answered by environment settings, lighthouse setup, lighting etc. This gets more confusing for new users understanding what is broken 6dof tracking (most people don't get 6dof vs 3dof tracking) and what is by design.

Each to their own but I find stopping tracking in its tracks (pun intended!) the "janky" implementation, especially when it is far more likely for the user to come across in an aircraft compared with a race car.

It just comes to show how preferences can differ so wildly in VR. Which of course is resolved by options as you have put forward so we should be covered, yet...

11 hours ago, kablamoman said:

As to the specifics of the implementation (eg. how far can you push through before it affects your visibility; what cues the player receives; etc): I leave that up to the devs and testers to iron out, trusting that they wouldn’t be satisfied with mechanics that would be a step backwards, and that they wouldn’t remove options that we already have and enjoy.

...the devil is in the detail And we have no shortage of detail on these forums, it is the nature of the DCS fan!

Whilst I am sure many agree with your premise of providing options, you do wish to remove the existing option in multiplayer (or at least give server owners the opportunity to do so).

You provide an alternative "soft" option but that remains an unknown both in terms of VR comfort and anti cheat effectiveness. In my view that is why you are surprised people aren't advocating such a proposal. Without seeing a prototype or even more detail as to how it would work I can understand the concerns on the impact it may have, so although I think most of us might agree in principle, we voice these concerns about the detail to ensure the developers are aware.

[Magic Zach]

On 1/22/2023 at 2:28 AM, Baldrick33 said:

I decided to revisit the head limits in the other sim.

The odd thing was I found it easier to look behind me and less constrained than with the same BF-109 in DCS. Why? Because I can move my head and body as much as I like and simply "push" the aircraft with my head to get to the position I want and twist my body rather than my neck. Yes I am constrained virtually to remain inside the cockpit but physically I can move as much as I like.

Indeed that is odd lol
I just know that most often in these birds in DCS, as I look around, my head clips through the glass or at least an eye does.  DCS feels way less constrained because of that, since I can just ghost right through my own aircraft like Casper

[Baldrick33]

28 minutes ago, Magic Zach said:

Indeed that is odd lol
I just know that most often in these birds in DCS, as I look around, my head clips through the glass or at least an eye does.  DCS feels way less constrained because of that, since I can just ghost right through my own aircraft like Casper

I think it is just that I have subconsciously trained myself to not ghost my way through the aircraft. The initial clipping through glass is pretty subtle and the moment I see it I know I am at the limit and keep my head in. With hard limits the aircraft has already started moving with my head which for me is much more immersion breaking. Once that happens I kind of think darn it and carry on moving the cockpit around with my head until I get to see behind me but that is probably me being obstinate because I don't like the method

 

Edited January 23, 2023 by Baldrick33

[draconus]

5 minutes ago, Baldrick33 said:

The initial clipping through glass is pretty subtle and the moment I see it I know I am at the limit and keep my head in.

No, it means you're already over the limits, remember about the thick helmet on your head.