requested Proposal for VR head limits implementation

[Hextopia]

I wanna step in and say as a VR user who's flown that other sim that uses hard head limits, I'd immediately and vocally start a shit-storm if someone tried to implement cockpit view limitations as a server enforceable variable. The way that other sim does it actually turned me off so badly I stopped playing/purchasing expansions for it.

 

Hard limits of any kind are jarring, disorienting, and frustrating in VR and they're a terrible idea.  A soft-limit of some kind that blinds you as your head passes the canopy would be fine, but it still seems like poorly prioritized effort for something that's really only a concern for a tiny subset (Vocal minority) of a tiny subset (VR users) of a tiny subset (DCS WW2 players) of a small subset (PvP players) of a small community (DCS players).

 

I'd be willing to bet the number of people who have this as a high priority to be changed in DCS are in the literal single digits, if not under twenty people.

 

[kablamoman]

On 9/3/2021 at 1:41 PM, Hextopia said:

I wanna step in and say as a VR user who's flown that other sim that uses hard head limits, I'd immediately and vocally start a shit-storm if someone tried to implement cockpit view limitations as a server enforceable variable. The way that other sim does it actually turned me off so badly I stopped playing/purchasing expansions for it.

 

Hard limits of any kind are jarring, disorienting, and frustrating in VR and they're a terrible idea.  A soft-limit of some kind that blinds you as your head passes the canopy would be fine, but it still seems like poorly prioritized effort for something that's really only a concern for a tiny subset (Vocal minority) of a tiny subset (VR users) of a tiny subset (DCS WW2 players) of a small subset (PvP players) of a small community (DCS players).

 

I'd be willing to bet the number of people who have this as a high priority to be changed in DCS are in the literal single digits, if not under twenty people.

 

 

Nobody is proposing forcing hard limits on anybody. The whole point of the original post was about giving the user the option for it, while also giving server admins options for enforcing canopy limits, whether soft or hard. The key point was that nobody is going to be forced to use a mode they don't enjoy.

 

I think the hard limit is definitely an important option to have for those that want it, and I do believe that would ultimately be the majority of VR users. I submit to you that those who fled to DCS because they did not like or were unable to stomach the hard limit in the other sim and then posting about it in this particular forum may be self-selecting themselves a bit.

 

If changes to VR are to be about improving the overall product and attracting more users with a better implementation, I would say you aren't going to hear from as many who would appreciate a hard limit feature, as they may not be playing a sim where they can freely stick their head through the canopy. I can speak for myself and others from the IL2 community who find it very off-putting, but put up with it because the rest of the sim is so wonderful.

Edited September 5, 2021 by kablamoman

[Hextopia]

6 hours ago, kablamoman said:

 

Nobody is proposing forcing hard limits on anybody. The whole point of the original post was about giving the user the option for it, while also giving server admins options for enforcing canopy limits, whether soft or hard. The key point was that nobody is going to be forced to use a mode they don't enjoy.

 

I think the hard limit is definitely an important option to have for those that want it, and I do believe that would ultimately be the majority of VR users. I submit to you that those who fled to DCS because they did not like or were unable to stomach the hard limit in the other sim and then posting about it in this particular forum may be self-selecting themselves a bit.

 

If changes to VR are to be about improving the overall product and attracting more users with a better implementation, I would say you aren't going to hear from as many who would appreciate a hard limit feature, as they may not be playing a sim where they can freely stick their head through the canopy. I can speak for myself and others from the IL2 community who find it very off-putting, but put up with it because the rest of the sim is so wonderful.

 

Unfortunately we'd need a hardware survey and poll to find out exactly who the minority actually is.  From anecdotal evidence polling the ~100 or so VR users I've played with in DCS, only a tiny handful (8) don't mind the hard limits in IL-2, but I do know of plenty of non-VR users who feel like VR users cheat by looking outside the canopy in PvP and get extremely vocal about it.

 

Like I originally said though, the number of people who actually care about this is an extraordinarily tiny minority of people either way.  At the end of the day, it's a tiny, vocal minority of PvP WW2 players who feel like VR users are cheating and checking six through the canopy, which is an unbelievably minor benefit. (since it's extremely easy to just kick the tail out and look around the seat/tail/caonpy)

[kablamoman]

It's about a robust VR feature set and having the best, most option rich, comfortable VR implementation of any sim. DCS is well suited to blow the competition out of the water here, and I think it's important to have such well thought out and designed VR support going forward into the future.

 

So I absolutely disagree with you that only a "vocal minority of PvP WW2 players" care about this or will benefit from it. As time goes on more and more sim enthusiasts will dip their toes into the VR pool, and hopefully stay here.

 

What is tending to happen here in threads like this that propose such options is a bunch of fear, uncertainty, and doubt being thrown around to muddy the waters in an attempt to put a stop to any kind of improvements because people are afraid of any change or that someone wants to take away from their personal enjoyment of the game.

 

The proposal was about adding options, not taking them away, and I must say I feel a bit weary having to keep on stating this. Nevertheless, I think some attention to the VR support in the game is definitely warranted and would be appreciated by all users of VR, in the present and in the future, so I will continue to respond in support.

Edited September 6, 2021 by kablamoman

[draconus]

Yes, there are people that find it disturbing to have no head limits in VR, even for SP experience only, me included.

 

Example:

 

But the changes are coming, no doubt, and I bet it won't be forced hard limit. Either soft only or more options.

[Hextopia]

19 hours ago, kablamoman said:

It's about a robust VR feature set and having the best, most option rich, comfortable VR implementation of any sim. DCS is well suited to blow the competition out of the water here, and I think it's important to have such well thought out and designed VR support going forward into the future.

 

So I absolutely disagree with you that only a "vocal minority of PvP WW2 players" care about this or will benefit from it. As time goes on more and more sim enthusiasts will dip their toes into the VR pool, and hopefully stay here.

 

What is tending to happen here in threads like this that propose such options is a bunch of fear, uncertainty, and doubt being thrown around to muddy the waters in an attempt to put a stop to any kind of improvements because people are afraid of any change or that someone wants to take away from their personal enjoyment of the game.

 

The proposal was about adding options, not taking them away, and I must say I feel a bit weary having to keep on stating this. Nevertheless, I think some attention to the VR support in the game is definitely warranted and would be appreciated by all users of VR, in the present and in the future, so I will continue to respond in support.

 

You'll have to excuse me if I'm skeptical when you claim you want it for yourself and to make new users' experience more enjoyable when all available metrics on VR show doing what you're talking about isn't what players, especially new VR players, desire.  It's doubly confusing when you're also saying stuff like this:

 

Quote

There is a real problem here, though, and that is that players can simply phase their heads through cockpit geometry to do things like check six -- this completely disregards the very important factor of how a fighter's canopy was designed, and how it compares with its contemporaries in the context of a combat encounter. In a game that strives to incorporate and faithfully reproduce all of an aircraft's performance and design features, the fact that this is completely made irrelevant is a glaring omission.

 

I do acknowledge that there is a real disadvantage (when it comes to the potential for motion sickness) to enforcing hard cockpit limits with regards to translational movement in VR, but it is my opinion that it would healthier for the overall experience and for the vast majority of players in adversarial online environments if it were enforced. Single player, or servers that don't care to enforce the rule, I have absolutely no problem with. But at the very least it needs to be an option for players that wish to have it.

 

You're literally what I was describing earlier (vocal forum user, DCS WW2, PvP player, who's also worried that other VR users might be checking six through their canopy), and you've already declared your intent is to prevent this because you perceive it to be a significant problem.  This is a recurring trend of users who advocate for these head limits, claim the primary issue is an unfair advantage in PvP (a silly argument to even make in the first place, when the playing field is already uneven to begin with between users with different view settings, hardware, the differences in TrackIR vs VR, etc.), and then later claim it's "just for themselves" when they start getting push-back from other people.

 

I really don't want dev time wasted on something affecting a tiny portion of players when we could see actually useful improvements, like mission editor improvements, VR performance improvements, AI work, UI improvements, etc.  All things that are higher priority than trying to enforce view restrictions on the VR community because someone's sure the person they were fighting is a cheating VR user. 

 

While I will agree there are some players out there who actually want a hard head limit for themselves, I've only personally flown with 1 of the ~100 or so I know, so I'd be willing to believe they're the minority.  I can see how It's easy to feel that VR players who don't mind that are the minority though.  When you're playing a game where almost every active server enforces it, it's pretty likely there will be selection bias.

Edited September 7, 2021 by Hextopia

[Kazansky222]

Please no, I've actually played a game in VR where you actually do have limits on head movement, its a really jarring and uncomfortable experience.

 

The fade to black thing might be workable, would have to test to see for sure.

[kablamoman]

On 9/6/2021 at 8:30 PM, Hextopia said:

You'll have to excuse me if I'm skeptical when you claim you want it for yourself and to make new users' experience more enjoyable when all available metrics on VR show doing what you're talking about isn't what players, especially new VR players, desire.  It's doubly confusing when you're also saying stuff like this:

 

 

You're literally what I was describing earlier (vocal forum user, DCS WW2, PvP player, who's also worried that other VR users might be checking six through their canopy), and you've already declared your intent is to prevent this because you perceive it to be a significant problem.  This is a recurring trend of users who advocate for these head limits, claim the primary issue is an unfair advantage in PvP (a silly argument to even make in the first place, when the playing field is already uneven to begin with between users with different view settings, hardware, the differences in TrackIR vs VR, etc.), and then later claim it's "just for themselves" when they start getting push-back from other people.

 

I really don't want dev time wasted on something affecting a tiny portion of players when we could see actually useful improvements, like mission editor improvements, VR performance improvements, AI work, UI improvements, etc.  All things that are higher priority than trying to enforce view restrictions on the VR community because someone's sure the person they were fighting is a cheating VR user. 

 

While I will agree there are some players out there who actually want a hard head limit for themselves, I've only personally flown with 1 of the ~100 or so I know, so I'd be willing to believe they're the minority.  I can see how It's easy to feel that VR players who don't mind that are the minority though.  When you're playing a game where almost every active server enforces it, it's pretty likely there will be selection bias.

 

I’ve been a pretty heavy VR enthusiast for a while, and have a wide range of experience in many different types of VR games and experiences — not just sims. I feel I have a pretty good handle on the issues, benefits, and pitfalls of artificial vection in VR.

 

What have I said that makes you sceptical of my motivations here? Have you played games like Half-Life: Alyx? What about something like Boneworks or Blade & Sorcery? Do you have a negative view of how some of those titles handle movement? If so, do you acknowledge that there are many players that enjoy and prefer the experience that they offer? Is it so far fetched to think there may be many who would like to see robust options for handling translational movement collisions in DCS?

 

 

Were you aware of the early dogma in the professional and military simulator world that claimed VR sims were not feasible whatsoever due to sim sickness experienced by subjects in early studies? We’ve come an awfully long way, especially in this latest generation of VR, and many consider the way DCS currently handles collisions to be primitive and outmoded way of doing things.

 

Yes, I want more options for myself, and I believe more options would ultimately be to the benefit of everybody partaking in the sim.

 

I don’t consider VR improvements such as the ones proposed in this thread to be a waste of dev time — in practical terms I don’t think their implementation would be particularly difficult or time consuming, and their benefit would more than justify the investment. 

Edited September 8, 2021 by kablamoman

[Gunfreak]

So anyone who plays VR will sometimes find their head outside the cockpit, it's is annoying, but in some planes, it's quite imersion breaking, flying the 109k for the first time today, I had to really be careful or my head would be outside the cockpit half the time, this kinda limits how well you can track  enemies in a fight when you feel you have to limit your movments a lot to stop yourself from gonig outside all the time.

[BIGNEWY]

This has been requested, but is not a simple implementation and will take time

[zmz125000]

In il-2 when you move your head outside the cockpit the whole plane moves with your head. It's a very bad experience though you can disable it.

In some VR games move outside the boundary = put your head inside the wall and it's very different from what we get in DCS. I think the current DCS implement is good enough for me, other implement like back screen didn't works well.

As the immersion problem I don't understand how you can move your view outside the cockpit when sitting on a chair.

Edited November 25, 2021 by zmz125000

[cfrag]

This subject has indeed been discussed before. There is no definite good solution for everyone. If you go the way that some 'other' flight sims do, they move the cockpit around the head, which for roughly 1/3 of VR users is very uncomfortable and can result in anything from queasiness to violently throwing up. Definitely not a good experience and something ED wants to avoid in their customers. 

If you don't do anything, some people find that it is immersion breaking if they put their head through the cockpit walls or glass. In some warbirds, this can also be exploited to the pilot's advantage (peeking at their low 6). Also not optimal.

No purely technical solution that makes everybody happy exists today. 

[Mr. Big.Biggs]

Not quite clear on the “have to limit your movements “ comment.  It there was a real canopy there it would limit your movements as such no? 
just don’t stick your head out of the boundary. No different than the muscle memory developed to find your keyboard during vr flight…
 

[SharpeXB]

Being able to circumvent your canopy is a advantage in MP and it’s something only VR players can do. All other view systems are restricted to the cockpit. In the case of the WWII aircraft specifically, the visibility from the cockpit is a chief differentiator. For example in a P-47D vs a 109K that just might be your only advantage. 

Edited November 25, 2021 by SharpeXB

[Tippis]

12 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Being able to circumvent your canopy is a advantage in MP and it’s something only VR players can do. 

Nah. Others can do it as well — it's just not as trivial.

As always,. you should probably stay away from VR topics since you have no experience with it.

[Mr. Big.Biggs]

Again with the advantage crap. 
Track IR people turn their heads 1/4 turn and can see over their shoulders so blah, blah, blah , whine…..

Not the point of the op

[SharpeXB]

22 hours ago, cfrag said:

If you go the way that some 'other' flight sims do, they move the cockpit around the head, which for roughly 1/3 of VR users is very uncomfortable

Actually, according to a poll in that other sim, this VR head limit causes nausea for 13% of the respondents. 

17 hours ago, Mr. Big.Biggs said:

Track IR people turn their heads 1/4 turn and can see over their shoulders so blah, blah, blah , whine…..

And VR players use Necksafer, blah blah

Edited November 26, 2021 by SharpeXB

[Tippis]

3 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

According to a poll in that other sim, this VR head limit causes nausea for 13% of the respondents. 

And VR players use head turning snap views, blah blah

[citation needed]

[sirrah]

ED already responded...

Does this subject really need another 8 pages?

 

[cfrag]

7 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Actually, accordinh to a poll in that other sim, this VR head limit causes nausea for 13% of the respondents. 

Thank you for that data point - understanding VR sickness and it's prevalence is one of the first steps in order to analyze, and then reducing it. Not everyone is affected equally: I'm not affected at all, my significant other only has to don the HMD to show me her breakfast (which bums her out because in times of Corona, she wanted to visit the Louvre - in VR). From the standpoint of the affected, though, it matters very little if they are a member of a big or small group - it doesn't help them. We need to find a good way to deal with this very real problem; I see some promising research in new glasses, airflow (indeed, surprising but encouraging results) and background stabilization works. Let's hope for the best.

[Nealius]

No. When my head moves and VR view doesn't move it causes motion sickness.

TrackIR also doesn't have limits, so why should VR be limited? 

Edited November 26, 2021 by Nealius

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, Nealius said:

TrackIR also doesn't have limits

TrackIR is indeed limited to the cockpit boundary. 

[Tippis]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

TrackIR is indeed limited to the cockpit boundary. 

…sometimes, but not always. And is lacking in limits in other ways.

The point remains the same: any perceived advantage you can get from this is cancelled by some equivalent advantage in other view control schemes, and all such advantages are largely irrelevant anyway, so it all comes out equal in the wash. And the high prevalence your (unsourced) “data” proves means that such limits are not the right way to go to “fix” this non-issue anyway.

[draconus]

6 hours ago, Nealius said:

No. When my head moves and VR view doesn't move it causes motion sickness.

Should be optional for SP and server controlled for MP then.

[Nealius]

So who regulates swiveling office chairs, then?

If it's an immersion issue, then we have full control of our own heads and can simply not stick them through the canopy glass. I have tried almost all the modules in VR (except A-10A, Su-27, I-16, D-9), and the only one that had issues with my head sticking out was naturally the A8 due to its narrow canopy. Once I got used to the canopy I simply stopped putting my head outside the glass. Problem solved.

Re: TrackIR boundaries, yes they are inconsistent and they can also be edited in a lua file to be limitless. I've done so on many occasions for video footage.

Edited November 27, 2021 by Nealius