VR or not VR, that is the question!

[hannibal]

On 1/10/2022 at 8:55 PM, peachmonkey said:

 

Building your own system allows you to have as many bass shakers as your soul desires.    The only catch is you need to have a dedicated sound card for the SimShaker software to work, at least that's how it was when I built it. If you don't have a separate sound card then you buy a USB one for $10 on amazon.

I know it's a wall of text, but don't fret, this is all very very simple to setup.

Listen to this guy.

Once u go shaker..u can't go back..gear down brrrrttt...u feel it.

I have a buttkicker lfe and a crown 1000w amp, with a beringer USB audio adapter used with simshaker

[NineLine]

This thread turned into an example why we have the 1.15 rule.

I will let it slide when you talk about how VR improved your flying in DCS and other sims, but when we start trashing other sims, then its too far.

Please try and keep the topic on DCS, especially if you are going to trash the other game. Thread cleaned, if it continues, points will be handed out with the hidden posts. Thanks.

[draconus]

9 hours ago, rfxcasey said:

...with flight sims, to see a bandit behind you you have to shift in your office chair and cock your neck all the way back while keeping your hands on the controls and, while I know it's more of how real fighter pilots work, they also aren't sitting in office chairs that swivel with HOTA on the desk. Also, eating, drinking, alt tabbing and pulling up other windows, glancing at a second or third monitor with whatever data on it, taking notes, typing, etc. it's all much harder to near impossible in VR. Even itching your nose is a PITA.

You just named all the things pilots don't do while flying* so I see immersion problems here

*With exception of taking notes in the kneeboard - there are apps for that - and of course they don't sit in a swivel chair, and to scratch a nose they put down the mask.

[Hiob]

In my humble opinion, the whole discussion how "real" one kind of flying or another is, or how "real" it should be, is beyond pointless.

No matter what we do, it will never come close to the real thing. We have advantages over real pilots (especially fighter pilots), e.g. not being punished by g-forces, and we have disadvantages, e.g. proper(!) haptic feedback or visual clarity... and no amount of Input/Output hardware will change that in the foreseeable future.

So it reduces to personal taste - and no approach is wrong or better than another. Personally I don't think that VR improves your dogfighting (compared to TrackIR), but in my case it helps a lot with helicopters (hovering, landing) and adds to the immersion when just flying around calmly. Or in other words LOW and/or SLOW is well suited for VR. Fighting or task intensive stuff - not so much. (Remember - that's my subjective take from it, so no need to argue!)

I would really encourage anyone who is able/willing to afford the expenses to try it! (Or borrow a VR set if possible) It's an experience. But lower your expectations or at least be prepared for possible disappointment.

Edited January 27, 2022 by Hiob

[rfxcasey]

2 hours ago, draconus said:

You just named all the things pilots don't do while flying* so I see immersion problems here

*With exception of taking notes in the kneeboard - there are apps for that - and of course they don't sit in a swivel chair, and to scratch a nose they put down the mask.

My immersion is broken every time I hop in a new jet and realize it doesn't have a proper data cartridge. My immersion is broken every time I launch off the carrier deck and I'm not slammed back into my seat. Every time I pull a high G turn and don't have to grunt to keep from passing out, my immersion is kind of broken. I don't know though, some guys might tighten up and start grunting every time they pull high G's, you know, for immersion sake. My immersion is broken every time a SAM or Sidewinder blows me out of the sky and my body doesn't fly into a million pieces. Maybe I'll start throwing myself out of my chair and down the stairs for some haptic feedback, though that might damage my VR headset. My immersion is a bit broken every time the UPS guy brings a box with some new flight sim rig parts and rings the doorbell causing my dog to go crazy. But most of all, without fail, more than anything else, what breaks my immersion the absolute most, is when my wife pop's her head in the room and asks me what I want for dinner.

1 hour ago, Hiob said:

In my humble opinion, the whole discussion how "real" one kind of flying or another is, or how "real" it should be, is beyond pointless.

No matter what we do, it will never come close to the real thing. We have advantages over real pilots (especially fighter pilots), e.g. not being punished by g-forces, and we have disadvantages, e.g. proper(!) haptic feedback or visual clarity... and no amount of Input/Output hardware will change that in the foreseeable future.

So it reduces to personal taste - and no approach is wrong or better than another. Personally I don't think that VR improves your dogfighting (compared to TrackIR), but in my case it helps a lot with helicopters (hovering, landing) and adds to the immersion when just flying around calmly. Or in other words LOW and/or SLOW is well suited for VR. Fighting or task intensive stuff - not so much. (Remember - that's my subjective take from it, so no need to argue!)

I would really encourage anyone who is able/willing to afford the expenses to try it! (Or borrow a VR set if possible) It's an experience. But lower your expectations or at least be prepared for possible disappointment.

 

What he said.

Edited January 27, 2022 by rfxcasey

[draconus]

41 minutes ago, Hiob said:

No matter what we do, it will never come close to the real thing. We have advantages over real pilots (especially fighter pilots), e.g. not being punished by g-forces, and we have disadvantages, e.g. proper(!) haptic feedback or visual clarity... and no amount of Input/Output hardware will change that for the foreseeable future.

So it reduces to personal taste - and no approach is wrong or better than another.

Of course it's down to user's preference what one will choose and use but I can't agree with debate what is closer to reality. If it's "close to the real thing" depends on the definition. Let's see what is available already:

• HOTAS (plus stick extension if applicable) and pedals for full real size and range of motion of controls; there are also some pro setups for strong force feedback
• bass/simshaker, jetseat, jetpad - for seat of the pants feedback
• home motion chair for low G and spatial movement orientation feedback
• hand tracking (with gloves, without, or with controllers)
• gloves with haptic feedback
• VR gets more and more wide angle and pixel density is beginning to close to retinal resolutions
• full home pit

Sound is already higly realistic. Visually and for haptic feedback we're almost there. Lack of G problem unfortunately is not yet resolved even in huge full-motion $billion science/military sims. All else is dependant on what DCS simulates and how other people play their roles in it.

@rfxcasey Are you one of those that will now tell me to uninstall DCS after I crash my aircraft, just to mock my immersion?

Edited January 27, 2022 by draconus

[BIGNEWY]

I've been flying sims for many years. 

I have had single screens, double, triple, I have had projector setups, multi projector setups, TrackIR, nothing beats VR in my opinion, I do not like to fly without it now. 

 

[Hiob]

@draconus I didn't mean to suggest that what we have now isn't great and add to the experience, and I'm 100% positive that it will get even better in the future.

Let me put it this way. I'm really into driving, with some motorsport/track experience (really nothing to brag about - but I have real life experience on how it feels), and I would argue that the sim/motion/vr hardware (or the software implementation to be precise) for racing is one step ahead of that for flying (because it is one dimension easier and more important - the audience/market is way bigger). But still, it doesn't even come close to the real "real" thing.

I'm not saying that to play down or disrespect VR, or the people that are into it! It's just not the holy grail and will always lack compared to reality, imho(!).

 

Edit: I am nevertheless really looking forward to a time where VR headsets are light and comfy to wear and will give close to photo realistic visuals with triple digit framerates. I don't know how long it will take - but it will come!

Edited January 27, 2022 by Hiob

[draconus]

2 minutes ago, Hiob said:

I'm not saying that to play down or disrespect VR, or the people that are into it! It's just not the holy grail and will always lack compared to reality, imho(!).

And I'm not denying that. I just know what current limitations are. Whatever hardware we can get we play within these limits. There's no other way to be "closer" - the ultimate simulation will be direct connection to the brain

[rfxcasey]

14 minutes ago, draconus said:

And I'm not denying that. I just know what current limitations are. Whatever hardware we can get we play within these limits. There's no other way to be "closer" - the ultimate simulation will be direct connection to the brain

Aw, I was just having some fun is all. I get plenty of immersion with my current setup, though I'd suggest everyone trying out VR if they get a chance. As I think I mentioned earlier, I really love my VR headset for driving in Assetto Corse and Dirt Rally 2.0, but, for me at least, when I'm flying, I just prefer my 34 inch ultrawide monitor. 21:9 or greater is the way to go but if someone has a 16:9, VR is going to seem like even more of an upgrade.

Edited January 27, 2022 by rfxcasey

[Baldrick33]

1 hour ago, Hiob said:

In my humble opinion, the whole discussion how "real" one kind of flying or another is, or how "real" it should be, is beyond pointless.

No matter what we do, it will never come close to the real thing. We have advantages over real pilots (especially fighter pilots), e.g. not being punished by g-forces, and we have disadvantages, e.g. proper(!) haptic feedback or visual clarity... and no amount of Input/Output hardware will change that in the foreseeable future.

 

The same debate exists in sim racing forums. I think we are doing race and flight sims a disservice and they have done an excellent job of fooling our brains into feeling like driving and flying even back in the nineties with crude resolutions and simplified physics enforced by lack of computing power. As hardware, software and knowledge improves sims will always get better. Hence the argument that changes prove the simulation was wrong is moot in my view.

There have been several milestones in hardware and software releases that have been game changing for the genre, accelerated graphics cards may seems a distant memory now but it had a dramatic effect. Track IR for flight sims is another. VR is definitely another for me. I accept it won't suit everyone be it for motion sickness, comfort, isolation and so on but in terms of enhancing the feeling of flying it is a game changer.

However, like with sim racing for competitive gaming monitors may prove a better solution hence why we talk so much about immersion with VR, there can be a trade off with spotting in combat flight sims or peripheral vision using triple screens in sim racing as examples.

Personally I would always take immersion but there is never a right answer but I do feel that the driving and flying in the top tier simulations are quite spectacular at making us feel we are controlling vehicles and planes and VR has become a key component into fooling my simple brain at least.

 

[Baldrick33]

1 hour ago, Hiob said:

Let me put it this way. I'm really into driving, with some motorsport/track experience (really nothing to brag about - but I have real life experience on how it feels), and I would argue that the sim/motion/vr hardware (or the software implementation to be precise) for racing is one step ahead of that for flying (because it is one dimension easier and more important - the audience/market is way bigger). But still, it doesn't even come close to the real "real" thing.

 

I am first and foremost a sim racer and dabbled with flight sims but it wasn't until VR reached a level (Reverb for me) that flight sims suddenly gripped me. Conversely I found the extra dimension of height that is so critical in flying and struggled to get a sense of with monitors. I love driving in VR but I always found monitors translated better to portraying the feel of driving than flying and could easily switch between them with race sims albeit preferring VR. Maybe it is a lack of familiarity flying with monitors but I just felt instantly at home with flying in VR and switching back to monitors is a real struggle just to land an aircraft.

[Hiob]

47 minutes ago, Baldrick33 said:

... and switching back to monitors is a real struggle just to land an aircraft.

No doubt - depth perception is crucial disadvantage without VR. As I said, hovering and landing a Chopper is a different world in VR, to a lesser extend the same is true for landing an aircraft. I completely agree with that.

[Eugel]

51 minutes ago, Baldrick33 said:

I am first and foremost a sim racer and dabbled with flight sims but it wasn't until VR reached a level (Reverb for me) that flight sims suddenly gripped me. Conversely I found the extra dimension of height that is so critical in flying and struggled to get a sense of with monitors. I love driving in VR but I always found monitors translated better to portraying the feel of driving than flying and could easily switch between them with race sims albeit preferring VR. Maybe it is a lack of familiarity flying with monitors but I just felt instantly at home with flying in VR and switching back to monitors is a real struggle just to land an aircraft.

I think this is because when driving a race car, your view ist mostly fixed on the road ahead of you, while in an aircraft you will look out in all directions all the time. I think that´s why racing games might work better in 2D.
But overall, I´m in the "Can´t go back to 2D" crowd. I even did not buy a couple of racing games, just because they didn´t support VR.

I really regret buying this 34" 21:9 screen with TrackIR on my rig. I just don´t feel it...

[edmuss]

Can attest for the depth perception as well, when learning in pancake mode I always struggled with landing without smashing all hell out of the runway, in VR it's infinitely easier.  I can't fly in pancake any more, I only have a 24" 1080p monitor and compared to the G2 it's very much more difficult, similarly with driving sims.  The 1:1 head motion is what does it for me I think.

[draconus]

YMMV - I was already capable of smooth landings on monitor and after going VR landings got hard. It took awhile to relearn. I just didn't know how much is there yet to touchdown.

[wrmiller]

I run 3440x1440 on a 34" ultra-wide monitor with TrackIR and have no desire to use VR. Maybe someday when VR can match the performance and detail I see on my monitor I'll reconsider. Just my opinion of course. 

[Harley]

VR seems to add a lot to the realism, and as well, I'm sure it also adds new problems should something go wrong. It seems like compromises must be made between visual realism and simplicity. I know that for now, I'll stick with a monitor, because there's just so much we need a keyboard for, even with plenty of buttons and switches available on the HOTAS. We're just not at a good spot yet, but the alternatives for 5 star realism still looks to be full on sim pit, because one still has to look around a lot for dogfighting. Which is more complicated and which is more expensive?

[Baldrick33]

5 hours ago, Harley said:

VR seems to add a lot to the realism, and as well, I'm sure it also adds new problems should something go wrong. It seems like compromises must be made between visual realism and simplicity. I know that for now, I'll stick with a monitor, because there's just so much we need a keyboard for, even with plenty of buttons and switches available on the HOTAS. We're just not at a good spot yet, but the alternatives for 5 star realism still looks to be full on sim pit, because one still has to look around a lot for dogfighting. Which is more complicated and which is more expensive?

DCS World is so many things to so many people to be able to recommend how to get the best from it. I agree with your viewpoint up until "We're just not at a good spot yet". I have been having a fabulous time with DCS in VR since I got a Reverb in 2019. It is my primary gaming entertainment. I have spent ages "perfecting" my VR sim rig with button boxes and experiments with modifiers but in my case the time has been worth it. I create simple missions that are neither too taxing for my system and my limited combat flying abilities and compromises of running VR (probably more the former if truth be told!).

It would be great to fill the skies and ground with dynamic objects but right now I can enjoy VR in DCS immensely. It really depends what you want. Big scale multiplayer missions are going to push the performance window and spotting in VR against those who aren't is probably too great a challenge for many but it can be a great experience for some of us who choose not to do those things - right now!

[Pikey]

VR does require extra effort. The thing is, that its a fairly small minority that can't enjoy it, usually due to hardware/expense. Also when giving up the frames and settings of 2D a lot of people can't be happy with that and end up in an endless cycle of trying to improve which leads to disatisfaction. I have used VR for years and had three headsets. I even gave away my Trackir. There's plenty of things that are suboptimal with VR in general but none of it is relating to enjoyment and immersion.

A wireless mouse on a little side stand and good peripherals solve 90% of issues, the rest of stuff is solved by mods or just worked through.