option to hide propeller for VR Motion Smoothing

[Tippis]

3 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

It might be barely visible 

…and thus therefore doesn't matter in the slightest relative to the visual distortions created by its being there. It is a minuscule to the point of utter irrelevance compared to the lack of proper forward vision, such that if you actually wanted to make an argument for balance and realism (as opposed to your standard stance of “nerf the other guy but never touch anything I benefit from”) you would be fully on board with the option.

The fact that you aren't shows that realism and MP balance — as irrelevant as that is in the grand scheme of things — are things you desperately want to avoid for some incomprehensible reason.

[SharpeXB]

4 minutes ago, Tippis said:

…and thus therefore doesn't matter in the slightest relative to the visual distortions created by its being there

Well @SkateZilla seems to agree that removing the prop altogether would be considered a game aid. I don’t own or test every WWII module but this seems fair enough. If this was to be a graphic option then there could be a choice of rendering modes, including a VR one with a simplified disc that doesn’t cause artifacts. That would be a better solution. 

[Tippis]

Just now, SharpeXB said:

Well @SkateZilla seems to agree that removing the prop altogether would be considered a game aid.

Doesn't really matter, now does it?

1 minute ago, SharpeXB said:

I don’t own or test every WWII module but this seems fair enough

More specifically, you have no idea about VR, and as such, you have no understanding of the topic at hand and of the simple fact that the ability to remove the distortions would create more realism, greater visual parity, and — to really tickle your favourite bone — be far less dev-time-consuming to implement.

Again, I understand that you've realised there is yet another thing that other players suffer that you do not, and that as such, they must under no circumstances be allowed to have an improved game experience that removes that handicap.

[SharpeXB]

10 minutes ago, Tippis said:

Doesn't really matter, now does it?

He’s an ED Tester so he knows more about the game than either of us. 

[Tippis]

Just now, SharpeXB said:

He’s an ED Tester so he knows more about the game than either of us. 

Non sequitur. And still doesn't really matter even if it weren't.

[SharpeXB]

11 minutes ago, Tippis said:

More specifically, you have no idea about VR,

I’ve used VR headsets enough to know they wouldn’t be very good in sims like this. Case in point about motion smoothing. 

[Tippis]

1 minute ago, SharpeXB said:

I’ve used VR headsets enough to know they wouldn’t be very good in sims like this.

Then you have clearly not used VR headsets enough (and/or not used enough VR headsets). Because they're very good in sims like this, and motion smoothing is not a factor in that.

You're arguing form a position of ignorance against a QoL improvement that removes a disadvantage to “the other guy”. That's your whole shtick, after all.

Edited August 6, 2022 by Tippis

[SharpeXB]

2 minutes ago, Tippis said:

Because they're very good in sims like this

Doesn’t seem like it

 

[Tippis]

4 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Doesn’t seem like it

…and you'll find people in the same thread that says the exact opposite. If you play with people who use VR, you'll also come across the entire “never going back” segment. So yes, it does indeed seem so if you go beyond a sample of one.

Oh, and of course, one person not feeling it doesn't change the fact that you're still arguing from a position of ignorance about something you have no experience with.

Edited August 6, 2022 by Tippis

[SharpeXB]

4 minutes ago, Tippis said:

Oh, and of course, one person not feeling it doesn't change the fact that you're still arguing from a position of ignorance about something you have no experience with.

I’ve used VR headsets in my work so I know what they’re like. But I’ve read enough about their troubles in this game to steer clear of them here. 

[Tippis]

2 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

I’ve used VR headsets in my work so

…you don't have the experience with the current crop and how they work in DCS. Sorry.

What you've read is just that: what you've read. This is commonly called hearsay. You can be just as selective in your reading and arrive at the exact opposite conclusion — again,.see all the people who simply can't play DCS without it because of what a gamechanger and killer feature it is.

Is it still maturing? Yes. That means DCS should improve its support for it and add more and more options as they become possible and as the need for them is recognised.

[SharpeXB]

3 minutes ago, Tippis said:

That means DCS should improve its support for it and add more and more options as they become possible and as the need for them is recognised.

So the better solution for this would be a VR-friendly prop effect graphic option instead of just switching it off. 

[Tippis]

Just now, SharpeXB said:

So the better solution for this would be a VR-friendly prop effect graphic option instead of just switching it off. 

Not if you want to maintain your stance of using as little dev time as possible.

Consistency is a core component of credibility, you know…

[SharpeXB]

3 minutes ago, Tippis said:

Not if you want to maintain your stance of using as little dev time as possible.

Was the old prop effect better with motion smoothing? Just put that back in then as an option.

It’s possible that players wouldn’t like the choice limited between seeing ugly prop effects or no prop at all. I’m sure there’s a better solution. 

[Tippis]

3 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Was the old prop effect better with motion smoothing?

Not really. It's just a consequence of how the two interact. Outside of the smoothing issue, the old pop effect was also worse for your frame rate.

3 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

I’m sure there’s a better solution. 

Define “better”. And explain why you're sure of this.

Or, just in general, explain why you are so adamantly against a very simple and obvious option that would improve the game.

Edited August 7, 2022 by Tippis

[SharpeXB]

11 minutes ago, Tippis said:

Define “better”. And explain why you're sure of this.

Or, just in general, explain why you are so adamantly against a very simple and obvious option that would improve the game.

“Better” is a solution that solves the problem without gameplay side effects like creating another mission/server setting for MP. A genuine graphic option would accomplish this. 
 

I’m not sure every player would agree that the OP’s solution is “obviously” the best. 
 

The best solution would be for DCS to perform well enough that motion smoothing is unnecessary. I would not consider using VR myself until that’s accomplished. 

[Tippis]

3 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

“Better” is a solution that solves the problem without gameplay side effects like creating another mission/server setting for MP.

The OP's solution does that. All you're doing there is arguing against your own initial objection.

It's a genuine graphic option, same as, say, removing shadows or reflections or other visual effects that can cause artefacting and slowdowns. It is also a visual option same as stick- and pilot hiding to remove obstructions that don't need to be there.

3 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

’m not sure every player would agree that the OP’s solution is “obviously” the best. 

No-one said it was.

[Rosebud47]

It is for sure an annoying issue in VR, but appears only by using OpenXR mod. With OpenVR the prop effect works as intended.

While I like the new prop effects, which are implented some time ago, the only thing to do is asking ED to have a look into this special new prop effect and try to make it OpenXR friendly, as it seems to be an issue on the difference on how OpenXR motion reprojection works to how OpenVR motion reprojection works in relation to this new prop effect.

Maybe with an improved version of the OpenXR mod the issue could be solved, but for sure the issue should be fixed if DCS would finally get a native OpenXR support, which I think is overdue.

While appreciate the progress on the F-16, Hornet and in other areas of DCS, we haven´t had for long time any improvement for VR and general performance. Taking literally years to implement multi-threading or Vulkan is not realistic.

If at least someone at ED could have a look into the new prop effect and OpenXR compatibility, would be very appreciated.  

 

 

Edited August 7, 2022 by Rosebud47

[SkateZilla]

3 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Doesn’t seem like it

 

The main problem is that features are being requested for a Graphics Engine that's approaching End of Life.

From a Common sense standpoint, not even a business one, it doesn't make sense to continue to add and test secondary and tertiary minor features in an engine that's End of Life essentially, 

Trust me, many of us have a long list of things we want integrated into DCS,
But the issue is, The DX11 Engine is at it's limit.
Time needs to be not wasted on band aids and minor features for a EoL GFX engine, when the same time can be better used finishing the new one.

Is it a useful feature, Certainly.
Is it a Graphics Aide? Sure. Even though you see it as removing a problem, it will still be used to gain an advantage by others.
Should it be toggle-able, Sure. Should it be Governed by Server Owners, Sure.

Will it be a problem that continues with the move to Multi-Core and Vulkan, unknown, but IMHO Unlikely.

The Move to Multi-Core and Vulkan will solve 2 Long standing problems.

DCS's CPU Overhead and Process Saturation.
DirectX11's CPU Overhead on high Drawcall Scenes.

One will Compliment the other.
DirectX will no longer limit itself and essentially hold one core hostage, and thus creating a self inflicted bottle neck as draw calls and commands continue to backup in the GFX Engine's CPU API Layer, thus removing the bottle neck on rendering speed, and freeing up CPU Cycle time for DCS Core functions etc.

DCS Core will no longer bombard a CPU Core(s) with all the Processes for AI, Pathing, Mission Scripts, Physics, Calculations, etc etc etc. on One thread, thus removing the bottleneck on mission and event processing etc, freeing up more CPU Cycle time for the GPU etc.

When you are flying and your FPS are crashing and you notice your GPU Usage is Crashing with it...
it's one or both of Those two things.
When you have a complex mission, with triggers, AI, Scripts on top of scripts, and FPS Drop that's the Core bottleneck.
When you have a large object count mission, and FPS Drop, That's the DX11 API Overhead bottlenecking the API Layer, waiting for the CPU to process commands in order, when they can be processed asynchronously and out of order easily by the GPU without any type of bottle neck creation by the API CPU Process.
 

Edited August 7, 2022 by SkateZilla

[Baldrick33]

I guess only ED would have the numbers but I would surmise that the numbers of VR users flying WW2 aircraft in single player dwarf the numbers playing online. That isn't to say multiplayer should be ignored in design decisions to ensure fairness but concerns of gaining an advantage are largely irrelevant to the majority of players if it will solve an issue for many in single player.

If VR is such a bad choice for playing DCS online then quite why would anyone even worry about a VR user having a clear instead of not quite transparent view of the low resolution blob of pixels compared with a hi res monitor to complain it is unfair?

[Baldrick33]

8 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

The best solution would be for DCS to perform well enough that motion smoothing is unnecessary. I would not consider using VR myself until that’s accomplished. 

Good for you. Many are happy using VR right now, so the OP solution would work for them as a short term fix until something better comes along - if and when it does.

[SkateZilla]

20 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

“Better” is a solution that solves the problem without gameplay side effects like creating another mission/server setting for MP. A genuine graphic option would accomplish this. 
 

I’m not sure every player would agree that the OP’s solution is “obviously” the best. 
 

The best solution would be for DCS to perform well enough that motion smoothing is unnecessary. I would not consider using VR myself until that’s accomplished. 

Motion Smoothing is a filter used to compensate for the jitter caused by your natural movements. (Talking, Breathing, Pulse)

No matter how well DCS Performs, You can't remove that outside element.

So the Best Solution isnt DCS to Run without smoothing.

[SharpeXB]

6 minutes ago, SkateZilla said:

Motion Smoothing is a filter used to compensate for the jitter caused by your natural movements. (Talking, Breathing, Pulse)

No matter how well DCS Performs, You can't remove that outside element.

So the Best Solution isnt DCS to Run without smoothing.

Ah I confused Motion Smoothing with these frame doubling features in VR such as Asynchronous Spacewarp or Reprojection. 

[SkateZilla]

3 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Ah I confused Motion Smoothing with these frame doubling features in VR such as Asynchronous Spacewarp or Reprojection. 

On that note, I have not seen a Large Scale Engine not require those.

[Svsmokey]

1 hour ago, SkateZilla said:

Motion Smoothing is a filter used to compensate for the jitter caused by your natural movements. (Talking, Breathing, Pulse)
 

That does not comport with my experience , nor does it with what Steam says...

https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/250820/view/2898585530113853534

Edited August 7, 2022 by Svsmokey