nothing to fix The sensation of speed

[Gunfreak]

5 minutes ago, mobile83 said:

it's a shame to think that it's not possible to increase the sensation of speed on a computer. I've played games where the sensation of speed was incredible, even on a computer screen.

We could have a more intense blur effect to simulate a higher scrolling speed, ground particles on textures that would increase the sensation of speed, shaking effects, air effects, there are a thousand ways to increase the sensation of speed.

I'm at 700 knots in F16 on all the maps, and I feel like I can drink a coffee at the same time as I'm going 70km/h on the freeway.

Car games offer a very good sensation of speed/scrolling, so when you say it's not possible, you're being defeatist. Anything's possible: we can simulate airplanes flying through the air on a computer screen, and we can manage to simulate a more impressive speed.

But that's the F16. It's like that.

Do the same in the F86 and you'll notice the speed.  (Or F14 for that matter) 

And when it comes cars, stuff gets thrown at you much faster. There is a reason why there are only a few dozen top rally drivers or F1 drivers in the world at the same time, it's really hard.

While there is at any one times thousands of military jet pilots. 

[unlikely_spider]

51 minutes ago, mobile83 said:

Car games offer a very good sensation of speed/scrolling

I think objects are much closer to you when you're driving than when flying.

[SharpeXB]

Well racing sims generally do a fantastic job of conveying speed just due to their nature. You’re much closer to the ground and your surroundings. Then there’s the force feedback effects which are remarkable. Racing is a big rush. But also the sense of speed is very much more important there than in flying. 
When it seems these aircraft are detached and numb you do realize some of these are FBW right? You probably could sip coffee in a real F-16. 

[Hiob]

Try flying a Helicopter (or Warbird) at treetop level, following the main streets of the bigger cities. Enough speed sensation for me.

[draconus]

13 hours ago, mobile83 said:

We could have a more intense blur effect to simulate a higher scrolling speed, ground particles on textures that would increase the sensation of speed, shaking effects, air effects, there are a thousand ways to increase the sensation of speed.

It seems like you seek more Hollywood effects than a simulation.

There is motion blur option. There are enough low level details. Shaking and turbulence is simulated where needed. There is also fov setting you choose to ignore.

You can't compare vehicle driving with the flight - the sensation is totally different. Even if you take your jet on the city road you're still seating 10ft high rather than 2ft.

[Spirale]

Hi,

Check this video: IRL Su 25 low level fight shows real feel of speed

 

It seems that DCS in way sloower in speed perception. Objects or Trees are to big?

Thx

Edited February 2 by Spirale

[BIGNEWY]

11 minutes ago, Spirale said:

Hi,

Check this video: IRL Su 25 low level fight shows real feel of speed

 

It seems that DCS in way sloower in speed perception. Objects or Trees are to big?

Thx

 

field of view is everything when creating the feeling of speed. Depending you your resolution and field of view setting is makes all the difference. 

[Spirale]

Hi Bignewy, i fly mainly in VR and it is way slower but thx for your reply

Edited February 3 by Spirale

[Dragon1-1]

Try flying on a detailed map like Syria. Caucasus has large, fairly uniform trees (while really big pine trees are apparently a common thing there IRL, you hardly see any small ones on our map) and low ground and building detail. Low level feeling of speed in VR depends greatly on details on the ground. More smaller details will feel faster.

[Qcumber]

Try flying low over the Normandy map in a spitfire being chased by a 109. Dodging trees gives you a real feel of speed. 

[Hiob]

There are already rather recent treads about this exact topic so I won’t repeat everything again. Just look it up. But in a nutshell - it‘s FOV as BN stated.

[SharpeXB]

I don’t know how you make the comparison of “sensation of speed” between a VR headset and a portrait mode iPhone video

[draconus]

On 2/2/2024 at 8:28 PM, Spirale said:

It seems that DCS in way sloower in speed perception.

No, you just didn't compare the same views.

[Ironhand]

Caucasus map:

 

[TheFreshPrince]

For me, ground/terrain stutter is still a problem and with that you will not have a great "feeling of speed". The refresh needs to be very smooth and with a high rate to get this feeling. In the video above you can also see too many micro stutters. With expensive gear and maximum settings you can get rather close to the real-life smoothness in DCS, but there's always a bit missing somehow. 

 

Take these videos as another example for comparison with rl footage:

 

And then compared to a good DCS example (with a high field of view) :

It's smoother than the Caucasus example above, but not as the rl examples. It will still feel fast and give you an adrenaline rush for sure. 

Edited February 7 by TheFreshPrince

[draconus]

6 minutes ago, TheFreshPrince said:

And then compared to a good DCS example:

You're not comparing the same view. Fov, fov, fov. And of course you need high fps and stable frame times.

[BIGNEWY]

threads merged

[average_pilot]

My global tip for the apparent lack of speed in DCS is to look at your own shadow on the ground. I find it the best way to convey how fast you are really moving.

Next time you travel by plane look out the window and think that that almost stagnant ground down below is actually passing by at around 800 km/h. That speed would certainly feel very different 1,5 meters above the asphalt behind a steering wheel.

Some people go to DCS after watching Hollywood trash that have little resemblance to reality but then they find themselves with a dry emulation of physical reality and get disappointed, their maverick-esque fantasies rip to shreds, no artificial FX enhancements like in other games that explicitly target that kind of audience.

I'm afraid that's how we like it around here, hence the resistance this topic encounters every time.

[Chaffee]

Hello. Longtime racing sim enthusiast here.

What others have said RE: FOV is 100% spot on. It's why the standard set up for any serious E-Racer is triples.

What others have said about relative distance to the ground is also 100% spot on. It's why 120kn in an Apache at 5 feet feels "faster" than Mach 1 in a jet at 150 (the person inside is still the same size, BTW. That 30x vertical scale and some evolutionary biology RE: horizon perception matter here).

What others have said about the apparent size of nearby objects is spot on: It's the reason 100kph on a straight, flat country road feels fast while the same speed in the cartoon world of the highway, with its huge signs, feels slow.

Here's a question for everyone (or at least Americans): how long are the painted dashed lines on the Interstate? (Answer below)

***










Most people perceive them as being 2 to 3 feet long.


Those dashes are 12 to 15 feet long, typically (don't believe me? Have a glance at the other side of the highway sometime). They're as long as your car. They're that long to reduce your perception of speed, because your brain didn't evolve for 80 miles an hour (or even 60) any more than it evolved to see in the infrared spectrum.

So, simulating that on a flat (or even curved) screen is all about putting what's actually happening in that viewable aperture. How the user perceives that has to do with all of the things above along with some experiential factors.

[SharpeXB]

46 minutes ago, Chaffee said:

What others have said about relative distance to the ground is also 100% spot on.

It’s amazing that this has to be explained to anyone…

[Chaffee]

On 2/7/2024 at 4:21 AM, TheFreshPrince said:

And then compared to a good DCS example (with a high field of view) :

Those real-life examples are shot through short lenses that are giving 2x to 2.5x the field of view you've presented in DCS as a comparison.

If you want a legitimate comparison, put the cockpit hoop in the same place in DCS, occupying the same number of arc minutes as the videos.

Or, instead, I can tell you what will happen: You'll have the same sensation of speed, to the point that you can figure out the actual ground speed of the aircraft in the videos from what you're doing in DCS.

[zetikka]

On 12/29/2023 at 12:21 AM, Schmidtfire said:

Channel Map has the same type of fidelity as Syria or Sinai maps so It should not be that different.  
Normandy 2 is in a different league. Not even sure that upcoming maps (such as Kola) will beat it in terms
of detailing and varied mesh. I have not flown it in VR, but on a screen there is a big difference in sensation
of speed between Normandy 2 and other maps (at low levels). 

This might be a side subject by itself, but un VR DCS not only suffers from the same "slow flying" feeling as in 2D, but it adds an "off-scale" one. I have been flying both DCS and MSFS in VR, mostly over the Alps, and the feeling is like night & day: in MSFS you feel that you are up there high in the sky; in DCS you feel... like you are a 500m-tall giant walking across the hill of a scale model of the terrain. I call it "the Teletubby syndrom".  You basically have a similar scale-model feeling when using the VR version of GoogleEarth. 

VR FoV is similar in both MSFS and DCS so I do not think that is it. Might be a mix of the way DCS calculates perspectives and how objects get  automatically upscaled with the distance in DCS to save on polygons. A 20m-tall tree that auto-grows to 200m in the distance sure looks weird, but your brain can pick up large objects in the distance and still tell they are tall.

I think it has to be the way DCS deals with perspective in VR, maybe IPD calculation is off when it comes to the external world (since that is our natural rangefinder).

[Hiob]

4 minutes ago, zetikka said:

This might be a side subject by itself, but un VR DCS not only suffers from the same "slow flying" feeling as in 2D, but it adds an "off-scale" one. I have been flying both DCS and MSFS in VR, mostly over the Alps, and the feeling is like night & day: in MSFS you feel that you are up there high in the sky; in DCS you feel... like you are a 500m-tall giant walking across the hill of a scale model of the terrain. I call it "the Teletubby syndrom".  You basically have a similar scale-model feeling when using the VR version of GoogleEarth. 

VR FoV is similar in both MSFS and DCS so I do not think that is it. Might be a mix of the way DCS calculates perspectives and how objects get  automatically upscaled with the distance in DCS to save on polygons. A 20m-tall tree that auto-grows to 200m in the distance sure looks weird, but your brain can pick up large objects in the distance and still tell they are tall.

I think it has to be the way DCS deals with perspective in VR, maybe IPD calculation is off when it comes to the external world (since that is our natural rangefinder).

You know, that you can adjust the IDP/Worldscale in DCS per Module, right?

[draconus]

2 hours ago, zetikka said:

I think it has to be the way DCS deals with perspective in VR, maybe IPD calculation is off when it comes to the external world (since that is our natural rangefinder).

The effect you mention might be your setup dependent or some driver/3rd party software bug/setting. There's certainly no scale problem for most VR users and HMDs.

2 hours ago, Hiob said:

you can adjust the IDP/Worldscale in DCS per Module

How to do it per module? I only know of IPD general setting on DCS > settings > VR tab.

[Ramstein]

in helos in sims it is even worse the lack of the speed sensation. The cues we use, sound and visual, are sort of like being in a fast car. if the car is not made for speed and feels like junk and handles poorly at high speed it feels like you are going very fast. If you are in a car that handles very wells and smooth it feels slower. other visual cues are other objects for relativity. each aircraft is different. In the future it will probably improve with tech. But it is just one of those things that varies with each person, aircraft and computer. A long time ago, 60 years ago? Disneyland had a ride 'Rocketship to the moon..." I believe it was named. It was a movie but with sound and a large curved screen. The seat deflated which simulated +G Forces, and inflated for -G forces. You didn't hear the air in the seat at all. Just a thought...

Edited February 21 by Ramstein