nothing to fix The sensation of speed

[Supernova-III]

While FoV is a major factor in the sensation of speed, it's not the only one, I even doubt that it's the main one. Look at this video:

 

There's a huge amount of videos where you see narrow FoV, but you literally see very high speed, event if it's subsonic, or even as "slow" as heli. And this is where we actually face one of the biggest flaws of DCS: graphics. You don't see too much details on the ground => you don't see how fast it changes => you feel a turtle. You don't need a wide FoV, you need first of all high level of detail inside your FoV. Again, more details in your FoV => more changes you see => more feeling of speed. With very low level of detail, you need to have wider FoV in order to see more information, more details about your environment and thus to have more sense of speed.

 

In DCS, try to change all graphics settings related to the level of detail on the ground to max, you will probably see the difference. I noticed a huge difference on low level helicopter flight, low level su-25 flight, also when rolling an aircraft just after landing (200 kmph). We need better textures, at  lower performance hit. It could be challenging for developers to do this.

 

UPD: of course, the peripheral vision plays a huge role, but it shines if you have  a good level of detail. Also, the peripheral vision is not employed at its full power with just wide 49'' monitor. You need maybe 3 monitors, or maybe semi-sphere to employ your peripheral vision completely. And you still need a great level of detail, otherwise the sense of speed might be not so great.

Edited March 11 by Supernova-III

[draconus]

12 minutes ago, Supernova-III said:

Look at this video

Of course RL has better "gfx" but I fail to see how the speed feels different in DCS apart from that camera shake, which is obviously not how pilot head behaves. I put on VR and it's the same.

[Hiob]

The problem with this whole topic is, that we are not talking about facts, but about feelings. 

[SharpeXB]

“A game on my computer screen doesn’t look like real life and by real life I mean some GoPro video”

[Supernova-III]

53 minutes ago, draconus said:

camera shake

no problem with camera shake in DCS, you can enable corresponding option in DCS and it will model such behavior

54 minutes ago, draconus said:

I fail to see how the speed feels different in DCS

this is fine, if you happy with that. I won't argue with you about how you feel. I'm trying to give some bit of my understanding of the problem to people that tend to see this difference.

49 minutes ago, Hiob said:

The problem with this whole topic is, that we are not talking about facts, but about feelings. 

this is not the problem, as long as there are some people that see the difference. I agree that this problem is rather relative to individual perception of different people, but as long as we have a number of such people, the question is real.

[SharpeXB]

3 minutes ago, Supernova-III said:

I agree that this problem is rather relative to individual perception of different people, but as long as we have a number of such people, the question is real.

This is apparently a personal “problem” for some players. But it has nothing to do with the game nor does anything here need fixing. I hope you do realize how ludicrous it is to post GoPro videos as if that’s any more “real” than what you see a game.

8 minutes ago, Supernova-III said:

no problem with camera shake in DCS

If you want to be realistic about it, your own vision doesn’t shake like that video. I trust you have eyes and can figure this out for yourself. 

[Hiob]

14 minutes ago, Supernova-III said:

....but as long as we have a number of such people, the question is real.

Nope - this is exactly where you went wrong.

[Supernova-III]

Just now, SharpeXB said:

This is apparently a personal “problem” for some players. But it has nothing to do with the game nor does anything here need fixing. I hope you do realize how ludicrous it is to post GoPro videos as if that’s any more “real” than what you see a game.

I accept your opinion. Of course I see the principal boundary between the gopro, real, and the game.  Here we are talking about an individual perception of the game. You know what does "individual" mean. Do you wanna argue about my feelings or feelings of any other people that see the problem? Do you wanna say that we have a weird feeling about the game? If not, and if there's no problem for you, why do you even post here?

2 minutes ago, Hiob said:

Nope - this is exactly where you went wrong.

same for you, read my answer to SharpeXB

[draconus]

21 minutes ago, Supernova-III said:

I agree that this problem is rather relative to individual perception of different people, but as long as we have a number of such people, the question is real.

The question may be real, but the answer is still the same. The game is correct in its graphical representation. Of course it can be better in details, effects and lighting, and it will with time, but at the cost of computational performance. Why do some feel something is off? There can be many reasons: fov vs display size, wrong IPD in VR, false comparisons, lack of real life flying experience, wrong expectations...

[cfrag]

On 3/4/2024 at 3:45 PM, Hiob said:

people are making rather bold claims from my pov

You know, if you changed your IPD, those claims wouldn't appear that bold... <duck>

On 3/5/2024 at 11:48 AM, Hiob said:

This is how I understand it now: The (vertical) size of objects on the displays doesn't change (we established that, thanks), but due to the fact that a smaller IPD makes them further away (depth perception), the apparent(!) vertical view angle is smaller. I hope I could put it in words properly.

Not knowing how this works in DCS that seems plausible to me. So the horizontal separation of the cameras in DCS is fixed, and the render produces two images that are then linearly transformed to account for the player's IPD. How this transformation works is anyone's guess, I have not seen anything published in that regard, nor the science behind it. So unless we get some hard facts from those in the know, I'm afraid we can merely guess, and compare the impressions that we have when donning the HMD.

It's been a really educational discussion for me, though, so thank you everyone who contributed. 

Edited March 11 by cfrag

[Supernova-III]

2 minutes ago, draconus said:

The question may be real, but the answer is still the same. The game is correct in its graphical representation. Of course it can be better in details, effects and lighting, and it will with time, but at the cost of computational performance. Why do some feel something is off? There can be many reasons: fov vs display size, wrong IPD in VR, false comparisons, lack of real life flying experience, wrong expectations...

I agree that the game is correct about the movement speed, scale of things and all of that objective thing. And yes, it can be better in details, and this is all I'm basically talking about. I tend to think more about importance of level of detail because I see the difference. And I share this opinion to other people that see the problem for whatever reason. For some of them it might be helpful. That's it.

 

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

“A game on my computer screen doesn’t look like real life and by real life I mean some GoPro video”

but such mocking is not helpful at all. Maybe only for such people that love mocking

[draconus]

4 minutes ago, cfrag said:

Not knowing how this works in DCS that seems plausible to me. So the horizontal separation of the cameras in DCS is fixed, and the render produces two images that are then linearly transformed to account for the player's IPD.

No, you got it all wrong. The IPD sets the camera separation in VR apps. Then the scale "feeling" changes only in the brain in relation to our own IPD that we're used to live with.

[SharpeXB]

2 minutes ago, Supernova-III said:

but such mocking is not helpful at all. Maybe only for such people that love mocking

Well you’re the one posting this stuff. You should expect people to call you out on it

[draconus]

5 minutes ago, Supernova-III said:

I agree that the game is correct about the movement speed, scale of things and all of that objective thing. And yes, it can be better in details, and this is all I'm basically talking about. I tend to think more about importance of level of detail because I see the difference. And I share this opinion to other people that see the problem for whatever reason. For some of them it might be helpful. That's it.

I don't think DCS lacks that much in details. Compare to that:

[SharpeXB]

23 minutes ago, Supernova-III said:

Here we are talking about an individual perception of the game. You know what does "individual" mean

Yes. “Individual” by definition could mean anyone. Just to be aware, anyone could mean someone who never does anything but plays computer games and is on their phone 24/7. They’ve never driven a real car or flown in a real plane or done anything aside from playing computer games. So if you try to point out that this is just a game on a computer screen they can’t relate to how that would be different than real life cause they don’t know what real life even means

[Hiob]

8 minutes ago, draconus said:

No, you got it all wrong. The IPD sets the camera separation in VR apps. Then the scale "feeling" changes only in the brain in relation to our own IPD that we're used to live with.

This is the wikipedia entry that finaly made it click for me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_angle

Now as I understand it, I wouldn't even call it "feeling", since you could even calculate it exactly.

I try to put it in other words. When you have a given initial state with an object 1m in (vertical) size and 10m in front of you, it occupies x arc minutes of your (vertical) fov. An object double the size AND double the distance would occupy the same amount of arc minutes.

When you change the IDP the perceived distance to the object changes due to stereoscopic effects, but the vertical size in arc minutes of your fov stay the same. As a result the object seem to grow in vertical size.

[Supernova-III]

1 minute ago, SharpeXB said:

Yes. “Individual” by definition could mean anyone. Just to be aware, anyone could mean someone who never does anything but plays computer games and is on their phone 24/7. They’ve never driven a real car or flown in a real plane or done anything aside from playing computer games. So if you try to point out that this is just a game on a computer screen they can’t relate to how that would be different than real life cause they don’t know what real life even means

but now you chosen to take just one thing from that "anyone". Do you tend to project this understanding of "anyone" onto me or someone else in this thread?

[Supernova-III]

16 minutes ago, draconus said:

I don't think DCS lacks that much in details. Compare to that:

Makes sense. Anyway, for me it's looking acceptable on high settings, in terms of sensing of speed. Maybe I went too emotional with this

2 hours ago, Supernova-III said:

one of the biggest flaws of DCS: graphics

Because I would like to have better performance on high settings than I have now

[SharpeXB]

3 minutes ago, Supernova-III said:

but now you chosen to take just one thing from that "anyone". Do you tend to project this understanding of "anyone" onto me or someone else in this thread?

Are you a real helicopter pilot or are you implying DCS isn’t realistic because it doesn’t look like a GoPro video you found on YouTube

14 minutes ago, Hiob said:

This is the wikipedia entry that finaly made it click for me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_angle

Now as I understand it, I wouldn't even call it "feeling", since you could even calculate it exactly.

I try to put it in other words. When you have a given initial state with an object 1m in (vertical) size and 10m in front of you, it occupies x arc minutes of your (vertical) fov. An object double the size AND double the distance would occupy the same amount of arc minutes.

When you change the IDP the perceived distance to the object changes due to stereoscopic effects, but the vertical size in arc minutes of your fov stay the same. As a result the object seem to grow in vertical size.

What’s interesting is that although stereoscopic vision plays a role in our perception of depth and distance, it’s not the only thing. The reality is much more complex. There’s this case of a man given his eyesight back who was unable to understand the sensory input. It’s your brain that has to process all the stimuli. He would do things like reach for toy cars in the street below not reading how far away they were or walk into glass windows and such. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirl_Jennings

[Supernova-III]

1 minute ago, SharpeXB said:

Are you a real helicopter pilot or are you implying DCS isn’t realistic because it doesn’t look like a GoPro video you found on YouTube

Whatever, man. No point in discussion with you. If you wanna discuss my personal perception of the game with me, I expect some basic respect. Without mocking, without that parent-like BS.

22 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

plays computer games and is on their phone 24/7.

Find someone else to listen that sh*t, ok?

[Hiob]

4 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Are you a real helicopter pilot or are you implying DCS isn’t realistic because it doesn’t look like a GoPro video you found on YouTube

What’s interesting is that although stereoscopic vision plays a role in our perception of depth and distance, it’s not the only thing. The reality is much more complex. There’s this case of a man given his eyesight back who was unable to understand the sensory input. It’s your brain that has to process all the stimuli. He would do things like reach for toy cars in the street below not reading how far away they were or walk into glass windows and such. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirl_Jennings

Yes, another important part of it is in fact the size of objects we know and expect from experience. This is why miniture props in movie making work e.g. Or pictures like these:

https://digitalsynopsis.com/design/miniature-car-photos/

 

[SharpeXB]

32 minutes ago, Hiob said:

Yes, another important part of it is in fact the size of objects we know and expect from experience. This is why miniture props in movie making work e.g. Or pictures like these:

https://digitalsynopsis.com/design/miniature-car-photos/

 

Yeah and of course optical illusions are just that. Illusions created by removing or manipulating certain viewpoints. The conclusion of that other medical case was that depth perception is as much learned as it is a product of the eye’s mechanical properties. You could imagine someone who had lost sight in one eye still able to discern that a tall building far away isn’t a small toy. The illusion above is created by fixing that image in 2D and removing the parallax shift you’d get simply moving your eye point, that would reveal the trick. The subject in that case thought the little cars he could see out a tall building window were something he could reach out and touch. His brain couldn’t learn to interpret that. 

Edited March 11 by SharpeXB

[Tippis]

1 hour ago, Supernova-III said:

but now you chosen to take just one thing from that "anyone". Do you tend to project this understanding of "anyone" onto me or someone else in this thread?

Nah, that's just Sharpe in general. When reality goes against his assumptions (and reality always goes against his assumptions), he always either goes for the ad hominem, or insists that his assumptions about reality are true and everything else — especially real-world data and science — is unrealistic.

Just keep slapping him around with irrefutable facts and show the contradictions in his increasingly convoluted logic and you'll end up on his block list because he has no other way of combatting the unrelenting nature of reality.

 

  

2 hours ago, cfrag said:

Not knowing how this works in DCS that seems plausible to me. So the horizontal separation of the cameras in DCS is fixed, and the render produces two images that are then linearly transformed to account for the player's IPD. How this transformation works is anyone's guess, I have not seen anything published in that regard, nor the science behind it. So unless we get some hard facts from those in the know, I'm afraid we can merely guess, and compare the impressions that we have when donning the HMD.

It's not fixed, as such — you can adjust the in-game distance. But it's also not adaptive in the sense that it could conceivably read the settings off of the headset and adjust itself accordingly. And you might not even find the correct setting so it might as well have been. If anything, there is an on-going debate as to whether it should be more fixed so that a single setting will apply accurately to all aircraft, since there is a perception that the scaling is different from one module to the next.

But as pointed out, that scaling isn't something the game does… at leat not in DCS — it's how the brain interprets any deviation between in-game camera distance and real-world IPD (on top of a couple of other “familiarity cues”). It's also something the brain flat out assumes is equal in all directions (and it's actually right, since no scaling happens: everything does indeed stay at the same relative positions in all three dimensions simply because nothing changes). So a 10% error along that single axis between the eyes translates into heights and distances feeling 10% off as well. When you adjust “world scale” in many VR games, what you're actually doing is adjusting that in-game distance, and possibly the camera height as well, to match what your brain expects.

Edited March 11 by Tippis

[Hiob]

One may add, that the default head position in different modules isn't always perfect. At least in my opinion. Most relevant here is probably the z-axis position.

I usually tilt my head just down and figure if the camera position feels right "to reality". 

[Tippis]

Right, and in combination with the somewhat opaque and occasionally broken ways to adjust your cockpit camera position, you have a good recipe for a never-ending stream of “this cockpit feels wrong”, even in cases where it's really very accurate, but you're just viewing it from the wrong position or angle or (in some cases with suitably wrong settings) the wrong FoV.

So you adjust things to make it feel right again, without actually fixing the correct underlying problem, and suddenly the whole world around the plane is wrong instead.

Edited March 11 by Tippis