VR Or Monitor user Poll

[Guest]

New Poll to see how many are VR users. Did move it out of the vr sections so the poll will be more unbiased.

[SharpeXB]

I don’t think the results you get here sampling enthusiasts will be representative of the player base as a whole. In flight sims generally the only large survey I’ve seen indicates about 16% using VR. 

[Eugel]

Technically, I use both as I do some ME stuff in 2D, but I only fly in VR, so I picked option 1.

[SharpeXB]

The results you see in the Steam Hardware or Navigraph survey aren’t likely relevant to DCS in terms of exact %. But one thing you can glean from them is that the % has never increased. It’s remained fixed at <2% or 12-16% respectively for the entire lifetime of VR. It’s never budged. For flight sims MSFS gave it the boost from 12% up to 16% back in 2020 but then it remained stuck there. VR has actually been around in its current iteration for 8 years now but has barely moved the needle for gaming usage.

Edited January 20 by SharpeXB

[Dragon1-1]

Note that Meta headsets, the most popular consumer brand, come with their own app store and won't show up in Steam surveys. I think the majority of growth for VR gaming is there. Most other brands have focused on professional applications of VR, with prices to match. These are not going to move the needle for gamers.

For it to really catch on, the entry level options need to cost less. I'd love to see more competition in low and mid end VR, particularly since I'm not too fond of Meta.

Edited January 20 by Dragon1-1

[LucShep]

I voted "use both but mostly VR".
I enjoy immensely a big 4K screen and do fire up DCS on it once and then, but it never got be the same thing again after getting into VR.
If immersion is your thing, there's really nothing else matching flight/race/space simulation games in VR.
 

35 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Note that Meta headsets, the most popular consumer brand, come with their own app store and won't show up in Steam surveys. I think the majority of growth for VR gaming is there. Most other brands have focused on professional applications of VR, with prices to match. These are not going to move the needle for gamers.

For it to really catch on, the entry level options need to cost less. I'd love to see more competition in low and mid end VR, particularly since I'm not too fond of Meta.

Ditto.

For sure, the prices involved with VR, be it of the headsets or the hardware required, are the main barriers. Not to mention other complexities usually involved.
PC VR will keep being a very, very niche market, though it's one that (I think) will keep exhisting solid, if very limited, as is.

There is one exception growing and, funny enough, is in the console market. PS VR2 slowly but surely is getting tremendous success in that platform.
I can't think of any formulas to make it happen but, the PC VR world could learn a thing or two from there. Prices, requirements and ease of use are key. 

Edited January 20 by LucShep

[diego999]

I only fly in VR. The immersion is amazing, even if the graphics are lacking compared with 2D.

[SharpeXB]

14 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Note that Meta headsets, the most popular consumer brand, come with their own app store and won't show up in Steam surveys.

Right. We’re talking about PCVR here which is more relevant to flight sims.
VR headset sales dropped by 40% in 2023. Meta has moved on to AI instead of the Metaverse, they’ve lost $25 billion on VR since becoming “Meta”

https://apple.news/Az7NzKuSrT7a-dFCJ6JLOog

No wonder many of the lower cost PCVR headsets like the G2 have been discontinued, that was by far the most popular headset for flight sims according to Navigraph. 

[SharpeXB]

11 minutes ago, LucShep said:

There is one exception growing and, funny enough, is in the console market. PS VR2 is slowly getting tremendows success in that platform.

I think PSVR sales were 5 million which sounds like a lot until you compare that with the 50 million PS5s sold.

Then consider the other half of the console segment has no VR component at all. Overall then you’re looking at about the same % as PC adoption.

More like a “challenging category” than a tremendous success

https://mixed-news.com/en/playstation-vr-2-challenging-category/#:~:text=Playstation VR 2 was released,million sales in December 2017.

[LucShep]

On 1/20/2024 at 10:29 PM, SharpeXB said:

No wonder many of the lower cost PCVR headsets like the G2 have been discontinued, that was by far the most popular headset for flight sims according to Navigraph. 

Pico4 and Quest3 are the new alternatives.
That said, it is indeed unfortunate that none picked up what HP had with the G1 and G2.
Those two still are, and will remain as, phenomenal headsets for sims (even in second hand market), ideal for those entering this side of the hobby.
A crying shame that HP have quit the VR market so soon. I keep thinking that, what everyone really wanted was a G3, not the current ultra expensive stuff.
 

On 1/20/2024 at 10:41 PM, SharpeXB said:

I think PSVR sales were 5 million which sounds like a lot until you compare that with the 50 million PS5s sold.

Then consider the other half of the console segment has no VR component at all. Overall then you’re looking at about the same % as PC adoption.

More like a “challenging category” than a tremendous success

https://mixed-news.com/en/playstation-vr-2-challenging-category/#:~:text=Playstation VR 2 was released,million sales in December 2017.

Not disagreeing, but put that into perspective versus the PC VR segment and respective world.
5 million headsets sold. With dedicated service, ease of use, and now very decent quality on every PSVR2 compatible game title they sell (40+ available). 
Granted, it's not inexpensive but, realize this - you get a $500 console and a $500 VR headset, pretty much "plug-n'-play", you only need to add the games. You even have the hability to add non-PS controllers (joysticks, wheels, mouse/keyboard, etc) to it with 3rd party converters, if the direcly compatible ones are not enough already. 
Not sure if you've ever tried VR with a propper PC racing-sim. If you did, try GT7 with PSVR2. It's mind-blowing how comparable (how good) it is, how far they've managed.
Trully outstanding. 

We're still very far from that experience and prices on PC for PCVR, probably will remain so - oddly, given the bigger diversity. Heck, look at these forums for the proof of that.
How many $4000+ high-end systems built for VR, with $1000+ VR headsets - and people still having issues ingame - have been discussed here during these last years?

Edited January 22 by LucShep

[Dragon1-1]

DCS is poorly optimized for VR due to being based on DX11. Vulkan will offer better optimization because it's got quite a few tricks that DX11 doesn't, including being able to properly utilize modern GPUs. Those top end systems have problems because DCS itself has problems (and quite frankly, some things are poorly optimized, period, VR or not).

I think PSVR's big advantage is consistency and ease of use. Right now, PC VR is a bit of a mess. Actually getting it to work well on PC requires more effort most people are willing it give it. PSVR, you just plug it in and it works. Meta has sunk ridiculous amount of money into the steaming pile that is the Metaverse, while ignoring VR's real potential. Of course, that doesn't change the fact that the console costs about the same as the headset for it. The number of people willing to spend 1000$ on a console is relatively limited. I'd say, 5 million sales in two years is quite impressive. Most people with that kind of budget go for a gaming PC.

The greater diversity might actually be hurting the PC market. It seems OpenXR is shaping up to be the standard, but VR software is still fiddly (everyone seems to have an app with a million useless features, even when you just want a simple driver for the headset), and in general the standards are few and far between. On PS5, you know exactly what specs you have to work with for both the console and the headset. On PC, you can't even count on it being 4K, because some are bigger and some smaller. That makes it harder to develop a VR game for PC.

Edited January 20 by Dragon1-1

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, LucShep said:

A crying shame that HP have quit the VR market so soon.

With a 40% decline in HMD sales it’s not hard to see why. Yes it was a great headset for flight sims but this tiny segment can’t keep a headset brand afloat. 

1 hour ago, LucShep said:

5 million headsets sold.

So considering those along with 50 million PS5s sold that’s an attach rate of 10%. The PS5 is 44% of the console segment. That gives consoles as a whole a 4.4% adoption. Just a bit better than PC but not astounding. Ease of use and cost are no doubt a factor there. 

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

DCS is poorly optimized for VR due to being based on DX11. Vulkan will offer better optimization because it's got quite a few tricks that DX11 doesn't, including being able to properly utilize modern GPUs.

Simple math would say it’s always going to be more demanding to run a game in 3D with dual views, higher consistent frame rates and higher resolution compared to 2D. There is actually another flight sim that utilizes Vulkan and supports VR. Performance accounts from that game seem similar to DCS. This game would need a rough doubling or tripling of performance to make VR comparable to 2D. Of course then you’d have an underutilized 2D game getting 300FPS. I fear complex games like this will never work well in VR but I would be glad to be proved wrong. 

Edited January 21 by SharpeXB

[Dragon1-1]

1 minute ago, SharpeXB said:

DCS would need a rough doubling or tripling of performance to make VR comparable to 2D. Of course then you’d have an underutilized 2D game getting 300FPS. I fear complex games like this will never work well in VR but I would be glad to be proved wrong. 

Not necessarily. Vulkan might actually provide doubling of performance (or nearly so), because what DX11 does is just render everything twice, very much a brute force approach. I'm not sure how Vulkan handles it, but it's supposedly much smarter. This will not result in significant gains on a screen because there, you're already rendering things only once. Of course, that's not to say Vulkan won't bring about further optimizations that will benefit both, it's a far superior API to DX11 (not keeping things like normal maps in 4K would have also help with VRAM use, which is a problem for any rig without a 90 series GPU, but good luck convincing ED to optimize that).

Also, you're not really running it with "higher resolution compared to 2D". 4K screens are fairly popular, not everyone has one, but an apples to apples comparison would use a screen comparable to a VR headset in resolution. In fact, with tricks like DFR, effective resolution of VR rendering can be smaller, as a 4K screen has to always render everything at full resolution, not the case for a headset that has eye tracking. If you can play DCS on a 4K screen, there's no real reason why you shouldn't be able to achieve a comparable performance in 4K VR. I was able to play games like SW:Squadrons without problems on a 1080ti, with a Reverb G2. It's only DCS, with its ravenous appetite for VRAM and poor optimization, that requires much fiddling with optimization to make it run well.

[SharpeXB]

25 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Not necessarily. Vulkan might actually provide doubling of performance (or nearly so), because what DX11 does is just render everything twice, very much a brute force approach. I'm not sure how Vulkan handles it, but it's supposedly much smarter.

But again, the other flight sim which uses Vulkan gets 30-50 fps just like DCS. VR is always going to require stereoscopic rendering by its very nature. Whether some of that load falls on the GPU or CPU. Expecting Vulkan to double the performance seems very wishful indeed. 

25 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Also, you're not really running it with "higher resolution compared to 2D"

You need to run VR at a quite a high resolution for it to look decent compared to a monitor. The most common resolution for a monitor of 1080x1920 looks fine and 2160p looks fantastic. A VR headset with the same 2,000x4,000 pixels looks pretty horrible, so low you would have trouble reading instruments or identifying distant aircraft. I tried on a Quest 3 the other day and was really surprised how poor the resolution was (it’s 2064x2208) I couldn’t imagine playing a flight sim in that. Definitely DFR is a needed thing but VR needs maybe 4x the resolution of what I saw to make it appealing IMO

 

Edited January 21 by SharpeXB

[Dragon1-1]

9 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

The most common resolution for a monitor of 1080x1920 looks fine and 2160p looks fantastic.

2010s called, it wants its monitor back. 1920x1080 is fine... for driving a tank, I suppose. Or for laptop gaming. I'd say that for a modern gaming rig, 2160p is the minimum. Let's not pretend that 4K gaming is a fringe case, because it hasn't been for a long time. I myself run 2K mostly for space reasons.

Pixel density is what's important in a VR headset, not resolution. The Reverb G2 and Varjo Aero have exceptional clarity, but resolution is no higher than that of a 4K monitor. They pay for it with reduced FOV, particularly the Reverb. A monitor achieves high PD in a similar way, it takes up a tiny percentage of your FOV, so 4K goes a long way.

As for the other flight sim, it's not necessarily comparable, but if it's the one I'm thinking of, I get better performance than in DCS. Raw FPS numbers matter less than visible smoothness. Expecting a straight 2x increase is optimistic, but with additional optimizations coming in this pass, it might happen. Multicore was already a considerable leap forward, much more than ED told us to expect.

[Mr_sukebe]

Referencing general VR usage is IMO almost as suspect as extrapolating data from a small poll.

The point being that DCS is a niche within the niche of flight sims.

My “guess” (as I have no data to back this up) is that the average DCS pilot is likely to have more disposable income than your average gamer.  As such, the financial “stretch” to add a VR headset is unlikely to be anything like the % spend on gaming related bits (the PC, console, monitor, accessories and software) for an average gamer.

So I wouldn’t be surprised if the average for DCS users in VR is significantly higher.

 

What is probably more relevant is a  trend pattern for similar polls that have been run vaguely regularly.

 

[SharpeXB]

4 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

2010s called, it wants its monitor back. 1920x1080 is fine... for driving a tank, I suppose. Or for laptop gaming. I'd say that for a modern gaming rig, 2160p is the minimum.

1080p is still by far the most popular resolution in PC gaming. According to Steam it’s 60%, 1440x2560 is 17% and 2160x3840 is 4%. 
https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam

1080p can look just fine on a monitor but even 2000x4000 in VR looks quite pixelated since it fills just a large FOV. 

4 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

The Reverb G2 and Varjo Aero have exceptional clarity

Sadly both those headsets have been discontinued. PCVR seems to be moving to very expensive enterprise level HMDs 

Edited January 21 by SharpeXB

[LucShep]

15 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

You need to run VR at a quite a high resolution for it to look decent compared to a monitor. The most common resolution for a monitor of 1080x1920 looks fine and 2160p looks fantastic. A VR headset with the same 2,000x4,000 pixels looks pretty horrible, so low you would have trouble reading instruments or identifying distant aircraft. I tried on a Quest 3 the other day and was really surprised how poor the resolution was (it’s 2064x2208) I couldn’t imagine playing a flight sim in that. Definitely DFR is a needed thing but VR needs maybe 4x the resolution of what I saw to make it appealing IMO

Wooa... is the Quest2 really that bad? 
I got an (old by today's standards) Reverb G1 Pro running at 2880x2812 per eye (~170% native res of the HMD) and the image resolution and clarity is actually quite good, far better than I recall with a 1080P (2D) monitor.

Granted, the tiny "sweetspot" (it's only really good in the center of the lens) is the achilles' heel of headsets like mine (or the Quest 2) with older fresnel-lens tech.
But with newer headsets using pancake-lens tech (the "sweet spot" being pretty much the whole screen), and with as good or better resolution, I don't think the issue is image quality in VR, really.

The only problem I see with VR image is the necessity to turn down settings, due to the big impact that exhists on every game (DCS being the most problematic in my list).
And, of course, the fiddling and boring testing of settings (a royal PITA) until you get to a satisfactory term. 
...again, the complications and complexities which few have the patience to go through, and the "ease of use" advantage that PSVR2 has over PC VR... 

Edited January 21 by LucShep

[SharpeXB]

34 minutes ago, LucShep said:

Wooa... is the Quest2 really that bad?

This was actually a Quest 3 that I tried and yeah I was pretty surprised how bad it looked. I figure VR would have advanced more by now. 

34 minutes ago, LucShep said:

The only problem I see with VR image is the necessity to turn down settings due to the big impact that exhists on every game

That’s always going to be the case with PC games which are primarily designed for 2D. That’s the reality of PCVR unless you’re looking at VR specific games. 

Edited January 21 by SharpeXB

[schmiefel]

I voted for 'monitor only',because after my RiftS died I went to a UWQHD monitor only with IR tracker instead of buying a new VR Headset, just because even the most expensive VR solutions seem to produce more constant demand (and time) for trouble shooting than having fun flying around. A Quest 3 or Pro may be a good replacement, if DCS would at least utilize its features like hand tracking or pass through. Plus using it standalone without PC link requires additional invest for me in a suitable WiFi AP or router. If at least the Quest3 would have had a better headstrap and a link cable from the start I maybe would have tried it. But both things also demand high additional invests so that a Quest3 very easy reaches the 800-1.000€ price range and the 'better' price argument is gone. Pico is a no go with its eco system and Pimax or Varjo come at a much higher price point and have their own flaws. And a Reverb G2 is still not cheaper and at a dead end since MS has announced to abandon WMR completely.

Thats why I went for a better monitor instead of replacing the old VR set with a better new one. And I think the way VR is and will be on the PC platform that it will die as a consumer solution, because expensive industry and professional solutions are were the RoI is and those solutions will therefore see the most product development in the near future. PSVR runs in its very own niche and that MS has no plans to bring VR to their consoles but shuts down its own development even for the PC market seems to be a big sign, that they have totally given up development for VR and AR. And I would be very surprised if Valve would really bring a new Index like system for the consumer market in the near future. Well, and Meta sunk a lot of money on its Metaverse, still makes no profit with it and seems to switch over to AI solutions so that I wouldn't be very surprised if they would shut down the consumer part of VR in the near future, too.

Edited January 21 by schmiefel
typo fixed

[diego999]

32 minutes ago, LucShep said:

Wooa... is the Quest2 really that bad? 
 

 

Not at all. The guy is just VR hater.

 

[SharpeXB]

3 hours ago, Mr_sukebe said:

My “guess” (as I have no data to back this up) is that the average DCS pilot is likely to have more disposable income than your average gamer.

What’s interesting about that Navigraph survey is that it shows the most popular graphics card is the 4090 at 16%

Cleary that’s a sample of enthusiasts (Navigraph users) and not players in general. But among that demographic it seems the same % own a VR HMD as own a $1,600 graphics card. No doubt poll results here would be skewed similarly. 

[SharpeXB]

11 minutes ago, diego999 said:

Not at all. The guy is just VR hater.

Everyone I know who tries that on has the same impression. That’s the difference between VR enthusiasts and average consumers. Apparently average consumers also think the Apple Vision Pro is cripplingly heavy when it’s actually lighter than the Quest 3. Enthusiasts will put up with stuff that average people won’t. 

[Dragon1-1]

It might be a balance issue. From what I heard, Apple Vision Pro's ergonomics leave a lot to be desired (even more than Quest 3's, that is). The sensation of weight is only partially based on actual mass of the headset, if it's distributed properly you notice it a lot less. A motorbike helmet, for instance, weighs about three times as much as a Quest 3, and yet they're quite wearable, owing to the fact they don't typically hang in front of your face. I haven't tried it, but like most things Apple, it looks to be made more for aesthetics than user comfort, which is particularly bad in a VR headset.

4 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Sadly both those headsets have been discontinued. PCVR seems to be moving to very expensive enterprise level HMDs 

Since when the Aero has been discontinued? It's true that most of the new hardware seems to be enterprise level, but then, it seems that the consumer market is currently in a slump. Doesn't help that the world economy hasn't been in the best shape as of late, and VR headsets were never really cheap. 

That's why I hope consoles will drive the consumer market, with PC compatibility for both games and hardware coming as an extra. In fact, for room scale VR in particular, a console is probably a more logical choice, since in most households it sits in a wide open living room, as opposed to PCs that tend to be in tighter personal spaces. Seeing as VR controllers are already patterned after a gamepad (and early Oculus Rift was meant to be used with one), it seems like a natural pairing.

[SharpeXB]

16 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Since when the Aero has been discontinued?

https://virtualrealitytimes.com/2024/01/20/varjo-aero-headset-discontinued-but-support-to-run-to-2025/#:~:text=Varjo is no longer selling,and was launched in 2021.

16 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

That's why I hope consoles will drive the consumer market

Console VR adoption is about the same as PCVR. PlayStation has 4% with half the market ie about 2%

https://www.tweaktown.com/news/91001/playstation-vr2-launch-sales-may-be-outpacing-original-psvr1-headset/index.html#

Edited January 22 by SharpeXB