Oculus Rift and DCS World Discussion

[Flamin_Squirrel]

It's as realistic as a thumbstick on a gamepad.

Actually not even as realistic as most gamepads these days come with rumble motors...

 

Really? Explain how the FSSB R3 force sensing sick is fundamentally different to what you'd find in the F16 then.

[dot]

Really? Explain how the FSSB R3 force sensing sick is fundamentally different to what you'd find in the F16 then.

 

Simple (I presume you mean F18 ), in one of my previous post pasted a bit from the manual:

 

11.1.3 Stick Force. In maneuvering flight,

there is a light but constant stick force per g

(about 3½ to 4½ pounds/g). Unlike many other

aircraft, maneuvering stick forces do not vary

significantly over the entire operating envelope

so long as the AOA is less than AOA feedback of

22°. Where AOA feedback is active, maneuvering

stick forces are increased significantly

 

there is a light but constant stick force per g

(about 3½ to 4½ pounds/g).

 

*Notice 'per g' it does not say regardless of g, but PER G! Can your spring simulate about 3½ to 4½ pounds/g)?

*AOA feedback - can your spring simulate this?

 

2.8.2.10 Mechanical Linkage (MECH).

Mechanical linkage provides backup control of

the stabilators for pitch and roll control. A

MECH ON caution is displayed on the DDI. See

FCS Failure Indications and Effects, section V.

In the mechanical mode, stick movement

directly controls the stabilator actuators bypassing

all force sensors, the flight control computers,

all air data, all motion feedbacks, servos, and

associated electrical wiring

 

*Can your spring simulate this?

 

Technically your Thrustmaster spring is very close to a thumbstick on xbox; it's probably bit more precise, has stiffer spring and more expensive but xbox 360 gamepad wins in feedback and immersion as it can at least simulate rumble.

[Vladdo]

Gosh.. it's going to be a looooooooooooonng wait until March 28..

[metalnwood]

Sure they do - there's no question about this. The pure essence of why a button controller is useful is for the reason that YOU DON'T NEED TO LOOK AT IT to use it. If your button controller is well designed and laid out ergonomically (like DSD boxes; disclaimer: my company makes them) then you never should have had to look at your boxes in the first place, VR environment notwithstanding.

 

Hundreds of our customers are active and avid VR users. Our feedback from them is that nothing really has changed since it's never been vital to look at them to use them. In fact, for racing sims, NOT looking anywhere other than on the screens can be instantly deadly. Reaching to a keyboard to press a key will kill you. Mashing a button is as simple as reaching down and doing it.

 

Moreover, the experiences of real life is what should close the argument. Pilots of both aircraft and racing machines of all types are able to flip switches, turn dials, push buttons and actuate levers are all types without looking at them...they do it all the time. We even do it in our road cars, etc. While there may be some claim that because we can "see control functions in our periphery" they are easier to use than in VR, but that's really not an argument with any traction.

 

While not to launch this thread off the runway, it's noteworthy to dispel this assumption with some facts. Although Jason is not a DSD Customer, I'll double down with some material value. We'll ship off a DSD FLT2 button controller Monday for free. Use it with your VR flying and report back about your impressions. How's that? Send your full and complete shipping address to tom.harris@derekspearedesigns.com and consider it done.

 

I personally need more button controllers over the two I use right now for DCS. I have been mulling over some new designs specifically for flying, but still don't have what I want. But if I want to fire up the engines, close the canopy, setup for refueling, turn the labels on and off and a score of other secondary functions I just reach down and do it...without looking.

 

 

OK, I wont argue with you on this point because on reflection, they are not useless in VR. I made one myself specifically for FSX to tune the radios and when you know where it is, it is not such a big issue. I can't go directly to the buttons I want but it's a bit like brail, you get to the box without thinking but have to have a slight feel to read where you are with respect to the buttons.

 

My statement is probably better qualified saying that I would rather have a hotas supporting many functions than have one with many less and supplement it with a button box.

 

While I am not a customer, I can say from what I have heard, Derek does make great products if you are looking for one.

[Chivas]

Sure they do - there's no question about this. The pure essence of why a button controller is useful is for the reason that YOU DON'T NEED TO LOOK AT IT to use it. If your button controller is well designed and laid out ergonomically (like DSD boxes; disclaimer: my company makes them) then you never should have had to look at your boxes in the first place, VR environment notwithstanding.

 

Hundreds of our customers are active and avid VR users. Our feedback from them is that nothing really has changed since it's never been vital to look at them to use them. In fact, for racing sims, NOT looking anywhere other than on the screens can be instantly deadly. Reaching to a keyboard to press a key will kill you. Mashing a button is as simple as reaching down and doing it.

 

Moreover, the experiences of real life is what should close the argument. Pilots of both aircraft and racing machines of all types are able to flip switches, turn dials, push buttons and actuate levers are all types without looking at them...they do it all the time. We even do it in our road cars, etc. While there may be some claim that because we can "see control functions in our periphery" they are easier to use than in VR, but that's really not an argument with any traction.

 

While not to launch this thread off the runway, it's noteworthy to dispel this assumption with some facts. Although Jason is not a DSD Customer, I'll double down with some material value. We'll ship off a DSD FLT2 button controller Monday for free. Use it with your VR flying and report back about your impressions. How's that? Send your full and complete shipping address to tom.harris@derekspearedesigns.com and consider it done.

 

I personally need more button controllers over the two I use right now for DCS. I have been mulling over some new designs specifically for flying, but still don't have what I want. But if I want to fire up the engines, close the canopy, setup for refueling, turn the labels on and off and a score of other secondary functions I just reach down and do it...without looking.

 

Exactly right, most people will have no problem using their Hotas,etc while in VR. A voice program could also be used effectively.

[DerekSpeare]

For flying, like driving, the most mission critical function controls must be right where the hands are. All good HOTAS systems have loads and any good racing wheel the same. I am in agreement!

[hannibal]

For flying, like driving, the most mission critical function controls must be right where the hands are. All good HOTAS systems have loads and any good racing wheel the same. I am in agreement!

 

some recent pascal info..

http://wccftech.com/nvidia-pascal-graphics-cards-spotted/

[frogger]

i think the argument was on 2 different things. 1 is saying a spring stick is closest to the real f18 function while the other is saying ffb is closest to immersion of flight

[Flamin_Squirrel]

*Notice 'per g' it does not say regardless of g, but PER G! Can your spring simulate about 3½ to 4½ pounds/g)?

.

 

If I get the right spring then yes it can. It's a fly by wire aircraft: the control complexity is in the fbw computers. This can all be replicated by DCS on our desk top computers.

 

I've tried my best to explain but you seem so convinced I'm wrong that nothing I say will convince you otherwise.

[hannibal]

every time i try to dcs on desktop monitors i get sleepy... lol

[_Acoustic_]

The 940 doesnt have enough buttons in a VR environment! Thats really the topic when included in this thread. Buttons boxes dont help you a lot in a VR environment. HOTAS was made so you dont have to look so a hotas with a lot of buttons is ideal.

 

I fly with the 940 and it has endless buttons.

 

20 buttons, 5 trim wheels, 3 hat switches which have 8 directions each, and a mini stick which can be mapped as a mouse.

 

Then you multiple that by 3 since there are three modes. Then you can map the pinkie switch as a modifier, then you map the thumb button as a secondary modifier.

 

With three modes and 2 modifiers active discounting the wheels, mini, and all hats, you still have nearly 200 different key presses.

 

Then add the trim wheels with the modes and you have 15 trim wheels, and the hats add an additional 72 key presses with the modes, not including modifiers.

 

So we are talking about nearly 350 key assignments!

 

I barely use the power of an entire mode in the A-10C because I enjoy clicking things in the cockpit. That said I do use every button and then every button again with an active modifier, but even with that I'm still not even close to the max assignments. I personally don't need to assign my landing light or pitot heat switch to a button, I enjoy clicking those in cockpit, which brings me to an interesting thought...which might be better in a different thread but now I'm curious.

 

What is the point of having fully functioning/clickable cockpits if people just want to assign buttons to everything? Not saying this is bad or anything, just curious, it takes a ton of time, modeling, texturing, animations, and coding to get interactive cockpits.

Edited February 13, 2016 by ♠_Acoustic_♠

[Enduro14]

If I get the right spring then yes it can. It's a fly by wire aircraft: the control complexity is in the fbw computers. This can all be replicated by DCS on our desk top computers.

 

I've tried my best to explain but you seem so convinced I'm wrong that nothing I say will convince you otherwise.

 

A spring can easily simulate that I would look for a higher poundage than 3 to 4 lbs as that will be very light.

 

Ffb I don't even bother since I have a butt kicker mounted on my sim pit and the the vibrations from that go through the hotas and the joystick also so it's pretty awesome. This is with a hotas warthog.

Edited February 13, 2016 by Enduro14

[Flamin_Squirrel]

A spring can easily simulate that I would look for a higher poundage than 3 to 4 lbs as that will be very light.

 

It's 3-4lbs per G; the Hornet can pull up to 7.5G so it's probably around the 22-30lb mark (longitudinally anyway!) :joystick:

[Enduro14]

ahh rgr my brain goes straight to trigger pull when spring rate comes up. That is interesting to know that it can go up like that.

[metalnwood]

I fly with the 940 and it has endless buttons.

 

20 buttons, 5 trim wheels, 3 hat switches which have 8 directions each, and a mini stick which can be mapped as a mouse.

 

Then you multiple that by 3 since there are three modes. Then you can map the pinkie switch as a modifier, then you map the thumb button as a secondary modifier.

 

With three modes and 2 modifiers active discounting the wheels, mini, and all hats, you still have nearly 200 different key presses.

 

Then add the trim wheels with the modes and you have 15 trim wheels, and the hats add an additional 72 key presses with the modes, not including modifiers.

 

So we are talking about nearly 350 key assignments!

 

I barely use the power of an entire mode in the A-10C because I enjoy clicking things in the cockpit. That said I do use every button and then every button again with an active modifier, but even with that I'm still not even close to the max assignments. I personally don't need to assign my landing light or pitot heat switch to a button, I enjoy clicking those in cockpit, which brings me to an interesting thought...which might be better in a different thread but now I'm curious.

 

What is the point of having fully functioning/clickable cockpits if people just want to assign buttons to everything? Not saying this is bad or anything, just curious, it takes a ton of time, modeling, texturing, animations, and coding to get interactive cockpits.

 

I know with modifiers you can get lots of buttons, thats pretty much the same as most sticks from TM, logitech, saitek etc.

 

Just look at one of the button maps for the 940 to control the A10 and you can see it's not ideal when you have to go through different modes to share the two hats on the stick between different functions..

 

With modifiers, it doesnt lack the number of programmable buttons but I wouldnt trade my hog for FFB on a 940 with the button compromises and def not in VR.

[dot]

If I get the right spring then yes it can. It's a fly by wire aircraft: the control complexity is in the fbw computers. This can all be replicated by DCS on our desk top computers.

 

I've tried my best to explain but you seem so convinced I'm wrong that nothing I say will convince you otherwise.

 

I'm not to bothered with convincing you (frankly I don't care what you think), but this kind of ignorance and BS was probably the reason why we don't have force feedback now (manufacturers like spring because it's cheap, so they are quite happy with the current state of things) so for everyone else reading this (including manufacturers) I'm happy to be the troll whisperer.

 

You have already convinced yourself that your spring is realistic (you probably need to justify the purchase to yourself first), what I was trying to explain is that pretty much any aircraft does not have a basic 'spring' feedback, but much more complicated and detailed input controls.

 

You cannot have a constant 4 pounds force per g on your spring (this means you would have 12 pounds at 3 g and 20 pounds at 5 g), no matter how much you would like to, your poor spring doesn't know how much g you are pulling at any point.

 

Just because your device manufacturer has put a 'realistic' sticker and really high price doesn't mean that it's actually realistic m'kay :thumbup:

[Flamin_Squirrel]

...your poor spring doesn't know how much g you are pulling at any point.

 

No, but the FBW does.

 

You have already convinced yourself that your spring is realistic

 

You said that "you are missing a lot if you have a spring joystick"; all I did was point out that people with springs sticks aren't necessarily missing out as much you might think.

 

I never claimed spring sticks are 100% realistic 100% of the time, but I identified an aircraft where springs are used, even if not 100% of the time. I cited evidence and answered your points as best I could. You've come back with insults and no coherent objective counter points.

 

Call me an ignorant troll if you like, but really, if you've had to resort to hurling insults, I doubt anyone else will see it that way.

[dot]

No, but the FBW does.

 

 

 

You said that "you are missing a lot if you have a spring joystick"; all I did was point out that people with springs sticks aren't necessarily missing out as much you might think.

 

I never claimed spring sticks are 100% realistic 100% of the time, but I identified an aircraft where springs are used, even if not 100% of the time. I cited evidence and answered your points as best I could. You've come back with insults and no coherent objective counter points.

 

Call me an ignorant troll if you like, but really, if you've had to resort to hurling insults, I doubt anyone else will see it that way.

 

People can read your previous posts (if moderators don't remove them) and make up their mind.

 

e.g you said 'But if you're into modern fighters, then a spring stick is more realistic'

It seems to me that you have ran out of arguments so you have resorted to both sneakily knocking down my reputation and going back on you words and posting dramatic and soppy replies about me being rude.

This is a public forum so be prepared that I call out BS when I hear one.

[DerekSpeare]

Yes, so some are pro FFB and others are not. Such is life :joystick:

 

Back to the Oculus...Clickable cockpits are really vital, there's no question there. I would really like all of the cockpits in DCS to be clickable, the F15 being one of them.

 

I like to have my most important-to-use functions readily available on a button, but many others are easier to use simply by looking down at it and using it just like in real life.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

How does the cursor work with the rift, same way as TIR?

[_Acoustic_]

 

Back to the Oculus...Clickable cockpits are really vital, there's no question there. I would really like all of the cockpits in DCS to be clickable, the F15 being one of them.

 

I like to have my most important-to-use functions readily available on a button, but many others are easier to use simply by looking down at it and using it just like in real life.

 

Agree completely. I just bought the F-15C with my bonus points because I wanted an afterburner aircraft for when I get the rift (for speed reasons) since I only fly the A-10C and P-51. It was actually harder to fly and more frustrating not being able to click on things for some reason.

[DerekSpeare]

ED really needs to update all of the planes without a clickable cockpit to have a clickable cockpit.

 

If anyone here is using FlyInside for FSX/P3D they will know how good it is to use. There, the control information flyout banner is also quite easy to read, unlike in DCS.

[hansangb]

Derek is spot on. I'm building a switch box *JUST* to support Rift. While looking at buttons in DCS (clickable cockpit) is quite intuitive, I just want to reach down and arm the lasers etc. And now I'm even looking at rotaries to help with the A10 functions.

 

Derek your rotaries on the FLT2 (or 1), do you use them for changing freqs, or Steer Pts?

[_Acoustic_]

https://www.gloveonevr.com/

[hansangb]

But we're beholden to DCS/ED to implement it, right? I'll buy one if DCS supports it *and* it's much much much more accurate than Leap.