If you fly in VR consider moving to X-plane

[YukonPete 580]

I am waiting for the next generation of VR I think

[TuFun 426]

I am waiting for the next generation of VR I think

Same here.

 

Interesting article on possible VR effects.

 

http://venturebeat.com/2015/04/18/were-not-talking-about-what-vr-is-doing-to-our-eyes-and-our-brains/

[jkeye 150]

Interesting article indeed-I will buy the bit on addictive potential!

However for moderate use and if your visual system in healthy in the first place the side effects are likely to be minor and transient. At least that's my experience

Oddly in my first cursory reading i don't think there was a mention of VR sickness which usually gets better with time and by avoiding rapid changes in view.

But unless one tries it for themselves there's no way of knowing is there?

And like any new technology one will only learn about the full implications if any over many years.

i guess 5 years from now we will know for sure-but for now it's a great ride!

Jay

[mattp52 2]

Can anyone testing the FlyInside software confirm whether HUDs work correctly? Are the readouts focused into infinity and readable without zooming? Thanks.

[jkeye 150]

Hi there

Flyinside has been released officially for x-plane so there is a demo for anyone to try.

One needs to zoom in to read dials accurately but this does not detract from immersion

Jay

[CyberMike 18]

Pretty cool, might still get a Vive despite being first generation:

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/11/google-earth-vr-the-world-is-at-your-fingertips/

[m06w41 1]

The gist of the comments was that VR is a great step forward if you are used to modest quality graphics on a flat screen monitor at 1080p. If you've been using anything higher in resolution, especially a 4K TV, the present VR technology will look like VGA, albeit a realistic 3D VGA.

 

I'm new here, and even newer to XP as I just installed it but I think in all the comments this is a relevant point which I have ample experience to discuss.  It's important to remember that Reddit comments are merely an echo chamber.

 

For the past 2 years I have run 3 27" 144hz monitors in iRacing only...endurance races only in sports cars such as the 3 hour BPE races as well as on a team for the 24 hours of Daytona, Bathurst & Le Mans.  I've bBeen a member of iRacing since 2008 but last year upgraded to 2 970's in SLi.  Then improved my setup with a pair of 1070s beginning in July.  All of this gear is mounted in an 80/20 cockpit, specifically built for racing and given the size of the monitors, and the 48 degree slant between the main and the side monitors, my peripheral vision was covered.  I was happy with the experience and even though it took a bunch of horsepower, the resolution was fantastic and smooth as butter.  I didn't have everything dialed up all the way because I opted for high fps than rendering more ancillary graphics (grandstands for instance).  All those lovely graphics didn't really make me faster, but it made the entire racing sim lovely to play.

 

At the same time I upgraded to the 1070s, I purchased a the CV1 used from a fellow racer. 

 

Two things...First, resolution. 

 

Down the Mulsanne Straight when seeing the 300 meter braking board before the first chicane I could NO LONGER SEE the 200 meter board.  The draw distance shocked me.  It was disconcerting.  Suddenly, instead of thinking 2 seconds in front of the car I was thinking and driving closer to about a second in front of the car.  Not an issue because as much as I thought it would matter, it honestly didn't.  It didn't affect my speed, it didn't effect my driving because it was simply the detail was cut down.  I was used to the draw distance being really far out there, like my eye.

 

The second thing? 

 

The colours.  The colours are washed out compared to my monitors.  It again took some adaptation and more than a 15 minute under the hood and suspending my judgement about how crappy it all looked...it wasn't really crappy, but certainly less vibrant.  The tracks and the internals to the cars were a bit bland looking.

 

But did that matter? 

 

Most folks in the iRacing forums who judged that the VR experience wasn't worth it tended to fall back on the same reasons you did.  Resolution.  But anyone with more than an hour in in the Rift, actively running in anger around other cars found the following;  what the current generation of VR headsets lack for in resolution, they more than make up for in complete and convincing immersion. 

 

My lap times, at each and every track, more consistent and marginally faster once I became accustomed to what I was seeing and experiencing.

 

I was able to pick and chose my points at Mt. Panorama (of all the circuits where it's necessary) and see how close the walls come, to see how close I was to another bumper of a car when on top of the mountain, to feel the relative speed difference of an prototype car relative to my gt car...more than ever before.  Thge CV1 was the single best upgrade I've ever made (though naturally it needs a bit of horsepower) to my entire racing experience and I have been a member since the beginning.  It did more to enhance my game than any amount of eye candy was ever able to and I had ample horsepower to load up on eye candy. 

 

The point that if you have a modest setup (with lower resolution and detail) you may be okay with VR because the resolution isn't great reflects this /r/pcmasterrace notion that "more graphics" is obviously better.

 

For me, suspending my opinion that the graphics sucked was the first step in understanding that immersion was more important.  Without a doubt, I'll be first in line for the next generation of VR headsets too and I hope they come quickly.  But then again, that won't solve the "monitors and graphics are better because they are prettier" argument.  But saying one is better than the other based upon comments on reddit is uninformed.  Put a headset on, fly in FSX, XP, Elite Dangerous or drive in iRacing for 5-10 hours and see what you think.

 

By the way, Best Buy has the CV1 in stock and you have a 30 day return window if you don't like it.

 

I no longer use two of the monitors.  I run a single 144hhz 27" Dell the same cockpit and the rest of my gaming (iRacing, Elite Dangerous and now XP) are all done in VR.  Playing on a flat screen feels, in a weird way, artificial in a way that VR doesn't.

 

Fortunately, FlyInside makes it possible to fly with it. 

 

Is it perfect?  Nope, but no matter what your hardware is, there is little to match being convinced that you're really sitting there, in the seat of that car or plane...the brain becomes accustomed to it.

 

* edited for wording

[jkeye 150]

I'm new here, and even newer to XP as I just installed it but I think in all the comments this is a relevant point which I have ample experience to discuss.  It's important to remember that Reddit comments are merely an echo chamber.

 

For the past 2 years I have run 3 27" 144hz monitors in iRacing only.  Racing endurance only in sports cars so with 3 hour BPE races and on a team for the 24 hours of Daytona, Bathurts, Le Mans.  Been a member there since 2008 but last year upgraded to 2 970's in SLi and then with a pair of 1070s beginning in July.  The resolution was fantastic and smooth as butter...I didn't have everything dialed up all the way because I opted for high fps than rendering more ancillary graphics (grandstands for instance).  All those lovely graphics didn't really make me faster, but it made the entire racing sim lovely to play.

 

At the same time I upgraded to the 1070s, I purchased a the CV1 used from a fellow racer. 

 

Two things...resolution.  Down the Mulsanne Straight when seeing the 300 meter braking board before the first chicane I could NO LONGER SEE the 200 meter board.  That was disconcerting.  Suddenly, instead of driving 2 seconds in front of the car I was driving closer to about a second in front of the car.  Not an issue though...it didn't affect my speed but it took some getting used to.  All because I was used to the draw distance.

 

The second thing?  The colours.  The colours are washed out compared to my monitors.  It again took some adaptation and more than a 15 minute under the hood and suspending my judgement about how crappy it all looked...it wasn't really crappy, but certainly less detailed.

 

But did that matter? 

 

Most folks in the iRacing forums who judged that the VR experience wasn't worth it tended to fall back on the same reasons you did.  Resolution.  But anyone with more than an hour in in the Rift, actively running in anger around other cars found the following;  what the current generation of VR headsets lack for in resolution, they more than make up for in complete and convincing immersion. 

 

Lap times were, at each and every track, more consistent and marginally faster.

 

I was able to pick and chose my points at Mt. Panorama, to see how close the walls come, to see how close I was to a bumper, to feel the relative speed difference of an prototype car relative to my gt car better than ever before.  As a member of iRacing since 2008, the CV1 headset was the single best upgrade I've ever made (though naturally it needs a bit of horsepower).  It did more to enhance my game than any amount of eye candy and I had ample horsepower to load up on graphic details.

 

Your point that if you have a modest setup (with lower resolution and detail) you may be okay with VR reflects this pcmasterrace opinion that more graphics is obviously better.  For me, suspending my opinion that the graphics sucked was the first step in understanding that immersion was more important.  I'll be first in line for the next generation of VR headsets too.

 

I no longer use two of the monitors.  I run a single 144hhz 27" Dell the same cockpit and the rest of my gaming (iRacing, Elite Dangerous and now XP) are all done in VR.  Playing on a flat screen feels, in a weird way, artificial in a way that VR doesn't.

 

Fortunately, FlyInside makes it possible to fly with it. 

 

Is it perfect?  Nope, but no matter what your hardware is, there is little to match being convinced that you're really sitting there, in the seat of that car or plane...the brain becomes accustomed to it.

Well said! And that's exactly the crux of the issue-that high flat screen resolution in no way matches the sense of presence and immersion with vr-that dimension just doesn't exist on a 2d monitor

Jat

[pegruder 65]

I'm new here, and even newer to XP as I just installed it but I think in all the comments this is a relevant point which I have ample experience to discuss.  It's important to remember that Reddit comments are merely an echo chamber.

 

For the past 2 years I have run 3 27" 144hz monitors in iRacing only...endurance races only in sports cars such as the 3 hour BPE races as well as on a team for the 24 hours of Daytona, Bathurst & Le Mans.  I've bBeen a member of iRacing since 2008 but last year upgraded to 2 970's in SLi.  Then improved my setup with a pair of 1070s beginning in July.  All of this gear is mounted in an 80/20 cockpit, specifically built for racing and given the size of the monitors, and the 48 degree slant between the main and the side monitors, my peripheral vision was covered.  I was happy with the experience and even though it took a bunch of horsepower, the resolution was fantastic and smooth as butter.  I didn't have everything dialed up all the way because I opted for high fps than rendering more ancillary graphics (grandstands for instance).  All those lovely graphics didn't really make me faster, but it made the entire racing sim lovely to play.

 

At the same time I upgraded to the 1070s, I purchased a the CV1 used from a fellow racer. 

 

Two things...First, resolution. 

 

Down the Mulsanne Straight when seeing the 300 meter braking board before the first chicane I could NO LONGER SEE the 200 meter board.  The draw distance shocked me.  It was disconcerting.  Suddenly, instead of thinking 2 seconds in front of the car I was thinking and driving closer to about a second in front of the car.  Not an issue because as much as I thought it would matter, it honestly didn't.  It didn't affect my speed, it didn't effect my driving because it was simply the detail was cut down.  I was used to the draw distance being really far out there, like my eye.

 

The second thing? 

 

The colours.  The colours are washed out compared to my monitors.  It again took some adaptation and more than a 15 minute under the hood and suspending my judgement about how crappy it all looked...it wasn't really crappy, but certainly less vibrant.  The tracks and the internals to the cars were a bit bland looking.

 

But did that matter? 

 

Most folks in the iRacing forums who judged that the VR experience wasn't worth it tended to fall back on the same reasons you did.  Resolution.  But anyone with more than an hour in in the Rift, actively running in anger around other cars found the following;  what the current generation of VR headsets lack for in resolution, they more than make up for in complete and convincing immersion. 

 

My lap times, at each and every track, more consistent and marginally faster once I became accustomed to what I was seeing and experiencing.

 

I was able to pick and chose my points at Mt. Panorama (of all the circuits where it's necessary) and see how close the walls come, to see how close I was to another bumper of a car when on top of the mountain, to feel the relative speed difference of an prototype car relative to my gt car...more than ever before.  Thge CV1 was the single best upgrade I've ever made (though naturally it needs a bit of horsepower) to my entire racing experience and I have been a member since the beginning.  It did more to enhance my game than any amount of eye candy was ever able to and I had ample horsepower to load up on eye candy. 

 

The point that if you have a modest setup (with lower resolution and detail) you may be okay with VR because the resolution isn't great reflects this /r/pcmasterrace notion that "more graphics" is obviously better.

 

For me, suspending my opinion that the graphics sucked was the first step in understanding that immersion was more important.  Without a doubt, I'll be first in line for the next generation of VR headsets too and I hope they come quickly.  But then again, that won't solve the "monitors and graphics are better because they are prettier" argument.  But saying one is better than the other based upon comments on reddit is uninformed.  Put a headset on, fly in FSX, XP, Elite Dangerous or drive in iRacing for 5-10 hours and see what you think.

 

By the way, Best Buy has the CV1 in stock and you have a 30 day return window if you don't like it.

 

I no longer use two of the monitors.  I run a single 144hhz 27" Dell the same cockpit and the rest of my gaming (iRacing, Elite Dangerous and now XP) are all done in VR.  Playing on a flat screen feels, in a weird way, artificial in a way that VR doesn't.

 

Fortunately, FlyInside makes it possible to fly with it. 

 

Is it perfect?  Nope, but no matter what your hardware is, there is little to match being convinced that you're really sitting there, in the seat of that car or plane...the brain becomes accustomed to it.

 

* edited for wording

 

 

Well said! And that's exactly the crux of the issue-that high flat screen resolution in no way matches the sense of presence and immersion with vr-that dimension just doesn't exist on a 2d monitor

Jat

 

 

Well said indeed.  This is exactly how I feel about VR with my Rift.  At first, I was like, I can't read gauges, I can't see distance because the res makes it all seem muddy at first.  However after my first take off and landing, where your brain is actually tricked to thinking your flying, where you pull back on the yoke and nearly feel yourself pull away from the ground - that sealed the deal for me.  I've never had better landings than in VR.  I can almost repeatedly land lined up perfectly center every time now.  You get that sense of depth to know exactly when your about to feel the wheels touch down.  All of that makes up for any lack in resolution that will only improve going forward.  As for the things you can't read in VR, a simple tap of the "zoom" feature of FlyInside and you can zoom in as much or as little as you'd like to read radios, AP systems, FMC ect.  I can't wait to see what the next gen VR headsets are capable of!

[anubhavs 66]

Like the P3D version does the XP version support importing external windows into the VR view? Need a way to have sky vector and charts access and I used that feature constantly in P3D

[Lenny777 299]

Like the P3D version does the XP version support importing external windows into the VR view? Need a way to have sky vector and charts access and I used that feature constantly in P3D

 

 

Yes.

[ProsperGuy 0]

I am usually just a lurker, but I had to jump in on the VR debate.  I've been using FlyInside P3D, and now XP for almost 8 months.  There is now way I will ever go back to flight siming on a monitor.  In fact, if given the choice between a root canal, and flight siming with only a monitor, I would take the root canal. :smile:  If not for FlyInside, my rift would be collecting dust.  I haven't found any other VR content that has held my attention.

 

That is just my personal preference.  It's just like photo-scenery... I hate the stuff with a passion.  I can deal with a little bit here in there in a good scenery package, but otherwise it is not for me.

 

However, what is best for me is not going to be best for you. 

[anubhavs 66]

I am usually just a lurker, but I had to jump in on the VR debate.  I've been using FlyInside P3D, and now XP for almost 8 months.  There is now way I will ever go back to flight siming on a monitor.  In fact, if given the choice between a root canal, and flight siming with only a monitor, I would take the root canal. :smile:  If not for FlyInside, my rift would be collecting dust.  I haven't found any other VR content that has held my attention.

 

That is just my personal preference.  It's just like photo-scenery... I hate the stuff with a passion.  I can deal with a little bit here in there in a good scenery package, but otherwise it is not for me.

 

However, what is best for me is not going to be best for you. 

 

+1

 

I couldn't agree more and for anyone reading this if you have a VR headset, do yourself a favor and try this!

[Andreas Stangenes 1,628]

I use the htc vive with flyinside for p3d almost exclusively, and my honest opinion is that flight sim is THE best application availble on the consumer market to be used with VR. However, flying at night is a problem because the night lighting on taxiways and runways get distorted. The papi lights ie are so big and shiny they cover the entire airport at a 3nm final. I tend to only fly daytime flights because of this. 

 

So, my question to you who fly with Flyinside and xplane is how are the night lights working for you? One of the major benefits in xplane (non-vr) is the lighting at night. Does that translate well into VR?

[jkeye 150]

I use the htc vive with flyinside for p3d almost exclusively, and my honest opinion is that flight sim is THE best application availble on the consumer market to be used with VR. However, flying at night is a problem because the night lighting on taxiways and runways get distorted. The papi lights ie are so big and shiny they cover the entire airport at a 3nm final. I tend to only fly daytime flights because of this. 

 

So, my question to you who fly with Flyinside and xplane is how are the night lights working for you? One of the major benefits in xplane (non-vr) is the lighting at night. Does that translate well into VR?

Why don't you try the x-plane 10 demo and see for yourself? I've not done any night flights but will let you know.

Jay