I just got my very own 737-800...

[JacquesBrel 639]

Ehm...Is it really so bad?

 

There isn't really a single answer to "How is the VR display resolution?" I understand why some will perceive it as "not good enough for me." I'm in the "it's good enough for me" camp. Flight simulation is a pretty special case of VR gaming/simming, because especially flight simulation involves a lot of fine detail and small text that should require a higher display resolution than what is currently available in VR headsets. I also use VR for race sims and various games, and in those cases the display resolution is not a problem at all. 

 

With the hardware that we currently have, it is an individual verdict whether the resolution is good enough for flight simulation in particular. You will have to try it yourself and make your own decision, so I will advise everyone who want to use VR mainly for flight simulation, but are on the fence about jumping into VR, to buy their VR headset from a vendor that offers a trial period and a money back guarantee.

[aron 0]

Well I tried it, and for me it's not sharp enough. I only tried it in P3d. It was great on the ground but once in the air it turned into mush. Another problem I had was if I turned to quickly, or any movement that was too quick it would make me dizzy. I don't think that happens to everyone, but for me it did, and it made me nauseous.

I feel when the technology reaches 4K and the hardware can drive it at a high frame rate, this will be the flights enthusiast dream come true.

I return the Oculus Rift. I am watching the technology evolves, and when it reaches a high resolution and the hardware can drive it at that resolution I will be the first one to pick it up, because it is truly an immersive experience.

[WebMaximus 372]

Well I tried it, and for me it's not sharp enough. I only tried it in P3d. It was great on the ground but once in the air it turned into mush. Another problem I had was if I turned to quickly, or any movement that was too quick it would make me dizzy. I don't think that happens to everyone, but for me it did, and it made me nauseous.

I feel when the technology reaches 4K and the hardware can drive it at a high frame rate, this will be the flights enthusiast dream come true.

I return the Oculus Rift. I am watching the technology evolves, and when it reaches a high resolution and the hardware can drive it at that resolution I will be the first one to pick it up, because it is truly an immersive experience.

 

Thanks for your report Aron and you're not alone feeling dizzy after certain maneuvers, I've felt the same thing. Way back in this thread I mentioned how I feel that sensation when the aircraft comes to a full stop for instance and the nose will dip a bit just like when you're in a car. That little thing always makes me fell a bit dizzy for a split second and lately I've started to "solve" it by simply closing my eyes for a second or two just before the aircraft comes to a full stop :wink:

 

I can also feel the same thing when doing fast turns etc as you mention. Mostly I fly the NGX and I find that to be pretty OK in this regard because there aren't really that many fast maneuvers in that type of a/c but I also tried some smaller GA planes and even the Robinson helicopter included in P3D. It was a really cool experience but at the same time I quickly felt I wouldn't be able to do that type of flying for too long without starting to feel nauseous. On the other hand many said you'll get used to it and maybe that is true and I guess that is what I'm trying to find out right now. I still have a couple of weeks left to try my Oculus glasses out before I need to decide if I should keep them or get my money back.

 

Although I was the guy starting this thread and expressing my great enthusiasm (which I still feel so don't take this wrong) I also feel how I need to do more flying before I can come to a final decision whether I'll keep the headset or return it and wait for next generation both when it comes to VR glasses but also hardware in general powerful enough to run next gen VR gear and being able to maintain both great IQ as well as FPS and overall smoothness.

 

I do hope though I will end up keeping the VR glasses because it would feel sooo boring going back to "flying" on a 2D screen now after this and getting used to fly the aircraft from the cockpit rather than from in front of your desk...

[theskyisthelimit 48]

Maybe its just me, but after some time, weeks, using the rift.. i no longer feel the dizzy feeling anymore.. maybe my brain has grown used to it by now, unsure.

[WebMaximus 372]

Maybe its just me, but after some time, weeks, using the rift.. i no longer feel the dizzy feeling anymore.. maybe my brain has grown used to it by now, unsure.

 

Yeah, I read lots of people saying the same thing so this is what I hope will happen in my case too...and hope not getting dizzy anymore isn't a sign your brain is already screwed up :wink:

[Bob Scott 7,716]

Ehm...Is it really so bad?

 

 

For me, yes, the image quality was unacceptable.  If, like me, you're one of the many who have chased the holy grail of image quality, what you can do today with a good GPU on a large-format 4K screen is pretty stunning...and it took a long time and a lot of iterations of faster and faster video cards, monitors, CPUs etc to get there.  On my 55" 4K TV, the display units on an unzoomed 737NG panel are 85% of life-size, and I can read all the fine detail on every display without moving from my normal seated position. It's just not acceptable to me to go back to something that looks like FS5 in terms of image quality.

 

The VR goggles absolutely create an immersion that can't be replicated on a screen.  The idea ErichB mentioned above about using the VR goggles to fly as a passenger, perhaps re-flying a flight you recorded earlier, seems more in line with that capability.  Ultimately, I think VR will have mass appeal in the gaming world, and perhaps we'll see real movement towards hi-definition VR using a solution engineered specifically for VR like a pair of synchronized and powerful GPUs, each driving one side of the VR glasses.  My gut feel is that VR is not mainstream enough--yet--to justify that kind of investment in the technology, but it's coming.  Even with high-def VR there will still be some issues to get past, such as the disconnect between the physical world and your view in sim (hands, switch activation, flight control hardware etc).  And I hope the makers of future VR devices come up with some better solutions for physical challenges associated with VR goggles such as accomodating eyeglasses, fogging under the hood, etc.

 

Regards

[ComSimPilot 623]

Probably everyone has another opinion, but anyone tried this will know that this is future of flight simulation. Having a physical joystick or yoke, plus pedals and throttle and operate everything else with virtual hands. It is a slick implementation as real as it ever can get if you are not there. The only thing missing now except higher resolution is rotation gestures in FlyInside to be able to rotate switches naturaly, but I'm sure it will come soon. This way of simulation not only brings you in another word, but also gives you the opportunity to taste the full potential of payware aircraft. You don't have to spend a fortune building a home cockpit of one aircraft model and being forced to fly only that, but you have instead any aircraft in your virtual environment with the accuracy and feeling of a home build simulator, plus that its not only a 3D cockpit world but also a 3D outside word. Don't forget also the so much  higher FPS that you get, the until now holy grail of simulation. Smooth camera movement is also something not emphasized as it should had. In 2D, I had always the complain that TrackIr was not always butter smooth, breaking the immersion. in 3D there is zero lag in that respect, your eye-point is moving as naturally as if you were there. About the resolution, this is the best resolution that we have right now and of course you can always do a 2D flight if you miss the high res visuals, thought then you'll miss the 3D feeling. The world is not perfect, we live with what we have or we wait for the future. But to me, 3D opens an exciting new age and comparing it with a high res 2D sim is not fair.

 

PS. You can also have both words. Take-off and land in VR, cruise in 2D.

[WebMaximus 372]

@Daedalus

 

Not sure if you mentioned it already but what is your hardware spec?

[Bob Scott 7,716]

@Daedalus--is it really possible to transition back and forth between VR and a full-sized monitor display?  I don't believe that to be the case, but I'm not sure of it.

 

One thing I have to violently agree with is the amazing tracking resolution of the Oculus Rift...lag-free and accurate, it really puts TrackIR to shame.  Hopefully that technology can be applied to a much better generation of head-tracking tools than the current TrackIR, which I have always found severely underwhelming.

 

Regards

[ComSimPilot 623]

@Daedalus

 

Not sure if you mentioned it already but what is your hardware spec?

Hi Richard. It is first line on my signature, though the letters are quite small

 

 

@Daedalus--is it really possible to transition back and forth between VR and a full-sized monitor display?  I don't believe that to be the case, but I'm not sure of it.

 

You are right Bob, it will not be an instant switch. I was referring to saving and re-loading the flight. I always do that in before T/D to unload VAS and not get an OOM on arrival.

[glider1 90]

Well I tried it, and for me it's not sharp enough. I only tried it in P3d. It was great on the ground but once in the air it turned into mush

The biggest problem with Flyinside right now and acceptance of VR in general is that people are trying out VR at the default resolution, not the supersampling resolutions particularly 4K.

 

Could you tell us whether you tried supersampling? Default resolution is bad I agree and the scenery was mush for me too, but I believe it is incorrect to say that the scenery turns into mush on 4xsupersampling. It becomes blurry but I fly a lot of VFR and it is definitely good enough on that setting. The definition of "Good enough" means you can enjoy the scenery and do proper navigation as well.

For me, yes, the image quality was unacceptable. If, like me, you're one of the many who have chased the holy grail of image quality, what you can do today with a good GPU on a large-format 4K screen is pretty stunning

Unacceptable is relative to a 4k screen but that does not mean that the resolution is actually unacceptable in general. Not if you supersample the image. 4k flatscreen people are sucked in by the pretty eye candy but that contributes nothing substantial to your actual simulator flying when you realise that you are actually sitting in front of a 2D picture of a simulation not actually in the simulation.

Yeah, I read lots of people saying the same thing so this is what I hope will happen in my case too...and hope not getting dizzy anymore isn't a sign your brain is already screwed up

Brain should get used to it but it takes a different amount of time for each person. For the first week I was seeing the screen door effect even in the real world but that went away too. I went down to the local park where I live and practiced doing balancing exercises in the real world and after months of VR 2-3 hours a day roughly 14 hours a week of VR I can honestly say there is no effect on my balance and coordination and my eyesight is improved because I am experiencing less eye strain than the equivalent time in front of that horrible old fashioned 4K flatpanel technology people will shake their heads and wonder how primitive that was ten years from now.

 

The biggest all time problem of VR technology is that it is going to be so addictive people will neglect the real world even more than they do already. If we want to be serious about VR technology, we have to have a discussion about this.

Could you share what values you're using to get this natural light? I never used this PTA so guess first step would be to figure out how to use it.

http://www.avsim.com/topic/494187-flyinside-vr-p3d-v33-experiences-and-questions-and-cfg-tweaks/?p=3490293

 

The correct values comes down to experiment. I'm not in front of my PC to give exact values or procedures for setting it up.

[WebMaximus 372]

 

 

Hi Richard. It is first line on my signature, though the letters are quite small

 

Thanks, sometimes I'm blind :wink:

[Bob Scott 7,716]

Unacceptable is relative to a 4k screen but that does not mean that the resolution is actually unacceptable in general. Not if you supersample the image. 4k flatscreen people are sucked in by the pretty eye candy but that contributes nothing substantial to your actual simulator flying when you realise that you are actually sitting in front of a 2D picture of a simulation not actually in the simulation.

 

No, sorry, neither supersampling nor 4xSGSS produced a readable panel from anything close to a normal sitting position.  And certainly the beauty of the high-res panel graphics is completely lost.

 

I have a lot of real-world time as both an instructor and a trainee in simulators of all kinds, from full-motion level-D boxes down to cardboard part-task trainers.  A readable panel is far more than "pretty eye candy" if your focus is on instrument flying or the management of a complex aircraft's systems.  Using every kind of sharpening mechanism available to me, I was unable to produce an experience on the Oculus Rift goggles that permits normal use of an IFR panel.  I can't fly an IAP using panel instrumentation that I can't read, and an instrument crosscheck using a spot zoom tool isn't going to do it, either.  My conclusion, based on a great deal of experience as both a professional aviator and a hobbyist, is that normal procedural operation of a complex aircraft simulation is untenable using the Oculus CV1.  It makes for a great 3D arcade experience, but for those who invest in detailed study sims and/or finely rendered graphical detail and lighting, the resolution limitations leave those capabilities on the table.

 

But, all that said, it's really up to the individual user to decide.  For those pondering it, I would strongly advise procuring the goggles from a local retailer that accepts returns.

 

Regards

[WebMaximus 372]

 

 

The correct values comes down to experiment. I'm not in front of my PC to give exact values or procedures for setting it up.

 

Thanks for the link, I've already started playing around with PTA and have been able to improve the lighting quite a bit.

 

When you speak about resolution and 4xsupersampling are you then referring to the SGSS in Nvidia Inspector?

 

And what is your hardware spec if you're able to run 4xSGSS with good performance?

 

I tried 2xSGSS but with my single 980Ti and a 6700K @ 4.5 GHz I noticed a severe performance drop in the NGX so couldn't stay with that setting enabled.

[glider1 90]

When you speak about resolution and 4xsupersampling are you then referring to the SGSS in Nvidia Inspector?

 

And what is your hardware spec if you're able to run 4xSGSS with good performance?

 

SGSS stands for sparse grid super sampling which is not what I'm talking about sorry about the confusion. What I'm talking about is the flyinside setting that enables 3840 whatever resolution which is straight super sampling (not sparse grid). It reminds me of DSR technology, upscales it to 4K res then downscales it to goggle res. Nvidia SGSS on top of supersampling would be overkill in my openion and I doubt it would do much might even make it worse (too blurry). That is why a 1080ti is probably useless for CV1 P3D Flyinside as it stands now but good for other games. EDIT: suggest adding some MSAA on top of supersampling but not adding SGSS.

 

My conclusion, based on a great deal of experience as both a professional aviator and a hobbyist, is that normal procedural operation of a complex aircraft simulation is untenable using the Oculus CV1

 

Totally agree but I thought that would be commonsense. IFR of a complex aircraft doesn't even need any scenery enabled either other than a terrain mesh and simple airports with accurate runways and taxiways with some simple gates for scenery objects. IFR training of a complex aircraft is a specific skill that needs specific equipment. No argument there.

 

But flyinside is about the overall experience of everything it is to flight sim including scenery. You cannot base an argument against first generation virtual reality all because it is unsuitable for one specific activity - IFR of complex commercial aircraft.

 

IFR in virtual reality works great for smaller aircraft that you find in GA and I'm sure it would be incredibly useful to complement real world training because in virtual reality you have much more overall situational awareness - not just the instrument panels.

 

My specs are i7 6700k OC 4.7GHz 1080 water cooled 3200MHZ 16GB DDR4