VR Inclusion in MSFS

[SimPlaneDriver 173]

4 minutes ago, irrics said:

Also, this new MSFS is like 9+ months off from release anyhow, so the HMD space could even better and more diverse at that time (and certainly beyond).

Hand/finger tracking around the corner!

[irrics 1,517]

5 minutes ago, daveinca2000 said:

the VR naysayers who give us no reason for hating it.

I think they have convinced themselves that it's an either/or thing and features they want may get sacrificed or delayed if VR is implemented.

That's a theory I don't subscribe to personally.

[mpo910 2,112]

2 hours ago, vortex681 said:

The only easily accessible data for VR usage by gamers is the Steam Hardware & Software survey: https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Software-Survey-Welcome-to-Steam

Steam has in excess of 90 million active users worldwide and the monthly survey shows VR as being used by less than 1% of them over all game genres. I'm not trying to be negative about VR, I'm just trying to explain why I think MS doesn't see it as a priority for the initial release of the new sim. I'm sure VR support will come, but their priority surely has to be to make it work well for the majority of users (who don't use VR) first.

That is not accurate. P3D part of Xplane users and others could have bought elsewhere and not use steam but only steam VR for WMR. Native Game VR is not counted overthere. We do not know how they count. 

These numbers are far inaccurate.

For me a much better indicator is: How many units sold?

Why will VR be implementated in industriy and how often

These numbers are far bigger

But this is a discussion which does not help anyone.

I am a little shocked  how here is being argumented against an optional feature in a sim which does not interest others now and maybe even in the future by exacrly those users.

Why are they doing that? What is they Fear? This IS one and the same community and it is called Flightsimulator. 

[TuFun 434]

Have you guys listened to the AVSim interview on the front page about VR?  The MSFS Team is listening.

Around 19:55 on the audio.

 

Edited October 2, 2019 by TuFun

[Noodle 626]

I'm not "anti-VR", but I don't want to see it prioritized over the implementation of other missing features.

Certainly no one is out to take VR from you, and no one is "afraid" of what might happen if VR is implemented. Any perceived ill-will likely stems from the staunch position you guys take. As a community, you do a great job of being the "squeeky-wheel" so it seems like there are a lot of you. But when polls are taken and metrics calculated, it turns out you're a substantial minority.

That's not a slight. I too am a fan of VR, and I appreciate the stunning difference in immersion between 2d monitors and the 3d VR experience, especially in flight simulators. But the truth is, even with 200 developers, vying for their time and effort is a zero sum game. Every hour they spend implementing VR for the ~8% of simmers who use it takes away an hour of development time from a feature like ATC for the ~40% who prefer that instead.

There's no malice there. Just self-interest. 

I'm positive we're all going to get the features we want, whether its ATC or seasons, or VR. And I genuinely believe the timeline for achieving all those things will be shorter than we might otherwise expect.

[irrics 1,517]

14 minutes ago, Noodle said:

But the truth is, even with 200 developers, vying for their time and effort is a zero sum game. Every hour they spend implementing VR for the ~8% of simmers who use it takes away an hour of development time from a feature like ATC for the ~40% who prefer that instead.

Not necessarily.  Implementing VR brings thought processes and mindful performance concerns that will benefit even non VR users.

It's not strictly zero sum at all.

 

14 minutes ago, Noodle said:

I'm not "anti-VR", but I don't want to see it prioritized over the implementation of other missing features.

I take a little issue with this framing.  Which "missing features" do you mean?

Things like ATC could be destined for SDK/third party support and implementation.

Seasons, as many are concerned about, may not be seen as a required feature at this time for MS/Asobo, particularly as the scenery is going to be streamed and constantly updated on their end.  They may feel it's something that will be easier to deal with over time, on their servers, and pushed out.

Something like VR, I would argue, really is best done by the first party (not SDK/3rd party/hacky implementations), and considered and thoughtfully designed for earlier rather than later in the development so it's as integrated and planned for as possible.

 

14 minutes ago, Noodle said:

There's no malice there. Just self-interest. 

I appreciate you saying that.  I will admit the same.

I will also honestly say that I would love to see seasons and ATC and most all the cool things I've heard people clamor for.

I truly am arguing in good faith about VR.  I think it's a tremendous mistake if they go too far along with this new product and don't get VR in the mix as soon as they can.

 

Edited October 2, 2019 by irrics

[mpo910 2,112]

11 minutes ago, Noodle said:

I'm not "anti-VR", but I don't want to see it prioritized over the implementation of other missing features.

Certainly no one is out to take VR from you, and no one is "afraid" of what might happen if VR is implemented. Any perceived ill-will likely stems from the staunch position you guys take. As a community, you do a great job of being the "squeeky-wheel" so it seems like there are a lot of you. But when polls are taken and metrics calculated, it turns out you're a substantial minority.

That's not a slight. I too am a fan of VR, and I appreciate the stunning difference in immersion between 2d monitors and the 3d VR experience, especially in flight simulators. But the truth is, even with 200 developers, vying for their time and effort is a zero sum game. Every hour they spend implementing VR for the ~8% of simmers who use it takes away an hour of development time from a feature like ATC for the ~40% who prefer that instead.

There's no malice there. Just self-interest. 

I'm positive we're all going to get the features we want, whether its ATC or seasons, or VR. And I genuinely believe the timeline for achieving all those things will be shorter than we might otherwise expect.

Again you are using numbers which I assume you have not let verifying by them and so far in my opinion it so useless to argument like this. 

I really don´t think a company like Asobo AND MS are calculating like that. And IF there is just only a raise of cost without a direct revenue......it also could be a strategic and/or technical decission about near no one here on this thread is knowing anything from....

Users should require and probably argument why they want it......and Business Analysts/Product Owners/Devs should decide if, how and when it will/should and could be implemented.

It is really THAT simple. Everything else is so speculative and simply useless. 

 

Edited October 2, 2019 by mpo910

[Noodle 626]

7 minutes ago, mpo910 said:

...in my opinion it so useless to argument like this. 

...Everything else is so speculative and simply useless. 

 

I don't understand your post, but it sounds like you don't really want to discuss it. Which is fine.

[mpo910 2,112]

7 minutes ago, Noodle said:

I don't understand your post, but it sounds like you don't really want to discuss it. Which is fine.

i AM discussing this...hence my posts in this threat. But I like a usefull discussing and not a speculative discussion based on so many SOFT numbers which in no way represent a reality (not even Virtual.....Joke beside)

I call it: Dangerous half knowledgement from people who think and are convinced they have the knwoledge.....

Edited October 2, 2019 by mpo910

[Noodle 626]

 

12 minutes ago, irrics said:

Implementing VR brings thought processes and mindful performance concerns that will benefit even non VR users.

It's not strictly zero sum at all.

Which "missing features" do you mean?

Something like VR, I would argue, really is best done by the first party...

I truly am arguing in good faith about VR.

 

Sorry, I'm on my phone so multi-quoting is difficult. 

I agree it's reasonable to expect collateral performance improvement as a result of VR optimization. But I was referring specifically to the hypothetical number of hours budgeted for development. I assume there's a finite time and resource budget, and it can either be spent developing butterflies in the fields, or on other more pressing features.

As to what those more pressing, or "missing" features are, is the subject of debate. I feel the same way about ATC as you do about VR. I think they're both features best implemented by the first-party.

I absolutely believe you and others are arguing in good faith. No doubt about it. I just wanted to address the comments I saw painting "opponents" of VR as either afraid or alternatively vindictive. I can't say that there's none of that...this hobby brings out some pretty "passionate" character traits...but on the whole i believe people are dissenting in good faith, like you and I.

Personally, I'm confident we're all going to get what we want. It's just a matter of which order things get done. In the end, we'll all be smiling.

[Noodle 626]

11 minutes ago, mpo910 said:

I call it: Dangerous half knowledgement from people who think and are convinced they have the knwoledge.....

Ok. But I dont think you and I are going to find common ground, so I decline to debate the issue with you.

[irrics 1,517]

9 minutes ago, Noodle said:

I feel the same way about ATC as you do about VR.

I think reason I don't feel strongly about ATC, since you mentioned it, is that nothing touches Pilot Edge (or even Vatsim I suppose - been away from that forever though so I don't know) if you're in a region where you can use it, especially if you're a real world pilot.  

I guess if I could be convinced it'd be any good as done by MS/Asobo, maybe I'd be higher on it, but I'm not sure they'll value it high enough to do a phenomenal and truly complete (and updated over time) job with it.  I'd love to be wrong on that.  

ATC is not easy to do really well and in a convincing and useful fashion in terms of applicability to training and I personally don't think it's worth them even trying ATC if it's going to be a "video game version" of the real world counterpart.  For me it's sort of all or nothing on real world realism with something like ATC and procedures.

Edited October 2, 2019 by irrics

[mpo910 2,112]

1 minute ago, Noodle said:

 

Sorry, I'm on my phone so multi-quoting is difficult. 

I agree it's reasonable to expect collateral performance improvement as a result of VR optimization. But I was referring specifically to the hypothetical number of hours budgeted for development. I assume there's a finite time and resource budget, and it can either be spent developing butterflies in the fields, or on other more pressing features.

As to what those more pressing, or "missing" features are, is the subject of debate. I feel the same way about ATC as you do about VR. I think they're both features best implemented by the first-party.

I absolutely believe you and others are arguing in good faith. No doubt about it. I just wanted to address the comments I saw painting "opponents" of VR as either afraid or alternatively vindictive. I can't say that there's none of that...this hobby brings out some pretty "passionate" character traits...but on the whole i believe people are dissenting in good faith, like you and I.

Personally, I'm confident we're all going to get what we want. It's just a matter of which order things get done. In the end, we'll all be smiling.

Why you assume that it is the best to implement ATC par example by the core developper and not by third party? Only because right now the other sims haven´t a "nice working" ATC solution? 

at least I assuming that is the reason why pushing this one now (aka seasons). Please remind: I did not argument like that in case of VR. I just asked for VR at release and invited the community of VR users to chime.

But coming back to ATC. The fact that we don´t have very state of the art ATC in the current sims does not necessary lead to the same result in MSFS. Why am I thinking that? Because the engine is overhault AND they listened to the cmmunity what the "mainstream" would like have "better" implemented. That COULD  be a reason to prepare the engine for much better ATC implementation regardless by themselve or by third party. Remind also that SIDs and Stars are implemented as well.

 

[mpo910 2,112]

9 minutes ago, Noodle said:

Ok. But I dont think you and I are going to find common ground, so I decline to debate the issue with you.

That is fine of course. I don´t have to find common ground to discuss. But I would like to discuss fair and usefull. That is a difference. 

I like to communicate allthough mostly my time is very limited here. 

AND I am very sure we both want mostly the same features in an most best way implemented. Because we both like simulating!

 

Edited October 2, 2019 by mpo910

[Noodle 626]

Although I'd be happy to get into the details of my opinions and ideas for ATC, I dont want to clutter up your VR thread with OT discussion. I'll save it for a dedicated ATC thread.