1 hour ago, daveinca2000 said:

Wrong guy. I think. Lol but I can take a stab at it. I personally want to use my plane as a toboggan. Wheeee.  I’m not kidding 

Lmao!

(Insert crash land scene from Madagascar here...)

2 hours ago, daveinca2000 said:

Wrong guy. I think. Lol but I can take a stab at it. I personally want to use my plane as a toboggan. Wheeee.  I’m not kidding 

Courchevel will be perfect for a few runs on skis. Woot! 

5 hours ago, irrics said:

The new/younger/VR oriented user

I want VR and I'm 63 years old.

But then, I also want full peripheral support so I can use my home cockpit setup in non-VR.

Lets lobby for both VR  AND improved ATC !

Edited October 4, 20196 yr by smoothchat

So far the discussion of VR or not VR is centered around simmers. Some simmers want VR, some simmers don't want VR, at least not as priority. But have you considered the opinion of the general public? Some say the general public is not the targeted buyers. That's wrong. Microsoft Flight Simulator series have alwasy appealed to the general public, and many from the general public buy it, and some of them become simmers. Are we all previous "general public"?

I have watched the opinion from the general public towards the new MSFS, and it's enthusiastic to say the least. Many just want to buy it. Whether they will stick to it and become simmers is another matter. Microsoft must be aware of this. Isn't this the very reason why they rebooted MSFS?

If so, how does that count to VR? Well, very much. If the new MSFS is also to appeal to the general public, then a lot of PR and enterprise image building should be taken into consideration. Sure the general public has as few VR headsets as simmers, but they all think VR is the fashion, the tide, and the future, thanks the promotion of Oculus, and such movies as Matrix and Ready Player One. 

Now if the general public get to learn that the new MSFS DOES NOT have VR, while all other flight simulators have it, what will they think? It will be a flop, a lost in confidence, and a PR disaster.

Edited October 4, 20196 yr by yanfeng12342000

On 9/30/2019 at 1:53 AM, nickhod said:

Woke up to the flood of MSFS videos and got as excited as a 4 year old on Christmas morning. Then the bombshell in Froogle's video at 25:08

"We asked them about VR they've said no, VR would not be in there at launch, maybe later on but it's perhaps a longer term goal".

Aaaad there's my hopes dashed against the rocks. Not even "no VR from the start, but it will definitely come with an update".

If there's no VR from the start, I doubt the whole thing will ever be optimised for VR. They'll no doubt be targeting 30-40 fps at 4k rather than the 90fps kind of performance VR requires.

The sim looks amazing, but playing on monitors just does nothing for me.

I would imagine the guys over at IPACS (Aerofly FS2 - best sim for VR by a mile) are breathing a huge sigh of relief this morning.

Edit: A clip of the Asobo staff discussing VR gives a more favourable view than Froogle's recollection of what was said. See my comment  

 

 

You have to build your cockpit...don't use monitors for instruments....also get a 49" curved monitor or multiple monitors for your view and wrap them around you...then it's more "real" than VR. I don't want to be fiddling with virtual instruments...would rather have a solid panel in front of me like a real plane. VR would be cool to fly around in like track IR...but not for serious simming.

Edited October 4, 20196 yr by Flybynumbers

9 hours ago, Kilo60 said:

I don’t get for the life of me why VR would be a priority over ATC in any realistic flight sim!

 

Might as well rebox MS Flight and everyone can just fly GA around taking off on the wrong runways in the wrong directions with no other AI aircraft anywhere or AI flying right into you with no ATC vectoring while sightseeing in their pretty VR view!

Aviate, Navigate, Communicate. VR is directly relates to rule no. 1. What about ATC?

Moreover, have you ever hear of PilotEdge/Vatsim/Ivao? A native ATC system will probably not replace those.

Yes, for me VR is much, much more important than ATC.

Edited October 4, 20196 yr by GCBraun

15 minutes ago, GCBraun said:

Aviate, Navigate, Communicate. VR is directly relates to rule no. 1. What about ATC?

Moreover, have you ever hear of PilotEdge/Vatsim/Ivao? A native ATC system will probably not replace those.

Yes, for me VR is much, much more important than ATC.

VR is not realistic...it's fun to fly around but it isn't simming. If you want a realistic experience then build a cockpit...ATC is crucial for realism.

Edited October 4, 20196 yr by Flybynumbers

7 minutes ago, Flybynumbers said:

VR is not realistic...it's fun to fly around but it isn't simming. If you want a realistic experience then build a cockpit...ATC is crucial for realism.

Have you ever user VR with touch-controls in XP11 where every single switch of the aircraft can be interacted with using your hand? Where you can have a tablet with Navigraph charts in front of you? Where you don`t need to remove you glasses for anything? And all that while speaking to a real controller on Vatsim?

Yeah..."it isn`t simming". Please...

Edited October 4, 20196 yr by GCBraun

1 hour ago, Flybynumbers said:

VR is not realistic...it's fun to fly around but it isn't simming. If you want a realistic experience then build a cockpit...ATC is crucial for realism.

You have  never used vr i see. VR is currently the closest you can come to fly in reality without spending 15.000 dollars in a home cockpit.

14 hours ago, HiFlyer said:

Depending on how narrowly one chooses to define "everyone"

I'd define "everyone" as "all users”. I can't see how it's possible to define it any other way. Whether they choose to or not, everyone can use ATC, seasons or AI, for example. Only the relatively small number of people who own a VR headset can possibly use VR. Try to look at it dispassionately. If the devs have to restrict the number of features incorporated initially for resource reasons, doesn't it seem selfish to expect them to use those resources on something which is not usable by most people?

Edited October 4, 20196 yr by vortex681

9 minutes ago, vortex681 said:

Only the relatively small number of people who own a VR headset can possibly use VR. Try to look at it dispassionately.

What I would predict is that when MSFS gets released without VR and the press do their thing, every review is going to make a big point about the lack of VR and how it lags behind other sims in that regard. I think it's a marketing own goal for MS and Asobo. VR sends a message that this is a sim platform focused on the future; that they're skating where the puck is going, not where it has been.

The press are also going to make a meal of the fact that X-Plane VR was implemented by one dev in a few months. FlyInside one dev in a few months. Aerofly FS2 by a team of 5 - 8, some part time. Yet MS had a virtually unlimited budget couldn't get it done for launch. Possibly unfair, but the comparison will be made again and again.

Looking dispassionately, I agree with you. More people in total will enjoy seasons than VR. That only matters if it's a zero sum game though. You could implement VR and seasons at the same time. There's no overlap in requiring one to be done before the other.

Overall, I'm just very surprised that Asobo didn't have 1 or 2 devs working on VR right from the start (or from 2016).
You couldn't do that with seasons, lots of other stuff would need to be in place first.

2 hours ago, vortex681 said:

I'd define "everyone" as "all users”. I can't see how it's possible to define it any other way. Whether they choose to or not, everyone can use ATC, seasons or AI, for example. Only the relatively small number of people who own a VR headset can possibly use VR. Try to look at it dispassionately. If the devs have to restrict the number of features incorporated initially for resource reasons, doesn't it seem selfish to expect them to use those resources on something which is not usable by most people?

Only if I buy the argument, which I honestly don't.

What I see is a red herring designed to move other users priorities to the back of the bus by bringing up concerns about #resources, when we in fact have no idea on earth what Microsoft's resources look like.

This was done before in the DTG days, when people wrote small novels with super-detailed lists of "must haves" then instantly reversed and started worrying about "resources" when anything outside of the main groupthink was suggested.

As for selfishness, what I find selfish are the efforts by some, throughout what should have been a fairly unobjectionable thread, to argue essentially for conformity with their own apparently much more deserving priorities via an illusion of unanimity, since they are of course speaking on behalf of absolutely everyone.

7 hours ago, GCBraun said:

Have you ever user VR with touch-controls in XP11 where every single switch of the aircraft can be interacted with using your hand? Where you can have a tablet with Navigraph charts in front of you? Where you don`t need to remove you glasses for anything? And all that while speaking to a real controller on Vatsim?

Yeah..."it isn`t simming". Please...

Last I recall I can actually feel the switches I am touching...so no, not real. VR is immersive...but not realistic...big difference when simming. Simmer's want to recreate the conditions of flying in a real plane...thus we build cockpits. I'm not saying it isn't cool to fly around with...like a step up from trackir...but it won't be replacing my sim.

Edited October 4, 20196 yr by Flybynumbers

6 hours ago, Cyrex1984 said:

You have  never used vr i see. VR is currently the closest you can come to fly in reality without spending 15.000 dollars in a home cockpit.

Yes. It's fun to fly around...but it's not realistic. That's why pilots train in simulators...that's why people build cockpits. Remember when trackIR came out?

 

Edited October 4, 20196 yr by Flybynumbers

15 minutes ago, Flybynumbers said:

Last I recall I can actually feel the switches I am touching...so no, not real. VR is immersive...but not realistic...big difference when simming. Simmer's want to recreate the conditions of flying in a real plane...thus we build cockpits. I'm not saying it isn't cool to fly around with...like a step up from trackir...but it won't be replacing my sim.

How many cockpits can one person have? Is it "realistic" to fly a 747 with a joystick or a plastic Yoke from Saitek? A 787 with a Cessna-style throttles? A TBM-900 with a 737 cockpit, or vice-versa? With VR I have access to all those cockpits virtually and, yes, there is tactical feedback for the switches. All of that for a fraction of the cost of a single G1000 panel.