VR Inclusion in MSFS

[TechguyMaxC 516]

1 minute ago, HiFlyer said:

So...... who says that vr users have not signed up in droves? Do you have inside info that they have not?

LOL, yeah, I'm TOTALLY sure they did that 😉

Especially since this is literally the first time this fact has been brought up in this context.

You show me ONE VR evangelist saying anything about signing up for the tech alpha because of the potential to influence Microsoft to include VR.

 

One.

Edited October 7, 2019 by TechguyMaxC

[BrettT 63]

1 minute ago, TechguyMaxC said:

LOL, yeah, I'm TOTALLY sure they did that 😉

Especially since this is literally the first time this fact has been brought up in this context.

You should me ONE VR advocate saying anything about signing up for the tech alpha.

 

One.

I signed up 🙂    and I am not only a VR advocate I am a VR user 🙂

 

[Casualcas 830]

Ignore the man under the bridge 

[HiFlyer 9,369]

7 minutes ago, TechguyMaxC said:

LOL, yeah, I'm TOTALLY sure they did that 😉

Especially since this is literally the first time this fact has been brought up in this context.

You show me ONE VR evangelist saying anything about signing up for the tech alpha because of the potential to influence Microsoft to include VR.

 

One.

The tone of your posts is illuminating.

When I signed up for the tech demo I had no idea whether it was going to have VR or not, but I was very encouraged by Microsofts questions about VR, and gladly gave the details about the three VR headsets that I currently own. At the time, I assumed it was a no-brainer that VR would be included.

Now that I know that that's not necessarily the case, yes, I am speaking up, hopefully in a much more constructive manner, than some.

[TechguyMaxC 516]

Just now, HiFlyer said:

The tone of your posts is illuminating.

When I signed up for the tech demo I had no idea whether it was going to have VR or not, but I was very encouraged by Microsoft questions about VR, and gladly gave the details about the three VR headsets that I currently own. At the time, I assumed it was a no-brainer that VR would be included.

Now that I know that that's not necessarily the case, yes, I am speaking up.

I don't include you in the aforementioned group.  There is a group of users who are only here to advocate for VR.  Many of them have zero interest in flight simulation, and will likely not post here ever again, especially now that the poll has closed.

If you want to defend these people's actions feel free, but you should realize that I'm not attacking you (or anyone else for that matter).  

[HiFlyer 9,369]

8 minutes ago, TechguyMaxC said:

I don't include you in the aforementioned group.  There is a group of users who are only here to advocate for VR.  Many of them have zero interest in flight simulation, and will likely not post here ever again, especially now that the poll has closed.

If you want to defend these people's actions feel free, but you should realize that I'm not attacking you (or anyone else for that matter).  

If there were a plethora of first time posters, I could more easily support your argument.

Since I myself saw only about two or three, and since a mod did step in to point out that posters were all required to be members in good standing, I would have to see solid evidence to the contrary before becoming concerned.

[TechguyMaxC 516]

5 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

If there were a plethora of first time posters, I could more easily support your argument.

Since I myself saw only about two or three, and since a mod did step in to point out that posters were all required to be members in good standing, I would have to see solid evidence to the contrary before becoming concerned.

"members in good standing" is a vague statement.  That could simply mean they haven't been banned.  I see no mention of a post count pre-requisite.  If a mod/admin would care to elaborate on the post count requirement for poll participation (or complete lack thereof) that would clear this issue up.

The evidence that the aforementioned poll was influenced by people that care only about VR, and not about flight sim, was already presented to you several times in that thread by myself and other posters.  You remember all those links to reddit?  You don't even have to click them, just read the URL and you can see the topic of the post.  There was an individual, a VR "evangelist" who spammed EVERY SINGLE VR "forum" on reddit (they're called subreddits) telling people to vote for VR in the poll here at Avsim, saying quote:

"People there are actively dismissing inclusion of VR in MS2020."

https://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/dcect5/please_cast_your_vote_on_avsim_forums_if_you_want/

Literally NO ONE was doing this.  He riled up the VR evangelist community by framing the issue as an "anti-VR" poll, or that we are an "anti-VR" community here.  It's a false premise, and it served to inflame the debate.  

[HiFlyer 9,369]

I'm a member of zillions of flightsim groups, including Reddit, which does nothing (I believe) to undermine me as a member of Avsim or affect my ability to vote here. Nor does it say anything negative about my commitment to flight simulation.

As for "spamming" I'm not even sure we are in the same universe on this one unfortunately.

When I receive an email asking me to join a petition to be presented to congress (or wherever) or to add my name to some protest or other, is that illegitimate in some way?

When you are called to rally for a vote (any type of vote) is that "spamming?"

I was under the impression that this is simply how modern Democracy, and especially modern social media function.

Certainly when people from this forum were encouraged to also flood the DTG Steam forum with their requests, there was no concern expressed about "spamming".

At that time it was considered a legitimate way for "The Community" to reinforce and make heard its desires.

To be frank, what I actually felt during this particular poll was that it was already inadvertently doomed to be tainted simply by its location.

It was a bit like asking whether manned spaceflight had a future..... At an astronaut convention.

Many of us, I suspect, expected the simmers who "spammed" the same cookie-cutter requests throughout the discovery phase of FLIGHT and DTG sim to flood to the poll from their various sub-forums and pretty much drown out all other voices.

The angst, I believe comes from the shocking fact that this did not go as expected.

But......... that's Democracy.

[irrics 1,517]

People have got to stop with “the poll was invalid because it was advertised!”

More people voting and/or coming here just to vote does not invalidate the data, in fact I think it adds more credibility to it.

More people from more diverse sources of FS interest voting help us really get a better sample of where the minds are at.

VR interest is very high for a product like this.  That shouldn’t be a surprise and it surely isn’t to anyone who’s played any simulation games in VR.

It’s totally game changing and makes it *really* hard to enjoy non VR ever again.

[vortex681 806]

On 5 October 2019 at 3:22 PM, daveinca2000 said:

And they wonder why people avoid this forum. We need to be getting new member of all levels of flight simulation on these boards. The acolytes need to tone it done, seriously.

This obviously applies to both sides of the argument?

On 5 October 2019 at 4:05 PM, irrics said:

Glad to see some sanity has made it into the forum poll about features.

But, as has been pointed out in the poll thread, it doesn't really matter if VR comes top in the poll because it can't possibly represent the wishes of the majority of the community as they don't have VR! It only represents the top feature on the list of those that have a VR headset. Why would anyone logically vote for a feature that they couldn't use (if they didn't have a VR headset) over a feature that they could?

On 5 October 2019 at 8:36 PM, MikaelKahkonen said:

No VR no buy.

P.S. Why are non-VR people so angry?

Based on figures we've seen in the Navigraph and X-Plane surveys, even if everyone with a VR headset boycotted the new sim, it probably wouldn't significantly damage the sales.

1 hour ago, Casualcas said:

Maybe not all flightsims use Steam. Maybe not all games on steam are Flight simulators, how many left hand drive cars are in England?  Let's not get into statistics without a whole picture and complete numbers. We're guessing

The inclusion of Steam stats was in response to an earlier post that suggested that the new sim would need to appeal to gamers outside of the traditional flight sim world. Statistically, there are relatively very few VR gamers outside of the sim world.

 

[irrics 1,517]

7 minutes ago, vortex681 said:

Why would anyone logically vote for a feature that they couldn't use (if they didn't have a VR headset) over a feature that they could?

People perhaps tried it or heard about it or tried and decided to wait for better tech/implementations, etc.

I’m in that very last category actually.  I don’t currently have a headset.  I’d planned to get a Reverb and use XP literally right when MSFS news dropped.  

That made me put it all on hold and decide to buy when MSFS release is closer and get the best HMD at the time (might still be Reverb - who knows).

What I do know is that even my first/second gen VR experiences, despite lacking resolution, were jaw dropping and game changing enough that it totally nuked any interest I ever have in 2D simming again. 

Edited October 7, 2019 by irrics

[irrics 1,517]

9 minutes ago, vortex681 said:

But, as has been pointed out in the poll thread, it doesn't really matter if VR comes top in the poll because it can't possibly represent the wishes of the majority of the community as they don't have VR!

Insert the term “seasons” for “VR” in your quote.

Do we invalidate votes from current users of Aerofly or XP who don’t have Seasons in their current sim?

Edited October 7, 2019 by irrics

[HiFlyer 9,369]

10 minutes ago, vortex681 said:

But, as has been pointed out in the poll thread, it doesn't really matter if VR comes top in the poll because it can't possibly represent the wishes of the majority of the community as they don't have VR!

Honestly, this just points back to how narrowly some are focusing. Is it really being posited that this tiny community is the main focus of this multi-million dollar effort by Microsoft?

Because if we are that lucrative and desirable, why have we not been flooded by civilian sims from companies racing to dip into the gravy these last few years?

Using occam's razor, isn't much more likely for the much larger communities represented by vr and the general public to be the final intended audience?

[irrics 1,517]

^^^ Absolutely

Also -MS no doubt would like to dramatically expand and grow the reach of their new FS effort, and thus a hyper niche of Avsim is of even less importance for gathering data about where to expand, grow, change and focus new features.

Edited October 7, 2019 by irrics

[HiFlyer 9,369]

Just now, irrics said:

Not to mention that MS no doubt would like to dramatically expand and grow the reach of their new FS effort, and thus a hyper niche of Avsim is of even less importance for gathering data about where to expand, grow, change and focus new features.

We do however represent a bunch of more or less guaranteed first day purchasers to get things off to a nice start, and in that respect are worth being on the good side of. The silliness comes when we start entertaining the notion that we are a big enough tail to wag the dog.