To give Microsoft and Asobo something that may help to priorities the requirements and functionallity "stack" related to VR in MSFS....

 

Please read the two choices complete to the end...because of course we want all bells and whistles.....but maybe first the basics and later the rest of our whishes

Edited November 18, 20196 yr by mpo910

If a poll at all, I miss the option:

- I am not interested in VR right now and hope that MS /Asobo put all their efforts into making MSFS a near perfect flightsimulator to be used with a monitor, release it asap, iron out all the inevitable bugs, and only then start the time consuming task to add VR support. 

20 minutes ago, RALF9636 said:

If a poll at all, I miss the option:

- I am not interested in VR right now and hope that MS /Asobo put all their efforts into making MSFS a near perfect flightsimulator to be used with a monitor, release it asap, iron out all the inevitable bugs, and only then start the time consuming task to add VR support. 

I did not forgot anything. You must have missed the headline of the topic. Just leave the topic and you will not be affected at all. 

MSFS stated already that they are working in VR. So this is a completely useless comment from you overhere.

Also I assume that we are not possible to analyse if VR implemenation costs ressources who could work on other parts like you whish for.....

Good poll! I opt for option 1: basic VR. The reasons are as follows:

1. It will appease VR enthusiasts' anxiety that MSFS will NOT have VR. It will prevent a riot.

2. It will appease non VR enthusasts' anxiety that VR will become a priority that will take up the resources that should be used in other places, as basic VR will hardly need any efforts. It is virtually adding a line of code, something like "VR=ON". Mission accomplished. Everybody happy.

3. It will instantly enhance the image of MSFS as a cutting-edge ultra-modern flight sim of the next generation. This is crucial for the advertisement to the public, even if the public does not have VR. Imagination is everything.

4. More advanced VR can be added later, step by step. Aerofly FS 2 has adopted this model, and it's quite a success, more admirable if we consider it's a tiny company with only 2 core programmers.

TL;DL It will make everybody happy.

Edited November 18, 20196 yr by yanfeng12342000

34 minutes ago, yanfeng12342000 said:

Good poll! I opt for option 1: basic VR. The reasons are as follows:

1. It will appease VR enthusiasts' anxiety that MSFS will NOT have VR. It will prevent a riot.

2. It will appease non VR enthusasts' anxiety that VR will become a priority that will take up the resources that should be used in other places, as basic VR will hardly need any efforts. It is virtually adding a line of code, something like "VR=ON". Mission accomplished. Everybody happy.

3. It will instantly enhance the image of MSFS as a cutting-edge ultra-modern flight sim of the next generation.

4. More advanced VR can be added later, step by step. Aerofly FS 2 has adopted this model, and it's quite a success, more admirable if we consider it's a tiny company with only 2 core programmers.

TL;DL It will make everybody happy.

Thanks for your feedback. I decided to poll because I saw some interviews with feedback from Mr. Jörg Neumann where he stated "they will do it good and proper and not throw it in". Well, that could mean a lot when we talk about functionallity and user experiences. I would like to give them some community feedback what the community would expect from a "first stage" of implementing or if they are willing to wait "x weeks/monts/years" for a better version with all the bells and whistles".

I personally assume, that the most of us VR users/interested future VR users would see basics asap and further enhancements later.

Why: Because once you fly in VR there is no way back to a screen. At least not for me. I assume again, that other VR users are experiencing the same feeling about that. 

That means, if the product comes without VR, it is possible that some would not buy it at all or, will buy it but will use it not as their main simulator. 

  

Edited November 18, 20196 yr by mpo910

5 minutes ago, mpo910 said:

Thanks for your feedback. I decided to poll because I saw some interviews with feedback from Mr. Jörg Neumann where he stated "they will do it good and proper and not throw it in". Well, that could mean a lot when we talk about functionallity and user experiences. I would like to give them some community feedback what the community would expect from a "first stage" of implementing or if they are willing to wait "x weeks/monts/years" for a better version with all the bells and whistles".

I personally assume, that the most of us VR users/interested future VR users would see basics asap and further enhancements later.

Why: Because once you fly in VR there is no way back to a screen. At least not for me. I assume again, that other VR users are experience the same feeling about that. 

That means, if the product comes without VR, it is possible that some yould not buy it at all or, will buy it but will use it not as their main simulator. 

  

I fully agree with you. I have all the other major flight simulators in the market, and all the major VR headsets including some prototypes such as Pimax 8K+. I have observed how the other flight simulators implement VR. The "step by step" model is quick to implement, easy to please the user, and it will not impede the more advanced implementation later. VR is firstly and mostly a visual thing. You will get great satisfaction from basic VR, even if the control is crippled.

I understand Asobo guys are perfectionists. That's great. Yet perfection might not be achieved in a day. As you have said, too much delay might cause the loss of the most devoted supporters. For me, it would be the greatest pity if we can't appreciate the beauty of MSFS on the super high resolution VR headset that will be on the market in this December.

8 minutes ago, yanfeng12342000 said:

I fully agree with you. I have all the other major flight simulators in the market, and all the major VR headsets including some prototypes such as Pimax 8K+. I have observed how the other flight simulators implement VR. The "step by step" model is quick to implement, easy to please the user, and it will not impede the more advanced implementation later. VR is firstly and mostly a visual thing. You will get great satisfaction from basic VR, even if the control is crippled.

I understand Asobo guys are perfectionists. That's great. Yet perfection might not be achieved in a day. As you have said, too much delay might cause the loss of the most devoted supporters. For me, it would be the greatest pity if we can't appreciate the beauty of MSFS on the super high resolution VR headset that will be on the market in this December.

Me too. Had a lot of them and enjoyed them all! Yes...all......but they engineered better and better HMD as time goes by.....surely not within one company so I changed brands as soon as something "better" released (2x Oculus, 2xSamsung, 1x Pimax, HP, and so on).

They should implement VR basicly and as a working product. Because THAT is something ALL VR Users USE in common sence! Using VR controllers to fly and click buttons is NOT everyones thing. So why not implement the basic functions which we VR Users all need and than enhance the VR functionallity along with feedback from users.....AGILE Development

Edited November 18, 20196 yr by mpo910

I'm of the opinion of do it properly and not half arsed.

My main gripe with vr in xplane is performance.  Visually you cannot play with AA less than 4x because it looks like word not allowed.  However that causes a fairly decent frame drop.  Rather than play I find I'm constantly adjusting settings trying to find a smooth non janky frame rate.

Apparently 40fps is supposed to be acceptable in vr.  I don't think it is.  Especially when you jump into a game with a smooth 90fps and you really realise the difference.  Hovering a helicopter in vr is amazing, however when you have to turn all your settings to low to get a good 60fps it kills the immersion.

Then with every new release of xplane vr seems to be a struggle. Sometimes its semi decent frame rates with major head tracking jumps. Sometimes the frame rate is poor.

I've played many vr games where everything is designed for vr and everything is smooth and works.  I would rather Asobo get it right, get the performance right, get it looking right and get the interface and controls right

15 minutes ago, Theboot100 said:

I'm of the opinion of do it properly and not half arsed.

My main gripe with vr in xplane is performance.  Visually you cannot play with AA less than 4x because it looks like word not allowed.  However that causes a fairly decent frame drop.  Rather than play I find I'm constantly adjusting settings trying to find a smooth non janky frame rate.

Apparently 40fps is supposed to be acceptable in vr.  I don't think it is.  Especially when you jump into a game with a smooth 90fps and you really realise the difference.  Hovering a helicopter in vr is amazing, however when you have to turn all your settings to low to get a good 60fps it kills the immersion.

Then with every new release of xplane vr seems to be a struggle. Sometimes its semi decent frame rates with major head tracking jumps. Sometimes the frame rate is poor.

I've played many vr games where everything is designed for vr and everything is smooth and works.  I would rather Asobo get it right, get the performance right, get it looking right and get the interface and controls right

Did you read my choices properly?

Both choices assume that they should be implemented with good performance and not halve arsed. Of course. 

VR has to be usable (related to the minimum requirements on hardware used/needed with VR). That means performance (fluidality, visuals and "error/ctd free").

We are only talking about time to market! Basics asap (VR on - usable with just a mouse pointer,hardware joystick/throttles etc. and some main functions in VR menus/pop up like ATC, Pushback menu usage, handle Safedocks, handle views/camera positions, move pop up menus and relocate them in VR, probalby save the location of choice.....etc.).

Or do it like Flyinside Flight Simulator and X PLane......Planes are fully usable/flyable with mouse AND/OR VR controllers.....every existing simulator menu is usable in VR, etc.

Summary:

1. Become basics well done but asap /at launch
2. Wait a longer time and have no VR untill ALL WORK is done with all bells and whistles (probly weeks or months/later)

Edited November 18, 20196 yr by mpo910

If you listen to the devs in the interview from the 16th, it's quite clear that they are going for option 2. No need for a poll.

Edited November 18, 20196 yr by FDEdev

1 minute ago, FDEdev said:

If you listen to the devs in the interview from the 16th, it's quite clear that they are going for option 2. No need for a poll.

Yes I did and exactly THAT is why I think it needs a Poll because I want to give the community of VR Users a chance to chime HOW they want it. 

Wait weeks/monts longer, have no VR at all to become a "car with all options" or have it earlier, usable VR and "become the options later"

70% of ALL developped functionallity in software isn´t required at all by users but only because "someone" thinks it COULD be needed.

Why not implement basics, the common sence ALL VR users need, and then enhance this VR option later, based on user feedback.

7 minutes ago, Theboot100 said:

I'm of the opinion of do it properly and not half arsed.

My main gripe with vr in xplane is performance.  Visually you cannot play with AA less than 4x because it looks like word not allowed.  However that causes a fairly decent frame drop.  Rather than play I find I'm constantly adjusting settings trying to find a smooth non janky frame rate.

Apparently 40fps is supposed to be acceptable in vr.  I don't think it is.  Especially when you jump into a game with a smooth 90fps and you really realise the difference.  Hovering a helicopter in vr is amazing, however when you have to turn all your settings to low to get a good 60fps it kills the immersion.

Then with every new release of xplane vr seems to be a struggle. Sometimes its semi decent frame rates with major head tracking jumps. Sometimes the frame rate is poor.

I've played many vr games where everything is designed for vr and everything is smooth and works.  I would rather Asobo get it right, get the performance right, get it looking right and get the interface and controls right

What fps is acceptable in VR? That really differs in different scenarios for different people . When I first tried VR on FSX with FlyInside plugin, I can only get around 20 fps, yet the satisfaction is immense. I will never forget it. Tony implemented some sort of primitive smart smoothing, which matures later in Oculus and Steam platform in different ways. Oculus definitely have the better algorithm and it obviously enjoys more smooth performance when the computer struggles for more FPS. 

Now FPS will be less and less a problem for VR, as Nvidia RTX graphics series have provided the basis for forveated rendering. Pimax headsets have already implemented fixed forveated rendering, and the more advanced type will also be in the market very soon with the eye tracking module. 

In a word, don't judge VR from the technology two years ago. It's advancing quickly.

Just now, yanfeng12342000 said:

What fps is acceptable in VR? That really differs in different scenarios for different people . When I first tried VR on FSX with FlyInside plugin, I can only get around 20 fps, yet the satisfaction is immense. I will never forget it. Tony implemented some sort of primitive smart smoothing, which matures later in Oculus and Steam platform in different ways. Oculus definitely have the better algorithm and it obviously enjoys more smooth performance when the computer struggles for more FPS. 

Now FPS will be less and less a problem for VR, as Nvidia RTX graphics series have provided the basis for forveated rendering. Pimax headsets have already implemented fixed forveated rendering, and the more advanced type will also be in the market very soon with the eye tracking module. 

In a word, don't judge VR from the technology two years ago. It's advancing quickly.

FPS is not important to me at all as long as:

• I have a fluid simulator when using VR 
• It does not make me sick because of stutters and motion delays
• It has good/clear visuals so that I can read my gauges (iif the HMD has enough resolution tlike reverb or Pimax) and see the "scenery clear"

Something between 25 and 30 FPS would be more than enough. I am having 30 FPS now in P3D at demanding locations like KLAX, EGLL, EHAM, EDDF etc. with Overcast clouds

Anything less than 60 fps is simply unuseable for maneuvering, monitor or VR. For airline type flying lower fps can be sufficient, but you shouldn't move your head too quickly in this case 😉

5 minutes ago, FDEdev said:

Anything less than 60 fps is simply unuseable for maneuvering, monitor or VR. For airline type flying lower fps can be sufficient, but you shouldn't move your head too quickly in this case 😉

Not true. Flight controls have being seperated from fps in MSFS as they stated