Guys VR is the future for FS. I can't go back to 2D

[dogmanbird 269]

It's not necessarily the clarity the extra FPS is helping, but it's the stuttery appearance of objects as they pass across in front of you at high speeds, but yeah 60 would have looked smoother. If you were flying straight at high altitudes in a Cessna while keeping your head still, you probably won't see a difference between the two.

 However, if you are using Motion Reprojection to synthesise frames, the extra FPS of 60 v 30 output from the game does usually help a bit with clarity, as Motion Reprojection ever-so-slightly blurs the image and can create wobble (sometimes a heat haze effect). The higher the FPS output from the game, the less wobble Motion Reprojection creates and a small improvement in clarity. Motion reprojection is helping you to convert 22.5 / 30 / 45 / 60 FPS  output from game     to     70 / 90 / 120 FPS in the headset, depending on the headset model. I find it remarkable what it can achieve considering the rate it has to operate at and with low latency.

The Quest 2 has at least 3 different motion reprojection algorithms that can be switched between in real time. Unless one's aware of this, it's highly likely they are playing the game using one that doesn't work well with the FPS output from the game. right cntrl key +  numpad 1, 2, 3, and 4 switches between them. it can make a big difference to smoothness of gameplay. It's highly likely people have tried VR for the first time this way, only to experience a strange ghosting look because of it and disliked the experience. Oddly, there's very little mention of this in their docs. 

Motion Reprojection adds a small amount of latency to the image and therefore your controllers may feel a little less responsive (you will see the aircrafts movements later than it actually is, therefore you will respond later than you normally would) in aircraft like a fighter jet and especially the helicopters, as the heli requires regular tiny and precise reactions. For most other aircraft not requiring such rapid and precise inputs it may not be noticeable at all.

^ MSFS seems to be particularly controller-input laggy when using motion reprojection because it appears to apply it's own controller input smoothing which adds to the latency. My experience with VKB controllers is they also have their own input smoothing, which further adds to input lag.  

DCS World appears to read the raw input data from the windows controller input without applying smoothing and therefore will feel more responsive than msfs.

Anyway - it's just my observations if any help 🙂

 

 

Edited January 20, 2022 by dogmanbird

[Kaboki 437]

50 minutes ago, MSFLYER5856 said:

Wouldn't that depend on the quality of the VR set? For instance, would the best VR set be better than a nice quality1080p monitor at 60 hz that I have?

 

Not even the best VR headset beats the image quality you can have on a 1080p monitor. If someone tells you otherwise, they are straight up lying.

But sure when we reach that quality VR is gonna be awsome. 2d screen can never give us the feeling of being there that VR can... But im still waiting for the tech to become better before i get back into it. My G2 is mostly collecting dust and occasionally used for adult entertaiment when my gf is not upto it...

[blueshark747 1,843]

2 hours ago, janda said:

VR in MSFS and other simulators is a technological leap, the one who says that it is worth nothing, that it is not needed, is wrong very much, because either he has never tried it or used it for tests of the first generation googles ... I use Reverb G2 for several months and since then I HAVE NOT DONE ANY FLIGHT IN 2D ... and I fly everyday, someone who skillfully uses VR knows that there is no going back to the traditional monitor as the main picture. BTW, I recommend the new Twin Otter in VR is just mindblowing .. 🙂

Just took the Otter for a spin!

It looks gorgeous in Stereoscopic 3D all the way down to the carbon/soot stains on the exhaust ports.🍻

 

[qqwertz 782]

17 minutes ago, blueshark747 said:

Just took the Otter for a spin!

It looks gorgeous in Stereoscopic 3D all the way down to the carbon/soot stains on the exhaust ports.🍻

 

Yep, probably the most beautiful plane for VR in MSFS that I have. In addition, it is so much easier to fly it in VR. You can actually get to those switches on the ceiling without having to twist and turn your viewpoint, or to go through multiple viewpoint presets 🙂

 

[blueshark747 1,843]

10 minutes ago, qqwertzde said:

Yep, probably the most beautiful plane for VR in MSFS that I have. In addition, it is so much easier to fly it in VR. You can actually get to those switches on the ceiling without having to twist and turn your viewpoint, or to go through multiple viewpoint presets 🙂

 

Yup I've actually used the touch controllers with it! Usually I don't bother with them.🍻

[PlumCrazy 228]

1 hour ago, MSFLYER5856 said:

If someone spent $600 on a VR Head Set, I can see them justifying not putting it aside and going back to using the monitor.

That's a laughable statement.  If I spent $10,000 on a VR headset and it made my flight simming experience worse than using 2D monitor(s), mine would be collecting dust.  Actually, I would simply turn around and sell the headset for close to what I paid for it new (exactly what I did when I upgraded from an Oculus Rift S to Reverb G2).  But my Reverb happily gets used almost daily for MSFS flying.  If my Reverb ever dies, I will have another VR headset on order the same day.  I can "justify" that expense because for me VR makes the entire flight sim experience worthwhile.  If I only had the choice of using 2D monitor(s) I wouldn't even bother booting up the sim.

 

[MarkDH 234]

2 hours ago, janda said:

the one who says that it is worth nothing, that it is not needed, is wrong very much

If you mean me, then along with Blueshark I would urge you to read what I have written in context, follow the reasoning and think about what I am saying before responding. I did not, for example, say anything like that VR is 'worth nothing'. It would be so interesting to be able to talk about this stuff in detail, but it seems really hard for people to do that.

If you track this particular argument back (and read it properly) you will find it arose from one simple thing I said, which is that stereoscopic vision does not contribute much to depth perception for anything beyond about 20 feet away. Assuming this is actually so (there is a lot of stuff you can read), then if MSFS generates its stereo images in correct proportion to the real world we should expect that nothing much beyond the wingtips looks especially '3D' even in VR. This doesn't mean that your HMD doesn't give you a compelling experience, it just means that if it does, you have to explain it some other way.

Once you start reading about depth perception it proves to be very much more complicated than you might imagine. For example, it involves movement, parallax and possibly even perceived motion blur. Here's another thought experiment, or indeed something anyone with a VR headset can try in vivo: if you block one of the lenses, does the whole sense of presence utterly collapse? I doubt it. Indeed, I wonder if some of that sense of presence that appears so valuable in close formation and car racing games is also available to (gasp) TrackIR users bcause it's probably not about stereoscopic vision. After all, if you take away the stereo vision a HMD is not all that different from TrackIR*.

[blueshark747 1,843]

1 hour ago, MarkDH said:

After all, if you take away the stereo vision a HMD is not all that different from TrackIR

That isn't the case either, I have developed a couple of VR injectors with options of turning stereoscopic 3D on or off.

The VR experience with stereoscopic off is just as immersive because of the feeling of presence and 6 DOF tracking you just aren't gonna get within the confines of TrackIR through a 2D monitor/box, as someone who's used TrackIR in conjunction with 3D Vision for years.

There are actually folks who enjoy VR more without the stereoscopic 3D as VR's FOV just goes well with most pc software title's 3d object architecture. 

So even without stereoscopic 3D there is still a feeling of presence and being inside of a sim/game that TrackIR just can't replicate.

As for folks having to "read what you are writing in context" doesn't work well when you are trying to tell folks with years of practical stereo 3D/VR experience what they are experiencing in their HMDs.

You can read about depth perception and parallaxes until your blue in the face, you were completely incorrect about stereoscopic 3d only being limited to the cockpit environment FOV in flight sims and also incorrect about the TrackIR comparisons with non stereoscopic 3D VR. You simply do not speak from practical experience in 3D/VR and it shows nor have you've read or followed Jörg Neumann and Asobo staff's MSFS VR work. They have pretty much touched on your points about depth perception and distance which is why MSFS is rendered in stereo 3D/VR the way it is.

Actually try the sim in VR and get back with us on that, you'll certainly need to upgrade your GPU though for a decent experience.

 

 

 

Edited January 20, 2022 by blueshark747

[Rocky_53 1,579]

Hmm, I admire people's excitement with this relatively new technology, but again, it's going to be good for some and not so for others. Just before the pandemic I was into DCS for about a year, my god now that is an intense sim if you want to do things properly. It was a friend of mine who is a veteran simmer who got me into it. Very soon after I was learning about the Harrier VTOL he asked me over to experience his VR headset, which he was shouting it's praises from the roofs of where he lived  I was very excited to experience the headset, I think it was an Occulus. On arrival I sat down, he put the headset on me and yes, immediately it was interesting. Was I blown away? Mildly. Was I impressed? Meeh. Having said that, he WAS blown away with it. Yes, I enjoyed the experience, but to give up my cockpit with all the hardware that I have built and the highly detailed 4k visuals of my 43" monitor, simply wasn't in the ballpark! He kept on saying, as he does now, "the immersion, you feel like you're right there" yes, I can see where he's coming from and I'm pleased he gets so much from  his VR experience. It really is a subjective thing. For me, I loooove having my switch panels and second monitor, EFIS and MCP, radio stack, GNS530 etc. For me, this gives me the total experience and of course I fly with TrackIR. I honestly couldn't part with all this for having a 3D experience. Can anyone convince me that it's possible to work with a G1000 in VR? I mean, come on. 

I'm not coming down on VR or those who enjoy it, I'm really happy that so many guys get so much from the tech, it's just not for me... why? well, it has been a couple of years since my experience, but I found the visuals significantly poor compared with my 4K 43" setup, I mean I couldn't read any of the panels from where I was sitting in the cockpit. I found all the visuals as blurry as hell around the periphery of my view. I found the actual field of view stifling, like I was looking down a tunnel. I found I became nauseous in certain scenarios, although I'm sure you may get accustomed to this. It wasn't a smooth experience from a FPS viewpoint either. I found the headset kept slipping down my nose and while it did, I was losing focus on things. It also made my head sweat, oh and I had a raging headache afterwards! Apart from that it was great! 

That was my experience and my current opinion FWIW. As I say, I think it's great that so many get so much from the tech and may it evolve further, as I'm sure it will. But... I do think people should test drive the specific headset before parting with any cash, as it is very much a different experience. Maybe in the future sometime I will be blown away with things, but for the moment, I'm happy. 

[OHN767 82]

Im not paying that much  money to wear a spacehelmet while playing videogames, not in a million years

[blueshark747 1,843]

7 minutes ago, OHN767 said:

Im not paying that much  money to wear a spacehelmet while playing videogames, not in a million years

Of course not, you would rather take out a second mortgage and remodel your house to play videogames.🤣

 

[dogmanbird 269]

 

Is that the VKB office in Russia?

Edited January 20, 2022 by dogmanbird

[HiFlyer 9,360]

43 minutes ago, OHN767 said:

Im not paying that much  money to wear a spacehelmet while playing videogames, not in a million years

I suspect that's been the human reaction to many (new) things that eventually became part of everyone's everyday life.

Electricity, television, computers, mobile phones.....

20/30 years from now, when kids will probably rather lose an arm than part with their handy-dandy AR/VR contact lenses, (which their parents will not be able to get them to remove) people exposed to threads like this might easily respond the same as we would now upon seeing posts from xxx years ago regarding the ridiculousness and expense of the first mobile phones, and then iPhones and tablets, and how they would consequently never catch on, because....

[mrueedi 702]

For me the main advantage with VR is the superior orientation flying visual patterns. Also, to be honest, I not once succeded to fly a pattern in a satisfying way in pre-VR times. Looking around was too cumbersome and unatural.

In VR, in downwind and base you move your head for a split second to check where the runway is. Getting the moments right, when you need to start turning is so easy and realistic in VR. Its a pure joy.

E.g. in this video I recorded a nasty circle to land approach in military style between high mountains in a narrow valley. The video is recorded in VR so you see exactly where I looked at any time. Quality in parts is reduced due to VR recording troubles. Still, I think it gives an impression and I can personally admit, that I would fail every single time trying that approach in 2D. While in VR, I succeed nicely every single time:

 

2 hours ago, MySound said:

Yeah, but if I want to have a chilled flight in my A320 with a nice coffee and watching Netflix on a second screen - you can keep your VR googles

You could also say, that flying 2D is so boring that you need Netflix 😄

You can have Netflix in VR too though:

 

[Ianrivaldosmith 5,317]

VR, in my opinion (my opinion!) needs at LEAST 60fps. 90 would be better. And that motion reprojection is rubbish in MSFS, so, can't really achieve it that way. Just my thoughts anyway. (and I used aG2 with 3090 for 3-4 months, so wasn't a slouch).