27 minutes ago, Kaboki said:

I bought into VR and like OP I was wow this is so awsome, never want to go back to 2d flying etc etc. But after the wow factor wore off I kinda couldnt stand the bad image quality and went back to monitor. Waiting for the day VR have the same image quality as monitors. I find VR only good for one thing and thats adult entertainment...:p

I've said a few times that VR is probably only worth it for people who also have other uses: gaming and etc for the device.

Using it only for sims only, probably negates at least 95% percent of ones potential satisfaction with the technology over time.

7 hours ago, tup61 said:

The first time I experienced VR (with the Oculus Rift in Aerofly FS 2) I was BLOWN AWAY!!! It was AWESOME! The best thing ever! And I immediately thought I would NEVER EVER go back to 2D again!!!
But...

Indeed. First impression is what it is, but you soon tire of flying circuits in the Piper Cub and spilling your coffee. I am reminded of the literature on why Pepsi always defeats Coke in sip tests even though Coke is better. I would suggest that stereoscopic vision is a major contributor to the VR 'sip test', as it gives a compelling first impression that really has little relevance in the long run (and gives you a headache to boot).

VR has potential, no question, and the technology is getting better all the time. But at the current state of the art it still has glaring design issues, chiefly the 35-year-old one where it covers up the real world. You can talk haptic gloves, hand controllers, Leap Motion, FlyInside, datagloves, etc., etc., etc., but they're all fiddly hacks to get around this simple design problem, which remains unsolved. Maybe pass-through cameras have potential be a more usable fiddly hack, but fiddly hack it is. Arguably the problem may never be solved with a HMD at all and we need some revolution to push the display back out into the world and integrated with it some other way. Your Oculus X, VIVE Y, Pimax Z may be nothing more than incremental improvements of a bad idea. One of my favourite quotes is attributed to Henry Ford, who said "If I'd asked people what they wanted they would have said faster horses". There will be things we totally haven't thought of yet.

7 minutes ago, MarkDH said:

Indeed. First impression is what it is, but you soon tire of flying circuits in the Piper Cub and spilling your coffee.

Hmmmmmm....

Me looks over at my recently purchased third headset.....

9 minutes ago, MarkDH said:

One of my favourite quotes is attributed to Henry Ford, who said "If I'd asked people what they wanted they would have said faster horses". There will be things we totally haven't thought of yet.

Amen to that! I always love that quote. 😉

5 minutes ago, MarkDH said:

Indeed. First impression is what it is, but you soon tire of flying circuits in the Piper Cub and spilling your coffee. I am reminded of the literature on why Pepsi always defeats Coke in sip tests even though Coke is better. I would suggest that stereoscopic vision is a major contributor to the VR 'sip test', as it gives a compelling first impression that really has little relevance in the long run (and gives you a headache to boot).

VR has potential, no question, and the technology is getting better all the time. But at the current state of the art it still has glaring design issues, chiefly the 35-year-old one where it covers up the real world. You can talk haptic gloves, hand controllers, Leap Motion, FlyInside, datagloves, etc., etc., etc., but they're all fiddly hacks to get around this simple design problem, which remains unsolved. Maybe pass-through cameras have potential be a more usable fiddly hack, but fiddly hack it is. Arguably the problem may never be solved with a HMD at all and we need some revolution to push the display back out into the world and integrated with it some other way. Your Oculus X, VIVE Y, Pimax Z may be nothing more than incremental improvements of a bad idea. One of my favourite quotes is attributed to Henry Ford, who said "If I'd asked people what they wanted they would have said faster horses". There will be things we totally haven't thought of yet.

I could not DISAGREE more.  "No relevance in the long run"?  What does that even mean with regard to simming in VR?  I have been using VR for flight simming for 2 years and I can absolutely say the wow factor has not warn off (and I haven't experienced any headaches to speak of).

As far as covering up the real world... That's the entire point - immersion!  I feel 100% like I am flying inside an actual cockpit when I fly in VR.  If I was seeing the real world - things like couch, TV, lamps, ceiling, walls, dog, wife, etc. - it would kill the immersion.  I Enjoyed flight and race simming for many years looking at 2D monitors because it was all I knew.  Now that I have discovered simming in VR, no way I could ever go back to "pancake mode". 

I'll let you wait for the "things we totally haven't thought of yet" to improve your flight sim experience.  In the meantime (which might be a VERY long time 😉) I am going to continue to enjoy immersing myself in the amazing world of VR simming.

10 minutes ago, tup61 said:

Amen to that! I always love that quote. 😉

It is indeed a great quote.  Though as it relates to flight simming today, I would equate the "faster horses" to continuing to improve on 2D gameplay (things like multi monitor setups and Track-IR type technology)

2 hours ago, HiFlyer said:

I've been looking at various types of stereo-pairs since I was a kid, and actually, when somebody on YouTube shows a twin-image video, my eyes tend to automatically combine them into a viable 3D image.

My eyes do this too. I can see stereograms instantly.

4 hours ago, Dillon said:

Concerning your performance, check your 'Game Mode' settings and 'Graphic' settings.  This made a huge different in performance for me both in VR and 2D.  See video below:

Thanks! I had made some tweaks as suggested by the video. I probably should make it clear that my current VR performance is perfectly acceptable from MSFS perspective: I have most settings to high/ultra and got around 30fps with 80-90% scaling/TAA and 100% scale in OpenXR.

It's just that I once tried 200% scaling/TAA and I was totally amazed that the image quality in G2 became so crystal sharp (at 8 fps though!). So I have already seen how good the VR could be, but I need 4x 3090 power to drive it. If we are talking about 60fps being minimum then we need 8x 3090 power. If future G3 doubles the pixel numbers we'll need 16x 3090 to drive it at full resolution at 60fps. If Nvidia doubles RTX performance each generation, we are four generations, which means eight years, away from having VR display quality as good as current 4k desktop.

By all means though I thoroughly enjoy my VR. As a student pilot I finally have real flight experience to compare and by any measure VR is so close to the real thing. It is amazing that practicing flight in VR feels so much like practicing in the real air. At the end of hour long practice flight in VR when I removed the G2 I had almost the same feeling, mentally and physically, as I just finished my real flight. It's really that good.

Edited January 19, 20224 yr by FlyIce

1 hour ago, HiFlyer said:

I've said a few times that VR is probably only worth it for people who also have other uses: gaming and etc for the device.

Using it only for sims only, probably negates at least 95% percent of ones potential satisfaction with the technology over time.

I use my Reverb G2 for MSFS and DCS only (with the very occasional auto racing stint).  And after 2 years I feel WAY more than 5% satisfied with the purchase 😉

 

1 minute ago, PlumCrazy said:

I use my Reverb G2 for MSFS and DCS only (with the very occasional auto racing stint).  And after 2 years I feel WAY more than 5% satisfied with the purchase 😉

 

There are always exceptions....

But the fact that most can agree that VR is not quite "there" yet is probably a good reason to have other activities where the technology is pretty much completely there, to tide you over while you wait.

16 minutes ago, PlumCrazy said:

"No relevance in the long run"?  What does that even mean with regard to simming in VR?

Stereoscopic vision is irrelevant for anything outside the windows, so all it does is make the cockpit look nicer. (I said 'little revelance' BTW. For some people looking around the cockpit may be of prime importance.)

2 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

There are always exceptions....

But the fact that most can agree that VR is not quite "there" yet is probably a good reason to have other activities where the technology is pretty much completely there, to tide you over while you wait.

I didn't realize "most" agree on anything regarding VR.  I am not even sure what "there yet" means?  From what I have seen/read, the vast majority of people who have actually tried one of the current generation of VR headsets in MSFS think it is amazing and vow to never return to 2D flight simming.  Of course there are exceptions to that as well.  VR certainly isn't for everyone, but I disagree that most people using it now are dissatisfied.

Have you actually tried VR yourself?

2 minutes ago, MarkDH said:

Stereoscopic vision is irrelevant for anything outside the windows, so all it does is make the cockpit look nicer. (I said 'little revelance' BTW. For some people looking around the cockpit may be of prime importance.)

But that isn't even remotely true.  The 3D effect and sense of scale (outside the cockpit) is absolutely there in VR.  If I am in 2D mode looking at a monitor, nothing about a 747 next to me looks huge.  But in VR, the sense of scale makes that same 747 seem just as large as if it was next to you in real life.  Your comments lead me to believe you have never actually tried VR

4 minutes ago, PlumCrazy said:

Have you actually tried VR yourself?

I've heard of it..... 🙃

VR for fight sims is far from perfect.  Nice thing it's now good enough for me, but that was only after

• Got the fit/sweet spot reliable dialed in
• Got the right mix of setting for my VR titles
• Got the available WMR (and SteamVR for other titles) mods installed and dialed in

VR did look and behave like word not allowed until I had the above squared away.  After the first week I owned my G2 I was seriously considering returning it, but both persistence and little open mindedness over its tradeoffs got me past that.  Though 2D image quality is by far much superior, I gladly take 3D VR over 2D every time I hop in the virtual cockpit.

I mentioned this before: one BIG issue with VR is having the VR world scaled properly.  An easy way to understand "world scaling" is to consider your size in relation to the world around you.  To a two year old, everything seems gigantic.  To a 5 meter tall giant, every thing seems small.  If you handed one of your shirts to a two year old, it would be way too big from the two year old's perspective.  And the same for the giant, that shirt would be way too small.  What VR world scaling does it make objects of the world the proper size for the VR participant: hey look, when in the VR virtual cockpit the seat I'm sitting in and that yolk right in front of me is exactly life size for me, just like I was sitting in the RL cockpit.  At least for me in MSFS, the G2 make me feel like its VR world is sized for a 7 year old.  I will be SO HAPPY when that wrongly sized world scaling gets corrected.

 

Edited January 19, 20224 yr by TheFamilyMan