Projection Configuration in XP12 cost $1,000.00

[Mike_CFII_MEL 800]

15 hours ago, mSparks said:

yes.

But VR is far superior anyway.....

Hi,

That depends on the aircraft being simulated.

[Mike_CFII_MEL 800]

16 hours ago, StuSpeed said:

 Four-Intel I9/10900K | One-AMD-7950X3D | Three-Asus TUF 4090s | One-3090 | One-1080TI | Five-64GB DDR5 RAM 6000mhz | Five-Cosair 1300 P/S | Five-Pro900 2TB NVME        One-Eugenius ECS2512 / 2.5 GHz Switch | Five-Ice Giant Elite CPU Coolers | Three-75" 4K UHDTVs | One-24" 1080P Monitor | One-19" 1080P Monitor | One-Boeing 737NG Flight Deck
+
$1k in 3rd party addons
+.
X-Plane pro x3

Not being glib as I'm planning a similarly ambitious project.  Other projection software is very expensive.  The cost of the last 3rd I'd consider money well spent. 

Hi,

Going the last item locks you into XPlane 12 at $1,000.00, it's not good for anything else. You'd be better off with third party solution that can be used on any platform. Right now I'm able to run my flight deck on either XP12 or MS2020, I'm not locked into any sim. I can also run P3D via Sim-Avionics, but don't have that installed because I'll never use P3D in the future.

Switching my flight deck to use XP12 or MS2020 just involves turning on two additional computers (for XP12) and changing my left/right TVs from HDMI 1 to HDMI2. If I was to go the third route, I'd also have to purchase additional warping software.

Edited November 16, 2023 by Mike_CFII_MEL

[mSparks 2,094]

3 hours ago, Mike_CFII_MEL said:

Hi,

That depends on the aircraft being simulated.

Just the outside.

can't beat a physical cockpit. You got that already. Well one afaik. With VR you can have all the others _almost_ as good as well.

[mjrhealth 836]

4 hours ago, mSparks said:

Just the outside.

can't beat a physical cockpit. You got that already. Well one afaik. With VR you can have all the others _almost_ as good as well.

Ye just like trakir' cheaper less weight.

[mSparks 2,094]

19 minutes ago, mjrhealth said:

Ye just like trakir' cheaper less weight.

aitrack probably better if you are going super cheap. cheaper, just as performent and less hassle.

I use that a fair bit these days when I'm testing stuff in 2D.

Lot like driving a car with one eye closed tho, neither ever going to give you that terrifying knot in your stomach that depth and speed perception give you as the ground approaches at 150kts.

not even 6dof motion platforms do that good a job of that one, as much as we all want one.

But obviously ultra realistic isn't for everyone, quite prossibly not even the majority.

[mjrhealth 836]

8 hours ago, mSparks said:

But obviously ultra realistic isn't for everyone, quite prossibly not even the majority.

Not all of us can afford to fly a real aeroplane, that is reality, the rest is simming. And im quiet content with what I have, of which not many can afford. I still think you have shares in the headsets.

[mSparks 2,094]

4 hours ago, mjrhealth said:

I still think you have shares in the headsets.

AutoATC's "prime" value is in people using VR and full cockpits. not sure if that counts.

VR is the future.

4 hours ago, mjrhealth said:

Not all of us can afford to fly a real aeroplane

even less have the opportunity to experience the setup Mike_CFII_MEL has.

Im just saying that $3k+ would be much better spent on an apple vision than replacing his 4 TVs in his live size fully functional 737 cockpit with projectors.

[efis007 901]

2 hours ago, mSparks said:

VR is the future.

They said the same thing about 3D Cinema and 3D TVs.
"3D is the future".
3D was a colossal failure that cost the television and film industry billions of dollars.
VR headsets will be the same failure after half planet Earth starts vomiting using these virtual shrinks.

[mSparks 2,094]

55 minutes ago, efis007 said:

They said the same thing about 3D Cinema and 3D TVs.
"3D is the future".
3D was a colossal failure that cost the television and film industry billions of dollars.
VR headsets will be the same failure after half planet Earth starts vomiting using these virtual shrinks.

vomiting and nausea only happen if you run at less than 120fps.

most people are fine with 90fps

60fps is the minimum, anything less than that is unusable for more than 10 or 15 minutes.

If you havent seen yet, we are due to get a flood of newbies coming to XP12 next year off the back of aces of thunder on PSVR2 (120fps minimums), who will all share what is now the "can never go back to 2D" meme.

Edited November 17, 2023 by mSparks

[Malaromane 445]

Well I guess I have continued proof that I'm a weirdo because I used VR for flying, loved it, but still went back to 2D because there are just too many compromises to make in a VR cockpit.

[ShadowN7 12]

14 hours ago, Malaromane said:

Well I guess I have continued proof that I'm a weirdo because I used VR for flying, loved it, but still went back to 2D because there are just too many compromises to make in a VR cockpit.

You are not alone. I've owned several VR headsets over the years.  The latest two are the HP Reverb G2 and the Quest 3.  I just keep going back to 2D flying with all my hardware.  What I'm looking for with VR flying is not there yet.  When mixed reality tech gets to a point where I can use all of my hardware MCP's, FMC's etc. and I don't have to turn the visuals down then I'll probably finally dump all my monitors.   That would be the day because the heat these darn monitors produce is horrible. 

 

[mSparks 2,094]

18 minutes ago, ShadowN7 said:

VR flying is not there yet.

VR is.

but getting an acf that meets

21 hours ago, mSparks said:

vomiting and nausea only happen if you run at less than 120fps.

most people are fine with 90fps

60fps is the minimum, anything less than that is unusable for more than 10 or 15 minutes.

Is currently limited to GA aircraft with simple systems or the Sparky744, on very high end PC hardware, with optimised scenery.

Or a PS5 & PSVR2.

This is all XP11 and XP12 VR

I've added 200 hours on since I took that SS. (but unlike the previous hours, they were all glorious XP12 graphics with no issues and solid FPS)

Edited November 18, 2023 by mSparks

[ShadowN7 12]

2 hours ago, mSparks said:

VR is.

but getting an acf that meets

 

You missed the important part of my quote.  I said "What I'm looking for with VR flying is not there yet."

What you're looking for in VR flying might be there. It's not for me. I want the best of both worlds were I can dump my monitors but still keep and use high end peripheral without fumbling around or trying to peak through the small nose crack to see the outside world.   With Apple and Meta jumping into the MR field, I'm hopeful something like that be possible in the future.  

I REALLY hope that does happen because at some point I want to build a one-seater version of what Mike has.   I don't have an overhead or anything like that yet so just getting an expensive MR headset would probably save me thousands in the long run.  😁

 

[mSparks 2,094]

31 minutes ago, ShadowN7 said:

"What I'm looking for with VR flying is not there yet."

Which is?

I was referring to when you said

3 hours ago, ShadowN7 said:

I just keep going back to 2D flying with all my hardware. 

having VR that is an experience you want to go back to requires hitting those minimum fps targets.

Hitting those minimum fps targets are not headset or VR related, they are acf related; that as a general rule getting above 60fps mins is only possible in GA aircraft with simple systems or the Sparky744 on very high end PC hardware, with optimised scenery.