New VR Settings for 2.5

I will concede to call it "camera scale" or "camera convergence" or "camera adjustment" if you will concede that There are NO pupils in a camera.....

 

"Interpupillary distance (PD) is a measurement of the distance between the centres of your two eyes and is dependent on whether you are buying eyewear for distance or close up. This measurement is used to properly align the centre of your eyeglass lenses with the centre of your eyes"

Source"The Canadian Association of Optometrists"

 

Or in the case of VR to align the center of VR lenses with the center of the eyes pupils.

 

This is only related directly to the human eye. Not cameras. you are very stubborn even when your wrong.. DCS used the wrong terminology plain and simple.

No, we are talkin about the Pupils of your virtual head within the engine...

No, we are talkin about the Pupils of your virtual head within the engine...

"Virtual Heads" do NOT have pupils !! only human beings, flesh and blood have pupils. Virtual heads only have rendering positional viewpoints. you just won't give up this fallacy of "pupils". IPD is not the correct term for VR camera adjustments.

No, we are talking about the Pupils of your virtual head within the engine...

"Virtual Heads" do NOT have pupils !! only human beings, flesh and blood have pupils...

- SkateZilla is referring to the adjustment of the virtual-head's Pupils within the engine, which is the Software measurement.

- JazAero is referring to the adjustment of the Pupils within the HMD, which is the Hardware measurement.

Again it would be much easier for the average DCS consumer if instead he just have to insert in the box the FOV degree of his own HMD, like 90° for most HMD MR, or like 110° for Pimax VR. This would guarantee a 1 to 1 ratio between the virtual head within the engine and the FOV° of the physical HMD.

Then it would be up to the consumer to decide if he needs to zoom in for better readable gauges, he just have to sacrifice a few degree of his HMD real physical potential, like entering 88° instead of 95° for Acer AH100 MR, or the opposite to zoom out for more FOV gain!

If DCS decides for this alternative, then call it HMD FOV instead IPD. In this case it would need a little bit of reprogramming...

"Virtual Heads" do NOT have pupils !! only human beings, flesh and blood have pupils. Virtual heads only have rendering positional viewpoints. you just won't give up this fallacy of "pupils". IPD is not the correct term for VR camera adjustments.

The pupil is a hole located in the center of the iris of the eye that allows light to strike the retina.

Pupil, Aperture, Same Difference, one's biological, one's synthetic, same principle.

The IPD for DCS is the measurement between left eye/right eye centers within the engine.

So........

Camera Scale, VIPD, whatever you wanna call it, everyone has the common sense to know what the slider in DCS is for, and that it will not magically make their Oculus Rift Bigger or Smaller.

Since the DCS IPD Value should match your physical IPD, it's common sense to measure your IPD and Set the DCS IPD to the same Value.

Lots of blaa , blaaa. :P

My rift is set to 68 (my optic measured my ipd)

And i set dcs 52 , only then pit (shark and mirage) Looks real size to me. Switces are no more super tiny.

Finally pilot body is even close to my size.

What settings are you guys using ?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lots of blaa , blaaa. :P

 

My rift is set to 68 (my optic measured my ipd)

 

And i set dcs 52 , only then pit (shark and mirage) Looks real size to me. Switces are no more super tiny.

 

Finally pilot body is even close to my size.

 

 

What settings are you guys using ?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Seriously, who gives a shit about what it's called...just move on with your life.

For IPD I am 67.5 IRL (have the same set in my Rift) and use 52.5 in game to achieve exactly what you mentioned :thumbup:

I am using 55 IPD in the VR settings and it is so much better! I haven't tried cranking it past that, but 55 looks "right".

Will changing the iPad make it look like your sitting in the pilot seat of the Huey I use to but somewhere along the way my friend view is too high and back like I’m sitting on the back of the seat almost

Lots of blaa , blaaa. :P

 

My rift is set to 68 (my optic measured my ipd)

 

And i set dcs 52 , only then pit (shark and mirage) Looks real size to me. Switces are no more super tiny.

 

Finally pilot body is even close to my size.

 

 

What settings are you guys using ?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I use Oculus IPD of 67 (same as my prescription lenses) and prefer to have the DCS IPD overridden to 53. 3d Sizing seems more appropriate. The menues do not look god wit DCS IPD override.

The pupil is a hole located in the center of the iris of the eye that allows light to strike the retina.

 

 

Pupil, Aperture, Same Difference, one's biological, one's synthetic, same principle.

 

The IPD for DCS is the measurement between left eye/right eye centers within the engine.

 

So........

 

Camera Scale, VIPD, whatever you wanna call it, everyone has the common sense to know what the slider in DCS is for, and that it will not magically make their Oculus Rift Bigger or Smaller.

 

Since the DCS IPD Value should match your physical IPD, it's common sense to measure your IPD and Set the DCS IPD to the same Value.

1st of all there's nothing common or sensible about it. Adjusting a person's physical IPD E.g.: only has the effect of allowing a person to easily focus their eyes on 2 separate images so the Human Eye And thereby the brain can superimpose them together without strain. It does not One thing to adjust the apparent size or distance of those images.

Invoking common sense because you run out of arguments is just a cheap excuse For not being willing to admit they ED used the wrong nomenclature and And that should've been the end of that but you keep on insisting That somehow 2 totally unrelated measurements are somehow equal.

If you read through the posts. You would see for yourself that apparently the 2 measurements are far from equal, and for good reason. The physical IPD of your eyes does not change image size or position.

But the camera position internal to the software is doing just that by changing the focal length And/Or convergence Point within the software Thereby changing the focus point Making Rendered objects appear larger or smaller.

In the 1st example The 2 images are parallel, and changing your IPD merely brings those 2 into focus, so they superimpose correctly.

The 2nd example The 2 Cameras are not parallel, changing the convergence point or changing the users focal point has the effect of making objects appear larger or smaller. This is what ED

actually Appears to be doing.

Hopefully we can put this to rest and perhaps ED can change its nomenclature from. "IPD adjustment" or "IPD" to. "convergence point adjustment" or "CPA"

Then you don't have to rely on people's "common sense" Because it's only "common" If you are An Optician or photographer.

You must be fun at parties :wacko:

After reading this post I tried 90 and it makes it look like I am giant sitting in a toy then 70 a bit better then 50 and that's it for my I get a much more realistic cockpit it is more like I am actually

in the seat

holy crap this IPD setting is a game changer... can't believe I'm only discovering it now

I find the setting that suits me best is to have IPD un checked, and just center view when I get in the pit as was the way before 2.5.

Isn’t this virtual IPD setting the same as the old stereoscopic 3D glasses nvidia software where you could adjust the 3D depth with the slider? Convergence, or something like that. The deeper the effect the more cross eyed you’d go until it was uncomfortable.

I find it's much more comfortable on the eyes and things look clearer when set to 55.

I find the setting that suits me best is to have IPD un checked, and just center view when I get in the pit as was the way before 2.5.

Having taken another look at this I have changed my mind and wish to declare myself a Pratt for the above statement :)

It is as great feature that is well worth the effort to find the correct individual settings for yourselves. For me I settled on 56. Why such praise, well apart from everything else the cockpit labels and gauges are so much more readable.

All I see is iPD and pixel density what about the rest of the settings?

My goal in VR is 1:1 scaling. The VR pilot may or may not be close to my size, but it is the best reference I have available for scaling. The stock "unchecked" IPD setting seems to be accurate for me in most if not all aircraft. The problem is the position of my seat relative to my throttle, stick, and rudder pedals. Each aircraft has different geometry. Sometimes, the geometry is very close to what I have which makes it easy to judge the accuracy of the scaling. Other times the relative positions are very different making it hard for me to compare what I see on the screen with what I see peeking through the Oculus Rift visor.

Ultimately, I am going to determine the physical dimensions of my favorite aircraft and I may make my cockpit adjustable so that I can reposition the control elements and seat to match the relative positions of each aircraft I like to fly regularly.

But most likely, I may just pick one aircraft -- the F-4E (because that is what my home pit is already designed to match) and make sure it is 100% correct and just live with the inherent inaccuracy/disorientation that occurs when flying aircraft with significantly different geometry.

So the main thing continuing to drive me crazy is all the damned shimmering! Trees are the biggest problem, but tons of other things do it too.

I'm pretty sure (I'm uneducated) that this is caused by aliasing, and I'd be tempted to think that nothing could be done about it with current gen VR headsets, except that in X-Plane I get almost none of this!

I think their trees are more or less "solid" instead of full of holes which might be the key. Their trees aren't as fancy and likely DCS trees look better on a monitor, but honestly the overall look of them in VR is worlds better than DCS. Shimmering is non-existant in X-Plane on trees, and very minimal on anything else.

Does anyone here know enough to discuss whether or not it might be practical for ED to dramatically improve the shimmering issue for VR users? I'm thinking maybe things like a "VR Trees" setting where the tree models are replaced with more basic models (or textures?) similar to those used in X-Plane? Alternatively maybe we could get a map mod that replaces the troublesome shimmering objects with VR friendly ones.

Since someone might ask for my specs:

HTC Vive (also have Oculus Rift and it's got the same shimmering effect in DCS)

GTX 1080 OC@1900Mhz w/8GB

i5 8600K OC@5Ghz

16 GB DDR4

SSD

So the main thing continuing to drive me crazy is all the damned shimmering! Trees are the biggest problem, but tons of other things do it too.

 

I'm pretty sure (I'm uneducated) that this is caused by aliasing, and I'd be tempted to think that nothing could be done about it with current gen VR headsets, except that in X-Plane I get almost none of this!

 

I think their trees are more or less "solid" instead of full of holes which might be the key. Their trees aren't as fancy and likely DCS trees look better on a monitor, but honestly the overall look of them in VR is worlds better than DCS. Shimmering is non-existant in X-Plane on trees, and very minimal on anything else.

 

Does anyone here know enough to discuss whether or not it might be practical for ED to dramatically improve the shimmering issue for VR users? I'm thinking maybe things like a "VR Trees" setting where the tree models are replaced with more basic models (or textures?) similar to those used in X-Plane? Alternatively maybe we could get a map mod that replaces the troublesome shimmering objects with VR friendly ones.

 

 

Since someone might ask for my specs:

 

HTC Vive (also have Oculus Rift and it's got the same shimmering effect in DCS)

GTX 1080 OC@1900Mhz w/8GB

i5 8600K OC@5Ghz

16 GB DDR4

SSD

I have Oculus , i use 2xMsaa and 1.2-1.4 PD , without msaa everything shimmers too much. But even 2xAA takes lots of it away.

But maybe im not so sensitive to it.

Will it shimmer too much for you even 4xAA ?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I use 1.2PD and 2x MSAA to drastically reduce the shimmering. Maybe give that a shot?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I use 1.2PD and 2x MSAA to drastically reduce the shimmering. Maybe give that a shot?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That definitely makes it a little less awful, but even at 1.5 PD and 8x MSAA (unplayable frame rate) it shimmers far too much!

My current setting is 1.2 PD and 4x MSAA and it's still terrible. I suppose it was easier to tolerate before I spent time flying in X-Plane and got used to it not being there.

That definitely makes it a little less awful, but even at 1.5 PD and 8x MSAA (unplayable frame rate) it shimmers far too much!

 

My current setting is 1.2 PD and 4x MSAA and it's still terrible. I suppose it was easier to tolerate before I spent time flying in X-Plane and got used to it not being there.

Are you putting any AF in?

It helps.

Are you putting any AF in?

It helps.

I think it's at default, I hadn't experimented with it. What is the performance cost? Any suggestion for what setting offers the best fidelity/performance compromise?

I will experiment with it in the next few days and report back.