Oculus Rift and DCS World Discussion

I got a chance to test the Rift Display Unit w/o headtracking w/ DCSW/A-10C briefly (as I dont have my own unit yet).

 

I used TrackIR in 1:1 for headtracking,

 

You cant really see the keyboard, so It's best to have everything mapped to HOTAS or a Switch.

 

I had my mouse setting next to my stick.

 

for Modules that need alot of keyboard interaction... it might be tough.

 

But for A-10C, it's OK

You tested a rift?...

Can you explain what kind of detail ( visual ) the cockpit looks like with the split res? Does it feel wrapped?

MORE INFO REQUIRED!!!!! What was required to get it working in terms of the game and setup? I've been following this VERY closely and wanting one of these more and more as the days pass!

Oculas Rift

Here is a link to a totaly new concept in game emersion.

They are currently taking pre-orders for this product.

But how many gaming platforms will allow this product to do what the Track-Ir does.

Take some time to watch the vid.

http://www.oculusvr.com/

If an opportunity presents itself to me, I will buy this.

Id get it for ARMA3 but I need to see my keyboard to play DCS.

If an opportunity presents itself to me, I will buy this.

Opportunity did, on Kickstarter last summer. Mine should arrive next month. :)

I'm 123 in the order line... I hope it is shipped soon!

For Bill

If you missed our Kickstarter, you can pre-order an Oculus Rift developer kit now at http://oculusvr.com/preorder/!

I have found that Oculus Rift requires something that is not easy to do:

(2) Implement stereoscopic 3D rendering and optical distortion adjustment that produces the correct left/right eye image on the device.

 

Our SDK will assist with both of these tasks, providing accelerometer and gyro data, screen size information, as well as pre-made shaders to simplify development and abstract away hardware details.

This is from http://www.oculusvr.com/faq/

All these mean that only Eagle Dynamics can make DCS compatible with Oculus Rift... I hope they will. I would pay double for such software that works with a good HMD.

Higher resolution Head Mounted Displays (1080p and more per eye) are coming. That is the future of simulation.

I really love the idea of the oculus rift, and even if it doesnt have a Z axis we can use our trackIR's for that at the same time i'm guessing.

but one big problem for me would be is that I can't see my keyboard and mouse!

Unless they implement a camera like an xbox kinect type thingy so that I can see my virtual hands and somehow see my keyboard then its going to be very hard to do anything other than use the HOTAS.

either that or somehow sync it up with a standard monitor so that the camera can detect hand motion and turn a normal monitor into a virtual touchscreen.

I really love the idea of the oculus rift, and even if it doesnt have a Z axis we can use our trackIR's for that at the same time i'm guessing.

 

but one big problem for me would be is that I can't see my keyboard and mouse!

 

Unless they implement a camera like an xbox kinect type thingy so that I can see my virtual hands and somehow see my keyboard then its going to be very hard to do anything other than use the HOTAS.

 

either that or somehow sync it up with a standard monitor so that the camera can detect hand motion and turn a normal monitor into a virtual touchscreen.

See Leap Motion. It's made for pc and made for this.

https://www.leapmotion.com/

I wonder if there are going to be any eye strain problems with this like with earlier adaptations of commercial VR solutions. If there are, it could really influence whether or not I decide to purchase this. if I can't see well enough outside of a cockpit in real life because of a sim, then the whole point of a sim becomes pretty paradoxical.

The rift display solution (looking at screen through a bent lens) is supposedly focused to infinity (which in optical terms means focused to 6m and beyond iirc) which means (as far as I know) that it will strain your eyes a lot less than for example looking at a computer monitor at the typical 50-100cm distance.

The main problem with the oculus rift in its current state is the low resolution. If you want to use it for flight simming you need at least full hd resolution (1920x1080). Especially for reading the instruments and gauges in the virtual cockpit. I use a big touch screen (1.40 m x 0.80 m) that gives me 90 degree fov (comparable to the oculus rifts fov) with a resolution of 1920x1080. And I can say I wouldn't go lower with the resolution.

The second problem is with manipulating the virtual cockpit controls. Many of you suggested devices like kinect or leapmotion. But I think some gloves that gives you haptic feedback will also be needed.

Until these problems are solved I stay with my big touch screen and trackir: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=89624

Evrybody seems to miss that Oculus Rift has its own head tracking, supposedly better than most on the market. I expect to be much better than TrackIR.

That means we will be able to look in the 3D cockpit and just use all the marvelous switches with a mouse. Add HOTAS and you have everything. No need for keyboard. At least not in a fully modeled aircraft like A-10C.

Less than 1080p resolution is a valid concern, but this will be fixed on the next version of the OR.

See Leap Motion. It's made for pc and made for this.

https://www.leapmotion.com/

very nice, considering that the leap motion is so cheap i'd have no issues in getting it to go along with the Oculus Rift.

I'd totally get both devices if they were supported in DCS

I can't belive Virtual Reality is becoming a Reality :)

The main problem with the oculus rift in its current state is the low resolution. If you want to use it for flight simming you need at least full hd resolution (1920x1080). Especially for reading the instruments and gauges in the virtual cockpit.

The resolution IS pretty low, no doubt about it, but it's less of an issue than you might think due to the design of the optics. They're structured such that the centre of the FoV has a higher pixel-per-arc-second than the periphery. Spotting a distant bogey will likely be harder in the peripheral vision than in the centre, but seeing your instrumentation shouldn't be difficult.

However don't discount the benefit of providing the human brain with input it's more accustomed to receiving. Formation flying is going to be much easier with actual depth perception, and the speck of a distant aircraft will more naturally trigger your brain's "woah, what's that?" reflex.

@Wags

Take advantage of the early days usage of the rift and this will sure be a great advertisement for ED with DCS.

I say test the thing internally asap :), and sent out the supported feature in a press release.

The resolution IS pretty low, no doubt about it, but it's less of an issue than you might think due to the design of the optics. They're structured such that the centre of the FoV has a higher pixel-per-arc-second than the periphery.

That's interesing.

OR is inspiring, looking forward to it, want to get back to gaming for a new experience.

The resolution IS pretty low, no doubt about it, but it's less of an issue than you might think due to the design of the optics. They're structured such that the centre of the FoV has a higher pixel-per-arc-second than the periphery. Spotting a distant bogey will likely be harder in the peripheral vision than in the centre, but seeing your instrumentation shouldn't be difficult.

 

However don't discount the benefit of providing the human brain with input it's more accustomed to receiving. Formation flying is going to be much easier with actual depth perception, and the speck of a distant aircraft will more naturally trigger your brain's "woah, what's that?" reflex.

You cant just look at the resolution alone.

You have to look at what resolution you are getting per sq/inch.

Even if the Oculus is running 1280x800 (640x800 each eye), it will be of higher density of pixels then your average 24" 1920x1080 monitors.

I just had to deal with screen resolution for a personal project. After a ton of research I can see how people misunderstand certain aspects.

When comparing a 24'' screen to another 24'' screen, sure you only want the resolution numbers.

BUT, when comparing image quality of a 24'' to that of a 7'' screen, one needs to look at PPI ( pixels per inch) or the size of the dot pitch.

And just for an example, a 24'' 1080p monitor has 92 pixels per inch or pixel size of 0.28 mm. While an Oculus rift 7 inch 1280x800 screen has 216 pixels per inch or 0.12 mm dot pitch.

So if you want to look at picture quality, Oculus rift has 2.4 times better picture quality than a 24'' full hd monitor. And small 1080p screens are coming.

But how it looks in real life, remains to be seen. I am sure it will be of equal or several times better than our huge monitors where every spec of side distraction or light ruins the immersion.

Think of it like this: Two cars, one has 1080 horse power, the other 800. Can you say which one is better by only those numbers. But the first one is 2.400 kilograms and the other one 700 kilograms. What about now?

That means we will be able to look in the 3D cockpit and just use all the marvelous switches with a mouse.

Using the mouse in this setup would kill the immersion.

Less than 1080p resolution is a valid concern, but this will be fixed on the next version of the OR.

Probably the next version will have a resolution of 1920x1080. But the horizontal resolution is split between both eyes. That means 960x1080 per eye. My feeling is that this is still not enough. Maybe with the nonuniform pixel/degree-fov distribution:

The resolution IS pretty low, no doubt about it, but it's less of an issue than you might think due to the design of the optics. They're structured such that the centre of the FoV has a higher pixel-per-arc-second than the periphery.

it could work.

You cant just look at the resolution alone.

 

You have to look at what resolution you are getting per sq/inch.

No. What really count is pixel per degree (or arcsecond) FoV.

No. What really count is pixel per degree (or arcsecond) FoV.

This would suggest that a picture looks the same on a 24'' 1920x1080 monitor at 1 feet as on a 24'' 800x480 monitor at 2.25 feet, because at those distances they have the same ppd?

This would suggest that a picture looks the same on a 24'' 1920x1080 monitor at 1 feet as on a 24'' 800x480 monitor at 2.25 feet, because at those distances they have the same ppd?

If we assume that the monitors in your example have the same aspect ratios (which they haven't), then yes. Of course the lowres monitor cover a smaller FoV than the highres monitor. That means the lowres monitor can display only a part of the picture that the highres monitor can.

If we assume that the monitors in your example have the same aspect ratios (which they haven't), then yes. Of course the lowres monitor cover a smaller FoV than the highres monitor. That means the lowres monitor can display only a part of the picture that the highres monitor can.

Totally incorrect. aspect ratio determines FOV not pixel density.

I think he meant smaller FOV because it's farther away