requested Proposal for VR head limits implementation

[SharpeXB]

3 hours ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

The ability to snap your virtual head 180 degrees by moving your real head 3 degrees is immersive, but hearing a bit of wind noise (the way VR is now in DCS) if you occasionally poke your head through a window is immersion breaking?

I find it very immersion breaking. It makes the aircraft feel fake. And looks bad and sounds bad. 
 

Certainly it’s a lot easier to go through the boundary if your head tracking is more sensitive. The solution in those other sims is to turn down the lateral sensitivity. In fact that doesn’t really need to be more than about 1:1, only the rotational axis needs that. The trouble you run into with head tracking when desensitizing it is that you need the ability to move your view to do things in a clickable cockpit like look at switches under the throttle etc. so trying to be too real with it gets restrictive. 
 

Those other sims, X-Plane and MSFS aren’t combat games where you’re straining to look all around but it’s still a rather big quality flaw IMO for those. For example the Pitts biplane has a small canopy and if you do aerobatics it’s sorta ugly and awkward clipping your head through it all the time. 

Edited August 18, 2021 by SharpeXB

[LithiumR]

 

4 hours ago, Tshark said:

"When your head hits the canopy limit the whole cockpit view just moves in the direction of the head movement." 

 

 

This already happens when the game freezes and I damn near fall out of my own brain haha. Extremely disorienting. The cockpit moving with your head is the absolute worst solution available imo. Fade to black or hypoxic effects... fine. Cockpit ever moving with head = NOT OKAY.

 

I don't think ED would ever implement this but just in case... Please ED anything but that! My fear of that is why I commented here in the first place. Terrible idea imo.

[Tippis]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

I find it very immersion breaking.

No you don't, by your own admission.

Something you don't use can't break your immersion.

 

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Certainly it’s a lot easier to go through the boundary if your head tracking is more sensitive.

No. The two are not connected. Whether you go through the boundary or not is a factor of what limits the game puts on your XYZ movement. That is unrelated to how sensitive your movement is. DCS limits movement from headtracking because that's the default method of handling in-cockpit movemeent. It doesn't do it for VR because it is universally recognised to be a horribly bad idea to do.

 

Also, you do understand that VR movement already is 1:1, right? And that it already isn't restrictive? So your idea of “desensitizing” it would make no difference.

[barry_c]

18 hours ago, Tippis said:

No you don't, by your own admission.

Something you don't use can't break your immersion.

 

No. The two are not connected. Whether you go through the boundary or not is a factor of what limits the game puts on your XYZ movement. That is unrelated to how sensitive your movement is. DCS limits movement from headtracking because that's the default method of handling in-cockpit movemeent. It doesn't do it for VR because it is universally recognised to be a horribly bad idea to do.

 

Also, you do understand that VR movement already is 1:1, right? And that it already isn't restrictive? So your idea of “desensitizing” it would make no difference.

What about us players that don't experience the sickness or have taught our brains to go through it? I was severly sick on all VR games but now I can play games with movement restrictions.

 

Someone stated in his post on the other page that you often accidently move out the boundary, it does break immersion, I can't stick my head out the cockpit in real life, why DCS? Sometimes I check six and crank my head around and because there's no restriction my head can pop out easily, you get a sudden burst of loud noise and you don't really expect your head to go through glass.

There are ways to do this to make it motion sickness friendly and not, hard limits like the other simulator I would like, but make it toggleable.

 

Use a fade or pixelated system for people that find it motion inducing, and have an option to not run any.

 

Saying that sticking your head outside of a solid cockpit is not immersion breaking is just delusional.

I can literally check my blind spot, imagine if you could check your blind spot in a vehicle with low visibility such as a van or lorry, you could reduce motor accidents no?

Same logic applies here, I can check blind spots for danger without having to move the aircraft in order to give me that visibility.

To add a second point I don't care about what trackIR users can do, I play VR and honestly it doesn't matter to me what IR users do because I know I have more situational awareness in VR, so the benefits of VR out way the immediate check 6 capability of TIR.

 

And always, who says those that want these limits aren't opposed to TIR limits?

 

 

Edited August 19, 2021 by barry_c

[Lurker]

23 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

I don’t use VR but if I did, the ability to move my head through the aircraft would be a big no-go. I find that very immersion breaking using TrackIR in sims which don’t have limits. You can inadvertently move your head into the headrest etc and blind yourself. It makes the aircraft seem unreal and ethereal. For me to even consider VR there would have to be cockpit boundaries. 

 

It's literally a non issue. For me to successfully do that in VR, I literally have to stand up, or at least squat out of my chair and physically lean over in all the aircraft I've tried to do so. 

Edited August 19, 2021 by Lurker

[BIGNEWY]

Hi all, 

 

we all have opinions about this issue, and that is fine, but please also remember there are people who suffer badly with motion sickness when head movement is restricted in VR, so we have to consider this from a health point of view also. The team are looking at solutions currently. 

 

thanks

[cfrag]

2 hours ago, barry_c said:

Someone stated in his post on the other page that you often accidently move out the boundary, it does break immersion, I can't stick my head out the cockpit in real life, why DCS? 

 

For the same reason that in DCS you can fly an FA-18 (which you most likely can't IRL), and crash a plane without suffering any consequences, which is impossible IRL: DCS is a game, and ED have to make some compromise between reality and game to make the product appeal to as many people as possible. Putting restrictions on the HMD will make a lot of people nauseous, and many of those will rather drop the game than tough it out (which you seem to have managed, much respect for that). That translates to bad rep and lower sales, which I feel is one of the points @BIGNEWY was just kind enough to make. 

 

2 hours ago, barry_c said:

Saying that sticking your head outside of a solid cockpit is not immersion breaking is just delusional.

 

There are multiple points to look at here:

• Involuntarily sticking out your head: This will break immersion. The question here is if the cure isn't worse than the disease. If you restrict HMD movement, the effect is that moving your head suddenly feels wrong, and even if you do not get nauseous, it is definitely immersion breaking. As are other means like blurring, greying out, blacking out etc. There are very few good ways to handle this
• Voluntarily sticking out your head: It may be immersion breaking for some, but often not that much as you are anticipating what is going to happen. You are still immersed or at least intentionally interrupt your suspension of disbelief. This should not be problem, as it is voluntarily, very much like when I perform a steep bank, or a carrier's cat shot happens: I anticipate that (very unrealistically) I will not feel any acceleration, so it does not break my immersion. 
• Intentionally sticking out your head to gain an unfair advantage. This can happen with warbirds, and is next to impossible with most modern planes due to the different geometry of modern planes. Doing this in MP games can constitute a problem - only in MP, because if you cheat in your own SP game, that's between you and your ego. 

IMHO the only real issue that currently warrants a closer look here is MP, and probably only those MP mission that include warbirds as playable planes (I can't yet rule out all modern planes as I haven't done a complete sweep, but those that I've tested do not offer any tangible advantages when you stick your head out with the intent to cheat). Since I very seldom fly warbirds I feel uncomfortable judging the importance of the cheat potential, but for the modern era I feel it's next to negligible. 

Edited August 19, 2021 by cfrag

[Baldrick33]

2 hours ago, barry_c said:

What about us players that don't experience the sickness or have taught our brains to go through it? I was severly sick on all VR games but now I can play games with movement restrictions.

I don't think anyone is arguing against having options, just that having the option to enforce it in multiplayer would seem to exclude those that do experience motion sickness if the chosen option is to stop positional tracking at the invisible boundary.

[BIGNEWY]

Personally I like the fade option over anything else, it prevents cheating, but is kinder to people with motion sickness as it is not abrupt. 

[=475FG= Dawger]

3 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

Hi all, 

 

we all have opinions about this issue, and that is fine, but please also remember there are people who suffer badly with motion sickness when head movement is restricted in VR, so we have to consider this from a health point of view also. The team are looking at solutions currently. 

 

thanks

@BIGNEWY My biggest concern is that something will be implemented that is less than ideal and that it will become server side optional. If whatever is implemented is strictly client side optional, then I don't care what is implemented. 

 

There are lots of little things that detract from the VR experience already. I'd much rather see some focus on making VR in DCS a better experience versus solving a non-existent problem (using VR to "cheat")

Edited August 19, 2021 by =475FG= Dawger

[Mars Exulte]

17 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

it prevents cheating

  Nobody's losing an AirQuake duel because their VR opponent ''stuck his head out the window'' anymore than they've been losing them for the last twenty years because somebody's TrackIR lets them check six without physically turning their entire body ) If anything, the VR guy is at least having to ACTUALLY physically turn and lean around and therefore subject to fatigue and backaches :p

[draconus]

16 minutes ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

My biggest concern is that something will be implemented that is less than ideal and that it will become server side optional.

And why would you want to deny the options for server owners?

[BIGNEWY]

3 minutes ago, Mars Exulte said:

  Nobody's losing an AirQuake duel because their VR opponent ''stuck his head out the window'' anymore than they've been losing them for the last twenty years because somebody's TrackIR lets them check six without physically turning their entire body ) If anything, the VR guy is at least having to ACTUALLY physically turn and lean around and therefore subject to fatigue and backaches

 

Cheating is one of the concerns while we are planning, despite what you may think, for some people it is a consideration and we have to include it in our thoughts.

 

thanks

[=475FG= Dawger]

14 minutes ago, draconus said:

And why would you want to deny the options for server owners?

Maybe you should read for comprehension as I plainly express why I have concerns about a server side option.

 

Quote

My biggest concern is that something will be implemented that is less than ideal and that it will become server side optional.

 

[kablamoman]

Hey guys, a lot of info and concerns flying around, but I would like to re-iterate:

 

My intention with this post was to propose robust options that bring the VR implementation of the game to a modern VR standard, with an emphasis on maximizing immersion and functionality. This standard includes things like comfort options for those that need them, without sacrificing the desired high-fidelity and immersion.

 

Again I re-iterate: I am not proposing a hard limit on head movement be enforced or enforceable by server operators, so please keep the fear, uncertainty, and doubt out of the thread and debate on the merits.

 

As proposed:

 

Single player = 3 options for VR cockpit limits, user selectable:

1. No Limit
2. Hard Limit
3. Soft Limit (Fade out)

 

Multiplayer = Those same 3 options -- or -- 2 options* (if the server operator choses to restrict views outside of the canopy by clipping through canopy):

1. No Limit (if server operator prefers to keep this option available)
2. *Hard Limit 
3. *Soft Limit (for those who may have motion sickness concerns)

 

There is never an instance where hard limits would be forced on an individual user. It would be up to the individual pilots if they chose to use a hard limit.

 

 

I do believe it is crucial and very important to have both options for hard and soft limits for a first-in-class VR experience. As a pretty die-hard VR and sim guy for the last 5 years, I have found that the old attitude or "never move the player head" is antiquated and proven false over the last half-decade of VR development, and adhering to it dogmatically negatively impacts and lowers the potential VR experience for many users. However, it is absolutely essential that comfort options be included, as is evidenced by the many voicing their concerns in this thread.

 

Hard limits allow for accurate depictions of combat and how cockpit and canopy design of individual aircraft factor into it. You could also implement cool things that add to the immersive experience of VR by adding sounds of bumping into the perspex, or changing the sound quality slightly if your head is up against it (hearing more low frequency vibrations conducted through the surface itself) -- the possibilities are really quite cool if you wanted to really get into it.

 

I challenge anybody to fly one of the warbirds -- it's most notable with the german aircraft -- and to simply check six without having your head inadvertently stick outside the canopy. The effect is jarring as you suddenly get a blast of slipstream in your ear and see the graphical glitch of clipping through the geometry. To many this is an instant immersion killer, and can indeed be abused online.

 

Soft limits would function in much the same way as hard limits to prevent abuse, but be immune to motion sickness, at the expense of some amount of immersiveness.

 

I don't understand how anybody can be opposed to having these options available to every individual so they can tailor their VR experience to their own comfort level. And if you absolutely insist on sticking your head through the window with no penalty to have an unimpeded view (maybe just to admire the scenery) -- the option is still there for you to play single player or find a server admin that allows it.

 

Motion sickness would no longer be an excuse for habitually poking heads out of the canopy in online adversarial servers as admins could enforce limits to cockpit bounds, and there would be the soft limit, fade-to-black comfort option available to those players worried about motion sickness on those particular servers.

Edited August 19, 2021 by kablamoman

[SharpeXB]

27 minutes ago, kablamoman said:

I have found that the old attitude or "never move the player head" is antiquated and proven false over the last half-decade of VR development

And this “hard limit” doesn’t move the players head. It moves the canopy with their head. Although I haven’t used VR in sims I’ve used the HMDs professionally. They’re amazing in how real they feel. So what I imagine this limit feeling like is sticking the aforementioned laundry basket over your head and then bumping into it and having it move. Would that make you sick? Probably not. It’s possible that people suffer from VR sickness generally and attribute it to the canopy effect. 

34 minutes ago, kablamoman said:

it's most notable with the german aircraft -- and to simply check six without having your head inadvertently stick outside the canopy. The effect is jarring as you suddenly get a blast of slipstream in your ear and see the graphical glitch of clipping through the geometry

Indeed I find that effect using TrackIR in other sims to be super jarring and just ugly. 

[cfrag]

While I agree with most of what you state, I found that I raised my eyebrow at this: 

 

7 minutes ago, kablamoman said:

I have found that the old attitude or "never move the player head" is antiquated and proven false over the last half-decade of VR development, and adhering to it dogmatically negatively impacts and lowers the potential VR experience for many users

 

I believe above assertions need to be somewhat unpacked, as they are misleading at best. There is no "never move the player head" attitude. There is the general recommendation for VR developers to move the player head as little as possible, because doing so can cause nausea with some players (phrased differently: there is a statistically significant correlation between moving the head in-application, and the incidence of VR sickness symptoms like nausea, headache, vertigo, vomiting). For anyone developing games for profit, that usually translates to "Customers generally do not enjoy feeling ill. If you want to maximize potential customers for your VR title, avoid doing things that can make them ill, among which are: moving the head (and others)" -- which some people perhaps abbreviate as "don't move the head". Study after study has shown that in VR, moving the head is one of the things that strongly correlates with VR sickness symptoms, and this still holds true. Not everyone is afflicted equally (some more, some less, some not at all), and some (not all) people who are affected can train against it, and there is medication available to mitigate the symptoms that works for some people.

 

There are very few absolutes here, and a lot of common sense. It pretty much boils down to

1. Some things may restrict who can use your title.
2. Do not unnecessarily restrict your potential client base if you want to maximize sell-through.
3. (Unless it is an option) Moving the head is likely to restrict your user base to those who can stomach it
4. To reach maximum user potential don't move the head in VR    

So yes, there is perhaps some dogma involved: do what's best for business

 

So we aren't that far apart, but that 'antiquated and proven false' line was more difficult for me to stomach than the VR head movement in 'Windlands' for my godson   

 

[cfrag]

21 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

And this “hard limit” doesn’t move the players head. It moves the canopy with their head.

 

My apology, but that is a distinction that makes no sense, as many, many tests have shown. Relativity applies to head movement in VR as it does in reality. If you move your head physically and the image in-game suddenly stops moving, your brain will interpret this as a relative movement in the reverse direction, as inertia in your vestibular system is telling a different story than your eyes are, and your brain will try to make sense of that. That is as jarring and vertigo-inducing as any other method that moves the head directly. It doesn't matter if you move the head around the room, or move the room around the head - the result is the same: vertigo in those who are susceptible to it. This will not alleviate the issue.

Edited August 19, 2021 by cfrag

[Baldrick33]

15 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

And this “hard limit” doesn’t move the players head. It moves the canopy with their head. Although I haven’t used VR in sims I’ve used the HMDs professionally. They’re amazing in how real they feel. So what I imagine this limit feeling like is sticking the aforementioned laundry basket over your head and then bumping into it and having it move. Would that make you sick? Probably not. It’s possible that people suffer from VR sickness generally and attribute it to the canopy effect. 

Indeed I find that effect using TrackIR in other sims to be super jarring and just ugly. 

An early VR implementation in a race sim only had rotational tracking. I was fine with it but many couldn't stomach it and only once positional tracking was added could they use VR. The issue with the hard limit is that positional tracking stops abruptly and given generally we can't see transparent glass it is as if tracking has failed. When tracking fails and positional tracking is lost it can be nauseating and this is what some find with a software solution that purposefully breaks tracking. The transition between 6dof and 3dof tracking can be worse than just having 3dof in my view.

 

The aforementioned race sim has hard boundaries to prevent someone having a 10ft neck to see over or around the car in front etc. but the boundaries are only normally hit when setting up the centred position correctly. By their nature race sims have less "normal" movement.

[SharpeXB]

3 minutes ago, cfrag said:

but that is a distinction that makes no sense, as many, many tests have shown

I’d have to try it in DCS of course. But my experience using VR headsets is that they’re no more sickness inducing than the real thing would be. If you get sick on a real roller coaster you’d get sick in a VR roller coaster etc. 
 

But… having your virtual head moved or watching someone else’s head move. Absolutely sickness inducing. I had a funny experience of trying to have a meeting with people watching a screen of another persons VR feed that made the entire room sick

 

This effect wouldn’t be moving your head, it would be your head moving an object. Like a door swinging when you press against it vs poking your head through it. 
 

Eh I’d have to actually try this in a flight sim to have a legit opinion and odds are I won’t use VR any time soon so that’s enough from me on the subject. 

10 minutes ago, Baldrick33 said:

The issue with the hard limit is that positional tracking stops abruptly and given generally we can't see transparent glass it is as if tracking has failed.

Good point. You’d have to be able to see what you’re up against like canopy frames or reflections. 

[cfrag]

17 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

I’d have to try it in DCS of course. But my experience using VR headsets is that they’re no more sickness inducing than the real thing would be. If you get sick on a real roller coaster you’d get sick in a VR roller coaster etc. 

 

Yes and no. It's likely that you simply got lucky and aren't affected as strongly as other people are. Like most things in life, susceptibility to simulator-, VR-, or sea sickness is distributed over a spectrum, and may be triggered by different stimuli. While my significant other can fly VR DCS, she immediately (and unexpectedly) threw up when she play-tested a VR title we were developing (where we did move the head during an intro scene, and got so many complaints form customers that we made that optional). She doesn't get sick on a roller coaster. She can play VR (enjoyed Alyx - to a point; she's not into shooters but loved the artwork). Two seconds on the in-game VR dolly, and she showed me her breakfast. Unpleasant. Unpredictable. Avoidable  

 

17 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

This effect wouldn’t be moving your head, it would be your head moving an object.

 

As long as your vestibular system (balance sense) tells a different story from your eyes, you'll have that problem. A VR heaset only affects your eyes, and when they desync with sense of balance, some people throw up. 

Edited August 19, 2021 by cfrag

[SharpeXB]

3 minutes ago, cfrag said:

Yes and no

Yeah and I do realize that the analogy of the laundry basket isn’t entirely correct. Because it’s not just the basket moving but the entire world you can perceive moving with it. 

[kablamoman]

2 hours ago, cfrag said:

While I agree with most of what you state, I found that I raised my eyebrow at this: 

 

 

I believe above assertions need to be somewhat unpacked, as they are misleading at best. There is no "never move the player head" attitude. There is the general recommendation for VR developers to move the player head as little as possible, because doing so can cause nausea with some players (phrased differently: there is a statistically significant correlation between moving the head in-application, and the incidence of VR sickness symptoms like nausea, headache, vertigo, vomiting). For anyone developing games for profit, that usually translates to "Customers generally do not enjoy feeling ill. If you want to maximize potential customers for your VR title, avoid doing things that can make them ill, among which are: moving the head (and others)" -- which some people perhaps abbreviate as "don't move the head". Study after study has shown that in VR, moving the head is one of the things that strongly correlates with VR sickness symptoms, and this still holds true. Not everyone is afflicted equally (some more, some less, some not at all), and some (not all) people who are affected can train against it, and there is medication available to mitigate the symptoms that works for some people.

 

There are very few absolutes here, and a lot of common sense. It pretty much boils down to

1. Some things may restrict who can use your title.
2. Do not unnecessarily restrict your potential client base if you want to maximize sell-through.
3. (Unless it is an option) Moving the head is likely to restrict your user base to those who can stomach it
4. To reach maximum user potential don't move the head in VR    

So yes, there is perhaps some dogma involved: do what's best for business

 

So we aren't that far apart, but that 'antiquated and proven false' line was more difficult for me to stomach than the VR head movement in 'Windlands' for my godson   

 

 

 

On the contrary, in the early days of room scale VR development many developers and enthusiasts did hold these dogmas to be absolutely true. The general consensus was that any kind of artificial vection was a recipe for immediate discomfort and your target audience running away in terror. Many also asserted that sim sickness was not something that could be overcome: The "VR legs are not a thing" comment, was a great example of some of the early ignorance and hang-ups related to this. I think the developers at ED have understandably been a little bit reticent to push any boundaries here, but many titles have shown you can successfully implement features that would have traditionally been considered "bad practice" and a surprising number of users are fine with and even prefer them. While a small minority may have trouble, a robust system of comfort options should eliminate any concern (Half-Life: Alyx is a prime example of this).

 

In the time since 2016 and the Vive's release, we have seen some very amazing strides made, particularly in the area of artificial locomotion, and how different users show different levels of tolerance -- a surprising portion of users are able to tolerate much more than was initially thought feasible. Games like Onward and Pavlov feature full, unimpeded artificial translational movement as a part of their core game. Games like Echo Arena have a variety of advanced movement options that can be unlocked by players that are unaffected or have developed their tolerance for sim sickness.

 

What we know is that artificial rotational movement seems much likely to induce sim sickness in those who are prone, but also even in those with a high tolerance and so this, more than anything else is what should be avoided. The translational stuff -- lateral, side-to-side, up-down, forward-back -- as would be experienced in a "Hard limit" canopy limitation, or in a game like half-life (with artificial locomotion instead of teleport) has a pretty high degree of user tolerance. Indeed, you can see the entire online community in the "other sim" playing with these same restrictions, quite happily, though I am sure there are a small number of players that don't find it comfortable, still.

 

For those that still have real issues with discomfort, there should be the option for a soft limit, or a fade-to-black, so I really don't understand where all the protest is coming from. I can only assume people get prickly at the mere notion that somebody else may want to make them sick, or take away their enjoyment of the game they love. But I can assure you that is not what I am looking to do.

 

I would amend your common sense guidelines:

1. Some things may restrict who can use your title.
2. Do not unnecessarily restrict your potential client base by not implementing features for fear of making a small minority sick, if you want to maximize sell-through.
3. (Unless it is an option) Moving the head is likely to restrict your user base to those who can stomach it
4. To reach maximum VR user potential, implement exciting and immersive features when appropriate, with comfortable alternatives when warranted

 

Edited August 19, 2021 by kablamoman

[Tippis]

7 hours ago, barry_c said:

What about us players that don't experience the sickness or have taught our brains to go through it? I was severly sick on all VR games but now I can play games with movement restrictions.

To be blunt, in that case, you don't really matter. Those who do are the ones that need to be catered for, and doing that changes nothing for you.

 

7 hours ago, barry_c said:

Saying that sticking your head outside of a solid cockpit is not immersion breaking is just delusional.

Is anyone saying that, though?

 

2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

And this “hard limit” doesn’t move the players head. It moves the canopy with their head.

Your usual complete and self-confessed unfamiliarity the the topic you're arguing is showing its ugly face again. They're the same thing. You really should have learned by now that every time you try to dive into these kinds of threads and end up — almost immediately — expose the fact that you have no experience with or knowledge of the topic at hand, and yet you try to make definitive (always incorrect) statements like this, it only ever hurts the cause you're trying to further and adds nothing of any value whatsoever to the topic or the discussion.

 

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

This effect wouldn’t be moving your head, it would be your head moving an object.

The thing that it's moving is your world reference point, which is indistinguishable from moving your head. The two are exactly the same relative movement. The only thing that sets them apart is that one is brain-approved and the other is not. When you move (or more accurately accelerate) your head inside any given frame of reference, the brain expects the frame of reference to move only as much as the head moves — no less, no more. If you move the frame of reference along with the head, the bran sees less movement that it knows happened, and freaks out because that's the reality not behaving the way it should. Relative to the actual movement made, something else is indeed adding additional movement in relation to the reference point.

[barry_c]

4 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

Personally I like the fade option over anything else, it prevents cheating, but is kinder to people with motion sickness as it is not abrupt. 

Would their be the opportunity to have both as options, you can select what you want on the client side? I'd personally like a hard limit but if my friend wanted it to fade or go pixelated to avoid sickness that would be fantastic.

33 minutes ago, Tippis said:

To be blunt, in that case, you don't really matter. Those who do are the ones that need to be catered for, and doing that changes nothing for you.

 

Is anyone saying that, though?

Both points, I said why not make it an option we can choose, even if many had it disabled many would have it enabled.

2nd point yeah you'd be surprised actually, people on discord servers arguing that it's not immersion breaking...

 

4 hours ago, Baldrick33 said:

I don't think anyone is arguing against having options, just that having the option to enforce it in multiplayer would seem to exclude those that do experience motion sickness if the chosen option is to stop positional tracking at the invisible boundary.

Honestly I don't care if servers enable it or not, if there's two options, a motion sick friendly and a hard limit that is the best compromise IMO.

4 hours ago, Mars Exulte said:

  Nobody's losing an AirQuake duel because their VR opponent ''stuck his head out the window'' anymore than they've been losing them for the last twenty years because somebody's TrackIR lets them check six without physically turning their entire body ) If anything, the VR guy is at least having to ACTUALLY physically turn and lean around and therefore subject to fatigue and backaches

I have genuinely won dogfights where I have lost Tally and regained by sticking my head outside briefly, it 100% occurs.