requested Proposal for VR head limits implementation

[Mr. Big.Biggs]

It’s a desperate grasp to be “right” and win. 
Nothing more. Sad really…..

[Lace]

5 minutes ago, Mars Exulte said:

 Losing a fight isn't a noteworthy event, especially if the excuse for how it happened was ''He was wearing a low res VR helmet that clipped through the canopy and THAT was the deciding factor''. Pretty damn cringe, like most rationalisations for ''why I lost that wasn't my fault''.

 

This.

 

4 minutes ago, Nealius said:

Honestly tired of games these days being so focused on PvP and competitive playing. The only reason this is an issue is because some PvP players are salty about their opponents allegedly exploiting lack of view limits in VR. Despite VR having such crappy spotting it literally doesn't even matter if they could stick their heads out. Some of us like single player and PvE. Don't force limitations that only exist for PvP players onto everyone else. If it's that big of a deal, then make it an option. A server-enforceable option. Done. 

 

 

And this.

 

There are numerous ways to cheat.  The biggest is the consequence free exceeding of a/c operating limits.  Players can choose to fly within the limits, or outside of them.  If you are worried about cheating on MP servers, then find a better server. 

 

For the vast majority who never play MP, this is a completely insignificant issue and not worthy of EDs precious time IMHO.  There are far bigger issues to address.

[barry_c]

47 minutes ago, Mars Exulte said:

  This is a video game.

 

  Which is a type of video game.

 

  We can ONLY simulate some things. This is a distinct limitation of video games vs real life. I'm not particularly for or against any of the stuff being discussed here, but every few days somebody raises some imagined imbalance or cheat because of *insert crisis*. I've heard everything, including resolution, screen size, and control quality, presented as various ''cheats''. It's a video game, with all the limitations (and concessions to reality) that usually entails.

 

  Which is a great goal and why we're all here. But it's still a video game, most of us aren't real pilots, and our experience varies dramatically based on the hardware we're using and personal aptitude. Losing a fight isn't a noteworthy event, especially if the excuse for how it happened was ''He was wearing a low res VR helmet that clipped through the canopy and THAT was the deciding factor''. Pretty damn cringe, like most rationalisations for ''why I lost that wasn't my fault''.

Bro it's not even a lot of Dev time, If (redacted simulator) can do it we can too. We pay a lot for these modules, I want the OPTION to not have my head go out the window, is that really that hard to understand? I don't care if other people don't want this OPTION turned on. I want it personally on as do many others.

 

Yes it might be a damn game, but I could play any other game, the reason I play DCS is because it is the most REALISTIC. Adding optional limits will improve the REALISM the game STRIVES to ACHIEVE.

My point isn't even about the supposed advantage us VR players have. It's more about I pay for a REALISTIC experience. I don't want to clip my own head through a damn piece of glass.

 

Can you get that into your head? Some of us VR players don't want our heads outside at 300mph.

Edited August 20, 2021 by barry_c

[SharpeXB]

48 minutes ago, Nealius said:

Honestly tired of games these days being so focused on PvP and competitive playing.

Having my head move through the canopy is something I find extremely ugly and annoying in the civy flight sims which are SP and non-competitive. 

[kablamoman]

1 hour ago, Nealius said:

Honestly tired of games these days being so focused on PvP and competitive playing. The only reason this is an issue is because some PvP players are salty about their opponents allegedly exploiting lack of view limits in VR. Despite VR having such crappy spotting it literally doesn't even matter if they could stick their heads out. Some of us like single player and PvE. Don't force limitations that only exist for PvP players onto everyone else. If it's that big of a deal, then make it an option. A server-enforceable option. Done. 

 

 

Nope.

 

As a VR user I'd still be gagging for an option to keep my head from poking through the canopy even if I only played offline.

 

Regardless, if you read the OP there was nothing about forcing limitations on single player.

[Tippis]

2 hours ago, kablamoman said:

Did you actually read the OP?

Yes.

Did you read what I wrote?

 

 

2 hours ago, kablamoman said:

Key point: Limits are needed so people don't stick their head through their canopy.

Key counter-point: any selection of limits must be client-side authoritative so that you cannot force players to not feel good. The way server-side options work at the moment, this means that there can be no server-side option because those always override the client-side (this is perhaps not as it should be but it is how it is, so we need to start from that). If this makes the option to limit movement pointless, then the option is pointless and that settles the matter right there and then. That is all.

 

What you're suggesting is the same logic that ostensibly applies to labels, except with the ability to dictate the appearance server-side is removed. There's just one problem with that: the way server-side options work means that apparent logic of this is not how it plays out in practice — I use the word “ostensibly” very deliberately here. There is currently no way to set a server to give the client options because every option is always forced by the server.

 

  

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

Having my head move through the canopy is something I find extremely ugly and annoying in the civy flight sims which are SP and non-competitive.

Good thing you don't suffer from that in DCS, then, making your “contribution” irrelevant and pointless.

[kablamoman]

@Tippis

 

Quote

Yes. [then proceeds argue against the straw man that somebody is advocating for enforcing limits that will make a player sick]

 

Apparently, you didn't.

 

 

To reiterate... One. More. Time:

 

Client Options:

• No Limit
• Hard Limit
• Soft Limit (Comfort)

 

Client Options On Server Enforcing View Restrictions:

• No Limit disallowed
• Hard Limit
• Soft Limit (Comfort)

 

 

Edited August 20, 2021 by kablamoman

[Tippis]

15 minutes ago, kablamoman said:

Apparently, you didn't.

Apparently, you can't actually respond to what I'm saying and have to rely on these pathetic misdirections instead of actually trying to use real arguments.

 

Read what I wrote.

Respond to it.

 

if you can't, reconsider whether or not you even understand your own proposal.

 

Oh, and as for you laughable edit, don't try to make it sound like it's a strawman to bring up the problems of the server enforcing restrictions when you “clarification” then immediately states that…

  

15 minutes ago, kablamoman said:

To reiterate... One. More. Time:

 

Client Options On Server Enforcing View Restrictions:

 

To reiterate, one more time.

Any selection of limits must be client-side authoritative so that you cannot force players to not feel good. The way server-side options work at the moment, this means that there can be no server-side option because those always override the client-side.

Edited August 20, 2021 by Tippis

[Lace]

1 hour ago, barry_c said:

 

Can you get that into your head? Some of us VR players don't want our heads outside at 300mph.

 

 

So, don't move your neck in a way that your head protrudes through the glass?  I'm not sure I've ever accidentally poked my head through the canopy.  If you want realism, then do what people do IRL and move your head in the same way.

[kablamoman]

2 minutes ago, Lace said:

 

So, don't move your neck in a way that your head protrudes through the glass?  I'm not sure I've ever accidentally poked my head through the canopy.  If you want realism, then do what people do IRL and move your head in the same way.

 

 

Do you fly the warbirds? Because it's almost impossible to not inadvertently stick your head outside.

 

If you have never done it, then great! the discussion or implementation of limits will have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on your experience or enjoyment of the game!

Edited August 20, 2021 by kablamoman

[kablamoman]

@Tippis

 

Quote

Any selection of limits must be client-side authoritative so that you cannot force players to not feel good. The way server-side options work at the moment, this means that there can be no server-side option because those always override the client-side.

 

 

Yeah, and?

 

The server would lock the "no limits" option. It would work similarly to the "allow external views" setting. I'm not sure what it is you're trying to tell me, here.

[BIGNEWY]

people, if you have given your feedback thanks, but the arguing one way or another isnt helping, some of you need to take a few deep breaths. 

 

thanks

 

 

[Tippis]

21 minutes ago, kablamoman said:

Yeah, and?

And, thus, there can be no server-side option because those always override the client-side.

 

21 minutes ago, kablamoman said:

The server would lock the "no limits" option. It would work similarly to the "allow external views" setting. I'm not sure what it is you're trying to tell me, here.

I'm telling you how server-side settings in DCS work. Or perhaps more accurately, how they don't work: namely that you can't actually let the client choose in spite of the ME giving the appearance that you can — the server setting is always forced, no matter what. The only difference is which server-setting is forced: the one that is ticked in the option box in the ME, or (and this is where the implementation in the game becomes silly) the option the mission-maker uses.

 

Now, I'll be charitable enough to assume that you've constructed your suggestion on the assumption that client choice is supported by DCS, and that, if it were, there might be some merit to the idea. The problem is — and that's why I keep repeating that whole “there can be no server-side option” thing — that DCS unfortunately doesn't work that way, and this most likely scuttles the idea, at least for the purpose of enforcing MP balance.

Edited August 20, 2021 by Tippis

[kablamoman]

@Tippis

 

You are lost in the weeds here.

 

It is a trivial programming task to set up the logic in line with the proposal.

 

For instance, the client could have a drop down box in VR settings for "VR Canopy Limits Preferred Method"  with two options: "Hard Canopy Bounds" or "Fade To Black". ED could even offer several additional options (eg. "pixelate world outside of canopy", "blur world" etc.)

 

There can be a separate setting that disables the "limits simulation" entirely unless the client opts in anyway : eg.  "Disregard VR Limits" .

This second setting would be a simulation setting and a single boolean value that can be enforced in the mission parameters in the exact same way the external view setting is controlled and enforced and propagated to clients when they join servers.

 

 

I really don't see what it is you're advocating for or against. Do you not want to see limits? Do you want things to remain the same? If you do, what would having these options available to players do to detrimentally affect your personal experience? I just don't see how it can possibly be a bad thing to have these options available. They seem to me like they should have been a key part of of the VR implementation to begin with.

Edited August 20, 2021 by kablamoman

[Tippis]

Just now, kablamoman said:

You are lost in the weeds here.

No, just pointing out a fundamental problem with your proposal.

You are working entirely on the assumption that client and server settings can be applied in parallel and mix and coexist to give both what the client wants and what the mission-designer intended. This is not the case. For any option where there is a server setting, the client setting becomes meaningless — the server setting is always forced.

 

If this fact makes your proposal unworkable for your purposes, then, well… that's it, really.

If it doesn't, then fantastic, but nothing you've sand or described so far would suggest that you can get the outcome you want while also keeping it server-enforced.

 

Just now, kablamoman said:

It is a trivial programming task to set up the logic in line with the proposal.

You should apply for a job with ED then. It has worked like this for… ehm… let's call it quite some time.

It would certainly be nice if it worked otherwise, but until it does, we have to work with what we've got, and you need to take that functionality into consideration when you propose these kinds of limitations.

 

Just now, kablamoman said:

For instance, the client could have a drop down box in VR settings for "VR Canopy Limits Preferred Method"  with two options: "Hard Canopy Bounds" or "Fade To Black"

ED could even offer more options (eg. "pixelate world outside of canopy", "blur world" etc.)

 

There can be a separate setting that disables the "limits simulation" entirely: eg.  "Disregard VR Limits" .

This second setting would be a simulation setting and a single boolean value that can be enforced in the mission parameters in the exact same way the external view setting is controlled and enforced and propagated to clients when they join servers.

This is not how the interaction between client and server options work in DCS. You can keep illustrating the intent and implementation, but that single fact still remains, and by the looks of it, it makes the basic design of the idea not work the way you want it to.

 

Also, your example is not a good parallel for what you're suggesting. There are no client-side alternatives for external views, so all you get is exactly what the server dictates — nothing more and nothing less. As mentioned, the only things that comes close are the unit label settings, and by sheer coincidence, this is where the limitations in how server settings are always forced, and how the client side of the equation ends up not mattering, become the most apparent.

[kablamoman]

[=475FG= Dawger]

5 hours ago, Mr. Big.Biggs said:

It should also limit track ir users to a 1:1 ratio….

Absolutely.

 

This is why ED should not set one foot down this path.

 

It will lead to demands, rightfully, to prevent "cheating" in a similar fashion for every other view system. 

 

Although, I do admit to looking forward to the salty tears when this backfires in the face of the people that started this non-sense.

[Gunslinger22]

7 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Pilots can indeed turn to see their 6:00. The effort required to do this can’t be simulated in a PC game though. DCS does a pretty good job of simulating the head and shoulder turn when using head tracking. 
 

Both of those pictures demonstrate how hard it is for a pilot to contort their body around to get a clear view behind them, both have their hands off the throttle and have used the canopy to leverage themselves around. DCS has a terrible implementation when it comes to how TIR functions and it’s quite humorous of you to say that it can’t be implemented in a game yet here we are debated placing limits on VR users? 

[SharpeXB]

19 minutes ago, Gunslinger22 said:

Both of those pictures demonstrate how hard it is for a pilot to contort their body around to get a clear

But they can turn and look. Unless you want to add force feedback VR then you can’t simulate this effort in a game. Neither pilot can put their head through the canopy though. 

[SharpeXB]

24 minutes ago, Gunslinger22 said:

both have their hands off the throttle and have used the canopy to leverage themselves around

This. What you also see is he’s not strapped in like an F1 driver or astronaut. This is no more or less what you can see with head tracking or even VR if you’re in shape enough to turn your body.

 

[Mr. Big.Biggs]

51 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

But they can turn and look. Unless you want to add force feedback VR then you can’t simulate this effort in a game. Neither pilot can put their head through the canopy though. 

Nor can either pilot simply make a slight turn of of the head and see their six without any effort whatsoever. Limit both track Ir and VR or neither. 
Better idea, fix frame rates…..

[SharpeXB]

5 minutes ago, Mr. Big.Biggs said:

Nor can either pilot simply make a slight turn of of the head and see their six without any effort whatsoever. Limit both track Ir and VR or neither. 

Head tracking only works if the motion is magnified, otherwise you’d literally need a monitor behind you… have you ever used it? VR doesn’t need a motion limit because it’s 1:1 already and you can see in 360d

 

Do you seriously need this explained or are you just asking rhetorical questions?

[Mr. Big.Biggs]

No Einstein, I’m saying your pathetic hypothetical cheating advantage of a vr user is no different than calling greater than 1:1 track Ir user a cheater. Except because its what you want you will never see it that way.  Grow up!

[=475FG= Dawger]

This is a much bigger “cheat” than this thread topic. 

[SharpeXB]

19 minutes ago, Mr. Big.Biggs said:

pathetic hypothetical cheating advantage of a vr user

I don’t worry about it being a cheat so much as it just being ugly and awkward.