requested Proposal for VR head limits implementation

[kablamoman]

7 hours ago, Tippis said:

…and aside from the fact that options don't work the way you want them to.

…and aside from the resources being used for something more relevant than what is largely a non-issue.

…and aside from how it would have to cascade into 2D to “fix” the same thing there, thus requiring even more resources.

…and aside from how the arguments in favour of the idea have an interesting habit of coming from people who confess outright that they don't actually know what they're discussing, making their suggestions spectacularly misinformed.

 

So no, what you mean is that there are figuratively no arguments against it, since literally, there are, and that this metaphorical non-existence only comes about by ignoring the  arguments against it that have been presented.

 

 

You've formatted your post to show 4 arguments against, so let me readback what you're saying and you tell me if I misunderstand:

1. Options "don't work that way" and so proposal is incompatible with DCS
2. Resources taken away from other things for VR fix
3. Resources taken away from other things for 2D fix
4. Arguments in favor come from people who don't know what they're talking about

 

Arguments 2 and 3 seem awfully similar -- ie. "resource misappropriation" --  and this proposal has nothing to do with 2D head tracking, nor am I advocating for any change to 2D tracking solutions.

 

Argument 4 seems less of an argument than an attack, so I will disregard that, so what we're left with is:

1. Options "don't work that way".
2. Resources taken away from other things.

 

Regarding the "Resource" argument, nobody is advocating that any resources be taken away from showstopper bugs, or that this issue be given priority over anything else. Simply, I am advocating for a better VR implementation and I do not think the changes as they are proposed would entail some herculean effort. On the contrary, I think they are relatively simple changes that would go a long way towards improving the quality of life for all VR players, and are applicable to the core sim now and going forward. As such I believe they are worthwhile changes, and the fact that the devs have said they are looking into what can be done, leads me to believe they tend to see the merits of better VR support in terms of immersion, fidelity, and comfort options.

 

I  can dismiss this argument as one that is trying to sow discontent at the mere idea of the changes by fear-mongering that some other long standing bug or feature will be left ignored at the expense of this VR thing. No, we can absolutely hope and push for positive changes across the board, including in VR support.

 

 

Regarding the "Options don't work that way" argument, I have tried to explain that you're way out to lunch on this one, and frankly it's a bit exasperating that you keep bringing it up as some kind of justification for not improving the VR experience. After reading your assertions I question whether you yourself actually have an understanding of how computer systems work, specifically in the context of the client-server framework we have here in the game.

 

For every "enforceable" setting in an online server, it is actually the client that contains the logic to allow or disallow whatever feature it is in question. The server simply passes along variables that can be as simple as "true" or "false" or whatever numerical value is needed for the client to interpret the server admin's intentions.

 

I brought up the external view flag, because logically it works in much the same way as any proposed limits would. For example, we have our view on the screen. The client contains the logic to display these views, whether they be from the cockpit, any number of external views, or even the map. These views can be considered analogous to our proposed "VR cockpit limit modes". With one variable in the mission, the server can pass along the information "allow external views" true or false, and the client is what allows the player to actually switch between views -- if a server admin has allowed external views, a client can cycle cameras from f1-f10 to their hearts content, and see the changes on the screen. If the admin has disabled these views, a client may only be allowed to view the cockpit (f1) and the map (f10). In the same way, a single variable to "respect cockpit boundaries" could be set in the mission, on the server, and relayed to the client, which then interprets it and contains the logic to allow only the appropriate modes.

 

The key point is that the client is what contains the logic (allow cockpit, allow map, but not external views) to decide what the user can display on their screen. 

 

Even if there was some kind of problem with the client-server architecture in DCS that would prevent such a thing, it would again be trivial for a team that has developed a complex aerodynamics simulation to figure out how to propagate "realism" settings from server to client and adhere to certain logical constrains, and you suggesting otherwise is again another way of distracting from the actual argument and trying to convince people the solution is harder to implement than it is.

 

 

So I also disregard your argument number 1, "DCS options don't work that way" as a valid counterpoint.

 

---

 

Again, I have yet to read any compelling reason not to implement the proposed solution.

 

[Mr. Big.Biggs]

Koblamoman=ignore 

[kablamoman]

7 hours ago, Baldrick33 said:

This thread will drag on forever if it is simply a collection of individual opinions asserting what is immersive as if for everyone and whether the VR cockpit implementation is a worthy enough multiplayer cheat to require fixing.

 

You have presented a proposal which is a reasonable summary of the many other threads on the topic which appears to cover all bases yet continue to assert your view on immersion as if it is fact and continue to suggest the motivation for people not wishing it changed is to be able to cheat and behave like a ghost.

 

Personally the way it works now is fine for me. As soon as the clipping through the screen commences I back off just enough. It is a subtle warning which I heed. Having the little bit beyond the clipping turn black or pixelate would be far less subtle and hence more immersion breaking for me. That is just my opinion, there is no right answer what we find immersive. Hard limits are simply horrible, nothing to do with motion sickness it is the most immersion breaking option of all for me.

 

The same would apply to multiplayer and would lower immersion, it doesn't mean I want to behave like a ghost, nor wish to cheat. I can understand the desire to stop those that do but don't assume everyone that is happy with the status quo does.

 

ED will have to weigh up how big a deal the "cheating" is, compared with other forms of tracking and whether it would reduce enjoyment for those that don't use it in any way as a cheat or even stop players joining.

 

Maybe a hybrid solution will be best allowing a little clipping for people like me who use it to determine where the limits are and fading out as we move past it.

 

 

 

Baldrick, I acknowledge the fact that you think an artificial limit to the canopy boundary is more immersion breaking than simply sticking your head through it.

 

But I think you must also acknowledge that you are in the minority. Most players would agree that being able to phase through what's supposed to be solid material in a simulation is the thing that is most immersion breaking.

 

I respect your position, but given what you've said, I don't think any limits would affect your playstyle or enjoyment of the game. For one -- they would be completely optional, except in the circumstance that an online server operator would choose to enforce a limit. Do you play online? If you do, and the admin and 90% of the players believe people shouldn't be able to stick their heads through the glass -- maybe just don't stick your head through the glass?

 

Most of these threads light up with players up in arms about "motion sickness", yet when the proposed solution takes this into account, people grasp at all sorts of straws to keep their status quo and try to impede improvement in the game's VR support. It is very frustrating.

 

If you don't play online, this proposal does nothing but give you more options. 

 

In the very specific case that you do play online, as part of a community that decides to disallow people phasing heads through the canopy, then I would say don't stick your head out of the plane!!

[=475FG= Dawger]

28 minutes ago, Mr. Big.Biggs said:

Koblamoman=ignore 

+1

[SharpeXB]

Since sim games are attempting to replicate reality as close as possible. Questions about game features become easier to answer. 
Can a pilot in the real world stick their head through the canopy? No. So therefore it shouldn’t be possible in DCS

What about air sickness? Do people get airsick in real aircraft? Yes. So it should be possible to get airsick in VR. After all it’s Virtual Reality right? So along with motion sickness and needing to turn your head 1:1 you’re getting what you asked for. 

[barry_c]

1 hour ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

+1

Very constructive as per usual.

[=475FG= Dawger]

49 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Since sim games are attempting to replicate reality as close as possible. Questions about game features become easier to answer. 
Can a pilot in the real world stick their head through the canopy? No. So therefore it shouldn’t be possible in DCS

What about air sickness? Do people get airsick in real aircraft? Yes. So it should be possible to get airsick in VR. After all it’s Virtual Reality right? So along with motion sickness and needing to turn your head 1:1 you’re getting what you asked for. 

At least you are being honest in your envious rage. 

[Lt_Jaeger]

1 hour ago, kablamoman said:

 

 

.

... 

 

But I think you must also acknowledge that you are in the minority. Most players would agree that being able to phase through what's supposed to be solid material in a simulation is the thing that is most immersion breaking.

How comes you think you know what the majority wants?

 

The majority is on pancake and think vr is a voodoo which gives, especially since you are able to stand up in mid game and look what's behind you (just wish my arms would be longer so I could make use of that cheat mode (ironic)), an unfair advantage. The majority doesn't know what you are talking about. I even doubt that the majority of vr players had issues with the fact that you, if you really want, are able to stick their head out of the window.. 

 

 

1 hour ago, kablamoman said:

 maybe just don't stick your head through the glass?

 

 

 

There you go, you found the solution. Congratulations

 

 

1 hour ago, kablamoman said:

 

In the very specific case that you do play online, as part of a community that decides to disallow people phasing heads through the canopy, then I would say don't stick your head out of the plane!!

 

 

And again, bullseye. 

 

 

Just keep your head in the virtual airframe. 

[Baldrick33]

1 hour ago, kablamoman said:

 

 

Baldrick, I acknowledge the fact that you think an artificial limit to the canopy boundary is more immersion breaking than simply sticking your head through it.

 

But I think you must also acknowledge that you are in the minority. Most players would agree that being able to phase through what's supposed to be solid material in a simulation is the thing that is most immersion breaking.

 

I respect your position, but given what you've said, I don't think any limits would affect your playstyle or enjoyment of the game. For one -- they would be completely optional, except in the circumstance that an online server operator would choose to enforce a limit. Do you play online? If you do, and the admin and 90% of the players believe people shouldn't be able to stick their heads through the glass -- maybe just don't stick your head through the glass?

 

I genuinely have no clue if I am in the minority. I know that the "other sim" option of breaking tracking is the worst solution for me. I can't speak for others but VR can be a very subjective thing which is why titles like Half Life Alyx have multiple methods of locomotion and movement, there is no magic one size fits all solution. In spite of the years of experience developers have with VR they still get it wrong and have to rush out patches to provide new options of (Medal of Honor: Above & Beyond etc.). There is no research paper that can tell what works best for me.

 

All I can do is state my view and we see if there is consensus, even then it is a tiny sample and short of surveying the entire VR DCS user base I am not sure how we determine who is in the minority.

 

Absolutely the solution is not to stick your head out but we need to understand where the boundaries are and currently the solutions are to see the onset of clipping or tracking gets broken and world moves with you. For many (the majority? Who knows?) the former is sufficient to know where the boundary lies and not move any more. The alternatives are to make the outside world fade away or blur it out. Neither of which are any more immersive for those wishing to avoid going beyond the boundary, I would argue far less subtle than clipping a screen which changes the transparency a little.

 

If we need to stop someone deliberately going beyond the boundary to seek an advantage then sure fade out the world beyond the initial clipping but keep the option for those that just want to know where the boundaries the option to stop moving before the outside world turns black or goes fuzzy.

55 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Since sim games are attempting to replicate reality as close as possible. Questions about game features become easier to answer. 
Can a pilot in the real world stick their head through the canopy? No. So therefore it shouldn’t be possible in DCS

What about air sickness? Do people get airsick in real aircraft? Yes. So it should be possible to get airsick in VR. After all it’s Virtual Reality right? So along with motion sickness and needing to turn your head 1:1 you’re getting what you asked for. 

Does a sim player's actual head stop when he hits the canopy? If the answer is no then you need to find a solution to the situation that the VR user's head is moving but the world isn't. This is an issue real pilots don't face, hence we need unique to sim solutions.

[cfrag]

2 hours ago, kablamoman said:

But I think you must also acknowledge that you are in the minority. Most players would agree that being able to phase through what's supposed to be solid material in a simulation is the thing that is most immersion breaking.

 

For the life of me, I have no idea what makes you say that. I could simply assert the opposite (actually I do), and after some more back and forth we will find out that we have no idea who "most players" are, nor what they want, as we first need to define 'most players'. Most DCS players? Those who play regularly? Those who multi-play? Those with VR headset? Those that play warbirds? Those who post here? 

 

Moreover, the subset of players that frequents this board is a self-selected, strongly biased minority that does not make up a representative nor relevant cross section of all DCS players, much less a majority. Those who actually post here (in this thread) even less so. Here we have the more vocal splinter of a subset, and at best we can guess that many of them have a heightened interest in DCS (side note: not all who contribute in these threads are actually interested in the subject, as you probably know that these boards are fraught with trolls who simply post contrarian content to stir the pot). So even if those who post here and voice an opinion on this matter (and here I assert that the majority of those who do, strongly disagree with your proposal that being able to stick their head out is immersion breaking and/or a priority issue) and either side has a majority, that majority means very little except that over the past few days, more people on this forum in this thread have posted one opinion more often than the other.  

 

Nevermind. Too much has been said on this subject already with too little gain. 

 

Edited August 22, 2021 by cfrag

[StevanJ]

2 hours ago, kablamoman said:

But I think you must also acknowledge that you are in the minority. Most players would agree that being able to phase through what's supposed to be solid material in a simulation is the thing that is most immersion breaking.

I dont believe this is the thing that is most immersion breaking.

Bugs, Low Resolution Assets, and AI is far more immersion breaking..

[SharpeXB]

46 minutes ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

At least you are being honest in your envious rage. 

Well there are arguments for and against. So just pick what’s real. Sure there would be options to set it on or off just like every other realism feature. But it should be there as an option. I think the OPs idea of having it server-side but letting the players choose hard or soft limit is a good suggestion. 

[kablamoman]

1 hour ago, Lt_Jaeger said:

How comes you think you know what the majority wants?

 

Given the fact that it's nearly universally acknowledged that the current set up doesn't collide and stop translational movement at the cockpit boundary due to the risk of motion sickness. Everybody gets this and seems to agree with it.

 

So It seems to me pretty self-evident that everyone -- universally -- would prefer a hard limit if it weren't for the fact that some would be susceptible to that negative consequence.

 

It was never a question of what most people would prefer. It was a matter of not making people sick.

 

This debate is a path well tread in the last half-decade of VR development, with some pretty clear outcomes:

 

First, people by-and-large would prefer the more immersive and accurate simulation of reality if motion sickness is not a consideration. Successful titles have demonstrated that you can satisfy all parties, while implementing comfort options for the minority of players who are negatively impacted. The feature set of the game or sim is not unduly held back by fear of sim sickness, and everybody is happy. People can choose what they want.

 

Second, we have found that players by-and-large are NOT as negatively impacted by purely translational artificial movement as they are rotational. This explains the success of titles like Onward and Pavlov, and countless others, which then informed the development and design of later titles like Alyx. This has become the new standard -- replacing the old orthodoxy of shying away from artificial movement -- so much so that the average VR enthusiast no longer accepts lackluster VR implementations that do not allow for such movement mechanics and associated comfort options.

 

Third, DCS and in fact all seated VR sim experiences, already artificially move the player translationally and rotationally, so it is extra rich that people get so bloody bent out of shape here about this. There is the argument that the cockpit geometry remaining stationary with regards to the player helps trick the brain into being ok with this artificial vection, and I'm sure there is a lot of truth to it, but DCS already breaks these rules in certain circumstances (bailing out, the "g-effects" option). All this proposal does it add MORE control to the player with regards to what can happen in the simulation when exceeding cockpit bounds, and server admins who wish to curtail cheating.

 

I think all of that about sums up why I think the majority of VR players -- both current and potential -- would prefer such an implementation over what we have now. Of course there may be someone who just wants to stick their head through the glass! Great! But don't tell me for a second the majority actually thinks this is a good idea, especially if the motion sickness problem is taken off the table.

 

Quote

There you go, you found the solution. Congratulations

 

Taken out of context. I offered that as a solution for someone who doesn't want to see the "black out" effect on a multiplayer server that may enforce limits. But thanks for playing.

 

For any other use case (offline or online), especially in the warbirds, it is often impossible to prevent inadvertently sticking your head through the glass. It is impossible to server admins to prevent players from sticking their heads through canopies to attain unobstructed or unobscured ridiculous views in and around their blind spots that are inherent to some of these aircraft designs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Baldrick33 said:

I genuinely have no clue if I am in the minority. I know that the "other sim" option of breaking tracking is the worst solution for me. I can't speak for others but VR can be a very subjective thing which is why titles like Half Life Alyx have multiple methods of locomotion and movement, there is no magic one size fits all solution. In spite of the years of experience developers have with VR they still get it wrong and have to rush out patches to provide new options of (Medal of Honor: Above & Beyond etc.). There is no research paper that can tell what works best for me.

 

All I can do is state my view and we see if there is consensus, even then it is a tiny sample and short of surveying the entire VR DCS user base I am not sure how we determine who is in the minority.

 

Absolutely the solution is not to stick your head out but we need to understand where the boundaries are and currently the solutions are to see the onset of clipping or tracking gets broken and world moves with you. For many (the majority? Who knows?) the former is sufficient to know where the boundary lies and not move any more. The alternatives are to make the outside world fade away or blur it out. Neither of which are any more immersive for those wishing to avoid going beyond the boundary, I would argue far less subtle than clipping a screen which changes the transparency a little.

 

If we need to stop someone deliberately going beyond the boundary to seek an advantage then sure fade out the world beyond the initial clipping but keep the option for those that just want to know where the boundaries the option to stop moving before the outside world turns black or goes fuzzy.

 

I don't disagree with anything here.

 

I think the fade-to-black option is a very specific implementation that would really only be restrictive to you or others if you happened to be playing on a server that chose to enforce cockpit bounds.

 

A quality implementation would go a long way to assuaging your fears, I think. As you mentioned, a small bump sound against the bounds, and then a slight but progressively more aggressive fading of the view seems like a reasonable enough way to give you the same kind of feedback you already get in order to know you're exceeding bounds, while respecting the server rules to not see anything useful beyond those limits.

Edited August 22, 2021 by kablamoman

[SharpeXB]

The canopy configuration and size is also a key differentiator in the WWII aircraft. For example in a P-47 vs a 109 your extra visibility is a key advantage vs the otherwise better handling Messerschmitt. 

[kablamoman]

13 hours ago, cfrag said:

For the life of me, I have no idea what makes you say that. I could simply assert the opposite (actually I do), and after some more back and forth we will find out that we have no idea who "most players" are, nor what they want, as we first need to define 'most players'. Most DCS players? Those who play regularly? Those who multi-play? Those with VR headset? Those that play warbirds? Those who post here? 

 

Common sense would dictate most people would feel passing through solid objects as if they were an ethereal being would cause a slight break in one's sense of immersion. "Bumping into something" is what I believe most would expect.

 

Keep in mind I'm talking specifically about that, and I'm not talking about majority/minority with regards to whom prefers which method to control for motion sickness. 

 

Indeed the original proposal was mean to give the player the choice of the latter.

Edited August 23, 2021 by kablamoman

[kablamoman]

1 hour ago, StevanJ said:

I dont believe this is the thing that is most immersion breaking.

Bugs, Low Resolution Assets, and AI is far more immersion breaking..

 

 

Nobody is saying those things shouldn't be fixed.

 

I can tell you that flying the warbirds in VR, the thing that probably ends up annoying me the most consistently -- more than some of the long standing bugs (many have simple workarounds), more than the spotty performance (game sure does look and sound pretty, though) -- is that I can't get away from that slipstream blasting my ears or the graphical glitches when I move my head around trying to fight in the things.

 

Coming from "the other sim", it is especially painful, because I know what my preferred solution looks like in practice. I would like to see that solution added, along with suitable options for others to make everybody happy.

[Baldrick33]

53 minutes ago, kablamoman said:

Third, DCS and in fact all seated VR sim experiences, already artificially move the player translationally and rotationally, so it is extra rich that people get so bloody bent out of shape here about this. There is the argument that the cockpit geometry remaining stationary with regards to the player helps trick the brain into being ok with this artificial vection, and I'm sure there is a lot of truth to it, but DCS already breaks these rules in certain circumstances (bailing out, the "g-effects" option).

 

 

The first thing I do in any driving sim or flight sim is to ensure that all head movement options like g forces, look to apex, moving forward and back under braking and acceleration are turned off. I have to have movement of my virtual head to match the movement of my physical one. Some people love all the g force simulation stuff and believe it makes them feel the forces better and makes them drive better/faster. It is why we have the options and why seated games work so well as there is no necessity to artificially move the head in relation to the vehicle or plane we are strapped into. The motion we encounter is the motion of the vehicle. It then becomes perfectly natural to lean into apexes and turns with our own heads just as we would in the real thing. This motion and the disparity between visual and vestibular system can be challenging for some but it is completely different than dealing with tracking issues which can cause motion sickness and be the biggest immersion killer in VR when the head movement becomes disconnected from the visual display.

 

I totally get why some would want the hard limits option even if for me it feels like when the VR headset loses tracking, so be it, we are wired differently. However, we also need to understand that for some (myself included) the current option feels the best and any occurrence where this option might be replaced with something else needs very careful consideration as to whether it does more harm than it fixes.

[kablamoman]

1 hour ago, Baldrick33 said:

The motion we encounter is the motion of the vehicle. It then becomes perfectly natural to lean into apexes and turns with our own heads just as we would in the real thing. This motion and the disparity between visual and vestibular system can be challenging for some but it is completely different than dealing with tracking issues which can cause motion sickness and be the biggest immersion killer in VR when the head movement becomes disconnected from the visual display.

 

I agree with what you wrote except for this.

 

There is no fundamental difference between the artificial vection involved in a virtual vehicle moving either translationally or rotationally, except for maybe apparent magnitude because of angular distance. This is indeed enough to make this motion more palatable for many -- and it can further help if you have a stationary canopy frame surrounding you and filling your peripheral vision -- but essentially, the car or plane moving about in space is no different than the effect you might experience from a "hard limit" option.

 

Things that also help in flight sims are that we're suspended up in the air without much for reference close outside the confines of the canopy space.

 

Someone may experience no apparent motion flying at high altitude, while someone prone to sim sickness may have real trouble flying close to the ground. So ultimately it really comes down to a personal matter of tolerance vs. apparent magnitude of the motion, which is why comfort options are such good idea to ensure everybody has the best experience possible.

 

[Baldrick33]

11 minutes ago, kablamoman said:

There is no fundamental difference between the artificial vection involved in a virtual vehicle moving either translationally or rotationally, except for maybe apparent magnitude because of angular distance. This is indeed enough to make this motion more palatable for many -- and it can further help if you have a stationary canopy frame surrounding you and filling your peripheral vision -- but essentially, the car or plane moving about in space is no different than the effect you might experience from a "hard limit" option.

 

 

Personally I find a massive difference in VR between simulated motion in a seated vehicle and simulated movement of my body. I have been playing seated sims since the DK2 some seven years ago. It took me several days to get my VR legs and I thought I was sorted. I can handle pretty much anything in a car or plane, huge jumps in rally cars, ridiculous barrel rolls in planes and so on. I have tried multiple times to get into standing VR games but the disconnect between what I feel my body doing and see differently just either kills the immersion or makes me feel ill. It isn't through lack of trying. I couldn't cope with locomotion in HL:Alyx so persevered with transportation but soon got bored - seated games just feel so much more made for VR in my case.

 

Whenever the positional view shifts independently of me moving is a completely different experience from vehicle motion. We see many posts from disappointed people new to VR saying the plane/car moves with me - what is wrong? It is explained that positional tracking is not working and how to fix it their eyes get opened up to VR working correctly. When positional tracking fails mid race/flight it can mess with our brains completely differently than dealing with the vehicular motion.

 

TL:DR In my view the experiences of motion of flying a plane in VR and switching been 3dof and 6dof tracking mid flight are two distinct aspects when it comes to motion sickness.

[Tippis]

10 hours ago, kablamoman said:

Arguments 2 and 3 seem awfully similar -- ie. "resource misappropriation" --  and this proposal has nothing to do with 2D head tracking, nor am I advocating for any change to 2D tracking solutions.

They're not the same.

One is about competition for resources, the other is about how you're suggesting something with marginal effect when you could go after the much larger problem. One is resources; the other is class and scope.

 

10 hours ago, kablamoman said:

Argument 4 seems less of an argument than an attack, so I will disregard that

Interesting that you should say that… we'll keep this logic in mind.

 

By the way, no, it is still an argument, namely that a lot of what is being said in favour of the idea is said from a position of ignorance, where the basis of what is being said doesn't actually match what is going on in the game. It is not an attack to say that some given logic rests on false assumptions or is based on ignorance. You go on to suggest something about an assumed majority, but this is exactly where you run into problems: that supposed majority counts for nothing if it includes — and probably even majorly consists of — people who come at it from this position. They don't matter, doubly so when we tie it back in with #3, where they are very adamant about changing VR but become actively hostile at the idea of going after their view system… suggesting that this is not actually about any kind of improvement but rather the opposite: to try to “nerf the other guy.”

 

10 hours ago, kablamoman said:

I  can dismiss this argument as one that is trying to sow discontent at the mere idea of the changes by fear-mongering that some other long standing bug or feature will be left ignored at the expense of this VR thing. 

No, you can't dismiss it because it is an actual fact; it's the context within which you must operate; it is an inherent limitation that you must always relate to. You can address it, but you cannot dismiss it.

 

10 hours ago, kablamoman said:

Regarding the "Options don't work that way" argument, I have tried to explain that you're way out to lunch on this one,

No. You haven't explained anything. You've just dismissed it out of hand because you seemingly don't want to understand how options operate in DCS.

 

Oh, and what was that logic again? “Sems less of an argument than an attack, so I will disregard that”, I think? I guess we can safely disregard your inability to actually respond to… hmm? The fact that you feel some odd need to explain how flags work and how they're pass from server to client means you have still not understood what the problem is. If you want to stop being exasperated, take a breath and read what I've written rather than dismissing it out of hand as incorrect.

 

The well-tested, well-proven, undeniable, unavoidable fact is that the options you set for a mission in DCS don't operate on the logic you're assuming and relying on when you construct your idea. You can perhaps hope for that this will be changed, but you can't actually assume that it will because…

 

10 hours ago, kablamoman said:

Even if there was some kind of problem with the client-server architecture in DCS that would prevent such a thing, it would again be trivial for a team that has developed a complex aerodynamics simulation to figure out how to propagate "realism" settings from server to client and adhere to certain logical constrains

…reality belies your assumption. This bug has been around for, as far as anyone can tell, the entire lifespan of the game. It has been reported since forever. If it were trivial as trivial to them as you suggest, it would have been long gone by now.

 

10 hours ago, kablamoman said:

Again, I have yet to read any compelling reason not to implement the proposed solution.

Ah. Moving the goalposts then. Before it was, “no arguments” — now it's “no compelling arguments”. At leas you now recognise that there are at least four arguments against your idea, none of which can be trivially dismissed.

[cfrag]

8 hours ago, kablamoman said:

Common sense would dictate most people would feel passing through solid objects as if they were an ethereal being would cause a slight break in one's sense of immersion. "Bumping into something" is what I believe most would expect.

 

(Emphasis mine) "a slight break" I can agree with. That's not what I strongly disagreed with. Here's what you in fact wrote. To quote:

 

12 hours ago, kablamoman said:

Most players would agree that being able to phase through what's supposed to be solid material in a simulation is the thing that is most immersion breaking.

 

(emphasis mine) You are trying to change the meaning of your own statements by close to 180 degrees. Your original, contested, statement flatly, and in absolute terms stated something else, and trying to walk it back in above fashion comes dangerously close to arguing in bad faith. I believe it helps if people try and own their own arguments. 

 

Edited August 23, 2021 by cfrag

[StevanJ]

10 hours ago, kablamoman said:

 

 

Nobody is saying those things shouldn't be fixed.

 

I can tell you that flying the warbirds in VR, the thing that probably ends up annoying me the most consistently -- more than some of the long standing bugs (many have simple workarounds), more than the spotty performance (game sure does look and sound pretty, though) -- is that I can't get away from that slipstream blasting my ears or the graphical glitches when I move my head around trying to fight in the things.

 

Coming from "the other sim", it is especially painful, because I know what my preferred solution looks like in practice. I would like to see that solution added, along with suitable options for others to make everybody happy.

 

Yes, annoys YOU most.

 

Number 1 Dora fan right here.

 

My list of annoyances are different.

its okay that you don’t like the VR experience, but it’s not a big issue, in the bigger picture.

[kablamoman]

3 hours ago, cfrag said:

 

(Emphasis mine) "a slight break" I can agree with. That's not what I strongly disagreed with. Here's what you in fact wrote. To quote:

 

 

(emphasis mine) You are trying to change the meaning of your own statements by close to 180 degrees. Your original, contested, statement flatly, and in absolute terms stated something else, and trying to walk it back in above fashion comes dangerously close to arguing in bad faith. I believe it helps if people try and own their own arguments. 

 

 

 

second quote taken out of context.

 

When I said "most immersion breaking" it was in the context of what's more or less immersive: Sticking your head through a solid object, or the game ceasing translational movement in the direction that would cause it to happen. Baldrick was saying he finds the latter more "immersion breaking" (fair enough), and I was stating my belief that the majority of players would find the opposite to be true and that phasing through solid material would be the "most immersion breaking" (of the two options).

Edited August 23, 2021 by kablamoman

[kablamoman]

59 minutes ago, StevanJ said:

its okay that you don’t like the VR experience, but it’s not a big issue, in the bigger picture.

 

It's not a big issue for you. That's fine.

 

One is left wondering why you bothered to comment on a topic dedicated to it. The mysteries in life!

 

Well how about you let those who care about VR improvements and think they're pretty important to the game have their little discussion without interruption, then?

[cfrag]

45 minutes ago, kablamoman said:

second quote taken out of context.

 

It was not. It's literally the first thing you wrote following you quoting my "For the life of me, I have no idea what makes you say that", which specifically called into question your 'most immersion breaking' assertion, which I quoted verbatim. So be it. "You don't need to discuss much"

 

 

Edited August 23, 2021 by cfrag