requested Proposal for VR head limits implementation

[kablamoman]

7 hours ago, cfrag said:

 

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"

 

 

 

 

 

This is simply not true -- if you look back at the actual post it was a response to baldrick directly. You can even see I had quoted him before my words.

 

The full quote with context was as follows with an insert for clarity:

 

Quote

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 [of the two options].

 

 

 

I don't appreciate the accusations of arguments in bad faith. Please stick to the merits or disadvantages of the proposal. 

Edited August 23, 2021 by kablamoman

[StevanJ]

8 hours ago, kablamoman said:

 

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?

 

I care about VR improvements.
 

Its a question of asking devs where we should put their resources, im suggesting we ignore this for the short term in the bigger picture.

I care that when i look out the cockpit, i can see hi resolution assets. Or a wingman that can actually work and fly smart, not just a warbird with an engine that seizes, or a model that bounces around like a yoyo.
You care about looking out of the cockpit (figuratively speaking)..

[cfrag]

 

 

Have a nice day.

Edited August 23, 2021 by cfrag

[kablamoman]

2 minutes ago, StevanJ said:

 

I care about VR improvements.
 

Its a question of asking devs where we should put their resources, im suggesting we ignore this for the short term in the bigger picture.

I care that when i look out the cockpit, i can see hi resolution assets. Or a wingman that can actually work and fly smart, not just a warbird with an engine that seizes, or a model that bounces around like a yoyo.
You care about looking out of the cockpit (figuratively speaking)..

 

 

I care about VR improvements, too.

 

I believe a higher priority should be put on the core VR experience as it relates to how it handles clipping because of two key reasons:

 

• General VR Immersion
• Lack of limits has a detrimental effect on the quality of the simulation (especially as it pertains to warbirds)

 

To improve this situation, we have to also address the issue of comfort and motion sickness, as that was the reason the issue exists in the first place. Hence the proposal.

 

I care about the other things you mentioned, too, but this post was not about them.

[peachmonkey]

6 minutes ago, kablamoman said:

 

 

I care about VR improvements, too.

 

I believe a higher priority should be put on the core VR experience as it relates to how it handles clipping because of two key reasons:

 

• General VR Immersion
• Lack of limits has a detrimental effect on the quality of the simulation (especially as it pertains to warbirds)

 

 

 

while you're being the most vocal proponent of the VR limits let me ask you just a couple of questions.

- Have you actually experienced the IL2 cockpit VR limit yourself? 

- If so, what did you like in their implementation and what did you see as negative experience?

 

 

 

[kablamoman]

5 minutes ago, cfrag said:

 

 

 

Have a nice day.

 

 

Yeah, ok. I tried to explain how you misconstrued my words, and so you post the same quote out of context again to try to paint a picture of me contradicting myself. Talk about bad faith.

 

I will explain once again, and if this continues I will simply chalk it up to you not having anything further of value to say on the topic:

 

When I used "most immersion breaking" in my statement it was as a qualifier to say it was the "more" immersion breaking option between the effects of hard limitations vs. passing through solids unimpeded. It was part of a reply to someone else, that had nothing to do with any of your statements, but you seem to have seized upon it.

 

The fact that you are hung up on the word "most" and it seems incongruous to you compared to my later description of "slight break" when speaking about the effect generally (which you admitted you agreed with), is only really understandable if someone is trying to play gotcha games.

 

So please, stop this silliness.

 

[=475FG= Dawger]

1 minute ago, kablamoman said:

 

 

 

So please, stop this silliness.

 

If only we could...

[kablamoman]

Just now, peachmonkey said:

 

while you're being the most vocal proponent of the VR limits let me ask you just a couple of questions.

- Have you actually experienced the IL2 cockpit VR limit yourself? 

- If so, what did you like in their implementation and what did you see as negative experience?

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, absolutely. IL2 has a pretty strong online community and the limits are enforced on the big servers. I and many others have spent a lot of time in VR subject to those limits, and use them even in offline modes.

 

My thoughts are that they work wonderfully for the most part. One thing I think they could improve upon would be refining the boundary limits for certain cockpits with relation to the interior geo. Most aircraft are great, but there are a couple where you can't quite lean forward or closer to things jutting out from the front panel and the boundary seems set arbitrarily too close to the normal seated position, if that makes sense.

 

Two key things I think a DCS implementation could and should do better:

• Add a well implemented comfort option for those concerned with motion sickness, or those who might simply prefer the "fade-out" method
• Ensure the interior boundaries have fine/precise tolerances for moving your head inside, perhaps even an option to let you clip though interior items like struts or gunsights if a player chooses such a setting (after all, this would have no effect on anybody else but the player's immersion).

 

 

Thank you for an actual question about the topic.

 

 

[peachmonkey]

16 minutes ago, kablamoman said:

Ensure the interior boundaries have fine/precise tolerances for moving your head inside

 

imho, this is the biggest technical obstacle for this feature's implementation. I wouldn't want the IL2's "bubble" way to make it in to DCS.

 

But I don't particularly agree about the whole "immersion" arguments in the posts. This VR limit is there for the anti-cheat purpose and nothing else. And as my personal opinion the VR limit actually breaks the immersion for me. Let me explain.

 

• The occasional object clipping is never an immersion breaker because I understand that this is all a simulation and there are graphic glitches here and there and after a while I simply stop noticing them.
• But when the whole VR World freezes and pushes away because I run in to some invisible force field <--- this kills the immersion right then and there. It single-handedly takes me out of my VR imagination and grounds my fantasy of flight. And I seriously suspect that any "fade in to black" implementation would have the same exact effect on my subjective VR life.

 

This only underlines the subjectivity of the VR experience in general.

Edited August 23, 2021 by peachmonkey

[kablamoman]

Yes, and hence why there should be a robust set of options.

[peachmonkey]

2 minutes ago, kablamoman said:

Yes, and hence why there should be a robust set of options.

 

to add to my initial comment on how immersion breaking it is for me:

 

• To not experience this virtual limit crap I actually bought a racing chair with the headrest area that sort of 'wraps' around my head. This way my head hits the chair first  before running in to the VR limit.

 

I'd recommend you try this trick as well, as for me to really appreciates VR I need to connect it with physical world as much as possible to augment the experience.

 

And as far as "cheating" aspect of lack of VR limit my personal opinion is:

• people who use VR simulators do it for the immersion first
• if you cheat in VR this way, which btw isn't really that easy since you gotta use your body 1:1, then you break the immersion on purpose. And that goes against the main reason why you get the VR to begin with and it's no longer enjoyable, which means on a psychological level there probably won't be too many folks doing it to begin with.

the trolling pancake people (sharpieX) will never understand the above 2 points until they actually try the VR.

[kablamoman]

I don't think he's trolling.

 

I play in VR exclusively and I consider it a valid concern. I guarantee you the entire IL2 online community would be up in arms if sticking your head through the canopy was suddenly a thing players could do.

 

I also think it is pretty easy to do in the warbirds, at least for me. Even just sticking your head through the canopy to prevent some of the baked in reflections from obscuring your vision is a huge advantage. (Don't get me started on the baked in reflections and how they also need to be rethought for VR, maybe I'll let someone else tackle that topic).

 

But when it comes to the simulation there really is no good excuse for allowing a player to stick their head through the canopy and still be able to see and fight effectively, aside from preventing motion sickness (which is what I was trying make a point of with this proposal).

 

Aside from that It does not belong in a multiplayer setting. But offline, or a server with relaxed rules, have at it! Stick your head into the fresh air and enjoy the VR scenery!

Edited August 23, 2021 by kablamoman

[peachmonkey]

2 minutes ago, kablamoman said:

I don't think he's trolling.

 

I play in VR exclusively and I consider it a valid concern. I also think it is pretty easy to do in the warbirds, at least for me. Even just sticking your head through the canopy to prevent some of the baked in reflections from obscuring your vision is a huge advantage. (Don't get me started on the baked in reflections and how they also need to be rethought for VR, maybe I'll let someone else tackle that topic).

 

But when it comes to the simulation there really is go good excuse for allowing a player to stick their head through the canopy and still be able to see and fight effectively, aside from preventing motion sickness (which is what I was trying make a point of with this proposal).

 

Aside from that It does not belong in a multiplayer setting. But offline, or a server with relaxed rules, have at it! Stick your head into the fresh air and enjoy the VR scenery!

 

 

trolling or not but there's a lot of Pancake VR Consultants on the forum who love to recommend solutions for the problems that do not exist. 

 

We fly in VR not because it's easy but because it's freaking hard. You need to get a decent rig, a decent HMD, rig the chair and the HOTAS so you can reach them while blind, then spent countless hours on getting the VR performance up to snuff. But the reward in the end of it all is huge. The last thing any of VR player is thinking is "how to game the system". Granted, it's difficult to prove without offering the physical evidence, so this is just a general sentiment.

 

Yet our calls to re-work the head-tracking (TIR or other) and their instantaneous snap-to-6-and-stay-there-for-5-minutes fall on deaf ears simply because "it's hard to play on the monitor without it". WTF.  The Reshade offers far more ways for abuse and even more so on the monitors, but hey, how can one live without extra color saturation and sharpening?

 

My point is that VR is being used as a scapegoat for some nebulous cheating whilst omitting the pancake status quo unrealistic bullshit.

 

 

[kablamoman]

29 minutes ago, peachmonkey said:

My point is that VR is being used as a scapegoat for some nebulous cheating whilst omitting the pancake status quo unrealistic bullshit.

 

 

I hear what you're saying. But I don't find that is the case, coming from IL2 at least. Everybody there generally accepts people do it for the immersive experience and that it's ultimately harder to do things like check six and ID bogeys. I think any player -- using VR, head tracking, POV Hat, mouse look, whatever -- has the right to complain about heads being stuck through cockpit geometry in a multiplayer, player versus player setting.

 

I used to use Track IR back in the day before VR, and so I feel I understand the challenges of both. There's a lot of silly nonsense being thrown around by both sides -- people unironically asking for "1:1 movement" for head tracking solutions on flat monitors don't seem to have an understanding of how the tech actually works, for instance. That is an idiotic suggestion because the tech only works if you can still see the monitor in front of you.

 

In any event, I wouldn't even be playing sims if it weren't for the VR aspect, so that's what my primary interest is and where my point of view is coming from, and a 20 year old technology for playing these games on 2D monitors should not factor into how we ultimately go forward with improvements and options for the VR support of the sim. I hate it when people bring it up as if it's somehow relevant to VR.

Edited August 23, 2021 by kablamoman

[Baldrick33]

24 minutes ago, peachmonkey said:

We fly in VR not because it's easy but because it's freaking hard. You need to get a decent rig, a decent HMD, rig the chair and the HOTAS so you can reach them while blind, then spent countless hours on getting the VR performance up to snuff. But the reward in the end of it all is huge. The last thing any of VR player is thinking is "how to game the system". Granted, it's difficult to prove without offering the physical evidence, so this is just a general sentiment.

 

 

I think we fly in VR because it is awesome! Of course I would like more performance but I personally find flying in VR in DCS an amazing experience and one I am eternally grateful I have been able to experience in my lifetime. It doesn’t mean I don’t have huge expectations for improvement in what is still a relatively immature technology.

 

I also find the whole immersion aspect fascinating, what works for one is no guarantee for others and I enjoy these discussions even if they can get a bit passionate about opinions.

 

I fly for immersion and would feel if you want to be an ace at DCS you might be better with monitor(s) and trackir for the clarity and speed of looking around in the right hands. That said I couldn’t fly without VR now and the skills required to use trackir expertly in combat are almost definitely beyond me so it isn’t meant as an excuse.

Edited August 23, 2021 by Baldrick33

[kablamoman]

@Baldrick33

 

Well said. 

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, peachmonkey said:

the trolling pancake people (sharpieX)

Responding to posts, especially when replying or quoted, isn’t “trolling”

35 minutes ago, peachmonkey said:

Yet our calls to re-work the head-tracking (TIR or other)

And you wonder why non-VR users need to respond to these topics…

[peachmonkey]

2 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Responding to posts, especially when replying or quoted, isn’t “trolling”

And you wonder why non-VR users need to respond to these topics…

 

You must be a protector of the sanctity of the TRackIR then. The head tracking police. The pancake aficionado with a suppressed urge to experience VR. Just pull the trigger and get it. We welcome you in to our open arms of VR misery.

3 hours ago, kablamoman said:

people unironically asking for "1:1 movement" for head tracking solutions

 

witnessed it many times.   These people all end up on inventing a VR all over again.

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, peachmonkey said:

We welcome you in to our open arms of VR misery.

Misery? Well now that you put it that way…

[Magic Zach]

On 8/20/2021 at 11:26 AM, cfrag said:

 

I don't think that anyone would disagree much with your statement. The conundrum is: which evil to choose? If you prevent moving your virtual head through the walls while your physical head does, the in-game result - no matter which way you choose, will be jarring.

 

Well its already been covered that this isn't necessarily true.  What is at minimum just as jarring is moving your head through the canopy and equipment in the cockpit when you don't expect it to, because you shouldn't be able to.

[Magic Zach]

On 8/23/2021 at 1:39 PM, peachmonkey said:

 

to add to my initial comment on how immersion breaking it is for me:

 

• To not experience this virtual limit crap I actually bought a racing chair with the headrest area that sort of 'wraps' around my head. This way my head hits the chair first  before running in to the VR limit.

•This does not quantify to having head interactions with the cockpits, it is having head interactions with your chair

•Not every cockpit will conform to the same dimensions as your chair

•Your VR headset will hit your chair.  Being a piece of equipment that extends 3 or so inches in front of your face, it does not conform to the same dimensions as the pilots' own head equipment across all platforms.  Or even most.  WW2 aviators' worst problem would have been their O2 mask, which is much lower on the face and does not restrict visibility as you can just tip your head forwards.  Thus it can be relatively disregarded pertaining to WW2 models, my main field in DCS at least.

•If you have a chair that you use to restrict your view already, then virtual limits wouldn't even matter to you anyways.  Besides, the ideal situation would be that such things would be an option for users to pick and choose as they wish

[=475FG= Dawger]

16 minutes ago, Magic Zach said:

 What is at minimum just as jarring is moving your head through the canopy and equipment in the cockpit when you don't expect it to, because you shouldn't be able to.

This isn't even close to true. It isn't jarring at all. Of course, I guess I am not really "immersed" enough.

[draconus]

The level of BS and OT is pretty high here I see. Can't fight with that.

What I suggest for the OP is to focus on SP option only. Somehow players are concerned about what is forced on someone else's server - that's amazing in itself. So option for no limit (as is currently), soft or hard limit SP/offline only - that way you can cut discussion on cheating or forcing something on anyone.

 

What you'll still have is people who join every one of the wishlist thread to say how much different things are more important in DCS and how your option is really not needed for anyone

[Maduce]

I can say this if VR is limited much (forced) especially in single player I would have to reconsider DCS purchases in the future. In other words find a new hobby. 

I do think having options (no limit, soft, hard) in SP for the player to choose is acceptable. I don't know much about MP but maybe leave it up to the induvial servers or options for VR only severs, like I said don't know much about MP so I don't want to step one toes with that. Just my humble opinion. I just really like the immersion with VR and will never go back to head tracking.  

Edited August 26, 2021 by Maduce

[kablamoman]

@Maduce

 

Right there with you, friend.