Ff you could have one thing in the next update it would be…
-
for this you must look at the ceiling to be able to see the cougar mfd’s or ICP or tablet with icp or monitors in the mfd cougars.
to look at the pit vr mfd’s you must lean forward or zoom in, actual mfd screens need nothing u just look at them.
and way cheaper than vr.Thats not accurate, I don’t have to lean forward and zoom in to read MFDs, I fly the A-10C and F-18 daily and do just fine sat back in my seat. If you were talking about VR a couple of years ago you might have had a point but things have moved on a bit in both Hardware and Software. Also I have no use for physical cockpit items like MFD bezels or a UFC/IPC. I work all that in the sim with the mouse or finger tracking and its works fine for me :D.
But anyway, Its clear that VR doesn’t work for you, why are you getting defensive about the way you like to play the game? I’m not saying screen users suck and BMS should be VR only! I’m saying VR works for me and it would be cool to see it in BMS. Stop defending something that doesn’t need defending
-
The technology for VR to really be effective in anything interactive is still years away. It might be nice to be able to look around without having to keep your eyes pointed toward the screen like you do in a head tracking situation, but it’s more cumbersome and clunky than anything else. You still need a mouse to interact with everything “clickable” in the pit, so you’re limited to your HOTAS for 90%+ of the time. The military pays 10s of millions of dollars for their simulators, so money isn’t an issue in that context, and they won’t even consider a VR solution as a serious path because the technology just isn’t there.
Studies have shown a negative transfer when there isn’t true eye-hand coordination involved, which means reaching for a switch in a VR setting but not seeing the hand move in the display causes issues. AR isn’t any better. Until the technology exists to truly track the body’s appendages and project them into the VR environment, it’s little more than a gimmick. If you want to enable the AP and just enjoy the view then I have no doubt VR would be a great addition to your scenic tour… but if you actually want to play the game and enjoy the sim, it would do more harm than good–in my opinion anyway.
Most of the other sims out there where VR is a “thing” are designed to be more “arcadish” and don’t actually require you to interact all the much with the sim. DCS is an exception, but for those who have used VR in DCS… is it really that good outside being able to look around? Hundreds of key commands still tied to the keyboard or mouse clicks. External documents that need to be referenced. Headset/comm issues conflicting with the goggles, etc…
Clearly it doesn’t work for you. But it works fine for me, certainly seems plenty effective.
I don’t have “hundreds of key commands” because I have a good HOTAS and I have a mouse and soon finger tracking and I can interface with the cockpit like the pilot actually would. The only thing I use the KB for is changing views (which I only do rarely) and typing in the chat on occasion. Its not “Being able to look around” Its being in a 3D world that has depth, that is tracked perfectly with the movement of your head, That has a sense of scale and distance.
Your point about “reaching for a switch” is rather moot because I’m not actually reaching for a switch… I’m looking in the general direction and clicking with a mouse cursor. I’ve been doing this for about 5 years and my brain hasn’t imploded yet… although there is still time
Regarding external documents, DCS has an VR kneeboard where you can import documents into it for you to view, should you wish. Also like I described before I can read stuff on my physical kneeboard or anything else I need to read. Regarding your last point… I put my headphones on after my goggles… and I take them off at the end of a session before removing my goggles… Tis not difficult.
-
This post is deleted! -
-
@BenDean87:
Thats not accurate, I don’t have to lean forward and zoom in to read MFDs, I fly the A-10C and F-18 daily and do just fine sat back in my seat. If you were talking about VR a couple of years ago you might have had a point but things have moved on a bit in both Hardware and Software. Also I have no use for physical cockpit items like MFD bezels or a UFC/IPC. I work all that in the sim with the mouse or finger tracking and its works fine for me :D.
But anyway, Its clear that VR doesn’t work for you, why are you getting defensive about the way you like to play the game? I’m not saying screen users suck and BMS should be VR only! I’m saying VR works for me and it would be cool to see it in BMS. Stop defending something that doesn’t need defending
Indeed, it is very clear to me than I’m way more effective in a cockpit without VR than with it, as it is today. We’re probably not looking or doing the same thing.
-
“Soon finger tracking…” so your claim is based on assumption of something you can’t do yet? I have a good HOTAS too, but I still need to interact with the game. And I get get some pretty decent 3D world movement that tracks with my head movement for about $12 and 20 minutes of soldering with a PS-Eye, couple LED bulbs, and a USB cable. But as you say clearly it works for you, and not for others. So long as I have the foresight to add every possible chart and navaid and frequency into my virtual kneeboard that I could EVER need in a dynamic situation, I’ll never need to reference anything else. And as long as I stick with the small maps and 20 minute missions in DCS, all that weight on my head will never be an issue. Not rocket science, but there is a bit of physiology in there. Anyway, you’ve made your argument and it’s great you’re passionate about it. I know a lot of people feel like it makes it closer to realism in DCS, but personally I disagree, and felt like it really didn’t add anything all that special to the experience.
I’ve used finger tracking solutions before and liked them but I don’t own one yet as they have been out of my price range. There is a new low-cost version becoming available which is what I will be purchasing. Up until now I’ve been using Mouse Cursor etc.
-
I’m not defending anything.
I also like VR.
But let’s not put it in the VR, no VR , context.
There are other accessories used nowdays that it’s not just VR or not VR.
It’s not a shootemup nor just DF like acecombat.
The Sim thing is more than mouse and keyboard.
If u go just VR and have a hard time for most of the flight and doing actual pit work then, the price gain ratio is not that good.
Sure the experience is a blast, but with current solutions provided and mainly the resolution factor and motion seekness, for my standards is a no go.
For me a virtual or augmented pit would be better than VR. Imagine a full touch pit, yes just click or finger gestures like the real ones, or with leap motion devices with precision and actual placement as in real pit, in a triple projector solution instead of just VR…
Yeap… Not just vr and freedom of movement like in real, and reading your notes and briefing and map, and navaids as most do (or should do) while in flight.Στάλθηκε από το MI 5 μου χρησιμοποιώντας Tapatalk
-
Sorry i dont understand that part, can you ellaborate please ?
Yes I was talking about no more random spawning at an airbase. The pilot will spawn where the ground crew is working on the plane but the airframe never spawns is persistant if your are doing a RAMP START.
However for those who are not ramp starting you can still keep persistant planes hear me out.
Airframes should be persistant in the campaign. Resupply’s should be renamed to reserves. US has only so many reserve airframes and how long it could take to get those reserves into
Korea and in the air is a lot long than it is in the BMS campaign same for any side of the campaign.Airframes should be in the hanger and or the ground and this would make OCA strikes have more meaning. At the moment OCA strikes tend to hurt you more than help as they cause a mass spawning all of a sudden when the airbase is back up and giant Star Wars tie fighter like waves out of the blue.
You should not be able to alot to an airbase more airframes than you have maintenance crews or hangers. This would increase the immersion and realism of a campaign and the OCA strikes.
I propose in order to mitigate the network traffic having airframes which are dynamic all spawned at once could cause is to only have the airframes with pilots in them actually issuing packets.
If you say for example land the plane and spawn out wherever you exit the game falcon would than revert that plane back to the hanger automatically assuming it is not destroyed / damage.
Someday would be nice to keep persistant damage and down time for a specific airframe if you damage the airframe but one thing at a time.So for example you hit Commit button Taxiway: -> Plane is parked in hanger . -> PLayer spawns Engine removes the plane you are flying from hanger and on to runway.
Mission Case 1: You die and plane also -> Plane is never return to hanger -> Player exits and is sad.
Mission Case 2: You survive and plane also -> After landing you exit the game at somewhere on the airbase -> Engine returns plane to open hanger instantly.
Mission Case 3: During mission sometime player exits -> Ai does its things -> after mission is declared over -> Engine returns plane to open hanger instantly.When the engine returns the plane back to an open hanger what its doing is actually just showing an airframe model and setting a flag to activate the object back to static same as a building so as to keep network traffic usage low. So airframe parked without pilots are static objects same as buildings and are always in the same place but once a pilot spawns one is taken from inventory etc… I think I have explained that well enough to have gotten the point across as to how it could potentially be implemented.
Of course if this were ever to be implemented I would love to take this concept to the next stage …
-
Glad to hear devs are looking forward to VR in BMS. Should need time though, but that’s always a case in Falcon. 3-4 weeks
What I want from VR is more close to the real muscle memory.
With Monitor+TrackIR even I “look behind” the tally is on my front and I am only facing the left/right side of my monitor.
In VR they are no more such problems.Airframes should be in the hanger and or the ground and this would make OCA strikes have more meaning. At the moment OCA strikes tend to hurt you more than help as they cause a mass spawning all of a sudden when the airbase is back up and giant Star Wars tie fighter like waves out of the blue.
I got your point and thats also my dream wish for future BMS dynamic campaign.
Plane should not spawn/despawn, they should be in the hangar and AI/human take control 20 minute or so before T/O. When enemy attacked our base they can destroy our airframes. When we taxi to runway we can see all airframes we have in our base are parking at hangers.However, thinking of bubble system. Until we get into 3D there is no physical world. Airframes are only numbers on 2D map. Maybe reducing airframe number by probability when base is attacked … can be more simple way.
-
The military pays 10s of millions of dollars for their simulators, so money isn’t an issue in that context, and they won’t even consider a VR solution as a serious path because the technology just isn’t there…
Edit: Didn’t see post above, someone beat me to it, but yes the military does see potential in the technology.
-
I dont think anyone is against having a reasonable VR solution just first things first.
VR is good but a domed or screen projected 360 real cockpit is much better .VR is a cheap way to get a good simulator airforce sees that too. You can get lower fidelity training in a cheaper package with VR.
Airforce trainining squadrons are only looking at VR cuz its dirt cheap compared to actually flying or having access to or getting time on a real simulator.
Anyways in due time.VR is a good leap but it has too many drawbacks to go mainstream first no one knows the long term health benefits of strapping tv’s that generate relatively strong electro-magentic fields to your cranal area. Adults are less likely to show adverse effects to do already most developed brains and thicker cerebral cavity.
I would suggest if you have kids do not let them strap one of these on for longer than 15 mins a day.
There is not enough data to know what this can do to yourself or kids.
Thats my one friendly advice for the day
That said I still think if people want to do that then someday when the timing is right VR in BMS sounds good. I want partake of it tho. -
Yes I was talking about no more random spawning at an airbase. The pilot will spawn where the ground crew is working on the plane but the airframe never spawns is persistant if your are doing a RAMP START.
However for those who are not ramp starting you can still keep persistant planes hear me out.
Airframes should be persistant in the campaign. Resupply’s should be renamed to reserves. US has only so many reserve airframes and how long it could take to get those reserves into
Korea and in the air is a lot long than it is in the BMS campaign same for any side of the campaign.Airframes should be in the hanger and or the ground and this would make OCA strikes have more meaning. At the moment OCA strikes tend to hurt you more than help as they cause a mass spawning all of a sudden when the airbase is back up and giant Star Wars tie fighter like waves out of the blue.
You should not be able to alot to an airbase more airframes than you have maintenance crews or hangers. This would increase the immersion and realism of a campaign and the OCA strikes.
I propose in order to mitigate the network traffic having airframes which are dynamic all spawned at once could cause is to only have the airframes with pilots in them actually issuing packets.
If you say for example land the plane and spawn out wherever you exit the game falcon would than revert that plane back to the hanger automatically assuming it is not destroyed / damage.
Someday would be nice to keep persistant damage and down time for a specific airframe if you damage the airframe but one thing at a time.So for example you hit Commit button Taxiway: -> Plane is parked in hanger . -> PLayer spawns Engine removes the plane you are flying from hanger and on to runway.
Mission Case 1: You die and plane also -> Plane is never return to hanger -> Player exits and is sad.
Mission Case 2: You survive and plane also -> After landing you exit the game at somewhere on the airbase -> Engine returns plane to open hanger instantly.
Mission Case 3: During mission sometime player exits -> Ai does its things -> after mission is declared over -> Engine returns plane to open hanger instantly.When the engine returns the plane back to an open hanger what its doing is actually just showing an airframe model and setting a flag to activate the object back to static same as a building so as to keep network traffic usage low. So airframe parked without pilots are static objects same as buildings and are always in the same place but once a pilot spawns one is taken from inventory etc… I think I have explained that well enough to have gotten the point across as to how it could potentially be implemented.
Of course if this were ever to be implemented I would love to take this concept to the next stage …
Ok the airbase spawning is not random at all
The spawning is done at the shortest distance from the takeoff active runway . If parkingpt is not available it looks at the next one in the branch .
Large aircraft are spawning on large parking pt
Some improvement can be done like sorting by width And by distance
The revamping of airbases , spawning and general traffic needed some love
Agreed with this
However , spawning and despawning will remain dynamic else the fps on crowded airbases will be crawling
Imagine an airbase with 6 squadrons with all aircraft spawned all the time ? !!
About the number of hangars and aircraft
We should first revamp all airbases to put the accurate number of parking pt and hangars
Then , assuming we could make the code use of all hangars like in real ( which is not the case since we didn’t support taxinbranches ) , we could then make sur to put accurate squadron numbers on each airbases
-
Edit: Didn’t see post above, someone beat me to it, but yes the military does see potential in the technology.
As trainers … Certainly not as simulator.
-
As trainers … Certainly not as simulator.
And…
I see what you are trying to say with Trainer vs. simulator but is it really that much of a difference to matter? I feel like you made your original comment to prove your point that VR wasn’t even considered as an option for military pilot training. The video clearly shows that they are evaluating its potential in being implemented in real pilot training.
-
And…
I see what you are trying to say with Trainer vs. simulator but is it really that much of a difference to matter? I feel like you made your original comment to prove your point that VR wasn’t even considered as an option for military pilot training. The video clearly shows that they are evaluating its potential in being implemented in real pilot training.
Another week another VR crusade… even in the games that really shine with VR (did some hours of IL2 yesterday) I still have to use labels because at 200m I still can’t sort friend from foe. Even at twice the resolution, 3D projection will mean the picture will never be as sharp as a 2D projection.
In pilot training let’s be honest, a cockpit simulator with a wide angle (or 360) screen basically kills the need for VR in the first place. If VR is being considered it’s to avoid the cost of buying additional simulators, not because it’s better.
-
I have always liked coding but too lazy to learn it.
You can always start small and work your way up from there as you see fit or as your interest in s/w development changes. It might just be a small python / ps script that starts your BMS environment, automates cleanup or whatever, you don’t have to start with a full blown QT5 GUI app. Start small, get instant rewards / error messages / scratchings of head, I think that’s the best way to learn.
With tons of code snippets available for free I really don’t recall anymore how we did it back then in the olden days. (I started with BASIC on a GeniE-16 / Trash-80 / ZX-81, then graduated to Pascal and Assembler on the Dragon 64 [first machine I ever owned] followed by a long spell of C, some more Assembler and AREXX on the Amiga; today I mostly do my stuff in Python but it always ends up looking like Perl, no matter how hard I try :))
All the best,
Uwe
-
Then , assuming we could make the code use of all hangars like in real ( which is not the case since we didn’t support taxinbranches ) , we could then make sur to put accurate squadron numbers on each airbases
Just a q Mav,
I know that code-wise one can do anything
but, bms-codewise, would it be possible one day to actually simulate the full squadron roster? Meaning declare how many aircrafts of the given type the sq has, their unique serial numbers to trigger licenses plates, even park them at their specific hangars assigned to the sq for rampstart /off, also thinking of keeping the aft “health” on a db based on battle damage, over-g’s etc, to affect sq availability.
Would be also extremely interesting to declare in the db 2 types of aft in the sq, for having both single-seat and two-seat airframes interact together. I’ve managed to do it in the past manually, but a more flexible solution - approach would be needed.
-
@TwanV:
Another week another VR crusade… even in the games that really shine with VR (did some hours of IL2 yesterday) I still have to use labels because at 200m I still can’t sort friend from foe. Even at twice the resolution, 3D projection will mean the picture will never be as sharp as a 2D projection.
In pilot training let’s be honest, a cockpit simulator with a wide angle (or 360) screen basically kills the need for VR in the first place. If VR is being considered it’s to avoid the cost of buying additional simulators, not because it’s better.
Believe me I’m tired of talking about it too… but I’m also tired of seeing people come up with reasons why they don’t want it because they don’t think VR would benefit them right now and therefore the developers shouldn’t be focusing on it. At least that’s my impression on what a lot of people on here are trying to do.
Nobody said that VR is going to be better. It really boils down to personal preference.
There are some definite trade offs and limitations as with any technology. Having actual hardware brings its positives as well as some negatives just as VR brings its own list of pluses and minuses. So to argue and say the developers shouldn’t implement VR right now because it can’t do what hardware can do is just improper imo.
There will always be drawbacks in trying to simulate flying a real aircraft. We’ll never get it perfect. That’s just a fact. So whatever great and amazing technology that comes out to increase our immersion will never be same as the real thing and it will come with own trade offs as well.
I get the whole idea that people don’t want to see development time get used to integrate a technology like this, but think about all the other positives outside of VR that would come by default because of the required DirectX update to make VR possible in the first place.
And before someone jumps on me about developers don’t get paid. I understand that as well. I’m very thankful for what the developers have done to create a sim like this in the first place and it’s perfectly understandable and reasonable for them not wanting to put the time and effort into this and I’m okay with that. But it is frequent requested and I think it’d be a worthwhile feature for this sim.
Edit: The argument that the technology is not there yet is also not a good enough reason to not implement it to me. The technology is maturing and as I said before, I’m no developer but by the time the bms guys would probably be able to finish integrating a feature like this, the technology will most likely be better than what it currently is now. If it isn’t, the technology will almost certainly contunue to mature and eventually reach that point where a lot of the current technical issues and limitations will be resolved.
-
Don’t get too tired with that. Devs will never develop or not develop VR because the community tell them to or not to.
-
Edit: The argument that the technology is not there yet is also not a good enough reason to not implement it to me. The technology is maturing and as I said before, I’m no developer but by the time the bms guys would probably be able to finish integrating a feature like this, the technology will most likely be better than what it currently is now. If it isn’t, the technology will almost certainly contunue to mature and eventually reach that point where a lot of the current technical issues and limitations will be resolved.
This maturity will mean that in every maturity step and major change the dev will have to update and implement changes and additions…
Just saying…