Why Virtual Reality for BMS would improve the experience by order of magnitudes.
-
If it is “not incorrect,” then it is correct. Thank you.
Hee hee…
-
Translation of the second sentence: “Maybe your control setup is [too complex], but the sim is not complex.” How can someone have a complex/complicated setup for a simple game? Because you can’t. You have a complicated setup because that is what this game is… complicated. Even YOU use a complicated HOTAS profile with three/four sub-modes! How is that not a complex control setup for a complex simulation?
How much clearer do you need it to be? You call me a liar but fail to support your accusation. Not surprising, as you’ve failed to support everything you’ve said thus far.
It is unsurprising that you would continue to misrepresent my words. Here they are again, for clarity.
“So no, BMS is not “too complex” for VR to work. Maybe your control setup is, but the sim itself is not. There are plenty of people for whom VR BMS would work fantastically.”
It seems that you need an explanation of English.
Let me translate what I wrote for you in smaller snippets.
“So no, BMS is not “too complex” for VR to work.” - Simple enough sentence. Note the key inclusion of the adverb “too.” There’s a state of being defined in this sentence, which is that of being “‘too complex’ for VR to work.”
“Maybe your control setup is [too complex],” is exactly right. Congratulations. There’s only one state of being that I could possibly be referencing with “is,” because only one state of being has been mentioned. The state of being “‘too complex’ for VR to work.”
“…but the sim itself is not [too complex].” The tense of my statement did not change. In both parts of the (single) sentence, I use the present tense of a state of being (“is”). What state of being am I speaking about? There’s still only one which has been mentioned, which should make the choice obvious. The state of being “‘too complex’ for VR to work.”
You deliberately removed an adverb I deliberately included in my quote, in order to change what I was speaking about and try to misrepresent my words. You aren’t the English maestro you believe yourself to be.
You lied about what I’ve said. Twice. For your sake, please stop.
-
Keep it civil, constructive and relevant to the topic or lose the thread, nobody wants to see your fight.
-
It is unsurprising that you would continue to misrepresent my words. Here they are again, for clarity.
It seems that you need an explanation of English.
Let me translate what I wrote for you in smaller snippets.
“So no, BMS is not “too complex” for VR to work.” - Simple enough sentence. Note the key inclusion of the adverb “too.” There’s a state of being defined in this sentence, which is that of being “‘too complex’ for VR to work.”
“Maybe your control setup is [too complex],” is exactly right. Congratulations. There’s only one state of being that I could possibly be referencing with “is,” because only one state of being has been mentioned. The state of being “‘too complex’ for VR to work.”
“…but the sim itself is not [too complex].” The tense of my statement did not change. In both parts of the (single) sentence, I use the present tense of a state of being (“is”). What state of being am I speaking about? There’s still only one which has been mentioned, which should make the choice obvious. The state of being “‘too complex’ for VR to work.”
You deliberately removed an adverb I deliberately included in my quote, in order to change what I was speaking about and try to misrepresent my words. You aren’t the English maestro you believe yourself to be.
You lied about what I’ve said. Twice. For your sake, please stop.
Oh, I thought I was on the ignore list? I guess not. Maybe I mis-read the “He’s been ignored”?
Wizard, let me get this straight: Your statement was, in a lengthier form, “So no, BMS is not ‘too complex’ for VR to work. Maybe your control setup is [too complex for VR to work], but the sim itself is not [too complex for VR to work].” Is this a correct interpretation?
If you are referring to just “VR working,” then yes. VR does work for BMS as it does for Elite and as it does for ARMA. If you insist on “VR working” as just displaying an image which is useable for the simmer, then yes, it works.
However, you made that statement in response to WolfKeeper’s post about having to touch the keyboard or other external input during play aside from the HOTAS, and you proceeded to sidestep concerns about VR getting in the way of external controls (aka game aids) by saying you’ve mapped everything to your HOTAS anyway.
So in the context of VR being compatible with the needs of certain (few? many?) simmers who have game aids, VR will not work because it will get in the way.
In any case, I don’t think anyone has argued that VR will not work with BMS in the “display” department and as your interchange with WolfKeeper at that instance has been about control setups and access of physical, external inputs, then if you insist your point was about VR as a display device, your argument with WolfKeeper at that point missed the mark. Nice try weaseling out of it.
If the argument was about complex control inputs and the need of easily accessible game aids (as I believe the discussion was about), allow me to repeat a point I tried to make:
@-Ice:Third, just because YOU can work your cockpit in 3-4 modes doesn’t mean everyone else can. Just because a X-65F can do it, doesn’t mean all other sticks/profiles can. Whoo hoo, good for you, but what about those on Cougars or Warthogs or X54s or Logitech Extremes? THEY will need to reach for the mouse, align the cursor with the switch, and click. Easy enough to say, but difficult to do. Try being padlocked on your flight lead, then need to press OSB 1. That’s a tiny little target and it’s quite a challenge keeping your head PEFECTLY still! Anyone with a humble Cougar MFD can attest that doing this in the sim vs. actually pressing a physical button instantly makes that £50 investment pay dividends! Would a £420/£689 device warrant voiding a £50 device? Is further immersion worth trading the ease of using a physical device? This is highly subjective and myself and other posters have made our thoughts known on this issue.
BTW, how are we doing on that video?
-
Keep it civil, constructive and relevant to the topic or lose the thread, nobody wants to see your fight.
Yes sir!
-
Would something like voice attack help to have access to all those keyboard commands? VR might not be as immersive for operating all the systems but when flying you will feel like you are in a the cockpit flying and in a dogfight you will feel like you are really in that dogfight. If you don’t desire that feeling, VR might not be for you. I also have pledged for an Immersit motion platform on kickstarter and hope to get that working with BMS / HMD combo as well.
-
Would something like voice attack help to have access to all those keyboard commands? VR might not be as immersive for operating all the systems but when flying you will feel like you are in a the cockpit flying and in a dogfight you will feel like you are really in that dogfight. If you don’t desire that feeling, VR might not be for you. I also have pledged for an Immersit motion platform on kickstarter and hope to get that working with BMS / HMD combo as well.
Yes it would… although I think it’ll be more like piloting an F-22/F-35 than an F-16! In fact, I think you could script Voice Attack to do your startup for you!!
If there is a way that you could look down and left, locate a switch, move your hand to that switch, and virtually operate that switch even as you look away (ie, you don’t need to keep your head steady to operate the switch successfully), then that would be it. If I could look at a point in the cockpit, move my hand to that space, and operate the switch in that space regardless of where I’m looking, that would be it. Done. Sorted.
I do not deny the immersiveness of VR in terms of being in the cockpit and dogfighting. In fact, VR would be superior to current TrackIR because with TrackIR, you move your head but keep your eyeballs tracked to the center of the screen. To look left, you move your head left but move your eyes right. With VR, we can revert to the natural way of looking left – eyes left, looking right – eyes right.
I think the best win-win scenario at this time would be to combine VR with a replica pit. VR takes care of the visuals and not seeing your actual controls would not matter because you will see the virtual ones, reach out for it, and you will touch the physical ones. Heck, you can even operate switches “by feel” like real pilots do!! That takes immersion to the next level! The only way to get deeper into the immersion would be to actually “go” in a piddle pack!
-
Indeed! If we all agreed on something, then the discussion would just be patting each other on the back. With different views, the our horizons get widened and we learn something new! Unfortunately, some do not seem to be able to handle this maturely.
I dont think its a lack of maturity driving that particular argument. Then again what would I know about maturity, most of the folks in the old farts thread are double to three times my age…
That is indeed true. However, let us bring this back into the context of this discussion, where we are talking about TrackIR and Cougar MFDs which have been available for several years now, touchscreens for slightly less years, and VR just for a few months. Unless the person in question has JUST NOW entered the flight sim hobby, then he can evaluate all three (four?) options before committing. However, I would say that the majority of (hehehe… see what I did there?!) BMS simmers have been in the hobby for at least 2 years or more and at that time, VR was still a product to be released in the unknown future. So for someone to consider the cost vs. value of a £50 Cougar MFD and pass on it, or see the cost vs. value of a £180 touchscreen and pass on it, or even see the cost vs. value of a £90 secondary screen and pass on it, then suddenly see the cost vs. value of a £420/£689 VR peripheral and buy it? Again, as I said previously, this is assuming we are talking about VR in BMS. I have no doubt of the cost vs. value of VR in games like Elite or ARMA. I am discussing the cost vs. value of VR for BMS in comparison to the other products available.
I would definitely come under that category as a new user. I would be looking at a HOTAS first, then VR. Im not now, because I have no money (always the way) and because the resolution on VR is not high enough yet.
I think that just killed everything you said about TrackIR. I think you have a broken TrackIR and has thus skewed your valuation of it. If I had a broken TM Warthog and bought a perfectly-working Saitek X-52 Pro, then I would think the Warthog is worthless while the Saitek was worth it’s weight in gold!
I love my TrackIR, and as somebody who fiddled with “replicas” before, I’m glad to have a peripheral that just works. Plug it in and it works. I had a few weeks of having a stiff neck as I got used to it, but if my TrackIR breaks now (after 5 years of faithful service), I have no qualms about buying one straight away. Ever notice how second-hand TrackIR never stays “for sale” for very long?
Well, it works as everyone Ive spoken to describes. It wanders around in a few degrees of inaccuracy, and folks tell me that its normal, and that I should add a deadzone. Well that doesn’t fix the problem for any position but straight ahead. A couple degrees inaccuracy is too much for me to use. If you reckon its broken, perhaps you could detail how a working one differs from this ‘broken’ one.
Also, I agree with you that VR or AR would be amazing! I’ve had a few tries of VR demos and once fully realized, oh boy! However, as I’ve said, VR as it is now and in context of BMS, well, we’re not there yet.
On resolution if naught else.
Exactly! You can look at it subjectively (your million dollars vs. Bill Gates), but you can look at it objectively as well. If you saw “The Mountain” (big guy from Game of Thrones), an elephant, and a juvenile blue whale, which one is “large”? Sure, one can argue large-larger-largest or small, smaller, smallest, but that’ll be weaseling out of the correct answer! If you saw a pile of money totalling £1million and another pile totalling £2million, which is the “large” pile?
End of.
Thats not objective, but subjective. The mountain is contextually not large - change the context and the answer changes. Ergo, its subjective.
Also remember that this argument is from Wizard’s comment on post #44 (“many” does not translate into “common”) so there definitely was an “upper limit” (the number of Falcon simmers).
And in that usage it is not wrong.
If it is “not incorrect,” then it is correct. Thank you.
No. What I said was that it was not incorrect on that basis. Note the qualifier. You will also note that I did say it was incorrect on the basis that 5 is not many. Just because it is not incorrect on the basis that 5 is not the majority, does not make it correct.
I see what you’re getting at but still do not see it in the example you’ve given above. Maybe I’m just reading it in my mind wrong. However, “many” is still > “few” therefore is still the majority. While we could argue definition of terms, again remember that this “number discussion” was just in response to Wizard’s statement and taken in that context.
The many (noun) is more than the few (noun). The few (noun) can be many (adjective). The many (noun) by definition is many (adjective) but can also be few (adjective).
Wizard’s comment that many people does not make something common is a correct statement, broadly speaking. Many people own Factorio (video game), but not so many that it is common. Definitely not so many that they are the majority of people. But enough for most contexts that it is many.
As a touch typist, I know very well what you’re saying. You can even narrow it down to just “thumb on spacebar, index (left) finger on the raised part of the “F” key, one key to the right is “G”, press.” However, this process is significantly longer than just being able to glance down, find the G key, press. Sure, we can probably “glance down” via the gap in the nose pad of the Rift or Vive to find the keyboard, find the G key, and press it, but this is a workaround.
Takes a similar amount of time for me. The process still fits inside a second.
This is very true! Ultimately, the decision to buy a VR is affected by many factors, including the willingness of the individual to work around the limitations of VR. Myself and other posters have done so and have stated our thoughts on it, and that is the “right answer” for us. My rebuttals are just against the points raised by Wizard. You will even see me acknowledging the benefits of VR where there appear.
Pretty valid points raised, for the most part. Cant say I agree with all of them, but most. I think we have similar views actually. I want VR to work, but the current resolutions are just not high enough.
-
Thank you for keeping on-topic Goat. It will be great to have programmable knee boards in-game since, as has been made excruciatingly clear throughout this thread, it will be hard to refer to outside materials when in VR. I’m hopeful that with enough coaxing Vireo 4 will be able to successfully inject 3D. I’ll fiddle around with it as well. Keep us posted!
Here is a post that details the 3D descriptor in each cockpit for drawing the HUD. It shows that the HUD is actually drawn a long distance away from the cockpit. Thankfully, it looks pretty straightforward to edit this file. Even better, there’s also a HMS (helmet-mounted sight?) line that appears to define where the HMS symbology is drawn in 3D space. We could edit this to have it drawn very far away (20000 units, like the HUD) and easily change the scaling to make it still appear the correct size. I think this will solve the HMCS location/ collimation issue. This solves another major roadblock in successfully implementing VR for BMS.
-Rabbit
-
Well, it works as everyone Ive spoken to describes. It wanders around in a few degrees of inaccuracy, and folks tell me that its normal, and that I should add a deadzone. Well that doesn’t fix the problem for any position but straight ahead. A couple degrees inaccuracy is too much for me to use. If you reckon its broken, perhaps you could detail how a working one differs from this ‘broken’ one.
I’ll be honest with you and say that I’ve not had to demand pin-point stability with TrackIR for a long time now. This is because of my setup with a touchscreen and Helios, so if it wanders by a few mm, I wouldn’t care. Having said that, let me say that I have not noticed the view “wandering around,” as I would suspect that would make me feel nauseaus after a few minutes. I will test again once I get my rig up and running.
The last time I had to use the mouse with TrackIR was in DCS A10C about 5 years ago and clicking the OSB in the cockpit was do-able, but I had to be careful to keep my head still. This was very difficult after “keeping my head on a swivel” and then all of a sudden keeping very, very still as I clicked an OSB. I got a Cougar MFD shortly thereafter and moved on from there.
While I would like to further argue about our English lessons, I think I’ve derailed this thread enough. If you’re sport to it, feel free to open a thread in the Free Discussion sub-forum and we can have a few lolz, and if I am truly wrong, I would appreciate learning a new thing!
Pretty valid points raised, for the most part. Cant say I agree with all of them, but most. I think we have similar views actually. I want VR to work, but the current resolutions are just not high enough.
Yeah. Unfortunately, I don’t have the money to “blow” on a product that I will only use minimally. I’ve got other hobbies that would appreciate the cash input and give me better returns for my money in terms of fun. This doesn’t mean I’ve given up on VR though, and I can only hope that the implementation we are all looking for will come in less than 3-4 Falcon weeks!
-
-
You guys really, REALLY think VR is awesome?!!?? Let’s ask this lady for her first-hand opinion…
:uham:
-
So you own a Vive or Oculus Rift and have spent time flying sims with them?
Yes. We have had several iterations of Oculus Rift hardware at my workplace. The early ones were far worse than my own VR set, except for screen quality. Now they’re catching up.
So what’s the actual takeaway from someone who doesn’t own or use a Vive or Rift, and who seems to think having more than a HOTAS setup is “common?” Please explain how your argument is anything more than a misinformed opinion based on outdated technology and a limited, if not optimistic, understanding of the demographics of flight sims?
Having used VR sets of various kinds for over a decade, and flown flight sims since the 80’s, well, that’s the takeaway. If you prefer things looking nice to things being realistic, a VR set is the way to go today. If you want a realistic experience of actually operating an F-16, VR today is horrid.
I’d give up my MFDs in a heartbeat for VR. If you weren’t using nearly ten-year old technology to form your opinions, perhaps you’d join me.
Not a chance.
-
You would assert that things look nice in VR? Interesting…. my biggest issue with it is the reportedly low resolution. Is this a nonfactor?
Could you elaborate a little more on why you think a VR set makes things unrealistic?
-
You would assert that things look nice in VR? Interesting…. my biggest issue with it is the reportedly low resolution. Is this a nonfactor?
For looks, definitely a non-issue. When you’re looking around you won’t notice the resolution much. Even my decade old 800x600 headset makes most non-complex games look astonishing. A modern Occulus set is even better.
Where the resolution causes problems is in the complex parts. Looking at gauges, and MFD’s. Reading maps. Things like that is where VR falls down today. And that is immersion breaking.
Could you elaborate a little more on why you think a VR set makes things unrealistic?
Operation of avionics in procedures approaching realistic becomes immersion breaking.
Again, as stated from the very start, my comments apply to flying BMS as a war bird simulator, in procedures attempting to be close to real procedures. If all you want to do is gun dogfights, or flying around, or whatever else people do with the sim where a HOTAS is the limit of input required, VR is an excellent choice. And there is nothing wrong with using the sim for this either. Do whatever is fun.
What I reacted to was the specific stance that VR, as it stands today, will be a game changer for a complex military flight sim like BMS. It won’t be. It will be a game changer for simple, non-complex kinds of flying, and it has been for about a decade. WWI air combat in Flying Corps with a VR headset was an astonishing feeling.
-
:munch:
-
Thank you for keeping on-topic Goat. It will be great to have programmable knee boards in-game since, as has been made excruciatingly clear throughout this thread, it will be hard to refer to outside materials when in VR. I’m hopeful that with enough coaxing Vireo 4 will be able to successfully inject 3D. I’ll fiddle around with it as well. Keep us posted!
Here is a post that details the 3D descriptor in each cockpit for drawing the HUD. It shows that the HUD is actually drawn a long distance away from the cockpit. Thankfully, it looks pretty straightforward to edit this file. Even better, there’s also a HMS (helmet-mounted sight?) line that appears to define where the HMS symbology is drawn in 3D space. We could edit this to have it drawn very far away (20000 units, like the HUD) and easily change the scaling to make it still appear the correct size. I think this will solve the HMCS location/ collimation issue. This solves another major roadblock in successfully implementing VR for BMS.
-Rabbit
Great, that is a relief to know. I can more seriously start looking at the d3d proxy without worrying about that now. Still waiting for cv1 to be delivered to me though.
Operation of avionics in procedures approaching realistic becomes immersion breaking.
Again, as stated from the very start, my comments apply to flying BMS as a war bird simulator, in procedures attempting to be close to real procedures. If all you want to do is gun dogfights, or flying around, or whatever else people do with the sim where a HOTAS is the limit of input required, VR is an excellent choice. And there is nothing wrong with using the sim for this either. Do whatever is fun.
I think this is giving off the impression to readers that VR is arcade mode only, but hotas isn’t the limit of input. I don’t want people to be discouraged if they do ‘procedures approaching realistic.’ The average poster doesn’t do them and is not part of any wing I’ve come to notice. But I try to go to the extreme in ‘real’ with no compromise as the military pilots i fly with hand me down.
There are no limits to input and whatever map reading, I will make whatever solution I need for my sake, but now that supposedly the hud and hmcs problem is solvable by us it doesn’t matter anymore to try to mold bms dev and community perceptions about vr.
-
But Rabbit and Goat check my post just after that one, I did try that back in the day and it didn’t work for me with stereoscopic glasses and he does not have glasses to confirm that it does work…
-
I think this is giving off the impression to readers that VR is arcade mode only, but hotas isn’t the limit of input. I don’t want people to be discouraged if they do ‘procedures approaching realistic.’ The average poster doesn’t do them and is not part of any wing I’ve come to notice.
No, that’s not the point… well, not the only point. What about having to access other physical input devices? What about having to reference data cards and the like?
If all you want to do is sightsee and maybe the occasional mission or dogfight, VR will rock. If you want to dig a little deeper into the immersion, fly MP, coordinate with other flights, etc., then VR will get in the way. There may be workarounds for now, but they’re exactly that. Workarounds.
-
No, that’s not the point… well, not the only point. What about having to access other physical input devices? What about having to reference data cards and the like?
If all you want to do is sightsee and maybe the occasional mission or dogfight, VR will rock. If you want to dig a little deeper into the immersion, fly MP, coordinate with other flights, etc., then VR will get in the way. There may be workarounds for now, but they’re exactly that. Workarounds.
Oh for… physical input devices are not the issue. Physical output devices are the issue.