Kxmode wrote on Oct 14, 2019, 23:34:
Scottish Martial Arts wrote on Oct 14, 2019, 20:16:
Kxmode wrote on Oct 14, 2019, 19:04:
The thing is VR, not AR, is the best enhancement for a flight simulator.
That's not at all clear on the basis of first-gen headsets. Some issues:
* VR headsets are less sharp and have less clarity of image as compared to a 4K monitor. This renders instruments and displays harder to read and, in a combat sim, other planes and ground targets harder to distinguish. This was my number one complaint with trying out an Oculus with DCS: it was felt comparable to downgrading back to a 1080p display.
* Peripherals become harder to use. I do not have an extensive peripheral setup, just the Warthog HOTAS, but the switch panel integrated into the base of the throttle was basically unusable without taking both hands off the controls, using one to raise the headset a bit, and then glancing down with my peripheral vision to manipulate a switch with my other hand. The fact that the switch panel was rendered in game was little help unless the switch I wanted was at the edge of the panel.
* Head tracking has been a solved problem for about 15 years thanks to TrackIR and VR offers little real improvement. TrackIR isn't perfect, but once you have well calibrated input curves, and so long as direct sunlight isn't shining into the tracker's FoV, then it works very well.
What VR has to offer over a standard setup is immersion and depth perception, but right now it is simply less usable than the alternatives, albeit still a really cool experience. As the displays improve, I could see VR eventually becoming preferable to a 4k monitor + TrackIR. Until then though, it's a tough sell for a hobby where you never have enough pixel density.
1. Augmented reality means you're looking at a three-dimension objects placed into your field of view (likely the room with your computer). You can't immerse yourself in a flight simulator with augmented reality. Virtual reality, on the other hand, puts you into a fully immersive environment.
2. I'm sorry, but your statement that "VR headsets are less sharp and have less clarity of image as compared to a 4K monitor" is wrong, and here's why. Valve's Index "uses a 1440×1600 LCD panel for each eye for a combined resolution of 2880×1600." 4K-UHD is 3840×2160 (this is the more common resolution for gamings) and true 4K 4096×2160 (this is the more common 4K resolution for movies and broadcasts). The index gives you a screen dimension that is 1000×560 less than 4K-UHD. When you're eyes see an image at 2880×1600, you will notice the better visual fidelity.
1. I would argue that AR might be even better than VR for high-end flight simming. The AR headset could project the world outside the windows of the plane (what you'd see outside the windows of the plan) and the instruments, while projecting your HOTAS, etc. down below so you don't have to take your headset off to interact with it.
2. SMA said that VR headsets have less resolution than a 4K monitor, you said that's wrong, then you provided stats that 4K monitors have higher resolution than VR! Help me understand.
Also, simmers often combine Track IR with a triple monitor set up. Even at 1080P, that's almost the same resolution as the Track IR (5760x1080) and 1440P surpasses it easily. Here's an example of one such set up
, where the player can both pan around easily, see the outside world in exquisite detail, and interact with all of his gear.
“We’ve reached the point of this polarized pandemic where our current plan for salvation is convincing certain recalcitrant men that wearing masks is the testosteroney thing to do.“