Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by MarcG, Apr 12, 2017.
It should be about making the sim as good as possible. VR is a key feature.
VR would be a lot more popular and accessible if the price for a decent one wasn't nearly the same amount as a brand new ps4 and Xbox one put together. I can tell you the price is the sole reason why I don't have VR outside of my gear VR. The $700 price point is rediculous considering you can't even use the vive or rift without a top flight pc. My PC can do it and I paid $1,000 for it at a discounted price. So spending another $700 for a VR headset is not gonna happen. Drop the price down to the $200-$300 range then we'll talk.
Come on guys. I own VR but the truth is that VR is still more than anything a toy for a small minority of marketers and tech enthusiasts. The reason is because VR is hindered by our ability to render 3D environments in real-time.
you can get the oculus rift headset for 500$ (https://www.amazon.com/Oculus-Rift-Virtual-Reality-Headset/dp/B00VF0IXEY/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1493198901&sr=8-3&keywords=oculus+rift)
its a good deal and (in my personal opinion) it transforms the simracing experience. we pay houndreds of $ for wheels, we pay houndreds of $ for pedals, we pay houndreds of $ for simrigs and all that comes with it. rf2 is a simulation that sees itself as the pinnacle of all the available sims and for that to be true it needs to support hardware peripherals that are widely used in simracing. and if you believe it or not, take a look at the polls in the iracing forums or the general use of vr in simracing. of course not everybody uses it yet, but the percentage of simracers who own and want to drive in vr is big enough, if you want to be taken seriously as a simulator you need to support at this point. imagine rf2 wouldnt support direct drive ffb wheels, nobody would take a sim serious which does not support it. i would bet there are fewer people who drive with a dd ffb wheel then there are who race with a rift or vive.
I don't know if I can follow your logic, but the difference between DD wheels and VR devices is, that DD wheels are actually a fleshed out technology that works flawless compared to mid and low end periphals and that they don't require me to run high end PC hardware. With VR it is a bit different. For one thing the price/quality relation is not given atm especialy when you compare the image quality to better LCD screens. I can only speak for myself in that regard, as I have only tried DCS, War Thunder and Elite Dangerous with the Rift, but the image quality is just not there yet. I have been playing without my glasses and I could still clearly see the pixelation. Sure, the experience is cool at first glance, but when I think about spending my money on more advanced control periphals or a VR device, my decision would be pretty clear with the current devices. What also effects this, is the hardware requirements to run games at accpetable FPS without lags or freezes in VR, something that I noticed especialy with DCS and wich is a no-go in racing sims. If you really want to use your VR headset, you need to spend quite a bit more on your PC hardware in addition to those 500 bucks, wich means buying high end hardware wich is quite expensive. So all in all, I would have to spend easily over 1500 bucks to get a pixelated image, wich is not justified for me personaly. Currently I would even go that far to rather spend 300 bucks on a 144 hz monitor.
That said, let's talk about the subject in five years. By that time we will really see how the hardware, software compatibilities, prices, quality and especialy the marketshare evolve. Currently it's like running an E-car - not really evolved and the infrastrucutre is just not there yet.
thats personal experience from your side. but the numbers of simracers who use current vr devices in a competetive manner are what they are.
its not how you perceive it at the moment. the question is if there is a demand on vr functionality in the current simracing community. and the demand is without a doubt there. so there is no arguing about perceived resolution and price performance ratios. if a percentage of the playerbase wants to use current vr tech then a simulator like rf2 has to meet those demands to be taken seriously.
i have over 150 races (in VR) in iracing with an irating at about 4k. i am by no means an alien but i can stand my ground and was always competitive with the cv1. the experience isnt cool at first glance, it transformed simracing for me. especially after a while and i was used to being actually in the car and not watching through 1 or 3 windows. i have a way better sense of scale, i have a way better understanding and visual cues of what my car is doing, i have way better positiong and am overall way more confident in wheel to wheel driving then i have ever been on my 3 screen setup.
but there isnt really a point in arguing about that since nearly all major sims these days see that there actually is a demand vor VR functionality, otherwise it would not have been implemented in most of them. the only "big" one that isnt up to snuff yet is automobilista and that is sadly down to an ancient outdated graphic engine that probably wont change that soon. i personally am just happy that i am finally able to go back to my old simracing league that i left once i received the dk2 and realized i will never be able to drive on monitors again.
These constant VR arguments make me laugh, was it like this when people moved from keyboards to wheels?! I mean seriously, if it was destined to fail would all these devs waste their time implementing it?! (Rhetorical questions don't respond!)
Even if it does last just a couple of years I know I'll have my fun with it in the mean time...and no I didn't spend any extra on my mid range PC to enjoy VR either, the whole argument of "you need a high spec pc" is completely inaccurate and simply not true.
Try it, if you like it buy it, if you don't no harm done, simple!
Go VR & all your wildest dreams will come true
Well, if I haven't tried it myself I would propably not argue about it. The problem with VR as with so many other things is, that it gets hyped to no end. The bigger selling factor for rF2 might be the DX11 upgrade and visual improvements along with the content and licenses that are to come and not VR. But who knows, we will only see it when it's there. At the end I am more sceptical about comments like "there is a demand" when VR users are a big big minority in the figures of 1%, even in sim racing. Where do people get those figures from, that there is a "demand"? Is there any scientific research that I can read up? Do they have a clue how statistics work? What I know is, that the polls here in this forum were a wasteland compared to the number of active rF2 users, let alone owners. Same goes for the AC forum btw. Next to the fact, that it is no secret that you need hardware of the better end to get that pixelated image, as much as you claim that you can run it fine. I am talking about a clear image running max settings in VR, not the Minecraft world that we currently see. People are complaining about Aliasing in the current version on screens so what do you expect when they see the image in VR? As much as I would like to see VR getting a standard in the consumer market, I am not caught in my VR bubble claiming that the world of gaming demands VR and I am trying to see both sides of the medal. Atleast for now. It'll be a nice feature and fun for the people who want to use it and get more interesting in the future but nothing that makes or breakes rF2. How about we just relax and see how things work out. It would certainly be a good start if the game stops freezing and crashing for the big majority of users
Sorry but VR is more that a screen. First is not so "pixelated", for Elite everything is perfectly readable (and I've only push to 1.4 the pixel doubling, if there are pixeled there are a problem). And more a screen you've a better speed felling and better perception of trajectory due to 3D rendering. And it is two things that you can't have with the better screen of the world
The average sim racer doesn't own a dedicated sim rig or drive with expensive direct-drive wheels, I think they are over represented on an enthusiast forum like this. Most people I know that I've driven against in various RaceDepartment leagues use a standard single-screen rig with either Logitech or Thrustmaster wheel. Even triple screen racing has just lately started to become more of a norm than exception due to price of screens going down and not requiring a monster GPU. Of course these people will eventually uprade their setup, but VR being "widely used" in sim racing is something I find no statistics to support, the VR user number is probably currently in the same range as those who buy expensive wheels and rigs. I agree with @hitm4k3r , when I buy something for $500 (or $600+ in Europe), it has to be a product that lasts for years, without any issues like pixelation present. My Logitech G27, which I bought in 2010 for $300, is still in use today, which is the kind of value I'm looking for.
Pixelation really is related to long distance viewing, there are a lot of VR titles where it's no issue at all. Racing and Flight-Sims do have more issues in that regard but, at least for racing use, I don't see it as a major problem once you know the track well enough. Even with Dirt Rally stages, it's not a big problem.
Tracks with long straights it's more apparent for sure, cars in the distance can look crap I won't argue that at all! (all the Sims I've tried that is). But like I've stressed a thousand times, the immersion far outweighs the pixelation for me, whilst others may not like it I can live with it just fine. Strangely I don't seem to notice it in flight sims at much, that could be due to a racing game having a fixed point on the horizon which you're always focused on where as in a plane you're constantly rotating and yawing so you never really focus on the distance that much perhaps. Elite is just fine as well due to the blackness of space, even on the planets I never notice it.
There is no doubt, the number of iRacing players with advanced hardware is substantially higher by a wide margin. There were quite a few of them that adopted VR full-time when the Dk2 first arrived on scene but, they tend to have all the best toys anyway.
The improvement in immersion with VR compared to using a single monitor is huge though so, the potential gain is significant vs cost - providing one already has a decent gaming PC.
It's all about immersion. With greater immersion there is greater intuition. That's why I'll take VR over flat screens any day of the week where driving & flying sims are concerned, as it transforms the experience beyond anything capable in 2-D with single or triple screens (not sure about TrackIR with/without 3D).
Try to rise "PIXEL_PER_DISPLAY"', You can set it in assetto corsa in ..\\Documents\Assetto Corsa\cfg\oculus.ini. In Elite is in graphic setup. Or use "OculusDebugTool" to fix it at 2.0 the pixelation is very reduced (but need a very good GPU to work fine, with my 1060 I set 1.4 and it is a good compromise
Did you read what I said? I have tried the Rift myself and I know that it is not a flat screen. To be more precise, I really enjoyed it and I will try rF2 with it once I find the time. It for sure is a nice thing to have when you can afford it but as a student I have to think about the bigger picture. I would use the VR device only for racing and would have to invest rougly 1500 bucks for it, whereas I would use the better monitor for basicly everything (a better racing experience included) that I do with my PC and only have to spend 300 bucks. I don't have to calculate for you how big the gain/investement relation is for each situation. And looking at the Steam charts I am not alone with this. Don't read it as: "I am against VR".
Now to come back to the question, if there really is a demand and to actually brings some solid hard numbers:
In August 2014 there was a poll in this forum where 96 people voted for it and 46 people voted "no Rush" (with roughly 35000 rF2 owners at minimum according to steamspy), wich tells me that roughly 0,27% of the rF2 users at that time really wanted VR desperately. So I consider those 96 users really enthusiastic rF2 users who really showed interest in getting VR - aka demand. Note that rF2 went to Steam in Nov. 2015, so figures could be considerably lower for the number of total owners wich would speak for a higher share of people demanding VR - only ISI knows that number.
In Sept. 2016 there was a poll in this forum with 6 people owning HTC, 32 people owing OR, 1 person owning both, 41 people interested in buying one and 45 showing no interest in buying one, still applying the 35000 owners minimum. Now you have 81 people who actively showed a demand for it wich gives you a figure of 0,23%.
In April 2016 there have voted 1195 AC users in a poll that they demand VR (25% of the voters). 75% were demanding something else in that vote. If we consider that there are roughly about 400000 AC owners on PC you get to a figure of 0,30 % really demanding VR.
Elite Dangerous is a prime example of games that were actively developed with VR in mind and sold around 1 Mio copies. If we apply the best case scenario and consider all VR users on steam playing the game right now (0,24% the Vive and 0,13% the Rift with currently 11.5 Mio active steam users) you get to a figure of 4.25% of Elite Dangerous players playing the game with a VR headset right now.
I don't know what you guys call a "demand", but even with the best case scanrios in mind it looks pretty much as if the majority of gamers doesn't care about VR right now. Considering that I haven't seen the polls of the WMD forum nor the iRacing forums, I would call VR a luxury item right now. One thing to keep in mind though, is that VR headsets are much more interesting for devs selling quite low amount of copies where it gets pretty much a risky business for AAA game devs. If we consider that all of a sudden all VR owners on Steam (0,37%* 11.5 Mio current users) bought rF2 right now, wich is something like 42500 users, Studio 397 could allmost double the sales numbers of rF2 so an increase of 100%. This is under consideration that the current amount of VR users owning rF2 allready is neglectable. For AC it would be something like 10 % only. Anyway, enough mathematics.
hitm4k3r, Your analysis of polls is hilariously misguided. Do you really believe that if 125 people respond to a poll on a forum, and 81 of those either own a vr headset or are interested, then that means that the other 34,919 owners of the game have no interest in vr? Seriously, you believe that to be the case? Wow.
this is without a doubt the most simple-minded interpretation of polls and data as a whole i have seen to this date. speechless.
For sure VR technology is a luxury item, without doubt. PC's were luxury items 20+ years ago. One car per household was a luxury item 35+ years ago. I don't disagree with anything you are saying there. It's just when you go VR you realise what this technology can offer you as a simracing enthusiast or flightsim enthusiast. I'm sure other 'enthusiasts' have seen benefits in this tech too that is beyond my scope. In fact I'm certain developers themselves have seen and experienced the benefits of this technology. They must believe in it too to invest resources in learning, recruiting, & developing for it. It's not only about short-term sums of extra $/£/€ like you say, this is a long-term playing field, a long-term strategy. Why would Kunos/505 Games be expanding their VR department? Why would Studio 397 input all that effort to go DX11 if it wasn't in a large part for VR?
When I hear people say VR will die like 3D did I think I hope not, as I think it has so much more to offer (especially in my interests) than 3D ever did. Then I look at what is going on in VR world and I think, absolutely not going the same direction as 3D.
I tried VR without the intention of holding on to it for too long after having read all the criticisms, & after experiencing the cons (& pros) with my own eyes, over time (approximately a month of only racing in VR) I took away enough from those experiences to outweigh the faults (around resolution, fov, weight, wires, etc) & appreciate what was on offer here and how it changed my whole experience of simracing for the better, not just as a graphical experience but in performance too (as my laptimes in AC are far better in VR than they were in triple screens). So if you have tech that can improve experience and performance be it in a game or simulation, for leisure or work, then I'm backing that with what I can. Both in the tech and for the developers making the steps to integrate it (if they do a decent job instead of a botch job just to attract a short-term VR crowd). I think the people you see in this thread saying similar things about VR are of the same thought process, they see the future of what this technology can give, and want to experience it now (even with its shortcomings as the pros outweigh it for us since we keep using it) & back it's future.
You can buy a 2nd hand Rift with controllers for about £400 ($520) in UK on a forum I am a member of. I have no problem buying 2nd hand tech in fact pretty much 80% of what I own (tech wise) is used. This is how innovation moves. High prices for early adopters, 2nd/3rd/4th hand market lowers the price gradually over time, updated product releases, rinse & repeat.
I just think your analysis of the technology and your understanding of the diffusion of innovation is way off the mark.
Separate names with a comma.