Rather than sidetrack other topics (my fault) I figured it would be worthwhile to open a new one... There are advantages and disadvantages to either Man Machine Interface (MMI) option. Just like suspension tuning it's really an individual preference. Visual realism is a perceived value. In most instances the ability to turn on's head and see in all directions is certainly going to offer the most realistic impression. VR will definitely stand out in that respect. Resolution is also a key parameter in perceived value. That's where a great deal of overlap takes place between VR & Monitors in part due to how the human eye and optical physics work. Effective focal lengths of the human eye differ widely in how the brain interprets the image. That's why some people have visually induced seizures and others don't. And with age, the human lens begins to harden extending the minimum focal length, and therefore the resolution level they can actually perceive. I'm guilty on that one. Farsighted/Nearsighted eyes tend to be more prone to optical distortion that impact resolution; VR tends to be better for farsighted, where Monitors tend to be better for nearsighted regarding resolution. That would seem to be just the opposite of what's expected from an optical physics point. Watching F1 or IndyCar drivers you'll rarely see them turn their helmets for some good reasons. First wearing a HANS Device and strapped into the confines its quite a strain to do repetitively. Second, there are few points where they need to. Opening practice at Monaco is an exception at points like the hairpin but are quickly committed to memory for most drivers. As for FOV settings etc. that depends on the individual and to some extent how the train their brain to perceive the view. No matter which MMI one chooses can be effective so long as they can maintain the resolution level of forward vision to anticipate the responses that work best for them. No one MMI is best for all people.