As mentioned in a different thread I finally purchased a VR headset, a Quest 2. Here are my general impressions for anyone who may be thinking about it.
TL/DR: Mixed, it can be neat, but not gonna get me away from pancake any time soon.
So first the obvious, yes the Quest 2 is the previous generations hardware. Newer VR hardware may give a better experience. I’ll discuss what might make me move away from pancake to VR, and how hardware might play into that later.
For flight sim’ing I tried MSFS, DCS, and VTOL VR. VTOL VR is obviously less of a simulator than the other two, but it is definitely far more complex than a lot of the golden age titles we all learned on. Hardware wise I am running older generation components with an i10750, a 2070 w/ 8 gb VRAM, 32 gbs of DDR4, and SSD’s. This is in a MSI GP75 gaming laptop, there is no thermal throttling if I kick the fans on high. The display is standard 1920x1080.
I have done a lot of flying in pancake, mainly using a thumbstick for looking around, and when I can get to my man cave and a larger monitor, using my TrackIR (2 or 3 I don’t remember). As a baseline, my usual DCS settings gets me around 50 FPS over large cities in Syria down low, and in MSFS I very rarely dip into the 30’s around large cities with my normal settings there flying most things.
So on to the VR. First off running DCS with the Quest 2 is a GIANT PITA. Honestly if I wasn’t so committed to trying it out, I probably would have just decided to not mess with it at all. I’d hazard I have 5-7 crashes/disconnects for every time I’m able to get in the cockpit. More complex missions and aircraft seem more problematic, but honestly I’ve had it crashes out on a simple mission in the Caucuses with FC3 aircraft too. It’s always issues loading the mission editor, or just starting DCS. If I can make it into the cockpit things run fine. I have near 0 stability issues when running DCS in pancake. The loading times may be longer for large missions and complex AC, but it almost always runs just fine.
The in-cockpit experience in VR is cool, not gonna lie. Being able to see things with some depth to them is neat. However, the visual quality/readability of gauges and screens even with the resolution turned up to where things are nearing slide show frame rates is very lacking. It is exceedingly difficult to read a gauge that should be crystal clear at the distance from my “eye”. At the current resolution available on the Quest 2, it’s not very feasible to use any AC that requires me to be able to visually resolve a gauge or screen. Something like setting up my A2G programs in the Strike Eagle, is pretty much a no go without doing some very unrealistic leaning to get “nose to screen” close in VR. Using the default DCS VR visual settings gives me good frame rates (40’s most places, dropping to the low 30’s over most large urban areas and occasionally lower), but the visual clarity suffers even more.
Having simulated depth perception to work with makes it easier to fly head out of the cockpit, as it’s much easier to track the horizon, detect roll and slip, etc. However, if I need to be at 350 knots for my attack profile, or my turn point is in 24 seconds the lack of clarity is very much a handicap. The feeling of motion is good, and once I got over the initial conflict with my vestibular system, I only get the occasional very brief bit of “unease” from the simulated motion of flight.
DCS is what I would classify as a procedural or system simulator, that focus very heavily on the “how” of flying a combat aircraft and employing its weapons. VR IMO opinion hinders this with the current lack of resolution and the extremely awkward requirements of switch flipping/button pushing when using a VR headset. Maybe with a full cockpit and the Quest 3 pass through, the switch flipping issue would be fixed but the visual clarity would still seem to be lacking. The feeling of motion is there, but it seems muted as it were. I get the same perception of speed in VR that I do in pancake, which has always seemed lacking in DCS.
Moving over to MSFS the ease of using VR in the sim is leaps and bounds easier and more consistent than in DCS. I think I had to setup 2 additional key binds, and it’s literally one key bind to switch VR and switch it off. I can do so at will, letting me do things like set the sim up and fly near something cool (like the pyramids) in pancake, pause, let me wife get set under the headset, switch VR on, unpause, and fly her around while she looks around and I basically keep it in a pylon turn. DCS could definitely use some of the ease of use that MSFS has.
MSFS seems to more gracefully tolerate high visual settings, as running VR with my normal pancake graphics settings still puts me in the high 20’s. I know for some that might as well be a series of pictures in a newspaper, but I find it perfectly flyable just not as smooth as I like. When using the default MSFS VR settings, it in the mid 40’s the majority of the time. I have the same complaint with MSFS as I do DCS, the clarity of gauges and displays is very lacking in VR, at least on the Quest 2. Switch flipping/button pressings has the same issues as DCS, but I have much less of it to do in most aircraft compared to DCS so it’s not quite as noticeable. Also, with just a keypress I can be back in pancake and do things easily with the mouse if necessary.
The feeling of flight in MSFS is good, being able to look around parts of the AC easier to sight see if nice. The perception of speed in MSFS has always felt better to me than in DCS and this remains the case in DCS. Most of MSFS flying is scenery gazing, and VR does this well, enhancing the experience over pancake somewhat with more of a feeling of “being in the plane.” I find the lack of visual clarity detracts from specific points of interest if they are highly detailed.
I have by orders of magnitude less time in VTOL VR (I think I still have under 2 hours) than either of the other two sims. The systems that are “simulated” were designed from the ground up to be used in VR and this is apparent, in how well they are useable while under the headset. The graphics were designed for VR as well with pretty much everything be clear and readable under the headset.
To be continued later today when I have time to finish…
) ; those physically limited; etc. VR just isn’t, yet, as easy as picking up an I-Phone. We’re getting there; the clarity was the only real hurdle I needed them to surmount, and it has (at a cost).