Yeah could be. Guess we’ll see what the performance hit is like in ship VR come EDO.
Last edited:
Odyssey Alpha - let us try VR 3D stereoscopic headlook on foot and alpha test its nausea trigger / gameplay
- Thread starter VR Jay Le Chardon
- Start date
Yeah could be. Guess we’ll see what the performance hit is like in ship VR come EDO.
Would vorpx be a viable solution to the current delay or non existence of the feature?
Not really mate, because vorpX acts as a bridge between a non VR game and the VR API, whereas Elite is already a VR game, and will be taking owndership of the VR hardware, effectively locking vorpX out, even though when on foot it's just going to treat the VR headset like a flatsreen monitor.
He might be on to something there, maybe you can launch in 2D and tinker with vorpx then... but I still wouldn't.
Thinking about it, the vanity camera already has an occlusion function when the camera interacts with an object, to stop clipping & spoilers etc. I wonder if they could re-use that if needed?
(Like say if it really was a pain. Like if the 'sphere of combat' had objectives where infantry grab a code before disarming defences or whatever, and VR players were just view-clipping into the appropriate room
)The head clipping issue can be fixed in a number of ways, in addition to the ones above, it could also be fixed by having the CMDRs head affixed to the top of the head, disregarding the movement data, only using the rotational data from the VR positioning.
So, turn off native VR to enable hacked in VR, and it's not going to be jankier than anything Frontier could do?
Hey, a man has gotta have options. I don't even have VorpX to be honest, but it's a possibility. And knowing their "not on launch" I'm afraid that's the only option we are gonna have...
I'm all for options, that's why I'm asking for a VR 3D head look "option".
I'm not keen on going down the route of pinning our hopes on VorpX, there isn't any previous VorpX implementation on Cobra engine, which will make it harder to implement, having no previous examples to work from. I also think that it's unlikely that we'd get widespread VorpX community support for patching it in as they'd be like "why do you wanna VorpX a VR game?"
I'm not saying it's impossible to make it work, just that it would take a lot of faffing about on our part, I'm also cognisant of the fact that it will require someone, a few of us to "learn" VorpX and hack it in, and even then there's no guarantee we'd get the results we are after.
What we need now is for someone to chime in and say that they heard someone put VorpX in in a day and therefore its easy
Sorry. Couldn`t help myself.
As long as that someone is the CEO of the company explaining how making it work was faster than preparing business paperwork to make it happen, then sure, you do you. But unless that's true, you simply troll.What we need now is for someone to chime in and say that they heard someone put VorpX in in a day and therefore its easy
Sorry. Couldn`t help myself.
PS: Could "help myself". Just didn't want to.
I had a wry chuckle at scoob's comment But I know what StarLight is getting at.
But I know what StarLight is getting at.
You need a new irony detector. Yours is clearly broken beyond repair ;-)
In fairness, we Brits have an extremely dry sense of humour that not everyone else gets,
Meh, it's just that a joke repeated a few times stops being funny. Also being obtuse on purpose is funny the first three times, later it just becomes tiresome.
If a CEO says that implementing that took less than a week, then it was easy. Period. Nowadays even indie studios code VR games - Onward was coded by one college dropout for crying out loud... So it isn't unfathomable that a studio the size of frontier, with reportedly over a hundred of developers on the project is entirely capable of doing the entire Odyssey in VR with motion controllers interactions. They only choose not to, for entirely understandable business reasons, as it is their right to do so, and we have no say in that. It just would be nice if they told us why to stop the speculation of it ever going to be implemented or not. And I know they purposely made it that way so that they don't have to commit to anything and be prepared to drop us VR users in a jiffy if they so desire. And it was the original plan all along before the forum ruckus started, and it was in danger of rippling through the press.
If a CEO says that implementing that took less than a week, then it was easy. Period. Nowadays even indie studios code VR games - Onward was coded by one college dropout for crying out loud... So it isn't unfathomable that a studio the size of frontier, with reportedly over a hundred of developers on the project is entirely capable of doing the entire Odyssey in VR with motion controllers interactions. They only choose not to, for entirely understandable business reasons, as it is their right to do so, and we have no say in that. It just would be nice if they told us why to stop the speculation of it ever going to be implemented or not. And I know they purposely made it that way so that they don't have to commit to anything and be prepared to drop us VR users in a jiffy if they so desire. And it was the original plan all along before the forum ruckus started, and it was in danger of rippling through the press.
Started a Suggestion thread on this:
forums.frontier.co.uk
Swing by if you think that take on it is worth a push
Allow the VR '2D screen' to be disabled?
Hello lovely devs! This suggestion is based on some major assumptions, but it would be great if it were possible. Initial Assumptions: That the stereoscopic render used for ships & SRVs in EDO functions in Legs mode. That the 2D screen mode for Legs can be set to toggle on or off...
Swing by if you think that take on it is worth a push
I`m simply trying to break down some of the misconceptions on display here, if you read my posts you`ll understnad that quite clearly. I`m not making jokes, I`m giving you a tiny window into how complex software development is.
I`ve already explained some of the most important high level reasons why, in as much detail as someone outside the project reasonably could. If you want to get some better appreciation for this stuff, read my earlier post.
I`ve already explained why they wont do that. The reasons why they won`t explain are pretty obvious if you think about it from the other guys point of view, assuming your confirmation bias doesnt completley cloud your thinking.
Last edited:
I'm trying to figure out if it's going to be yourself or thistle that takes me most to task on what I'm about to say here...
However, looming banter aside, I'd be understanding if we were told that it can't happen because X Y or Z. But, given things like DB's comments about the initial VR headlook implementation being pretty easily done, and that we are asking that same "easy" implementaiton to be replicated in the onfoot sections, and the sorts of compromises we are willing to accept like oh my they are still spriting - look at those dust devils - tee hee hee, and the fact the functionality we are after is already present in another facet of the upcoming game, it remains, in my mind, a reasonable askance. As it's something a small group of customers have presented in the frame of "it might be a bit janky but just shut up, do your best and take our money" to paraphrase the fry from futurama meme, and the fact I'm suggesting in this thread that we explore it in alpha, which I think is the perfect opportunity to see "how bad can it be", means it's got to at the very least be worth assessing and giving feedback on.
I'm good, thanks. No need to have random person on the internet offering me a window into what I'm doing for a living since 20 years or so, both from developer and management perspective. It's not that complicated as you make it out to be, and if somebody more important (CEO) says it took them less than corporate paperwork, that's a pretty good estimation of a small story. And something tells me he knows much more about it than you. Or me. Sometimes you plug in premade stuff (library/framework) and "It just works", that's all.
I read it, I simply disagree with it. Especially with the overarching consequences in disjointed systems (if you use hacked VR look, FSD stops giving milk. Or something). They already have pipelines for VR rendering in place. There was no point in tearing that down at all (no VR at launch). And the relatively fast reaction to the forum ruckus further proves that it was a business decision, not a technical decision. it's obvious to someone who has been managing at least medium sized project with deadlines. Stuff ends on a cutting room floor for less serious reasons. And no, you don't know the reasons either, because they won't say anything besides drivel like "experience up to par" etc.
That or the engine is woefully unoptimized and it will simply struggle with VR so hard it crashes.
Oh and is tight-lipped since 2016, so nihil novi sub sole. I said it would be nice to tell "we're dropping VR, flatscreen is all you get for now" but that would hurt sales, wouldn't it? So as always they won't tell. Not that I care after the "no VR fiasco". From what we know already, I'm at most lukewarm about Odyssey.
Last edited: