Allow the VR '2D screen' to be disabled?

I'd have to speculate that getting the reticle comfortable should be one of the simpler aspects of it all - should be a single raycast to the targetted point on an object (...alternatively depth buffer lookup), in order to determine the distance, and consequently how much stereo separation to draw it with, matching that of the point on the object -- the reticle does not resize.

Doing it all with the 3rd person camera is probably a more fiddly prospect than just doing it right to begin with, using the main game camera (stereo pair version), in-my-humble-armchair-developer-musings.

We need:
  • Player camera object replaced with stereo pair player camera object.
  • Reticle overlay aligned and parallax corrected, as mentioned above.
  • The quads that other HUD elements are drawn on to be arranged in 3D space (not screen buffer space), in such a way that they are comfortably and unobstructingly positioned and aligned within your view.
  • Add headturn to mouse(-or whatever)look on yaw, and let it replace other input on pitch.

Optionals:
  • Allow camera roll, and maybe add headturn roll animation to player avatar. If unrestricted. the latter could have impact on avatar animation and IK.
  • Allow player real-world translation to translate player avatar in two or three axes, whilst clamping max speed of motion, so that one can not add one's real-world translating to the avatar's "drive" velocity, for a short and cheat-y superhuman spurt into cover. Colliders still stops avatar dead, same as with all other game motion, even if the player still moves in their playspace -- if this makes them nauseated, they have only themselves to blame, for trying to walk through a wall. If allowing ducking: Either swap between game upright, and crouched state, at a threshold height (Skyrim does this), or make it follow contigously; The latter would add IK issues, like mentioned in the preceding point.
  • Draw the inside of the helmet. This could also help some with motion sickness a little, by providing a visual anchor, like the cockpit does in-vessel.
  • Subdivide the HUD quads and curve them, if so desired, to help with readability on low resolution headsets. (Unless there are (for some reason) shader-level effects on the HUD, this makes no difference to complexity - a bitmap being UV-mapped to a complex mesh makes it no different from its self being UV-mapped to a single pair of triangles.)
  • Do not lock the helmet motion exactly 1:1 with the player's head, leaving a little room to look around inside it. If this is done: A) Optionally parent the HUD to the helmet, rather than directly to the player's head. B) ...there arises the need to determine just how the helmet follows headlook; delays, inertia, motion range limits, overflows of those propagating into avatar turning (already happens with mouse/stick-look), etc...
  • On the matter of the screenspace-reflections-in-the-visor effect... First of all one have to question whether there should realistically be any reflections at all of the outside, on the inside the helmet... If one absolutely must have them: Do they really need to be in proper stereo, or could they not be accepted being just their mono selves mapped identically to the visor mesh for both eyes, appearing as an additively drawn 2D picture on its surface? These reflections are inherently not physically correct in the first place anyway - only raytracing can produce that.
  • EDIT: Condensation needs to be drawn on the inside of the visor (...or a decal applied to it), but this essentially falls under the previous HUD positioning point.
  • The whole thing with motion controllers, but then we begin to get into the whole thing with a "proper" VR implementation. :p
 
Last edited:
Doing it all with the 3rd person camera is probably a more fiddly prospect than just doing it right to begin with, using the main game camera (stereo pair version), in-my-humble-armchair-developer-musings.

Yeah this is the issue though. Asking for too much risks (a) it not happening, because VR resources are so thin, and (b) it happening in a way which is wasted effort / an impediment to any proper VR Legs additions in the future.

I think in that sense it seems wise just to ask for, and expect, something closer to the lowest end of things. (Access to some basics, rather than anything particularly tailored etc ;))
 
Last edited:
Yeah this is the issue though. Asking for too much risks (a) it not happening, because VR resources are so thin, and (b) it happening in a way which is wasted effort / an impediment to any proper VR Legs additions in the future.

I think in that sense it seems wise just to ask for, and expect, something closer to the lowest end of things. (Access to some basics, rather than anything particularly tailored etc ;))
Yes - realistic requests, in a situation with a towering amount of pressing issues, and limited resources - absolutely!

The point I was trying to make with that line, though, is that I firmly believe doing it via the vanity cam is at the end of the day - in any time/resource perspective - more work than "upgrading" the regular player camera, and "massaging" the HUD to fit it; And leaves you plowing efforts into creating hacky temporary workarounds, whose only medium-to-long term destination is the bin.

I'll concede the risk is higher, that a bad temporary solution becomes permanent, the more: "not sufficiently abysmal" it is. :p
 
The point I was trying to make with that line, though, is that I firmly believe doing it via the vanity cam is at the end of the day - in any time/resource perspective - more work than "upgrading" the regular player camera, and "massaging" the HUD to fit it; And leaves you plowing efforts into creating hacky temporary workarounds, whose only medium-to-long term destination is the bin.

Ah ok gotcha!

Yeah I’d much prefer some form of 'in game' entry level stuff. Working with what would become a proper VR addition, but just the earliest stages. (Like again, I wouldn’t imagine UI really getting a look in. But figure we could suffer it, or disable it, as players potentially).

The video cam just raises itself as an option because FDev have moved the most there to date ¯\(ツ)/¯
 
To not even acknowledge the existence of this thread is quite an accomplishment. I'm overwhelmed by FDevs efforts at letting us feel their depreciation.

Yes it seems we will not be getting any official reply.

(They are a rarity, but the popular Galnet post did get one, even if one which just added more detail on why the suggestion wouldn't be actioned at that time.)

It will be interesting to note if there are any changes to the VR vanity cam over the coming updates though. (We may not have had responses to these VR Suggestion threads, but some of the requests themselves have come to pass.)
 
Why operate a public(!) board when you aren't even interested enough to acknowledge the most pressing concerns that your customers report? A simple "We have seen this and will consider addressing it in more detail during our upcoming planning session" would have gone a long way. Even a "We are sorry, but at the moment we have no resources to even address this issue." would have helped to project some minuscule sense of residual professionalism.

But this is assuming that
  • someone is responsible for CRM
  • someone is responsible for the public(!) board
  • someone is responsible for VR
  • there is agile planning

Or in short: this is assuming FDev are guided by a state of the art software engineering process, which they are obviously not.

Sad story, to see such a promising game die the fast-profit-death in full view. Thank the god of capitalism that there are competitors, and that they are getting stronger every month!!!

PS: the galnet response you mentioned happened on page 7 of the concerned thread. Even without my rants, this thread has 4 times as many contributions without any FDev reaction. I do wonder if galnet is truly 4 times more profitable than VR... Quite sure it is not, so again evidence for a chaotic, non-standard software engineering process, in which even the single priority-one goal (short-term-profit) will be impossible to reach consistently. I pity all shareholders as well as (even more so) the employees. I only have to play this game, voluntarily. My frustration must be nothing compared to people actually living off this mess.
 
Last edited:
In the final analysis I'll take actions over words any day. (Especially if the words essentially amount to: 'Computer says no, soz'). So if there's continued VR tinkering on their end I'll be somewhat assuaged, given the current budgeting realities.

I'd love outright dialogue on patchwork community solutions, given the the unusual nature of the feature hiatus. But unusual times don't always end up with unusual measures, and I'm not exactly shocked on that front ;). (It just would have been cool. A more off-the-cuff variant of the Journal efforts made for 3rd party fan developers etc).
 
Last edited:
In the final analysis I'll take actions over words any day.
Same, however: bad communications may be a symptom of mismanagement, and with all the other evidence combined, this paints a sad picture. All this was avoidable: untested and incomplete release for short term profit results in negative steam reviews, results in less new customers, less budget, death of the game and finally the well deserved death of the enterprise. What hope is there for professional actions, if professional communication / customer relations is already too much to ask for?
So if there's continued VR tinkering on their end I'll be somewhat assuaged, given the current budgeting realities.
"Tinkering" is what I have come to expect from FDev. When I first got into the game, I made the wrong assumption that the professional looking product should be evidence for a professional enterprise. I was wrong, and looking back on my own software career the following should have been obvious: sheer luck and being the first to do something can carry you a long way. You may fail on day one lacking professional processes, but you may also be able to carry on for years without obvious issues. Professional processes are only required for long term success, which now seems out of reach once we look at the main competitors and their progress.

The current budgeting realities are not something I am aware of in detail, but if they look bad, I would assume it has something to do with the unbelievably unprofessional recent release and the related, well earned, overwhelmingly negative reviews? If there isn't even enough budget to at least jolly along a relatively spending-friendly customer segment with some communication, then I wonder if there is even enough budget to shut down the company properly, paying out the poor employees? Is it already time to report them for delayed filing of insolvency?

If it is really that bad, only a great turnaround might save the enterprise and the game itself. Meaning: let the whole leadership go, bring in a professional software leadership person, downsize the design team, maybe even the development team, and focus fully on business intelligence. Only when a clear path to success is layed out, hire the people to get it done in a nearshore location I should better not disclose with only a lead architect, product owner and a lead developer at headquarters. There is more to do, but I think you get the idea.

But maybe they earn enough with their other games?
 
Hah, they're definitely solvent, and it's too soon for doom ;). (Horizons also suffered terrible steam reviews and uptake initially, due to its staged release format etc). This is worse, but it's not 'game dead' worse just yet.

On budgeting I just mean they're not developing ED as a VR-first title, but a 2D-first title. Which given the relative earnings in both sectors is an understandable business decision, and one I think we would have altered as a fan base by now if we could have ;)

Within that budgeting framework, they have still shifted our way a bit though. (Where there was to be no VR in EDO at launch, we got the current vehicle VR retained. Where there was to be no VR on foot, we got the VR vanity cam.)

There are reasons to keep prodding them essentially ;)

And if the game trucks on, then maybe VR comes down the line. It's still a possibility according to the CMs.

But in the meantime I'd quite like to play it ;)
 
Within that budgeting framework, they have still shifted our way a bit though. (Where there was to be no VR in EDO at launch, we got the current vehicle VR retained. Where there was to be no VR on foot, we got the VR vanity cam.)
You are leaving out a small detail imo - and this is my most benevolent interpretation of events: They first gave no hint whatsoever that VR might be low priority for EDO. At that time it was already possible to pre-oder, and it was natural to assume that VR will continue to be supported throughout the game. They then found out (pretty late as it seems) that they will not be able to finish and test the release in time, so they removed VR (maybe because on the long run they wanted to ditch this part anyways?) and said so (which so far was the one single truthful piece of real communication we as VR players received during 2021). Then they realized there would be a lot of refunds, so they decided to hack in this terrible excuse for proper planning and (successfully as it seems) sold it as "shifting our way".

In my interpretation the f needs to be replaced with another t. They misled us more than the other customers. And "misled" is actually not the correct word for what they did, but I learned that I need to use children-friendly language here.

And as I said this was an almost naivley benevolent interpretation of events. So far I can find no evidence speaking against the following scenario:

VR was ditched from the get-go, but FDev decided not to tell anyone, so as to get the pre-orders in time for their financial forecast. Once this was done, they decided to minimize the risk of being sued for fraud and kind of told us "not at launch". Then, due to refunds, they pressured their developers to fit in some hack so they could avoid further refunds and a fraud case. They are not communicating now, because they still don't want to tell the truth, which is that they long decided to ditch VR and have no intention whatsoever of changing that decision - they will ditch more VR features in the future, and who knows, maybe they will soon ditch space and spaceships as well, and convert the game into a shooter. LOL

Whatever, this year showed me two things:
  • FDev is not a professional game developer and uses tactics like white lies on a regular basis
  • FDev is mainly interested in short term money and will kill the game for it if given the chance

So in my mind they are in the same bucket as egosoft now - overprized shovelware - and may wither along for some time to finally disappear into insignificance one day.
 
You're wrong on almost every key detail there:

They first gave no hint whatsoever that VR might be low priority for EDO. At that time it was already possible to pre-oder, and it was natural to assume that VR will continue to be supported throughout the game.

They announced the lack of VR during the official reveal:

Elite Dangerous: Odyssey Announcement (June 2020)

Is Elite Dangerous: Odyssey coming to VR?

Currently, Elite Dangerous: Odyssey will not be VR-compatible at launch. We’re big fans of VR and we are truly proud of the amazing experience that we currently offer in Elite Dangerous. However, the new gameplay, mechanics and features that will be introduced with Elite Dangerous: Odyssey means that we had to re-examine if we could deliver that same experience without compromise, which, for launch, means Odyssey will not be VR-compatible.

That was 6 months before pre-orders became available.


They then found out (pretty late as it seems) that they will not be able to finish and test the release in time, so they removed VR (maybe because on the long run they wanted to ditch this part anyways?) and said so (which so far was the one single truthful piece of real communication we as VR players received during 2021). Then they realized there would be a lot of refunds, so they decided to hack in this terrible excuse for proper planning and (successfully as it seems) sold it as "shifting our way".

They then announced that vehicle VR would come at launch (with the 2D screen seemingly the compromise solution that allowed this)

Odyssey: Update on VR and Ship Interiors (September 2020)

VR and Elite Dangerous Odyssey

We understand that our VR players are keen to know more about how the transition and gameplay will work in Odyssey in VR. With that in mind, we would like to share our current plan for how that will work.
In Odyssey, players will be able to fly down to planets, fly through atmospheres and drive along planet surfaces in their SRVs - all while remaining in VR.

When disembarking your ship or SRV, players will be presented with a projected flat game screen in their VR headset in order to continue on foot. Players will of course be able to remove headsets if they so choose, but this will not be a requirement to continue your adventure.

There will be no requirement to boot between Horizons and Odyssey in order to continue your journey.
We understand that VR is a big part of Elite Dangerous and is a feature that holds a dedicated and passionate community. However, we do strongly believe that VR should only be enabled for on foot gameplay when we have an experience that truly matches the same quality bar that we set for cockpits. That said, we do hope that this implementation will allow our VR players the best possible transition between their VR experience and exploration on foot.

That's an addition of VR content, compared to their initial position, not a reduction. And it was still 3 months prior to pre-orders opening up. (And 8 months before the game actually launched).

---

I understand people getting confused about the details. There have been a lot of shifts and changes (in part due to community pressure, seemingly).

And if you were to say: FDev weren't clear that VR Legs might not come to EDO, and that's problematic. Then I'd absolutely agree.

But making up a list of counter-factual events doesn't really help ;). It doesn't help us assess what's going on behind the scenes. And it doesn't help us communicate with FDev effectively about those decisions.
 
Last edited:
I wish FD would comment honestly in here and acknowledge the pain their decisions have caused VR players, and prior Frontier Developments advocates, like me.

I'm still firmly of the opinion they have no VR kit to develop with any longer. We have proof that they used a contractor to implement it in the first place, and it doesn't take VR-specific devs to fix any on-going problems.

Making changes to the vanity cam should be possible with normal devs if this is the case I'd concede, but even so they'd not be giving us a VR-specific interface that floated in space in front of us, or anything further like touch controls for interaction. And that would be quite beyond a plucky modder trying to do something like write a DLL to intercept the code, which even if they did would not be supported by FD, and would need constant changes every time FD crap out a revision because they've never realised an API for the game to do it in an official way.

And, as no other FD title supports VR, what does that tell us about FD's VR outlook... and their silence?
 
They announced the lack of VR during the official reveal:
Elite Dangerous: Odyssey Announcement (June 2020)
Must be the wrong link, because nowhere in this post is any hint at the lack of VR. Or maybe I should have read on until page 256? Also I never visited the board before this summer, I usually would just read the steam announcements.

They then announced that vehicle VR would come at launch (with the 2D screen seemingly the compromise solution that allowed this)

Odyssey: Update on VR and Ship Interiors (September 2020)
I don't use twitter. I usually get my info from Steam, where I PURCHASE products, assuming they are labeled and described correctly.

That's an addition of VR content, compared to their initial position, not a reduction. And it was still 3 months prior to pre-orders opening up. (And 8 months before the game actually launched).
Should I be greatful now? Sorry, it doesn't work that way. If a significant segment of customers feel that they have not been informed properly, pointing out little bits of information later (information, that seemingly was around but didn't get noticed) doesn't fix the problem. The customers are still "unhappy", and you still failed to communicate properly to them.

I understand people getting confused about the details. There have been a lot of shifts and changes (in part due to community pressure, seemingly).
So it's our fault??? AAAAAAhHAHAHAHA!!!

Again, if "people got confused", in a commercial, capitalistic world its the advertisers fault, not the listeners fault. We are not at group therapy here, we are in a business relationship. It's the sellers job to announce, describe, advertise and sell their products well and keep the customers happy.

And if you were to say: FDev weren't clear that VR Legs might not come to EDO, and that's problematic. Then I'd absolutely agree.
At least there we agree.
But making up a list of counter-factual events doesn't really help ;).
I'm sorry, but I didn't make anything up, I merely offered an interpretation based on the information that reached me so far. Given all the time and means they had to address the VR community PROPERLY and TIMELY, isn't it quite surprising that this one crucial bit of information didn't reach me until way after I pre-purchased? FDev should be thankful for someone pointing out their communication mistakes, because obviously they have massive issues there.

Or maybe it WAS done on purpose after all; imo there is still no good evidence to the contrary. Hiding the truth somewhere far down in bulletin boards and tweets, so it doesn't get noticed too much? I am always very careful when assuming incompetency. Most people are way cleverer than we perceive them to be, especially really clever people.

It doesn't help us assess what's going on behind the scenes.
It's not our job to assess what is going on "behind the scenes". That wouldn't be necessary anyways, if FDev wouldn't leave all this up to interpretation. It's not even our job to tell them how much they failed, but I do this voluntarily, as a (possibly last) service to a game I used to love.

And it doesn't help us communicate with FDev effectively about those decisions.
Communicate with FDev? If communication with FDev is hard, how is this our fault? You have a very strange view of the role of a customer.

I have seen that you wrote over 6000 posts here. Could it be that you have a little bit of a stockholm syndrome already?
 
Must be the wrong link, because nowhere in this post is any hint at the lack of VR. Or maybe I should have read on until page 256? Also I never visited the board before this summer, I usually would just read the steam announcements.

It was a follow up dev post (click the 'dev post' button at the top to cycle through - or, like, the direct quote that I provided). So somewhat buried, yes, I agree.

But it was immediately discussed extensively at the time on community sites (steam, reddit, here etc) and covered in the gaming press. Leading to the community push for VR's inclusion.

Your "no hint" prior to pre-orders take is wrong, essentially.

I don't use twitter. I usually get my info from Steam, where I PURCHASE products, assuming they are labeled and described correctly.

Yes this is fair enough. Their official coverage and flagging of this issue on Steam is essentially non-existent, and they reap the storm on that front.

I would note that a simple google search leads to the main beats fairly easily though. So in terms of consumer awareness there are resources available.

At least there we agree.

Good :)

Communicate with FDev? If communication with FDev is hard, how is this our fault? You have a very strange view of the role of a customer.

I didn't say it was our fault. I'm simply noting that if your post is inaccurate they will naturally ignore the content. The only thing you will communicate is your anger.

And that's fine. But I'd like to aim for something more with these threads is all ¯\(ツ)/¯

I have seen that you wrote over 6000 posts here. Could it be that you have a little bit of a stockholm syndrome already?

I bought the game over 7 years ago friend. 2 posts a day suggesting how ED could be better is actually pretty restrained ;)
 
Your "no hint" prior to pre-orders take is wrong, essentially.
Agree, I have to re-phrase: it was more like "no proper warning" prior to pre-orders. I think we agree that "hints" were insufficient to prepare the VR customer segment properly for a big disappointment.
I would note that a simple google search leads to the main beats fairly easily though. So in terms of consumer awareness there are resources available.
Usually, consumer awareness is something you push. You cannot expect customers to "discover" your official communication by google searching. Of course, after the fact, I also used google and found some of the infos. But by that time I was already close to reporting FDev for fraud.
I'm simply noting that if your post is inaccurate they will naturally ignore the content.
They are free to ignore whatever they want. So far they seem to survive well despite ignoring the whole VR segment. But given that they ignored the less emotional propositions and issues so consistently, I felt it was time to show them how much room for interpretation they left open by their behavior. Maybe, just maybe, they will figure out that customers from different segments also talk to each other, that potential future customers might also read some of this stuff, and that therefore mistreating one customer segment so badly may have a long term impact on their reputation.
The only thing you will communicate is your anger.
That's OK, that was my main intent. There is more than enough rational suggestions and ideas around. I am afraid though, that FDev decision makers are not tightly bound to logic and business intelligence, but rather their own gut feelings and emotions. At least that would explain how they could fail so hard. So maybe thats the ear we need to shout into, not the rational one. Who knows.

And that's fine. But I'd like to aim for something more with these threads is all ¯\(ツ)/¯
And for that my full respect and thanks!
I bought the game over 7 years ago friend. 2 posts a day suggesting how ED could be better is actually pretty restrained ;)
I bought the game about 5-6 years ago and never had an issue with it, that I found important enough to carry into the boards and everything. Up until the EDO disaster all I ever did was report 1-2 bugs a year. You must know that you are much more deeply involved than the average player. And I am glad the community has people like you. A big chance for FDev, but I am afraid your talent may be wasted on them. Currently, you seem to be the only person actively working on getting players like me back into the game. They should pay you. I really hope you succeed, I kind of miss playing ED.
 
Agree, I have to re-phrase: it was more like "no proper warning" prior to pre-orders. I think we agree that "hints" were insufficient to prepare the VR customer segment properly for a big disappointment.
Usually, consumer awareness is something you push. You cannot expect customers to "discover" your official communication by google searching. Of course, after the fact, I also used google and found some of the infos. But by that time I was already close to reporting FDev for fraud.

Yep, I agree that they ducked flagging the issue on their most prominent channels, and on the Steam page in particular. (All told I think it would have been best if EDO hadn't been tagged as VR compliant on Steam. It still would have caused confusion, but would have been a more accurate assessment of its VR features & prognosis as they stand.)

(I still think that 'buyer beware' means everyone should google around a pricey purchase before pulling the trigger though. But that's just my personal opinion ;))

But given that they ignored the less emotional propositions and issues so consistently, I felt it was time to show them how much room for interpretation they left open by their behavior.

I'd say they may have responded to some of the outreach. The baseline suggestion from both this thread and the last one have been enacted. (IE supporting vehicle VR via the 2D screen compromise & supporting VR in the vanity camera).

It's not quite moving mountains, but we got a bigger mole hill to play on than we would have had otherwise ;)

I really hope you succeed, I kind of miss playing ED.

Likewise :) o7
 
(I still think that 'buyer beware' means everyone should google around a pricey purchase before pulling the trigger though. But that's just my personal opinion ;))
This may be valid in most countries of the world, and is a very good idea for consumers. Not so much for sellers though. With that mindset I recommend not launching products in Austria. We have one of the strictest consumer laws in the world (next to Switzerland btw.).

In Austria, we can force refunds out of any product sold digitally within the first year, and I don't even have to give a reason. If I have a valid reason, I can do the same within the first two(!) years. And it doesn't even matter what I signed beforehand, as long as I didn't sign a contract within an official physical shop of the provider.

This means that I may demand and will be able to enforce a refund in about 12 to 14 months from now if my issue hasn't been resolved by then.

But you mentioned the Vanity Cam again - I thought this was only possible for a short time, and is now no longer available? I also read somewhere that is was offset, so you can't shoot straight any more? I may have missed a few beats....
 
But you mentioned the Vanity Cam again - I thought this was only possible for a short time, and is now no longer available? I also read somewhere that is was offset, so you can't shoot straight any more? I may have missed a few beats....

The vanity cam has worked in VR throughout. But it's essentially no good for gameplay, as it's impossible to use menus or panel interactions etc, and shooting is nigh impossible without a reticule. It's not bad for a bit of VR tourism though and just taking in the stations, the scale of your ship, the landscapes etc.

FDev seem to have been tinkering with it throughout the patches, making changes like making the avatar mainly transparent when intersected by the camera, adding the free cam function again etc. (There is a technique called 'plinking' which allowed players to enter a first person view of sorts with minimal fuss for a while, but in the latest builds it auto-centres you above the avatar's head, which isn't ideal. The free cam positioning is there as an alternative though.)

Worth a play if you haven't tried it.
 
Thank you very much for summarizing this for me, I was a bit confused about that, and surely I was not the only one. I'll pass for now - if I have to choose between two hacks, I'll choose the one giving me gameplay (sc in vorpx) as opposed to just a bit of sightseeing, which I already did A LOT in this game.

Time will tell who is going to capture the hardcore Sci-fi-VR-player segment in the long run. Certainly not somebody relying on hacks and tinkering, though.

With all the new headsets coming up, and starfield on the horizon, whoever wants a piece of that cake should better get his game under control quickly now!
 
Top Bottom