Idea of Scale

[Ancipital]

As Mike Evans said, everything is to scale relative to each other in the game. So if you get one thing to scale, the rest will be. Right now, setting my IPD to 55, my virtual body still looks too small (although not as ridiculously bad as it was at 67), my virtual Hotas also looks too small, my seat looks too small, the door behind me looks like I couldn't walk through it (and I'm not tall), other ships look smaller than they should be... you get the idea. I'm not playing with a loudness button, I'm just trying to make things appear the correct size. At my normal 67 IPD, the scale was WAY off, I simply didn't want to play like this because it felt like I was looking at the inside of a toy spaceship from really close. Maybe it's working fine for you, but understand that it doesn't mean it works properly for everyone else.

Yes, I get that you are finding the scale weird- but it's still a principle of calibrating immersive HMDs that you should avoid frigging the IPD, as it can harm the wearer. It's fun to mess with it when capturing stereo video, and produces interesting effects, but that's not messing with the viewer per se. However much this might be the unpopular and awkward opinion, it's important. I care more that people don't mess themselves up than I do a quick and misleading fix. Hate me for it all you want, I'm gonna give you a Care Bear stare right back. I'm used to people sulking when they can't do risky things outside the scope of the long and boring risk assessment, this is mild in comparison

Have you (and this will sound obvious, but still..) made totally sure that the Rift is configured to know where the eye relief is, which eye cups you're using/do you definitely have the right user profile loaded? Also, have you changed your FOV in ED? The eye cups mostly affect focus, but still, it can have other effects once the contra-distort stuff is applied wrongly. Sorry to be a stuck record, but prolonged use at the wrong IPD is not safe.

If ED has a weird interaction with your Oculus runtimes, it would be important to nail that down. However, using the Rift for long periods with a deliberately incorrect IPD, as opposed to testing configurations, is one of the worst things that you could do with it- short of getting the bath while using it.

 

[CATPAIN KIRK]

He's never going to get it, no point trying to explain it to him... He is under the impression that we are all seeing the same thing. Been playing ED with an IPD of 55 for over a month now, everything looks & feels correct, but Mr IPD expert seems to know what's better for some of us.

And you bring up a good point.. At 55 it still looks wrong 'to you' Others have tried an IPD of 53, recommended on the official forum. You will need to edit some files to get it to work, I'll try and find the post. 55 was the ideal setting for me and others

Experiences may differ, however I've tried 55 mm recently and it looks and feels like I have a tiny head - a bit like in War Thunder back in last years August (not sure if they fixed it - didn't try again since then).

That may be due to me having gotten used to the setting - I remember that in the beginning of using the DK2, I felt my pilot was way too small - I contributed it to the assumption that FD used average male height around the world, which is ~177 cm IIRC.

Since I'm taller than that, I assumed perceiving the pilot model as being too small was natural and playing almost daily over the course of 8 months, I got used to being a small, chubby dude with thin arms in ED.

Would be interesting to see if there's any correlation between peoples actual height/IPD and personal preference (for reference: actual IPD is 68 mm, height is 189 cm).

 

[CMDR Holycow]

Experiences may differ, however I've tried 55 mm recently and it looks and feels like I have a tiny head - a bit like in War Thunder back in last years August (not sure if they fixed it - didn't try again since then).

That may be due to me having gotten used to the setting - I remember that in the beginning of using the DK2, I felt my pilot was way too small - I contributed it to the assumption that FD used average male height around the world, which is ~177 cm IIRC.

Since I'm taller than that, I assumed perceiving the pilot model as being too small was natural and playing almost daily over the course of 8 months, I got used to being a small, chubby dude with thin arms in ED.

Would be interesting to see if there's any correlation between peoples actual height/IPD and personal preference (for reference: actual IPD is 68 mm, height is 189 cm).

For me it isn't even necessarily his height.. it's his thickness. He is built and scaled like a 12 year old little boy. He looks like he weighs about 110 pounds.

I tried the 55ipd setting trick and it definitly makes everything look larger... but I can't help but feel that then the game didn't look right in other areas.. maybe there was more chromatic abberation, or the game suffered more blurry areas than before... or some other kind of distortion that felt wrong. I couldn't quite pin point it. I quickly went back to 65 and while my pilot once again looks like a little kid (as does the seat and beefyness of the controls I might add), the rest of the game looks much better. Ill stick with the correct IPD. There is more than just "Scale" that happens when you set your ipd. It lines the image up with the correct viewing angle you get through the lenses. I wish I could tell exactly what it was.

The real fix, would be for the graphics team at FD to scale the pilot correctly, for an average sized man (which would be your average player). The chair he is in also feels skinny and out of scale. Then you could use your correct IPD and everything else could remain correctly scaled.

 

[Ancipital]

For me it isn't even necessarily his height.. it's his thickness. He is built and scaled like a 12 year old little boy. He looks like he weighs about 110 pounds.

I tried the 55ipd setting trick and it definitly makes everything look larger... but I can't help but feel that then the game didn't look right in other areas.. maybe there was more chromatic abberation, or the game suffered more blurry areas than before... or some other kind of distortion that felt wrong. I couldn't quite pin point it. I quickly went back to 65 and while my pilot once again looks like a little kid (as does the seat and beefyness of the controls I might add), the rest of the game looks much better. Ill stick with the correct IPD. There is more than just "Scale" that happens when you set your ipd. It lines the image up with the correct viewing angle you get through the lenses. I wish I could tell exactly what it was.

The IPD is used to generate distortion and chromatic aberration correction for the lenses, in addition to being important for the convergence or divergence of the image. I think it's done via a shader (but I could be wrong), crude contra-distortion and colour shift are applied to the image, in an attempt to make the end result look as normal as possible.

That would account for what you're seeing- the wrong IPD will actually increase visual artifacts, on top of being bad for your eyes generally. It's important that your Oculus profile knows which lenses you're using and the correct IPD, to have the best chance of making stuff look normal. I think it also factors in the eye relief setting, but couldn't swear to it.

(..though it's a bit of a shame that it can't just read the eye relief setting electronically- maybe in the CV?)

The real fix, would be for the graphics team at FD to scale the pilot correctly, for an average sized man (which would be your average player). The chair he is in also feels skinny and out of scale. Then you could use your correct IPD and everything else could remain correctly scaled.

It would be nice if the game had a character generator a la Skyrim or similar- so you could choose dimensions of your pilot for people who care. Maybe this would come when there is more walking around. Personally, I don't mind- as a 194cm male, that I seem to be a shorter, slighter female pilot in-game, but it really seems to bother some folks.

 

[Ragnar Drake]

The IPD is used to generate distortion and chromatic aberration correction for the lenses, in addition to being important for the convergence or divergence of the image. I think it's done via a shader (but I could be wrong), crude contra-distortion and colour shift are applied to the image, in an attempt to make the end result look as normal as possible.

I think the confusion in this thread is due to confusing three different types of "IPD":

• User's physical pupil distance (IPD). That's what your optometrist or the Oculus tool measure as "IPD".
• Lens interaxial distance (IAD), the distance between lens centers. Always 63.5mm for the Rift unless you use a hardware modification to move eye cups.
• In-world viewpoint camera separation.

In an ideal world, all three values would be the same, but in practice they are usually different. Mismatch between IPD and IAD leads to blurriness and other aberrations since your pupils will usually be further from the sweet spots. Mismatch between IPD and in-world camera separation leads to scaling issues.

The IAD defines where the rendered images need to be centered on the screen, and this is also the origin for radial distortion functions. The render centers do not move when you adjust for IPD. You only need to change this (via driver injection?) if you physically move the eye cups sideways.

IPD values can be used to tune chromatic aberration correction based on the expected pupil position, and to clip the visible viewport - no need to render parts of the image you won't be able to see. This is all approximate unless you have eye tracking that can detect the actual pupil position. Changing these correction parameters has no effect on the sense of scale, just on image quality. If you had ideal lenses with no distortion, you'd see the same projection center pixel straight ahead no matter how you move your eye horizontally or vertically in front of the lens. (Rays diverging from a point on the screen get turned into parallel rays¹ leaving the lens.)

The in-world camera separation directly affects the sense of scale. This value indicates how far apart in world units the virtual cameras are being placed when rendering the per-eye views. This should ideally match the user's physical IPD, but it's a separate input to the rendering setup. I suspect that this is the value that is not being applied consistently in Elite Dangerous.

There are also separate issues such as player height mismatch or "floor dragging" (controlling a standing avatar while seated) that can lead to a world scale mismatch.

¹ Correction: the Rift's lenses aren't set up for an image at infinity, so the rays aren't quite parallel. The virtual image is at 1.3m distance according to the Oculus Best Practice Guide.

 

[Ancipital]

Yes! The IAD can't be altered on the Rift, but the shader uses the IAD and IPD to correct the distortion and chromatic aberration. Exactly.

In "normal" stereo video production, you have a camera "interocular distance" (IOD) between cameras when shooting (like the cameras on scaffolding poles, above), which needs to be chosen appropriately based on intended screen size (cinema, TV etc.) and ballpark viewing distance. That's the third category, essentially.

However, with the Rift and a synthetic 3D scene, the IOD is derived from the IPD, and then used to place both the viewpoints in the 3D rendering context. You could be right, maybe the IOD isn't being correctly derived in some cases. The geometry of the IOD in the scene affects perceived scale, as well as screen and infinity plane placement. It's important not to just fudge the IPD to try to fix the IOD though, as it can have harmful effects for the user with long-term use (as well as preventing the software lens correction from working effectively).

 

[CMDR Saari]

The hand in the game has a certain size, as does yours- the in-game avatar is a fixed size (currently)

This brings up an interesting consideration that maybe Mike Evans could answer: what is the height of the pilot avatar in ED? And, would setting my height in the Oculus Config to match do anything in the game (does ED use the data from that setting at all)?

One of the things that interests me about VR is the opportunity to see the world from different perspectives than I am used to. For instance, I've been 6'2" (188cm) for so long I've forgotten what everything looks like while shorter. If my pilot is supposed to be 5'9" (or whatever it is) it would be fun to play the game matching my perspective to that scale.

For me it isn't even necessarily his height.. it's his thickness. He is built and scaled like a 12 year old little boy. He looks like he weighs about 110 pounds.

I just figured his muscles were atrophied from spending the majority of his time weightless.

 

[Sanderson]

We don't obviously. Essentially everyone is playing as a certain sized avatar in a space seat. I guess that can cause some issues but then again unless you have the exact same seat as our cockpits then I guess there will always be issues even if your eye height was correct. There is some ability to set the neutral point of the eyes in oculus by trial and error though. I wonder if that helps.

It does, a lot. I'm 6'2" IRL but, I set my DK2 to 5'2" in the OR configuration tool. Changes everything.

 

[drkaii]

I made a post about this a while back, where were all you experts then??

I have to say that the main issue for me is not being 100% if the infinity plane is at infinity. I'm starting to think it actually is, at least I am sensing it to be so now, when once I didn't. Everything seems to be the right size now for me. I have to say that I didn't ever have the issue of everything seeming way too small and having to turn the IPD down to 55, like a lot of people seem to have. Changing the IPD seemed to have zero affect AT ALL. I experimented very closely.

Not sure why.

I do want to know something, and only answer if you know for sure please. Like you are an oculus dev or have seen official material with the answer (I certainly can't find any after much searching)

Does changing the IPD actually change the infinity plane? Or does that need to be handled by the program? Or both? Does anyone know what's the case for ED then?

 

[LordKee]

I did a quick test with IPD 55 (measured 66.6) and didn't see any change really. The avatar is skinny in both cases and nothing close to the lard ass I am. I don't mind though

 

[CMDR Holycow]

I have to say that I didn't ever have the issue of everything seeming way too small and having to turn the IPD down to 55, like a lot of people seem to have. Changing the IPD seemed to have zero affect AT ALL. I experimented very closely.

This happens if you manually edit the settings file. It will make no difference. But if you go into your advanced settings in your oculus control panel.. launch the game with ipd at 65... take note of how big your body looks in-game... then go back and look again at 55... you will see a noticeable difference. Larger or not, the rest of the game looked off to me...sooo.. I play the game as a 110 pound pre-pubecent teen-ager who pilots a 50 million credit space ship

 

[Frank]

I did a quick test with IPD 55 (measured 66.6) and didn't see any change really. The avatar is skinny in both cases and nothing close to the lard ass I am. I don't mind though

The DK2 diet... Eat as much of whatever you like, but then spend all your time in VR as a skinny bloke

 

[Ragnar Drake]

I do want to know something, and only answer if you know for sure please. Like you are an oculus dev or have seen official material with the answer (I certainly can't find any after much searching)

Not sure if I know for sure, though I have worked a fair amount with this.

For useful background about stereo rendering, see Doc-Ok's Good stereo vs. bad stereo. The Oculus Best Practices Guide (PDF) discusses IPD, IAD, Inter-Camera Distance and more.

Does changing the IPD actually change the infinity plane? Or does that need to be handled by the program? Or both? Does anyone know what's the case for ED then?

The infinity plane is complicated. For accomodation purposes (monocular eye focusing), what matters is the screen-to-lens distance. For focus at infinity for someone with normal vision, the lens-to-screen distance would equal the lens focal length. I think the DK1 had this setup with the A lenses, with B and C lenses for slightly and very nearsighted. The DK2 moves the lenses a bit closer, with the A lenses being a bit nearsighted and the B lenses more so. Another way of looking at it is that it places the virtual image at a closer-than-infinite distance, I think 5m for the DK2's A lenses.

For vergence purposes (where do the binocular eye sight lines intersect), what matters is that the viewport projection center is in front of the lens center which depends on the lens center horizontal axial distance (IAD), not IPD. A point straight ahead at infinity would be drawn at that projection center for each eye. If you're not nearsighted, there'll be a bit of vergence-accomodation conflict since the eye is focusing at 5m for a viewing angle at infinity. Virtual objects at 5m distance should look best. Then it gets bad again for very close objects.

The third factor is the distance between the world camera and projection plane, this would equal the focal length for focus-at-infinity, and needs to be slightly adjusted for closer lens distances. That's one reason why you need to tell the DK2 which lenses you are using. Getting this wrong leads to a mis-scaled FOV which makes your vestibulo-optical reflex very unhappy. See Tom Forsyth's 2014 GDC video for lots of useful background on this.

All this assumes that the application sets up the view frustums correctly, this should be the case for the DK2 unless the developer bypasses the SDK-provided settings. And that the user hasn't physically modified the lens cup geometry or done other hacks which break the setup.

Getting the IPD setting wrong should not affect the infinity point, just the distortion/CA correction or edge clipping/vignetting. A wrong ICD (intra-camera distance in the virtual world) would get the scale wrong, but should still look natural, just bigger or smaller than expected.

Does this help?

 

[Zephyriel]

Getting the IPD setting wrong should not affect the infinity point, just the distortion/CA correction or edge clipping/vignetting. A wrong ICD (intra-camera distance in the virtual world) would get the scale wrong, but should still look natural, just bigger or smaller than expected.

Does this help?

Am I wrong in assuming that changing the IPD setting in Oculus utility only affects the intra camera distance in ED's game world? Since the lenses always have the same physical distance, the color correction and other artifact compensations should be applied the same regardless the IPD setting in the app, no? Anyway, even with a lower IPD setting than my real one, the image appears clean to me, I don't have chromatic aberration or anything...

 

[777Driver]

Anyway, even with a lower IPD setting than my real one, the image appears clean to me, I don't have chromatic aberration or anything...

Same here, image quality is the same with 55 or 67, only scale get's changed on my setup. Would be interesting to know why the image would vary on Cpt America's setup, but appear fine to us. I assume in game graphic/quality settings shouldn't play a part? My settings are all High/Ultra except shadows.

 

[Frank]

Am I wrong in assuming that changing the IPD setting in Oculus utility only affects the intra camera distance in ED's game world? Since the lenses always have the same physical distance, the color correction and other artifact compensations should be applied the same regardless the IPD setting in the app, no? Anyway, even with a lower IPD setting than my real one, the image appears clean to me, I don't have chromatic aberration or anything...

The distance between the lenses stays the same but the bit you're looking through would be different. I'm not saying it wasn't a good work-around, but I'm glad to hear that commercial VR helmets will have separate screens. It will make adjusting for different IPDs so much easier.

 

[Sanderson]

I found lowering my IPD to 55 and setting my height lower really helped. Especially with the "skinny" pilot issue. 5'-5'2" is the "sweet spot" for me. YMMV.

 

[Zephyriel]

Frank > Oh that's right. Well, I hope the CV will let us really tune the device to our biometrics. It would be ideal if we could adjust both the physical IPD on the headset, and the virtual one like we do now.

Sanderson > I've never tried changing the height setting after inputting my actual size. I didn't know it made a difference in ED.

Anyway, thanks to the helpful people in this thread, I'll try new settings next time I play with the DK2, and maybe finally get the perfect experience!

 

[Sanderson]

Frank > Oh that's right. Well, I hope the CV will let us really tune the device to our biometrics. It would be ideal if we could adjust both the physical IPD on the headset, and the virtual one like we do now.

Sanderson > I've never tried changing the height setting after inputting my actual size. I didn't know it made a difference in ED.

Anyway, thanks to the helpful people in this thread, I'll try new settings next time I play with the DK2, and maybe finally get the perfect experience!

Makes a big difference adjusting the height, at least if you're 6'2". Set in the OR configuration tool at 6'2" my in-game imaginary head was about a foot above the ingame model's shoulders.

 

[CMDR Holycow]

Same here, image quality is the same with 55 or 67, only scale get's changed on my setup. Would be interesting to know why the image would vary on Cpt America's setup, but appear fine to us. I assume in game graphic/quality settings shouldn't play a part? My settings are all High/Ultra except shadows.

To be fair... it's possible I was just overly tired the couple nights I tried it.. and maybe it wasn't really anything.. but something "felt" off. Not sure I can really describe it. Ill have to go back and try it again.