To what end?
Idea of Scale
- Thread starter D8ncer
- Start date
- Status
To what end?
Just did a quick test, putting FOV full left didn't seem to make any difference (to me at least). FOV has always been full right since I started using the DK2
Player height was 6ft, I changed it to 4ft, not quite sure what it changed but seems better for some reason, a lot better. It is slightly frustrating that I cant find any logic to any of this. I should be able to dial in my correct height and IPD.
These are my settings
IPD 55 - I know, I know Anciptal, but everything looks wrong if I use anything else. Problem only exists in ED, I use 64 for all other demo's
Eye relief - Full out
Height 4' 4"
Eye Cups A
Eye to neck - Horizontal 80.5mm Vertical 75.0
DK2 is fully extended out using the screws on the side
With these settings scale in the virtual world is correct (for me)
Player height was 6ft, I changed it to 4ft, not quite sure what it changed but seems better for some reason, a lot better. It is slightly frustrating that I cant find any logic to any of this. I should be able to dial in my correct height and IPD.
These are my settings
IPD 55 - I know, I know Anciptal, but everything looks wrong if I use anything else. Problem only exists in ED, I use 64 for all other demo's
Eye relief - Full out
Height 4' 4"
Eye Cups A
Eye to neck - Horizontal 80.5mm Vertical 75.0
DK2 is fully extended out using the screws on the side
With these settings scale in the virtual world is correct (for me)
Last edited:
Maybe a silly question but, ain't it because the pilot is sitting?
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
Reverse body image, when I play ED I think I can eat more, since I seem so skinny.
dayrth
Volunteer Moderator
Last edited:
Things seem to work fine for me with the measured IPD (66.1, which is pretty close to the 66.6 that I measured myself with the ruler+mirror method - within what I consider the likely margin of error of that method). The pilot is a lot skinnier than I am, and his controls sit lower than my HOTAS, but other than that the avatar looks to be a believable size, as does the rest of the universe. I was actually surprised at how large the cockpits are on the various ships, even the Vulture which I had always pictured having a cramped cockpit.
Have you tried the Eagle? Thats super fun in the Rift. Its very tight in there and feels like you are in an episode of Battlestar Galactica.
Haven't tried yet. I think I'm going to have to go back to all the ships I've had over the game and give them a spin with the Rift. Totally different experience.
I just adjusted my IPD down from 70 to 62 and it has improved my experience. My avatar's arms no longer look scrawny and my ship internals seem to make more sense. The entire game is more comfortable now to the point where I think I actually notice frame rate drops slightly less. It's made a significant enough improvement that I'd recommend others check to make sure the IPD they're using is correct for them. Small adjustments in this setting can make large impacts.
I'm happy with my results and will continue to use an IPD of 62. I did not arrive at this number from measuring it properly, though, so YMMV.
I fully understand how wrong it is to believe in snake-oil / "looks/sounds better to me!" stuff like this but I'm as certain as I can be that this IPD is more correct than the previous one without understanding more of the math behind it. My "meat measurement" instruments are telling me a lower IPD than default (whatever I got from using the Oculus config util and looking at the green lines and stuff) is more correct.
I'm happy with my results and will continue to use an IPD of 62. I did not arrive at this number from measuring it properly, though, so YMMV.
I fully understand how wrong it is to believe in snake-oil / "looks/sounds better to me!" stuff like this but I'm as certain as I can be that this IPD is more correct than the previous one without understanding more of the math behind it. My "meat measurement" instruments are telling me a lower IPD than default (whatever I got from using the Oculus config util and looking at the green lines and stuff) is more correct.
I don't know what it's called but, in Virtual Desktop you can adjust the "distance" the virtual desktop appears. I think ED needs something like this (with a much tighter restraints) to allow individuals freedom to customise to their eyesight. At least I think it would help because things (stars, planets, moon, etc.) look too close to me.
I've read that the eye relief setting can influence the perception and scale of near vs far objects so you may want to experiment with that. Maybe that setting and the effect of it is also behind why the scale of the pilot is so wrong for some people. i.e. their eyes are further from the lenses and the available settings aren't properly compensating.
Also, on earth when we view distant objects there's haze, dust, parallax, objects of known size for reference etc that all go into out perception of how far away something is vs how large it is. In space with all of those elements removed it's not surprising that we would have difficulty judging size vs distance of planets and the like.
Also, on earth when we view distant objects there's haze, dust, parallax, objects of known size for reference etc that all go into out perception of how far away something is vs how large it is. In space with all of those elements removed it's not surprising that we would have difficulty judging size vs distance of planets and the like.
There ARE definitely scale issues with the cockpits in this game. I think there are challenges in creating fictional pits where the created pits look good in 2D but don't translate nearly as well into VR. Even if the designers took this into consideration when they were building the pits ... if they weren't using VR HMDs to review their work then they were not getting the feedback they really needed.
I am coming from playing DCS (Digital Combat Simulator) and those pits have an excellent human scale to them. Stuff meant to be at arms length looks close enough to touch. The cockpit glass feels uncomfortably close sometimes. The DCS pits have human scale by default because they are exact copies of REAL pits ... this is something 3D artists making fictional pits will have to keep in mind.
I do think that VR players could and should make a list of problematic looking elements in VR.
For example: I am in the Viper right now and in 2D it has what looks to hand grips on the ceiling and left and right sides of the pit; BUT in VR those grips are miles away, way out of reach ... comically so. It looks great in 2D but like a bad joke in VR.
When you turn around and look at the rear of the pit there is a door. In 2D it can't be seen but in VR you look around and there is a tiny door for a midget. It screams ... "not really" designed with VR in mind.
I think you can defend this stuff from a pragmatic point of view; ED was made for the majority of people running monitors and it looks perfect on a monitor. I don't think it makes sense to defend this stuff from a technical point of view ... to say there are no problems with scale in VR is not accurate.
It would be best if the pits improved over time. I would hate for Frontier to take the stance that they got it right first time and no improvements are necessary.
I am coming from playing DCS (Digital Combat Simulator) and those pits have an excellent human scale to them. Stuff meant to be at arms length looks close enough to touch. The cockpit glass feels uncomfortably close sometimes. The DCS pits have human scale by default because they are exact copies of REAL pits ... this is something 3D artists making fictional pits will have to keep in mind.
I do think that VR players could and should make a list of problematic looking elements in VR.
For example: I am in the Viper right now and in 2D it has what looks to hand grips on the ceiling and left and right sides of the pit; BUT in VR those grips are miles away, way out of reach ... comically so. It looks great in 2D but like a bad joke in VR.
When you turn around and look at the rear of the pit there is a door. In 2D it can't be seen but in VR you look around and there is a tiny door for a midget. It screams ... "not really" designed with VR in mind.
I think you can defend this stuff from a pragmatic point of view; ED was made for the majority of people running monitors and it looks perfect on a monitor. I don't think it makes sense to defend this stuff from a technical point of view ... to say there are no problems with scale in VR is not accurate.
It would be best if the pits improved over time. I would hate for Frontier to take the stance that they got it right first time and no improvements are necessary.
- Status