Community Question | Who Here Uses VR, And Why?

[Paul Jeffrey]

Sim racing is far more than just the simulations themselves - a long, wide and varied array of hardware can be used to enhance your experience, and one such device is VR - but who here uses it on a regular basis?

VR - otherwise known as Virtual Reality, brings with it the ability to place a driver right into the heart of a virtual racing cockpit. Adding an immersive 3D experience to the driving aspect of sim racing, the technology and immersion are no doubt impressive - but can come with a cost - namely loss of visual performance, high PC horsepower demand and the (potential) discomfort of wearing a headset for prolonged periods of time.

As with much in life, one has to weigh up the pros and cons and VR is no different. With that said, I'd love to know how many of us here at RaceDepartment regularly use their VR headsets when sim racing, and the reasons why they prefer it (or not) over traditional screens.

Fire away in the comments section and poll!

 

[z00mantwo]

I'd like to hear some experiences with VR racing on a HP Reverb (1st generation).

These units can be found on eBay for around $340 USD used. These are 2160x2160 per eye at 90Hz. So that is basically more than 4K per eye. The only difference I can see to the HP Reverb G2 ($599) is the external cameras for hand tracking. 2 versus 4 cameras. It would seem this would be a great head set for racing since we are mostly worried about resolution for clarity and eliminating the screen door effect. A higher refresh rate should also help with motion sickness as long as the hardware can produce 90 fps.

There is a nice comparison of VR headsets on wikipedia.

List of virtual reality headsets - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It also has a nice chart comparing video resolutions. The HP Reverb is number 3 from the top in resolution per eye. Behind the Pimax 5K and 8K. It beats the Pimax 4K and you could argue it beats the 5K.

It seems like it would be a great headset for racing with 4K+ at 90Hz. Especially at a price of $340 USD.

 

[BazzaLB]

You still move your head unnaturally a lot to compensate for the small peep holes you have in vr where in real life you would just move your eyes.

Peripheral vision is lost and it feels like your blinkered. Yes it's amazing as said by others. But as a glasses wearer too it still has flaws which make flat ultrascreen just as useable for me. And I think after a while the flaws overtake the honeymoon period of vr.

But to add games outside of simracing like on quest. I play onward and mini golf and table tennis. These are totally amazing and like sim racing brings it that, "actual doing it" immersion.

I wear glasses and use a Vive Pro so not sure what you mean about glasses really. As for sim racing.. Isn't the HMD like wearing a racing helmet.. How much peripheral vision do you have with your racing helmet on or do racers move their head unnaturally too?

Honeymoon period versus flaws? Err.. OK.. Completely disagree but hey, each to their own.

 

[onearmedbandit46]

I wear glasses and use a Vive Pro so not sure what you mean about glasses really. As for sim racing.. Isn't the HMD like wearing a racing helmet.. How much peripheral vision do you have with your racing helmet on or do racers move their head unnaturally too?

Honeymoon period versus flaws? Err.. OK.. Completely disagree but hey, each to their own.

No honeymoon period for me either, 18mths later and I still use it everyday, mostly AC. I don't wear glasses but use the same headset, and also wear a helmet most days. To me the peripheral is similar between the two. I get that it's not for everyone but for me it's a literal game changer.

 

[chj006]

VR Almost all the time
#1. Immersion there is no better gaming experience than being in the car.
#2. Performance I have compared cars/track and I am quicker and more consistent in VR. My guess is because of the depth awareness
#3. Safety when competing in multi-player. It is a lot easier to race wheel to wheel and know your exact position relative to those all around you.

I am looking forward to the next gen of VR headset coming out. I have only owned the first Oculus Rift. I was nauseous/sick the first few times, I used it but I'm glad I didn't try it once and give up. I have NO motion sickness now.

It absolutely blows my mind to sit in my rig and put on a VR headset and think about where games have gone from my first racing games the likes of Pole Position and Rad Racer to this is nothing short of amazing. I get little kid, Christmas morning excited every time I get in my rig.

 

[Sally71]

I suppose in simracing the blinkered effect could replicate the helmet, although I still think a helmet has a wider angle from what I've worn in the past.

I was talking about generally using vr. For instance walking dead Saint n sinners.

But wearing glasses I can only play for a bit before I get uncomfortable.

 

[onearmedbandit46]

I suppose in simracing the blinkered effect could replicate the helmet, although I still think a helmet has a wider angle from what I've worn in the past.

I was talking about generally using vr. For instance walking dead Saint n sinners.

But wearing glasses I can only play for a bit before I get uncomfortable.

For the first time in a while I played HLA tonight and I totally agree, the field of view is far too narrow in that style of game. Luckily 99% of my VR use is in racing sims. I'd also agree a helmet has a slighter wider angle of view, but the overall effect is similar to VR, I can definitely relate to it more than just a walking game.

 

[Deleted member 197115]

I suppose in simracing the blinkered effect could replicate the helmet, although I still think a helmet has a wider angle from what I've worn in the past.

I was talking about generally using vr. For instance walking dead Saint n sinners.

But wearing glasses I can only play for a bit before I get uncomfortable.

Why not get correctional HMD lenses?

 

[Emery]

I suppose in simracing the blinkered effect could replicate the helmet, although I still think a helmet has a wider angle from what I've worn in the past.

Racing helmets have 180 deg field of view at a minimum per FIA. Closest of the consumer VR helmets is around 170 deg as I recall.

 

[Deleted member 197115]

Interesting that human vison combined FOV is just 120 degrees, out of which only 30 degrees in center are area in focus.
Now, how much FOV can you get from screen, plus in VR you actually have 360 degrees rotational view, thing not possible even on triples.

What is the maximum human field of vision?

Answer (1 of 3): Approximately 120 degrees Actually every eye has a little bigger range, but when the brain combines the image it's 120 degrees. This is because we have binocular vision. It's interesting that the rabbit is the winner in vision. It can look backwards

www.quora.com

 

[Emery]

Now, how much FOV can you get from screen, plus in VR you actually have 360 degrees rotational view, thing not possible even on triples.

Over 180 degrees with triples. My 43" side monitors reach slightly behind my head. I have no doubt VR can't be matched when you're turning your head, but what triples allow that VR currently doesn't is the ability to roll eyes sideways and have your vision filled without turning your head. VR tunnel vision is more like wearing a scuba mask than a racing helmet.

It's all a tradeoff though, so don't take my comments as being against VR.

 

[Neilski]

Interesting that human vison combined FOV is just 120 degrees, out of which only 30 degrees in center are area in focus.
Now, how much FOV can you get from screen, plus in VR you actually have 360 degrees rotational view, thing not possible even on triples.

What is the maximum human field of vision?

Answer (1 of 3): Approximately 120 degrees Actually every eye has a little bigger range, but when the brain combines the image it's 120 degrees. This is because we have binocular vision. It's interesting that the rabbit is the winner in vision. It can look backwards

www.quora.com

Well, I don't think the combined FOV is the most important thing here. The total human horizontal FOV is over 180° (some sources like your link suggest 190°, others like this Wikpedia article say 200 - 200°).
This means that your eyes can see things happening at right angles to your direction of view - pretty crucial for racing because it means that your peripheral vision will tell you that a car is pulling alongside. The fact that it's only registering in one eye doesn't seem very important to me.
I wish I had room for triples or could use my Rift without getting nausea but for now I'll have to make do with a single + radar!

 

[Deleted member 197115]

but for now I'll have to make do with a single + radar!

At FOV of?

 

[Neilski]

At FOV of?

Pretty wide FOV because I drive in AC using the bonnet cam - can't remember a figure or if it's even adjustable though, unlike the cockpit view. I'm very much against the "must use correct FOV" concept, which with a 24" single like mine (at arm's length) would be ridiculously blinkered. The fact that I do normally drive with a wide FOV might be making the transition to VR even harder though!?

 

[Deleted member 197115]

It's about 50-55 on 42" monitor, correct FOV.

 

[Deleted member 197115]

It's about 50-55 on 42" monitor, correct FOV.

That's actually AC/ACC vFOV, the corresponding hFOV is 86.

Modern FOV Calculator

 

[Deleted member 1234936]

What's the audio quality like on these headsets?

Can you hear cars over/undertaking you as you race?

What about tyre/brake squeal/ suspension squeak?

J

 

[Des Pearce]

I'd like to hear some experiences with VR racing on a HP Reverb (1st generation).

These units can be found on eBay for around $340 USD used. These are 2160x2160 per eye at 90Hz. So that is basically more than 4K per eye. The only difference I can see to the HP Reverb G2 ($599) is the external cameras for hand tracking. 2 versus 4 cameras. It would seem this would be a great head set for racing since we are mostly worried about resolution for clarity and eliminating the screen door effect. A higher refresh rate should also help with motion sickness as long as the hardware can produce 90 fps.

There is a nice comparison of VR headsets on wikipedia.

List of virtual reality headsets - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It also has a nice chart comparing video resolutions. The HP Reverb is number 3 from the top in resolution per eye. Behind the Pimax 5K and 8K. It beats the Pimax 4K and you could argue it beats the 5K.

It seems like it would be a great headset for racing with 4K+ at 90Hz. Especially at a price of $340 USD.

The Reverb Pro v2 is a great headset, I've sold mine to move on to the G2 as the main weakness of the original is lens sweet spot and sound both of which are, supposedly, sorted on the G2. I did notice mura and CA in the original Reverb as well but this was quickly forgotten once driving.

In terms of pixel density only the 8k plus will be better, the 5k screens are nearly twice the size with so need twice the pixels to match the reverb. For $340 you can't go wrong, it needs a beefy pc though for some games (ACC was unplayable on my i7 9700k/rtx 2070 super setup).

 

[Neilski]

That's actually AC/ACC vFOV, the corresponding hFOV is 86.

Modern FOV Calculator

Yeah I've never understood why anyone would ever want to use vertical FOV in a game! It's just such a pointless/meaningless/confusing thing to do
Is it just Kunos that do that? (I can't recall coming across it in any other games, but then again I don't pay close attention to the actual numbers.)

 

[lovemesomespeed]

After 12 pages of comments, I'm not sure my additional thoughts are necessary... but I had the opportunity 6 months or so ago to try out a VR setup with motion. The HMD and GPU were both older, so the quality of graphics was nothing to write home about, but even with the greatly decreased graphics quality, I was blown away.

I haven't raced on my own rig very much since then because it just seems so lame compared to VR with motion. I am in the process of upgrading to a VR/motion/G-seat rig, which I am very excited about.

My Reverb G2 arrives on Wednesday!

 

[Deleted member 197115]

Yeah I've never understood why anyone would ever want to use vertical FOV in a game! It's just such a pointless/meaningless/confusing thing to do
Is it just Kunos that do that? (I can't recall coming across it in any other games, but then again I don't pay close attention to the actual numbers.)

vFOV is adopted by Kunos and all ISI engine based games (rFactor 1 & 2, GSC, GSCE, SCE, AMS), hFOV is only PCars and EATS. I think it's more accurate and easier to use for different monitors ratio as your world scale for given vFOV will stay the same regardless of 4:3, 16:9 or ultrawide monitors.
Remember that FOV is not only how much you can see but how proportional to real life the distances and objects are.