VR versus triple-screen for Assetto Corsa

[Billy Pilgrim]

I have a triple-screen setup. It's great.

I've never tried VR. I'd like to read opinions from those who have experienced both to understand how the two options compare.

The downside of VR, I understand, is the screendoor effect. That's about the extent of my knowledge. I'm thinking fps may be better in VR.

 

[unpierrot]

Talking about resolution, sure that my monitor (an ultrawide 21/9 34" 3440*1440) have more resolution than my oculus rift. And I agree that in the distance, a screen is way more crisper than our current VR headset. But if we are talking about immersion, how a screen can compete with something that let you feel you are inside the picture ?
The lack of resolution disappears in only few seconds after the race start.

Yes, I want higher resolution in VR but even with its current state, it gives me so much more feeling of what it's happening around my car (around me) that I can not go without.
Since I have my VR headset, the only time that I have launched Assetto corsa without it is to test new mod or track and see if everything is fine.
Then I put my headset on and the real game start

 

[motoliser]

I can see things clearly in VR just fine. Like I said, I've never had an issue seeing anything in VR (except that one time I smudged the lens before starting a race, but that's pure user error). And I have experienced ultrawide, so I do know what I'm talking about.



No lies at all. The image quality isn't brilliant, but it's definitely not dismal, either. And with all the other huge benefits VR brings, 2D screens just don't even come close to the immersion.



Do you really not see how bloody wide those mirrors are? How the grass looks like it's stretched sideways. At the sides of the screens it looks like you're travelling through hyperspace. This is one of the biggest downfalls with flat screens; yes, you have a wide FOV but the perspective all goes to the middle of the screen. In VR, it goes to where you look. As a result, your image is always in correct perspective. On 2D screens as soon as you look away from the center of the screen you're looking at a skewed perspective that you would never see in real life. You get the same thing with a triple screen setup. The only benefit an ultrawide gives you over triple screens is the lack of bevel splitting the image.

There's some irony in you calling VR users liars for saying the image quality isn't that bad, and then turn around and say there's no stretching on your screen while posting images of 3' wide mirrors. Unlike the 'blurry mess' of VR, the image stretching on 2D monitors is undeniable.

But, as mentioned, we all have our preferences. I happily give up a bit of resolution for all the massive gains afforded by VR; even in its current state. It's simply worlds ahead of a screen.

You're just embarrasing yourself here mate.
Do you know what perspective is???
How do you like your default settings of your racing replays in VR?...not enough stretching for you there?
Don't confuse perspective with real stretching and don't come here claiming your mirrors look smaller in VR because they don't.

 

[Flibbberflops]

You're just embarrasing yourself here mate.
Do you know what perspective is???
How do you like your default settings of your racing replays in VR?...not enough stretching for you there?
Don't confuse perspective with real stretching and don't come here claiming your mirrors look smaller in VR because they don't.

I am not entirely sure what point you are making. On the surface you seem to be suggesting that the view in VR is somehow propotionally incorrect. If this is the case then you are mistaken. Where as the flatscreen version of the VR display may look incorrect on youtube videos etc, when it is displayed within VR the display should be perfectly proportioned. The reason behind this is very long and complex. Some people think that a VR headset is just a screen strapped to your face. In fact there is a lot work that has gone into the setup to ensure the proptions and depth are correct. There is quite a good technical paper in the link below that explains the science behind it.

https://developer.oculus.com/documentation/pcsdk/latest/concepts/dg-render/

BTW, I believe there is some technology within the Nvidia 1070 and 1080 cards that can compensate for the distortion shown in the previous RedBull screen shots. However, I think it only works along side the process of correctly anglingtripple screen setups. I don't believe it works on single wide screens?

 

[Ryno917]

You're just embarrasing yourself here mate.
Do you know what perspective is???
How do you like your default settings of your racing replays in VR?...not enough stretching for you there?
Don't confuse perspective with real stretching and don't come here claiming your mirrors look smaller in VR because they don't.

I do know what perspective is. I haven't watched a replay in a racing sim in probably 10 years, don't care to, don't care how replays look in VR.

And my mirrors most definitely look smaller in VR because when I look at them they're more or less in the center of my view. When you look at your mirrors, you're looking a severely distorted version of them because they are not displayed in the appropriate perspective for the angle you are looking at them with your eyes, because the perspective on the screen doesn't change based on where you look at your screen. What you see on your screen when you look to the sides is physically impossible to see in real life. It just is.

Most certainly not embarrassing myself here. I get it, you like your 4K screen. That's cool. I prefer VR. Both are subjectively valid... Not sure why you're so defensive about it.

 

[Stereo]

When you look at a 2d screen, everything is 60cm away (or whatever), my eyes will never lie to me and say otherwise. Even if the game's wheel is 30cm from the camera, and the next corner is 400m away, my eyes will tell me they're both 60cm away. It just says "that's a huge wheel 60cm away" "that's a tiny corner 60cm away".

If I close one eye I can trick myself into seeing depth but with both eyes open that never happens and I'm not gonna race like a pirate with an eyepatch on...

VR's undeniably a better way to simulate driving

 

[Mascot]

I agree it is the future but it's currently a blury mess on any device you can get your hands on.

I have to take issue with you stating your opinions as if they were fact, and with the information that forms the basis of those opinions. Is it possible that the headset you were using wasn't set up properly for your IPD, or had condensation on the lenses? I 'only' use an Oculus Rift at roughly 1080p but the image is anything but blurry. I can glance sideways at a car alongside me and see the LEDs on its dashboard. That simply wouldn't be possible with your description.

For me VR is at the moment out of question when you have such an immersive ultrawide HD screen available that covers basically all of your field of view.

Your screen is undoubtedly a nice screen, probably the nicest one I've ever seen, but your claim above is easily disputed. Does your screen really satisfy the parameters below?

Current VR headsets have limited FoV likened to wearing a scuba mask (or a full-face racing helmet, to make us VR users feel better), but have the significant advantage of full spherical freedom to look wherever the wearer points his head. Static 2D displays simply cannot offer that. With current VR headsets the horizontal binocular FoV is not much lower than our actual binocular view, due to the way our noses block the image from one eye and limit the range of our stereoscopic vision, but at least with VR we can turn our heads wherever we want and the view moves accordingly.

The huge diference is the undeniable fact that VR is Blurry and you can't see anything focused from 5 meters distance ahead.

Again - your opinion, not fact.

Whoever says his VR isn't blurry is either a fanboy or should definitely seek some eye specialist assistance.

I'm not sure whether to be offended by your insult or to thank you for your medical advice. I'd ask to see your optometry diploma but I probably wouldn't be able to read it properly with my blurry vision.

I loved VR for what it promises but for now it's completely out of question for anyone who seeks good image quality.

I seek good image quality, but I also race in VR. I can only assume that I am a witch or an alchemist.

Don't forget I never said VR isn't the way to go...I just letting everyone know that at the moment it is very very mediocre when it comes to image quality despite what anyone may claim... they are simply lying to you.

So I'm not only half blind, I'm also a liar? Will this raise some awkward questions for me at the pearly gates? I'd hate to jeopardise eternity in paradise over some silly VR nonsense.

I cant help to laugh when hearing people saying that their VR equipment isn't blurry, when I have waited in line for 6 months to get the highest definition VR set and still was a blurry mess.

Again with the opinions stated as fact.

my current ultrawide is not the ultimate display but after having experienced all forms of setups it is undeniably the most comprensive immersion package available at the moment.

If your definition of immersion is looking through a letterbox with your neck in a brace and one eye closed then yeah... no argument here. My own definition includes binocular vision, depth perception, freedom of movement, a correct sense of scale, and an immense feeling of presence and participation in a living, breathing world. And all of this without bits of my gaming room showing around the edges.

To each their own!

 

[Flibbberflops]

Billy Pilgrim.

Walks in, drops grenade... walks off to get popcorn!

Stay tuned nextweek for when he asks "PC or Mac, which is best?"

 

[dud]

Current VR headsets have limited FoV likened to wearing a scuba mask (or a full-face racing helmet, to make us VR users feel better), but have the significant advantage of full spherical freedom to look wherever the wearer points his head. Static 2D displays simply cannot offer that. With current VR headsets the horizontal binocular FoV is not much lower than our actual binocular view, due to the way our noses block the image from one eye and limit the range of our stereoscopic vision, but at least with VR we can turn our heads wherever we want and the view moves accordingly.

That's a bit variable, though. For example, I have "better" peripheral vision, my angle where I can recognize things (as opposed to just see some blob moving) is bigger than average.

My brain adjusts to the limited FOV of the Rift when driving, of course. But as far as I can tell it should initially bother me more than most people.

 

[Mascot]

That's a bit variable, though. For example, I have "better" peripheral vision, my angle where I can recognize things (as opposed to just see some blob moving) is bigger than average.

My brain adjusts to the limited FOV of the Rift when driving, of course. But as far as I can tell it should initially bother me more than most people.

Oh, absolutely - it's bound to vary slightly person to person. The figures in the diagram are noted as approximate values.

 

[Greg Pugliese]

Seeing that I was very much in the minority in my preference for triple screen over VR, I decided to buy a Samsung HMD Odyssey in order to give VR another try with a higher resolution model. I’ve only had a few hours to play with it, but in that time I’ve again (as with when I tried the Rift CV1 a year and a half ago) started to question my sanity!

Most of you guys are clearly enthralled and satisfied with VR and vow to never go back to 2D screens. But even with this higher resolution model, I just don’t get it. Yes the immersion is fantastic; yes the fluid headtracking is wonderful; yes the seemingly proper sense of proportion feels great. But the actual picture quality is certainly not what I would consider ‘sharp’—and yes I’m certain I have the unit mounted correctly on my head because I’m talking about how it looks to me at its sharpest, when things noticeably come into focus.

For example, sitting in the 911 GT3 2016: my mind can quickly figure out the button labels on the wheel, but to say that they are sharp and clearly legible would be a stretch. And that rings true for everything in VR for me.

I’ve tried bumping supersampling within the OpenVR settings (in-game app) up to 2.0 and it does not appear to make any difference whatsoever (and yes I restarted the game after making that change).

Clearly this thread proves that we each have our own preferences so I have no interest in arguing the merits of either one over the other. Rather, can any of you VR users offer any other suggestions on improving image quality? Am I missing something simple?

I should add that my need for glasses appears to cause its own set of issues, as things are quite cramped with both them and the headset on. And I strongly suspect, based on my previous Rift experience and now with the Odyssey, that the strong astigmatism in both my eyes makes things worse in VR. I’m actually going to get an eye exam this morning so that I can get some updated contact lenses to try with the unit and see if that makes much difference.

 

[Jens Roos]

No problems chugging down some beer on the front stretch (just have to tip my head back a bit more).

Two of the biggest issues is that the cable isn't long enough to get an refill of beer or any other mandatory alcoholic beverage... And how are you suppose to update your twitter feed using the mobile on Mulsanne Straight???

And to comment on the generic peripheral boundaries you will notice an object appearing in the 190 degree field, with my setup I have above 170 degree of FOV and correct (as far as it can be) distance/angle to the monitors that for sure gives an very immersive setup. I do not use a tone of apps, most cars actually have things like rpm and stuff displayed in the dashboard. But there is lot's of triple setups with some strange or cluttered layouts.

Regarding rear mirror most of the times you will need the virtual one, in a few cars the real one works. But in VR I assume you need to turn your head to see it, as you can not glance at it?

I would say there is pro's and con's for both but over an single screen setup VR could be beneficial for many. But we also see alien fast racers sitting on an vanilla G27 using single screen setup 1.2m away, so this is not about how to get faster

 

[motoliser]

I am not entirely sure what point you are making. On the surface you seem to be suggesting that the view in VR is somehow propotionally incorrect. If this is the case then you are mistaken. Where as the flatscreen version of the VR display may look incorrect on youtube videos etc, when it is displayed within VR the display should be perfectly proportioned. The reason behind this is very long and complex. Some people think that a VR headset is just a screen strapped to your face. In fact there is a lot work that has gone into the setup to ensure the proptions and depth are correct. There is quite a good technical paper in the link below that explains the science behind it.

https://developer.oculus.com/documentation/pcsdk/latest/concepts/dg-render/

BTW, I believe there is some technology within the Nvidia 1070 and 1080 cards that can compensate for the distortion shown in the previous RedBull screen shots. However, I think it only works along side the process of correctly anglingtripple screen setups. I don't believe it works on single wide screens?

It's actually much simple then what you imply.
It's all about FOV.
If you increase the FOV number way up, there will be the so called "streching"...even in VR!
VR is not proportional by default, had VR so I know it isnt.
You can see the so-called stretching on default sequences like replays. Actually its impossible to watch a replay without needing to tweak the all thing.
I say it again...despite very imersive and promising, VR is currently a real pain.

 

[motoliser]

Seeing that I was very much in the minority in my preference for triple screen over VR, I decided to buy a Samsung HMD Odyssey in order to give VR another try with a higher resolution model. I’ve only had a few hours to play with it, but in that time I’ve again (as with when I tried the Rift CV1 a year and a half ago) started to question my sanity!

Most of you guys are clearly enthralled and satisfied with VR and vow to never go back to 2D screens. But even with this higher resolution model, I just don’t get it. Yes the immersion is fantastic; yes the fluid headtracking is wonderful; yes the seemingly proper sense of proportion feels great. But the actual picture quality is certainly not what I would consider ‘sharp’—and yes I’m certain I have the unit mounted correctly on my head because I’m talking about how it looks to me at its sharpest, when things noticeably come into focus.

For example, sitting in the 911 GT3 2016: my mind can quickly figure out the button labels on the wheel, but to say that they are sharp and clearly legible would be a stretch. And that rings true for everything in VR for me.

I’ve tried bumping supersampling within the OpenVR settings (in-game app) up to 2.0 and it does not appear to make any difference whatsoever (and yes I restarted the game after making that change).

Clearly this thread proves that we each have our own preferences so I have no interest in arguing the merits of either one over the other. Rather, can any of you VR users offer any other suggestions on improving image quality? Am I missing something simple?

I should add that my need for glasses appears to cause its own set of issues, as things are quite cramped with both them and the headset on. And I strongly suspect, based on my previous Rift experience and now with the Odyssey, that the strong astigmatism in both my eyes makes things worse in VR. I’m actually going to get an eye exam this morning so that I can get some updated contact lenses to try with the unit and see if that makes much difference.

I am sure your vision is fine. Some people just turn the key and go racing, we on the other hand also pay attention to what should be improved for a better experience.
I can't forget the huge disappointment when I first saw myself inside a stationary virtual cockpit with such a blury mess.
I do admit my heartrate went crazy at high speeds but once I got used to that I was thrown back to the facts. And boy...they are cruel.

 

[motoliser]

I have to take issue with you stating your opinions as if they were fact, and with the information that forms the basis of those opinions. Is it possible that the headset you were using wasn't set up properly for your IPD, or had condensation on the lenses? I 'only' use an Oculus Rift at roughly 1080p but the image is anything but blurry. I can glance sideways at a car alongside me and see the LEDs on its dashboard. That simply wouldn't be possible with your description.



Your screen is undoubtedly a nice screen, probably the nicest one I've ever seen, but your claim above is easily disputed. Does your screen really satisfy the parameters below?

Current VR headsets have limited FoV likened to wearing a scuba mask (or a full-face racing helmet, to make us VR users feel better), but have the significant advantage of full spherical freedom to look wherever the wearer points his head. Static 2D displays simply cannot offer that. With current VR headsets the horizontal binocular FoV is not much lower than our actual binocular view, due to the way our noses block the image from one eye and limit the range of our stereoscopic vision, but at least with VR we can turn our heads wherever we want and the view moves accordingly.



Again - your opinion, not fact.



I'm not sure whether to be offended by your insult or to thank you for your medical advice. I'd ask to see your optometry diploma but I probably wouldn't be able to read it properly with my blurry vision.



I seek good image quality, but I also race in VR. I can only assume that I am a witch or an alchemist.



So I'm not only half blind, I'm also a liar? Will this raise some awkward questions for me at the pearly gates? I'd hate to jeopardise eternity in paradise over some silly VR nonsense.



Again with the opinions stated as fact.



If your definition of immersion is looking through a letterbox with your neck in a brace and one eye closed then yeah... no argument here. My own definition includes binocular vision, depth perception, freedom of movement, a correct sense of scale, and an immense feeling of presence and participation in a living, breathing world. And all of this without bits of my gaming room showing around the edges.

To each their own!

I have to take issue with you stating your opinions as if they were fact, and with the information that forms the basis of those opinions. Is it possible that the headset you were using wasn't set up properly for your IPD, or had condensation on the lenses? I 'only' use an Oculus Rift at roughly 1080p but the image is anything but blurry. I can glance sideways at a car alongside me and see the LEDs on its dashboard. That simply wouldn't be possible with your description.



Your screen is undoubtedly a nice screen, probably the nicest one I've ever seen, but your claim above is easily disputed. Does your screen really satisfy the parameters below?

Current VR headsets have limited FoV likened to wearing a scuba mask (or a full-face racing helmet, to make us VR users feel better), but have the significant advantage of full spherical freedom to look wherever the wearer points his head. Static 2D displays simply cannot offer that. With current VR headsets the horizontal binocular FoV is not much lower than our actual binocular view, due to the way our noses block the image from one eye and limit the range of our stereoscopic vision, but at least with VR we can turn our heads wherever we want and the view moves accordingly.



Again - your opinion, not fact.



I'm not sure whether to be offended by your insult or to thank you for your medical advice. I'd ask to see your optometry diploma but I probably wouldn't be able to read it properly with my blurry vision.



I seek good image quality, but I also race in VR. I can only assume that I am a witch or an alchemist.



So I'm not only half blind, I'm also a liar? Will this raise some awkward questions for me at the pearly gates? I'd hate to jeopardise eternity in paradise over some silly VR nonsense.



Again with the opinions stated as fact.



If your definition of immersion is looking through a letterbox with your neck in a brace and one eye closed then yeah... no argument here. My own definition includes binocular vision, depth perception, freedom of movement, a correct sense of scale, and an immense feeling of presence and participation in a living, breathing world. And all of this without bits of my gaming room showing around the edges.

To each their own!

Sorry I didn't have time to read your entire post but I got the picture.
Let me just make one thing clear to you since you obviously are more focused in showing of your argumentation skills then trying to understand what I say.
My monitor is not perfect but is the best Immersive experience IN MY OPINION.
I don't have to elaborate on why I consider it the BEST simply because I HAVE OWNED ALL THE ALTERNATIVES BROUGHT TO THE TABLE HERE.
If you want to know why I say what say or prove me wrong, the best you can do is buying the same monitor from a good return policy shop... otherwise until that day you have no valid arguments to contest my veredict.
But if you are happy spending a lot of time with completly incorrect perscribed glasses it's your problem and I can only hope you realise one day how bad your eyes have been treated!
I am hugely happy with this monitor and yes for me its the best immersive package available for racing.
But to each....

 

[Paul Glover]

I have to take issue with you stating your opinions as if they were fact, and with the information that forms the basis of those opinions. Is it possible that the headset you were using wasn't set up properly for your IPD, or had condensation on the lenses? I 'only' use an Oculus Rift at roughly 1080p but the image is anything but blurry. I can glance sideways at a car alongside me and see the LEDs on its dashboard. That simply wouldn't be possible with your description.



Your screen is undoubtedly a nice screen, probably the nicest one I've ever seen, but your claim above is easily disputed. Does your screen really satisfy the parameters below?

Current VR headsets have limited FoV likened to wearing a scuba mask (or a full-face racing helmet, to make us VR users feel better), but have the significant advantage of full spherical freedom to look wherever the wearer points his head. Static 2D displays simply cannot offer that. With current VR headsets the horizontal binocular FoV is not much lower than our actual binocular view, due to the way our noses block the image from one eye and limit the range of our stereoscopic vision, but at least with VR we can turn our heads wherever we want and the view moves accordingly.



Again - your opinion, not fact.



I'm not sure whether to be offended by your insult or to thank you for your medical advice. I'd ask to see your optometry diploma but I probably wouldn't be able to read it properly with my blurry vision.



I seek good image quality, but I also race in VR. I can only assume that I am a witch or an alchemist.



So I'm not only half blind, I'm also a liar? Will this raise some awkward questions for me at the pearly gates? I'd hate to jeopardise eternity in paradise over some silly VR nonsense.



Again with the opinions stated as fact.



If your definition of immersion is looking through a letterbox with your neck in a brace and one eye closed then yeah... no argument here. My own definition includes binocular vision, depth perception, freedom of movement, a correct sense of scale, and an immense feeling of presence and participation in a living, breathing world. And all of this without bits of my gaming room showing around the edges.

To each their own!

 

[Mascot]

Got a Rift? Do a spec race against AI in 911 RSRs and when one pulls alongside you, take a glance into his cockpit and you can clearly see the blue shift LEDs on his dash. It's really not the Mr Magoo vaseline-smeared experience that some flat-earthers would have you believe.

 

[bigbawmcgraw]

Am I missing something simple?

Yep...

I’ve only had a few hours to play with it

I think everyone who's for VR in this thread has mentioned that it took them a week or two to get used to it. Some even said they were ready to send it back within the first few days, and some have.
It took me a couple of weeks to adjust, a couple of weeks of tweaking and fine tuning and realising that even a GTX1080 has limitations when it comes to VR. But after turning down some graphics settings and getting a smooth 90fps (even with 23 other cars on the start line), I then stopped looking at the screen which was perched an inch in front of my eyes and began looking at the environment I was "in". That was the 'Eureka!' moment for me and that's why I wouldn't go back to flat screens.

Initially I did genuinely question whether I'd made the right decision in buying the Rift, even after a week of trying to get used to it. But I was determined to make it work, not just because I'd spent a lot of money on it, but because flat screens just weren't 'doing it' for me anymore.

I get it that some people play games to look at the eye candy, in pin sharp detail. I don't. I play games, and AC in particular to be immersed in the experience, to feel like I'm actually driving and racing IRL. I already had the cockpit, wheel, pedals and shifter, but I was still looking at 27" screen 2.5 feet from my eyes, plus two walls, a door, a desk, another screen, cables.... you get the idea. So yeah, if you only play games to look at pretty stuff in pin sharp detail, VR probably isn't for you.

The only thing that breaks the immersion for me now is if my hands aren't on my RL wheel at the same position as the in-game hands. That does feel a little weird. Other than that, I'm there and not sitting in my spare room surrounded by furniture and the washing hanging over the clothes horse.

 

[bigbawmcgraw]

I think Scott Mansell must have read this thread. Published today

 

[Flibbberflops]

I think Scott Mansell must have read this thread. Published today

Just to a quick summary for anyone who hasn't watched it...

Scott concluded that VR was just a blurry mess and nothing at all like driving a real car. He also goes into great length to point out the various restrictions of the narrow FOV in VR, which futher detsroyed the experience somewhat. Overall he found a flat screen to be by far the most immersive experience because the superiour resolution was by far the most important factor in simulating real life driving.

 

[Stereo]

I'm not sure how you got all that from him literally saying "to improve your technique on the real world racing circuit, the vr headset, I have to say, is much better than the 3 screen or single screen setup. why? because you're so much more inside the feeling. It feels real. It's unbelievable."

If you're looking for "the most real" then that's explicitly pro-vr.