We absolutely need native VR support!

[evileye.x]

I really like topics telling: "I've bought VR, now please me something  to play in it."

KSP does not need VR, because VR is just modern fuzz and eventualy will be forgotten like flat screen 3D

Best regards, the owner of passive 3D TV and monitor, lol.

 (However I had some cool moments while playing Elite Dangerous with 3D and head tracking. But quality 3D doesn't work since ED Horizon release, so ... yeah)

Edited October 19, 2016 by evileye.x

[Choctofliatrio2.0]

I'm not positive where it would be used. You could have first person EVAs, that would be fun, and IVA. But not much else you can put it. I mean, having it in the map view or during launch would be very, very disorienting. It'd feel like you're floating alongside the rocket or in space. I'm no VR expert, but that sounds a little vomit-inducing.

[Ryder]

On August 3, 2016 at 6:16 PM, Rocket In My Pocket said:

User base is too small to make it a priority for starters.

Not to mention how much of the game is spent in 3rd person/Map mode/Building crafts in the VAB/SPH. Good VR experiences tend to be developed from the floor up as VR games, not tacked on as an afterthought.

I doubt this will be seriously considered unless there is a KSP 2 or something.

Silliness... The user base would expand dramatically for the single reason of making it support Vive.  I don't know how many ksp users there are, but Vive is easily within the same order of magnitude... and will soar past KSP.

early titles to support  Vive are like the early apple App Store titles, guaranteed crazy sales if the software is halfway decent... And ksp is exceptional.

On August 3, 2016 at 7:54 PM, AlamoVampire said:

nope. we do not need VR.

Ahhh, hate to break this to you... But we don't need ksp either.  Or PCs. 

Thats just poor reasoning.

[Gaarst]

14 minutes ago, Ryder said:

Silliness... The user base would expand dramatically for the single reason of making it support Vive.  I don't know how many ksp users there are, but Vive is easily within the same order of magnitude... and will soar past KSP.

early titles to support  Vive are like the early apple App Store titles, guaranteed crazy sales if the software is halfway decent... And ksp is exceptional.

I don't care about VR at all. It's a niche right now, and I believe it will stay so. (Remember 3D TVs?)

Plus, I currently play KSP on a laptop and have neither the will nor the capability to buy a VR set and a VR capable PC (I literally can't afford spending 2 or 3 grands on this).

VR is a nice thing to try and have fun with, but it's uses are currently too limited to make it worth. Add VR to KSP and everyone will spend the next month having fun in IVA, and then everyone will forget it. Not to mention that half the people will get motion sickness in a few minutes.

VR is not and should not be a major development concern. If you want it, make a mod.

Edited December 8, 2016 by Gaarst

[Ryder]

I see a VR implementation of KSP to be one ONLY outside of the hangars (ie, during simulation)... At least as a first step.

flight simmers are already insane over VR and or head tracking. Lunar landers are great fun in VR.  Apollo 11 and Go (something) Mercury sims are very highly rated on Vive.

others are already leading the way.

 

[Ryder]

16 minutes ago, Gaarst said:

I don't care about VR at all. It's a niche right now, and I believe it will stay so. (Remember 3D TVs?)

 

Yeah, I remember once making the mistake of giving my opinion when it wasn't asked for...

[Gaarst]

6 minutes ago, Ryder said:

Yeah, I remember once making the mistake of giving my opinion when it wasn't asked for...

If you don't want people giving their opinions in a discussion, I suggest staying away from Internet forums.

[Ryder]

48 minutes ago, Gaarst said:

If you don't want people giving their opinions in a discussion, I suggest staying away from Internet forums.

This kind of problem comes up everywhere... Not just Internet forums.

if the forum topic was about "do you like VR?" Then it would be on topic.  Otherwise... non-sequitur. 

[Red Iron Crown]

1 hour ago, Ryder said:

Silliness... The user base would expand dramatically for the single reason of making it support Vive.  I don't know how many ksp users there are, but Vive is easily within the same order of magnitude... and will soar past KSP.

Most recent numbers I can find from HTC claim they had sold 140,000 Vive headsets worldwide. That's at least one order of magnitude less than KSP has sold so far. It's a big jump to think that every Vive user would buy KSP if it started supporting it, and the ones who would be interested in the game have likely already bought it. Sorry, it's just not reasonable to think the userbase would "expand dramatically" by adding Vive support.

Maybe VR will take off, maybe it won't, but it's really hard to argue that it's out of the early adopter niche right now.

[ChrisHale]

I thought someone had already modded in VR support?

Edit: Oh and here's the GitHub I think. https://github.com/Vivero/Kerbal-VR

Edited December 8, 2016 by ChrisHale

[Ryder]

4 hours ago, Red Iron Crown said:

Most recent numbers I can find from HTC claim they had sold 140,000 Vive headsets worldwide. That's at least one order of magnitude less than KSP has sold so far. It's a big jump to think that every Vive user would buy KSP if it started supporting it, and the ones who would be interested in the game have likely already bought it. Sorry, it's just not reasonable to think the userbase would "expand dramatically" by adding Vive support.

Maybe VR will take off, maybe it won't, but it's really hard to argue that it's out of the early adopter niche right now.

 

 

I'm aware of those numbers... October... following APRIL Launch.  6 months. We're now heading into Christmas... and you have to know that we're talking about way more units by end of year... units are now showing up in shopping malls being demoed. (I know, I just saw it Saturday). In fact, HTC has said of that 140K figure... that they in fact sold "much more" than that.

Then there is the Rift... with their controllers releasing just days ago... and their user base is going to shift over into useful.

So we're on the order of half a million vr users out there... with scant few good titles to buy.

So unless KSP has sold to 5 million users... (which would be great... but no) there sure isn't an order of mag difference between it and the VR base... which is still VERY young.  Wait a few months when all those Christmas lottery winners show off their Vive to everyone.  Everyone I have let demo my Vive instantly committed themselves to getting one.  EVERYONE.

 

When I discovered that VIVE essentially solved the nausea experience that was common on the Rift... I tossed my Rift like an old diaper... and bought every decent title available to Vive.  With the controllers Oculus released just now... they will have solved the nausea issue too. (meaning... while you CAN find titles that make you ill.. sometimes intentionally, most won't.. so VR becomes viable to even the weakest stomachs)

This pushes VR squarely toward the mainstream.

HTC has also figured out how to drop at least $100 from the retail price with next gen Lighthouse boxes... 

 

You're witnessing the leading edge of something, and it would be sad for KSP to miss a target rich environment.

 

 

 

 

4 hours ago, ChrisHale said:

I thought someone had already modded in VR support?

Edit: Oh and here's the GitHub I think. https://github.com/Vivero/Kerbal-VR

 

 

That's amazing.

Be sure to cross your eyes watching it, until the images merge in the center in order to get free 3D

 

BTW, I went to your link, and successfully got it working!  Vive in KSP.  I cheated being stuck inside the cockpit (IVA) view... by simply sliding my chair a few feet left... and I was outside

Edited December 9, 2016 by Ryder
Success!

[Red Iron Crown]

6 minutes ago, Ryder said:

I'm aware of those numbers... October... following APRIL Launch.  6 months. We're now heading into Christmas... and you have to know that we're talking about way more units by end of year... units are now showing up in shopping malls being demoed. (I know, I just saw it Saturday). In fact, HTC has said of that 140K figure... that they in fact sold "much more" than that.

Then there is the Rift... with their controllers releasing just days ago... and their user base is going to shift over into useful.

So we're on the order of half a million vr users out there... with scant few good titles to buy.

So unless KSP has sold to 5 million users... (which would be great... but no) there sure isn't an order of mag difference between it and the VR base... which is still VERY young.  Wait a few months when all those Christmas lottery winners show off their Vive to everyone.  Everyone I have let demo my Vive instantly committed themselves to getting one.  EVERYONE.

I went with the most recent somewhat hard number I could find. Speculative numbers are nice and all, but they're not something to plan around if you can help it. KSP is into the lower mid millions in my estimation (though there is no official figure and I have no inside info), so I'd guess an order of magnitude difference still exists.

It's great that your friends are committed to buying one, but will they actually do so? Talk is cheap, and novelty wears off.

6 minutes ago, Ryder said:

When I discovered that VIVE essentially solved the nausea experience that was common on the Rift... I tossed my Rift like an old diaper... and bought every decent title available to Vive.  With the controllers Oculus released just now... they will have solved the nausea issue too. (meaning... while you CAN find titles that make you ill.. sometimes intentionally, most won't.. so VR becomes viable to even the weakest stomachs)

This pushes VR squarely toward the mainstream.

The biggest obstacle for the mainstream, IMO, is not nausea. It's not being able to see around you while playing. A market that wouldn't accept transparent glasses to get stereoscopic 3D will be a tough sell for that.

6 minutes ago, Ryder said:

HTC has also figured out how to drop at least $100 from the retail price with next gen Lighthouse boxes...

You're witnessing the leading edge of something, and it would be sad for KSP to miss a target rich environment.

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I have been around long enough to see a lot of "leading edges" that fizzled out. We'll see.

[Ryder]

1 hour ago, Red Iron Crown said:

 Speculative numbers are nice and all, but they're not something to plan around if you can help it. KSP is into the lower mid millions in my estimation (though there is no official figure and I have no inside info),

It's great that your friends are committed to buying one, but will they actually do so? Talk is cheap, and novelty wears off.

The biggest obstacle for the mainstream, IMO, is not nausea. It's not being able to see around you while playing. A market that wouldn't accept transparent glasses to get stereoscopic 3D will be a tough sell for that.

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I have been around long enough to see a lot of "leading edges" that fizzled out. We'll see.

 

1

" Speculative numbers are nice and all, but they're not something to plan around if you can help it. KSP is into the lower mid millions in my estimation (though there is no official figure and I have no inside info),"

Well... but you see the trap... you just had to do it yourself for the KSP numbers

As a VR user of a couple of systems... the Vive system does in fact allow you to see around you (it has a front mounted camera), and WHY would you want to see reality, when you are in virtual reality?  Makes no sense. Getting rid of reality is the point.  Otherwise you're talking AR.

It's not about 3D.

It's about *interacting* in 3D.  This is where Oculus failed.  Going from a seated to a standing experience is *radically* different.

Watching a movie with depth... is not at ALL the same as walking around something you just created, or walking down the center of the golden gate bridge from thousands of miles away.

 

Given that I've had the Vive for about a week, I am going to give them more time to save the $800    But at least one has it already plus the Vive compatible exercise bike is coming Saturday. (lucky them.  I wan't one) 

https://www.virzoom.com/

 

Edited December 9, 2016 by Ryder

[Ryder]

 

Y'all need to see this.

This is what's coming.  (in alpha now, I believe)

[Tw1]

I know VR is mad cool 

(Once got to use a vive to go into a virtual thing of a space I was designing, was the coolest thing.) 

But I I don't think it's critical for KSP. Most of KSP is played in third person view, it'd be weird. But if they were to add more features to IVA, and a stock first person kerbal view, it would be pretty cool, provided it wasn't coming at the detriment of something else. 

Also, don't forget the grade of machine you need to run VR. Most machines people have probably won't have the graphics for it. 

Edited December 9, 2016 by Tw1

[hms_warrior]

We don't need VR. in the same way we don't need personal computer. the internet. smartphones.

...

There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. Steve Ballmer

There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home. Ken Olson

...

VR is the next big thing.

Is VR totaly needed for KSP to work? no.

Would VR improve the chances of future sells? defenitly.

 

[Red Iron Crown]

7 hours ago, Ryder said:

" Speculative numbers are nice and all, but they're not something to plan around if you can help it. KSP is into the lower mid millions in my estimation (though there is no official figure and I have no inside info),"

Well... but you see the trap... you just had to do it yourself for the KSP numbers

Of course, but I am not deciding how to spend development resources based on those numbers. And Squad would have real numbers for the ones for which I have to speculate.

7 hours ago, Ryder said:

As a VR user of a couple of systems... the Vive system does in fact allow you to see around you (it has a front mounted camera), and WHY would you want to see reality, when you are in virtual reality?  Makes no sense. Getting rid of reality is the point.  Otherwise you're talking AR.

You're using a tautalogy here: "Why would you want to see reality when in VR?" Most people won't get VR, because they want to see reality, too. The point is that the mainstream doesn't seem to want that level of immersion, they want the conventional screen that they can easily look away from instantly, as required.

7 hours ago, Ryder said:

It's not about 3D.

It's about *interacting* in 3D.  This is where Oculus failed.  Going from a seated to a standing experience is *radically* different.

Watching a movie with depth... is not at ALL the same as walking around something you just created, or walking down the center of the golden gate bridge from thousands of miles away.

I make no judgement of how immersive the experience is. It's a newish tech, and if it's going to go mainstream it needs that "killer app" that no other tech can provide, and it needs to come way down in price (the latter will happen if production ramps up, the former we'll just have to wait and see).

[Reusables]

I think that even though it is often denoted as future, VR won't be useful in this case (perspective).

Looking through the devices, there seems to be two categories of VR, which might look alike each other but thoroughly different as market (or platform).

One is heavy VR which incorporates built-in processors as shown here, and the other is light VR which provides 3d display for mobile devices.

Although heavy VR is more high-tech product and innovatory, it is expensive product which takes much time to be feasible. So there's high possibility that it just remains as niche product.

On the other hand, light VR is affordable with a few tens of dollars. Although it has some problems such as low resolution, its low price and portability will be enough to compensate it like smartphones. Also, its portability and accessibility can easily enable the creative use of the 3D capability, which would grow into 'killer apps'.

So they are essentially different. Though the former is more advertised and getting more attention, I think the latter is on higher potential and eventually take over the former.

 

In KSP's case, the computationally expensive experience only fits in heavy VR, thus it would be niche to support VR.

[Rocket In My Pocket]

@Ryder "The leading edge" as you call it, isn't doing so hot at the moment.

http://www.ubergizmo.com/2016/09/htc-vive-oculus-rift-sales-flatline/

http://metro.co.uk/2016/09/06/vr-sales-flatline-as-early-adopter-market-dries-up-6112288/

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/

"According to a recent 2016 Steam survey, it shows that only 0.18% of their users own a HTC Vive, and 0.10% own the Oculus Rift. It has also been found that HTC Vive sales only grew by a fraction of 0.3% in July, while the Oculus Rift grew by 0.1% in August, suggesting that sales of either device appear to have flatlined."

Edited December 9, 2016 by Rocket In My Pocket

[kball]

13 minutes ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

@Ryder "The leading edge" as you call it, isn't doing so hot at the moment.

http://www.ubergizmo.com/2016/09/htc-vive-oculus-rift-sales-flatline/

http://metro.co.uk/2016/09/06/vr-sales-flatline-as-early-adopter-market-dries-up-6112288/

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/

"According to a recent 2016 Steam survey, it shows that only 0.18% of their users own a HTC Vive, and 0.10% own the Oculus Rift. It has also been found that HTC Vive sales only grew by a fraction of 0.3% in July, while the Oculus Rift grew by 0.1% in August, suggesting that sales of either device appear to have flatlined."

Interesting. All the VR enthusiasts have been acting like this finally really is VR's moment. Is this a sign that it's just another false start for the technology, or is it actually going to find the consumer market and practical applications it's been promising off and on for decades?

Edited December 9, 2016 by kball

[Rocket In My Pocket]

1 minute ago, kball said:

Interesting. All the VR enthusiasts have been acting like this finally really is VR's moment. Is this a sign that it's just another false start for the technology, or is it actually going to find the consumer market and practical applications it's been promising off and on for decades?

I'm not saying VR won't be a thing, or that it won't ever be successful. But, it's obviously going to go through some false starts like every popular technology has. (DVD's come to mind.)

The user base is still very small, the price point is still too high, and the amount of "must have" titles for it is nil. Some day these problems will be mastered, but it's a ways away.

Will the current generation of VR products take off? Probably not. Would KSP benefit from jumping onto a sinking ship? Probably not. Will early adopters who already own a VR headset ever accept this? ...Probably not.

[Gaarst]

6 hours ago, hms_warrior said:

VR is the next big thing.

You don't know. I don't know. No one knows.

I could easily find dozens of quotes of (presumably) intelligent people betting on a new tech that ends up being forgotten a few months after. I cited 3D TVs earlier, but smart watches are also a good example: was supposed to be the object that everyone had to have, but in the end it's still a niche.

16 hours ago, Ryder said:

This kind of problem comes up everywhere... Not just Internet forums.

if the forum topic was about "do you like VR?" Then it would be on topic.  Otherwise... non-sequitur. 

The forum topic is: "We absolutely need native VR support". To which I replied by stating my personal opinion (since I don't claim having the ultimate truth) and giving arguments. I don't see how that's off topic.

[kball]

Just now, Rocket In My Pocket said:

I'm not saying VR won't be a thing, or that it won't ever be successful. But, it's obviously going to go through some false starts like every popular technology has. (DVD's come to mind.)

The user base is still very small, the price point is still too high, and the amount of "must have" titles for it is nil. Some day these problems will be mastered, but it's a ways away.

Will the current generation of VR products take off? Probably not. Would KSP benefit from jumping onto a sinking ship? Probably not. Will early adopters who already own a VR headset ever accept this? ...Probably not.

Definitely. Just that VR has already been through a bunch of false starts and a lot of people believed this latest generation of VR was the one that was going to finally establish it as a mainstream technology. 

 

[Rocket In My Pocket]

44 minutes ago, kball said:

Definitely. Just that VR has already been through a bunch of false starts and a lot of people believed this latest generation of VR was the one that was going to finally establish it as a mainstream technology. 

I'd say it's got a couple more false starts to go through, an "accessory" with an 800 dollar price tag is far from being mainstream.

The computer I play KSP on costs less than that, with the monitor, keyboard/mouse, and the price of the actual game combined. From what I've read you need a fairly expensive gaming computer ($1,500+) to even run most VR games. So were talking a combined cost of over $2,300 and at that price point you still haven't bought any games to play on it!

I'd hate to be a kid on Christmas trying to convince my parents to buy me something that doesn't provide any entertainment value without buying more software, as well as having already existing expensive hardware, and as we all know, if parents aren't buying it for their kids on X-mas, it isn't mainstream yet.

Edited December 9, 2016 by Rocket In My Pocket

[Ryder]

13 hours ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

I'd say it's got a couple more false starts to go through, an "accessory" with an 800 dollar price tag is far from being mainstream.

 

I think this is missing the point... certainly this topic is NOT about "will vr be a success?"

It's about expanding the KSP user experience... and certainly that has to be weighed against other priorities as others have pointed out.

Now, as awesome as this generation of VR is... It's clear that KSP is a solid title without it, and so it's not the tech issue as much as it is one of opportunity.

 

If one were to go down the "priority list" for KSP development... which feature on that list would add a couple hundred thousand sales?

Procedurally generated craters?

More/better rocket parts?

"I heard KSP is adding procedural craters... I've been hesitating pulling the trigger.... but now I'm all in!"   Yeah... no.  Nobody is saying that.

 

The one thing that they really should focus on, we probably all agree... is multiplayer.  So in this sense, I would say, yes...  that has the potential to deliver way more than a couple hundred thousand sales.

But in thinking about the size of the task... VR in simulation is obviously not nearly so hard. Hell, someone already did it as a mod.  If a hobbyist can do it in their spare time... outside of the native codebase... Squad could kick butt on it, and do it in short order. Say they net $20 per sale...

A cool 2 million (for 100K sales)  in the bank funds a LOT of multiplayer development.  Or interior space (which screams VR).

I think bang for the buck... VR is a true winner.

Multiplayer is a complex (expensive!) mess... which has to be maintained for the life of the product.  Servers don't run themselves.

VR... code it then walk away.

 

 

Edited December 10, 2016 by Ryder