We absolutely need native VR support!

[Rocket In My Pocket]

9 hours ago, Ryder said:

VR in simulation is obviously not nearly so hard. Hell, someone already did it as a mod.

Use the mod then.

/thread.

[jrandom]

1 hour ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

Use the mod then.

/thread.

It has serious performance issues and the interface is unusable. For Kerbal, VR needs to be tightly integrated into the rendering system for proper scale and correct / usable interface display.

On another note, it's nice to see that others support VR integration, as opposed to the highly-toxic initial responses I got when I originally posted this thread.

[Rocket In My Pocket]

36 minutes ago, jrandom said:

On another note, it's nice to see that others support VR integration, as opposed to the highly-toxic initial responses I got when I originally posted this thread.

Disagreeing isn't toxic.

I'm sorry you are feeling "attacked" here, it's just that most people don't seem to agree with you.

I don't think anyone here has anything personal against you, they just don't feel that VR is a good idea to invest time/money in at this point.

Edited December 10, 2016 by Rocket In My Pocket

[Sharpy]

On 4.08.2016 at 3:16 AM, Rocket In My Pocket said:

Not to mention how much of the game is spent in 3rd person/Map mode/Building crafts in the VAB/SPH.

 

I don't care much for 3D in flight. But I'd pay good money to have actual 3D/VR in VAB/SPH.

It would also be immensely helpful when docking, or on EVA.

I can't count the time when I tried to move the craft to the docking port only to bump against the hull of the other craft, as it was already past the docking port. Or the times when I thought I have that wing attached straight only to see it's totally crooked from another angle. VR is not just 'cool visuals', it's an actual, informative depth perception, an actual in-game advantage, an extra tool at our disposal, like another guage or marker, except more intuitive than any of these.

[jrandom]

31 minutes ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

Disagreeing isn't toxic.

I'm sorry you are feeling "attacked" here, it's just that most people don't seem to agree with you.

I don't think anyone here has anything personal against you, they just don't feel that VR is a good idea to invest time/money in at this point.

It's not the disagreeing, it's the angry hostile tone with which they disagreed.

[DoctorDavinci]

8 minutes ago, jrandom said:

It's not the disagreeing, it's the angry hostile tone with which they disagreed.

Although I do understand that most people 'hear' words in their head as they read (dyslexic persons do not for the most part), I do not understand how they have replied with an angry hostile tone when the voice you are hearing is your brain processing the written words you are reading ... written words do not have a tone as they have not been spoken or synthesized into sound waves for your ear drums to pick up

So the tone is actually how your brain is choosing to interpret the written words found here ... perhaps taking a step back and accepting what others have to say as their opinion in a discussion, rather than a personal attack upon yourself, might be beneficial for you and this conversation

Or is this thread going to go the way of flames and salty tears because people are unwilling to accept that there are those who have differing opinions on the subject of VR in KSP?

[Rocket In My Pocket]

47 minutes ago, Sharpy said:

I don't care much for 3D in flight. But I'd pay good money to have actual 3D/VR in VAB/SPH.

It would also be immensely helpful when docking, or on EVA.

I can't count the time when I tried to move the craft to the docking port only to bump against the hull of the other craft, as it was already past the docking port. Or the times when I thought I have that wing attached straight only to see it's totally crooked from another angle. VR is not just 'cool visuals', it's an actual, informative depth perception, an actual in-game advantage, an extra tool at our disposal, like another guage or marker, except more intuitive than any of these.

*cough cough* WASD camera editor solves those issues. I highly recommend it. (Let's you fly around the VAB/SPH freely in 1st person while building, even letting you pass through the parts to view them from the interior.) Honestly, I don't know what Squad was thinking when they designed the default camera.

https://github.com/linuxgurugamer/WasdEditorCameraContinued/releases/tag/0.6.7.2

Also, no one is saying that VR isn't "cool" or potentially "useful." We are just saying it's not the best possible use of Squad's time and resources at this point because it would only benefit an extremely small portion of the user base.

Edited December 10, 2016 by Rocket In My Pocket

[Sharpy]

4 minutes ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

*cough cough* WASD camera editor solves those issues. I highly recommend it. (Let's you fly around the VAB/SPH freely in 1st person while building, even letting you pass through the parts to view them from the interior.)

The difference is, that to see the misalignment, you need to actually move the camera, leave your current 'working angle', look at the part from a different place, then return to make the corrections. With depth perception you have the needed feedback immediately, while you place the part.

It's a bit like a dictionary and an eraser are a poor substitute to knowing grammar perfectly while writing.

[Rocket In My Pocket]

7 minutes ago, Sharpy said:

The difference is, that to see the misalignment, you need to actually move the camera, leave your current 'working angle', look at the part from a different place, then return to make the corrections. With depth perception you have the needed feedback immediately, while you place the part.

I'm not sure what you are saying.

Have you used the mod? You can place parts from any viewing angle. I've never had any problems perceiving depth when building? (Even with the terrible stock camera.) The game is three-dimensional after all.

Also, whatever benefit it could (theoretically) provide is rendered moot due to the fact that only a very small percentage of users would be able to take advantage of it. Should Squad be making changes to the game everyone can enjoy or just a few?

Edited December 10, 2016 by Rocket In My Pocket

[Sharpy]

18 minutes ago, Rocket In My Pocket said:

I'm not sure what you are saying.

Have you used the mod? You can place parts from any viewing angle. I've never had any problems perceiving depth when building? (Even with the terrible stock camera.) The game is three-dimensional after all.

Also, whatever benefit it could (theoretically) provide is rendered moot due to the fact that only a very small percentage of users would be able to take advantage of it. Should Squad be making changes to the game everyone can enjoy or just a few?

You're trying to place a wing simultaneously horizontally, parallel to the fuselage (which, being some connector, had rounded parts) and mid-way the length of a fuselage. You need to look from front of the craft to make sure the wing is horizontal, and parallel. If you from above, you can see the wing is parallel to the fuselage and mid-way its length. If you look from the side, you'll get the wing mid-way the fuselage and horizontal, but is attachment edge will tilt towards or away from the fuselage.

Only with true 3D view you're getting all the three informations at once.

[DoctorDavinci]

4 minutes ago, Sharpy said:

You're trying to place a wing simultaneously horizontally, parallel to the fuselage (which, being some connector, had rounded parts) and mid-way the length of a fuselage. You need to look from front of the craft to make sure the wing is horizontal, and parallel. If you from above, you can see the wing is parallel to the fuselage and mid-way its length. If you look from the side, you'll get the wing mid-way the fuselage and horizontal, but is attachment edge will tilt towards or away from the fuselage.

Only with true 3D view you're getting all the three informations at once.

^^^This

Perfect example of how 3D can help in the VAB/SPH (notice I didn't say VR)

I have one of those supposedly failed technologies, an OLED 3D smart tv, and have ran KSP quite a bit in 3D mode ... looks fantastic and building in the VAB is pretty cool as you actually have depth perception 

Thing is that after awhile 3D just becomes a novelty

 

[Sharpy]

4 minutes ago, DoctorDavinci said:

^^^This

Perfect example of how 3D can help in the VAB/SPH (notice I didn't say VR)

 

I also agree, I don't care about head tracking and such gizmos. Just 3D.

[DoctorDavinci]

11 minutes ago, Sharpy said:

I also agree, I don't care about head tracking and such gizmos. Just 3D.

A 3D tv would solve that for you ... 3D in the home isn't dead at all, it's just prohibitively expensive

My Samsung 46" was $1200 Canadian last year but damn it was a good buy (mainly because more than 1 person can watch it unlike a vr headset which can only accommodate one person)

And the tech included for artificial 3D from a 2D image works almost seamlessly ... even when there is a lot of movement on the screen

So 3D tv's are definitely not a failed technology, however VR has failed a few times ... only time will tell if it succeeds in becoming mainstream but with the many reports from popular 'honest' gamer reviews have VR still giving people googly eyes and vertigo when they strap on a headset doesn't bode well for the tech (not to mention the raccoon face you get from having to strap the headset on tight so it doesn't slip around when playing)

Edited December 10, 2016 by DoctorDavinci

[KSK]

On 12/10/2016 at 3:57 AM, Ryder said:

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.

OK, there are a couple of problems here.

1.  You're assuming that VR is a 'build it and they will come' feature that will improve KSP sales. I don't think it will. VR is a nice-to-have feature for people that were going to buy KSP anyway. If the basic gameplay behind KSP doesn't appeal, then adding VR isn't going to overcome that.

2.  You're assuming that there are still plenty of customers out there for KSP.  KSP has been out for five years now in various iterations. I doubt there are too many new customers left. Steam sales and other promotions might winkle out the remaining fence-sitters who were considering buying but haven't been able to afford it. I doubt that adding VR will make much difference.

3. Most importantly, the overlap between 'gamers who possess or are willing to fork out for VR capable gear' and 'gamers who like KSP' is likely to be very small. Anecdotal evidence on these forums doesn't count - by definition, participants in these forums are already a small self-selecting group. Small overlap = small market to chase = probably not worth developer time.

As an aside, I disagree with your assertion that 'the one thing that they really should focus on, we probably all agree... is multiplayer.' Even on these forums, opinions differ widely on that point.

 

Edited December 11, 2016 by KSK

[Ryder]

15 minutes ago, KSK said:

OK, there are a couple of problems here.

1.  You're assuming that VR is a 'build it and they will come' feature that will improve KSP sales. I don't think it will. VR is a nice-to-have feature for people that were going to buy KSP anyway. If the basic gameplay behind KSP doesn't appeal, then adding VR isn't going to overcome that.

2.  You're assuming that there are still plenty of customers out there for KSP.  KSP has been out for five years now in various iterations. I doubt there are too many new customers left. Steam sales and other promotions might winkle out the remaining fence-sitters who were considering buying but haven't been able to afford it. I doubt that adding VR will make much difference.

3. Most importantly, the overlap between 'gamers who possess or are willing to fork out for VR capable gear' and 'gamers who like KSP' is likely to be very small. Anecdotal evidence on these forums doesn't count - by definition, participants in these forums are already a small self-selecting group. Small overlap = small market to chase = probably not worth developer time.

As an aside, I disagree with your assertion that 'the one thing that they really should focus on, we probably all agree... is multiplayer.' Even on these forums, opinions differ widely on that point.

 

 

 

 

I'm not assuming it... I'm MAKING A CASE FOR IT.

There are plenty of potential new KSP customers out there... that's obvious.  I don't know another soul on this planet that has it except myself, yet I know hundreds with PC's.  I'd say there are close to 2 Billion.  That ought to be enough

Doesn't matter if they like it or not.  Only matters if they buy it.  Never bought a program you didn't like?  I've personally already bought at least half a dozen VR titles I don't like much.

 

I said "we probably" for a reason.

 

Thanks for your contribution

Edited December 11, 2016 by Ryder

[Athlonic]

Hey, at all you people saying VR is just nothing worth the money/time/whatever ...

Try to find a VR conference or shop where you can test one, and ask if you can test this : 

I own and test VR headsets since Oculus DK1, mainly for seated experiences like DCS, ETS2, Project CARS, ... and I just can't go back to flat 2D monitors anymore for this kind of games (even with my 30inch/4K).

I wasn't interested in Touch controllers at all at first, and now that I received them and played some actual VR games, I just realized how wrong I was ! These things are absolutely amazing, period. Anyone trying to convince you they aren't, have even never actually tried VR (not talking about smartphone joke thingies here) or are to old for this kind of things (no offense here, I am 40).

Also if I remember correctly KSP already support 6 DOF devices (special mouse thingies) so I can even imagine building rockets in the VAB in VR with Vive or Touch controllers wouldn't be so far away. ^^

Anyway, my point isn't that VR is absolutely needed for KSP of course, it is just that it would be a nice addition. Also I am just tired of all the hate around such technologie. The only grip you can have against VR for now is its price, here I agree, HMD VR sets are way too expensive but this is how economy works nowadays (thanks Apple/Samsung and their 1000$ smartphones, everybody buy, for this... )

I brought my Rift to friends and at work (my boss is cool) and everyone who tried them were amazed and told me they wouldn't have thought enjoying this so much, and almost all of them said they want one ... until they asked for the price ...

I hope Sony's 400$ VR headsets will sell well and teach the 2 others main guys (Valve/Palmer) their price tag are so wrong... 

[KSK]

1 hour ago, Ryder said:

 

I'm not assuming it... I'm MAKING A CASE FOR IT.

There are plenty of potential new KSP customers out there... that's obvious.  I don't know another soul on this planet that has it except myself, yet I know hundreds with PC's.  I'd say there are close to 2 Billion.  That ought to be enough

Doesn't matter if they like it or not.  Only matters if they buy it.  Never bought a program you didn't like?  I've personally already bought at least half a dozen VR titles I don't like much.

 

I said "we probably" for a reason.

 

Thanks for your contribution

Well you're making a poor one because your case is based on poor assumptions with nothing to back them up other than 'KSP with VR would be kewl'. Then you're shouting down somebody who disagrees with your case - but thank you for your contribution.

The total PC owning population is utterly irrelevant. Of those 2 billion, how many use their PC to play games? Of those gamers, how many are likely to buy KSP as opposed to the latest FPS shooter / open world RPS / Candy Crush clone / sports sim etc. etc? Give a sensible estimate to those questions and you might have some idea of your potential market size.  Then revisit my 3rd point. Then you might have some idea of whether adding VR to KSP is worth the developer time.

Regarding your second point - ask yourself what was wrong with those VR titles that meant you didn't like them? More importantly, why did the VR feature not manage to overcome that dislike? 

[Red Iron Crown]

5 hours ago, Athlonic said:

Hey, at all you people saying VR is just nothing worth the money/time/whatever ...

Try to find a VR conference or shop where you can test one, and ask if you can test this :
<snip>

No one is arguing that good experiences aren't possible on VR. They are arguing that currently the market is too small a niche to chase. The counterargument to this is not to show cool things that VR can do, but real numbers of how many VR sets are in circulation.

This is the first Christmas season for several of this generation of VR sets, it will be interesting to see their numbers afterward.

[CranialRectosis]

I just retired my old 8 year old system and yesterday built a brand new PC. I am VR ready and I believe it is the future. I have been building PCs since I modded my old TRS-80 with a soldering iron to upgrade to 16k of RAM. Today I am running a Core i7 6800k monster, booting to Windows 10 or (like now) playing 64bit KSP on Linux Mint. !!!!WOW, graphics mods!!!!!

My point being that KSP is the premier video game playground for geeks. All geeks like toys. Now that I can go VR, KSP is the very first place I looked to see when/if it will be available.

It's not and I get why and I am not complaining. KSP without VR is one of the finest games I have ever seen. Steam says I have over 1,100 hours in.

 

But.....

If you build it, we will come.

[Ryder]

7 hours ago, KSK said:

Well you're making a poor one because your case is based on poor assumptions with nothing to back them up other than 'KSP with VR would be kewl'. Then you're shouting down somebody who disagrees with your case.

2

Interesting... but you've done the exact same thing in response...

If it's good enough for you to respond with...

And of course I've done far more than that, and "poor assumptions" are just your opinion.  Which I'm not interested in.

46 minutes ago, CranialRectosis said:

I have been building PCs since I modded my old TRS-80 with a soldering iron to upgrade to 16k of RAM. T

 

Interesting... I did the same thing... with the Coco... from a whopping 4K to 32 K using piggyback memory (which I assume that's what you're describing).

So you remember the cassette tape days, clearly

 

8 hours ago, Athlonic said:

Also I am just tired of all the hate around such technologie. The only grip you can have against VR for now is its price, here I agree, HMD VR sets are way too expensive but this is how economy works nowadays.

3

All true... and of course, fighting against it is a self-fulfilling prophecy.   VR is not at all expensive for some people.  And of course they lead the way...  Think of the early Motorola brick cell phone

[Ryder]

Take Note: App + Vive = sales   http://steamcommunity.com/app/208600/discussions/0/208684375431956661/#c152390014788586005

If 1% replied to this comment as these three fellows did... then that's 300 sales in 2 days thanks to vive.

[Red Iron Crown]

10 minutes ago, Ryder said:

Take Note: App + Vive = sales   http://steamcommunity.com/app/208600/discussions/0/208684375431956661/#c152390014788586005

If 1% replied to this comment as these three fellows did... then that's 300 sales in 2 days thanks to vive.

How much investment was required to add VR support, though? And what is your basis for assuming 1%?

[Alshain]

@Athlonic Asside from the whole cost/benefit issues.  Lunar Flight is a cockpit game, like Elite: Dangerous, and it caters to that sort of experience.  Cockpit flight in KSP sucks, as would VR.  Before implementing VR, they would have to completely overhaul IVA.

 

Even still it's not worth the cost.  No amount of trying the systems and games would change that.  Even if I thought VR was a wonderful idea, it's still not worth the cost.  The only thing that would change that are sales numbers for the VR systems.  Sales numbers that VR doesn't have and isn't likely to have unless they can make it cheaper and more accessible to the population.  Which brings us to the next point, it's not accessible.  The Occulus system I tried wouldn't fit right over my glasses and was uncomfortable.  64 percent of adults in the U.S. alone wear glasses and that system doesn't work well for us.  They say it fits over your glasses, it doesn't.  It's just not realistic to think this will be more than a fad with so many problems.  They may fix them, but now is not the time.  Give it 10 years and we shall see.

I'm personally also concerned about long term health issues.  While this isn't really a huge concern, I've seen some suggest using these can improve muscle ability, I've seen others suggest that the weight can give you whiplash like issues.  Your neck is designed to support your head, not a VR device.

Edited December 11, 2016 by Alshain

[Ryder]

5 minutes ago, Alshain said:

  Cockpit flight in KSP sucks...

 

Agreed...  But Lunar Flight VR does not... that should be a clue!  The big issue is that different cockpits would be needed, that provide a view.  Then suddenly... not so sucky!

Quote

Even still it's not worth the cost.  {...}  Even if I thought VR was a wonderful idea, it's still not worth the cost.  

 

Meh...   Then nobody would have purchased one.  Buuuuut...  they did.

10,000 a month apartments are common in NYC. 

"There is *always* a market for the best"

[Alshain]

1 minute ago, Ryder said:

Agreed...  But Lunar Flight VR does not... that should be a clue!  The big issue is that different cockpits would be needed, that provide a view.  Then suddenly... not so sucky!

Meh...   Then nobody would have purchased one.  Buuuuut...  they did.

10,000 a month apartments are common in NYC. 

"There is *always* a market for the best"

2 million people purchased a Wii U and yet it is still considered the biggest failure in Nintendo history.  People buying something doesn't matter, lots of people buying something matters.  More people own a Wii U than a VR device.

Edited December 11, 2016 by Alshain