Hello everyone, So there are some forum posts about this allready but there doesnt seem to be a specific answer. I know there's a vorpx mod wich will enable you to play the game in VR, but I'ts not convenient and not offcicial. I'm not sure if it works with the cv1 anyways. Since the release of the new Vive and Rift headsets i was thinking about beamng.drive and how amazing it would be on a VR HMD. It's just a perfect candidate for VR and i don't understand why there is no support for it. In the past there has been official support but it was causing an issue of some sort so it was removed again? It might be that VR is not implemented because of the lack of people in the community with a headset, but I'm sure there are quite some folks who will really enjoy the game a lot more when VR is added to the game. It could also be hard to actually integrate VR in the game? In the end I just want to know if there will be a VR update anytime soon since I haven't heard anything of it in a long time, and I just want to make sure I'm not looking forward for something that will never happen. Banariana (Jurre Wolff)
And then you fall off a cliff and you get a flashback of your life and sad that it is gonna end in just a second. And then you realize it's a game and your fine. You're head is just over the smashed roof somehow.
I guess whe can make it work if you turn down some settings. It might not look AS good but good enough I'm sure. (I hope )
They could make a basic version with 2d VR that just moves the camera with your head, and then work towards making 3d VR.
We are in Early Access stage. This means not all promised features are there, and that the game can be buggy at times. That is our #1 focus at the moment. I am a VR junkie myself, but we have to be honest: VR is a new, changing technology. Until a few months ago, several of the released SDKs versions required adaptation just to keep working. Let alone making use of new features (such as Layers, introduced in oculus sdk 0.6.0, needed for ATW to correctly work with HUD elements in certain cases, just to name an example) in order to have a proper implementation (instead of just a working hack that everyone will complain about, for a reason). Even now that the APIs are more or less stable, we still need to optimize a lot. It's still hard to hit 60FPS average under some circumstances. Imagine hitting 90 (not 60) FPS as minimum (not as average) at 2160x1200 (not at 1080p like many desktop screens) or even at 3240x1800 (if you really want to compensate for the visual loss due to anti-distortion shaders, using the typical 1.5x super scaling). At that point VR would be mostly working, but then you need to make sure the menu system works correctly in VR too, you can't just slap the current menu in a fixed position of your HMD or you'll lose all the "comfort" (i.e. you'll get nausea), so you need to adapt the menu system too. And that's assuming you use keyboard/mouse controllers, and not adapting to any existing or upcoming VR controllers. As you can see it's a lot of work, even for a basic working experience. Nothing would please me more than to have VR support in BeamNG, but we are not even out of Early Access yet. Priorities, priorities, priorities
Thanks for the reply! I understand there's still a lot of polishing to do and that the game needs a lot more optimization for VR to work. I guess I was thinking to light about implementing VR into a game, because it was added to the game before, wich made me think it was a breeze to do wich is definitely not the case as I can make up from your words. I'll be looking forward to see beamng.drives developments occur on the road ahead. Thanks again, Jurre --- Post updated --- Wut 2D VR XD? How do you have that in mind
I mean just showing the same image in both eyes so it is 2d, not 3d. If it was 3d, the game would be 2 times slower because it would have to render everything for 2 points of view (each eye)
Monoscopic VR is offered as an option in the official Minecraft-VR implementation, as a tradeoff between performance and visuals. It's of course much better to use stereoscopic vr instead, but for far landscapes such as those in minecraft, there's not much difference between mono and stereo image. Even parallax effects are minimal at those distances. This is also why VR games such as Titans of Space have to unrealistically make planets closer to the camera (and compensate by making them way smaller, so the 2-dimensional angle is the same, so to speak), otherwise you get absolutely no parallax/3d effect at the cosmic distances it would need to render them, were they realistically displayed. In BeamNG.drive, that is not going to fly, specially in cockpit camera, where everything is close, and the monoscopic image is very noticeable. This is actually exactly what happened with the pre-alpha VR support in Assetto Corsa the other week, where accidentally had monoscopic VR render for the first few hours (until the hotfix came and fixed it), everyone noticed and complained about it. Monoscopic vs stereoscopic render is still just one of the factors involved in proper VR render, the total amount of effort is big and cannot be easily reduced by disabling this or that feature alone
I don't see monoscopic VR as true VR. The whole point of VR is to have that awesome 3D Depth illusion. This is mostly what makes a game immesive i think. If games are only rendered ?monoscopicly? I'd say you can just as well play the game on your 23 inch monitor display. If you do something then do it good.
the one advantage to monoscopic VR over a standard display is the head motion side of the immersion. Though thats something that can be served by trackIR which is already supported by the game and cheaper.