Worth having a formal definition of VR Ready?

[FlashPan]

Hi Folks,

Like most X-Planers, I tend to buy a few add-ons. One thing that has bitten me on many occasions is when an aircraft says that it is VR ready, but the reality is that it is not.

I suspect the reason for this is that no one has a formal definition of what VR ready means - having an aircraft appear in VR without crashing should not be considered enough!

For me I'd expect the minimum:

1. Properly configured VR Config file, so that you appear in the proper place in the cockpit and can interact with the aircraft correctly.

2. I should be able to take an aircraft from a cold start, to take off, navigate, landing and shutdown just by using the VR controllers. (I have had instances where some crucial buttons were not available in VR and other cases where the control yoke would disappear when you try to grab it!) Note: Using the keyboard or mouse should not be an option as neither of them are visible when wearing the headset.

3. Any custom UI screens that are required to use the aircraft properly (maintenance screens etc) must be visible and interactable in VR.

 

I think that's about it. If aircraft publishers stuck to these three guidelines there would be far less disappointed pilots!

RobP

 

Edited April 26, 2020 by FlashPan

[Cameron]

Hi Rob,

I'm sure guidelines would be good, but here's the hard reality of VR: It's not a super sustainable market at the moment, and we have very few users of it in the X-Plane world.

Linux is not even a viable business model to run pay ware aircraft on, and it is only slightly better with VR. As a whole, VR represents 2.06% of the market. Figure that X-Plane developers will only see a few percent of that 2% purchasing their add-ons. It's slim.

One day I hope it grows, but in the last couple of years it has not yet become viable to invest a ton of time in it.

[Ben Russell]

Source:

http://dashboard.x-plane.com/

[FlashPan]

Hi Cameron,

I know the market is tiny and not worth most developers time. That's not really my issue. I'm fine if most developers don't develop for VR and maybe let community members tinker.

My big bone of contention is that when said developer then goes on to state that the aircraft is VR compatible, which can be exceedingly misleading claim and prompt some into buying a product that does not work in the medium that they wish to support!

I think a little more clarity around the definition will help everyone in the end - the consumer by picking the right product and the developer by not having to meet unrealistic expectations.

RobP

[FlashPan]

Ben,

That's an excellent link - thanks! I have now bookmarked it!

RobP

[Gildahl]

Well, I'd like to raise my hand and say that I'm a VR user who grew up on flight-sims (starting with Sublogic's FSII) who has 100% abandoned non-VR flight sims.  Also keep in mind that a huge motivation behind the move to Vulkan is VR.  For evidence of this see Austin's Vulkan video at https://www.thresholdx.net/news/wvbogl (particularly the section beginning at 14:15).  So for vendors supporting X-Plane on Vulkan, it might be good strategy to share the mission.  After all, large markets often start out as small struggling ones.