General VR and AR chinwag - The Bear and Badger

Kow

Any fps would work fine if you had a simple pointy controller that understood where it existed in space in relation to the headset.

Mod74

You mean a floaty reticule like the Rare/Free Radical stuff?

No thanks.

I don't see how this could ever work in an FPS, not without some heavy re-tooling. Other games would be good, like, erm....Heavy Rain or something.

Nexx

Its just head tracking, orientation and aiming would still be controlled by traditional control methods (M&KB, controller). Its going to work best with any game that uses a first person perspective.

Kow

I'm sure they'd need re-working but I can see fps working pretty well if done right. I remember trying one of the original headsets about 15 years agoand it worked reasonably well with whatever generic shooter thing was on it.

Lord_Griff

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Atari-Jaguar-VR-Headset-LOT-ULTRA-RARE-HOLY-GRAIL-MUST-SEE-/221179309693?clk_rvr_id=468435738649&nma=true&si=OBZotaIpvUeCrxtijeN7kwYBsvE%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

Mod74

Nexx wrote:

Its just head tracking, orientation and aiming would still be controlled by traditional control methods (M&KB, controller). Its going to work best with any game that uses a first person perspective.

We've been taught that look and aim are locked together. Separating the two and adding an extra control input for one of them sounds like a disaster.

Brooks

Just sounds expensive.

vicinity_of_pie

Mod74 wrote:

Its just head tracking, orientation and aiming would still be controlled by traditional control methods (M&KB, controller). Its going to work best with any game that uses a first person perspective.

We've been taught that look and aim are locked together. Separating the two and adding an extra control input for one of them sounds like a disaster.

Works fine for me in Arma.

edit: I should say, better than fine, it works brilliantly.

Mod74

So...when you're looking around and you see something you want to shoot you then have to bring your sights round to do it?

To me that still sounds like a disaster, but OK, it might work for FPS games that move at a glacial pace.

vicinity_of_pie

You just re-center your head and move your mouse round like you would if it was locked to the center.

Head tracking works great with flight sims and racing games too, there's nothing difficult about it, it actually give you more freedom because you've less to do with your hands. It might take a little time to get yourself acquainted to at first.

[Deleted User]

I'm not convinced there's a problem here. Besides, I'll be buying if it makes me do this;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KG8OsNUTFw

Mod74

Let's hope ARMAIII supports the gamepad because good luck remembering and finding your keyboard layout without being able to look at it.

[Deleted User]

Maybe they should have a virtual room exactly like my living room (except it's painted red) where you sit at a virtual desk and play on a virtual monitor.

vicinity_of_pie

Some sort of visor at the bottom would have been my idea.

Brooks

Basically swearing off all first-personers now 'til I can run summat cool with one of these. The thrill is otherwise gone.

[Deleted User]

Can't they just have some simple Wiimote/Move type thingy to act as a gun in fps games?

Brooks

If one isn't officially tooled it won't take long for homebrewers to repurpose what already exists. People've been conducting experiments with the Nintenmote on PCs since the white thing was launched.

Lord_Griff

Bordello Strumpet-Ruiner 2013 will be a best seller.

GooberTheHat

It could be dangerous wielding a makeshift gun whilst being essentially blindfolded.

[Deleted User]

They need to start researching Smelly-vision with more urgency.

pantyfire

Mod74 wrote:

So...when you're looking around and you see something you want to shoot you then have to bring your sights round to do it? To me that still sounds like a disaster, but OK, it might work for FPS games that move at a glacial pace.

But that's exactly what you do with a gun in real life. It's not attached to your eyes!
If you are playing a game with OR you would probably, naturally, not move your head far off the reticule anyway. So you can snap the sights up to where you are looking quickly. It would give you more peripheral vision but it wouldn't be a revelation, because you could do small quick glances to your sides.

Watch a video on room clearance and you will see what I mean.
Soldiers don't point a gun at one corner of a room but look at the other corner. They move the gun and head simultaneously or near simultaneously, easier to aim and acquire a shot that way.

GooberTheHat

Pretty much pantyfire, when you expect to be firing your weapon soon you are trained to keep it in your shoulder and always look just over the sights, so wherever your eyes go, your weapon goes.

monkey

It's harder to manoeuvre about as much in that way when you're sat down though.

Mod74

pantyfire wrote:

They move the gun and head simultaneously or near simultaneously, easier to aim and acquire a shot that way.

So if you're moving your virtual head with your actual head, and moving your virtual gun with your actual thumb, and keeping the two more or less in sync....then why separate them?

GooberTheHat

True, but what if the OR was more like an old fashioned joystick hat switch, the 2 thumb sticks are still used for movement but the OR was simply for looking around, but the gun sight reticule was fixed to the OR?

Edit, at monkey, not mod.

Mod74

Leaving aside the gameplay, which there's many methods and peripherals to try and see what works, I still think it'd be quite wearing on your neck if there was too much fast movement involved. It's potentially pretty tiring on the eyes as well.

Sitting here now and waving my head around like I would if I was looking/aiming in a game it only take a few seconds before I start to get dizzy. And yes, I look every bit as ridiculous as you think I would.

[Deleted User]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2ltxJlBJJM
How not to do it.

pantyfire

Mod74 wrote:

pantyfire wrote:

They move the gun and head simultaneously or near simultaneously, easier to aim and acquire a shot that way.

So if you're moving your virtual head with your actual head, and moving your virtual gun with your actual thumb, and keeping the two more or less in sync....then why separate them?

Because in real life (I hate using that term especially on a gaming forum) you can move your eyes without moving your entire head and body. For more situational awareness.
I really don't want to come across as some Andy McNabb wannabe but even with a gun shouldered and at ready whilst you move you would be making small head movements and your eyes would be darting left and right while you would keep the gun pointing forward to where you perceived the most threat to come from. If something did appear to your left or right as you glanced that way then it would be a small snap movement of the gun, or sight in this case to take a shot.
It would definitely be more natural for me with my thumbs controlling the direction of travel and gun but my head controlling my line of sight.
I guess most people would naturally move their heads and gun with the OR at roughly the same time (maybe a slight offset of the two for reaction times sake) so I can see why you would say why separate the two?
The way I guess it would work would be a very subtle difference but I think it would be more immersive.

GooberTheHat

Wanking off a ghost at the end there.

Edit, not you fire.

Mod74

@Panty

I don't mind the idea of my eyes darting round to move my field of vision, my eyes are darting round in a game/life plenty already. But my head with a big box strapped to it?

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories