Hacker News Reader

Comment by daviding | Hacker News Reader

I bought the 1982 version.

Today I'm sat in VR [1] with MSFS [2], flying over photogrammetry scenery streamed from the cloud, using consumer flight controls [3] modelled on a real Boeing 737 [4], talking to an air traffic controller in Portugal (I'm in Seattle) [5], checking my Nav charts [6] and checklists [7] as I go, just having a good time playing pilot for fun, as I like the buttons.

Things have come a long way in the last 40 years; will be crazy to see what the next 40 do.

(I've included the links for people not familiar with the hobby as that's always interesting)

[1] https://www.hp.com/us-en/vr/reverb-g2-vr-headset.html [2] https://www.flightsimulator.com/ [3] https://www.thrustmaster.com/en-us/products/tca-yoke-pack-bo... [4] https://pmdg.com/pmdg-737-700-for-microsoft-flight-simulator... [5] https://www.vatsim.net/ [6] https://navigraph.com/ [7] https://flightsim.to/file/32315/pmdg-737-700-summarised-norm...

View on HN

I wonder if by then we'll be able to directly stream a simulated environment into our nervous system (think something Matrix-esque) where you could be physically lying in your bed but virtually in the cockpit of the plane as if you were really there. Previously I would've simply dismissed that as science fiction, but if I was currently living in 1982 it would be hard to imagine what we have now.

As a young kid in 1982 I thought those graphics were stunning, at least compared to text based games I'd been playing.

For the future I personally think it really depends on if mainstream AR/VR will get traction or not, and there are so many challenges for that. Flight sims (and combat, driving games etc) are a great but very small niche of whales that benefits from the tech, but it needs a bigger consumer base than that to push it forward. AR is a better bet I think, and I could picture flight sim's using that well. I currently use either a VR controller in a 3D space or a mouse to flick switches in the virtual cockpit, but mixing real-world and the sim would take it up a notch - especially if haptic.

Graphically VR is still pretty awkward for this sort of thing, as even though 3164x3096 per eye the clarity struggles for real-world simulation like this (lots of detail in a cockpit). We need variable focus depth, higher refresh rates and better (non-fresnel) lenses tech. Meta/Apple/Valve hint at it, and Varjo has some good new things, but it's a race condition between having a monster PC to drive it = niche market vs stand-alone AR/VR for consumer adoption. I guess streaming the entire experience from the cloud via high bandwidth and stand-alone is really the only way this is going to go.

I'll post back in 40 years to see if I was close. ;)

I had the Sublogic version on the TRS-80. 127x80 monochrome!

Crazy thing is that it was pretty involving even then.

I always wondered what kind of crazy city only had one building.

I crashed into that building so many times.

> As a young kid in 1982 I thought those graphics were stunning, at least compared to text based games I'd been playing.

Yes I remember going from FS3 to FS4 and seeing the airfoils actually move in the Cessna was so cool. Also the approach lighting...

And then FS5 / 95 came and introduced "photo" scenery and clouds though it was incredibly blocky. And surface shading.

Is the VR a compelling upgrade over the 2D experience?

In particular does it help with the controls? (Can you directly interact with them?)

Finally, if I can be so bold, how much hardware did you need to pull off VR? Does it require a high end Nvidia 3080 or 3090?

It's a very compelling experience. It's kind of mind blowing to take your F-16 and casually glance at real world scenery outside your cockpit. The most immersive controls are hardware HOTAS/Yoke controllers, IMO. It runs fine for me on an RTX2080 and a Vive Pro.

Recommending VR gaming to someone is hard, it's like saying 'Go on this rollercoaster, you'll love it!' which a good chunk of people will just not enjoy it. There are moments of brilliance and kludgy pits of annoyance. I personally love it. I'm sat here with pretty much every headset made in the last 7 years, so I'm probably not a neutral person to ask. Try it first if you can. If you like it then going back to 2D is sort of hard.

For a PC, yep for flight/driving sims the bigger the monster the better. I use a Nvidia 3080Ti and an i9 overclocked cooled water to an inch of its life and I still struggle with framerate. There is always a bigger fish to buy next year though.

The again, it's cheaper than other hobbies like boats or flying for real (airliners at least) so like anything it's really the value you get out of it.

> I'm sat here with pretty much every headset made in the last 7 years, so I'm probably not a neutral person to ask.

Got a favorite? Which headset gives the best overall experience?

That's a hard question, as they are all a little flawed in some way. Something like:

Varjo Aero - probably the nicest overall, but quite expensive.

HP Reverb G2 - nice for sit-down VR like simulators etc. Not great for general VR so much.

Meta Quest 2 - good entry level for general VR as it can be stand-alone (no wires!) or PC linked and is probably the best value overall.

Valve Index - probably the nicest stand-up VR overall package due to its tracking tech, but getting long in the tooth now and needs a revision.

This is very helpful -- thank you. What's their Linux compatibility like?

VR is finnicky enough on Windows, adding Linux into the mix is pretty much a no-go for any game supporting it.

I would not recommend Quest 2 for flight sim: Terrible image quality and noticeable latency. I cannot recommend this headset anymore after having tried the G2. The only thing the Quest 2 has going for it is the price. A nice 2nd hand G2 reverb is the best choice IMO for overall value atm.

I would say that yes, it is. Sure, you can fire up MSFS 2020 and look around with the mouse and go, 'yep, looks like a plane'. But switch to VR and it's "omg, that's a plane! Also, I had no idea the cockpit was so tiny!" You actually get an idea of the scale of the plane you are flying in. You get better distance perception too, as you would expect.

Once the initial shock passes, you are done looking around and you decide to actually fly, you'll notice a major difference: you will spend more time looking out of the cockpit. Just like you would expect in a real aircraft flying under VFR. Because it's easy, and natural to do. Generally people spend too much time looking at instruments when flight simming. Because as gorgeous as the MSFS scenery is, it's still 2D. That changes a lot when you can look out. And no, TrackIR is not a good substitute. It does help, but it all feels 'fake'.

The thing is, specially with the current VR generation, that looking at cockpit instruments is actually a hassle (even more so for glass cockpits). The resolution is good enough for scenery but not as good if you want to read fine print. Of course you can move your head and 'look closer' at them just like if you had bad eyesight. It's totally doable, but can be tiring.

Bottom line. I would say it's very worth it specially if you fly GA aircraft (big tubes doing standard procedures at 30000ft are ok too, but stereoscopic volumetric clouds can only hold one's interest for so long). If we had higher resolution, I would say "absolutely, get one yesterday". As it is, there's a good chance you'll like it, and you can do it with even a first generation Rift, or a Quest.

As for GPUs. I could run on a RX580 by turning down a bunch of settings. You need to keep the framerate up. I would not recommend going that low end - even more now that GPU prices are coming down – as I would still get nasty frame skips from time to time. But hey, it worked. I got a AMD 5700XT and it runs perfectly fine now.

The official recommended VR specs are a RTX 2080Ti or better. Minimum is listed as GTX1080.

> Just like you would expect in a real aircraft flying under VFR. Because it's easy, and natural to do. Generally people spend too much time looking at instruments when flight simming.

They also can spend too much time looking at instruments when flying VFR. It's something a real CFI will(should) remind you when you're doing your flight training: Do your scan but remember to otherwise keep your eyes outside the window. Especially today, with all the glass panels, moving maps, ADS-B traffic displays... the temptation to fly with your nose in the cockpit is ever present.

> It's something a real CFI will(should) remind you when you're doing your flight training:

I used to be an avid simmer.

Until I learnt to fly.

I remember it to this day, it was about lesson 5 or 6.

The instructor turned to me and said .... "do you flight sim ?"

To which I replied in the affirmative. And he simply said "Well, stop it".

I took him at his word, never used a sim after that moment, all the little niggles and issues I was having disappeared. I will always appreciate the directness and honesty of that instructor.

People are kidding themselves if they think a sim is the "same thing".

Its not, it will never be.

No matter how may R&D hours the sim writers put into fancy graphics and even fancier algorithms, you will never be able to replicate the real thing. A real aircraft in the real sky (even a simple single-engine prop), will behave entirely differently than a relatively naïve software model that's designed to work on your average desktop computer.

I wouldn't dismiss them so outright. Probably true if you're planning to be a full-time commercial pilot, but people wanting to fly recreationally, it can give them a headstart.

I only have my own anecdote when I was out flying for the first time in a small Cessna. I have no formal pilot training, and when we were in the air, pilot friend asked me if I wanted to fly for a minute or two.

After controlling it for a bit and being able to perfectly follow her commands, she was surprised when I told her that I have no proper training, I had only been "flying" with X-Plane for some years before.

After that, I did something that probably I wouldn't do again unless there was an emergency (and my friend would probably lose her license if it was known), but she offered me to land the plane and so I did, without any hiccups.

Keep in mind, this was on a small airfield out in the middle of nowhere, with no houses or even proper roads around.

> but people wanting to fly recreationally, it can give them a headstart.

No it won't. It will make them over-confident in their abilities by detaching them from reality and allowing them to build upon all sorts of bad habits. Trust me, as I said, I was that person. I had bad habits. The instructor instinctinvley knew where they came from.

For a start, flying an aircraft is composed of three elements, "Aviate, Navigate, Communicate". The skill of a good pilot is to be able to juggle all three. No matter what is going on with the aircraft. No matter how busy the airspace is that you are flying with.

You can't do that in a sim, even the multi-million big-jet sims the airlines use. The airlines use them purely for specific, targetted, procedural training (which is always fully supervised by a third person who is not "flying").

You can't simulate the randomness of real-life in all three aspects of aviation.

Also, on your home sim you just can't replicate reality. For example, a common item during training is to simulate loss of situational awareness (i.e. you suddenly don't know where you are). The answer to that is to put your aircraft in an orbit (maintaining constant altitude, constant speed) and get a radio fix from beacons on the ground. Meanwhile not forgetting about the effect of winds, and not forgetting the busy airspace around you. And that you have to balance a printed map on your lap. No cheating with GPS.

Doing that in real life in a small aircraft where you don't have the luxury of an autopilot, only a trim wheel is an ask for a trainee .... you're kidding yourself it you think you can realistically replicate that in any sim, let alone a home one. Its far too easy with a joystick and a cup of tea sitting in your comfortable chair infront of your computer !

I understand what you said the first time and I agree with you, you won't be able to only practice in a flight simulator and expect to take your flight license after that.

But again, it can give you a head start. Even learning what yaw, yoke and so on is easier if you can actually practice it, even virtually, helps you more than not knowing anything when first starting out.

(I could say "trust me, I know, because I am that person", but I won't stoop that low).

I understand what he is saying but there is a TON you can get out of a simulator outside of the actual flying, especially when combined with tools like PilotEdge: planning cross country flights, learning and practicing radio work until it is second nature, etc. etc.

Thanks - this is super insightful

For the controls do you just use the HOTAS / other hardware controls or is there an VR experience too where you can reach out and change the radio for instance?

You can use the "hand" controllers to click on things. It's a bit of a hassle though, since you don't SEE them on the table when you need to pick them up :)

I’ve not actually tried MSFS with VR but playing other flight sims with it is incredible. A never go back to flat screens experience. In particular it maps well to having physical controllers and being seated all the time.

Head tracking is quite a nice middle ground. TrackIR is the best known commercial product but you can find free alternatives with DIY hardware.

With TrackIR (or equiv) you can see your surroundings, including your flight controllers. VR sure can be nice for some sightseeing when you're just flying around, but for longer flight simulation where you need to deal with radios, navigation equipment, aircraft systems, flaps, landing gear, etc it gets difficult. You need to have all of those buttons mapped and memorized so that you can find them without seeing them. I've heard some of the newest headsets have a camera for "seeing through" but I don't know how well they're suited to flight simming.

Before you ask: yeah, the picture doesn't move when your head moves. It's kinda like controlling the in-game camera with your nose. The response is non-linear (and configurable). Looking at the instruments in the cockpit is very natural, just glance at the location on the monitor and you meet in the middle. As you look further away from the middle, the response gets more non-linear so when you look at the edge of your screen you should see about +/- 90 degrees (perfect for general aviation). Really extreme angles like looking backwards isn't really needed for general aviation but if you do dogfighting, it's possible too but you might need to compromise a little bit with the non-linearity of the response.

I play MSFS with a TrackIR 5 head tracker and a medium-large 16:9 display and I use an Xbox gaming controller (with sensitivity at -70), keyboard and mouse. I've got a set of flight controllers in a box in the attic, but setting them up on the same desk where I work is too much to bother.

> Is the VR a compelling upgrade over the 2D experience?

It's honestly hard to go back? When I tried it in DCS for the first time, it was pretty blown away. You can actually see that cockpit dials are recessed into the cockpit, you can see exactly how big the space is (smaller than it feels in 2D!) and just looking around you makes for much much more immersive experience.

There are downsides though - clicking stuff is harder. The resolution is lower. The fps usually suffers. The whole setup is finnicky with a lot of cables. It costs a lot of money.

But for flight sim enthusiasts? It's a massive experience upgrade for a still reasonable cost (considering that HP G2 headset costs about the same as quality Virpil HOTAS set).

I've flown real planes too and yes. I've never felt really like flying in a simulator and that includes a moving cockpit one I've used, until I flew in VR.

For flight simming VR is invaluable. Of course YMMV

The next 40 years? A robot that will arrive on a drone will do a hip surgery right in your bedroom (not on you, sorry).

Will it bring its own surgical linen, or is there some DARPA-funded cutting-edge laundry detergent research for after the procedure?

You won't need it, it'll be laparoscopic surgery that barely needs anaesthesia and leaves a hole like a flea bite that you stick a plaster on for a day or two.

This is exactly right.

Can you take the role of air traffic controller in MSFS multiplayer? If so, that's very cool.

There’s a third-party sim for air traffic control called VATSIM that lets people play as air traffic controllers for various regions with data relays from a few flight sims so they can see participating traffic and chat to them: https://www.vatsim.net/

There's also IVAO that's meant to be a bit more beginner friendly (someone told me that Vatsim people often have very low patience, not sure if true as I've not used either)

No.

But you can use MSFS as a client to join VATSIM as a pilot, where someone else is the air traffic controller (using another client app).

Being a controller needs training, even when doing it online.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com