A few days ago my Reverb G2 broke where the adjustable head support enters the main front piece. Just broke off. I found that it’s not under warranty so I was up a creek without a paddle.
I took out my Quest 2 to see if I could finally configure it for MSFS and although I got it working, I could never approach the quality of visuals and sounds I got with the G2.
So I went back to the G2, got some superglue and glued the head rest into the main shaft where, so far, it has stayed nicely. The only problem is that it is no longer adjustable on that side, and it’s now pretty uncomfortable to wear for extended periods. Since I enjoy doing multiplayer group flights, which sometimes last up to three hours, I’ve decided to go back to flat screen mode for those flights. I have yet to try my first group flight in 2D but I’m hoping that it’s not too big of a let down.
Meanwhile, I still plan do my personal flying in my Reverb G2 which, even though it fits too snugly now, is the best VR experience I’ve found for flight simming.
This is very true, once you experience it in VR, 2D just doesn’t cut it, you feel like your sitting a mile away from the plane, with no connection to what is happening at all. It is a blessing and a curse.
I would like to understand, why people who are anti VR, come to give their opinion on a subject like this one.
Are we 100% VR gamers going to give our opinion on the choice of a screen, and saying that it sucks to play on screen, that it is not imersive … ect.
You don’t like it, or you can’t play in VR, because it makes you sick, but don’t come and dislike what made you want to try it.
I’m also an ‘old dog’ (79) and do find it harder to learn new tricks, but all I can say is that with your attitude you clearly have no idea what you are missing out on in not at least trying MSFS in VR. As many have commented, here and elsewhere, there is no comparison in the flying immersion experience between VR and a flat screen. I will never go back to a flat screen for flight simming.
I agree and accept that VR is not available to everyone due to the significant cost of the top end hardware needed, which is sad. Hopefully this limitation will, with technology advancement, not last too long.
I also run a 65 inch TV and it was great for fs2020. I considered track ir but it was selling for over £200 and it hasn’t been upgraded in years as far as I could tell so I took a shot with VR and won’t go back. But it does add an extra layer of, for want of a better word, hassle to the process and at the moment it does have limitations.
I’d very much echo the consensus from the VR guys above. Absolutely give it a go. Of course you won’t get pin sharp details you get on a screen but you will be immersed in an environment where the detail will be such that you find yourself reaching for the yoke or going to hold the cowling before reminding yourself it’s not real. I used to fly IRL but as that’s not possible at the moment I use this to keep my skills up to date. Give it a go, you won’t regret it.
My set-up is:
AMD Ryzen 7 5800X (only just upgraded from the same CPU you have but difference is marginal)
Nvidia RTX 2080S
32GB RAM 3600MHz
SSD M2 1TB
My VR headset is an Oculus Rift S which is good and I’m generally happy with it. The reviews I’ve seen seem to point at the G2 providing greater clarity but I don’t feel the need to make the jump yet.
Because people can’t show you what sort of image they are getting in VR I can only describe it as a level of Gaussian Blur you can apply in Photoshop for that out of focus dreamy appearance.
It is not as bad as this for me but very similar yet 360 degree HDR video demos look very good when just using the headset for non flightsim use.
Thanks for your feedback, especially since we have somewhat close systems. As much as I want the best resolution and color that the G2 offers, I find myself leaning toward the Oculus 2. I’m not confident the G2 will work as well on my system. Also, I like that the O2 can be used for a variety of scenarios (wired, wireless, games, view of TVs, grandkids fun, etc.) Just seems like more uses for less money. I am wondering about the relatively fixed IPD for the lenses, but will deal with that. Thanks.
Well that was a helpful and constructive reply wasn’t it. ?
Why would I give false information, I am trying to explain the image definition I am getting having spent a lot of money on it
So I gather you are getting absolutely brilliant results but unfortunately you can’t produce it on this forum .
I wish I could get the same as you.