$140 VR HMD

[JonH]

Assuming you have a decent computer, you can get the Lenovo Explorer VR system for $140 at Walmart right now. https://www.walmart.com/ip/Lenovo-Explorer-Windows-Mixed-Reality-Headset-Black-G0A20001WW/751420233

I've used PSVR, Oculus and Vive standard and Pro. The Lenovo isn't perfect but at this price it's well worth it. I also find it a lot more comfortable than any of the other HMDs I mentioned.

X-Plane 11 works great! You can read the text on the glass panels or the steam gauges. The head tracking (inside out, no external sensors) is flawless. FF works on a virtual iPad in the cockpit. Some of that is hard to read.

DCS World looks really nice too. The cockpits seem a little more optimized for VR than X-Plane. There is no small text to read, such as the "NAV" button on a G1000.

If you're into flight sims and want to be fully immersed, now you can do so for less than the price of an IR head tracker!

 

[bluesideup]

Do you know if it works in 4K resolution?
What resolution are you using with?

 

[deonb]

Do you know if it works in 4K resolution?
What resolution are you using with?

VR headsets generally only have one resolution that they work at, and they're nowhere near 4k yet. This particular one is 2880 x 1440 (so 1440 x 1440 per eye).

They pretty much all look a bit pixelated for now, but you get over it quickly for the VR experience.

 

[JonH]

The Lenovo doesn't look pixelated, the screen door effect is hard to notice unless you're looking for it. Trust me I bought and returned a lot of VR stuff for that reason alone. The problem is field of view, you get 110 degrees, which is tunnel vision. 1440 is more than enough for 110 degree FOV to look good. Then you run into the issue of wanting higher FOV.

I'm running the native 1440 resolution at 90hz. I have tried 4K (per eye) VR and they're okay for movies but not gaming or sims, yet. The highest refresh at 4K was 30 hz. Anything lower than 90hz is not usable for long. There's nothing on the market I'd consider great, but when the HMD and controllers are $140 you can't go wrong. People are spending over $1000 on the Vive Pro and it's simply not worth it.

I've been practicing the impossible turn in a variety of configurations, and make the runway with energy to spare almost every time. That makes me wonder about the flight sim mechanics and if it is a good learning tool. So far I've noticed that with the typical weather at my airport I can easily make it from 500' AGL. I wouldn't try it in real life, but in the sim it's 100% possible...

 

[labbadabba]

The Lenovo doesn't look pixelated, the screen door effect is hard to notice unless you're looking for it. Trust me I bought and returned a lot of VR stuff for that reason alone. The problem is field of view, you get 110 degrees, which is tunnel vision. 1440 is more than enough for 110 degree FOV to look good. Then you run into the issue of wanting higher FOV.

I'm running the native 1440 resolution at 90hz. I have tried 4K (per eye) VR and they're okay for movies but not gaming or sims, yet. The highest refresh at 4K was 30 hz. Anything lower than 90hz is not usable for long. There's nothing on the market I'd consider great, but when the HMD and controllers are $140 you can't go wrong. People are spending over $1000 on the Vive Pro and it's simply not worth it.

I've been practicing the impossible turn in a variety of configurations, and make the runway with energy to spare almost every time. That makes me wonder about the flight sim mechanics and if it is a good learning tool. So far I've noticed that with the typical weather at my airport I can easily make it from from 500' AGL. I wouldn't try it in real life, but in the sim it's 100% possible...

Do you need VR hand controllers or are you just using your sim hardware? (i.e., yoke, throttle quadrant, pedals, etc...)

 

[JonH]

You don't need the VR hand controllers. It also doesn't hurt to boot one up and have it handy. There are a couple of things that are easier to do with the VR controller than the mouse. When you get bored of sitting and want to stand up and shoot some zombies or slap someone in VR chat they're unbeatable.

A lot of people complained about the Lenovo Explorer losing contact with the controllers if they go out of sight of the HMD for too long. That has not been an issue. There are also a lot of people saying the controllers go through batteries quickly. I installed some NiMh AAs in them and the battery life is a non-issue as well. I don't know if there has been a hardware or software update making all of this stuff better. So far I've experienced none of the things people writing the bad reviews have.

 

[bluesideup]

Hi Jon and everyone.
All the PC Flight sims, that I know of, and I've tested just about everyone since 1976, are Not very good for much other than try to keep your scan current and maybe do some IFR practice. XPlane, in particular, lacks the flight dynamics, and in general a flight model that can be used in a a regime at or below 1700 RPM in a C172SP. Testing for more fine details like, VFR ground reference points, Glide ratio, Adverse Yaw, Over banking, ability to do Commercial level maneuvers... shows huge short falls. In addition if and when a flight model shows promise, if you get some elements close to what is expected, the developer changes things and it becomes worthless. There seems to be no forward thinking or planning, everything can change at any time and render everything you did to date useless.

The out the window scenery, and gauges, resolution is very good in 4K mode and some people like the VR mode, which I did not test, but that is not something that I consider a priority in a Flight simulator, I prefer good flight dynamics and ability to fly the numbers.

I've been practicing the impossible turn in a variety of configurations, and make the runway with energy to spare almost every time. That makes me wonder about the flight sim mechanics and if it is a good learning tool. So far I've noticed that with the typical weather at my airport I can easily make it from from 500' AGL. I wouldn't try it in real life, but in the sim it's 100% possible...

 

[JonH]

I didn't notice how underwhelming the C-172 was until now. It might be time for some add-on aircraft..

..and some CAT III action.

 

[Somedudeintn]

I didn't notice how underwhelming the C-172 was until now. It might be time for some add-on aircraft..

..and some CAT III action.

Act now. The x-plane.org sale ends today. The airfoil labs C172 has the best single engine piston flight model of any.

 

[bluesideup]

Hi.
Unfortunately None of the existing flight models, from any source, are better, and closer to real flight models, than the basic model, better in some areas and worse in others. They may claim that it is, but if you analyze the flight model you will find out that is no where close to real. They only have so much to work with, the limitations are built into the LR engine and it seems to be getting worse, only the eyecandy / VR gets attention and improves. From what I hear there are better VR flight sims out there and this may not really work for them?
Add to that the possibility that what you buy now may not work in the next version and you may want to stay away from any aftermarket purchases.
It would appear that they decided to go the route of Game rather than Flight simulation, where it may work for them because there are more likely users, but they would need a very powerful system to get all the load handled.
It would be interesting to see what the future brings for this "sim" Most of the people associated, and in position to create change, are more interested in trying to explain all the short comings using fancy words / terms they do not understand, rather than listening to people that have direct, and real, knowledge. The Ground handling,in particular in Xwind, in addition to what I mentioned, seems to totally be ignored, the developer thinks it's fine the way it is.

Act now. The x-plane.org sale ends today. The airfoil labs C172 has the best single engine piston flight model of any.

 

[JonH]

Act now. The x-plane.org sale ends today. The airfoil labs C172 has the best single engine piston flight model of any.

LOL... Best for what? I tried the Airfoil Labs C-172. More disappointment. This is basically a C-152 with a C-172 NAV III panel. There is no way this thing is 180 HP. I will try again when I get home.

Hi.
Unfortunately None of the existing flight models, from any source, are better, and closer to real flight models, than the basic model, better in some areas and worse in others. They may claim that it is, but if you analyze the flight model you will find out that is no where close to real. They only have so much to work with, the limitations are built into the LR engine and it seems to be getting worse, only the eyecandy / VR gets attention and improves. From what I hear there are better VR flight sims out there and this may not really work for them?
Add to that the possibility that what you buy now may not work in the next version and you may want to stay away from any aftermarket purchases.
It would appear that they decided to go the route of Game rather than Flight simulation, where it may work for them because there are more likely users, but they would need a very powerful system to get all the load handled.
It would be interesting to see what the future brings for this "sim" Most of the people associated, and in position to create change, are more interested in trying to explain all the short comings using fancy words / terms they do not understand, rather than listening to people that have direct, and real, knowledge. The Ground handling,in particular in Xwind, in addition to what I mentioned, seems to totally be ignored, the developer thinks it's fine the way it is.

Thanks, at this point I couldn't have said it better.

 

[Somedudeintn]

I don’t have any hard data but I will say the default 172 feelt pretty terrible to me. Ridiculous climb rates, rudder not really required. The airfoil 172 finally felt right when flying in vr with a yoke and pedals. I haven’t put much time on it yet and certainly have not taken it through all phases of flight, but so far the flight model seems to match what I’ve come to expect from hundreds of hours in 172’s. I look forward to testing it out more and finding some more of the flaws the previous posters mentioned.

 

[JonH]

Thanks. I checked their forum and other people have had the same issue as me, but their fix didn't help. You would know right away if you had this issue. The aircraft (at sea level) acts as if it is at KLXV...

 

[JonH]

A few emails with their support and I'm actually in a worse situation than where I started. Oh well, the goggles were still worth it!