I think I might order this oculus dk2; can anyone think of any really good reasons to wait for the consumer model? other than savings of moola.

i dont want to put you off, but keep in mind company's often release prototypes early to generate money, and it will have faults.......

I'm a bit cautious on this too... I've read quite a few stories on the World Wide rumour mill that the current dev kits are causing a lot of headaches and nausea when used for more than 30 minutes or so... It's making me have second thoughts in general at the moment to be honest

This dk2 is supposed to be vastly improved from what is out now, but there are still many doubts in my mind. It is just so tempting because I have also seen many videos of people that enjoy it a lot.

I like the concept of the Oculus..... but...
I have delved into every virtual reality-based sensory perception simulation system on the market.
Driving sims, yes perhaps, once it is finalized and compatible. Flight sims... Likely not, IMO.
Oculus is little more than a 3-D simulator. 3-D is based on using 1 different image for each eye to give each eye a slightly different perception of an object; thus making it appear 3 dimensional.
How is that been done?
4 ways these days.
1. Shutter glasses:
Images on the screen change every 1/120th of a second. Your 3-d glasses flash at half that rate in synch (60 hz). Right image appears on the screen, left eye gets blocked; then left image appears, right eye gets blocked. Happens so fast that you don't notice. These are the glasses that cause nausea in some people due to the frequency.
2. Polarized 3-D:
Two different projectors project polarized images on a screen. Your 3-D glasses have a different lens in each eye. 1 lens is polarized to see only the left image clearly, the other lens is polarized to only see the right one. These are the glasses they give you in the theaters at modern 3-D movies. These glasses can also cause nausea due to a conflict in vestibular perception vs. visual perception.
3. Analglyphic:
Old technology with a red lens and blue lens that was used prior to polarization, all the way back in the 50's.
4. Virtual reality/Oculus
A mask that has 2 miniature screens with their own separate images; one for the right eye and one for the left.

Take your finger and hold it 2 inches from your forehead. Slowly alternate blinking from your left eye to your right eye as you pull your finger slowly outward. Notice the further your finger gets, the more the image from both eyes becomes the same?
Eye span (space between our eyes) is what gives us our ability to recognize 3-D objects. Unless those objects are relatively close (0-15 feet, depending on the person) to our viewpoint, there is little left to distinguish 3 dimensional aspects.
3-D oriented material always looks cool because things appear to come right out of the screen and get CLOSE to us. The effect is cooler based on the CLOSER it appears, based on what I previously explained.
In flight sims, 3-D does nothing for us other than make the cockpit appear really 3-D, and ONLY if the cockpit is properly modeled in 3-D. Outside of the cockpit it does very little, as most things out of the cockpit are enough of a distance away and look the same out of both eyes. You will get a hint of 3-D peripheral, but only due to the edges of the cockpit or moving closer to an object at a high rate of speed.
In racing sims, it gives a rather decent perspective of the front of the car and some corners, once those corners get close. As the corners get closer, 3-D can give that effect, as the brain subtly picks up on the slight differences in each eye. Outside of a flight sim cockpit you get that close and you may find yourself a burning hole in the ground...
2nd big issue in a flight sim, is that we have a lot of buttons and switches we need to press. If we have these 3-D goggles blocking our view of our switches, we have a problem. Nice 3-D cockpit though, if it is modeled. One particular military simulator uses this technology, but it also allows the ability to look under the 3-D goggles to see the cockpit switches, overall it does little than give a peripheral 3-D cockpit effect.
In a race sim or shooter, we aren't often looking for switches and buttons, nor are objects getting close enough to distinguish 3 dimensionally and our viewpoint is often on things much closer-up, so its a possibility there. Shifter in one hand and steering wheel in the other. In a cockpit, we need to find many switches. Can't find those switches with a mask on.

Im running a 3-D nvidia shutter setup on a 65" dlp with head tracking and I have yet to ever find a need to use it on a flight sim. I love using it on racing sims and a few IMAX 3-D movies, though, once it is tweaked properly. Don't waste your money on the OR for flight simming.

All the above is based purely on my own experience.

Also makes me wonder why Facebook bought the Oculus. I hope it would at least encourage better 3-D movies in the future. Avatar made 3-D popular, but it was painstakingly modeled that way from step 1. I personally don't see the OR going very far because not too many understand the practical concept behind 3-D, nor will developers establish a link between 3-D applications that are equally as playable. This product is at the mercy of the developers.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/wall-street-journal/oculus-rift-virtual-reality-viewer-finally-to-come-in-2016/story-fnay3ubk-1227346271562


Seems we wont see it this year - i wonder if they are tied up with DCS ...............

Nice review 47driver. I would love to see a more accurate representation of actual in cockpit flight but based on all that I'm hearing and reading, I may have to wait a few more years...thanks for the review.

i fly with the oculus rift dk2 and it is phantastic flying.
first flight i want to push buttons, switch switches, and so on. it feels like sitting in the huey, not playing a game.

Wow...conflicting view points...I love it