VR training often fails before the headset goes on. Osyrys CEO Alexis Salinas Mark says buyers need shorter modules, real worker input and tighter interaction design if simulations are going to earn trust beyond the demo.
Osyrys works on VR training and simulation projects for sectors including mining, logistics, concrete, heavy equipment, workplace safety and harassment training. Salinas says the company often deals directly with HR, operations, training and safety teams, along with the workers who will actually use the module.
For him, worker input can decide whether a VR training product feels credible or artificial.
Salinas told The XR Beat:
“Managers usually know the official, documented process; workers know the real process: the shortcuts, awkward steps, constraints, and small details that determine whether a simulation feels credible.
“If they are not involved early, the experience may look realistic to leadership but feel wrong for the people who actually do the task.”
Workers Know Which Processes Really Work
VR training can fail when it copies the process from a document without checking how the job is actually done.
A safety procedure, equipment task or operational workflow may look easy on paper. But the live version often includes awkward steps, site constraints, habits, judgement calls and small workarounds that experienced staff know instinctively.
Salinas argues that worker input makes adoption easier because the tool will then more closely resemble the job itself.
“When end users help shape the tool, it feels less imposed and more connected to their reality. They are more likely to trust it, use it, and give useful feedback.”
He also warns against turning every worker habit into a training standard. Workers may understand the live task, but they may also have absorbed unsafe shortcuts. Salinas says the design process should involve workers, supervisors and trainers, so the module reflects real work without reinforcing bad practice.
Realism ≠ Value
Companies often overbuild VR training because they confuse realism with value.
Salinas says buyers sometimes assume a one-hour real-world task should become a one-hour VR simulation. Osyrys usually pushes clients toward shorter, tighter modules, often closer to five to ten minutes.
According to Salinas, the reason is both physical and mental.
“VR has two real constraints: physical fatigue and cognitive overload.”
Headset weight, heat, pressure and posture can all reduce comfort over time. At the same time, VR can add visual, audio, movement, instruction and task pressure at once. When too much competes for attention, the learning objective can get crowded out.
Salinas prefers modules built around one process, one scenario and one clear objective. Longer experiences can work when the training goal demands it, but a long module built from every step in the real process usually signals poor design.
Keep The Module Narrow
Salinas says companies often ‘overbuild’ VR training because they confuse realism with value.
Locomotion is one example. If moving from one part of a virtual space to another does not train the skill, it can waste headset time, add controls to learn and increase the risk of discomfort. Interaction design should follow the same rule: use the simplest control model that matches the job. Hand tracking can work well for natural hand tasks, while controllers may suit training that needs reliability, haptics or tool-like input.
The user should be able to finish the module without feeling slow, sick, embarrassed, confused or dependent on a facilitator.
“If the end user leaves with a bad experience, the module has failed in a practical sense. The trainee is the person whose experience matters most, not the manager watching the demo.”
The design phase takes up most of the hard work.
Osyrys structures modules around sections, steps and components, with each step giving the user enough guidance to know where they are, what to do next and whether they acted correctly. Audio, visual cues, interface prompts, tooltips, sound effects, haptics and feedback can all help, but only when they support the training objective rather than crowding it.
Test Fit Before Rollout
Salinas says buyers should answer three questions before committing to a VR training pilot or wider rollout.
First, is VR the right medium for the job? VR suits risk, expensive mistakes, spatial awareness, physical procedures, rare scenarios, emotional pressure and repeated practice. Simple information transfer usually belongs somewhere else.
Second, has the module been designed with discipline? Buyers should look for real user input, short sessions, clear feedback, simple controls and a scenario average staff can complete without constant help.
Third, what would show the pilot worked? Early proof can be practical: users complete the module, supervisors see value, obvious mistakes drop, the task is better understood and the module fits into the existing training workflow.
Salinas explained:
“A good VR training product is not just a polished simulation. It is the right use case, designed with discipline, and validated with enough real-world evidence to justify the next.”
For companies looking at VR training, module design can decide whether the pilot becomes a credible training tool or another headset demo that workers never trust.
Visuals from Adobe and Osyrys
