Most virtual reality simulators have a serious flaw: Users tend to get easily lost and disoriented as they navigate. According to the prevailing opinion, this is because of the lack of actual physical motion to match the visually simulated motion: E.g., using HMD-based VR, Klatzky et al. [1] showed that participants failed to update visually simulated rotations unless they were accompanied by physical rotation of the observer, even if passive. If we use more naturalistic environments (but no salient landmarks) instead of just optic flow, would physical motion cues still be needed to prevent disorientation? To address this question, we used a paradigm inspired by Klatzky et al.: After visually displayed passive movements along curved streets in a city environment, participants were asked to point back to where they started. In half of the trials the visually displayed turns were accompanied by a matching physical rotation. Results showed that adding physical motion cues did not improve pointing performance. This suggests that physical motions might be less important to prevent disorientation if visuals are naturalistic enough. Furthermore, unexpectedly two participants consistently failed to update the visually simulated heading changes, even when they were accompanied by physical rotations. This suggests that physical motion cues do not necessarily improve spatial orientation ability in VR (by inducing obligatory spatial updating). These findings have noteworthy implications for the design of effective motion simulators.