Are people not thinking about the computer requirement to use CV1? Presuming it does come with 4k support, or even 1400p and 120hz it will require a super computer to play and of the latest games such as Alien Isolation.
Alien Isolation with my rig (i5, 8gb, SLI GTX670) I can hold 75fps/75hz in DK2 at 1080p (highest settings, SSAO off) 150fps in normal 2D mode
However, playing it at 4 times the resolution (3840 x 2160) would require 4 times the GPU power. Plus needing to sustain the refresh rate of the CV1. 240fps in 2D mode @ 2160p. Good luck with that people!
Multiples of pixels doesnt directly equate to multiple of processing power. The difference between 2560x1080 and 7680x1080 isnt that big a hit in iRacing or Assetto Corsa, my 290x stock does roughly 75 to 55fps respectively for AC, same story with iR just higher figures.
Its also worth pointing out the 7680x1080 is exactly the same number of pixels as 3840x2160 (8,294,400) so its a pretty reasonable comparison, might not be conclusive, but if we're talking about pushing pixels, im only seeing a 30% drop from single screen to triple.
If we're willing to accept we cant expect to buy a £300-400 GPU and expect 4K resolution at the highest settings achievable, then we'll be fine. The issue will come from those from those who demand the best and complain the Rift cant even run on £800 worth of GPUs because their standard is extreme, they wont sacrifice that and deep down they're not really interested in VR anyway.
Is there really anything to suggest CV1 might be higher than 1440 though? It strikes me as though 4K will be the sweet spot, but the panels to get that at the specs required, aren't on the horizon. CV2 IMO. With the amount ive spent on monitors recently, my uncertainty on using VR, i dont see myself ordering CV1 till ive at least had the chance to try it for myself. I jump 6 foot when im racing with headphones on and get a tap on the shoulder, slapping a VR blindfold on isnt going to help in that respect, but im eager for it to succeed.
