Oculus Rift

Devlish said:
That is a pretty amazing experience. The launch seemed a bit naff with the flat decal panel ruining the immersion, but after launch it was amazing. Definitely kickstarter worthy, backed.
Click to expand...

Yeah, textures, models and lighting etc need to be improved. Looking out of the window as you blast up through the clouds and into the blackness of space was so well done though. Especially with all the real radio chatter etc
 
Guest2 said:
I ended up making £90 after fees etc. I'm half tempted to buy another and ebay it!

Anyone have confirmation on CV1 specs yet?
Click to expand...

latest stuff is the CES 2015 demos of crescent bay which youve probably already salivated all over :D Most impressions seems to indicate...higher res,not as much nausea experienced, lower latency and also headset lighter as well. But some places say whilst its very impressive and mind blowing demos etc etc its not quite ready for the consumer.

Also the pc tech used to run the CES 2015 demos were a basically high end pc with a GTX 980

For those of you hoping for a CV Rift with wireless connectivity, keep dreaming too, as due to latency issues we’re a long way off of that according to Luckey. He did point out though that all internal demos, even the prettiest and most highest of high end experiences are run on a $2,000 gaming PC fitted with a GTX 980.
Luckey also said that alternative tracking technologies would not be used for the first consumer version of the Rift. “No one wants CV1 held up for tech that may never come!” he said.
Click to expand...
 
RoyMi6 said:
While a bit of a pain to get working (and you NEED an Nvidia card) DCS is free to try and you get WW2 planes.

Give it a shot.

Also things are changing daily with the Rift as more developers spend more time with their projects. There's actually quite a few that work in Direct mode now but it's really inconsequential as you can easily mirror what's being displayed in extended mode with OBS (https://obsproject.com/)



Technically it's going to work, but realistically I wouldn't buy a PC NOW with the intention of it working the best with the CV1.

1) We don't have a time frame for the CV1
2) Oculus are in direct comms with Nvidia and AMD so new cards could be getting made specifically with VR improvements in mind

and, as always, you have that "PC problem" where no matter what you get there will always be SOMETHING you can't run.

Key thing to remember is that even with the DK2 the 1080p resolution isn't identical to just running a game at 1080p on your monitor. For starters it's 3D, so everything is rendered twice and two, keeping a minimum refresh rate of 75fps is ESSENTIAL.

Not a "oh no, I noticed a tear because I had vsync turned off and it dipped below 60fps for half a second". If your frame rate drops below 75fps, at 2x1080p for half a second every minute of gameplay, I'm willing to be that after 10 minutes you couldn't carry on. It's so noticeable, and so jarring in VR that it really makes you feel sick, super quick.

Then of course remember that the spec that is more likely for CV1 is going to be a 1440p screen at 90Hz minimum.

So yeah my two cents is that, yes a GTX970 will work, and likely work well for a couple of games - but it's not going to be particularity future proof.
Click to expand...

Is it not a case that with the DK2 it has 2 960x1080 screens, so although everything is rendered twice - it has the same amount of pixels to render as a single 1920x1080 screen? i.e. it is rendering ~1million pixels for the left eye and ~1million for the right eye, whereas a single 1080p screen is rendering ~2million pixels?
 
Five.Stars said:
Is it not a case that with the DK2 it has 2 960x1080 screens, so although everything is rendered twice - it has the same amount of pixels to render as a single 1920x1080 screen? i.e. it is rendering ~1million pixels for the left eye and ~1million for the right eye, whereas a single 1080p screen is rendering ~2million pixels?
Click to expand...

No, someone correct me if I am wrong but I think it does 960x1080 x2 to make it 3D per eye. So 2 million pixels per eye

Whatever its rendering, when I had mine and was monitoring framerate it almost halved the FPS compared to just running 1080p.

Alien Isolation for example run at 150-170fps in 1080p. Switching to a DK2 it ran at 75-100 but only after dropping some settings (which automatically happened when I configured it for DK2) Dipping below 75fps (75hz) caused juddering and then horrible nausea
 
Guest2 said:
No, someone correct me if I am wrong but I think it does 960x1080 x2 to make it 3D per eye. So 2 million pixels per eye
Click to expand...

Each eye gets 960x1080 (so 1 million pixels per eye), or to put it another way, each eye sees half of a 1920x1080 panel (well, technically it's a 1080x1920 panel on it's side, but..).

However, as default the Rift renders to a larger offscreen buffer of 2364 x 1461 (or 1182x1461 per eye) to compensate for the barrel distortion that has to occur. That buffer is then scaled down to the Rift's 1080 panel. So, you're actually rendering over 3.4 million pixels per frame for a Rift game, which will contribute massively to the loss of performance that you see.
 
Never knew that and wondered my poor pc (that copes fine with most games) struggled powering the Rift with lowered graphics.

I'm scared the full on consumer version or vive will be too much for my current rig and will have to go a massive spending spree for a new pc.
 
GBRusty said:
Never knew that and wondered my poor pc (that copes fine with most games) struggled powering the Rift with lowered graphics.

I'm scared the full on consumer version or vive will be too much for my current rig and will have to go a massive spending spree for a new pc.
Click to expand...

You do need a decent rig now, that's for sure, but you can also bet that the GPU vendors are working hard on making VR-specific features, for example correcting for chromatic aberrations and the distortion mentioned above. Once that's optimised and handled in drivers and hardware, the requirements will be a lot less painful.

I think Oculus are doing the right thing and making sure all the pieces of the hardware puzzle are in place before they release to the public- as history shows, it's the only way to avoid failure.

I love my Rift though, if I only ever play Elite on it I'd still consider it a bargain.
 
Waiting for my DK2 at the mo. I did have one ordered back last summer but cancelled it and decided to wait for consumer version. Gave up on that idea....gimme VR :)
 
OldComputerGuy7 said:
I think this is going to be way better than the rift, i am not surprised valve make good things.
Click to expand...

It does sound good, but currently they are not both pointed at the same type of VR and a lot is going to be dependent on what is developed for them. The Oculus is currently the king of seated experiences - sims mostly like car racing or flying, some fps experiences which are 'playable' but not being designed for VR may make you hurl - and of course the Vive has more of a holodeck feel about it with all the many possibilities that has. Valve are also being a bit cagey about reporting and also whether they have a workable solution for lightfield which will keep it within a sensible budget (the demos had hardcoded walls rather than the senors actually telling you where they were) whilst Oculus is a bit more quiet on what the heck theyre doing so may come up with something big.

So lots to play for yet, but again the software is going to be the killer here, presuming the Vive can come in at a sensible price.
 
Devlish said:
(the demos had hardcoded walls rather than the senors actually telling you where they were)
Click to expand...

Negative - this is a problem that's already been solved by allowing the user to "map" out their play area in a "setup" phase.

You would walk around with the controller in hand (no headset on) moving it to the extremes of where you'd like your play area to be defined.

It's the solution already implemented in the Stem system developed by Sixense and reportedly used by valve.
 
See that walking around, waving arms kind of VR doesn't appeal to me, it's all about the seated sims, racing, space etc.

If I want something to wander round my room interacting with, then hololens AR seems more compelling.
 
But it doesn't mean you'have' to walk around surely, I can't imagine I'd be bothered about walking around but something that does both still seems more appealing, as long as it doesn't cost a lot extra.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom