Rift S R.I.P.
- Thread starter Ravenger
- Start date
That is disappointing. If Virtualink was still a thing then perhaps it might have been possible, but new cards don't have it.
If you have a Google, it's possible to tweak the oculus link's output resolution so that it matches the device as opposed to being lower by default.
Looking at the reviews I'll be sticking with my rift s. I mainly play racing sims in vr and have no use for standalone.
The link isn't fully tested yet and compression may be an issue, it's also going to be a while probably next year until full resolution 90hz is available via the link cable.
The link isn't fully tested yet and compression may be an issue, it's also going to be a while probably next year until full resolution 90hz is available via the link cable.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 9,110
- Location
- Birmingham
There is hope/expectation that the XR2 chip can handle a much bigger data throughput over USB such that the compression limitations we currently see on Quest 1 are reduced.
MRTV did a video which showed that the compression overhead on Quest 1 from the PC is enough to put demands on a par with running a G2 straight up.
So the GPU is working just as hard on Quest 1 as it would be on a G2. Quest 2 is higher resolution PLUS compression, which might indicate that the GPU workload would need to be even higher than that of the G2 unless they can reduce the compression overhead.
MRTV did a video which showed that the compression overhead on Quest 1 from the PC is enough to put demands on a par with running a G2 straight up.
So the GPU is working just as hard on Quest 1 as it would be on a G2. Quest 2 is higher resolution PLUS compression, which might indicate that the GPU workload would need to be even higher than that of the G2 unless they can reduce the compression overhead.
Is the link cable any different to standard USB-C cables? £90!!!
https://www.oculus.com/accessories/oculus-link/#plug-in
https://www.oculus.com/accessories/oculus-link/#plug-in
Permabanned
- Joined
- 25 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 9,078
Based on my experience with the Oculus Go and their support, I certainly won't be buying their products again.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Aug 2005
- Posts
- 3,957
- Location
- Uranus
Yeah they dumped the go pretty quickly and I expect the rift s will get the same treatment.
It's fibre optic, which enables it to be longer than standard USB3 cables.
You can use a decent USB2 cable at the cost of a few milliseconds latency (and large money savings). Link is nowhere near maxing out the current USB2 bandwidth. It's limited at the moment due to the bandwidth capabilites of the original Quest.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 9,110
- Location
- Birmingham
It really doesn't look special from the images does it? I always though fibre optic cables needs a slightly bulkier conversion unit at either end - there certainly isn't one shown on this:
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/detail/index/sArticle/87442
Permabanned
- Joined
- 25 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 9,078
It's not so much about dropping the Go so quickly, its the fact they provide zero support to existing owners, my controller died on my Go, when I contacted them for support their response was check partner vendors as we don't make them anymore, and then proceeded to provide a link to the Oculus Quest (which has just been replaced as well)
It's actually, believe it or not, quite a good deal for the type of technology... whether that makes it actually worth it is another debate.
In general the longest generic passive USB 3.X cable you will find widely available is 3m... if you are willing to pay a little extra you can find longer (eg have a look at partylink) but these are technically outside of the USB spec - not currently a big deal due to the relatively limited bandwidth requirements, but whether they can reliably hold the full spec should the Quest 2 start to use it in the future is debatable. Anyway USB 3.X cables tend to be fairly stiff, bulky and not particularly light due to the shielding requirements. What they have done with the official link cable is turn the USB data into optical signal, transmit that along with sufficiently robust power along a 5m fibre optic cable and then decode it to normal USB the other end before passing it to your quest.
That allows full bandwidth (again not currently an issue, but perhaps more so in future) along a 5m cable that is considerably more light and flexible than a standard USB3.X cable.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 25 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 9,078
£100 for a 5m cable is massively over priced though.
An actual high end fibre optic usb 3 cable is £350-400 for a 50m one. Which would make me think the Oculus one should really be around the £30-40 price range.
An actual high end fibre optic usb 3 cable is £350-400 for a 50m one. Which would make me think the Oculus one should really be around the £30-40 price range.
It's likely not the fibre that's expensive though, it's the ends that convert the light into regular data I presume. And you still only have 2 ends on a 50m cable.
Deleted member 66701
D
Deleted member 66701
You don't need to use the official cable - plenty on the forest for 30 quid in 5m length. These cables have about the same weight/flexibility/width as the Rift S cable. If you want a link to the ones we use at Uni, pm me.
I use the Quest in link mode and the Rift S extensively (I develop for both) and there isn't really much difference. In fact, I prefer the Quest as the official cable is a lot lighter/thinner/more flexible. It's also good when doing demonstrations as it only takes one USB port up on the laptop which normally has it's HDMI port occupied hooked up to a larger display. 90hz is really the only benefit of the Rift S (and maybe the headstrap, but the Pro strap for the Quest 2 looks better) and now the Quest 2 is getting that (and increased res), I can see why Oculus have canned the Rift S.
Last edited by a moderator:
If the Quest explodes, which it will, Oculus will not come back to high end PCVR gaming. I think they're happy for WMR and Valve to fight it out to jump through the loop holes for that and they'll continue their social/casual domination of VR.
Maybe they'll release an Oculus games console at some point (which I think always made sense for them because they loved their wall gardens) and re-introduce us to Lone Echo 3, Asgard's Wrath 2 and Robo Recall 2 in the highest fidelity.
But then again, I still would rather bet on them making rubbish Quest versions of those titles instead with a gimped Rift optional playthrough via Oculus Link.
I think the dissapointment isn't canning the Rift S. Its the fact they didn't upgrade the Rift S and continue a higher end superior PCVR headset.
But its clear why they didn't..
To be honest, I don't think Facebook realised how successful the Quest 2 would be. They were caught by surprise and couldn't manufacture enough to keep up with demand.
However you are right. If the Rift S had been a clear upgrade to the CV1 then they might have been dominating in PC VR as well as standalone As it was the Rift S was more of a sidegrade with only the sharpness and lenses being massively better. Even the controllers were a step back, being unbalanced, more cramped layout and less robust than the CV1 controllers.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 5,154
- Location
- South Wales
So what now??
