Underboss
this video is worth a watch
up coming headset news
- Thread starter ShiWarrior
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 7,800
Meta / oculus / Facebook have always had decent concepts (early version of what was in this video was shown over 5 years ago). i am done getting excited by these devices however as who knows when or if they will ever release?
hell quest 3 doesnt even have foveated rendering so................................................
hell quest 3 doesnt even have foveated rendering so................................................
Because of the costs. They wouldn't have hit the £499 price point if they included everything needed for Foveated rendering. They might not have even hit the £699 price point.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 7,800
maybe so but that is precisely why I am no longer interested in their tech demos. if foveated rendering is too expensive then those fancy features on their prototypes will be way to expensive . I just hope rumours that the quest pro version 2 has been axed are false. I have quite the quest collection of software so am somewhat locked in now
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 7,800
i thought it was but not 100% sure........
So do you not think DFR is worth the extra cost over FFR?
It was nice to have eye tracking for auto ipd adjustment, and i couldn't see the distinction between the high and low resolution areas when DFR was on (sometimes with FFR you can), but it's not a must have feature imo. As mentioned fps gains were similar to FFR which just about all headsets can do anyway.
Last edited:
IMO, DFR has the following key benefits over FFR:
- in DFR you can’t see it working, as the bit you’re looking at is always full on. In comparison, in FFR, I was always able to see the difference outside of the central ring
- I believe that DFR facilitates a smaller central ring at full res, as a result of the first benefit, which is good for performance
With say a HP G2, I get the impression that the sweet spot is so small that the benefits of DFR are probably marginal.
With pancake lenses, sweet spots are massively better, which to me suggests that DFR is more useful with them.
For me, DFR with pancake was always the point at which a headset has become the “next gen” and was the reason why I kept the Rift S for so long. It’s also the reason why the Beyond has left me a bit underwhelmed. As a design, looks amazing, but without DFR, no thanks
- in DFR you can’t see it working, as the bit you’re looking at is always full on. In comparison, in FFR, I was always able to see the difference outside of the central ring
- I believe that DFR facilitates a smaller central ring at full res, as a result of the first benefit, which is good for performance
With say a HP G2, I get the impression that the sweet spot is so small that the benefits of DFR are probably marginal.
With pancake lenses, sweet spots are massively better, which to me suggests that DFR is more useful with them.
For me, DFR with pancake was always the point at which a headset has become the “next gen” and was the reason why I kept the Rift S for so long. It’s also the reason why the Beyond has left me a bit underwhelmed. As a design, looks amazing, but without DFR, no thanks
This is also what worries me. But also the pimax seems like a 50/50 experience.
Feel as though dfr is a next gen improvement worth having
Might just pick up second hand q pro