Official VR Headset discussion

[bill dennison]

Oculus won't commit to a release date for the consumer version, except to say that it will be before the end of next year

http://www.pcgamer.com/2014/03/19/oculus-rift-dev-kit-2-announced/

last year it was by end of 2114 and now 2015


the retail version will come out about the same time as star citizen in 2020

[Omega53]

http://www.pcgamer.com/2014/03/19/oc...t-2-announced/
last year it was by end of 2114 and now 2015


the retail version will come out about the same time as star citizen in 2020

Star citizen with oculus rift = my dream of living out star wars in real life

[YellowBeard]

Pre-ordered. Also this thread just got banished to Purgatory. WTH?

[SirBaron]

http://www.pcgamer.com/2014/03/19/oc...t-2-announced/
last year it was by end of 2114 and now 2015


the retail version will come out about the same time as star citizen in 2020

Yeah but if they released it, you same people would complain it's rushed to market missing features, or very poorly done.

Do we want a EA style release.

[_TiTaNiuM]

Pre-ordered. Also this thread just got banished to Purgatory. WTH?

sure seems like it. may people never see it ever again.

[SirBaron]

See what?

[General Lee]

I can't wait until they release a finished, polished product. I want to play Titanfall or (depending on release dates) Titanfall 2. I know they got it working with Mirror's Edge, but imagine a game like Titanfall with this thing. Wall-running and other parkour movement with intense combat situations and piloting a Titan with this would be awesome.

I already find myself wanting to punch something whenever I smack people with my Titan, this would probably have me knocking my monitor over.

[jolle]

I can't wait until they release a finished, polished product. I want to play Titanfall or (depending on release dates) Titanfall 2. I know they got it working with Mirror's Edge, but imagine a game like Titanfall with this thing. Wall-running and other parkour movement with intense combat situations and piloting a Titan with this would be awesome.

I already find myself wanting to punch something whenever I smack people with my Titan, this would probably have me knocking my monitor over.

I think fast paced shooters might be less then ideal for VR.
Might depend on how you manage rotating your character + VR tracking data, but the demos I´ve tried I seem to recall using analog stick to "move the camera" and the tracking is added ontop of that.
So flicking around with a mouse, twitch shooting etc.. could be disorienting and possibly nausiating..

Not that´ve tried, and even if I had the now dubbed DK1 pair was less then ideal in many ways.

A more slow paced mech game could be pretty damn epic though, got the sense of vertigo using the DK1 pair in some tech demos, going close to edges and such, and you get a very tangible sense of scale on everything compared to viewing a 3d world on a monitor.
So sitting up in a mech cockpit could be a pretty awesome experience in itself, just by sitting there.

[BababooeyHTJ]

Might not be too bad. I enjoyed painkiller in 3d. Hard reset and shadow warrior were also very good.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[jolle]

Might not be too bad. I enjoyed painkiller in 3d. Hard reset and shadow warrior were also very good.

It´s not the stereoscopic part, if that´s what you mean by "in 3d".
It´s about motion sickness, where what you see doesnt correspond to how your brain knows your head is moving.
I think it´s worse with alot of mouse twitching when you´re "in the world".. so to speak. (if your head movement is additive ontop of the mouse movement, which I assume would be the case since you dont want to rotate 360 degrees in your chair, for several reasons)

Watching a screen through sterescopic glasses still has a lot of fixed world points outside of the monitor edges, so your brain knows YOU´RE not moving.
With a VR set there are no fixed points, there is only the virtual world in view.

Going OP flashpoint might be a decent way to handle it, but that´s not great for twitch shooting anyway.
But essentially you move the crosshair freely within a deadzone, and when you go outside the deadzone, you start rotating the character.
That way your character is static when you aim around inside the deadzone, and the camera is only influenced by your head movement.

Well, I cant be sure, I only tried the DK1 with a controller in "walk around and take it easy" demos.
But in worst case scenario, those kinds of games might still be kinda awesome using a VR set for display only, not using the sensors?
Or it´s fine anyway, I dunno.

[BababooeyHTJ]

I never really thought about that. I see where that could be an issue if the vr is that convincing.

[jolle]

I never really thought about that. I see where that could be an issue if the vr is that convincing.

The worst thing you could do with DK1 is look down, and rotate your head, as I understand it.
Since it doesnt track position, and when you lean forward your head moves forward a bit, while the camera (provided the game doesnt supply a "spine approximation") just pivots in place, and then rotates in place.
The disconnect there from what your brain knows it´s doing, and what you see, will induce motion sickness.
That type of thing is solved with the camera tracking the IR leds on the DK2 kit though, it gives positional tracking as I understand it.

But I would assume the problem resurfaces if you slave the camera (with head tracking) under a mouse input and twitch around like a CS player.

[SirBaron]

The only way you could help with that beaides getting used to it, would be a 120hz+ screen, the more fluid it is the more natural it would look, as like the brain it self anything that moves too fast is blurred via motion blur.

But then you'd have a 4k 3d, 120hz screen that would make my pc wet it self.

[jolle]

The only way you could help with that beaides getting used to it, would be a 120hz+ screen, the more fluid it is the more natural it would look, as like the brain it self anything that moves too fast is blurred via motion blur.

But then you'd have a 4k 3d, 120hz screen that would make my pc wet it self.

They mentioned aiming for 90hz with the consumer version in some interview, apparently that´s where you NEED to go. (DK2 is 75hz)
I THINK the 90hz limit is for the strobing caused by low persistance displays, which from what I understand means the pixels are only lit briefly then go black until the next frame is displayed. (if you do this at low refresh rates it´ll probably be noticably strobing/flickering)
Which ofcource cuts down motionblur and such.

[CurrentlyPissed]

I really want to. But I know I'll buy the final product so just trying to hold out.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

[YellowBeard]

I really want to. But I know I'll buy the final product so just trying to hold out.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

Eh, I figure if I get most of a year out of it before the consumer version comes out I'll be happy. That and I'm kinda excited about all the development behind it with the other motion technology at the moment.

[badboy]

Im excited about all the porn games

It will just be hard to aim with the oculus on the head... need to use a sock instead of paper

[acroig]

I'm psyched about the Rift, but I'm going to wait until it's completely finished before ordering one.

The last thing I want to do is spoil my first-ever VR experience with a prototype intended for developers.

Same here.

[aviphysics]

Well they ARE dev kits, you get one if you want to make a Rift game, or add support for Rift to your existing game.
But they´re not stopping curious people from just getting one to check out techdemos and Skyrim hacks and whatnots... all those Unity "things" people are putting out.
And I suppose there are some "proper" games with support out there already, like TF2 if I dont remember wrong?
But still, Dev kit is a appropriate term I´d say.

While it fits some classification of a Dev-Kit, it is definitely an alpha or beta version. It both lacks the full set of features of the final version and has some number of bugs in the design. TBH, I am not really sure what makes it a Dev-kit.

The thing is, it is just a piece of hardware and it doesn't seem right to call every piece of hardware I can write software for a devkit. Normally a devkit has features above and beyond what the consumer version of the hardware has in order to make development easier. The Rift kits don't do this. Classifying it as beta hardware just makes more sense to me.

BTW, there are a bunch of commercial games (i.e. not tech demos) that support Rift. I think the number of proper games might even be more than currently available for PS4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...s_Rift_support. I have been told that Hawken with Rift is amazing

[jolle]

Well early console devkits have been all sorts of cobbled together machines, or straight up PCs and whatnot, they were still devkits even if they werent the final specs.
Sure, it´s not a post release devkit as a PS3 devkit you would get today..
It´s not in it´s final state, and the final specs for everything arent 100% set, and it´s not a retail product.

But these are out there with the main intent for developers to use them to get their VR games or support going, not for consumers to buy as a retail product, which I suppose is why they´re called devkits.
You get them to develop VR support, sure there isnt a bunch of switches, buttons, mysterious ports and whatnot, but I rather think that´s because you dont need them.
All you need probably supplied by the SDK, which might not be available with the retail version? ( who knows?), and reading the sensor output.
Any rendering issues is solved on the game engine side, all you´re doing after that is outputting a display signal.

A PS3 reference kit has all those knobs, bells and whistles because it´s a complex machine running complex code.

Well, either way it´s just a question of definitions, it doesnt matter.. it is what it is.

[aviphysics]

Well, either way it´s just a question of definitions, it doesnt matter.. it is what it is.

The only reason I even brought it up is because of Daj complaining that they need to release the product to a broader audience. My point in equating it to an early release Beta, is to point out that unlike what many often think of as a Devkit, these devices are broadly available to pretty much anyone who wants one and there is software an ordinary consumer can enjoy them with.

[shadow001]

I like the concept and have ordered 1 even though they only ship in july, but the main thing is that it's a GPU upgrade killer on the spot since the resolution the glasses support is a joke for a high end modern GPU in any game, never mind if they get it working with crossfire or SLI.


Since upgrades are in large part not only based on games getting more demanding, but also playing them at ever higher resolutions with AA enabled, and with 4K eventually becoming more affordable in the next couple of years, I really think both AMD and Nvidia don't want this to be a commercial success.

[Mangler]

It's more demanding than you think.

[shadow001]

It's more demanding than you think.

Compared to 3 1440p screens in eyefinity or a single 4k 3840*2160 monitor?


I'll find out either way, but i'd be surprised if it were.

[Mangler]

All I said that it is more demanding than you think, you still have to be able to to hit 120fps at 1080p.

And guess what, that is not a joke for a high end modern gpu in any game.

[shadow001]

All I said that it is more demanding than you think, you still have to be able to to hit 120fps at 1080p.

And guess what, that is not a joke for a high end modern gpu in any game.

Don't you mean 60 FPS on each screen?....Odd frames to one screen and even frames to the other?

[Mangler]

No I meant 120fps, but I was going by the shutter glass requirements for 3d at 60fps, seems like the OR is a little bit different.

[shadow001]

No I meant 120fps, but I was going by the shutter glass requirements for 3d at 60fps, seems like the OR is a little bit different.

Was thinking it goes by the same principle as polarised glasses that you use when watching a movie in 3D where the film isn't running at 120 Fps, but the rift adds the extra of head position and tracking, so i'll find out how much more demanding it can be.

[jolle]

All I said that it is more demanding than you think, you still have to be able to to hit 120fps at 1080p.

And guess what, that is not a joke for a high end modern gpu in any game.

Ideally for the DK2 I suppose 75fps, since they refresh at 75hz.
Goal for consumer version is 90hz and "higher then 1080p" resolution though.

No I meant 120fps, but I was going by the shutter glass requirements for 3d at 60fps, seems like the OR is a little bit different.

It´s one screen though, split in half for each eye.
Stereoscopic shutters need 120hz to get 60 per eye because they alternate the image on the monitor every frame (left/right), VR glasses dont do that, they just draw the screen as normal.

Still you´re rendering with 2 cameras so there´s bound to be some overhead there I imagine
You´re not rendering 2x "fullscreen" res as with shutters though, since you render to 2 halves of the same display, so 2x 960x1080p for the DK2 set.
The sensor data probably wont account for much, it all goes into moving the camera setup I would imagine, and any load they add would likely be CPU.

EDIT:
so additionally to shadow001s comments, sustaining 95fps at 1440p or whatever they end up with on the consumer version needs a bit of hardware to do.
And then there is the fact that we´re just starting to move out of the previous console generation, where system reqs might make a bit of a jump with titles developed for the new consoles.
Such titles would probably have significantly higher content density, compared to "made for last gen, released on current gen" games.

But sure, affordable 4k screens might warrant beefier GPUs, but then again sustainable high framerate becomes more vital with VR glasses.
And not all games are well suited for VR (atleast I suspect this is the case), so Rift consumers are likely going to overlap pretty well with 4k screen consumers, IE people who dont mind spending a lot of money on gaming rigs.

[shadow001]

Id

EDIT:
so additionally to shadow001s comments, sustaining 95fps at 1440p or whatever they end up with on the consumer version needs a bit of hardware to do.
And then there is the fact that we´re just starting to move out of the previous console generation, where system reqs might make a bit of a jump with titles developed for the new consoles.
Such titles would probably have significantly higher content density, compared to "made for last gen, released on current gen" games.

But sure, affordable 4k screens might warrant beefier GPUs, but then again sustainable high framerate becomes more vital with VR glasses.
And not all games are well suited for VR (atleast I suspect this is the case), so Rift consumers are likely going to overlap pretty well with 4k screen consumers, IE people who dont mind spending a lot of money on gaming rigs.

Let's assume they'll end up with 1440p for each screen on the retail version of the rift...The total fill rate, even assuming a 90Hz refresh rate comes to 7.3 megapixels per frame, so my triple 1440p setup needs nearly 11 megapixels per frame rendered and I won't settle with anything under 60 FPS for smooth gameplay, but it's generally quite a bit higher most of the time.


Things really get nasty with a single 4K monitor(8.3 megapixels), or flat out impossible to run if the user goes for 3 of these in eyefinity or Nvidia's surround view, as it's 25 megapixels per frame to render in that case.


So with the DK2 version being what it is at 1080p at 75 Hz, it's actually quite a bit easier at 4.1 megapixels per frame rendered.

[demo]

I'm lost. What does 1440p eyefinity or 4k eyefinity have to do with OR?

[shadow001]

I'm lost. What does 1440p eyefinity or 4k eyefinity have to do with OR?

The amount of work that the GPU(s) need to output when comparing different options in terms of displays...More fill rate basically means more memory bandwith, higher memory use, more pixel shading effects and so on.


If I can already challenge my setup with the kind of workloads described in my last post, it shouldn't be too hard with the DK2 version sporting a pair of 1080p screens( one for each eye).


To be honest, i'm not sure i'd want them to go even higher resolution given the small size of the screens, since it might make it a royal pain in the ass to make any sort of text in game readable....It's simply too small text.

[demo]

What?

[Exposed]

.

The amount of work that the GPU(s) need to output when comparing different options in terms of displays...More fill rate basically means more memory bandwith, higher memory use, more pixel shading effects and so on.


If I can already challenge my setup with the kind of workloads described in my last post, it shouldn't be too hard with the DK2 version sporting a pair of 1080p screens( one for each eye).


To be honest, i'm not sure i'd want them to go even higher resolution given the small size of the screens, since it might make it a royal pain in the ass to make any sort of text in game readable....It's simply too small text.

Why does every thread you participate in somehow need to derail to what setup YOU have? Who really gives a ****?

[jolle]

Let's assume they'll end up with 1440p for each screen on the retail version of the rift...

It´s just one screen, one half per eye. (960x1080 per eye on DK2).

Things really get nasty with a single 4K monitor(8.3 megapixels), or flat out impossible to run if the user goes for 3 of these in eyefinity or Nvidia's surround view, as it's 25 megapixels per frame to render in that case

Well, at the end of the day there is a fairly big price discrepancy between 3x 4k screens and one pair of VR glasses.
I dont think AMD or Nivida is loosing any sleep over that, the consumer segment that buy graphics hardware for 3x screens is probably vanishingly small in the large scheme of things.

On the flip side, a whole bunch of people with single 1080p monitors might get VR glasses and become a lot pickier with framerates, where they were playing games varying from 30-60 fps without losing any sleep, maintaining a 60+ will become more important with a pair of VR glasses, even to those people.
That´s a market segment with significantly more meat on it I assume.
So more importantly a much larger "mainstream" segment of market might look into higher end GPUs instead.

And "made for VR" games might potentially target higher hardware specs then most games, as it´s a consumer group that likely spends more on their gaming rigs.
Or atleast that´s an assumption I would make.

EDIT:

To be honest, i'm not sure i'd want them to go even higher resolution given the small size of the screens, since it might make it a royal pain in the ass to make any sort of text in game readable....It's simply too small text.

This might be true under the assumption that VR support is added without ever acctually testing it with the VR set.
"text" isnt a fixed size and the resolution and perceived screen size are both known factors when developing for it.
This is also a problem that needs to be, and is being tackled everywhere as displays are getting increasingly higher DPI.
For example a 1080p phone doesnt use the same font size as a old low res phone, because that would be ridiculous.

[Omega53]

If you feel someone is derailing a thread, report it and pay it no mind. You guys are the dumb ones for quoting and responding to people who you feel are trying to derail a thread. Pay it no attention and it will go away. (Please do no report this post as it has nothing to do with the thread )

[YellowBeard]

On the flip side, a whole bunch of people with single 1080p monitors might get VR glasses and become a lot pickier with framerates, where they were playing games varying from 30-60 fps without losing any sleep, maintaining a 60+ will become more important with a pair of VR glasses, even to those people.
That´s a market segment with significantly more meat on it I assume.
So more importantly a much larger "mainstream" segment of market might look into higher end GPUs instead.

That's me! I'm that segment!

Usually I run a mid to high level card. My monitor's max is 1080 and I don't plan on changing that anytime soon. I it. So my next build will probably be based around frames at 1080 especially so once July rolls around.

Oh man I am way too excited for this. Too bad no one sells Razer Hydras anymore and the "replacement" is pre-ordering for 250. Ugh.

[shadow001]

Been reading thru the specs of the DK2 and it seems it'll be easier to run than I though, as it uses a single 5 inch 1920*1080 display, where the software than runs the device splits that right in the middle at 960*1080 per eye, so it comes to only 2 megapixels per frame rendered and the same as running your average single 1080p screen.


It will be more demanding in the sense that 60 FPS needs to be pretty much the minimum FPS value to keep things running smoothly, so the occasional dips below that when gaming are to be avoided at all cost.


Tracking wise, it'll be a specialised LCD camera that is pointed at the headset itself where reflectors are embedded into it, to notice it's movement as the user swings it in every direction but is limited to tracking just the position of the head itself, not the rest of the body so the users arms, legs or torso won't really move, and the video feed is an HDMI connection from the PC which can also send audio too.


Star citizen has already added support for it in the last patch, so it should work great in a space combat environment.

[_TiTaNiuM]

I'm lost. What does 1440p eyefinity or 4k eyefinity have to do with OR?

absolutely nothing. He doesn't have a ****ing clue what he's talking about obviously

Even at 1440p, if they maintain the same aspect ratio, that's still a single 2560x1440 display, split in two. At 90hz. IDK why everyone seems to think you need a 16:9 display per eye. The human eye is round. Without having odd shaped screens the closest approximation to the human eye is a square. 1:1. at most we will have is 3.6 megapixels of image rendered per frame, that's a lot but nowhere near the amount of pixels being pushed in a 4k or 1440p eyefinity setup, two viewpoints or not.

[shadow001]

absolutely nothing. He doesn't have a ****ing clue what he's talking about obviously

Even at 1440p, if they maintain the same aspect ratio, that's still a single 2560x1440 display, split in two. At 90hz. IDK why everyone seems to think you need a 16:9 display per eye. The human eye is round. Without having odd shaped screens the closest approximation to the human eye is a square. 1:1. at most we will have is 3.6 megapixels of image rendered per frame, that's a lot but nowhere near the amount of pixels being pushed in a 4k or 1440p eyefinity setup, two viewpoints or not.

You're not getting it either, but jolle did.


More pixels equals more work for the entire GPU architecture to handle and more importantly, maintain a high frame rate as memory needs are higher, memory bandwith is higher, pixel shading effects are more numerous, particle effects too....The list goes on and on, especially considering that the work is triple buffered, never mind those that like high AA usage, especially super sampling, which will hammer the GPU even harder still.