Official VR Headset discussion

[_TiTaNiuM]

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.

news flash: 2560x1440 is less than 7680x1440. it's also less than 4096x2160

[Dave]

Shadow take your pick

[shadow001]

Seriously, sometimes it feels like having to connect all the dots for some to understand as they seem to take everything for granted...

[BababooeyHTJ]

Why do the mods constantly allow this guy to drag threads off topic?

[shadow001]

I bought one of these just so you know....

[demo]

Thank you for explaining 1440p Eyefinity is more demanding than a single 1080p screen shadow, well done.

[shadow001]

Thank you for explaining 1440p Eyefinity is more demanding than a single 1080p screen shadow, well done.

Not just that if you read my posts, but that the glasses aren't any more demanding than 1080p period.


So if you can run anything at that resolution at well over 60 FPS( the glasses refresh at 75hz anyhow), it shouldn't be any different with the glasses too.

[demo]

Well done little fella *pats head*

[jolle]

I believe shadows original point was how AMD and Nvidia might feel about VR glasses, if they´re less demanding then say 4K screens (pushing fewer pixels atleast), it might be worse off for them and their business of selling GPUs if everyone went and chased after that instead of 4k screens and multiple graphics cards to drive them.

To which I offered some countering factors, and then everything ended up being a long back and forth about resolutions and whatnot, without that context.

They´re not really full replacements for a monitor though, there will be games you either cant, or dont want to play on a VR kit I suppose.

But the entire point of 3x screen setups is to do, in a much inferior way, what VR glasses does, to get as much screenspace as possible in your field of view for that additional peripheral vision, without the additional VR boon of having a infinite virtual screen to look around at, in sterescopic 3d.
Then again, the market segment of consumers that buy hardware to drive 3x high res monitors is probably a vast minority.

So they might loose a very small part of the cookie, and again, gain a much larger portion of it at the midrange where people sitting on 1080p screens might want to get a better graphics card to maintain 60+ fps (90fps ideally with the consumer versions 90hz goal I suppose) with 1440p VR glasses.
There is probably also some overhead on rendering to 2 separate viewports from 2 separate cameras, even if they are half the resolution of the entire screen, but I have no idea.

[shadow001]

I believe shadows original point was how AMD and Nvidia might feel about VR glasses, if they´re less demanding then say 4K screens (pushing fewer pixels atleast), it might be worse off for them and their business of selling GPUs if everyone went and chased after that instead of 4k screens and multiple graphics cards to drive them.

To which I offered some countering factors, and then everything ended up being a long back and forth about resolutions and whatnot, without that context.

They´re not really full replacements for a monitor though, there will be games you either cant, or dont want to play on a VR kit I suppose.

But the entire point of 3x screen setups is to do, in a much inferior way, what VR glasses does, to get as much screenspace as possible in your field of view for that additional peripheral vision, without the additional VR boon of having a infinite virtual screen to look around at, in sterescopic 3d.
Then again, the market segment of consumers that buy hardware to drive 3x high res monitors is probably a vast minority.

So they might loose a very small part of the cookie, and again, gain a much larger portion of it at the midrange where people sitting on 1080p screens might want to get a better graphics card to maintain 60+ fps (90fps ideally with the consumer versions 90hz goal I suppose) with 1440p VR glasses.
There is probably also some overhead on rendering to 2 separate viewports from 2 separate cameras, even if they are half the resolution of the entire screen, but I have no idea.

Absolutely right on the money on all counts, but I figure it's not much of a risk since the DK2 kit sells for 350$, and the aim for the final retail version is under 300$, which is pretty low considering the amount of money blown on high end video cards or triple displays or upcoming 4k monitors.

Only downside is that it's basically a pre-order and the units will only ship in july, as the company is gauging the publics interest and how many get ordered to organise the production scheme for the volume.

Edit: Now that I think about it, it's also way cheaper than a 120Hz monitor and the 3D glasses sold by Nvidia, which still force you to look directly at the screen with the glasses to have the 3D effect....The rift allows the user to look anywhere in a game, be it up, down, left or right.

[demo]

Edit: Now that I think about it, it's also way cheaper than a 120Hz monitor and the 3D glasses sold by Nvidia, which still force you to look directly at the screen with the glasses to have the 3D effect....The rift allows the user to look anywhere in a game, be it up, down, left or right.

3dvision is exactly like using a normal display, but in 3D. I don't see it as being comparable to OR, they offer totally different things. You also get the benefit of 120/144hz 2D for the money.

[jolle]

3dvision is exactly like using a normal display, but in 3D. I don't see it as being comparable to OR, they offer totally different things. You also get the benefit of 120/144hz 2D for the money.

It also carries the performance penalty of having to render the entire resolution twice, since it interleaves the images in full screen.
So both 3d shutters and multiscreen gaming are both kinda made unnecessary and inferior with a VR kit.

But yeah, VR glasses arent monitor REPLACEMENTS really, I´ll likely still need to have 2x monitors for the things I do, and Im kinda used to 120hz at this point.
I did however see some tools that allows you to run windows desktop in the Rift set, basically you extend the desktop to the rift and the software puts it on a surface in a 3d space so it renders properly in the glasses (normally it just looks like madness since un-transformed it youre looking at the desktop through two paper rolls with heavy lenses on the ends.).

Now I doubt it´s a great experience to use VR glasses on the desktop for any extended period of time, atleast not these dev kits as they arent as light as they need to be, and there is probably some eyestrain after some while too.

But you could buy a pretty comfy chair, sit back however you like, and theoretically atleast setup as many "virtual monitors" you want and position around this 3d space, so if you want to lean back, just move those surfaces to sit above you at whatever distance you want.
You could surround yourself in 8 virtual desktop and swivel around on your chair, or whatever.
You can have 3x 24" virtual desktops half a meter in front of you, or 3x 120" desktops several meters away.
Provided that is that the software end gets to that point, there are some serious limitations to the current software out there for the dev kits at this point.

[KAC]

So any gay got this? How is it?

[demo]

But yeah, VR glasses arent monitor REPLACEMENTS really, I´ll likely still need to have 2x monitors for the things I do, and Im kinda used to 120hz at this point.

Yes exactly, its not a replacement. I haven't tried OR yet but I dare say I'd still prefer some games with 3dvision or plain old 2D, plus it looks too physical. Not sure I want to be turning and moving all the time. OR seems like a nice addition though and I cant wait to try it.

[jolle]

So any gay got this? How is it?

They wont ship until July.

Yes exactly, its not a replacement. I haven't tried OR yet but I dare say I'd still prefer some games with 3dvision or plain old 2D, plus it looks too physical. Not sure I want to be turning and moving all the time. OR seems like a nice addition though and I cant wait to try it.

Usually I think the cameras headsensor input is slaved under the "character input".
The demoes I tried on the DK1 set moved the character as you would any game with a controller, and added the head motion ontop of that.
Atleast as far as I can recall, was a while ago now.
So you´re not "steering" with your head, it is a bit more like using Eyefinity as you´re looking forward most of the time but can just flash your head to the side if you see something in the corner of your eyes.

TF2 works like that, your head offsets the camera from the mouse input basically.
As shown here where they test it at about 6.50. (EDIT: they go through a bunch of different control types later on in the video)

[yt]P50fvL_EWYY[/yt]

VR glasses is a very different thing from using shutters though, you get a very tangible sense of scale and volume on things.
With shutters I feel a bit like I look at 3d miniatures through a small window, and the stereoscopic sense of 3d is not as pronounced.
Also with the extremely pixelated DK1 kit I felt some serious vertigo in some demos walking up to a ledge, it was pretty cool.
Comes with filling your entire viewfield, and removing any fixed points from your view, such as the wall behind the monitor or the desk infront of you etc.

[demo]

Yeah I thought that would be the case, but that means crosshair aim is independent of movement and a large dead zone is needed to accommodate both. Not exactly ideal, but I haven't tried it and it's probably better than I imagine.

Yes I find shutter glasses give the same sort of effect, I think I prefer that for RTS or 3rd person. I would imagine first person is OR's realm, I cant wait.

[jolle]

Yeah I thought that would be the case, but that means crosshair aim is independent of movement and a large dead zone is needed to accommodate both. Not exactly ideal, but I haven't tried it and it's probably better than I imagine.

Hmm, well it´s basically business as normal, except you can offset the camera from the crosshair with head movement, atleast one of those modes they try, the one that seems preferable IMO.
So sorta like a 3x screen setup, except you cant look outside of the screens.

Yes I find shutter glasses give the same sort of effect, I think I prefer that for RTS or 3rd person. I would imagine first person is OR's realm, I cant wait.

I would imagine there would be no tracking in a RTS anyway, since that´d be like cheating hehe, well atleast in something like StarCraft 2 that has a fixed camera by design.
And third person cameras seem like they could be a bit wierd with VR.
The 3d part of it would probably good and the tracking could still be useful I suppose for looking around if you play with a controller, but the idea is to immerse you and floating around behind "yourself" isnt really ideal for that.

Playing Diablo 3 atm, was thinking about if I´d even WANT to use VR for it.
Possibly not, if so it´d be for the stereoscopic 3d effect.
The way the world is built out of a lot of 2d elements, banking on the fixed perspective camera, you couldnt use the tracking at all I think without breaking it.

But yeah, FPS is definitely where VR comes into it´s own, sortof the way it was ment to be used to put you IN a virtual world.

[shadow001]

3dvision is exactly like using a normal display, but in 3D. I don't see it as being comparable to OR, they offer totally different things. You also get the benefit of 120/144hz 2D for the money.

Which is what I said, you're forced to look in a single direction( the screen) to get the 3D effect....With OR, you can look everywhere and get the effect and it may come into it's own in FPS games.....I wouldn't want to use it in RTS or 3rd person games.

[demo]

You're "forced" to look at a display with anything that is not VR, 2D or 3D. They aren't really comparable, one is VR, the other is regular gaming on a monitor - it just happens to be in 3D. I don't see it as a downside anymore than regular 2D gaming "forces" you to look at a monitor.

[shadow001]

You're "forced" to look at a display with anything that is not VR, 2D or 3D. They aren't really comparable, one is VR, the other is regular gaming on a monitor - it just happens to be in 3D. I don't see it as a downside anymore than regular 2D gaming "forces" you to look at a monitor.

You have 6 degrees of freedom since the VR display is attached you your head, it tracks the movement and moves accordingly.

You look way up to the ceiling, it shows you the ceiling in the game, you look all the way down and it shows you the floor, and so on and without ever moving the mouse at all.

[demo]

Yes I know

[shadow001]

Yes I know

So it's more immersive than using regular shutter glasses and looking at a screen while having to use the mouse to change the viewpoint...AKA all the current 3D hardware on the market.

[demo]

It's a nice addition and offers something unique, but its not a replacement for gaming on a monitor, 2D or 3D.

[jolle]

What di fak?

http://www.destructoid.com/facebook-to-acquire-oculus-vr-for-around-2-billion-272450.phtml

Facebook to acquire Oculus VR for around $2 billion

[shadow001]

What di fak?
http://www.destructoid.com/facebook-...n-272450.phtml

WTF indeed...

[kboye]

Yeah, just happened. I mean literally 31 minutes ago.

https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10101319050523971

Don't know whether I should cry or take a 6 floor flight outside, this is nuts. I mean, head Oculus did say "Don't buy Rift now! Just wait!", but this..this is scary as hell. It will change Facebook, and it's a big FU to Sony and Twitter.

[shadow001]

Yeah, just happened. I mean literally 31 minutes ago.

https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10101319050523971

Don't know whether I should cry or take a 6 floor flight outside, this is nuts. I mean, head Oculus did say "Don't buy Rift now! Just wait!", but this..this is scary as hell. It will change Facebook, and it's a big FU to Sony and Twitter.

Changes the whole situation, as it's not just gaming anymore.

[demo]

It's going to have a permanent "share" button in the corner of your vision, in 3D.

[bill dennison]

Yeah, just happened. I mean literally 31 minutes ago.

https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10101319050523971

Don't know whether I should cry or take a 6 floor flight outside, this is nuts. I mean, head Oculus did say "Don't buy Rift now! Just wait!", but this..this is scary as hell. It will change Facebook, and it's a big FU to Sony and Twitter.

It's going to have a permanent "share" button in the corner of your vision, in 3D.

i'll pass now I want no part of it if facebook has it

hope for nvidia's near-eye light field display works out now


what about the kickstarters

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1523379957/oculus-rift-step-into-the-game

thanks your F*cked we sold out

[shadow001]

I wonder the legal ramifications of this since the company was funded on kick starter to get starting funds to develop these( 2.4 million gathered), and now here they are receiving 400 million in cash and 1.6 billion in facebook shares....

[bill dennison]

Carmack fixed it


facebook pays 2 Billion to kill Oculus Rift

I would not want it now if they gave it away free

[Omega53]

Please tell me this is an early april fools joke

[aop]

Hahah, those who backed them in Kickstarter must feel like complete retards.

[Omega53]

Hahah, those who backed them in Kickstarter must feel like complete retards.

I hope this kills kickstarter as well

[OzzieBloke]

It was inevitable: Oculus developers got greedy, lost focus, and now WE are screwed. Not them. Anyone who thinks this won't be bad is kidding themselves...

[SIrPauly]

Why pay 2 billion?

[shadow001]

Why pay 2 billion?

Yup, that's the kind of price you pay for much larger companies, not one that just got started last year.....Capitalism gone mad.

[Argoon1981]

Why pay 2 billion?

Because their department appointed to find potential profitable investments think is fair? Or perhaps seeing Sony being serious about VR made them realize VR add a future?
Who knows, all in all i'm not very happy with this news, because now we have a VR solution exclusive for PS4, and another for PC (for now) that is backed by one of the companies i don't trust at all. Has a PC gamer that is not good news at all.

Lets wait and see what comes out of it, but i must say i will only buy a Occulus Rift after seeing if Facebook didn't meddle in anything, and if some new competitor comes that supports the PC then i will consider it strongly.

[shadow001]

Because their department appointed to find potential profitable investments think is fair? Or perhaps seeing Sony being serious about VR made them realize VR add a future?
Who knows, all in all i'm not very happy with this news, because now we have a VR solution exclusive for PS4, and another for PC (for now) that is backed by one of the companies i don't trust at all. Has a PC gamer that is not good news at all.

Lets wait and see what comes out of it, but i must say i will only buy a Occulus Rift after seeing if Facebook didn't meddle in anything, and if some new competitor comes that supports the PC then i will consider it strongly.

But normally you buy a start up company for a little as possible as a general rule, even though facebook is worth tons of money and 2 billion may seem like loose change to them.

[lemonhead]

I have been following this product even before the Kickstarter, around the time Palmer Lucky posted in that VR thread asking about community feedback on building such a product.

Terrible news. I hope a competitor emerges soon, because I'll not buy Rift for sure.

The only good thing I can think of is Hitler's reaction when he finds out about this acquisition. Carmack working for Facebook, Occulus Rift in use for social apps etc. It'll be an epic video.