Supercharged_Z06
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2006
- Messages
- 3,475
Give the Rift CV1 a go when you get a chance. The resolution and especially the SDE you mention are much improved over the development kit versions.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
So, be honest, does the resolution bother you?
- Thread starter Laffles
- Start date
-
- Tags
- virtual reality vr vive
Give the Rift CV1 a go when you get a chance. The resolution and especially the SDE you mention are much improved over the development kit versions.
Oscar Meyer
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2009
- Messages
- 326
It would be so better, if Oculus or HTC pumped more money into public awareness. Need more demo stations around the USA. It's the only real way people can make an informed decision. Just talking about VR or debating it without ever trying it is pointless. Once a person tries it for about 15 mins, I found it's usually an all or none response. You either don;t like it or think its the new sliced bread.
Supercharged_Z06
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2006
- Messages
- 3,475
Definitely a tech that has to be experienced first hand. Words just don't cut it. It's like trying to describe color to someone who has been blind since birth.
Ya, I expect it will take a while before the general public really "gets" what VR is all about. But on the sales front, Oculus is back ordered till August and HTC is heavily back ordered as well, so an informed public really wouldn't help it sell any better at this point, and early adopters will be showing off the tech to family and friends, so it will grow. The PC/GPU entry specs for VR also eliminates about 95% of the GP as well at this point. As tech advances and costs come down, it will grow. There's just no way this is going to just go away - it's just too damn cool!!
Ya, I expect it will take a while before the general public really "gets" what VR is all about. But on the sales front, Oculus is back ordered till August and HTC is heavily back ordered as well, so an informed public really wouldn't help it sell any better at this point, and early adopters will be showing off the tech to family and friends, so it will grow. The PC/GPU entry specs for VR also eliminates about 95% of the GP as well at this point. As tech advances and costs come down, it will grow. There's just no way this is going to just go away - it's just too damn cool!!
Last edited:
schlitzbull
Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2014
- Messages
- 655
I agree. I'm also sure people are concerned about the motion sickness as well. I personally don't have any issue with that 99% of the time. If I play EVE:V and im pulling up and left while doing a barrel roll its a little rough when i try to even out. It's like my brain tells my body hey forward momentum is going to kick in here so my body braces for it. However my wife said she felt some slight discomfort playing Luckys Tale. I think I read somewhere that some stores were starting to setup demos at least.
dr.stevil
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2008
- Messages
- 9,266
Pretty sure that Gamestops are demoing HTC vives. IIRC, Occulus was demoing at stores too (maybe microsoft stores?)
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2001
- Messages
- 15,805
well our HTC is arriving via FedEx today at the office so we shall see how that one goes!
Gaming at 4K is not a problem, its gaming with photo realistic graphics quality at 4K that is the problem and requires a high-end rig. The solution is pretty simple for the time being: scale back the graphics fidelity to 5-10 year old games, but in 4K. Even just playing something like Half Life 2, which is 12 years old now, would be amazeballs in 4K 3D virtual reality.
Oscar Meyer
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2009
- Messages
- 326
You would probably vomit all over the place playing Half-Life in VR. I tried playing EVE again last night, havnt touched it since I demoed it for 5 minutes. I can tell you this, the force is not with me on this one. All that head turning and barrels rolls made me quit in 15 minutes. Thank God it was a free game.
Regarding the Res, I think engineers are going to have to rethink how they make lenses. I mean wouldn't the SDE still be there on a 4k or 8k screen, just even more pronounced? I think it will all work itself out when someone named Pim can shrink the space between the pixels.....
Last edited:
mlapgw
Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2005
- Messages
- 547
Just got the Rift consumer version, tried it out for a couple of hours last night. Yes, the resolution bothers me. However I was so amazed by what it is and what it can be I nearly cried.
Youn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2007
- Messages
- 5,973
it'll be less pronounced, probably gone by then...
Supercharged_Z06
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2006
- Messages
- 3,475
Same boat, but with a Vive and stil awaiting the arrival of the Rift. No regrets here jumping into VR at this stage at all, even with the somewhat sub-par resolution. It will only get better each Gen and it's already amazing in what it can do right now...
schlitzbull
Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2014
- Messages
- 655
Grab VorpX and try some Alien Isolation
I made it about 20 minutes before having to turn it off (runs fine, just scurred). It sucks I had to start these 72 hour work weeks 2 days after I got my rift.Vive support for VorpX is months out according to the Devs.
Seems like the better software is going to the Rift from what I can tell...
Something I havent put any time into is the REVIVE software allowing Vive units to use Oculus Home and Oculus applications. I'd assume this would open things up a bit more. It would be interesting to see if VorpX could work with REVIVE but there would likely be some strange issues. Having both units in-hand mostly eliminated any need in my case to try it out.
Link for the Lazy:
GitHub - LibreVR/Revive: This project allows you to play Oculus exclusive games on the HTC Vive, scroll down for downloads and installation instructions. Please forward all donations to the EFF.
sharknice
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2012
- Messages
- 3,752
Hey Vega, it was interesting to hear your thoughts on the resolution. How do you feel about the input lag and accuracy of the head tracking? Is the lag noticeable at all? How minuscule of movements can you make and have the tracking pick it up? I'm kind of wondering if these are still things that need to be improved but are currently being overshadowed by the low resolution.
The smaller the pixel is for a given screen size, the less space there is between pixels as well, that's just common sense.
Think of it with projectors. Lets say you have a 200" screen with 1080p resolution. Now you upgrade to four 1080p projectors, with each projector occupying 1/4 of the 200" screen. Not only is the resolution increased, but the "dead space" between pixels is as well in scale.
The higher the DPI, the less screen door effect there is.
4K screens on smartphones are going to be a game changer, and I think its a failure to have separate markets.
Smartphone VR is expected to be the lion's share of the VR market, with proprietary PC and console designs taking up minority shares. It would be a hell of a lot smarter if Smartphone VR were 100% of the market, that could simply either play local content, or stream content from a PC or console to it wirelessly.
For users with NVidia video cards, we already have the option of streaming your video games to smartphone VR displays, and segmenting a niche market and format wars are not good for adoption. Since Microsoft has no stake in this, and Apple has no interest in this, it would make more much sense to have Android and Oculus consolidate their efforts to a unified standard. Then you can buy whatever Android smartphone you want, and know that you have the whole android, Windows, and console gaming and content markets at your disposal as a consumer and you don't need redundant hardware.
After all, its pretty much impossible not to have a smartphone these days, and he smartphones already have tremendous processors, LCDs, battery technology, sensors, wireless tech, and cameras built into them, with consumers regularly upgrading in 2-3 year cycles.
So in my ideal world, I'd upgrade to say a Samsung Galaxy S7 with a 4K screen, and be able to stream games and video content played on my PC wirelessly (over wireless-AC1900 speeds) to my phone in a Samsung Gear VR (or universal similar option) headset cradle.
The input lag and accuracy of head tracking is pretty darn good. You can make really tiny movements and it picks it up. They don't really need to do any work in that area. The resolution is just really bad, and the blurring of the fresnel lenses is even worse. I literally look just slightly up and down from center and things start to blur immediately. You have to look directly at something in central vision for it to be clear. Like able to read anything. That's why they make fonts so large in the games, you wouldn't be able to read them otherwise.
I've tried adjusting the darn thing in all combinations running the full gamut. There is just no way I can find to make anything outside of central vision "clear". I've read and done all of the "fitment" guides. Given all of that, the last stage of The Gallery Episode 1 was so amazing I decided to keep the Vive. Even though the resolution makes me want to stab my eyes out, the experience is still worth trying.
I've tried adjusting the darn thing in all combinations running the full gamut. There is just no way I can find to make anything outside of central vision "clear". I've read and done all of the "fitment" guides. Given all of that, the last stage of The Gallery Episode 1 was so amazing I decided to keep the Vive. Even though the resolution makes me want to stab my eyes out, the experience is still worth trying.
It seems like curved screens would be a better fit for HMDs, so that the lenses didn't have to do so much work (i.e. fresnel lenses with the blur and glare issues) and you could get better fov, but they wouldn't be much use on a phone. It's unfortunate we're stuck with manufacturers relying on repurposed phone tech. Maybe if flexible screens become a thing on phones, that can be used to the advantage of VR.
You're absolutely right, but I disagree with the "stuck with manufacturers relying on repurposed phone tech".
Thanks to phone tech, you have IMMENSE economy of scale, that would otherwise drive VR headset prices through the roof, which are already way to damn high.
And flexible screens are already a thing on phone screens, I have it already with my Galaxy S6 Edge. Even well before that, Samsung released the less popular Samsung Galaxy Round.
Supercharged_Z06
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2006
- Messages
- 3,475
The screen density/res tech is already here - there are lots of high res panels out there with 500+ ppi now. Sharp has a 3,840 x 2,160 panel with 806 ppi. Sony has created specialty OLED displays with 2000+ ppi. Display tech for ultra high res VR isn't a big hurdle - just needs a little refinement.
The real show stopper right now is the needed GPU horsepower to run two independent displays at 4k at 90hz or greater. Pascal might get us there - but only just barely, and that will be the highest top-tier GPU hardware. VR tech in the next 3-5 years will REALLY rock once mid-grade GPU hardware is as capable and can drive two independent 4k displays.
The real show stopper right now is the needed GPU horsepower to run two independent displays at 4k at 90hz or greater. Pascal might get us there - but only just barely, and that will be the highest top-tier GPU hardware. VR tech in the next 3-5 years will REALLY rock once mid-grade GPU hardware is as capable and can drive two independent 4k displays.
Or just change expectations when it comes to graphics.
People watch the Simpsons, South Park, and Rick and Morty and are very much entertained and relate to the characters, in spite of them being extremely simplified two dimensional characters with very simple color schemes.
So likewise, we can drive two 4K screens even with the latest mobile processors, we just need to take more "artistic" approaches to creating an environment.
Nintendo was pretty good about this with the original Wii, where we will just make due with very crisp but more cartoonish environments like scribblenauts, zelda, little big planet, and so forth rather than going for realism.
I still enjoy watching 3D movies on the Samsung Gear VR, the only downside is that while you can stream to it now, its useless as it can't downsample audio from DTS to stereo, and the Gear VR for whatever stupid reason will only play stereo audio. *rolleyes*
Hopefully that is fixed in an udpate, and is apparently as simple as Samsung not wanting to pay licensing fees for surround sound.
For 3D adult vids, I think they are pretty sweet personally. There are samples online and torrents as well to try it out, but you'd need a loaner Gear VR. The models are getting better, as its more challenging to make great VR porn. For starters, they can't stand too tall when up close or get too close to the camera, so they try to setup markers for the models. And unlike regular porn where they constantly take breaks and shoot in small snips and then put it all together, they have to shoot VR porn in one continuous take for the most part. 360o is stupid, as who is going to turn all the way around, but most is 180o which works well and gives you full range of motion looking around.
BTW, another plus is that with the Samsung Gear VR, it is now Youtube capable, and Youtube has a crapton of 360 VR content.
I mean it's obvious why 1080x1200 is too low. Think about what you are seeing in VR.
In a typical computer monitor at 1080p 23" you sit like 2ft away or something. The 1080p resolution is taking up only a small fraction of your field of view.
Look how much above the monitor and below the monitor you can see in your peripheral field of view. You can probably almost see the ceiling, and you can most certainly see your hands and keyboard.
Now with a VR headset, you have 1200 pixels vertical. But the FOV and scenes you are looking at are generating room-scale scenes and you are able to see the floor, wall, and ceiling at once.
You would probably need 3-4 23" 1080p monitors stacked vertically at the 2ft viewing distance in order to fill your FOV the way VR headsets do. So that's more like 3000-4000 pixels vertical in order to achieve something similar looking for sharpness. And for width probably about 5 23" 1080p monitors. So that's something like 10000x4000 or i guess like 5000x4000 per eye to get something sharp like you are used to.]
4K VR will be an improvement but still wont quite be there.
Gear VR with a GS6 1280x1440 is per eye and still suffers from very noticeable pixels.
RangerXML
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2006
- Messages
- 6,399
I love all the arguments that 1080x1200 or 1440p is a high enough resolution, I'd like to know if those people have actually tried VR headset or are just so caught up in wanting to make the first generation a success that they are willing to ignore it. Here is something that I kind of ignored before I ordered that actually turned out to be pretty accurate:
oculus rift simulator
EDIT: Make sure to turn on "low persistence"
oculus rift simulator
EDIT: Make sure to turn on "low persistence"
Last edited:
Oscar Meyer
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2009
- Messages
- 326
That's a pretty cool simulator, but yeah...Res sucks. honestly, when there is an abundance of badass software available, I think the Res issue will kind of get swept under the rug to an extent. Right now it's all basically short tech demos, so after you lose that initial wow factor, you kind of pay more attention to the crappy resolution.
crusty_juggler
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2014
- Messages
- 1,241
On some corners of the Internet, there does seem to exist an effort to tamper any criticism of the Vive. Like a lot of folks, when the Vive launched I was frequently checking this forum and Reddit to see what first impressions were. On Reddit, people who complained about the screen door effect and build quality of Vive were flat-out being told to delete their posts as to not damage "the movement". Users that received headsets with dead pixels and asked about HTC's dead pixel policy were downvoted to the point where their honest questions about a valid problem were being hidden from sight.
There are people who see VR as their childhood sci-fi dreams coming to life and view it as a revolutionary movement. "Magic" is a word you often see repeated in VR forums. Many people have a deep emotional investment in virtual reality to go along with ther large financial investment. So unsurprisingly, you'll find very few Vive owners who will readily admit the resolution is insufficient.
For this reason, I see console and mobile VR being the dominant forces in the industry going forward. A PC gamer who spends $800+ on a piece of display tech to go along with his already pricey gaming rig is unlikely to be satisfied with cutsey-poo Indie games. However, a console or mobile user only needs to spends a fraction of what a PC gamer would for VR and is already accustomed to lower graphical levels. I would say they are more likely to accept a less graphical detailed game library.
A PC gamer chooses the more expensive PC as his platform for the detail and resolution beyond what a console can produce. I don't see large numbers of PC gamers being willing to accept rudimentary games on a platform where high levels of detail and sharp resolution are literally the reason they chose the platform in the first place.
Turn on the "low persistence" button. Ghosting isn't a problem at all (on the Vive at least, I don't have a Rift to compare), it's no less responsive than an S6 in a Gear VR (which I do have).
I don't know how you handle things but I can't finish unless I know whether the wall paint is matte, satin or glossy and if I can't turn around to check then that's a deal breaker.
Seriously though it would be good trolling to put up a sign on the wall behind you that says "what? Would you rather be screwing the wall?"
Or it could be used legitimately like having an actor behind you too.
We were just talking about 8K displays for PC users... how is 8K not "sharp resolution"? The compromise is that obviously you have to scale down draw distances, polygons, textures, etc in order for most PCs to push out 8K resolution at 90FPS.
If you are talking about going down to console level, the drop is going to have to be even greater, that's common sense.
Personally, I would take an immersive 3D virtual reality environment with less photo-realism over a more photo-realistic but 2D static display. VR is just too damn interesting, especially when you start manipulating objects in that world instead of just looking at them abstractly.
Edit: BTW, since VR always has two "video feeds" for each eye anyway, I am hoping that we get some serious crossfire/SLI support going forward, as that would make sense to have one GPU dedicated per eye.
Last edited:
crusty_juggler
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2014
- Messages
- 1,241
Not down to console level, below console level. The current crop of VR tech demos, walking experiences and games all feature simple graphics, flat textures and basic polygons at low res. Stuff you would expect to see a few console generations ago.
VR enthusiasts are going to have to accept that, and it seems they already are. My point is, I don't see your typical PC gamer accepting that. Especially considering he's on $2K platform that he chose specifically for it's ability to output sharp resolutions and detailed textures.
Very true. IT wouldn't be so bad if you had high quality detailed content to go along with the low resolution. But you have low resolution and basic, indie type tech demos as "games". It all makes it feel a bit underwhelming. I mean, I am playing "Vanishing Realms" and it looks like something I would play on my Nintendo 64 20 years ago. The Gallery is the only game I've seen so far with decent production value.
If PC VR is "below console level", what does that make console-driven VR? We all know the demands of VR are much higher than for some 30fps, upscaled 720p console game, even on today's limited HMDs. VR will never catch up with the graphical complexity possible in contemporary non-VR games, so if that's what you're looking for you'll never be satisfied. But nor will non-VR games ever offer anything like the profound sense of presence that you get with VR.
It occurred to me recently while I was happily pew-pew'ing my way around Elite: Dangerous with my Vive that the first time I played Elite was on a CGA, 320x200, 4 colour screen. If I could have seen 30 years into the future it would have blown my tiny mind.
It occurred to me recently while I was happily pew-pew'ing my way around Elite: Dangerous with my Vive that the first time I played Elite was on a CGA, 320x200, 4 colour screen. If I could have seen 30 years into the future it would have blown my tiny mind.