So, finally had a chance to spend a day with the Vive, and I personally just can not get past the resolution, it is a total immersion breaker for me. I totally get it, the hardware just isn't there yet to support 4k on each eye, it's a long way off to push those resolutions @ 90fps... But coming from a 4k display to the vive was like playing a nintendo DS... it just looks terrible.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
How do you pixel peepers deal with the low res?
- Thread starter Laffles
- Start date
-
- Tags
- htc vive vr resolution
Its fun as hell to the point i dont think about it. Resolution isnt everything. No amount of pixels on a flat screen has ever made me feel as immersed. I agree 100% it could be better, but we just are not there yet, why worry about something you cant change?
2.5x supersampling makes it a non-issue. That said, you do need a beefy computer to run that.
You have to think of it like this, why did people play minecraft even though it looked like ass compared to the push for photo realistic AAA graphics? Because it was fun.
VR is fun, even without high res.
You have to think of it like this, why did people play minecraft even though it looked like ass compared to the push for photo realistic AAA graphics? Because it was fun.
VR is fun, even without high res.
2.5x is overkill and impossible on any computer. 2.5x would mean you're basically trying to render a game at 8k 90fps, or in other words 16 1080p screens at 90fps.
That's about 32 million pixels per frame, over 6 times the number of pixels vs a SS setting of 1.0 (that setting is multiplied by an internal value of 1.4, so a 2.5x SS setting is actually 3.5x native res)
I have a pascal titan x and 1.6x is the highest I can go and not ever have to worry about dropping into reprojection. Anyone saying to crank it higher is either playing solitaire in VR or does not notice/care when they are in reprojection.
I don't find there to be much difference between 1.6x and 2.0x anyway, in the few games that can handle it.
Maybe it's because I went to the Rift from a 1080P setup, but I just use a little bit antialiasing and I don't really notice the resolution once I get into playing the game.
The Vive was worse about this, though. It has different lenses that make the screendoor effect much more apparent than the Rift does, IMO. Hence why I bought a Rift, and not a Vive.
Ive used it in DCS world to help with reading the gauges and seeing distant objects in more clarity, it keeps me locked at 45fps with reprojection if theres stuff going on, sometimes i get 90 if im looking in the cockpit or at a clear sky... but it doesnt bother me much, probably because its a seated experience.
buttons
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2011
- Messages
- 2,174
The resolution really bothers me too, but i still find it very immersive being in the cockpit and being able to freely look around. The part that bothers me isnt the in game graphics but the menu systems and such where text is hard to read. My computer couldnt handle it at 4k anyway unless they get crossfire sorted.
Nenu
[H]ardened
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2007
- Messages
- 20,315
It is low res but the experience makes the significance tiny.
At least it is on the Rift, it was horrid on the Vive.
At least it is on the Rift, it was horrid on the Vive.
I think the difference here is that Minecraft was designed from the ground up to look like that. The textures look clean and smoothed out, just designed to the blocky look so it works perfectly. The VR stuff is limited by hardware to the lower resolution so the artifacts and pixels are visible when they were not "intended" to be there. While no everything is not all about the resolution playing a modern AAA title at 640 x 480 or 800 x 600 would ruin the experience. More so for some than others.
Trepidati0n
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2004
- Messages
- 9,269
You have a bias and you want others to confirm your bias. Furthermore, since you are so focused on the pixels you are not able to let immersion take over. When only focus on flaws (limitations)..that is all you will see regardless.
And yes...you can get over it...you are choosing not to. It isn't like your innate sense of taste/smell on cilantro where 20% of people think it tastes/smells like soap which our body has a natural revulsion to because it thinks it is a poison.
Do I wish VR had better pixel density. Yes. Do I "get over it" because I value core point of it more (e.g. immersion)...yes.
I feel like a lot of the VR games im playing are designed from the ground up to look like ass too... so they run well on everyday joes pc... like job simulator
I'm with you OP - I picked up a Vive earlier this week. Got it set up and found it to be pretty cool. Went into Elite: Dangerous (major reason I bought it) and just couldn't get past the screen door/seeing individual pixels issue. Yes, tweaked the SS and combed through all the forum posts to find the best settings for my skylake/1070 system.
Don't get me wrong - it's immensely cool, and being able to look around and fly through asteroid fields with that view was very immersive. But I just kept thinking about how the view looked like I had pulled an old circa-2000 monitor out of the basement. Returned the Vive today, and plan to bank the money for a year or two until the tech gets better.
Don't get me wrong - it's immensely cool, and being able to look around and fly through asteroid fields with that view was very immersive. But I just kept thinking about how the view looked like I had pulled an old circa-2000 monitor out of the basement. Returned the Vive today, and plan to bank the money for a year or two until the tech gets better.
Oscar Meyer
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2009
- Messages
- 326
I sort of felt the same way about the resolution.......until I played Bullet Train with the Touch Controllers. I instantly could not care less about the resolution after I dual wielded pistols, caught incoming bullets out of the air, and threw them back at the attackers. Never had so much fun in a video game.
Which is a bit surprising considering that PC's have had quite a few graphical options and settings for at least a a few years
Now one can ask how can anyone game on a flat screen when you can have an interactive, life like depth and be surrounded by the game environment? I enjoy both methods and each currently have advantages and disadvantages. I do look forward to next generation but that is not going to stop me from experiencing the good stuff about current VR tech. Each there own on what they find acceptable or not.
NamelessPFG
Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2016
- Messages
- 893
I deal with the low res because it's a hell of a lot better than my '90s-era Virtual i-O i-glasses! VPC, for starters. (263x230 per eye, much lower FOV, and you still see subpixels so huge that it's like sitting up close to a vintage SDTV!)
I mean, PC gaming on monitors used to be much lower-res than this. I still remember the ol' DOS days, after all, and back then, you generally didn't have full head-tracking, let alone hand-tracking. VR's come a long way in two decades.
Yes, I'd like a much higher resolution; so would everyone else. The Rift CV1 is just on the edge of usability in DCS World for cockpit readability (a simulator whose engine is still woefully unoptimized even with the EDGE update, such that a GTX 1080 or Titan X Pascal will not benefit you nearly as much as a significant improvement in single-threaded CPU IPC; being on the front lines with AI slugging it out practically guarantees you'll be in Timewarp/Spacewarp/Reprojection), and certain things still force me to lean in a bit for readability's sake, like the MFDs.
However, I also have to take into account that VR gaming is much more demanding than conventional monitor gaming due to the need for low persistence and consistent frame timing on top of high resolutions. Ideally, we'd have 4K per eye, maybe 8K or even 16K, but rendering those resolutions at 90+ Hz is going to make even a Titan X Pascal card choke without reducing everything to Dactyl Nightmare levels of graphics fidelity. GPU tech isn't ready, and the current sets don't have eye-tracking as standard, so foveated rendering isn't an option to reduce the demand on fill rate, either.
Also, most games don't really need that high of a resolution to be fun. It's more than enough for anything melee-oriented, and only sniper duels in Onward would really call for improvements in resolution where gunplay is concerned. You're IN the game, not merely looking into it! And when you have hand-tracked controllers, well, who needs to go to the arcades to play Police 911 or Mo-Cap Boxing anymore?
I'd say it's at the point that, unlike the '90s, current VR sets are good enough to make an immersive first impression, and it's only going to get better from here on out.
I mean, PC gaming on monitors used to be much lower-res than this. I still remember the ol' DOS days, after all, and back then, you generally didn't have full head-tracking, let alone hand-tracking. VR's come a long way in two decades.
Yes, I'd like a much higher resolution; so would everyone else. The Rift CV1 is just on the edge of usability in DCS World for cockpit readability (a simulator whose engine is still woefully unoptimized even with the EDGE update, such that a GTX 1080 or Titan X Pascal will not benefit you nearly as much as a significant improvement in single-threaded CPU IPC; being on the front lines with AI slugging it out practically guarantees you'll be in Timewarp/Spacewarp/Reprojection), and certain things still force me to lean in a bit for readability's sake, like the MFDs.
However, I also have to take into account that VR gaming is much more demanding than conventional monitor gaming due to the need for low persistence and consistent frame timing on top of high resolutions. Ideally, we'd have 4K per eye, maybe 8K or even 16K, but rendering those resolutions at 90+ Hz is going to make even a Titan X Pascal card choke without reducing everything to Dactyl Nightmare levels of graphics fidelity. GPU tech isn't ready, and the current sets don't have eye-tracking as standard, so foveated rendering isn't an option to reduce the demand on fill rate, either.
Also, most games don't really need that high of a resolution to be fun. It's more than enough for anything melee-oriented, and only sniper duels in Onward would really call for improvements in resolution where gunplay is concerned. You're IN the game, not merely looking into it! And when you have hand-tracked controllers, well, who needs to go to the arcades to play Police 911 or Mo-Cap Boxing anymore?
I'd say it's at the point that, unlike the '90s, current VR sets are good enough to make an immersive first impression, and it's only going to get better from here on out.
I definitely agree with this. I have a HTC Vive. Do I notice the low res? Yes. How do I deal with it? The experience. For me, VR is so immersive, the experience draws me into the world to the point where I'm not concerned about the pixels..I'm focused on what going on around me. It's unlike anything I've ever experienced. Granted, some games are better than others. Fortunately, we are at a point where things will just further evolve...hardware and software.