The Oculus Rift Beta Could Go Public by April

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,400
If you are anxious for the release of the consumer version of the Oculus Rift, your wait has just been shortened to possibly seven months if the beta rollout rumors prove to be true. Oculus target date is set to April, but could extend into early summer.

The company will be dealing with distribution internally, with only a pre-determined number of headsets to be made available for the initial launch phase.
 
I hope so. So much potential, but I'll be dead by the time it's finally released...
 
As many times as it's been delayed, I almost expect their competitors will beat them to market.
 
Which competitors? Sony? They won't be putting anything out until the next console refresh, for sure. No way the other clones will have anything better than the DK2 anytime before April next year either. The fact is Oculus is well ahead of anyone else. And the more time they spend before releasing their first consumer version, the better an impression they will make. DK2 was a great improvement in terms of motion clarity, but at 1080p resolution pentile it still doesn't look very good frankly.
 
I think sony put them in a bind time table wise. They have to launch now or lose momentum. Just like GTA 5 for pc, i'll believe it when it's official.
 
Which competitors? Sony? They won't be putting anything out until the next console refresh, for sure. No way the other clones will have anything better than the DK2 anytime before April next year either. The fact is Oculus is well ahead of anyone else. And the more time they spend before releasing their first consumer version, the better an impression they will make. DK2 was a great improvement in terms of motion clarity, but at 1080p resolution pentile it still doesn't look very good frankly.

Sony's unit will be a toy console peripheral that will only work on PS4 so its not even relevant. It also takes a lot of GPU muscle to drive a VR head display.

A lot of people dont realize its two displays in the Rift, so consider the DK2 Rift is 2 x 1080 panels and your GPU has to drive them both at 60FPS without significant drops. Now consider a consumer Rift with dual 1440 panels and ask yourself if your current GPU hardware is capable of driving two 1440 monitors at solid 60FPS on graphically intensive game. So part of why the Rift is taking so long is a big combination of factors, the stars have to align: they needed a supply chain for panels which they found in Samsung, software and development partners needed to work the tech into their games, and GPU:s needed another generation .
 
Sony's unit will be a toy console peripheral that will only work on PS4 so its not even relevant. It also takes a lot of GPU muscle to drive a VR head display.

A lot of people dont realize its two displays in the Rift, so consider the DK2 Rift is 2 x 1080 panels and your GPU has to drive them both at 60FPS without significant drops.

Oculus has been using single panels for both DK1 and DK2 to combat alignment issues with dual panel setups. Their own site says the DK2 offers each eye 960x1080 resolution at 75hz refresh max which would indicate a single 1920x1080 panel for both eyes.
 
Sony's unit will be a toy console peripheral that will only work on PS4 so its not even relevant. It also takes a lot of GPU muscle to drive a VR head display.

A lot of people dont realize its two displays in the Rift, so consider the DK2 Rift is 2 x 1080 panels and your GPU has to drive them both at 60FPS without significant drops. Now consider a consumer Rift with dual 1440 panels and ask yourself if your current GPU hardware is capable of driving two 1440 monitors at solid 60FPS on graphically intensive game. So part of why the Rift is taking so long is a big combination of factors, the stars have to align: they needed a supply chain for panels which they found in Samsung, software and development partners needed to work the tech into their games, and GPU:s needed another generation .

DK2 and DK1 are both single-panel. I would know, I have both of them in front of me. :p

As to Sony's, your point was the same as mine... almost. I doubt Sony will release Morpheus on PS4, at least not until the next refresh. Oculus will have paved the way for them.
 
Which competitors?

You can't think that no one else is secretly developing their own VR headsets?

How about Samsung? They are already making the most important part for the Oculus Rift.

It wouldn't surprise me if there are already half a dozen Chinese companies developing their own version.
 
It wouldn't surprise me if there are already half a dozen Chinese companies developing their own version.

It would surprise me. Chinese companies don't innovate, they replicate. And at this point developing a VR headset would require significant innovation, even if the idea was just to copy the Rift.
 
Samsung has already partnered with Oculus.

Let's get this straight though, VR headset technology isn't some kind of brilliant invention. It's been around for ages, but only recently has the tech been there to make it possible to implement in a fashion convenient and desirable for consumers. All it is is a screen on your face and a couple of lenses in front of your eyes separating you from reality. Where Oculus has the advantage is in the interaction of their device with the software environment they are trying to create. This is their primary goal. When Oculus forced Sony's hand, and Sony revealed its Morpheus project, it was clear they had had a team working on it for a while as well. I mean Sony has had an HMD on the market for years. The problem with the lack of progress in the VR space prior to Rift's introduction has been simply the lack of quality. VR looks bad. It will look bad until 4K resolution is the norm for mobile displays most likely. Without the demand for small high resolution displays from smartphone manufacturing, none of this could have been possible at a price-point that makes sense to anyone but the professional and the professional who happens to be a tech enthusiast in his spare time. Now if you're Sony, why jump in when Oculus can test the waters for you? Oculus' success will be in creating an environment for a new class of native 3D VR applications. A VR walled-garden on entirely new ground. For them to achieve that goal, pushing a half-baked consumer toy out of the door to beat their phantom competitors to the market is not a good idea.

My gripe at this point is that that overpriced behemoth Facebook bought them up, so there's no way I'll be able to make money off of an IPO of theirs in the future.
 
I`d be willing to put down some real money for a setup that can give me VR at 1440p (not screen doored or anything )
 
It would surprise me. Chinese companies don't innovate, they replicate. And at this point developing a VR headset would require significant innovation, even if the idea was just to copy the Rift.

What? No.

VR headsets are yawn-fest old news from the mid-1990s. Any company could easily use off-the-shelf parts to cobble one together in a few months and sell it, but they don't because larger companies have put the idea through the NPV/IRR/etc process and figured out that VR stuff doesn't get to the hurdle rate for profitable returns. If it was worth doing and would actually make money, the oculus people wouldn't be dragging their feet for years. They know they're gonna fail once they reach a final product and they won't be able to dupe investors at that point with the excusable "it's a beta so we expect to lose money" excuse. They need to milk all the moolah they can to get personally wealthy before that happens so they can shrug off the failure of the company/Facebook division on their way to whatever island resort they're planning to spend the rest of their lives living on.
 
make that 75fps, not 60fps, otherwise you'll have judder.

Playing around with DK2, massively impressived, and requires good PC hardware to get the most from it.Try it first before making any assumptions, even with the relatively "low" res of 1080p, the immersion factor with the positional camera is just awesome. Played some www.liveforspeed.net, excellent sense of speed and being there!
Rollercoaster game (in nice UE4 powered textured world) really does make your stomach drop!

best purchase this year, up there with SSD for the next advancement, can't wait for the consumer version to hit, lower latency (DK2 only very slight smearing, but with low persistence mode very enjoyable for hours) and higher resolution (4k?)

one the best apps might be VRdesktop, always wanted a 120" monitor to hook up to your PC: done!
watch movies on screens bigger than those in largest movie theater.

go Oculus go!
 
I'd buy a beta for sure. If it did a higher resolution at 1440, I'd really be happy but I'm sure it'll cost more.
 
I'm looking forward to it...

Splinter voice: Ha! I made a funny!
 
What? No.

VR headsets are yawn-fest old news from the mid-1990s. Any company could easily use off-the-shelf parts to cobble one together in a few months and sell it, but they don't because larger companies have put the idea through the NPV/IRR/etc process and figured out that VR stuff doesn't get to the hurdle rate for profitable returns. If it was worth doing and would actually make money, the oculus people wouldn't be dragging their feet for years. They know they're gonna fail once they reach a final product and they won't be able to dupe investors at that point with the excusable "it's a beta so we expect to lose money" excuse. They need to milk all the moolah they can to get personally wealthy before that happens so they can shrug off the failure of the company/Facebook division on their way to whatever island resort they're planning to spend the rest of their lives living on.

dLs2Fzz.jpg
 
Even with 1080p and 60 FPS, I'm excited. Compared to the past stuff (the old stuff in the malls), it's way more advanced. I can't wait to try it out. I don't expect an alternate reality with photo real visuals and 4K displays at 120 FPS with photo real textures, I just want a decent, low cost VR display. If successful, I'm sure that there will be other variations that keep getting better until people do have their photo real stuff.
 
DK2: 1080p 75Hz
rumors for CV1: 1440p and 90hz

needs a really good GPU to keep up
 
DK2: 1080p 75Hz
rumors for CV1: 1440p and 90hz

needs a really good GPU to keep up

How much better of a GPU though? I think with the screen rather small, I would think it wouldn't take a very power GPU at all. I await the day when 1440p comes out.

I personally would definitely use the motion tracking but the biggest added plus for me is watching a video on it. It would be like sitting in front of a massive screen.
 
How much better of a GPU though? I think with the screen rather small, I would think it wouldn't take a very power GPU at all. I await the day when 1440p comes out.

I personally would definitely use the motion tracking but the biggest added plus for me is watching a video on it. It would be like sitting in front of a massive screen.
Screen size is irrelevant. All the GPU sees when working is how many pixels it has to output. Performance at 1440p would be the same on a 11" screen and a 32" screen. 1440p is 78% more pixels than 1080p, and that is not insignificant in terms of GPU performance. So not only does the GPU have more pixels to process, but it also needs to push 15 more FPS for the optimal experience at 90Hz. You do need a beefy GPU to keep up, or a mGPU solution to get the optimal experience with VR running on a 1440p screen at 90Hz..
 
How much better of a GPU though? I think with the screen rather small, I would think it wouldn't take a very power GPU at all. I await the day when 1440p comes out.

I personally would definitely use the motion tracking but the biggest added plus for me is watching a video on it. It would be like sitting in front of a massive screen.

Consoles must be REALLY powerful if they can game on a 80" screen, right?
 
The guy has 3x290's. I'm sure he meant "small" as in "not-4K-resolution." Right? Right!?
 
Consoles must be REALLY powerful if they can game on a 80" screen, right?

LMAO
The sad thing is, is that this is what most of the CEOs and console kiddies really think is reality.

While it can technically be true, what resolution is that 80" screen, and what is the real, non-upscaled resolution of their games.
Good times with the n00bs. :D
 
Consoles must be REALLY powerful if they can game on a 80" screen, right?
Right, but at this point you'll need a USB hub to provide more power to your controller, otherwise turn radius is limited.
 
DK2: 1080p 75Hz
rumors for CV1: 1440p and 90hz

needs a really good GPU to keep up
Ideally, two GPUs.

Since you're rendering two cameras rather than one, Multi-GPU scaling with VR is pretty much perfect. Adding a second GPU literally doubles performance.
 
85%, pshhh..... that's the quick and easy part.... that extra 15% is what takes forever...
 
Ideally, two GPUs.

Since you're rendering two cameras rather than one, Multi-GPU scaling with VR is pretty much perfect. Adding a second GPU literally doubles performance.

current SLI/CF implementation is not Oculus friendly... although SLI does promise specific VR SLI optimizations in their presentation of the 9x0 series... let's hope for the best, because getting a MINIMUM fps of 90 in today's game at 2560x1440 is not going to be easy, seeing as today's systems have a hard time reaching 90fps on average :D

finally the GPU is again the bottleneck!
because for too long a single screen the GPU was no longer performance back (talking about 1080p) and CPUs have become irrelevant for quite some time now
 
Back
Top