[quote="eqzitara"]Im in process of selling my Vive. The reasons are as said before software. I am super excited for Budget Cuts but I cant justify it nor is a release date on horizon. Im also excited for Fallout 4 but Ive sinked 150 hours into Fallout 4. Im sitting out this cycle and will use money I raise to check back in for next cycle of VR.
I actually looked at upcomming PC releases before end of year. I plan to BUY 10 GAMES.[2 console games]
I know of 0 VR games that I will buy.
Not to mention I plan to buy a Playstaion Neo.
Most VR games I bought I totally regret buying and the only few really good stuff is in early access which I refuse to look into.
The resolution isnt that great and in order to make even the low resolution truly crisp you need to upscale like mad.
AS A BUDGET GAMER
Im not writing off VR its just... I spent $900 including shipping/taxes on it. AAA games are $40 on PC if you shop around. Thats like 25 games.... thats insane. I really don't see software catching up anytime soon for this reason.
VR at this time is supplementary. At $900... thats a huge supplement.
-----------------------------
Playstation VR seems interesting cause its making more of a bang before end of year in software then Vive/Rift thus gar.
My problem and reason I wont be getting it is that the resolution is even lower and I'd have to try it which is unlikely. Ive been happy with Vives Blurryness with upscaling but absolutely had troubles without it. I honestly thought I was having vision issues when not looking dead on.
Going lower on resolution with no upscaling doesnt seem like an option to me.[/quote]
Well, I have to say that I completely agree with your conclusion that VR is not for Budget Gaming. It's absolutely punishingly expensive in all aspects.
One of the main ones that I've run into, is that the minimum spec of a GTX 970 is not at all realistic. I bought that as a way to get away from the SLI GTX 690. Roughly the same performance actually, but single card, and "VR Ready".
The only problem is that the resolution for both Rift and Vive is so terrible, that you actually really must use DSR/SuperSampling. If you can't get to that 1.4x native sweet spot, then everything is remarkably blurry and eye-straining.
The GTX 970 cannot do SuperSampling for any demanding games. So that means yet another upgrade of video card to a higher end card. I've used a GTX 980 in Project Cars, Raw Data, and Chronos, and I would put it as not quite acceptable. A 1070 is probably acceptable, and what I would put as the actual minimum spec.
SLI is Dead on Arrival for VR. Any discussion of SLI from a game dev or Oculus is completely dismissive. So that means two budget cards are out of the question.
And, most everything is single threaded. So your CPU has to be as good as it can get in order to get enough juice to fill the GPU. I don't think anything less than 4GHz is going to cut it here.
There are some experiences that are genuinely unique and interesting in VR. With SuperSampling it's actually an OK visual experience. Without SS, I'm not interested in using it, it's just a bad experience. However, I also think it does have a future, just that day is not quite today.
I think my biggest surprise is that I've come around to Oculus' way of thinking, that things do in fact need to be developed specifically for VR. Like a lot of us, my initial reaction was that I would love to play an older game in VR. Bioshock Infinite for me. The big surprise is that doesn't really translate at all well, and there are other games that are actually better experiences- room scale in particular.
eqzitara said:Im in process of selling my Vive. The reasons are as said before software. I am super excited for Budget Cuts but I cant justify it nor is a release date on horizon. Im also excited for Fallout 4 but Ive sinked 150 hours into Fallout 4. Im sitting out this cycle and will use money I raise to check back in for next cycle of VR.
I actually looked at upcomming PC releases before end of year. I plan to BUY 10 GAMES.[2 console games]
I know of 0 VR games that I will buy.
Not to mention I plan to buy a Playstaion Neo.
Most VR games I bought I totally regret buying and the only few really good stuff is in early access which I refuse to look into.
The resolution isnt that great and in order to make even the low resolution truly crisp you need to upscale like mad.
AS A BUDGET GAMER
Im not writing off VR its just... I spent $900 including shipping/taxes on it. AAA games are $40 on PC if you shop around. Thats like 25 games.... thats insane. I really don't see software catching up anytime soon for this reason.
VR at this time is supplementary. At $900... thats a huge supplement.
-----------------------------
Playstation VR seems interesting cause its making more of a bang before end of year in software then Vive/Rift thus gar.
My problem and reason I wont be getting it is that the resolution is even lower and I'd have to try it which is unlikely. Ive been happy with Vives Blurryness with upscaling but absolutely had troubles without it. I honestly thought I was having vision issues when not looking dead on.
Going lower on resolution with no upscaling doesnt seem like an option to me.
Well, I have to say that I completely agree with your conclusion that VR is not for Budget Gaming. It's absolutely punishingly expensive in all aspects.
One of the main ones that I've run into, is that the minimum spec of a GTX 970 is not at all realistic. I bought that as a way to get away from the SLI GTX 690. Roughly the same performance actually, but single card, and "VR Ready".
The only problem is that the resolution for both Rift and Vive is so terrible, that you actually really must use DSR/SuperSampling. If you can't get to that 1.4x native sweet spot, then everything is remarkably blurry and eye-straining.
The GTX 970 cannot do SuperSampling for any demanding games. So that means yet another upgrade of video card to a higher end card. I've used a GTX 980 in Project Cars, Raw Data, and Chronos, and I would put it as not quite acceptable. A 1070 is probably acceptable, and what I would put as the actual minimum spec.
SLI is Dead on Arrival for VR. Any discussion of SLI from a game dev or Oculus is completely dismissive. So that means two budget cards are out of the question.
And, most everything is single threaded. So your CPU has to be as good as it can get in order to get enough juice to fill the GPU. I don't think anything less than 4GHz is going to cut it here.
There are some experiences that are genuinely unique and interesting in VR. With SuperSampling it's actually an OK visual experience. Without SS, I'm not interested in using it, it's just a bad experience. However, I also think it does have a future, just that day is not quite today.
I think my biggest surprise is that I've come around to Oculus' way of thinking, that things do in fact need to be developed specifically for VR. Like a lot of us, my initial reaction was that I would love to play an older game in VR. Bioshock Infinite for me. The big surprise is that doesn't really translate at all well, and there are other games that are actually better experiences- room scale in particular.
Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607 Latest 3Dmigoto Release Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers
On a hilarious note.... I sold my HTC vive for $840 even though it sells for $800. [-shipping and ebay services]
How? I took each part and sold them seperately lol.
I am first person to do this. HTC sells replacements at crazy expense.
Super pleased cause I REALLY did not want to sell a used system to someone who never even tried VR. Took a hit but got to try out VR for the summer and loss wasn't huge.
-----------------------
@Bo3b
This is why I am REALLY confused by playstation VR. In all of them you move with controller. Which is a no no as far as I've seen.
On a hilarious note.... I sold my HTC vive for $840 even though it sells for $800. [-shipping and ebay services]
How? I took each part and sold them seperately lol.
I am first person to do this. HTC sells replacements at crazy expense.
Super pleased cause I REALLY did not want to sell a used system to someone who never even tried VR. Took a hit but got to try out VR for the summer and loss wasn't huge.
-----------------------
@Bo3b
This is why I am REALLY confused by playstation VR. In all of them you move with controller. Which is a no no as far as I've seen.
Co-founder of helixmod.blog.com
If you like one of my helixmod patches and want to donate. Can send to me through paypal - eqzitara@yahoo.com
[quote="bo3b"][quote="eqzitara"]Im in process of selling my Vive. The reasons are as said before software. I am super excited for Budget Cuts but I cant justify it nor is a release date on horizon. Im also excited for Fallout 4 but Ive sinked 150 hours into Fallout 4. Im sitting out this cycle and will use money I raise to check back in for next cycle of VR.
I actually looked at upcomming PC releases before end of year. I plan to BUY 10 GAMES.[2 console games]
I know of 0 VR games that I will buy.
Not to mention I plan to buy a Playstaion Neo.
Most VR games I bought I totally regret buying and the only few really good stuff is in early access which I refuse to look into.
The resolution isnt that great and in order to make even the low resolution truly crisp you need to upscale like mad.
AS A BUDGET GAMER
Im not writing off VR its just... I spent $900 including shipping/taxes on it. AAA games are $40 on PC if you shop around. Thats like 25 games.... thats insane. I really don't see software catching up anytime soon for this reason.
VR at this time is supplementary. At $900... thats a huge supplement.
-----------------------------
Playstation VR seems interesting cause its making more of a bang before end of year in software then Vive/Rift thus gar.
My problem and reason I wont be getting it is that the resolution is even lower and I'd have to try it which is unlikely. Ive been happy with Vives Blurryness with upscaling but absolutely had troubles without it. I honestly thought I was having vision issues when not looking dead on.
Going lower on resolution with no upscaling doesnt seem like an option to me.[/quote]
Well, I have to say that I completely agree with your conclusion that VR is not for Budget Gaming. It's absolutely punishingly expensive in all aspects.
One of the main ones that I've run into, is that the minimum spec of a GTX 970 is not at all realistic. I bought that as a way to get away from the SLI GTX 690. Roughly the same performance actually, but single card, and "VR Ready".
The only problem is that the resolution for both Rift and Vive is so terrible, that you actually really must use DSR/SuperSampling. If you can't get to that 1.4x native sweet spot, then everything is remarkably blurry and eye-straining.
The GTX 970 cannot do SuperSampling for any demanding games. So that means yet another upgrade of video card to a higher end card. I've used a GTX 980 in Project Cars, Raw Data, and Chronos, and I would put it as not quite acceptable. A 1070 is probably acceptable, and what I would put as the actual minimum spec.
SLI is Dead on Arrival for VR. Any discussion of SLI from a game dev or Oculus is completely dismissive. So that means two budget cards are out of the question.
And, most everything is single threaded. So your CPU has to be as good as it can get in order to get enough juice to fill the GPU. I don't think anything less than 4GHz is going to cut it here.
There are some experiences that are genuinely unique and interesting in VR. With SuperSampling it's actually an OK visual experience. Without SS, I'm not interested in using it, it's just a bad experience. However, I also think it does have a future, just that day is not quite today.
I think my biggest surprise is that I've come around to Oculus' way of thinking, that things do in fact need to be developed specifically for VR. Like a lot of us, my initial reaction was that I would love to play an older game in VR. Bioshock Infinite for me. The big surprise is that doesn't really translate at all well, and there are other games that are actually better experiences- room scale in particular.
[/quote]
It's ironic but not completely surprising isn't it?
Rightly or wrongly (it's a personal preference after all) I played briefly with a rift cv1 and dismissed it purely due to the screendoor/resolution issues, so I decided I'd wait for the 'next wave'.
I fully understand the SLI/Crossfire issues, but here we are on the cusp of something new and lack of support for multi-gpu, multi-core, which are arguably future facing solutions, are once again completely abandoned..
It's double irony, because just like 3d vision support, it's a great example of software development and corporate priorities lagging behind hardware.
Sorry if there is a lack of coherence to what I'm trying to say, it's weekend and I myself have prioritised beer over gaming :-)
eqzitara said:Im in process of selling my Vive. The reasons are as said before software. I am super excited for Budget Cuts but I cant justify it nor is a release date on horizon. Im also excited for Fallout 4 but Ive sinked 150 hours into Fallout 4. Im sitting out this cycle and will use money I raise to check back in for next cycle of VR.
I actually looked at upcomming PC releases before end of year. I plan to BUY 10 GAMES.[2 console games]
I know of 0 VR games that I will buy.
Not to mention I plan to buy a Playstaion Neo.
Most VR games I bought I totally regret buying and the only few really good stuff is in early access which I refuse to look into.
The resolution isnt that great and in order to make even the low resolution truly crisp you need to upscale like mad.
AS A BUDGET GAMER
Im not writing off VR its just... I spent $900 including shipping/taxes on it. AAA games are $40 on PC if you shop around. Thats like 25 games.... thats insane. I really don't see software catching up anytime soon for this reason.
VR at this time is supplementary. At $900... thats a huge supplement.
-----------------------------
Playstation VR seems interesting cause its making more of a bang before end of year in software then Vive/Rift thus gar.
My problem and reason I wont be getting it is that the resolution is even lower and I'd have to try it which is unlikely. Ive been happy with Vives Blurryness with upscaling but absolutely had troubles without it. I honestly thought I was having vision issues when not looking dead on.
Going lower on resolution with no upscaling doesnt seem like an option to me.
Well, I have to say that I completely agree with your conclusion that VR is not for Budget Gaming. It's absolutely punishingly expensive in all aspects.
One of the main ones that I've run into, is that the minimum spec of a GTX 970 is not at all realistic. I bought that as a way to get away from the SLI GTX 690. Roughly the same performance actually, but single card, and "VR Ready".
The only problem is that the resolution for both Rift and Vive is so terrible, that you actually really must use DSR/SuperSampling. If you can't get to that 1.4x native sweet spot, then everything is remarkably blurry and eye-straining.
The GTX 970 cannot do SuperSampling for any demanding games. So that means yet another upgrade of video card to a higher end card. I've used a GTX 980 in Project Cars, Raw Data, and Chronos, and I would put it as not quite acceptable. A 1070 is probably acceptable, and what I would put as the actual minimum spec.
SLI is Dead on Arrival for VR. Any discussion of SLI from a game dev or Oculus is completely dismissive. So that means two budget cards are out of the question.
And, most everything is single threaded. So your CPU has to be as good as it can get in order to get enough juice to fill the GPU. I don't think anything less than 4GHz is going to cut it here.
There are some experiences that are genuinely unique and interesting in VR. With SuperSampling it's actually an OK visual experience. Without SS, I'm not interested in using it, it's just a bad experience. However, I also think it does have a future, just that day is not quite today.
I think my biggest surprise is that I've come around to Oculus' way of thinking, that things do in fact need to be developed specifically for VR. Like a lot of us, my initial reaction was that I would love to play an older game in VR. Bioshock Infinite for me. The big surprise is that doesn't really translate at all well, and there are other games that are actually better experiences- room scale in particular.
It's ironic but not completely surprising isn't it?
Rightly or wrongly (it's a personal preference after all) I played briefly with a rift cv1 and dismissed it purely due to the screendoor/resolution issues, so I decided I'd wait for the 'next wave'.
I fully understand the SLI/Crossfire issues, but here we are on the cusp of something new and lack of support for multi-gpu, multi-core, which are arguably future facing solutions, are once again completely abandoned..
It's double irony, because just like 3d vision support, it's a great example of software development and corporate priorities lagging behind hardware.
Sorry if there is a lack of coherence to what I'm trying to say, it's weekend and I myself have prioritised beer over gaming :-)
GTX 1070 SLI, I7-6700k ~ 4.4Ghz, 3x BenQ XL2420T, BenQ TK800, LG 55EG960V (3D OLED), Samsung 850 EVO SSD, Crucial M4 SSD, 3D vision kit, Xpand x104 glasses, Corsair HX1000i, Win 10 pro 64/Win 7 64https://www.3dmark.com/fs/9529310
I know this might not really belong as this is a PC forum, but I just got the Playstation VR for my PS4 and my goodness it is phenomenal. I definitely notice the lower resolution and toned down graphics, but after playing Arkham VR it was absolutely the best gaming experience I have ever had. 3D vision is nice, but this is a whole other level.
I know this might not really belong as this is a PC forum, but I just got the Playstation VR for my PS4 and my goodness it is phenomenal. I definitely notice the lower resolution and toned down graphics, but after playing Arkham VR it was absolutely the best gaming experience I have ever had. 3D vision is nice, but this is a whole other level.
[quote="eqzitara"]
@Bo3b
This is why I am REALLY confused by playstation VR. In all of them you move with controller. Which is a no no as far as I've seen.[/quote]
I am fortunately one of those who does not experience VR motion sickness. I tried plenty of games on the PSVR and even the ones where you move in first person with the analog sticks while seated does not induce any issues. However, I expect I might be in the minority as I have never gotten motion sickness in the real world and it is very hard to make myself dizzy or lose my balance.
eqzitara said:
@Bo3b
This is why I am REALLY confused by playstation VR. In all of them you move with controller. Which is a no no as far as I've seen.
I am fortunately one of those who does not experience VR motion sickness. I tried plenty of games on the PSVR and even the ones where you move in first person with the analog sticks while seated does not induce any issues. However, I expect I might be in the minority as I have never gotten motion sickness in the real world and it is very hard to make myself dizzy or lose my balance.
Asus Maximus X Hero Z370
MSI Gaming X 1080Ti (2100 mhz OC Watercooled)
8700k (4.7ghz OC Watercooled)
16gb DDR4 3000 Ram
500GB SAMSUNG 860 EVO SERIES SSD M.2
Yupp, but if you look closely at minute 1:45 (SBS compare) you can see how smooth the FPS is in VR vs 2D.
Probably that is why they had to do it...
It's funny really... In 3D VIsion if you play the game on lower resolution and you get let's say 30 FPS is still in a playable state... but in VR you get instant sick...
I say is funny because VR needs MORE power than 3D Vision to work and that is ONLY available on High End GPUs and SLI (2/3/4 way) which lately seems to be less and less supported! But they come with VR which demands even MORE than 3D Vision does, yet all the technologies for more RAW power seem to be less and less supported.
Nonsense?!?!
Yupp, but if you look closely at minute 1:45 (SBS compare) you can see how smooth the FPS is in VR vs 2D.
Probably that is why they had to do it...
It's funny really... In 3D VIsion if you play the game on lower resolution and you get let's say 30 FPS is still in a playable state... but in VR you get instant sick...
I say is funny because VR needs MORE power than 3D Vision to work and that is ONLY available on High End GPUs and SLI (2/3/4 way) which lately seems to be less and less supported! But they come with VR which demands even MORE than 3D Vision does, yet all the technologies for more RAW power seem to be less and less supported.
Nonsense?!?!
1x Palit RTX 2080Ti Pro Gaming OC(watercooled and overclocked to hell)
3x 3D Vision Ready Asus VG278HE monitors (5760x1080).
Intel i9 9900K (overclocked to 5.3 and watercooled ofc).
Asus Maximus XI Hero Mobo.
16 GB Team Group T-Force Dark Pro DDR4 @ 3600.
Lots of Disks:
- Raid 0 - 256GB Sandisk Extreme SSD.
- Raid 0 - WD Black - 2TB.
- SanDisk SSD PLUS 480 GB.
- Intel 760p 256GB M.2 PCIe NVMe SSD.
Creative Sound Blaster Z.
Windows 10 x64 Pro.
etc
[quote="clammy"]Oh no.....they dumbed down the graphics quality damn near to PS2 graphics....no thanks[/quote]
I understand your position completely. For some pristine graphics are needed for that sense of immersion and without it there is no fun. For some others like me the immersion itself makes up for downgraded or PS3 era graphics. Neither position is wrong and just boils down to preference.
Just like some cannot play any game at less than 1080p or 120fps with MSAA. I guess I am fortunate that things like graphic effects and AA and resolution do not spoil my enjoyment of games. As long as the framerate is stable and the game is fun I can do with graphical trade offs.
Of course you would pick Drive Club as an example as in my tests of various games it is the one whose graphics shortcomings are the most obvious due to its desire to try to mimic real-life.
Other more stylized games like REZ, Arkham VR, and BattleZone look much better as my mind can accept lesser effects in a stylized setting verses games that try to look like the real world.
clammy said:Oh no.....they dumbed down the graphics quality damn near to PS2 graphics....no thanks
I understand your position completely. For some pristine graphics are needed for that sense of immersion and without it there is no fun. For some others like me the immersion itself makes up for downgraded or PS3 era graphics. Neither position is wrong and just boils down to preference.
Just like some cannot play any game at less than 1080p or 120fps with MSAA. I guess I am fortunate that things like graphic effects and AA and resolution do not spoil my enjoyment of games. As long as the framerate is stable and the game is fun I can do with graphical trade offs.
Of course you would pick Drive Club as an example as in my tests of various games it is the one whose graphics shortcomings are the most obvious due to its desire to try to mimic real-life.
Other more stylized games like REZ, Arkham VR, and BattleZone look much better as my mind can accept lesser effects in a stylized setting verses games that try to look like the real world.
Arkham VR Gameplay - Keep in mind that any footage you see on Youtube from PSVR games is captured from the "social screen" and from what I heard those images will look worse than what you actually see in the VR headset.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEULnm5oPks
Arkham VR Gameplay - Keep in mind that any footage you see on Youtube from PSVR games is captured from the "social screen" and from what I heard those images will look worse than what you actually see in the VR headset.
[quote="terintamel"]Arkham VR Gameplay - Keep in mind that any footage you see on Youtube from PSVR games is captured from the "social screen" and from what I heard those images will be of lesser quality and resolution than what you actually see in the VR headset.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEULnm5oPks
[/quote]
Weird... Where is your "body" in the game? All I see is a hand...:(
The rest looks really awesome though;)
terintamel said:Arkham VR Gameplay - Keep in mind that any footage you see on Youtube from PSVR games is captured from the "social screen" and from what I heard those images will be of lesser quality and resolution than what you actually see in the VR headset.
Weird... Where is your "body" in the game? All I see is a hand...:(
The rest looks really awesome though;)
1x Palit RTX 2080Ti Pro Gaming OC(watercooled and overclocked to hell)
3x 3D Vision Ready Asus VG278HE monitors (5760x1080).
Intel i9 9900K (overclocked to 5.3 and watercooled ofc).
Asus Maximus XI Hero Mobo.
16 GB Team Group T-Force Dark Pro DDR4 @ 3600.
Lots of Disks:
- Raid 0 - 256GB Sandisk Extreme SSD.
- Raid 0 - WD Black - 2TB.
- SanDisk SSD PLUS 480 GB.
- Intel 760p 256GB M.2 PCIe NVMe SSD.
Creative Sound Blaster Z.
Windows 10 x64 Pro.
etc
[quote="helifax"][quote="terintamel"]Arkham VR Gameplay - Keep in mind that any footage you see on Youtube from PSVR games is captured from the "social screen" and from what I heard those images will be of lesser quality and resolution than what you actually see in the VR headset.
[/quote]
Weird... Where is your "body" in the game? All I see is a hand...:(
The rest looks really awesome though;)[/quote]
There is not a full body, but you see your hands and when you look down you see your utility belt where you can grab your batarangs, grapple gun, and scanner. It would have been cool to show the full body, but as the system has no way to really track anything but your head and hands it would probably be very disconcerting to see your virtual legs not matching up with your real legs when you walk around.
This game does have the ability to create a virtual space that you can free walk around the environment. Probably a 3-4' square area. Not a lot but enough to help sell the illusion of actually being in the world.
Also in the IGN video they do not have their camera setup right as your hands should not disappear and reappear like that. I played and my hands were visible at all times unless I reached outside of the play area, which if you have setup right is at least your full range of motion.
terintamel said:Arkham VR Gameplay - Keep in mind that any footage you see on Youtube from PSVR games is captured from the "social screen" and from what I heard those images will be of lesser quality and resolution than what you actually see in the VR headset.
Weird... Where is your "body" in the game? All I see is a hand...:(
The rest looks really awesome though;)
There is not a full body, but you see your hands and when you look down you see your utility belt where you can grab your batarangs, grapple gun, and scanner. It would have been cool to show the full body, but as the system has no way to really track anything but your head and hands it would probably be very disconcerting to see your virtual legs not matching up with your real legs when you walk around.
This game does have the ability to create a virtual space that you can free walk around the environment. Probably a 3-4' square area. Not a lot but enough to help sell the illusion of actually being in the world.
Also in the IGN video they do not have their camera setup right as your hands should not disappear and reappear like that. I played and my hands were visible at all times unless I reached outside of the play area, which if you have setup right is at least your full range of motion.
I tested a few times the Rift DK2 in some events, but the demos were not good. So I have been sort of dreaming about VR for a while even though I have not seen anything good in the demos. This week I decided to buy a generic Gear VR headset to try some games but so far I am a bit disappointed with VR, the hype is gone for me.
Gear VR is obviously not as good as a Rift, but it does give a good idea of what to expect from VR.
I`ve seen some people using this with Trinus VR app to stream games from the PC and thought would be interesting to try. So far the experience was nowhere near 3D Vision. It did not give me that woowww impact and feeling I had the first time I saw a steroscopic 3D game! The current games are just terrible to play in VR, perhaps If I had never seen games in 3D maybe I would consider playing with the headset, but the experience is so much better in my 50 inch 3D TV @ 1080p.
A first person game must be at a very slow pace to be good, as to be able to move your head and walk properly in the game while shooting lots of other things just think doesn't work.
Third person games I see no benefits compared to 3D vision. You get a much better experience with high resolution and sense of depth in 3D Vision
For some reason, the depth also doesn't look as good in the headset, maybe because I am so used to 3D Vision and high convergence. I tested a game with the same covergence and comparing both TV and headset I can see more depth in the TV and give me a more woowwww sort of feeling.
I think VR is good for very specific games that must be designed for VR, otherwise I would rather play in stereoscopic 3D in my TV.
This was a good experience because the hype for me was too high and now I can wait to get a VR headset, no need to rush at all. Even some games that I was kind of reserving to play in VR I just won't anymore. I will play them whenever I get a chance in 3D Vision.
I tested a few times the Rift DK2 in some events, but the demos were not good. So I have been sort of dreaming about VR for a while even though I have not seen anything good in the demos. This week I decided to buy a generic Gear VR headset to try some games but so far I am a bit disappointed with VR, the hype is gone for me.
Gear VR is obviously not as good as a Rift, but it does give a good idea of what to expect from VR.
I`ve seen some people using this with Trinus VR app to stream games from the PC and thought would be interesting to try. So far the experience was nowhere near 3D Vision. It did not give me that woowww impact and feeling I had the first time I saw a steroscopic 3D game! The current games are just terrible to play in VR, perhaps If I had never seen games in 3D maybe I would consider playing with the headset, but the experience is so much better in my 50 inch 3D TV @ 1080p.
A first person game must be at a very slow pace to be good, as to be able to move your head and walk properly in the game while shooting lots of other things just think doesn't work.
Third person games I see no benefits compared to 3D vision. You get a much better experience with high resolution and sense of depth in 3D Vision
For some reason, the depth also doesn't look as good in the headset, maybe because I am so used to 3D Vision and high convergence. I tested a game with the same covergence and comparing both TV and headset I can see more depth in the TV and give me a more woowwww sort of feeling.
I think VR is good for very specific games that must be designed for VR, otherwise I would rather play in stereoscopic 3D in my TV.
This was a good experience because the hype for me was too high and now I can wait to get a VR headset, no need to rush at all. Even some games that I was kind of reserving to play in VR I just won't anymore. I will play them whenever I get a chance in 3D Vision.
EVGA GTX 1070 FTW
Motherboard MSI Z370 SLI PLUS
Processor i5-8600K @ 4.2 | Cooler SilverStone AR02
Corsair Vengeance 8GB 3000Mhz | Windows 10 Pro
SSD 240gb Kingston UV400 | 2x HDs 1TB RAID0 | 2x HD 2TB RAID1
TV LG Cinema 3D 49lb6200 | ACER EDID override | Oculus Rift CV1
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/J0hnnieW4lker Screenshots: http://phereo.com/583b3a2f8884282d5d000007
[quote="terintamel"]I know this might not really belong as this is a PC forum, but I just got the Playstation VR for my PS4 and my goodness it is phenomenal.[/quote]
I have to agree here! I already own the Rift and the Vive and I am also using (or should I rather say primarily using) 3D Vision on a 4K OLED but still I have to admit Sony did some magic here.
It just took a few minutes in Arkham VR and the Resident Evil "Kitchen" demo and I knew that Playstation VR turned out to be just what I hoped it would be. Even with the limitation to 1080p everything looks very good in my book. No wonder that nearly every review spread across the net confirms the remarkable graphics quality that is quite comparable to Rift & Vive although being inferior hardware-wise.
I don't know if it is the absence of the Fresnel lenses or if it is the higher sub-pixel resolution (compared to Rift and Vive) but Playstation VR looks really good with a minimized screen-door effect.
Concerning wearing-comfort Playstation VR is miles ahead of Rift and Vive!
So with a bright green check mark for visual quality let us turn to the most important aspect: CONTENT!
While the software situation currently doesn't seem to differ much from the launch situation for Rift and Vive I already see some significant differences. Playstation VR is currently selling like hot cakes and we can expect a significant number of Playstation 4 owners to also become owners of PS-VR in the near future. Since we are speaking of a system that has sold nearly 45 million units world-wide that is saying something. That's especially saying something when it comes to developers'/publishers' "motivation" to invest the big bucks for big games.
What's already on offer here may be short or limited in some ways but it already feels like something that is working in terms of the "we want real games for VR"-need. Batman: Arkham VR for example may be rather short but you instantly feel that it is working as a game. You instantly feel the difference between all those rather low budget VR-tech demos that are crowding Rift and Vive and the more pure game-like approach of Playstation VR. Playstation VR Worlds gives you different experiences in VR and one of them is called "London Heist". Here you take part in a diamond robbery where you actually have to steal a diamond and then literally shoot your way out (gun-blazing shoot out on the highway included). While this is also a rather short experience you already can imagine this being a full fledged game. Aside from the shooting it also includes interrogation scenes, the diamond-robbery itself (where you have to beautifully interact with your environment and solve a very basic riddle), a scene at a bar where you can interact with another character and also do some stuff with the objects around you. All that just feels very natural and in no way tacked on.
Another breathtaking experience was the Resident Evil 7 Kitchen demo, which only runs for like 3 minutes but totally gets to you because of the immersion factor. And here we already know that the full Resident Evil 7 game will be out January 2017 and will be fully playable in Playstation VR!
Bottom line for me really is that Playstation VR gets everything done right (especially having in mind the limited hardware-power backing it up) and here is definitely hope that the new Playstation 4 Pro that was mainly designed to benefit PS VR will have some kind of supersampling directly implemented so the already awesome looking visuals will get another boost!
terintamel said:I know this might not really belong as this is a PC forum, but I just got the Playstation VR for my PS4 and my goodness it is phenomenal.
I have to agree here! I already own the Rift and the Vive and I am also using (or should I rather say primarily using) 3D Vision on a 4K OLED but still I have to admit Sony did some magic here.
It just took a few minutes in Arkham VR and the Resident Evil "Kitchen" demo and I knew that Playstation VR turned out to be just what I hoped it would be. Even with the limitation to 1080p everything looks very good in my book. No wonder that nearly every review spread across the net confirms the remarkable graphics quality that is quite comparable to Rift & Vive although being inferior hardware-wise.
I don't know if it is the absence of the Fresnel lenses or if it is the higher sub-pixel resolution (compared to Rift and Vive) but Playstation VR looks really good with a minimized screen-door effect.
Concerning wearing-comfort Playstation VR is miles ahead of Rift and Vive!
So with a bright green check mark for visual quality let us turn to the most important aspect: CONTENT!
While the software situation currently doesn't seem to differ much from the launch situation for Rift and Vive I already see some significant differences. Playstation VR is currently selling like hot cakes and we can expect a significant number of Playstation 4 owners to also become owners of PS-VR in the near future. Since we are speaking of a system that has sold nearly 45 million units world-wide that is saying something. That's especially saying something when it comes to developers'/publishers' "motivation" to invest the big bucks for big games.
What's already on offer here may be short or limited in some ways but it already feels like something that is working in terms of the "we want real games for VR"-need. Batman: Arkham VR for example may be rather short but you instantly feel that it is working as a game. You instantly feel the difference between all those rather low budget VR-tech demos that are crowding Rift and Vive and the more pure game-like approach of Playstation VR. Playstation VR Worlds gives you different experiences in VR and one of them is called "London Heist". Here you take part in a diamond robbery where you actually have to steal a diamond and then literally shoot your way out (gun-blazing shoot out on the highway included). While this is also a rather short experience you already can imagine this being a full fledged game. Aside from the shooting it also includes interrogation scenes, the diamond-robbery itself (where you have to beautifully interact with your environment and solve a very basic riddle), a scene at a bar where you can interact with another character and also do some stuff with the objects around you. All that just feels very natural and in no way tacked on.
Another breathtaking experience was the Resident Evil 7 Kitchen demo, which only runs for like 3 minutes but totally gets to you because of the immersion factor. And here we already know that the full Resident Evil 7 game will be out January 2017 and will be fully playable in Playstation VR!
Bottom line for me really is that Playstation VR gets everything done right (especially having in mind the limited hardware-power backing it up) and here is definitely hope that the new Playstation 4 Pro that was mainly designed to benefit PS VR will have some kind of supersampling directly implemented so the already awesome looking visuals will get another boost!
[quote]
Bottom line for me really is that Playstation VR gets everything done right (especially having in mind the limited hardware-power backing it up) and here is definitely hope that the new Playstation 4 Pro that was mainly designed to benefit PS VR will have some kind of supersampling directly implemented so the already awesome looking visuals will get another boost!
[/quote]
Here is hoping that Developers will not be stuck only with Playstation VR but will release those games in VR for PC as well;)
Bottom line for me really is that Playstation VR gets everything done right (especially having in mind the limited hardware-power backing it up) and here is definitely hope that the new Playstation 4 Pro that was mainly designed to benefit PS VR will have some kind of supersampling directly implemented so the already awesome looking visuals will get another boost!
Here is hoping that Developers will not be stuck only with Playstation VR but will release those games in VR for PC as well;)
1x Palit RTX 2080Ti Pro Gaming OC(watercooled and overclocked to hell)
3x 3D Vision Ready Asus VG278HE monitors (5760x1080).
Intel i9 9900K (overclocked to 5.3 and watercooled ofc).
Asus Maximus XI Hero Mobo.
16 GB Team Group T-Force Dark Pro DDR4 @ 3600.
Lots of Disks:
- Raid 0 - 256GB Sandisk Extreme SSD.
- Raid 0 - WD Black - 2TB.
- SanDisk SSD PLUS 480 GB.
- Intel 760p 256GB M.2 PCIe NVMe SSD.
Creative Sound Blaster Z.
Windows 10 x64 Pro.
etc
[quote="helifax"]Weird... Where is your "body" in the game? All I see is a hand...:(
The rest looks really awesome though;)[/quote]Lol... and I thought floating hands were bad in FPSs, this is taking it to a whole new level. :)
Well, I have to say that I completely agree with your conclusion that VR is not for Budget Gaming. It's absolutely punishingly expensive in all aspects.
One of the main ones that I've run into, is that the minimum spec of a GTX 970 is not at all realistic. I bought that as a way to get away from the SLI GTX 690. Roughly the same performance actually, but single card, and "VR Ready".
The only problem is that the resolution for both Rift and Vive is so terrible, that you actually really must use DSR/SuperSampling. If you can't get to that 1.4x native sweet spot, then everything is remarkably blurry and eye-straining.
The GTX 970 cannot do SuperSampling for any demanding games. So that means yet another upgrade of video card to a higher end card. I've used a GTX 980 in Project Cars, Raw Data, and Chronos, and I would put it as not quite acceptable. A 1070 is probably acceptable, and what I would put as the actual minimum spec.
SLI is Dead on Arrival for VR. Any discussion of SLI from a game dev or Oculus is completely dismissive. So that means two budget cards are out of the question.
And, most everything is single threaded. So your CPU has to be as good as it can get in order to get enough juice to fill the GPU. I don't think anything less than 4GHz is going to cut it here.
There are some experiences that are genuinely unique and interesting in VR. With SuperSampling it's actually an OK visual experience. Without SS, I'm not interested in using it, it's just a bad experience. However, I also think it does have a future, just that day is not quite today.
I think my biggest surprise is that I've come around to Oculus' way of thinking, that things do in fact need to be developed specifically for VR. Like a lot of us, my initial reaction was that I would love to play an older game in VR. Bioshock Infinite for me. The big surprise is that doesn't really translate at all well, and there are other games that are actually better experiences- room scale in particular.
Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607
Latest 3Dmigoto Release
Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers
How? I took each part and sold them seperately lol.
I am first person to do this. HTC sells replacements at crazy expense.
Super pleased cause I REALLY did not want to sell a used system to someone who never even tried VR. Took a hit but got to try out VR for the summer and loss wasn't huge.
-----------------------
@Bo3b
This is why I am REALLY confused by playstation VR. In all of them you move with controller. Which is a no no as far as I've seen.
Co-founder of helixmod.blog.com
If you like one of my helixmod patches and want to donate. Can send to me through paypal - eqzitara@yahoo.com
It's ironic but not completely surprising isn't it?
Rightly or wrongly (it's a personal preference after all) I played briefly with a rift cv1 and dismissed it purely due to the screendoor/resolution issues, so I decided I'd wait for the 'next wave'.
I fully understand the SLI/Crossfire issues, but here we are on the cusp of something new and lack of support for multi-gpu, multi-core, which are arguably future facing solutions, are once again completely abandoned..
It's double irony, because just like 3d vision support, it's a great example of software development and corporate priorities lagging behind hardware.
Sorry if there is a lack of coherence to what I'm trying to say, it's weekend and I myself have prioritised beer over gaming :-)
GTX 1070 SLI, I7-6700k ~ 4.4Ghz, 3x BenQ XL2420T, BenQ TK800, LG 55EG960V (3D OLED), Samsung 850 EVO SSD, Crucial M4 SSD, 3D vision kit, Xpand x104 glasses, Corsair HX1000i, Win 10 pro 64/Win 7 64https://www.3dmark.com/fs/9529310
AMD FX-8350 4GHz
Gigabyte 990FXA-UD3 Rev 4.0
G-Skill PC3-10700- 16GB
Gigabyte Windforce GTX 1060 OC 6GB - 417.01
Creative Soundblaster Z
ViewSonic VX2268WM Black 22" 1680x1050 5ms 120Hz 3Dvision
Windows 10 x64 1709
I am fortunately one of those who does not experience VR motion sickness. I tried plenty of games on the PSVR and even the ones where you move in first person with the analog sticks while seated does not induce any issues. However, I expect I might be in the minority as I have never gotten motion sickness in the real world and it is very hard to make myself dizzy or lose my balance.
AMD FX-8350 4GHz
Gigabyte 990FXA-UD3 Rev 4.0
G-Skill PC3-10700- 16GB
Gigabyte Windforce GTX 1060 OC 6GB - 417.01
Creative Soundblaster Z
ViewSonic VX2268WM Black 22" 1680x1050 5ms 120Hz 3Dvision
Windows 10 x64 1709
Gaming Rig 1
i7 5820K 3.3ghz (Stock Clock)
GTX 1080 Founders Edition (Stock Clock)
16GB DDR4 2400 RAM
512 SAMSUNG 840 PRO
Gaming Rig 2
My new build
Asus Maximus X Hero Z370
MSI Gaming X 1080Ti (2100 mhz OC Watercooled)
8700k (4.7ghz OC Watercooled)
16gb DDR4 3000 Ram
500GB SAMSUNG 860 EVO SERIES SSD M.2
Probably that is why they had to do it...
It's funny really... In 3D VIsion if you play the game on lower resolution and you get let's say 30 FPS is still in a playable state... but in VR you get instant sick...
I say is funny because VR needs MORE power than 3D Vision to work and that is ONLY available on High End GPUs and SLI (2/3/4 way) which lately seems to be less and less supported! But they come with VR which demands even MORE than 3D Vision does, yet all the technologies for more RAW power seem to be less and less supported.
Nonsense?!?!
1x Palit RTX 2080Ti Pro Gaming OC(watercooled and overclocked to hell)
3x 3D Vision Ready Asus VG278HE monitors (5760x1080).
Intel i9 9900K (overclocked to 5.3 and watercooled ofc).
Asus Maximus XI Hero Mobo.
16 GB Team Group T-Force Dark Pro DDR4 @ 3600.
Lots of Disks:
- Raid 0 - 256GB Sandisk Extreme SSD.
- Raid 0 - WD Black - 2TB.
- SanDisk SSD PLUS 480 GB.
- Intel 760p 256GB M.2 PCIe NVMe SSD.
Creative Sound Blaster Z.
Windows 10 x64 Pro.
etc
My website with my fixes and OpenGL to 3D Vision wrapper:
http://3dsurroundgaming.com
(If you like some of the stuff that I've done and want to donate something, you can do it with PayPal at tavyhome@gmail.com)
I understand your position completely. For some pristine graphics are needed for that sense of immersion and without it there is no fun. For some others like me the immersion itself makes up for downgraded or PS3 era graphics. Neither position is wrong and just boils down to preference.
Just like some cannot play any game at less than 1080p or 120fps with MSAA. I guess I am fortunate that things like graphic effects and AA and resolution do not spoil my enjoyment of games. As long as the framerate is stable and the game is fun I can do with graphical trade offs.
Of course you would pick Drive Club as an example as in my tests of various games it is the one whose graphics shortcomings are the most obvious due to its desire to try to mimic real-life.
Other more stylized games like REZ, Arkham VR, and BattleZone look much better as my mind can accept lesser effects in a stylized setting verses games that try to look like the real world.
AMD FX-8350 4GHz
Gigabyte 990FXA-UD3 Rev 4.0
G-Skill PC3-10700- 16GB
Gigabyte Windforce GTX 1060 OC 6GB - 417.01
Creative Soundblaster Z
ViewSonic VX2268WM Black 22" 1680x1050 5ms 120Hz 3Dvision
Windows 10 x64 1709
AMD FX-8350 4GHz
Gigabyte 990FXA-UD3 Rev 4.0
G-Skill PC3-10700- 16GB
Gigabyte Windforce GTX 1060 OC 6GB - 417.01
Creative Soundblaster Z
ViewSonic VX2268WM Black 22" 1680x1050 5ms 120Hz 3Dvision
Windows 10 x64 1709
Weird... Where is your "body" in the game? All I see is a hand...:(
The rest looks really awesome though;)
1x Palit RTX 2080Ti Pro Gaming OC(watercooled and overclocked to hell)
3x 3D Vision Ready Asus VG278HE monitors (5760x1080).
Intel i9 9900K (overclocked to 5.3 and watercooled ofc).
Asus Maximus XI Hero Mobo.
16 GB Team Group T-Force Dark Pro DDR4 @ 3600.
Lots of Disks:
- Raid 0 - 256GB Sandisk Extreme SSD.
- Raid 0 - WD Black - 2TB.
- SanDisk SSD PLUS 480 GB.
- Intel 760p 256GB M.2 PCIe NVMe SSD.
Creative Sound Blaster Z.
Windows 10 x64 Pro.
etc
My website with my fixes and OpenGL to 3D Vision wrapper:
http://3dsurroundgaming.com
(If you like some of the stuff that I've done and want to donate something, you can do it with PayPal at tavyhome@gmail.com)
There is not a full body, but you see your hands and when you look down you see your utility belt where you can grab your batarangs, grapple gun, and scanner. It would have been cool to show the full body, but as the system has no way to really track anything but your head and hands it would probably be very disconcerting to see your virtual legs not matching up with your real legs when you walk around.
This game does have the ability to create a virtual space that you can free walk around the environment. Probably a 3-4' square area. Not a lot but enough to help sell the illusion of actually being in the world.
Also in the IGN video they do not have their camera setup right as your hands should not disappear and reappear like that. I played and my hands were visible at all times unless I reached outside of the play area, which if you have setup right is at least your full range of motion.
AMD FX-8350 4GHz
Gigabyte 990FXA-UD3 Rev 4.0
G-Skill PC3-10700- 16GB
Gigabyte Windforce GTX 1060 OC 6GB - 417.01
Creative Soundblaster Z
ViewSonic VX2268WM Black 22" 1680x1050 5ms 120Hz 3Dvision
Windows 10 x64 1709
Gear VR is obviously not as good as a Rift, but it does give a good idea of what to expect from VR.
I`ve seen some people using this with Trinus VR app to stream games from the PC and thought would be interesting to try. So far the experience was nowhere near 3D Vision. It did not give me that woowww impact and feeling I had the first time I saw a steroscopic 3D game! The current games are just terrible to play in VR, perhaps If I had never seen games in 3D maybe I would consider playing with the headset, but the experience is so much better in my 50 inch 3D TV @ 1080p.
A first person game must be at a very slow pace to be good, as to be able to move your head and walk properly in the game while shooting lots of other things just think doesn't work.
Third person games I see no benefits compared to 3D vision. You get a much better experience with high resolution and sense of depth in 3D Vision
For some reason, the depth also doesn't look as good in the headset, maybe because I am so used to 3D Vision and high convergence. I tested a game with the same covergence and comparing both TV and headset I can see more depth in the TV and give me a more woowwww sort of feeling.
I think VR is good for very specific games that must be designed for VR, otherwise I would rather play in stereoscopic 3D in my TV.
This was a good experience because the hype for me was too high and now I can wait to get a VR headset, no need to rush at all. Even some games that I was kind of reserving to play in VR I just won't anymore. I will play them whenever I get a chance in 3D Vision.
EVGA GTX 1070 FTW
Motherboard MSI Z370 SLI PLUS
Processor i5-8600K @ 4.2 | Cooler SilverStone AR02
Corsair Vengeance 8GB 3000Mhz | Windows 10 Pro
SSD 240gb Kingston UV400 | 2x HDs 1TB RAID0 | 2x HD 2TB RAID1
TV LG Cinema 3D 49lb6200 | ACER EDID override | Oculus Rift CV1
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/J0hnnieW4lker
Screenshots: http://phereo.com/583b3a2f8884282d5d000007
I have to agree here! I already own the Rift and the Vive and I am also using (or should I rather say primarily using) 3D Vision on a 4K OLED but still I have to admit Sony did some magic here.
It just took a few minutes in Arkham VR and the Resident Evil "Kitchen" demo and I knew that Playstation VR turned out to be just what I hoped it would be. Even with the limitation to 1080p everything looks very good in my book. No wonder that nearly every review spread across the net confirms the remarkable graphics quality that is quite comparable to Rift & Vive although being inferior hardware-wise.
I don't know if it is the absence of the Fresnel lenses or if it is the higher sub-pixel resolution (compared to Rift and Vive) but Playstation VR looks really good with a minimized screen-door effect.
Concerning wearing-comfort Playstation VR is miles ahead of Rift and Vive!
So with a bright green check mark for visual quality let us turn to the most important aspect: CONTENT!
While the software situation currently doesn't seem to differ much from the launch situation for Rift and Vive I already see some significant differences. Playstation VR is currently selling like hot cakes and we can expect a significant number of Playstation 4 owners to also become owners of PS-VR in the near future. Since we are speaking of a system that has sold nearly 45 million units world-wide that is saying something. That's especially saying something when it comes to developers'/publishers' "motivation" to invest the big bucks for big games.
What's already on offer here may be short or limited in some ways but it already feels like something that is working in terms of the "we want real games for VR"-need. Batman: Arkham VR for example may be rather short but you instantly feel that it is working as a game. You instantly feel the difference between all those rather low budget VR-tech demos that are crowding Rift and Vive and the more pure game-like approach of Playstation VR. Playstation VR Worlds gives you different experiences in VR and one of them is called "London Heist". Here you take part in a diamond robbery where you actually have to steal a diamond and then literally shoot your way out (gun-blazing shoot out on the highway included). While this is also a rather short experience you already can imagine this being a full fledged game. Aside from the shooting it also includes interrogation scenes, the diamond-robbery itself (where you have to beautifully interact with your environment and solve a very basic riddle), a scene at a bar where you can interact with another character and also do some stuff with the objects around you. All that just feels very natural and in no way tacked on.
Another breathtaking experience was the Resident Evil 7 Kitchen demo, which only runs for like 3 minutes but totally gets to you because of the immersion factor. And here we already know that the full Resident Evil 7 game will be out January 2017 and will be fully playable in Playstation VR!
Bottom line for me really is that Playstation VR gets everything done right (especially having in mind the limited hardware-power backing it up) and here is definitely hope that the new Playstation 4 Pro that was mainly designed to benefit PS VR will have some kind of supersampling directly implemented so the already awesome looking visuals will get another boost!
Here is hoping that Developers will not be stuck only with Playstation VR but will release those games in VR for PC as well;)
1x Palit RTX 2080Ti Pro Gaming OC(watercooled and overclocked to hell)
3x 3D Vision Ready Asus VG278HE monitors (5760x1080).
Intel i9 9900K (overclocked to 5.3 and watercooled ofc).
Asus Maximus XI Hero Mobo.
16 GB Team Group T-Force Dark Pro DDR4 @ 3600.
Lots of Disks:
- Raid 0 - 256GB Sandisk Extreme SSD.
- Raid 0 - WD Black - 2TB.
- SanDisk SSD PLUS 480 GB.
- Intel 760p 256GB M.2 PCIe NVMe SSD.
Creative Sound Blaster Z.
Windows 10 x64 Pro.
etc
My website with my fixes and OpenGL to 3D Vision wrapper:
http://3dsurroundgaming.com
(If you like some of the stuff that I've done and want to donate something, you can do it with PayPal at tavyhome@gmail.com)
[MonitorSizeOverride][Global/Base Profile Tweaks][Depth=IPD]