1080p Oculus Rift
  6 / 10    
[quote="2eyed64"][quote="Volnaiskra"]I would be very surprised if the retail version ends up being a mere 1080p. Smartphone screens are getting more pixel dense almost by the hour. When the iphone 5 came out not long ago, it was all "retina display this" and "retina display that". Not long later, various phones such as the samsung galaxy s4 have a considerably higher pixel density, and the iphone 5 looks noticeably less crisp by comparison. By the time the OR comes out, probably some time in 2015, average pixel density will be far greater than anything today. The problems you mention about resolution will simply be irrelevant. [/quote] I don't think it makes much sense for the phone companies to go far beyond full hd (1080) for a 5" device because you simply can not see the difference. Going for a 7" or even bigger display is not a desirable option for the OR.[/quote] I dunno. I think people kind of say that all the time...until a more pixel-dense device comes out, and suddenly everyone says "wow". Apple's "retina" display is a good example. Apple made such a song and dance about how they finally nailed the perfect pixel density, and that your retina can't see anything smaller. And then mere months later, HTC and Samsung make phones with higher pixel densities that look even crisper to the average person. It kind of reminds me of the people who swear black and blue that "the eye can't see any more than 30 frames per second". Meanwhile, for many of us, 30 fps is unacceptable and almost feels like a slideshow. I used to think that 60fps was all the smoothness I wanted.....until I got my 120hz monitor and realised how much smoother 120fps is. I can't imagine needing any more smoothness....but if I got a 240hz monitor tomorrow, who knows... Though I agree with your general point. The phone screens are probably nearing the area of diminishing returns, and the pixel-density race will probably slow soon. But I think there's a while to go yet before it stops entirely. Even aside from what our eyes actually see, the whole 'who has a bigger penis' marketing contest that Apple and Samsung are in will probably result in at least another year or two of rapidly increasing resolutions.
2eyed64 said:
Volnaiskra said:I would be very surprised if the retail version ends up being a mere 1080p. Smartphone screens are getting more pixel dense almost by the hour.

When the iphone 5 came out not long ago, it was all "retina display this" and "retina display that". Not long later, various phones such as the samsung galaxy s4 have a considerably higher pixel density, and the iphone 5 looks noticeably less crisp by comparison.

By the time the OR comes out, probably some time in 2015, average pixel density will be far greater than anything today. The problems you mention about resolution will simply be irrelevant.



I don't think it makes much sense for the phone companies to go far beyond full hd (1080) for a 5" device because you simply can not see the difference. Going for a 7" or even bigger display is not a desirable option for the OR.
I dunno. I think people kind of say that all the time...until a more pixel-dense device comes out, and suddenly everyone says "wow".

Apple's "retina" display is a good example. Apple made such a song and dance about how they finally nailed the perfect pixel density, and that your retina can't see anything smaller. And then mere months later, HTC and Samsung make phones with higher pixel densities that look even crisper to the average person.

It kind of reminds me of the people who swear black and blue that "the eye can't see any more than 30 frames per second". Meanwhile, for many of us, 30 fps is unacceptable and almost feels like a slideshow.

I used to think that 60fps was all the smoothness I wanted.....until I got my 120hz monitor and realised how much smoother 120fps is. I can't imagine needing any more smoothness....but if I got a 240hz monitor tomorrow, who knows...

Though I agree with your general point. The phone screens are probably nearing the area of diminishing returns, and the pixel-density race will probably slow soon. But I think there's a while to go yet before it stops entirely.

Even aside from what our eyes actually see, the whole 'who has a bigger penis' marketing contest that Apple and Samsung are in will probably result in at least another year or two of rapidly increasing resolutions.

ImageVolnaPC.com - Tips, tweaks, performance comparisons (PhysX card, SLI scaling, etc)

#76
Posted 06/16/2013 11:05 AM   
[quote="Volnaiskra"]Though I agree with your general point. The phone screens are probably nearing the area of diminishing returns, and the pixel-density race will probably slow soon. But I think there's a while to go yet before it stops entirely. Even aside from what our eyes actually see, the whole 'who has a bigger penis' marketing contest that Apple and Samsung are in will probably result in at least another year or two of rapidly increasing resolutions.[/quote]That was the point I was attempting to make earlier- that it's unlikely that the R&D houses who fund these screens will have any incentive to go higher resolution. After the so-called Retina point, there is no value in it. Except, I hadn't considered your point that they might do it just for specmanship. That's got potential, even it's an irrational move from an engineering perspective. For the consumer version I think we are destined for 1920x1080, hopefully 5" screen. Those exist in quantity, and inexpensive now. But, Palmer had earlier mentioned a 2560x1600 6.1" display from Toshiba that he was hoping they'd bring to market. Here is a good article that makes me agree that higher density displays are actually quite likely: [url]http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/2/3589594/pixel-density-ultra-high-definition-mobile-tablet-display-2013[/url]
Volnaiskra said:Though I agree with your general point. The phone screens are probably nearing the area of diminishing returns, and the pixel-density race will probably slow soon. But I think there's a while to go yet before it stops entirely.

Even aside from what our eyes actually see, the whole 'who has a bigger penis' marketing contest that Apple and Samsung are in will probably result in at least another year or two of rapidly increasing resolutions.
That was the point I was attempting to make earlier- that it's unlikely that the R&D houses who fund these screens will have any incentive to go higher resolution. After the so-called Retina point, there is no value in it.

Except, I hadn't considered your point that they might do it just for specmanship. That's got potential, even it's an irrational move from an engineering perspective.

For the consumer version I think we are destined for 1920x1080, hopefully 5" screen. Those exist in quantity, and inexpensive now.

But, Palmer had earlier mentioned a 2560x1600 6.1" display from Toshiba that he was hoping they'd bring to market.

Here is a good article that makes me agree that higher density displays are actually quite likely:

http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/2/3589594/pixel-density-ultra-high-definition-mobile-tablet-display-2013

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

#77
Posted 06/16/2013 12:04 PM   
[quote="bo3b"] After the so-called Retina point, there is no value in it. Except, I hadn't considered your point that they might do it just for specmanship. That's got potential, even it's an irrational move from an engineering perspective.[/quote]That, plus the fact that we're probably nowhere near the actual 'retina point'. Apple's whole "retina display" thing, as that Verge article illustrates, is a crock of shit. It's nothing more than really good marketing, with a gullible audience that laps it up. The fact that we're even using the word "retina" here shows how effective their PR has been at putting the thought into people's heads that their latest resolution is some kind of achievement or milestone. It's not. it's just one more imperfect resolution and nothing more. I suspect we're a long way off from a real 'retina point', if such a thing even exists.
bo3b said: After the so-called Retina point, there is no value in it.

Except, I hadn't considered your point that they might do it just for specmanship. That's got potential, even it's an irrational move from an engineering perspective.
That, plus the fact that we're probably nowhere near the actual 'retina point'.

Apple's whole "retina display" thing, as that Verge article illustrates, is a crock of shit. It's nothing more than really good marketing, with a gullible audience that laps it up.

The fact that we're even using the word "retina" here shows how effective their PR has been at putting the thought into people's heads that their latest resolution is some kind of achievement or milestone. It's not. it's just one more imperfect resolution and nothing more.

I suspect we're a long way off from a real 'retina point', if such a thing even exists.

ImageVolnaPC.com - Tips, tweaks, performance comparisons (PhysX card, SLI scaling, etc)

#78
Posted 06/16/2013 12:56 PM   
I'm buying the first consumer version not because I expect perfection, but because this could be a major step forward, and the excitement surrounding it gives it a real fighting chance at getting off the ground. I'm buying it because I want to be a part of making v2 a reality, but also because I want a taste of how this technology evolves, and while I don't expect excellence, I expect it to be an interesting experience.
I'm buying the first consumer version not because I expect perfection, but because this could be a major step forward, and the excitement surrounding it gives it a real fighting chance at getting off the ground. I'm buying it because I want to be a part of making v2 a reality, but also because I want a taste of how this technology evolves, and while I don't expect excellence, I expect it to be an interesting experience.

#79
Posted 06/16/2013 03:10 PM   
Im buying the Rift day1 because I've always wanted something just like it, and I'll also get the virtuix Omni to go with it. I played the hell out of skyrim in 2d, and I'll do the same again in VR on a treadmill just for the new experience.
Im buying the Rift day1 because I've always wanted something just like it, and I'll also get the virtuix Omni to go with it. I played the hell out of skyrim in 2d, and I'll do the same again in VR on a treadmill just for the new experience.

i7 4790k @ 4.6 - 16GB RAM - 2x SLI Titan X
27" ASUS ROG SWIFT, 28" - 65" Samsung UHD8200 4k 3DTV - Oculus Rift CV1 - 34" Acer Predator X34 Ultrawide

Old kit:
i5 2500k @ 4.4 - 8gb RAM
Acer H5360BD projector
GTX 580, SLI 670, GTX 980 EVGA SC
Acer XB280HK 4k 60hz
Oculus DK2

#80
Posted 06/16/2013 04:15 PM   
[quote="Foulplay99"]Im buying the Rift day1 because I've always wanted something just like it, and I'll also get the virtuix Omni to go with it. I played the hell out of skyrim in 2d, and I'll do the same again in VR on a treadmill just for the new experience.[/quote]I had never heard of the Omni until just now. Sounds awesome! I will most definitely get one, and will pledge to the kickstarter now. What a great way to make cardio more fun. I agree that something like Skyrim would a totally different experience with an Omni (especially if you refused to use fast travel). And it'd improve your fitness significantly - I personally have about 300 hours clocked in Skyrim, and am probably only halfway through the main plot, and still haven't discovered some of the cities! Though I imagine I probably won't be playing Skyrim with this, but rather Fallout 4 or Elder Scrolls 6.
Foulplay99 said:Im buying the Rift day1 because I've always wanted something just like it, and I'll also get the virtuix Omni to go with it. I played the hell out of skyrim in 2d, and I'll do the same again in VR on a treadmill just for the new experience.
I had never heard of the Omni until just now. Sounds awesome! I will most definitely get one, and will pledge to the kickstarter now.

What a great way to make cardio more fun. I agree that something like Skyrim would a totally different experience with an Omni (especially if you refused to use fast travel). And it'd improve your fitness significantly - I personally have about 300 hours clocked in Skyrim, and am probably only halfway through the main plot, and still haven't discovered some of the cities!

Though I imagine I probably won't be playing Skyrim with this, but rather Fallout 4 or Elder Scrolls 6.

ImageVolnaPC.com - Tips, tweaks, performance comparisons (PhysX card, SLI scaling, etc)

#81
Posted 06/17/2013 12:23 AM   
I got my Rift this weekend. And even if the resolution/motion blur/3D is not nearly as good as it should be: I LOVE IT!!! Half Life 2 in VR is a blast (imho)
I got my Rift this weekend. And even if the resolution/motion blur/3D is not nearly as good as it should be: I LOVE IT!!!

Half Life 2 in VR is a blast (imho)

#82
Posted 06/19/2013 09:53 AM   
Glad to hear you're enjoying it after so much gloom and doom, please tell us more of your impressions from 3d user perspective. Also it looks like OR is now a big business after securing $16 million http://www.oculusvr.com/blog/vr-gets-vc/ it looks like the E3 1080p OR preview was great, huge list of tweets of people blown away by OR http://www.roadtovr.com/2013/06/17/the-oculus-rift-at-e3-2013-beyond-the-next-gen-6593
Glad to hear you're enjoying it after so much gloom and doom, please tell us more of your impressions from 3d user perspective.

Also it looks like OR is now a big business after securing $16 million http://www.oculusvr.com/blog/vr-gets-vc/


it looks like the E3 1080p OR preview was great, huge list of tweets of people blown away by OR http://www.roadtovr.com/2013/06/17/the-oculus-rift-at-e3-2013-beyond-the-next-gen-6593

All hail 3d modders DHR, MasterOtaku, Losti, Necropants, Helifax, bo3b, mike_ar69, Flugan, DarkStarSword, 4everAwake, 3d4dd and so many more helping to keep the 3d dream alive, find their 3d fixes at http://helixmod.blogspot.com/ Also check my site for spanish VR and mobile gaming news: www.gamermovil.com

#83
Posted 06/19/2013 11:57 AM   
[quote="birthright"]Glad to hear you're enjoying it after so much gloom and doom, please tell us more of your impressions from 3d user perspective. Also it looks like OR is now a big business after securing $16 million http://www.oculusvr.com/blog/vr-gets-vc/ it looks like the E3 1080p OR preview was great, huge list of tweets of people blown away by OR http://www.roadtovr.com/2013/06/17/the-oculus-rift-at-e3-2013-beyond-the-next-gen-6593[/quote] When I put the OR on for the first time it was a bit disappointing, actually. The 3D is okay-ish but not on par with 3D vision. It's a bit flat. And the resolution and the quality of the gfx is rather poor. And also: I get's you sick real quick. But once I got over the fact that the gfx are bad and started to really play HL2 I soon realized 2 things: 1. Motion sickness stays away for a longer period of time. I can now play for about 40 minutes without problems (I haven't tried longer but I don't want to push it too hard). 2. MOST IMPORTANTLY: this is the way I want to play games. Period. It's that simple. I want to be IN City 17 instead of looking at it.
birthright said:Glad to hear you're enjoying it after so much gloom and doom, please tell us more of your impressions from 3d user perspective.

Also it looks like OR is now a big business after securing $16 million http://www.oculusvr.com/blog/vr-gets-vc/


it looks like the E3 1080p OR preview was great, huge list of tweets of people blown away by OR http://www.roadtovr.com/2013/06/17/the-oculus-rift-at-e3-2013-beyond-the-next-gen-6593



When I put the OR on for the first time it was a bit disappointing, actually. The 3D is okay-ish but not on par with 3D vision. It's a bit flat. And the resolution and the quality of the gfx is rather poor. And also: I get's you sick real quick. But once I got over the fact that the gfx are bad and started to really play HL2 I soon realized 2 things:

1. Motion sickness stays away for a longer period of time. I can now play for about 40 minutes without problems (I haven't tried longer but I don't want to push it too hard).
2. MOST IMPORTANTLY: this is the way I want to play games. Period. It's that simple. I want to be IN City 17 instead of looking at it.

#84
Posted 06/19/2013 12:07 PM   
[quote="Schmeltzer"]The 3D is okay-ish but not on par with 3D vision. It's a bit flat.[/quote] Did you set the inter ocular distance accurately, to the distance between your eyes? If that was still not what you're used to, did you try increasing the setting? I know yours was the same impression Bloody had over on 3D Vision blog, but I can't think of any technical reason why the Rift shouldn't produce as impressive 3D as 3D Vision. I suspect it's just a problem of getting the settings right.
Schmeltzer said:The 3D is okay-ish but not on par with 3D vision. It's a bit flat.


Did you set the inter ocular distance accurately, to the distance between your eyes? If that was still not what you're used to, did you try increasing the setting?

I know yours was the same impression Bloody had over on 3D Vision blog, but I can't think of any technical reason why the Rift shouldn't produce as impressive 3D as 3D Vision. I suspect it's just a problem of getting the settings right.

#85
Posted 06/19/2013 12:59 PM   
[quote="Airion"][quote="Schmeltzer"]The 3D is okay-ish but not on par with 3D vision. It's a bit flat.[/quote] Did you set the inter ocular distance accurately, to the distance between your eyes? If that was still not what you're used to, did you try increasing the setting? I know yours was the same impression Bloody had over on 3D Vision blog, but I can't think of any technical reason why the Rift shouldn't produce as impressive 3D as 3D Vision. I suspect it's just a problem of getting the settings right.[/quote] Thanks! No I haven't played with those settings yet. But I'll look into it.
Airion said:
Schmeltzer said:The 3D is okay-ish but not on par with 3D vision. It's a bit flat.


Did you set the inter ocular distance accurately, to the distance between your eyes? If that was still not what you're used to, did you try increasing the setting?

I know yours was the same impression Bloody had over on 3D Vision blog, but I can't think of any technical reason why the Rift shouldn't produce as impressive 3D as 3D Vision. I suspect it's just a problem of getting the settings right.


Thanks! No I haven't played with those settings yet. But I'll look into it.

#86
Posted 06/19/2013 01:14 PM   
[quote="Schmeltzer"]Thanks! No I haven't played with those settings yet. But I'll look into it.[/quote]Best way to do the settings is to run TF2, they have a whole setup mechanism in there, that will set up the cvars properly for your vision. You then copy/paste those out of TF2 cfg file and put them in the HL2 file. Or better, put them in a standalone vr.cfg file, and do "exec vr.cfg" from the console when in HL2. (HL2 does not presently have that setup mechanism). [url]http://wiki.teamfortress.com/wiki/Oculus_Rift_User_Guide[/url] Great setup guide: [url]http://www.roadtovr.com/2013/05/11/how-to-configure-half-life-2-beta-for-your-oculus-rift-gameplay-video-5730#[/url]
Schmeltzer said:Thanks! No I haven't played with those settings yet. But I'll look into it.
Best way to do the settings is to run TF2, they have a whole setup mechanism in there, that will set up the cvars properly for your vision.

You then copy/paste those out of TF2 cfg file and put them in the HL2 file. Or better, put them in a standalone vr.cfg file, and do "exec vr.cfg" from the console when in HL2.

(HL2 does not presently have that setup mechanism).

http://wiki.teamfortress.com/wiki/Oculus_Rift_User_Guide

Great setup guide:

http://www.roadtovr.com/2013/05/11/how-to-configure-half-life-2-beta-for-your-oculus-rift-gameplay-video-5730#

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

#87
Posted 06/20/2013 12:47 AM   
Another thought occurred to me, regarding how far the pixel-density war is likely to continue. When iphone 4 came out, Apple made a splash with their 326 ppi "retina" display, which they (wrongly) claimed was as high as a device ever needed to go. With the iphone 5, they kept the same ppi of 326, and just added some extra pixels on the long side to make the device more widescreen. But then other makers started making devices with even greater ppi. Today, Sony, Samsung, Blackberry, Nokia, and HTC all have higher pixel-density devices available, and the reviews all suggest that they look crisper to the naked eye than iphone 5. It's clear that Apple will need to increase their ppi again if they don't want to be left in the dust, and if they want their brand to remain prestigous. But, here's the thing: Apple has a history of EXACTLY DOUBLING their pixel density in newer iterations of their devices: iphone 3: 320 x 480 @ 163 ppi (pixels per inch) iphone 4: 640 x 960 @ 326 ppi (iphone 5 changed aspect ratio but remained 326 ppi) ipad 1: 768 x 1024 @ 132 ppi ipad 2: 768 x 1024 @ 132 ppi ipad 3: 1536 x 2048 @ 264 ppi ipad 4: 1536 x 2048 @ 264 ppi While Android makers tend to crawl upwards in ppi, Apple restricts themselves to big jumps of 200%. There are several benefits to this, including easy scalability and backwards compatibility of apps, and an easier environment for app developers (this helps keep app quality and compatibility high, which is very important for Apple's 'walled garden' approach to its app store). So, with the [url=http://www.screensiz.es]iphone 5 now having only the 7th highest ppi[/url], it's very likely that they'll increase it with iphone 6 or 7. And if history is any guide, they'll increase it to a whopping 528ppi. And it's similarly likely that the Android guys will again catch up and eventually overtake that ppi. If this happens in the next year or two, as seems at least moderately likely, then by the time the Oculus Rift reaches market, it should be able to take advantage of much higher pixel density screens than are currently available and/or cost effective. What would this actually mean for the ppi of the Rift? Well, I don't have one, but as I understand it, the dimensions hitherto look something like this: 5.6inch prototype shown at E3 2012: 1280 x 800 @ 270 ppi 7.0inch dev kit version: 1280 x 800 @ 215 ppi 7.0inch rumoured 1080p version: 1920 x 1080 @ 314 ppi 314ppi is fairly low. It's about on par with last-gen smartphones (eg. galaxy s3, iphone 4), but considerably less than current-gen phones (eg. htc one 468ppi, galaxy s4 441ppi). And almost definitely a LOT less than the phones of 2014/2015, which as I said may end up being 528ppi or higher. Let's say that the commercial Rift of 2014/2015 (maybe the first release, or maybe a subsequent 'version 2' release) retains a dimension of 7.0 inches, and uses a ppi of 528, then it would end up using a resolution of roughly 3228 x1816. That's more than current top-end gaming resolutions like 2560 x 1600, but less than than 4k resolutions. So, the real question to me is not "will the Rift be able to affordably adopt a resolution higher than 1080p?" (I think it's very likely that it could), but "Will the average gaming PC be able to crank out resolutions of 1816p or higher?". That issue seems more prickly, since it concerns itself not only with the hardware of the Rift itself, but would require a shift in gaming culture and expectations. But I think it's very possible. As consumers get more and more spoilt by the beautiful definition of their smartphones, as next gen gaming ramps up hardware performance, and as 4K televisions get more popular, I think the days of 1080p being the de facto standard gaming resolution will soon be long gone. I think it's very possible that around 2015, many consumers will willingly accept that if they want to play games at their best, they'll have to buy a GTX 980 so they can play at 3228 x 1816 on their Oculus Rift. (sorry for the essay - kinda got carried away)
Another thought occurred to me, regarding how far the pixel-density war is likely to continue.

When iphone 4 came out, Apple made a splash with their 326 ppi "retina" display, which they (wrongly) claimed was as high as a device ever needed to go. With the iphone 5, they kept the same ppi of 326, and just added some extra pixels on the long side to make the device more widescreen.

But then other makers started making devices with even greater ppi. Today, Sony, Samsung, Blackberry, Nokia, and HTC all have higher pixel-density devices available, and the reviews all suggest that they look crisper to the naked eye than iphone 5. It's clear that Apple will need to increase their ppi again if they don't want to be left in the dust, and if they want their brand to remain prestigous.


But, here's the thing:

Apple has a history of EXACTLY DOUBLING their pixel density in newer iterations of their devices:

iphone 3: 320 x 480 @ 163 ppi (pixels per inch)
iphone 4: 640 x 960 @ 326 ppi
(iphone 5 changed aspect ratio but remained 326 ppi)

ipad 1: 768 x 1024 @ 132 ppi
ipad 2: 768 x 1024 @ 132 ppi
ipad 3: 1536 x 2048 @ 264 ppi
ipad 4: 1536 x 2048 @ 264 ppi

While Android makers tend to crawl upwards in ppi, Apple restricts themselves to big jumps of 200%. There are several benefits to this, including easy scalability and backwards compatibility of apps, and an easier environment for app developers (this helps keep app quality and compatibility high, which is very important for Apple's 'walled garden' approach to its app store).

So, with the iphone 5 now having only the 7th highest ppi, it's very likely that they'll increase it with iphone 6 or 7. And if history is any guide, they'll increase it to a whopping 528ppi. And it's similarly likely that the Android guys will again catch up and eventually overtake that ppi.

If this happens in the next year or two, as seems at least moderately likely, then by the time the Oculus Rift reaches market, it should be able to take advantage of much higher pixel density screens than are currently available and/or cost effective.

What would this actually mean for the ppi of the Rift? Well, I don't have one, but as I understand it, the dimensions hitherto look something like this:

5.6inch prototype shown at E3 2012: 1280 x 800 @ 270 ppi
7.0inch dev kit version: 1280 x 800 @ 215 ppi
7.0inch rumoured 1080p version: 1920 x 1080 @ 314 ppi

314ppi is fairly low. It's about on par with last-gen smartphones (eg. galaxy s3, iphone 4), but considerably less than current-gen phones (eg. htc one 468ppi, galaxy s4 441ppi). And almost definitely a LOT less than the phones of 2014/2015, which as I said may end up being 528ppi or higher.

Let's say that the commercial Rift of 2014/2015 (maybe the first release, or maybe a subsequent 'version 2' release) retains a dimension of 7.0 inches, and uses a ppi of 528, then it would end up using a resolution of roughly 3228 x1816. That's more than current top-end gaming resolutions like 2560 x 1600, but less than than 4k resolutions.


So, the real question to me is not "will the Rift be able to affordably adopt a resolution higher than 1080p?" (I think it's very likely that it could), but "Will the average gaming PC be able to crank out resolutions of 1816p or higher?".

That issue seems more prickly, since it concerns itself not only with the hardware of the Rift itself, but would require a shift in gaming culture and expectations.

But I think it's very possible. As consumers get more and more spoilt by the beautiful definition of their smartphones, as next gen gaming ramps up hardware performance, and as 4K televisions get more popular, I think the days of 1080p being the de facto standard gaming resolution will soon be long gone.

I think it's very possible that around 2015, many consumers will willingly accept that if they want to play games at their best, they'll have to buy a GTX 980 so they can play at 3228 x 1816 on their Oculus Rift.

(sorry for the essay - kinda got carried away)

ImageVolnaPC.com - Tips, tweaks, performance comparisons (PhysX card, SLI scaling, etc)

#88
Posted 06/20/2013 01:26 AM   
Interesting thoughts, thanks for sharing them!
Interesting thoughts, thanks for sharing them!

#89
Posted 06/20/2013 03:42 AM   
edit: nvm
edit: nvm

ImageVolnaPC.com - Tips, tweaks, performance comparisons (PhysX card, SLI scaling, etc)

#90
Posted 06/20/2013 03:51 AM   
  6 / 10    
Scroll To Top