1080p Oculus Rift
  2 / 10    
I just don't think people are going to put the money down for it. If you buy a 3D Vision monitor, and you decide you don't care for the 3D, you still have a monitor. What use is a VR headset? Also, its only any use in first person games, no not only does a game have to be compatible, but first person. Probably going to be pretty slim pickings.
I just don't think people are going to put the money down for it. If you buy a 3D Vision monitor, and you decide you don't care for the 3D, you still have a monitor. What use is a VR headset?

Also, its only any use in first person games, no not only does a game have to be compatible, but first person. Probably going to be pretty slim pickings.

#16
Posted 06/12/2013 03:04 AM   
well For ages HMDs with their limited features have had a Niche market. this will most likely cater to that market and bring in some New People. I hope it has enough steam so that I can get hold of one myself. Just a little faith and some support.
well For ages HMDs with their limited features have had a Niche market. this will most likely cater to that market and bring in some New People. I hope it has enough steam so that I can get hold of one myself. Just a little faith and some support.

Intel Core i9-9820x @ 3.30GHZ
32 gig Ram
2 EVGA RTX 2080 ti Gaming
3 X ASUS ROG SWIFT 27 144Hz G-SYNC Gaming 3D Monitor [PG278Q]
1 X ASUS VG278HE
Nvidia 3Dvision
Oculus Rift
HTC VIVE
Windows 10

#17
Posted 06/12/2013 03:27 AM   
As games get more advanced 3D gets harder. As games get more advanced VR gets 5x harder. Oculus Rift is gonna be an indie platform unless NVIDIA/AMD sponsor games for it. I mean maybe a game like Mirror's Edge or some developer whos trying to sell an engine will add support for a major game to it. I just realistically don't see it being affordable. I think people are forgetting like a video game company closes every month as is. Whose going to be paying these people. Developers half ass support for 3D as is. VR is friggin hard. So much stuff to get right.
As games get more advanced 3D gets harder.
As games get more advanced VR gets 5x harder.

Oculus Rift is gonna be an indie platform unless NVIDIA/AMD sponsor games for it. I mean maybe a game like Mirror's Edge or some developer whos trying to sell an engine will add support for a major game to it. I just realistically don't see it being affordable.
I think people are forgetting like a video game company closes every month as is. Whose going to be paying these people.

Developers half ass support for 3D as is. VR is friggin hard. So much stuff to get right.

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

#18
Posted 06/12/2013 04:16 AM   
personally i reckon it will go better than 3D vision. such an untapped market. 1080p is respectable res to start at but i feel it needs to get a lot more detailed before the brain will start thinking its real. i want to try it out though as i get motion sickness pretty easy. the kicker for me in b3obs review was when he said items are their correct size. total immersion.
personally i reckon it will go better than 3D vision. such an untapped market. 1080p is respectable res to start at but i feel it needs to get a lot more detailed before the brain will start thinking its real.

i want to try it out though as i get motion sickness pretty easy.

the kicker for me in b3obs review was when he said items are their correct size. total immersion.

65" Samsung ES8000 LED, i7-3820, Asus P9X79, GTX680 SLI, Win8 Checkerboard /Win7 Frame Sequential

#19
Posted 06/12/2013 04:26 AM   
One thing that seems crystal clear to me, and should be crystal clear to anyone who's followed gaming news over the past year, is that - no matter what happens - the Oculus Rift will be MUCH bigger on launch than 3Dvision ever has been. The interest in the Rift has been very high and, so far, very sustained. The kickstarter raised literally ten times more than they asked for, and it has captured the imaginations of everyone, from mainstream gamers, to indie devs, to giant production houses (eg. Carmack, Valve, and others). [quote="Cookybiscuit"]I just don't think people are going to put the money down for it. Also, its only any use in first person games, no not only does a game have to be compatible, but first person. Probably going to be pretty slim pickings.[/quote]$300 (which is what it'll roughly cost)? For a giant leap in gaming experience? That's peanuts. People spend $500+ for an upgraded GPU that does little more than modestly increase their framerate. They spend $500+ for 3D monitors, and $2000+ for 3D TVs. Believe me, people will very happily spend 300 bucks on a game-changer like commercially viable VR. People will claw at the shop doors to get their hands on one. And sure, it'll mainly be for first-person games. Which is fine, because there are a LOT of first-person games, across many genres (shooters, sneakers, rpgs, racers, puzzle, etc.). Hopefully some new genres will even emerge. It may be that a VR headset will become to first-person games what a racing wheel is to racing games or a gamepad is to beat-em-ups: not everyone owns one, and not everyone even wants to, but serious genre aficionados wouldn't be caught dead without one. [quote="eqzitara"]As games get more advanced 3D gets harder. As games get more advanced VR gets 5x harder.[/quote]So? Everything's hard. But people generally find solutions to problems when the financial incentive is high enough (ie. when the market is large enough). With 3D-vision, the market is not large enough, so few developers care much about it. With Oculus Rift, it's an entirely different story. The buzz around the Rift is 10 times greater than anything I've ever heard about 3D-vision, and it's not even past prototype stage yet. From everything I've read, it's already really good, significant improvements are continually being made, and new game design standards and conventions that take into account the new mechanics are already surfacing. I think developers know that this is a potential goldmine, and there are already big companies like id and Valve actively on board. I'm sure EA, Activision and Square know that if they sit this one out, they're missing out on a lucrative new piece of pie. I suspect that the Rift could make the sort of impact on the hardcore gaming world that the Wii made on the casual gaming world. People have been dreaming of VR for over 20 years. People know that the first person to come up with a commercially viable solution is going to run away with an incredibly big prize. And so far, it looks like the Oculus Rift is going to be that solution. I don't think Nvidia or AMD's involvement will make much difference either way. The VR games will work just fine on both GPUs regardless of any involvement from them.
One thing that seems crystal clear to me, and should be crystal clear to anyone who's followed gaming news over the past year, is that - no matter what happens - the Oculus Rift will be MUCH bigger on launch than 3Dvision ever has been. The interest in the Rift has been very high and, so far, very sustained. The kickstarter raised literally ten times more than they asked for, and it has captured the imaginations of everyone, from mainstream gamers, to indie devs, to giant production houses (eg. Carmack, Valve, and others).


Cookybiscuit said:I just don't think people are going to put the money down for it.

Also, its only any use in first person games, no not only does a game have to be compatible, but first person. Probably going to be pretty slim pickings.
$300 (which is what it'll roughly cost)? For a giant leap in gaming experience? That's peanuts.

People spend $500+ for an upgraded GPU that does little more than modestly increase their framerate. They spend $500+ for 3D monitors, and $2000+ for 3D TVs. Believe me, people will very happily spend 300 bucks on a game-changer like commercially viable VR. People will claw at the shop doors to get their hands on one.

And sure, it'll mainly be for first-person games. Which is fine, because there are a LOT of first-person games, across many genres (shooters, sneakers, rpgs, racers, puzzle, etc.). Hopefully some new genres will even emerge.

It may be that a VR headset will become to first-person games what a racing wheel is to racing games or a gamepad is to beat-em-ups: not everyone owns one, and not everyone even wants to, but serious genre aficionados wouldn't be caught dead without one.


eqzitara said:As games get more advanced 3D gets harder.
As games get more advanced VR gets 5x harder.
So? Everything's hard. But people generally find solutions to problems when the financial incentive is high enough (ie. when the market is large enough).

With 3D-vision, the market is not large enough, so few developers care much about it. With Oculus Rift, it's an entirely different story. The buzz around the Rift is 10 times greater than anything I've ever heard about 3D-vision, and it's not even past prototype stage yet. From everything I've read, it's already really good, significant improvements are continually being made, and new game design standards and conventions that take into account the new mechanics are already surfacing.

I think developers know that this is a potential goldmine, and there are already big companies like id and Valve actively on board. I'm sure EA, Activision and Square know that if they sit this one out, they're missing out on a lucrative new piece of pie. I suspect that the Rift could make the sort of impact on the hardcore gaming world that the Wii made on the casual gaming world.

People have been dreaming of VR for over 20 years. People know that the first person to come up with a commercially viable solution is going to run away with an incredibly big prize. And so far, it looks like the Oculus Rift is going to be that solution.

I don't think Nvidia or AMD's involvement will make much difference either way. The VR games will work just fine on both GPUs regardless of any involvement from them.

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

#20
Posted 06/12/2013 06:11 AM   
Wellll... I can't really see it. I'd like to, but I can't see it. (As noted before, I use 3D Vision all the time, and I've got a Rift that I'm playing around with.) How much bitching and moaning is there for 3D because, oh my god, people have to wear glasses! What a totally unreasonable thing to make me wear dorky glasses. And yet, a VR headset, the ultimate in geek-chic, is going to catch on instead? Also, the sim/motion sickness is a real problem, and it can't be good form to make your customers queasy. In my low count sample of 4 people that have demoed it, we have 3 who got motion sick. My dad, 80, had no trouble with it at all, and thought it was crazy good; but would never buy one. The resolution, even at 1080p is going to be marginal. I'm right at the edge with a 1280x720 projector. If I sit too close, it gets grainy. Using the math of arc-seconds for view, even 1080p in the headset will be like sitting too close to my projector. A good writeup about resolution here: [url]https://developer.oculusvr.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=1172[/url] Lastly, I have yet to be able to play for more than about an hour while in the dev kit. Maybe it's just miscalibrated, but the eye strain and weight and heat and wooziness all combines to make it hard to recommend just yet. But, I really can't tell. Maybe we will be more accepting of these faults because of the life-size immersive nature. It's getting unbelievable press and attention for something that most people have yet to even demo. It's being integrated into both Unity and Unreal 4. It's really odd to me, I have serious cognitive dissonance with Rift. What I read about 3D Vision is it's a fad, and dying, and gives people headaches and is stupid. But when I play it on my projector it's the most awesome gaming experience I've ever seen. I lose myself for hours in a game, and a lot of times I find myself just looking out the windows (Bioshock, Dead Space). Then I read all this incredible stuff about Rift, and how it's the future of all gaming. It has no equal. The experience is like none other. And then I play in the Rift, and it's uncomfortable and hot, and it makes me motion sick, and it's grainy like playing Missile Command on a 30" monitor 1 foot away. Beats me what will happen, my predictive track record is poor. But, I just can't see it, not even at 1080p.
Wellll... I can't really see it. I'd like to, but I can't see it. (As noted before, I use 3D Vision all the time, and I've got a Rift that I'm playing around with.)

How much bitching and moaning is there for 3D because, oh my god, people have to wear glasses! What a totally unreasonable thing to make me wear dorky glasses. And yet, a VR headset, the ultimate in geek-chic, is going to catch on instead?

Also, the sim/motion sickness is a real problem, and it can't be good form to make your customers queasy. In my low count sample of 4 people that have demoed it, we have 3 who got motion sick. My dad, 80, had no trouble with it at all, and thought it was crazy good; but would never buy one.

The resolution, even at 1080p is going to be marginal. I'm right at the edge with a 1280x720 projector. If I sit too close, it gets grainy. Using the math of arc-seconds for view, even 1080p in the headset will be like sitting too close to my projector. A good writeup about resolution here:

https://developer.oculusvr.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=1172

Lastly, I have yet to be able to play for more than about an hour while in the dev kit. Maybe it's just miscalibrated, but the eye strain and weight and heat and wooziness all combines to make it hard to recommend just yet.


But, I really can't tell. Maybe we will be more accepting of these faults because of the life-size immersive nature.

It's getting unbelievable press and attention for something that most people have yet to even demo. It's being integrated into both Unity and Unreal 4.


It's really odd to me, I have serious cognitive dissonance with Rift.

What I read about 3D Vision is it's a fad, and dying, and gives people headaches and is stupid. But when I play it on my projector it's the most awesome gaming experience I've ever seen. I lose myself for hours in a game, and a lot of times I find myself just looking out the windows (Bioshock, Dead Space).

Then I read all this incredible stuff about Rift, and how it's the future of all gaming. It has no equal. The experience is like none other. And then I play in the Rift, and it's uncomfortable and hot, and it makes me motion sick, and it's grainy like playing Missile Command on a 30" monitor 1 foot away.


Beats me what will happen, my predictive track record is poor.
But, I just can't see it, not even at 1080p.

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

#21
Posted 06/12/2013 06:16 AM   
[quote="bo3b"]How much bitching and moaning is there for 3D because, oh my god, people have to wear glasses! What a totally unreasonable thing to make me wear dorky glasses. And yet, a VR headset, the ultimate in geek-chic, is going to catch on instead?[/quote] The issue is not the glasses. It's the [u]perceived value of the tradeoff[/u]. People think 'pffft, I have to wear some uncomfortable and expensive glasses just to get a marginal improvement on my games? The same game, at the same resolution, but at a worse framerate and with a little bit of pretend 3D depth? Nah, not worth it.' Whereas with the Rift, people say 'full-immersion VR gaming, like I've dreamed about my whole life? Nothing like staring into a little screen, or even staring up at a big screen - like nothing I've ever experienced? Hell yeah, I'd like to try that! And if I have to wear a headset for it, that's a small price to pay'' That's the source of the dissonance you mentioned. Rightly or wrongly, the public has perceived the pros of VR to be much higher than 3Dvision, so they'll likely be much more forgiving of the cons. It's the same reason people embraced crappy over-compressed youtube videos that were nowhere near as good as DVD quality, or slow laptops that were weak compared to desktops, or smartphones that were weak and fiddly to use compared to PCs. The perception of the pros outweighed the perception of the cons. [quote="bo3b"]The resolution, even at 1080p is going to be marginal....Lastly, I have yet to be able to play for more than about an hour while in the dev kit. Maybe it's just miscalibrated, but the eye strain and weight and heat and wooziness all combines to make it hard to recommend just yet.[/quote] The resolution doesn't concern me at all. That will continue to improve until release and beyond. Smartphones have driven screen tech so aggressively that screens are getting cheaper and more pixel-dense by the day. Likewise, the comfort, weight and heat don't concern me at all. Those are exactly the sorts of things that one would expect to dramatically improve between prototype and commercial release. The motion sickness seems like a real issue. But testing and iteration will iron a lot of that stuff out too. Latency will improve, and games will start to be designed with VR-movement in mind. And things like positional tracking that respond to your torso movements will eventually come along, which will lessen the motion sickness. I expect most of the problems you mention to be greatly improved by release, and then all but eliminated with future versions and/or competitor products.
bo3b said:How much bitching and moaning is there for 3D because, oh my god, people have to wear glasses! What a totally unreasonable thing to make me wear dorky glasses. And yet, a VR headset, the ultimate in geek-chic, is going to catch on instead?


The issue is not the glasses. It's the perceived value of the tradeoff. People think 'pffft, I have to wear some uncomfortable and expensive glasses just to get a marginal improvement on my games? The same game, at the same resolution, but at a worse framerate and with a little bit of pretend 3D depth? Nah, not worth it.'

Whereas with the Rift, people say 'full-immersion VR gaming, like I've dreamed about my whole life? Nothing like staring into a little screen, or even staring up at a big screen - like nothing I've ever experienced? Hell yeah, I'd like to try that! And if I have to wear a headset for it, that's a small price to pay''

That's the source of the dissonance you mentioned. Rightly or wrongly, the public has perceived the pros of VR to be much higher than 3Dvision, so they'll likely be much more forgiving of the cons.

It's the same reason people embraced crappy over-compressed youtube videos that were nowhere near as good as DVD quality, or slow laptops that were weak compared to desktops, or smartphones that were weak and fiddly to use compared to PCs. The perception of the pros outweighed the perception of the cons.



bo3b said:The resolution, even at 1080p is going to be marginal....Lastly, I have yet to be able to play for more than about an hour while in the dev kit. Maybe it's just miscalibrated, but the eye strain and weight and heat and wooziness all combines to make it hard to recommend just yet.


The resolution doesn't concern me at all. That will continue to improve until release and beyond. Smartphones have driven screen tech so aggressively that screens are getting cheaper and more pixel-dense by the day.

Likewise, the comfort, weight and heat don't concern me at all. Those are exactly the sorts of things that one would expect to dramatically improve between prototype and commercial release.

The motion sickness seems like a real issue. But testing and iteration will iron a lot of that stuff out too. Latency will improve, and games will start to be designed with VR-movement in mind. And things like positional tracking that respond to your torso movements will eventually come along, which will lessen the motion sickness.


I expect most of the problems you mention to be greatly improved by release, and then all but eliminated with future versions and/or competitor products.

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

#22
Posted 06/12/2013 06:49 AM   
[Quote]So? Everything's hard. But people generally find solutions to problems when the financial incentive is high enough (ie. when the market is large enough). [/quote] All the documentation for 3D vision is available[An api was BUILT for fixing games]. Developers are sponsored and paid very often for 3D inclusion.... Results are often anomalies, imperfections, unoptimized. Developers don't design 3D games... they design 2D ones. They spent years doing so, and doing 3D is just like a mystery for them. One they don't want to learn. Look at Valve, they had a team.... results of the team are it's extremely hard. I've actually didn't hear any mind blowing feedback on HL either tbh. Perhaps thats just due to resolution though *shrug*. I reserve judgement on it till I get my unit.[Very soon] Now VR, VERY HARD. No upfront money to get you bye/promise of income. There is no okay job, That doesn't cut it for VR. You screw up, its not good enough. I mentioned it before, many games that threw there hat in the circle for support of rift. Are extremely half ass. Non-playable. This is not me being a perfectionist or whatever. Huds are 3D, game is 2D. Game doesnt offer a hud. Unity games disable shadows/lighting[Yea, thats there engine support. Keep in mind Unity is not the ummm.... most advanced engine]. Etc. Developers say I want in on that, Sit down. *Scratch there head* Say shit, Ill do this and call it a day. Now I got rift support. Rift, is not going to be different then 3D vision as far as compatilibility. Its got it or its doesn't. Except issues are death of a game. I think helix spoiled a lot of people. People really need to look at the 3D vision supported titles[Most are not in 3d vision ready category...lucky if they are in excellent]. Where dev. made "improvements". This isnt even my standards of 3D Vision ready/excellent either. Im talking nvidia's. Now also a HUGE note is. There is no 3D vision, most developers design for 3d vision but on the offchance game is a disaster they build a renderer..... All games on rift need a renderer. I have no problem with being excited with the Rift, I am for certain games that go the extra mile. You can't sell immersion without it. Otherwise you are forcing me into a box where I cant look away. Yea, thats always fun when Im fixing issues. Staring at it. Back to point, I just don't understand why people think there is going to be a laundry list of games. Projector users are different then monitor users. You guys care more about Resolution/AA. We care more about immersion[Im not saying we don't play games that have flaws, we just like flawless 3D games over other features]. I dont mean this as insult. We like, what we like. As do you. But we know how difficult it is for a game to get it right. If there is a single projector/dlp user who disagrees I would be very curious of any feedback.
[Quote]So? Everything's hard. But people generally find solutions to problems when the financial incentive is high enough (ie. when the market is large enough).

All the documentation for 3D vision is available[An api was BUILT for fixing games]. Developers are sponsored and paid very often for 3D inclusion.... Results are often anomalies, imperfections, unoptimized. Developers don't design 3D games... they design 2D ones. They spent years doing so, and doing 3D is just like a mystery for them. One they don't want to learn. Look at Valve, they had a team.... results of the team are it's extremely hard. I've actually didn't hear any mind blowing feedback on HL either tbh. Perhaps thats just due to resolution though *shrug*. I reserve judgement on it till I get my unit.[Very soon]
Now VR, VERY HARD. No upfront money to get you bye/promise of income. There is no okay job, That doesn't cut it for VR. You screw up, its not good enough.

I mentioned it before, many games that threw there hat in the circle for support of rift. Are extremely half ass. Non-playable. This is not me being a perfectionist or whatever. Huds are 3D, game is 2D. Game doesnt offer a hud. Unity games disable shadows/lighting[Yea, thats there engine support. Keep in mind Unity is not the ummm.... most advanced engine]. Etc.
Developers say I want in on that, Sit down. *Scratch there head* Say shit, Ill do this and call it a day. Now I got rift support. Rift, is not going to be different then 3D vision as far as compatilibility. Its got it or its doesn't. Except issues are death of a game.

I think helix spoiled a lot of people. People really need to look at the 3D vision supported titles[Most are not in 3d vision ready category...lucky if they are in excellent]. Where dev. made "improvements". This isnt even my standards of 3D Vision ready/excellent either. Im talking nvidia's. Now also a HUGE note is. There is no 3D vision, most developers design for 3d vision but on the offchance game is a disaster they build a renderer..... All games on rift need a renderer.

I have no problem with being excited with the Rift, I am for certain games that go the extra mile. You can't sell immersion without it. Otherwise you are forcing me into a box where I cant look away. Yea, thats always fun when Im fixing issues. Staring at it. Back to point, I just don't understand why people think there is going to be a laundry list of games.
Projector users are different then monitor users. You guys care more about Resolution/AA. We care more about immersion[Im not saying we don't play games that have flaws, we just like flawless 3D games over other features]. I dont mean this as insult. We like, what we like. As do you. But we know how difficult it is for a game to get it right.



If there is a single projector/dlp user who disagrees I would be very curious of any feedback.

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

#23
Posted 06/12/2013 07:36 AM   
I think you're making too many comparisons between 3D-Vision and Oculus Rift. One is a tiny niche that almost no one cares about, with very limited moneymaking potential. The other is a widely hyped potential cash cow that every man and his dog cares about. I'm not saying there'll be a laundry list of games. There'll probably be few games at the start, and even fewer that pull it off. Maybe even 90% will fail, maybe many devs will give up, and maybe many gamers will forget about it. But someone, somewhere, will succeed in making a game that uses the VR very well. And that game will have the potential to be to the 2010s what Wolfenstein 3D was to the 1990s. It will be flawed, it will be clunky, and it will be alone for a while. But it will blow everyone away, eventually will inspire a horde of competitors, and gaming will never be the same again. And unlike Wolfenstein 3d or say, Wii, which both kind of came out of nowhere and took everyone by surprise, all eyes are on Oculus Rift already. There will be many devs that desparately want to be the one that makes that killer game that changes the gaming landscape. And I suspect at least a few of them will pump more funds into the venture than some half-hearted Nvidia subsidy ever amounted to. [quote="eqzitara"]Projector users are different then monitor users. You guys care more about Resolution/AA. We care more about immersion[/quote]I couldn't agree less with that statement. I care deeply about immersion, and if I care about AA, it's because it's a means to an end....and the end is immersion.
I think you're making too many comparisons between 3D-Vision and Oculus Rift.

One is a tiny niche that almost no one cares about, with very limited moneymaking potential. The other is a widely hyped potential cash cow that every man and his dog cares about.

I'm not saying there'll be a laundry list of games. There'll probably be few games at the start, and even fewer that pull it off. Maybe even 90% will fail, maybe many devs will give up, and maybe many gamers will forget about it.

But someone, somewhere, will succeed in making a game that uses the VR very well. And that game will have the potential to be to the 2010s what Wolfenstein 3D was to the 1990s. It will be flawed, it will be clunky, and it will be alone for a while. But it will blow everyone away, eventually will inspire a horde of competitors, and gaming will never be the same again.

And unlike Wolfenstein 3d or say, Wii, which both kind of came out of nowhere and took everyone by surprise, all eyes are on Oculus Rift already. There will be many devs that desparately want to be the one that makes that killer game that changes the gaming landscape. And I suspect at least a few of them will pump more funds into the venture than some half-hearted Nvidia subsidy ever amounted to.


eqzitara said:Projector users are different then monitor users. You guys care more about Resolution/AA. We care more about immersion
I couldn't agree less with that statement. I care deeply about immersion, and if I care about AA, it's because it's a means to an end....and the end is immersion.

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

#24
Posted 06/12/2013 10:02 AM   
[quote="eqzitara"]Projector users are different then monitor users. You guys care more about Resolution/AA. We care more about immersion[Im not saying we don't play games that have flaws, we just like flawless 3D games over other features]. I dont mean this as insult. We like, what we like. As do you. But we know how difficult it is for a game to get it right. If there is a single projector/dlp user who disagrees I would be very curious of any feedback.[/quote] Well, I'm a 720p projector user too and I've gotten this impression before. Some people on the forums (for example teardropmina) really seem to like resolution and prefer it over a large immersive screen. That's fine of course. Different people are more or less sensitive to resolution. My impression is 720p is good enough. 1080p is definitely better, but you're doubling the pixels/processing to get a 10-20% sharper more detailed picture. For me, the immersive quality a 90" screen is at least twice as good as viewing a 30" screen, so it's an obvious choice between 30" 1080p and 90" 720p, even if immersion isn't an measure of image quality per say. A 1080p Rift, by the way, is roughly 720p per eye by the number of pixels. So it sounds to me like it would pass the bar for good enough resolution. Field of view (how much the image fills your vision) is a critical factor of course, but when I say "good enough" I'm saying 720p is good enough for me when I'm sitting as close as I can with as wide a field of view as I can get. [quote="eqzitara"]As games get more advanced 3D gets harder.[/quote] But this is only true in the short term on a technical level. In the history of games, 3D has never been better. In the history of stereoscopic 3D technology, it has never been better considering the 3D games, movies, cameras, and TVs now available. I know that wasn't your point, but I just want to remind people of the big picture. 3D is about immersion. The Rift is about immersion. Therefore it's 3D by necessity. I think in the Rift people think about 3D as it should be, immersion. Unfortunately many people attach a lot of baggage to 3D. 3D means higher ticket prices, lower brightness, a fad (and who wants to follow fad once they heard it was a fad on the internet?), etc etc. All things that have nothing to do with 3D when done properly.
eqzitara said:Projector users are different then monitor users. You guys care more about Resolution/AA. We care more about immersion[Im not saying we don't play games that have flaws, we just like flawless 3D games over other features]. I dont mean this as insult. We like, what we like. As do you. But we know how difficult it is for a game to get it right.

If there is a single projector/dlp user who disagrees I would be very curious of any feedback.


Well, I'm a 720p projector user too and I've gotten this impression before. Some people on the forums (for example teardropmina) really seem to like resolution and prefer it over a large immersive screen. That's fine of course. Different people are more or less sensitive to resolution. My impression is 720p is good enough. 1080p is definitely better, but you're doubling the pixels/processing to get a 10-20% sharper more detailed picture.

For me, the immersive quality a 90" screen is at least twice as good as viewing a 30" screen, so it's an obvious choice between 30" 1080p and 90" 720p, even if immersion isn't an measure of image quality per say.

A 1080p Rift, by the way, is roughly 720p per eye by the number of pixels. So it sounds to me like it would pass the bar for good enough resolution. Field of view (how much the image fills your vision) is a critical factor of course, but when I say "good enough" I'm saying 720p is good enough for me when I'm sitting as close as I can with as wide a field of view as I can get.

eqzitara said:As games get more advanced 3D gets harder.


But this is only true in the short term on a technical level. In the history of games, 3D has never been better. In the history of stereoscopic 3D technology, it has never been better considering the 3D games, movies, cameras, and TVs now available. I know that wasn't your point, but I just want to remind people of the big picture.

3D is about immersion. The Rift is about immersion. Therefore it's 3D by necessity. I think in the Rift people think about 3D as it should be, immersion. Unfortunately many people attach a lot of baggage to 3D. 3D means higher ticket prices, lower brightness, a fad (and who wants to follow fad once they heard it was a fad on the internet?), etc etc. All things that have nothing to do with 3D when done properly.

#25
Posted 06/12/2013 11:07 AM   
I don't care what anyone says, I'm buying the crap out of the consumer version the moment it goes on sale.
I don't care what anyone says, I'm buying the crap out of the consumer version the moment it goes on sale.

#26
Posted 06/12/2013 11:23 AM   
[quote="Pirateguybrush"]I don't care what anyone says, I'm buying the crap out of the consumer version the moment it goes on sale.[/quote]Just don't trip over me in my sleeping bag at the door.
Pirateguybrush said:I don't care what anyone says, I'm buying the crap out of the consumer version the moment it goes on sale.
Just don't trip over me in my sleeping bag at the door.

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

#27
Posted 06/12/2013 11:27 AM   
[quote="Airion"]A 1080p Rift, by the way, is roughly 720p per eye by the number of pixels. So it sounds to me like it would pass the bar for good enough resolution. Field of view (how much the image fills your vision) is a critical factor of course, but when I say "good enough" I'm saying 720p is good enough for me when I'm sitting as close as I can with as wide a field of view as I can get.[/quote]The resolution will still be sketchy on the consumer version, based on the math from that forum post I linked. Doing the same math for my projector, I get a view field of 47 degrees. And his angular pixel density measurement of 27. (assuming I didn't blow the math) I sit 10 feet from a 105" wide screen. This spot is what I would consider to be a bare minimum of resolution before it's noticeable and annoying. If I sit closer than this, it starts to break down. Even at 1080p, the Rift is going to have an angular pixel density of 21. Pretty far below what I would consider a bare minimum. The reason is because the Rift also stretches the pixels out for 90 degree FOV, double my 47 degrees. Nevertheless, I hope you enjoy your consumer version and it's as good as the hype says. If it's as good as the hype says, I'll buy one too. I will however observe that hypothetical products are [i]always [/i]better than the real ones. :->
Airion said:A 1080p Rift, by the way, is roughly 720p per eye by the number of pixels. So it sounds to me like it would pass the bar for good enough resolution. Field of view (how much the image fills your vision) is a critical factor of course, but when I say "good enough" I'm saying 720p is good enough for me when I'm sitting as close as I can with as wide a field of view as I can get.
The resolution will still be sketchy on the consumer version, based on the math from that forum post I linked. Doing the same math for my projector, I get a view field of 47 degrees. And his angular pixel density measurement of 27. (assuming I didn't blow the math) I sit 10 feet from a 105" wide screen.

This spot is what I would consider to be a bare minimum of resolution before it's noticeable and annoying. If I sit closer than this, it starts to break down.

Even at 1080p, the Rift is going to have an angular pixel density of 21. Pretty far below what I would consider a bare minimum.

The reason is because the Rift also stretches the pixels out for 90 degree FOV, double my 47 degrees.


Nevertheless, I hope you enjoy your consumer version and it's as good as the hype says. If it's as good as the hype says, I'll buy one too.

I will however observe that hypothetical products are always better than the real ones. :->

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

#28
Posted 06/12/2013 11:48 AM   
I think this device will do really well if they get the 1080p headset at $300 give or take. Community support is staggering and hype among gamers is huge, they have developed support for many retail games, emulators, 3d cinema, and lets not ignore the incredibly successul kickstarter showing that the interest is there. At the last GDC the lines to try it were huge, and the new 1080p prototype shows the thing are shaping up really well and even surprisingly fast. UE4 support is jut the icing in the cake. I'm with Volnaiskra here in almost all he has said, for me the trade off of full immersion with a huge depth of field and 1:1 motion would probably be worth the loss of resolution and detail, and I'm ok to get less than perfect 3d in exchange of being able to get properly sized worlds to look around like I was there.
I think this device will do really well if they get the 1080p headset at $300 give or take. Community support is staggering and hype among gamers is huge, they have developed support for many retail games, emulators, 3d cinema, and lets not ignore the incredibly successul kickstarter showing that the interest is there. At the last GDC the lines to try it were huge, and the new 1080p prototype shows the thing are shaping up really well and even surprisingly fast. UE4 support is jut the icing in the cake.

I'm with Volnaiskra here in almost all he has said, for me the trade off of full immersion with a huge depth of field and 1:1 motion would probably be worth the loss of resolution and detail, and I'm ok to get less than perfect 3d in exchange of being able to get properly sized worlds to look around like I was there.

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

#29
Posted 06/12/2013 02:18 PM   
Hmmmm I think it will be more than $300.00 for a consumer version. Dang I would pay 500 for a consumer version.
Hmmmm I think it will be more than $300.00 for a consumer version. Dang I would pay 500 for a consumer version.

Intel Core i9-9820x @ 3.30GHZ
32 gig Ram
2 EVGA RTX 2080 ti Gaming
3 X ASUS ROG SWIFT 27 144Hz G-SYNC Gaming 3D Monitor [PG278Q]
1 X ASUS VG278HE
Nvidia 3Dvision
Oculus Rift
HTC VIVE
Windows 10

#30
Posted 06/12/2013 02:54 PM   
  2 / 10    
Scroll To Top