1080p Oculus Rift
  7 / 10    
Well the solution would be multiple resolutions IMO or making it low resolution and allowing user to hotswap out panels[Unscrew/ Attach ribbon/ Attach power connector] which would get a huge thumbs up from me. I just doubt it at least not for first consumer release. I really think its more of an issue of what the average consumer has as "hardware" processing power then resolution. They are trying to create a device for everyone and if you go to MTBS... specs are real low. I mean alot of people who arent really even interested in gaming have taken an interest. Like laptops that are years outdated are among the popular devices used. Like people think video cards when you say S3D gaming but you also need a processor capable of 120hz and how many people actually know how to install a processor [seriously]. The gallery kind of summed it up for me.[The big kickstarter game] The gallery said the greatest issue they face is making the game capable for all users performance. Thats pretty scary to me since its own Unity and shadows are already not in the game. He even seriously seemed to be talking about developer kit rather then consumer as well. Which probably means processor over gpu. I really believe its going to be 1920x1080/2. Which is not too big of deal to me personally, it could be 2560x1600 for all I care and Id still feel the same. Perhaps I have poor vision but as long as I dont see pixelation I can rely on AA overrides/in game aa/ injectors. Higher resolution just means less hassles to me. I just really don't the idea of the other short commings. Disable This/that, no advanced lighting, etc. Part of the reason Ive begun to be disillusioned by the device is that I honestly believe that effects will not be fixed for it just disabled. Saves developer time and makes it available to more people. You got to desperately hope NVIDIA/AMD take an interest in it if you care about graphics. Honestly resolution isnt the biggest deal to me. Maybe I have poor vision or whatever but taking away effects is where I draw the line. Im sure people are gonna nay say me but whatevez. I really dont think people have thought up the consequences to a Mass Market device especially coming from a tech heavy device such as 3D vision. Performance is not even a topic of conversation when people talk about rifts.
Well the solution would be multiple resolutions IMO or making it low resolution and allowing user to hotswap out panels[Unscrew/ Attach ribbon/ Attach power connector] which would get a huge thumbs up from me. I just doubt it at least not for first consumer release.

I really think its more of an issue of what the average consumer has as "hardware" processing power then resolution. They are trying to create a device for everyone and if you go to MTBS... specs are real low. I mean alot of people who arent really even interested in gaming have taken an interest. Like laptops that are years outdated are among the popular devices used. Like people think video cards when you say S3D gaming but you also need a processor capable of 120hz and how many people actually know how to install a processor [seriously].

The gallery kind of summed it up for me.[The big kickstarter game]
The gallery said the greatest issue they face is making the game capable for all users performance.
Thats pretty scary to me since its own Unity and shadows are already not in the game. He even seriously seemed to be talking about developer kit rather then consumer as well. Which probably means processor over gpu.

I really believe its going to be 1920x1080/2. Which is not too big of deal to me personally, it could be 2560x1600 for all I care and Id still feel the same. Perhaps I have poor vision but as long as I dont see pixelation I can rely on AA overrides/in game aa/ injectors. Higher resolution just means less hassles to me. I just really don't the idea of the other short commings. Disable This/that, no advanced lighting, etc. Part of the reason Ive begun to be disillusioned by the device is that I honestly believe that effects will not be fixed for it just disabled. Saves developer time and makes it available to more people.
You got to desperately hope NVIDIA/AMD take an interest in it if you care about graphics. Honestly resolution isnt the biggest deal to me. Maybe I have poor vision or whatever but taking away effects is where I draw the line.

Im sure people are gonna nay say me but whatevez. I really dont think people have thought up the consequences to a Mass Market device especially coming from a tech heavy device such as 3D vision. Performance is not even a topic of conversation when people talk about rifts.

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

#91
Posted 06/20/2013 04:25 AM   
I think most people are *expecting* there to be many compromises once we start getting into VR, and I think most people are fine with that. Compromises have always been part of the deal whenever new technology comes along. History has shown that people willingly accept lower quality for a while if the tradeoff is new and exciting tech. This has already happened many times, whether it's people abandoning beautiful pre-rendered 2D graphics in favour of crappy and blocky 3D graphics in the 1990s, people embracing youtube despite its terrible video quality early on, or people embracing the Nintendo Wii even though its graphics were a step backwards. Most people know that early VR will have flaws, but they'll enjoy it anyway, and eventually the tech will catch up and the flaws will be ironed out, as they almost always are in the end. Ironically, it sometimes seems like the main people who'll have a problem accepting VR will be some members of the hardcore 3D community.
I think most people are *expecting* there to be many compromises once we start getting into VR, and I think most people are fine with that. Compromises have always been part of the deal whenever new technology comes along. History has shown that people willingly accept lower quality for a while if the tradeoff is new and exciting tech.

This has already happened many times, whether it's people abandoning beautiful pre-rendered 2D graphics in favour of crappy and blocky 3D graphics in the 1990s, people embracing youtube despite its terrible video quality early on, or people embracing the Nintendo Wii even though its graphics were a step backwards.

Most people know that early VR will have flaws, but they'll enjoy it anyway, and eventually the tech will catch up and the flaws will be ironed out, as they almost always are in the end.

Ironically, it sometimes seems like the main people who'll have a problem accepting VR will be some members of the hardcore 3D community.

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

#92
Posted 06/20/2013 05:34 AM   
I think eqzitara is right, people don't really understand the requirements of dual rendered full hd images at perfect 60 fps. They will try skyrim with the OR on their laptops and they and will puke their kidneys when they get 20-30 fps under those circumstances, and that's probably the big risk of OR going mainstream. The OR team need to make incredibly clear the hardware requirements, or the OR will be a product massively returned after a few tries.
I think eqzitara is right, people don't really understand the requirements of dual rendered full hd images at perfect 60 fps. They will try skyrim with the OR on their laptops and they and will puke their kidneys when they get 20-30 fps under those circumstances, and that's probably the big risk of OR going mainstream. The OR team need to make incredibly clear the hardware requirements, or the OR will be a product massively returned after a few tries.

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

#93
Posted 06/20/2013 09:06 AM   
As far as hardware, hopefully this is where something like the PS4 comes in for the masses. It should be able to handle a 1080p consumer model, perhaps with some developer tweaks to get it to run at 60fps depending on how fancy the graphics are.
As far as hardware, hopefully this is where something like the PS4 comes in for the masses. It should be able to handle a 1080p consumer model, perhaps with some developer tweaks to get it to run at 60fps depending on how fancy the graphics are.

#94
Posted 06/20/2013 10:11 AM   
I don't think the reaction will be as bad as people think. Only a total fool would expect a futuristic technology like VR to run buttery smooth on their crappy mid-range laptop. It's like someone buying a bicycle and expecting to feel like they're riding a Harley Davidson. Contrary to popular opinion, most people aren't actually that stupid. It'll just make lots of people buy better hardware. Some will bitch and moan, for sure - just like people bitch and moan when a new Crysis game comes out about how it's 'badly optimised'. But for the most part, people lower their expectations and enjoy it on low settings, or else shell out for a new GPU and enjoy it on high settings. Anyway, I put my money where my mouth is and pre-ordered a dev kit today. I wanna support the OR as much as I can. And hey, if Portal 2 is half as good with the OR as I've heard, it'll be worth it for that alone.
I don't think the reaction will be as bad as people think. Only a total fool would expect a futuristic technology like VR to run buttery smooth on their crappy mid-range laptop. It's like someone buying a bicycle and expecting to feel like they're riding a Harley Davidson. Contrary to popular opinion, most people aren't actually that stupid.

It'll just make lots of people buy better hardware. Some will bitch and moan, for sure - just like people bitch and moan when a new Crysis game comes out about how it's 'badly optimised'. But for the most part, people lower their expectations and enjoy it on low settings, or else shell out for a new GPU and enjoy it on high settings.




Anyway, I put my money where my mouth is and pre-ordered a dev kit today. I wanna support the OR as much as I can. And hey, if Portal 2 is half as good with the OR as I've heard, it'll be worth it for that alone.

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

#95
Posted 06/20/2013 11:03 AM   
Actually I was thinking the same, and I'll probably pre-order a dev kit in the coming days, it's incredibly cheap for us euros with the current dollar exchange rate.
Actually I was thinking the same, and I'll probably pre-order a dev kit in the coming days, it's incredibly cheap for us euros with the current dollar exchange rate.

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

#96
Posted 06/20/2013 12:12 PM   
You can use all the antialiasing you like, if its low res you will still be able to see the gaps between the pixels because your eyes are a few inches away from them.
You can use all the antialiasing you like, if its low res you will still be able to see the gaps between the pixels because your eyes are a few inches away from them.

#97
Posted 06/20/2013 02:36 PM   
[quote="Volnaiskra"]Only a total fool would expect a futuristic technology like VR to run buttery smooth on their crappy mid-range laptop.[/quote]And therein lies the problem ... :)
Volnaiskra said:Only a total fool would expect a futuristic technology like VR to run buttery smooth on their crappy mid-range laptop.
And therein lies the problem ... :)
#98
Posted 06/20/2013 04:22 PM   
[quote="Volnaiskra"]Only a total fool would expect a futuristic technology like VR to run buttery smooth on their crappy mid-range laptop.[/quote] Only an UNEDUCATED fool would expect OR to run smoothly on a crappy laptop. Most people don't realise the requirements for 3D vision, let alone the OR. Part of the challenge for the Rift guys is to market the Oculus correctly to the enthusiast market, and separately to the mass market. The mass market will be helped partly by game devs who offer direct support quoting realistic minimum specs, and the number of people with relevant hardware will gradually increase as time goes by due to increasing hardware specs.
Volnaiskra said:Only a total fool would expect a futuristic technology like VR to run buttery smooth on their crappy mid-range laptop.


Only an UNEDUCATED fool would expect OR to run smoothly on a crappy laptop. Most people don't realise the requirements for 3D vision, let alone the OR.

Part of the challenge for the Rift guys is to market the Oculus correctly to the enthusiast market, and separately to the mass market.

The mass market will be helped partly by game devs who offer direct support quoting realistic minimum specs, and the number of people with relevant hardware will gradually increase as time goes by due to increasing hardware specs.

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

#99
Posted 06/20/2013 04:38 PM   
[quote="Cookybiscuit"]You can use all the antialiasing you like, if its low res you will still be able to see the gaps between the pixels because your eyes are a few inches away from them.[/quote] Was refering to 1080P. I dont think I will see gaps at 1080P HSBS. Developer kit, definetly.
Cookybiscuit said:You can use all the antialiasing you like, if its low res you will still be able to see the gaps between the pixels because your eyes are a few inches away from them.

Was refering to 1080P. I dont think I will see gaps at 1080P HSBS. Developer kit, definetly.

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

Posted 06/20/2013 08:02 PM   
You are probably right, though 1080p is by no means a massive resolution, the pixels will be tiny on a 'screen' the size of the OR's.
You are probably right, though 1080p is by no means a massive resolution, the pixels will be tiny on a 'screen' the size of the OR's.

Posted 06/20/2013 09:02 PM   
@cookybiscuit No doubt will it not be perfect but I think its the best compromise resolution. Like I can't complain about 1080P HSBS, Id like more but its not too bad. Who knows though, things like pixel density are really important so you could have 1080p and a shit panel and it would suck or the opposite. IMO.
@cookybiscuit
No doubt will it not be perfect but I think its the best compromise resolution. Like I can't complain about 1080P HSBS, Id like more but its not too bad. Who knows though, things like pixel density are really important so you could have 1080p and a shit panel and it would suck or the opposite. IMO.

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

Posted 06/20/2013 09:49 PM   
The general response to it that i've read about across the web, other than the obvious limitations of the dev kit, is thats its pretty gob-smacking amazing. It'll make a very nice standard 3D display in supported games once the displays is up to par imo. What i hope they do from the very first commercial version is get the foundation 90% there. No blur, no screen door, no lag, no hassle.
The general response to it that i've read about across the web, other than the obvious limitations of the dev kit, is thats its pretty gob-smacking amazing.

It'll make a very nice standard 3D display in supported games once the displays is up to par imo.

What i hope they do from the very first commercial version is get the foundation 90% there. No blur, no screen door, no lag, no hassle.

46" Samsung ES7500 3DTV (checkerboard, high FOV as desktop monitor, highly recommend!) - Metro 2033 3D PNG screens - Metro LL filter realism mod - Flugan's Deus Ex:HR Depth changers - Nvidia tech support online form - Nvidia support: 1-800-797-6530

Posted 06/23/2013 06:50 AM   
[quote="Libertine"]The general response to it that i've read about across the web, other than the obvious limitations of the dev kit, is thats its pretty gob-smacking amazing.[/quote] I have read a lot, overall opinion of bloggers seems very positive to me, that this is a good step in the right direction with the common flaw of the screen quality being the main detractor. That can and will be rectified to a large degree, and will only get better with time if enough interest and sales are generated. The amount of buzz and positive reviews from users is almost unheard of from a tiny start up company in such a niche technology. I have faith! [quote="eqzitara"] I really think its more of an issue of what the average consumer has as "hardware" processing power then resolution. They are trying to create a device for everyone and if you go to MTBS... specs are real low. [/quote] What you are saying is a genuine concern. Top quality graphics and a smooth VR system requires some hefty rendering to keep latency down. However, as I know I have stated before but here goes for others benefit, if the product is good enough to warrant expenditure, people will upgrade and spend a lot of money. Historical evidence? A time unbelievably not long ago, people spent £40 on a phone that called people. Some office types (inc my brother) used PDA's begrudgingly for work, but still had their trusty nokia. The idea that people would spend more on a phone then a PC was insane back then. People now buy Iphones, Galaxys for up to £700. It is completely insane. Why? Because people see huge value in the tech because smart phones add so much over an old handset. I'm definitely not saying that OR will be the revolution that smart phone was... not even close. But within the gaming community if OR brings enough novelty and value it really can be enough to push people to start spending £400 on a GPU. They will absolutely have to have this next greatest thing. That incentive requires more then hardware though. 3D had so much bad press people didn't want to upgrade their kit for it. It didn't have enough perceived value. But one killer game for OR with amazing integration is all it may need . That could be enough to start the ball rolling. I wonder if the guys at OR are being cagey about the official release date, as they want to make sure it is tied with a massive game launch. Without a successful launch with a great IP to play... it may go the way the Nintendo Wiiu is going. So I think the problem of hardware could change and become irrelevant, like it did for smartphones. But only a top tier experience, an AAA game designed for OR from the ground up could encourage that... which isn't so likely, but fingers crossed!
Libertine said:The general response to it that i've read about across the web, other than the obvious limitations of the dev kit, is thats its pretty gob-smacking amazing.

I have read a lot, overall opinion of bloggers seems very positive to me, that this is a good step in the right direction with the common flaw of the screen quality being the main detractor. That can and will be rectified to a large degree, and will only get better with time if enough interest and sales are generated. The amount of buzz and positive reviews from users is almost unheard of from a tiny start up company in such a niche technology. I have faith!

eqzitara said:
I really think its more of an issue of what the average consumer has as "hardware" processing power then resolution. They are trying to create a device for everyone and if you go to MTBS... specs are real low.

What you are saying is a genuine concern. Top quality graphics and a smooth VR system requires some hefty rendering to keep latency down. However, as I know I have stated before but here goes for others benefit, if the product is good enough to warrant expenditure, people will upgrade and spend a lot of money. Historical evidence?

A time unbelievably not long ago, people spent £40 on a phone that called people. Some office types (inc my brother) used PDA's begrudgingly for work, but still had their trusty nokia. The idea that people would spend more on a phone then a PC was insane back then.

People now buy Iphones, Galaxys for up to £700. It is completely insane. Why? Because people see huge value in the tech because smart phones add so much over an old handset.

I'm definitely not saying that OR will be the revolution that smart phone was... not even close. But within the gaming community if OR brings enough novelty and value it really can be enough to push people to start spending £400 on a GPU. They will absolutely have to have this next greatest thing. That incentive requires more then hardware though. 3D had so much bad press people didn't want to upgrade their kit for it. It didn't have enough perceived value. But one killer game for OR with amazing integration is all it may need . That could be enough to start the ball rolling. I wonder if the guys at OR are being cagey about the official release date, as they want to make sure it is tied with a massive game launch. Without a successful launch with a great IP to play... it may go the way the Nintendo Wiiu is going.

So I think the problem of hardware could change and become irrelevant, like it did for smartphones. But only a top tier experience, an AAA game designed for OR from the ground up could encourage that... which isn't so likely, but fingers crossed!

OS: Win 8 CPU: I7 4770k 3.5GZ GPU: GTX 780ti

Posted 06/23/2013 08:31 PM   
[quote="foreverseeking"]A time unbelievably not long ago, people spent £40 on a phone that called people. Some office types (inc my brother) used PDA's begrudgingly for work, but still had their trusty nokia. The idea that people would spend more on a phone then a PC was insane back then.[/quote]Exactly. And don't forget that they're not just spending more money on a phone than a PC, but they're spending it on a phone that *is a lot worse than a PC in many areas*: tiny screen, crappy CPU, primitive graphics, limited multitasking, no precision mouse control, oftentimes shaky internet connection, limited software options. And they're doing this happily. The pros outweigh the cons for them. This is the point that seems too often forgotten by the doomsayers who are saying "but OR will have lower screen quality" or "it won't have many games available" or "some graphical features will have to be disabled". It's not about whether something is perfect or top-of-the-line, people. It's about whether the pros outweigh the cons.
foreverseeking said:A time unbelievably not long ago, people spent £40 on a phone that called people. Some office types (inc my brother) used PDA's begrudgingly for work, but still had their trusty nokia. The idea that people would spend more on a phone then a PC was insane back then.
Exactly.

And don't forget that they're not just spending more money on a phone than a PC, but they're spending it on a phone that *is a lot worse than a PC in many areas*: tiny screen, crappy CPU, primitive graphics, limited multitasking, no precision mouse control, oftentimes shaky internet connection, limited software options. And they're doing this happily. The pros outweigh the cons for them.

This is the point that seems too often forgotten by the doomsayers who are saying "but OR will have lower screen quality" or "it won't have many games available" or "some graphical features will have to be disabled". It's not about whether something is perfect or top-of-the-line, people. It's about whether the pros outweigh the cons.

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

Posted 06/24/2013 12:28 AM   
  7 / 10    
Scroll To Top