My 3D Vision vs VR Observations
  3 / 5    
[quote="whyme466"]So, the games are rendered at 2560x1600 (or 1200) per eye, then warped to 1080x1200 (per eye) display, using HMD's optical transfer function? Are multi-resolution grid areas used to reduce unnecessary computation away from center of vision?[/quote] Actually, they are rendered at 1080x1200 for the 1:1 case, as a single eye which is more portrait display. Wide screen doesn't make sense here, you want taller than wide. Then, the same sort of 3D Vision is done, where the same scene is drawn to the other eye at the same time, from the different perspective. From a 3D Vision perspective, we would call the screen 1080x1200. If you add super-sampling, that will increase in both axes, the same aspect ratio still holds. So 1.4x would be 1512x1680. That's larger than the number that the SDKs return when you call the API for 'preferred' size, although 'preferred' is still bigger than native. (don't have 'preferred' numbers handy) Games don't have to render this big though, and in general super-sampling is a hack for now. Most people on the Rift are using the Debug Tool, which not surprisingly is for debugging, not intended for prime time. Games like Eve Valkyrie allow super-sampling in their settings. In Vive, you have to edit a settings file, there is no UI for super-sampling. As a general experience, I find everything pretty low resolution, and I think devs are being cautious and using the GTX 970 minimum as their metric. They'd rather lower resolution than drop frames, so most games don't even use the preferred return values, they use the native 1080x1200. The multi-resolution grid idea is only supported by NVidia so it hasn't gotten any traction to speak of. The newest version only runs on Pascal chips, and it'll be a long while before mainstream devs adopt something that is a niche within a niche. I haven't seen anything outside of literal tech demos that use multi-res shading.
whyme466 said:So, the games are rendered at 2560x1600 (or 1200) per eye, then warped to 1080x1200 (per eye) display, using HMD's optical transfer function? Are multi-resolution grid areas used to reduce unnecessary computation away from center of vision?

Actually, they are rendered at 1080x1200 for the 1:1 case, as a single eye which is more portrait display. Wide screen doesn't make sense here, you want taller than wide. Then, the same sort of 3D Vision is done, where the same scene is drawn to the other eye at the same time, from the different perspective.

From a 3D Vision perspective, we would call the screen 1080x1200. If you add super-sampling, that will increase in both axes, the same aspect ratio still holds. So 1.4x would be 1512x1680. That's larger than the number that the SDKs return when you call the API for 'preferred' size, although 'preferred' is still bigger than native. (don't have 'preferred' numbers handy)

Games don't have to render this big though, and in general super-sampling is a hack for now. Most people on the Rift are using the Debug Tool, which not surprisingly is for debugging, not intended for prime time. Games like Eve Valkyrie allow super-sampling in their settings. In Vive, you have to edit a settings file, there is no UI for super-sampling.

As a general experience, I find everything pretty low resolution, and I think devs are being cautious and using the GTX 970 minimum as their metric. They'd rather lower resolution than drop frames, so most games don't even use the preferred return values, they use the native 1080x1200.


The multi-resolution grid idea is only supported by NVidia so it hasn't gotten any traction to speak of. The newest version only runs on Pascal chips, and it'll be a long while before mainstream devs adopt something that is a niche within a niche.

I haven't seen anything outside of literal tech demos that use multi-res shading.

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

#31
Posted 08/22/2016 09:10 AM   
You could probably use GeDoSaTo for some games. The problem with downsampling, is that it can soften the image unless post processing is applied. Such as Nvidia applying a Gaussian filter. Using some of the tools in something like "reshade" might help if theOculus and Vive have nothing. http://www.geforce.com/hardware/technology/dsr/technology The DSR process significantly improves image quality, and with the addition of the 13-tap Gaussian filter aliasing artifacts experienced with traditional downsampling are greatly reduced or entirely eliminated, further improving image quality. If you recall, I've used manual downsampling on my "diamond" pixel projector because it applies a pixel orientation algorithm that sharpens the image and works very well using it.
You could probably use GeDoSaTo for some games.

The problem with downsampling, is that it can soften the image unless post processing is applied.

Such as Nvidia applying a Gaussian filter.

Using some of the tools in something like "reshade" might help if theOculus and Vive have nothing.


http://www.geforce.com/hardware/technology/dsr/technology


The DSR process significantly improves image quality, and with the addition of the 13-tap Gaussian filter aliasing artifacts experienced with traditional downsampling are greatly reduced or entirely eliminated, further improving image quality.

If you recall, I've used manual downsampling on my "diamond" pixel projector because it applies a pixel orientation algorithm that sharpens the image and works very well using it.

#32
Posted 08/22/2016 09:58 AM   
[quote="bo3b"][quote="Paul33993"][quote="bo3b"]So, anything above 1.4x is overkill, anything below will have lower quality.[/quote]No offense here, but no way. I forgot, but do you have an HMD? Cause I'm struggling to believe any owner would make that statement. 1.4X is the standard base that both Oculus and Valve do. That's essentially considered a multiplier of 1. But the more you can super sample on top of that, the better it looks. It's not overkill in the least to go 1080 X 1.4 X 2. It's an insane resolution, true, but it makes the image so much crisper. And gets rid of the jaggies. Carmack has been quoted as saying he thinks games should be disqualified from appearing on the store if they don't use MSAA, and I agree. Jaggies are the scourge of VR and SS is their anecdote. I personally think Super Sampling is borderline placebo on an HDTV and don't bother wasting my GPU cycles on it, but it's the real deal in VR.[/quote] Well, it's overkill in the sense that you are going past the primary recommendation from Oculus and also from the Valve SDK. The [i]native[/i] resolution is in fact 2560x1200 for both headsets. That is 1x. You are not going to get more pixels by drawing larger than that, but you will improve the quality. The recommendation from both Valve and Oculus is to use about 1.4x. They may have other reasons for choosing that optimum, like minimizing the impact on your hardware at drawing 4K. And of course, just like with DSR, if you go higher, you'll get some improvement. But there are going to be diminishing returns. And if you go too high, and break into reprojection/ATW, your overall experience will be worse. Not too be [i]too[/i] bratty, but if you don't know whether I have an HMD or not, you simply aren't paying attention. [/quote] I thought you did, but I couldn't believe you'd make that statement if you did. And you're right, I can go weeks between checking in. Put me on the firing squad and take away my geek pass. Of course Valve and Oculus have to make a balancing act when choosing the baseline. Setting the SS multiplier at 2.0 (on top of the 1.4 baseline they use) is a render resolution of 6048 X 3360. And that's stereo 3D that can't dip below 90 fps. This would be absolutely performance destroying for almost all games (even if you rocked a 1080... forget about any card that was significantly slower). They mine as well go straight to "Out of Business" if that's their requirement. I'll agree that a multiplier of 2.0 is overkill if the game is using lots of MSAA, but most games don't even use MSAA. And if they don't use MSAA, even a render of 6048 X 3360 isn't going to completely rid the image of jaggies (although it's a massive improvement). Without MSAA, the land of diminishing returns is somewhere north of 2.0. It just is. It's not even debatable IMO. So I won't.
bo3b said:
Paul33993 said:
bo3b said:So, anything above 1.4x is overkill, anything below will have lower quality.
No offense here, but no way.

I forgot, but do you have an HMD? Cause I'm struggling to believe any owner would make that statement.

1.4X is the standard base that both Oculus and Valve do. That's essentially considered a multiplier of 1. But the more you can super sample on top of that, the better it looks. It's not overkill in the least to go 1080 X 1.4 X 2. It's an insane resolution, true, but it makes the image so much crisper. And gets rid of the jaggies. Carmack has been quoted as saying he thinks games should be disqualified from appearing on the store if they don't use MSAA, and I agree. Jaggies are the scourge of VR and SS is their anecdote.

I personally think Super Sampling is borderline placebo on an HDTV and don't bother wasting my GPU cycles on it, but it's the real deal in VR.

Well, it's overkill in the sense that you are going past the primary recommendation from Oculus and also from the Valve SDK.

The native resolution is in fact 2560x1200 for both headsets. That is 1x. You are not going to get more pixels by drawing larger than that, but you will improve the quality. The recommendation from both Valve and Oculus is to use about 1.4x. They may have other reasons for choosing that optimum, like minimizing the impact on your hardware at drawing 4K.

And of course, just like with DSR, if you go higher, you'll get some improvement. But there are going to be diminishing returns. And if you go too high, and break into reprojection/ATW, your overall experience will be worse.

Not too be too bratty, but if you don't know whether I have an HMD or not, you simply aren't paying attention.



I thought you did, but I couldn't believe you'd make that statement if you did. And you're right, I can go weeks between checking in. Put me on the firing squad and take away my geek pass.

Of course Valve and Oculus have to make a balancing act when choosing the baseline. Setting the SS multiplier at 2.0 (on top of the 1.4 baseline they use) is a render resolution of 6048 X 3360. And that's stereo 3D that can't dip below 90 fps. This would be absolutely performance destroying for almost all games (even if you rocked a 1080... forget about any card that was significantly slower). They mine as well go straight to "Out of Business" if that's their requirement.

I'll agree that a multiplier of 2.0 is overkill if the game is using lots of MSAA, but most games don't even use MSAA. And if they don't use MSAA, even a render of 6048 X 3360 isn't going to completely rid the image of jaggies (although it's a massive improvement).

Without MSAA, the land of diminishing returns is somewhere north of 2.0. It just is. It's not even debatable IMO. So I won't.

#33
Posted 08/22/2016 12:58 PM   
[quote="Paul33993"][quote="bo3b"][quote="Paul33993"][quote="bo3b"]So, anything above 1.4x is overkill, anything below will have lower quality.[/quote]No offense here, but no way. I forgot, but do you have an HMD? Cause I'm struggling to believe any owner would make that statement. 1.4X is the standard base that both Oculus and Valve do. That's essentially considered a multiplier of 1. But the more you can super sample on top of that, the better it looks. It's not overkill in the least to go 1080 X 1.4 X 2. It's an insane resolution, true, but it makes the image so much crisper. And gets rid of the jaggies. Carmack has been quoted as saying he thinks games should be disqualified from appearing on the store if they don't use MSAA, and I agree. Jaggies are the scourge of VR and SS is their anecdote. I personally think Super Sampling is borderline placebo on an HDTV and don't bother wasting my GPU cycles on it, but it's the real deal in VR.[/quote] Well, it's overkill in the sense that you are going past the primary recommendation from Oculus and also from the Valve SDK. The [i]native[/i] resolution is in fact 2560x1200 for both headsets. That is 1x. You are not going to get more pixels by drawing larger than that, but you will improve the quality. The recommendation from both Valve and Oculus is to use about 1.4x. They may have other reasons for choosing that optimum, like minimizing the impact on your hardware at drawing 4K. And of course, just like with DSR, if you go higher, you'll get some improvement. But there are going to be diminishing returns. And if you go too high, and break into reprojection/ATW, your overall experience will be worse. Not too be [i]too[/i] bratty, but if you don't know whether I have an HMD or not, you simply aren't paying attention. [/quote]I thought you did, but I couldn't believe you'd make that statement if you did. And you're right, I can go weeks between checking in. Put me on the firing squad and take away my geek pass. Of course Valve and Oculus have to make a balancing act when choosing the baseline. Setting the SS multiplier at 2.0 (on top of the 1.4 baseline they use) is a render resolution of 6048 X 3360. And that's stereo 3D that can't dip below 90 fps. This would be absolutely performance destroying for almost all games (even if you rocked a 1080... forget about any card that was significantly slower). They mine as well go straight to "Out of Business" if that's their requirement. I'll agree that a multiplier of 2.0 is overkill if the game is using lots of MSAA, but most games don't even use MSAA. And if they don't use MSAA, even a render of 6048 X 3360 isn't going to completely rid the image of jaggies (although it's a massive improvement). Without MSAA, the land of diminishing returns is somewhere north of 2.0. It just is. It's not even debatable IMO. So I won't.[/quote] The reason I'm mildly hassling you is because you did the same thing everyone on the internet [i]always [/i]does, and even though it's human nature it still pisses me off. You know me, I post here practically every day. I work on 3Dmigoto right? I built a solid foundation for us to make DX11 fixes, and refactored the entire code base to give DarkStarSword a workable code base to build his epic improvements. I've done experiments after experiments, document stuff over and over. Help people learn new stuff. Wrote the ShaderHackers class to bring new people into fixing stuff. Was a Kickstarter backer for DK1. Try new stuff, and report back on success/fail. But your first reaction is not "well, this is bo3b, maybe he knows what he's talking about". Instead it's "well you are either stupid or f* blind. Even a dead chimpanzee can see that 2.0 is clearly superior." It's just sad. I hate humans. I genuinely do not know why I spend my time this way. Read: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias[/url] More fun: [url]https://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/06/23/confirmation-bias/[/url] You are mixing up two things here, and there is also a lot of game-to-game variance that is not clear. As an example of a bad game, The Climb actually runs at 0.77 of native, which means it looks like shit out of the box. OF COURSE super sampling will make it look better. Lots of games are doing dumb stuff like this in order to reach the GTX 970+90fps bar. The pieces you are confusing are the 'preferred' target size, and the supersampling applied by the debug tool. The 'preferred' size is: 1332x1586. This is a 1.3 scaling, and what a given game might use if they use the 'preferred' value returned by the API. Some discussion: [url]https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/939564/have-any-of-you-tried-vorpx-/?offset=18[/url] This should not be confused with the super-sampling applied by the Debug Tool. That is over and above whatever the game requests. So if the game requests 'preferred' and you whack on 2x super sampling, you are actually doing 2.6 scaling instead. If the game is dumb like The Climb, forcing 0.7x to start, then clearly 2.0 gives you 1.4x actual, which is back to oculus preferred. If a game like Lucky's Tale is already running at higher than preferred (not sure, just looks that way), then adding on 2.0 above that isn't going to make nearly the difference you would see in The Climb. It's not nearly as simple as just saying apply 2.0 and be done with it. It's never that simple.
Paul33993 said:
bo3b said:
Paul33993 said:
bo3b said:So, anything above 1.4x is overkill, anything below will have lower quality.
No offense here, but no way.

I forgot, but do you have an HMD? Cause I'm struggling to believe any owner would make that statement.

1.4X is the standard base that both Oculus and Valve do. That's essentially considered a multiplier of 1. But the more you can super sample on top of that, the better it looks. It's not overkill in the least to go 1080 X 1.4 X 2. It's an insane resolution, true, but it makes the image so much crisper. And gets rid of the jaggies. Carmack has been quoted as saying he thinks games should be disqualified from appearing on the store if they don't use MSAA, and I agree. Jaggies are the scourge of VR and SS is their anecdote.

I personally think Super Sampling is borderline placebo on an HDTV and don't bother wasting my GPU cycles on it, but it's the real deal in VR.

Well, it's overkill in the sense that you are going past the primary recommendation from Oculus and also from the Valve SDK.

The native resolution is in fact 2560x1200 for both headsets. That is 1x. You are not going to get more pixels by drawing larger than that, but you will improve the quality. The recommendation from both Valve and Oculus is to use about 1.4x. They may have other reasons for choosing that optimum, like minimizing the impact on your hardware at drawing 4K.

And of course, just like with DSR, if you go higher, you'll get some improvement. But there are going to be diminishing returns. And if you go too high, and break into reprojection/ATW, your overall experience will be worse.

Not too be too bratty, but if you don't know whether I have an HMD or not, you simply aren't paying attention.
I thought you did, but I couldn't believe you'd make that statement if you did. And you're right, I can go weeks between checking in. Put me on the firing squad and take away my geek pass.

Of course Valve and Oculus have to make a balancing act when choosing the baseline. Setting the SS multiplier at 2.0 (on top of the 1.4 baseline they use) is a render resolution of 6048 X 3360. And that's stereo 3D that can't dip below 90 fps. This would be absolutely performance destroying for almost all games (even if you rocked a 1080... forget about any card that was significantly slower). They mine as well go straight to "Out of Business" if that's their requirement.

I'll agree that a multiplier of 2.0 is overkill if the game is using lots of MSAA, but most games don't even use MSAA. And if they don't use MSAA, even a render of 6048 X 3360 isn't going to completely rid the image of jaggies (although it's a massive improvement).

Without MSAA, the land of diminishing returns is somewhere north of 2.0. It just is. It's not even debatable IMO. So I won't.

The reason I'm mildly hassling you is because you did the same thing everyone on the internet always does, and even though it's human nature it still pisses me off.

You know me, I post here practically every day. I work on 3Dmigoto right? I built a solid foundation for us to make DX11 fixes, and refactored the entire code base to give DarkStarSword a workable code base to build his epic improvements. I've done experiments after experiments, document stuff over and over. Help people learn new stuff. Wrote the ShaderHackers class to bring new people into fixing stuff. Was a Kickstarter backer for DK1. Try new stuff, and report back on success/fail.

But your first reaction is not "well, this is bo3b, maybe he knows what he's talking about". Instead it's "well you are either stupid or f* blind. Even a dead chimpanzee can see that 2.0 is clearly superior."

It's just sad. I hate humans. I genuinely do not know why I spend my time this way.

Read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
More fun: https://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/06/23/confirmation-bias/


You are mixing up two things here, and there is also a lot of game-to-game variance that is not clear. As an example of a bad game, The Climb actually runs at 0.77 of native, which means it looks like shit out of the box. OF COURSE super sampling will make it look better. Lots of games are doing dumb stuff like this in order to reach the GTX 970+90fps bar.

The pieces you are confusing are the 'preferred' target size, and the supersampling applied by the debug tool. The 'preferred' size is: 1332x1586. This is a 1.3 scaling, and what a given game might use if they use the 'preferred' value returned by the API.

Some discussion: https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/939564/have-any-of-you-tried-vorpx-/?offset=18

This should not be confused with the super-sampling applied by the Debug Tool. That is over and above whatever the game requests. So if the game requests 'preferred' and you whack on 2x super sampling, you are actually doing 2.6 scaling instead. If the game is dumb like The Climb, forcing 0.7x to start, then clearly 2.0 gives you 1.4x actual, which is back to oculus preferred.

If a game like Lucky's Tale is already running at higher than preferred (not sure, just looks that way), then adding on 2.0 above that isn't going to make nearly the difference you would see in The Climb.

It's not nearly as simple as just saying apply 2.0 and be done with it. It's never that simple.

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

#34
Posted 08/23/2016 03:52 AM   
Speaking of "higher or just more isn't always better" I am currently amazed by what Sony is doing. When all of the three major VR-devices had been announced including their specs there was this one question I repeatedly asked to myself: "With the 1080p Oculus Rift DK2 in consumers'(and my) hands powered by PCs that are way more powerful than the PS4 and the knowledge that 1080p while being significantly superior compared to the DK1 is still WAY too low for being enjoyable what kind of magic is Sony planning to infuse into their system not only to be competitive (although they really don't need to because PS VR is the only consoles' VR-choice right now) but especially to provide an overall enjoyable VR-device?" My doubts were feeded by one of Sony's execs admitting that PS VR is indeed inferior compared to the Rift and the Vive from a technical standpoint. Also the ancient Playstation Move system being the tracking system of choice further fueled my doubts. Already owning the CV-Rift and the Vive I also preordered Playstation VR day one but as mentioned above everything was screaming "INFERIOR" when being compared to RIFT/VIVE. But then there was or better there is that one aspect you can count on when talking SONY. Their products usually can't be blamed for not delivering. At least this is my experience. I put my HMZ-T3 on the shelf just weeks ago after I switched my 3x27" 3D Vision Surround Setup with a 55" LG 4K OLED. I used that 720p!-HMZ device for 3D Vision since its first edition that came out in late 2011. Until I got my 4K OLED I favoured the HMZ over every other way that you can enjoy 3D Vision (3D Vision Surround, 1440p monitor, 720p 3D TV, 3D Vision projector). I owned all of those devices but always came back to the HMZ (slightly modded to avoid the blurry edges of course). I often blame Sony for their way of marketing things because they always seem to be passionate about inventing great stuff and then they loose interest in selling those products quite quickly when the products don't connect instantly with the consumers(HMZ, Playstation Vita....I am looking at you). But concerning the products themselves they usually deliver. Looking at recent reports it seems there is definitely some magic involved and since the native resolution of PS VR is just 1080p the magic seems to lie in those "tricks" like sub-pixel arrangement that allow for a minimized SDE and better overall image quality even with a lower native resolution. Fact is that there are some hands-on reports from very reliable sources stating not only that Playstation VR is acceptable but even SUPERIOR in some ways. Have a look at this report from Digital Foundry (could be called Eurogamer's tech-department) Those guys definitely know their stuff and they are clearly saying Driveclub VR is the most impressive way they ever witnessed racing in VR (other magazines already confirmed this). Having in mind that Rift and Vive aren't short on already available high-profile racers that does say something. [url]http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-hands-on-with-driveclub-vr[/url] The guy in this video just can't believe what he is witnessing [url]http://www.roadtovr.com/new-drive-club-vr-gameplay-video-for-psvr-is-impressive/[/url] 4Players.de which is a famous and renowned German gaming magazine tested the Star Wars Battlefront VR experience as well as the Batman Arkham VR game at Gamescom 2016 and were blown away by the experience. The also say that the move-controls are working beautifully. This is especially interesting because 4Players.de is known for being the opposite of a "hype magazine" (they gave Far Cry 3 a 68%-rating) ;-) [url]http://www.4players.de/4players.php/dispbericht/Allgemein/Vorschau/34838/82031/0/Star_Wars_Battlefront.html[/url] [url]http://www.4players.de/4players.php/dispbericht/Allgemein/Vorschau/37894/82024/0/Batman_Arkham_VR.html[/url] All those magazines and sites aren't just console magazines so they already tested and reviewed all of the available VR devices like Rift and Vive. It's defnitley not the voice of "my first VR experience and because I never witnessed VR before I am impressed by everything you throw at me" speaking here. And then there is that one aspect where the Rift and the Vive are still lacking right now and where Sony Playstation VR can be expected to deliver (and the announced game schedule seems to confirm this). I am speaking of full-fledged games that are more than just VR-demos and which are done by the major studios. This doesn't come as a surprise as Playstation VR is expected to sell in dimensions that Vive and the Rift can only dream of (not at least because of the significantly higher price of the latter). This in turn is the crucial point for a major studio to invest some bucks in a specific product. To sum things up: I dearly hope the "software situation" for the Rift and Vive improves in the weeks and months to come since those devices both are great pieces of technique (which I am enjoying just as I am still enjoying 3D Vision on my LG 4K OLED) but recent hands-on reports fuel my hope for Playstation VR where it seems to be common impression now that it totally delivers. Put the much more promising "software situation" on top and you have quite a competitor although definitely being inferior when just looking at the specs. P.S: Those 4Players reports are in German language. I just added them to give you the source I was speaking of.
Speaking of "higher or just more isn't always better" I am currently amazed by what Sony is doing. When all of the three major VR-devices had been announced including their specs there was this one question I repeatedly asked to myself:

"With the 1080p Oculus Rift DK2 in consumers'(and my) hands powered by PCs that are way more powerful than the PS4 and the knowledge that 1080p while being significantly superior compared to the DK1 is still WAY too low for being enjoyable what kind of magic is Sony planning to infuse into their system not only to be competitive (although they really don't need to because PS VR is the only consoles' VR-choice right now) but especially to provide an overall enjoyable VR-device?"

My doubts were feeded by one of Sony's execs admitting that PS VR is indeed inferior compared to the Rift and the Vive from a technical standpoint. Also the ancient Playstation Move system being the tracking system of choice further fueled my doubts.

Already owning the CV-Rift and the Vive I also preordered Playstation VR day one but as mentioned above everything was screaming "INFERIOR" when being compared to RIFT/VIVE.

But then there was or better there is that one aspect you can count on when talking SONY. Their products usually can't be blamed for not delivering. At least this is my experience. I put my HMZ-T3 on the shelf just weeks ago after I switched my 3x27" 3D Vision Surround Setup with a 55" LG 4K OLED. I used that 720p!-HMZ device for 3D Vision since its first edition that came out in late 2011. Until I got my 4K OLED I favoured the HMZ over every other way that you can enjoy 3D Vision (3D Vision Surround, 1440p monitor, 720p 3D TV, 3D Vision projector). I owned all of those devices but always came back to the HMZ (slightly modded to avoid the blurry edges of course).

I often blame Sony for their way of marketing things because they always seem to be passionate about inventing great stuff and then they loose interest in selling those products quite quickly when the products don't connect instantly with the consumers(HMZ, Playstation Vita....I am looking at you). But concerning the products themselves they usually deliver.

Looking at recent reports it seems there is definitely some magic involved and since the native resolution of PS VR is just 1080p the magic seems to lie in those "tricks" like sub-pixel arrangement that allow for a minimized SDE and better overall image quality even with a lower native resolution.

Fact is that there are some hands-on reports from very reliable sources stating not only that Playstation VR is acceptable but even SUPERIOR in some ways. Have a look at this report from Digital Foundry (could be called Eurogamer's tech-department) Those guys definitely know their stuff and they are clearly saying Driveclub VR is the most impressive way they ever witnessed racing in VR (other magazines already confirmed this). Having in mind that Rift and Vive aren't short on already available high-profile racers that does say something.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-hands-on-with-driveclub-vr

The guy in this video just can't believe what he is witnessing

http://www.roadtovr.com/new-drive-club-vr-gameplay-video-for-psvr-is-impressive/

4Players.de which is a famous and renowned German gaming magazine tested the Star Wars Battlefront VR experience as well as the Batman Arkham VR game at Gamescom 2016 and were blown away by the experience. The also say that the move-controls are working beautifully. This is especially interesting because 4Players.de is known for being the opposite of a "hype magazine" (they gave Far Cry 3 a 68%-rating) ;-)

http://www.4players.de/4players.php/dispbericht/Allgemein/Vorschau/34838/82031/0/Star_Wars_Battlefront.html

http://www.4players.de/4players.php/dispbericht/Allgemein/Vorschau/37894/82024/0/Batman_Arkham_VR.html

All those magazines and sites aren't just console magazines so they already tested and reviewed all of the available VR devices like Rift and Vive. It's defnitley not the voice of "my first VR experience and because I never witnessed VR before I am impressed by everything you throw at me" speaking here.

And then there is that one aspect where the Rift and the Vive are still lacking right now and where Sony Playstation VR can be expected to deliver (and the announced game schedule seems to confirm this). I am speaking of full-fledged games that are more than just VR-demos and which are done by the major studios. This doesn't come as a surprise as Playstation VR is expected to sell in dimensions that Vive and the Rift can only dream of (not at least because of the significantly higher price of the latter). This in turn is the crucial point for a major studio to invest some bucks in a specific product.

To sum things up:
I dearly hope the "software situation" for the Rift and Vive improves in the weeks and months to come since those devices both are great pieces of technique (which I am enjoying just as I am still enjoying 3D Vision on my LG 4K OLED) but recent hands-on reports fuel my hope for Playstation VR where it seems to be common impression now that it totally delivers. Put the much more promising "software situation" on top and you have quite a competitor although definitely being inferior when just looking at the specs.

P.S: Those 4Players reports are in German language. I just added them to give you the source I was speaking of.

#35
Posted 08/23/2016 05:06 PM   
Im in process of selling my Vive. The reasons are as said before software. I am super excited for Budget Cuts but I cant justify it nor is a release date on horizon. Im also excited for Fallout 4 but Ive sinked 150 hours into Fallout 4. Im sitting out this cycle and will use money I raise to check back in for next cycle of VR. I actually looked at upcomming PC releases before end of year. I plan to BUY 10 GAMES.[2 console games] I know of 0 VR games that I will buy. Not to mention I plan to buy a Playstaion Neo. Most VR games I bought I totally regret buying and the only few really good stuff is in early access which I refuse to look into. The resolution isnt that great and in order to make even the low resolution truly crisp you need to upscale like mad. AS A BUDGET GAMER Im not writing off VR its just... I spent $900 including shipping/taxes on it. AAA games are $40 on PC if you shop around. Thats like 25 games.... thats insane. I really don't see software catching up anytime soon for this reason. VR at this time is supplementary. At $900... thats a huge supplement. ----------------------------- Playstation VR seems interesting cause its making more of a bang before end of year in software then Vive/Rift thus gar. My problem and reason I wont be getting it is that the resolution is even lower and I'd have to try it which is unlikely. Ive been happy with Vives Blurryness with upscaling but absolutely had troubles without it. I honestly thought I was having vision issues when not looking dead on. Going lower on resolution with no upscaling doesnt seem like an option to me.
Im in process of selling my Vive. The reasons are as said before software. I am super excited for Budget Cuts but I cant justify it nor is a release date on horizon. Im also excited for Fallout 4 but Ive sinked 150 hours into Fallout 4. Im sitting out this cycle and will use money I raise to check back in for next cycle of VR.
I actually looked at upcomming PC releases before end of year. I plan to BUY 10 GAMES.[2 console games]
I know of 0 VR games that I will buy.
Not to mention I plan to buy a Playstaion Neo.

Most VR games I bought I totally regret buying and the only few really good stuff is in early access which I refuse to look into.
The resolution isnt that great and in order to make even the low resolution truly crisp you need to upscale like mad.


AS A BUDGET GAMER
Im not writing off VR its just... I spent $900 including shipping/taxes on it. AAA games are $40 on PC if you shop around. Thats like 25 games.... thats insane. I really don't see software catching up anytime soon for this reason.

VR at this time is supplementary. At $900... thats a huge supplement.
-----------------------------
Playstation VR seems interesting cause its making more of a bang before end of year in software then Vive/Rift thus gar.
My problem and reason I wont be getting it is that the resolution is even lower and I'd have to try it which is unlikely. Ive been happy with Vives Blurryness with upscaling but absolutely had troubles without it. I honestly thought I was having vision issues when not looking dead on.
Going lower on resolution with no upscaling doesnt seem like an option to me.

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

#36
Posted 08/31/2016 03:05 AM   
The whole console VR wow effect we are seeing just isn't something that gets me excited. They are console guys...us 3D/VR PC guys have been fiddling with this tech for years. Like I said give me a similar 3D Vision 1080p full detail sharpness image quality experience inside of a VR headset at a decent refresh rate and then Ill be impressed and excited at this point. That DriveClub VR experience was extremely gimped graphics wise. No weather and a ton of other effects and details dumbed down... Yes graphics are that important to me Yes I'm that picky about this stuff.... US PC guys spend big money on this tech... We are the least gullible with these companies and we have higher standards of impressive tech and experience.
The whole console VR wow effect we are seeing just isn't something that gets me excited.

They are console guys...us 3D/VR PC guys have been fiddling with this tech for years.

Like I said give me a similar 3D Vision 1080p full detail sharpness image quality experience inside of a VR headset at a decent refresh rate and then Ill be impressed and excited at this point.

That DriveClub VR experience was extremely gimped graphics wise.

No weather and a ton of other effects and details dumbed down...

Yes graphics are that important to me

Yes I'm that picky about this stuff....

US PC guys spend big money on this tech...

We are the least gullible with these companies and we have higher standards of impressive tech and experience.

Gaming Rig 1

i7 5820K 3.3ghz (Stock Clock)
GTX 1080 Founders Edition (Stock Clock)
16GB DDR4 2400 RAM
512 SAMSUNG 840 PRO

Gaming Rig 2
My new build

Asus Maximus X Hero Z370
MSI Gaming X 1080Ti (2100 mhz OC Watercooled)
8700k (4.7ghz OC Watercooled)
16gb DDR4 3000 Ram
500GB SAMSUNG 860 EVO SERIES SSD M.2

#37
Posted 09/01/2016 03:25 AM   
[quote="clammy"] They are console guys...us 3D/VR PC guys have been fiddling with this tech for years. [/quote] This is not correct. The sources I mentioned not only cover consoles but also PC. All of them have tested and reviewed the Rift and the Vive and I am pretty sure they also tried both supersampling methods. Still they are very impressed by what PS VR has to offer. I wouldn't write it off so quickly.
clammy said:
They are console guys...us 3D/VR PC guys have been fiddling with this tech for years.


This is not correct. The sources I mentioned not only cover consoles but also PC. All of them have tested and reviewed the Rift and the Vive and I am pretty sure they also tried both supersampling methods. Still they are very impressed by what PS VR has to offer. I wouldn't write it off so quickly.

#38
Posted 09/01/2016 11:22 AM   
TBH, when VR moves to Playstation Neo I really wouldn't be surprised if its on terms with Rift/HTC vive releases in graphical terms. Why? Cause they are designing games for a highly optimized system and no exactly whats its capable of. There are tons of people running HTC vives on a 780 still and developers have to keep that in mind.
TBH, when VR moves to Playstation Neo I really wouldn't be surprised if its on terms with Rift/HTC vive releases in graphical terms.
Why?
Cause they are designing games for a highly optimized system and no exactly whats its capable of.
There are tons of people running HTC vives on a 780 still and developers have to keep that in mind.

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

#39
Posted 09/01/2016 08:25 PM   
Exactly! Also only a fraction of all the PC gamers is using the Rift/Vive right now. That's the major reason why the software situation still leaves a lot to be desired. Unfortunately this is kind of a vicious circle: Just a fraction uses the very expensive VR devices --> major studios are holding back on developing great full-fledged big budget games because the expected returns seem too low (due to the low user basis) --> the user basis struggles to grow because the disappointing software situation as well as the high price-tag prevent people from buying a VR-device. This vicious circle will definitely be avoided by Playstation VR as the device itself is significantly cheaper than Rift/Vive and even more important the user basis will be immesurabely higher compared to Rift/Vive. These days Gamestop mentioned that Playstation VR had the fastest sellout in the history of the company. [url]http://www.roadtovr.com/playstation-vr-psvr-had-quickest-sellout-in-gamestops-history/[/url] You can expect a significant percentage of over 43 million sold PS4s also to be owners of PS VR in the near future. So developing games for PS VR will be a no-brainer for the major game studios. So to me it all comes down to the question if the hardware is able to produce similar results in terms of graphics compared to Rift/Vive. Judging from all the previews that emerged recently that indeed seems to be the case. Just as Bo3b and several other mentioned here VR and 3D Vision are two different pairs of shoes. Both solutions have benefits over each other (using the Rift and the Vive with supersampling and also using 3D Vision on a 4K OLED I am using both solutions in their most extreme way and I can guarantee you that you can't settle for just one solution without loosing major benefits by abandoning one of those). Concerning VR I have to say that the currently available devices definitely succeed in providing a convincing VR-experience. Without a doubt in terms of immersion but also in terms of graphics-quality. Yes, it pales in comparison to 4K OLED 3D vision but it is definitely enough to let me enjoy BEING in those games that I play in VR. So if Playstation VR manages to produce comparable results in terms of graphics then I have no doubt that it will succeed because the major stumbling blocks that the currently available VR-devices are hindered by (available software and high price tag) shouldn't be an issue for Playstation VR.
Exactly! Also only a fraction of all the PC gamers is using the Rift/Vive right now. That's the major reason why the software situation still leaves a lot to be desired. Unfortunately this is kind of a vicious circle:

Just a fraction uses the very expensive VR devices --> major studios are holding back on developing great full-fledged big budget games because the expected returns seem too low (due to the low user basis) --> the user basis struggles to grow because the disappointing software situation as well as the high price-tag prevent people from buying a VR-device.

This vicious circle will definitely be avoided by Playstation VR as the device itself is significantly cheaper than Rift/Vive and even more important the user basis will be immesurabely higher compared to Rift/Vive.
These days Gamestop mentioned that Playstation VR had the fastest sellout in the history of the company.

http://www.roadtovr.com/playstation-vr-psvr-had-quickest-sellout-in-gamestops-history/

You can expect a significant percentage of over 43 million sold PS4s also to be owners of PS VR in the near future. So developing games for PS VR will be a no-brainer for the major game studios.

So to me it all comes down to the question if the hardware is able to produce similar results in terms of graphics compared to Rift/Vive. Judging from all the previews that emerged recently that indeed seems to be the case.

Just as Bo3b and several other mentioned here VR and 3D Vision are two different pairs of shoes. Both solutions have benefits over each other (using the Rift and the Vive with supersampling and also using 3D Vision on a 4K OLED I am using both solutions in their most extreme way and I can guarantee you that you can't settle for just one solution without loosing major benefits by abandoning one of those).

Concerning VR I have to say that the currently available devices definitely succeed in providing a convincing VR-experience. Without a doubt in terms of immersion but also in terms of graphics-quality. Yes, it pales in comparison to 4K OLED 3D vision but it is definitely enough to let me enjoy BEING in those games that I play in VR.

So if Playstation VR manages to produce comparable results in terms of graphics then I have no doubt that it will succeed because the major stumbling blocks that the currently available VR-devices are hindered by (available software and high price tag) shouldn't be an issue for Playstation VR.

#40
Posted 09/02/2016 01:14 PM   
I am fairly sure consoles tried 3D a generation ago and it required serious graphical downgrades for systems designed to max out on single renders I can't see how PS VR will be any different. Unless they do release a super HW version ofc
I am fairly sure consoles tried 3D a generation ago and it required serious graphical downgrades for systems designed to max out on single renders

I can't see how PS VR will be any different. Unless they do release a super HW version ofc

Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.
-------------------
Vitals: Windows 7 64bit, i5 2500 @ 4.4ghz, SLI GTX670, 8GB, Viewsonic VX2268WM

Handy Driver Discussion
Helix Mod - community fixes
Bo3b's Shaderhacker School - How to fix 3D in games
3dsolutionsgaming.com - videos, reviews and 3D fixes

#41
Posted 09/02/2016 04:52 PM   
They are releasing an improved hardware version. They are "announcing" it on Thursday.
They are releasing an improved hardware version. They are "announcing" it on Thursday.

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

#42
Posted 09/02/2016 05:48 PM   
That's like buying a whole new set of HW plus VR, just for VR It still needs to be man enough to pump out the goods,times 2, at a decent fps right?
That's like buying a whole new set of HW plus VR, just for VR

It still needs to be man enough to pump out the goods,times 2, at a decent fps right?

Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.
-------------------
Vitals: Windows 7 64bit, i5 2500 @ 4.4ghz, SLI GTX670, 8GB, Viewsonic VX2268WM

Handy Driver Discussion
Helix Mod - community fixes
Bo3b's Shaderhacker School - How to fix 3D in games
3dsolutionsgaming.com - videos, reviews and 3D fixes

#43
Posted 09/02/2016 06:18 PM   
I am just here to tell you VR VIVE users to get Onward. This is the first FPS in VR and even for its early state something very special. 2 months ago I started myself getting a bit disappointed about the Vive. All this waiting and then no real game that binds me longer than 1 hours to the screen. Then RAW DATA came out and I saw what will be possible. Now with ONWARD I really see where we heading with VR. Even having just some low resolution on the game does not bother me. Why, because it has been specially made for the VIVE and is not a port from a normal game. And here lies the major problem. With 3D VISION we could always use normal games that are actually made for the masses. With VR we have to rely on some curious developers that get themselves in the market with a lot of work and risk. ONWARD had now on the second day 400 players online. That's is incredible for a VR game. But it also shows us clearly that we are far away from CoD or other major franchises for VR.
I am just here to tell you VR VIVE users to get Onward. This is the first FPS in VR and even for its early state something very special. 2 months ago I started myself getting a bit disappointed about the Vive. All this waiting and then no real game that binds me longer than 1 hours to the screen. Then RAW DATA came out and I saw what will be possible. Now with ONWARD I really see where we heading with VR. Even having just some low resolution on the game does not bother me. Why, because it has been specially made for the VIVE and is not a port from a normal game. And here lies the major problem. With 3D VISION we could always use normal games that are actually made for the masses. With VR we have to rely on some curious developers that get themselves in the market with a lot of work and risk. ONWARD had now on the second day 400 players online. That's is incredible for a VR game. But it also shows us clearly that we are far away from CoD or other major franchises for VR.

Intel Core i7-3820, 4 X 3,60 GHz overclocked to 4,50 GHz ; EVGA Titan X 12VRAM ; 16 GB Corsair Vengeance DDR-1600 (4x 4 GB) ; Asus VG278H 27-inch incl. 3D vision 2 glasses, integrated transmitter ; Xbox One Elite wireless controller ; Windows 10HTC VIVE 2,5 m2 roomscale3D VISION GAMERS - VISIT ME ON STEAM and feel free to add me: http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198064106555 YOUTUBE: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1UE5TPoF0HX0HVpF_E4uPQ STEAM CURATOR: https://store.steampowered.com/curator/33611530-Streaming-Deluxe/ Image

#44
Posted 09/02/2016 06:26 PM   
I am just fresh out of a "Island 359"-session which is basically a dinosaur hunting game for Vive (Early Access). Pretty great so far. Beside the dinosaur hunting the greatest fun is opening those weapon caches and weapon upgrade boxes in expectation of what will be inside. It's just great to actually do all those things like it was real including real scale where you would just press a button in a non-VR game and the game just tells you "you found a Desert Eagle inside". In VR you manually open those weapon caches as if you would open the real thing --> then you find your new gun inside --> you grab this new toy just as you would grab a real gun and you look at it from all sides. But you don't do this by moving the right analog stick on a gamepad or by moving the mouse so you can rotate the view. You do this by actually twisting the gun-holding hand as you would twist it with a real gun in hand to look at it from all sides --> Then you look to the left and find another box on the wooden table that seems to house a weapon upgrade part. Curiously you open it (again like you would open a real box) and you get hyped by the sight of a silencer, a Red-Dot or a laser pointer. Instinctively you grab the upgrade part and move it towards your Magnum revolver where it gets attached --> you want to try it so you press the dedicated loading button on your Vive controller and a fresh drum is inserted but somehow the drum remains open so you can't shoot this nice new toy. Instinctively you sway your hand fitfully and VOILA! the drum snaps back and you are ready to hunt big game! Also had a nice Raw Data session this afternoon! ;-) Now I will definitely do a little research on ONWARD, mrorange!
I am just fresh out of a "Island 359"-session which is basically a dinosaur hunting game for Vive (Early Access). Pretty great so far.

Beside the dinosaur hunting the greatest fun is opening those weapon caches and weapon upgrade boxes in expectation of what will be inside. It's just great to actually do all those things like it was real including real scale where you would just press a button in a non-VR game and the game just tells you "you found a Desert Eagle inside".

In VR you manually open those weapon caches as if you would open the real thing --> then you find your new gun inside --> you grab this new toy just as you would grab a real gun and you look at it from all sides. But you don't do this by moving the right analog stick on a gamepad or by moving the mouse so you can rotate the view. You do this by actually twisting the gun-holding hand as you would twist it with a real gun in hand to look at it from all sides --> Then you look to the left and find another box on the wooden table that seems to house a weapon upgrade part. Curiously you open it (again like you would open a real box) and you get hyped by the sight of a silencer, a Red-Dot or a laser pointer. Instinctively you grab the upgrade part and move it towards your Magnum revolver where it gets attached --> you want to try it so you press the dedicated loading button on your Vive controller and a fresh drum is inserted but somehow the drum remains open so you can't shoot this nice new toy. Instinctively you sway your hand fitfully and VOILA! the drum snaps back and you are ready to hunt big game!

Also had a nice Raw Data session this afternoon! ;-)

Now I will definitely do a little research on ONWARD, mrorange!

#45
Posted 09/02/2016 07:05 PM   
  3 / 5    
Scroll To Top