• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

General VR discussion thread

Page 28 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

SexyK

Golden Member
Jul 30, 2001
1,343
4
76

Subyman

Moderator <br> VC&G Forum
Mar 18, 2005
7,876
32
86
From what I heard Doom and FO4 are just walk around demos with the full FO4 experience slated for sometime in 2017. No mention of a full Doom VR game but I'd think it's likely.
 

PrincessFrosty

Platinum Member
Feb 13, 2008
2,301
68
91
www.frostyhacks.blogspot.com
Given the insane amount of investment Oculus have I think they're miles behind Vive now, and with stupid launch rubbish like forced bundles with the Xbone controller *cringe* and huge wait times, they've really shot themselves in the foot.

Really the big question for me is, who will move to 4k panels first or some kind of custom panel which has variable resolution. We already have 4k phone screens so we know the tech is there, we just need someone to have the common sense to fix the last real problem with VR which is the diabolically bad resolution. It's really sad to see nothing released that's substantially higher res than the DK2.
 

Subyman

Moderator <br> VC&G Forum
Mar 18, 2005
7,876
32
86
I'll be the first to say I was wrong about the Vive and wrong about Oculus. I thought Oculus would keep that energetic vibe and small companany mobility it had while using the big funds to get the job done. I was skeptical of a Steam hardware partnership with HTC since Steam didn't have a good track record of caring about their hardware.

Oculus has taken on the big corporate ethos with a walled garden and DRM while not shedding the problems with being a small company trying to do a mass release with ridiculous back orders and delayed hardware releases that I would have thought facebook money would have solved.

So big corporate mindset with small company distribution issues. Worst of both worlds!
 

Sabrewings

Golden Member
Jun 27, 2015
1,942
35
51
Really the big question for me is, who will move to 4k panels first or some kind of custom panel which has variable resolution. We already have 4k phone screens so we know the tech is there, we just need someone to have the common sense to fix the last real problem with VR which is the diabolically bad resolution. It's really sad to see nothing released that's substantially higher res than the DK2.
It's not as easy as slapping in the same tech as phone screens. Having a real refresh rate of 90Hz or better is the blocker. There are some experimental panels right now that can hit the mark, but I think we're two or more years away from it being commercially viable. What we have more than works and will allow them to drive down the price as the current tech matures.

Which beings me to my next point: calling the resolution "diabolically bad" is a huge exaggeration and does the tech a disservice. Of the two dozen or more people who have played my Vive, I can count on one hand how many have even commented about resolution - that's because it is zero. The immersion effect of presence takes over and you stop caring. Only religious techies who can't see the forest for the trees really have a problem with it.
 

KentState

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2001
8,167
320
126
It's not as easy as slapping in the same tech as phone screens. Having a real refresh rate of 90Hz or better is the blocker. There are some experimental panels right now that can hit the mark, but I think we're two or more years away from it being commercially viable. What we have more than works and will allow them to drive down the price as the current tech matures.

Which beings me to my next point: calling the resolution "diabolically bad" is a huge exaggeration and does the tech a disservice. Of the two dozen or more people who have played my Vive, I can count on one hand how many have even commented about resolution - that's because it is zero. The immersion effect of presence takes over and you stop caring. Only religious techies who can't see the forest for the trees really have a problem with it.
"Diabolically bad" is rather strong, but the resolution is something that needs to improve. The general consensus in our lab is that it's usable, but has room for improvement before mass adoption. Glad I didn't spend my own money on it just yet.
 

gorobei

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2007
3,212
361
126
It's not as easy as slapping in the same tech as phone screens. Having a real refresh rate of 90Hz or better is the blocker. There are some experimental panels right now that can hit the mark, but I think we're two or more years away from it being commercially viable. What we have more than works and will allow them to drive down the price as the current tech matures.

Which beings me to my next point: calling the resolution "diabolically bad" is a huge exaggeration and does the tech a disservice. Of the two dozen or more people who have played my Vive, I can count on one hand how many have even commented about resolution - that's because it is zero. The immersion effect of presence takes over and you stop caring. Only religious techies who can't see the forest for the trees really have a problem with it.
"Diabolically bad" is rather strong, but the resolution is something that needs to improve. The general consensus in our lab is that it's usable, but has room for improvement before mass adoption. Glad I didn't spend my own money on it just yet.
at 1080x1200, each panel is effectively 1k x 1k. the screendoor issues could probably have been unnoticable at 1.5k per eye. with 4k res(or really 2k x 2k) the issue should be solved. it will likely happen soon enough so there is no real need to worry about it now.

Osvr has officially revealed their $400 HMD. Seems pretty feature parity with the current hardware.

http://www.roadtovr.com/osvr-hdk-2-vr-headset-2160x1200-price-release-date/
looks like it is just a rift knock off without any of the best practices in the product design. its also using camera based IR tracking so it isnt offering any real benefit when it comes to roomscale or expansion. the reddit discussion seem to indicate they have real software issues with the tracking.
so a 200$ discount from the rift, 150 if you sell the xbone controller. probably less comfortable and reliable. not sure this is going to move the needle on anything.

the main upside seems to be that everyone seems to be able to source the same 1080x1200 panels which should drop prices as the maker ramps to major volume.
 

HeXen

Diamond Member
Dec 13, 2009
7,821
33
91
Are these going to be separate pay versions? If so, that's some BS but I know that's what they did with Ethan Carter.
Doom seems like it would be too frantic for VR.

FO4 and Doom coming to VR. FO4 is coming to the Vive exclusively for now, but no mention of which headset(s) for Doom. The prevailing theory is that the Vive's proven roomscale and controllers are where they are choosing to focus first.

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/fallout-4-and-doom-vr-versions-announced/1100-6440743/
People on Vorpx forum claim they have both working pretty well with some tweaks...however well vorpx is capable of that is.
 

HeXen

Diamond Member
Dec 13, 2009
7,821
33
91
at 1080x1200, each panel is effectively 1k x 1k. the screendoor issues could probably have been unnoticable at 1.5k per eye. with 4k res(or really 2k x 2k) the issue should be solved. it will likely happen soon enough so there is no real need to worry about it now.



looks like it is just a rift knock off without any of the best practices in the product design. its also using camera based IR tracking so it isnt offering any real benefit when it comes to roomscale or expansion. the reddit discussion seem to indicate they have real software issues with the tracking.
so a 200$ discount from the rift, 150 if you sell the xbone controller. probably less comfortable and reliable. not sure this is going to move the needle on anything.

the main upside seems to be that everyone seems to be able to source the same 1080x1200 panels which should drop prices as the maker ramps to major volume.
To my understanding, when it comes to VR specifically, it's not just about resolution. That just means there should be less space between pixels but other factors are subpixel configuration, pixel spacing, refresh rate, persistence, refresh type, pixel change response time, pixel on-off delay, colour accuracy, brightness, etc...
 

Mutilator

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2000
3,516
10
81
Why am I not surprised to get home tonight and see a lot of talk about Oculus throwing money around at every developer they could trying to get exclusive rights.

When you're losing the hardware fight... buy yourself a software victory? lol :p

I'm just happy to see VR succeeding and the big names finally starting to reveal what they have in store for us. I was also pleasantly surprised the other day when games like The Lab got updated to include leader boards to see just how many people are playing them. Next step - get a VR game consistently on the Steam Stats page. :thumbsup:
 

gorobei

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2007
3,212
361
126
To my understanding, when it comes to VR specifically, it's not just about resolution. That just means there should be less space between pixels but other factors are subpixel configuration, pixel spacing, refresh rate, persistence, refresh type, pixel change response time, pixel on-off delay, colour accuracy, brightness, etc...
the rift/vive are using oled pentiles that meet the persistence strobe specs required for 90hz(i would guess made by samsung). the speed issues are solved so the only remaining issue is res. igzo tech with vertical/perpendicular wiring for the transistors was the last inovation that kicked off the desktop 4k res race. similar tech should be applicable to the current 4k mobile screens.

valve and oculus will likely stick with the same panels in cv1 for at least a year and a half so they can get the price down to ~400 and really bring vr to the masses. then somewhere around 2018 they will have the true 2nd generation of vr(2k per eye, usb3 typeC cabling, video passthru, additional bandwidth for leapmotion type addons) so they can still have a halo product and sell gen1 stuff at actually reasonable prices the same way ms/sony handle new console gens.
 

ImpulsE69

Lifer
Jan 8, 2010
14,793
826
126
I have a hard time giving a crap about people complaining about the resolution. This is pretty damn good for first gen and phone screens are not comparable. There are multiple facets that would make doing 4k impossible for 95% of the people at this point due to the horsepower required. As it stands, the immersion > resolution. The things that need improvement however are overall graphics of many applications. Most are 2+ gen back because of all the indie developers going for the low tech feel. 4k resolution would not solve any of that. That being said, when you see a more AAA type of game/app, it shows.

If we want to talk about bad, it is the glow(godrays) on the Rift, and the circles from the lenses when looking down (Vive). Also, the Vive really won't stay in place when looking around which makes it easily go out of focus and you constantly have to readjust it.

The screen door effect is only really noticeable when nothing is on the screen -- and not when it is a black screen, just a somewhat dark grey screen. I don't even notice it at all on the Vive and only first saw it when I tried the Rift, but I think it is because there is rarely a time where the screen is lit in a way I would see it on the Vive.

As for reading text. I played through a complete visual novel on the Rift. I would say at this time, it isn't ideal unless the text was designed to be read on a VR headset, but it isn't completely useless.
 

HeXen

Diamond Member
Dec 13, 2009
7,821
33
91
I have a hard time giving a crap about people complaining about the resolution. This is pretty damn good for first gen and phone screens are not comparable. There are multiple facets that would make doing 4k impossible for 95% of the people at this point due to the horsepower required. As it stands, the immersion > resolution. The things that need improvement however are overall graphics of many applications. Most are 2+ gen back because of all the indie developers going for the low tech feel. 4k resolution would not solve any of that. That being said, when you see a more AAA type of game/app, it shows.

If we want to talk about bad, it is the glow(godrays) on the Rift, and the circles from the lenses when looking down (Vive). Also, the Vive really won't stay in place when looking around which makes it easily go out of focus and you constantly have to readjust it.

The screen door effect is only really noticeable when nothing is on the screen -- and not when it is a black screen, just a somewhat dark grey screen. I don't even notice it at all on the Vive and only first saw it when I tried the Rift, but I think it is because there is rarely a time where the screen is lit in a way I would see it on the Vive.

As for reading text. I played through a complete visual novel on the Rift. I would say at this time, it isn't ideal unless the text was designed to be read on a VR headset, but it isn't completely useless.
how about 4k screens but a hardware implemented limitation of 1080p resolution in games for performance reasons and scale to 4k?. The complaints seem to mostly be screen door effect. I know Samsung, I think, had a 1080p TV that had twice as many pixels as a normal one. At any rate, if they can decrease the space between pixels, most likely wouldn't complain much.

if something like DSR could be made to work in all VR games, then that might help too.
 

PrincessFrosty

Platinum Member
Feb 13, 2008
2,301
68
91
www.frostyhacks.blogspot.com
It's not as easy as slapping in the same tech as phone screens. Having a real refresh rate of 90Hz or better is the blocker. There are some experimental panels right now that can hit the mark, but I think we're two or more years away from it being commercially viable. What we have more than works and will allow them to drive down the price as the current tech matures.

Which beings me to my next point: calling the resolution "diabolically bad" is a huge exaggeration and does the tech a disservice. Of the two dozen or more people who have played my Vive, I can count on one hand how many have even commented about resolution - that's because it is zero. The immersion effect of presence takes over and you stop caring. Only religious techies who can't see the forest for the trees really have a problem with it.
I disagree that 90hz is a problem, given that I've played games with varying limited frame rates on my DK2 I can say this is less of an immersion breaker for me pesonally than physically being able to see each pixel.

I think what you're saying is hyperbolic given that most average users strive for at least 1080p in their gaming monitors and that's for a relatively tiny FOV of whatever their monitor in their field of vision is, maybe ~30 or so degrees, vs the ~90 of VR.

One of the best sites that demonstrates this is here - http://vr.mkeblx.net/oculus-sim/ select the 1080p panel and you basically have pretty close to the Oculus CV1 or Vive as they are right now. 2560x1440 is a big improvement but 4k is really what we should be aiming for as a standard. And with Nvidias new technology to render VR faster with the 1080 range of cards and also make resolution compromises for parts of the lens that are most warped it really reduces the overhead of trying to power 4k as well, so we're really ready for it.

The fact that Oculus got the insane investment they did but they couldn't actually get custom built panels for their product is mind blowing to me, they just tried to cut corners and missed their launch targets which was originally to be higher than 1080p
 

ImpulsE69

Lifer
Jan 8, 2010
14,793
826
126
I disagree that 90hz is a problem, given that I've played games with varying limited frame rates on my DK2 I can say this is less of an immersion breaker for me pesonally than physically being able to see each pixel.

I think what you're saying is hyperbolic given that most average users strive for at least 1080p in their gaming monitors and that's for a relatively tiny FOV of whatever their monitor in their field of vision is, maybe ~30 or so degrees, vs the ~90 of VR.

One of the best sites that demonstrates this is here - http://vr.mkeblx.net/oculus-sim/ select the 1080p panel and you basically have pretty close to the Oculus CV1 or Vive as they are right now. 2560x1440 is a big improvement but 4k is really what we should be aiming for as a standard. And with Nvidias new technology to render VR faster with the 1080 range of cards and also make resolution compromises for parts of the lens that are most warped it really reduces the overhead of trying to power 4k as well, so we're really ready for it.

The fact that Oculus got the insane investment they did but they couldn't actually get custom built panels for their product is mind blowing to me, they just tried to cut corners and missed their launch targets which was originally to be higher than 1080p
Wear them for more than 10 minutes at 30 or 60hz and then come talk to us. I'm not sure what you are comparing to, but in general use cases, you don't see the pixels. There are a few oddball extreme moments that depending on what 'isn't' on the screen you see them, but otherwise, it all just blurs together because your focus is further away. Again, there are many other things that are way worse than pixels at this point.
 
Last edited:

ImpulsE69

Lifer
Jan 8, 2010
14,793
826
126
how about 4k screens but a hardware implemented limitation of 1080p resolution in games for performance reasons and scale to 4k?. The complaints seem to mostly be screen door effect. I know Samsung, I think, had a 1080p TV that had twice as many pixels as a normal one. At any rate, if they can decrease the space between pixels, most likely wouldn't complain much.

if something like DSR could be made to work in all VR games, then that might help too.
Always a possibility. I think cost being a factor still will play into this for a time. With all the other ones coming out, I guess we will see soon if any improvements can easily be made.
 

Sabrewings

Golden Member
Jun 27, 2015
1,942
35
51
I disagree that 90hz is a problem, given that I've played games with varying limited frame rates on my DK2 I can say this is less of an immersion breaker for me pesonally than physically being able to see each pixel.
The engineers at Valve and Oculus disagree with you. Getting a 90Hz panel was the "aha" moment that led to Valve calling Oculus up and say they have a headset that doesn't make you sick.

I think what you're saying is hyperbolic given that most average users strive for at least 1080p in their gaming monitors and that's for a relatively tiny FOV of whatever their monitor in their field of vision is, maybe ~30 or so degrees, vs the ~90 of VR.

One of the best sites that demonstrates this is here - http://vr.mkeblx.net/oculus-sim/ select the 1080p panel and you basically have pretty close to the Oculus CV1 or Vive as they are right now. 2560x1440 is a big improvement but 4k is really what we should be aiming for as a standard. And with Nvidias new technology to render VR faster with the 1080 range of cards and also make resolution compromises for parts of the lens that are most warped it really reduces the overhead of trying to power 4k as well, so we're really ready for it.
I'm not saying that the resolution can't be improved upon or that it won't be noticed when it is. What I am saying (and many corroborate this) is that it works well enough for now and there are other fish to fry. Most people have no issue with it and it serves the purpose it needs to serve. Current technologies allow for enough presence that it's easily overlooked and your brain fills in the gaps. It'll be a year or more before we see a commercialized version of 4k@90Hz made small enough for use in HMDs.

The fact that Oculus got the insane investment they did but they couldn't actually get custom built panels for their product is mind blowing to me, they just tried to cut corners and missed their launch targets which was originally to be higher than 1080p
They are custom built. Show me any other device using the same panels as the Rift (hint: the Vive's panels are physically different from the Rift's).
 

Sonikku

Lifer
Jun 23, 2005
15,706
4,378
136
Man I wish I could fast forward 5 years to when this stuff will be refined and affordable. :( I'm too poor for VR atm.
 

pm

Elite Member Mobile Devices
Super Moderator
Jan 25, 2000
7,419
22
81
"Diabolically bad" is rather strong, but the resolution is something that needs to improve. The general consensus in our lab is that it's usable, but has room for improvement before mass adoption. Glad I didn't spend my own money on it just yet.
This is my take on it too. "diabolically bad" is exaggerated, but definitely it's noticeable, particularly with text. It's something to work on. I do think that the video card hardware isn't there to drive the next generation resolution anyway @90Hz. So even if the screens were in the hardware, there'd be performance issues. The HMD resolution can't get too far ahead of the video card performance limits or everyone will be saying "it only works with >$600 video cards and Xeon CPU's". If you move the HDM resolution ahead of the video cards, you'll replace a minor issue of pixelation in text with a much bigger problem of juddering when you move your head.
 

pm

Elite Member Mobile Devices
Super Moderator
Jan 25, 2000
7,419
22
81
Man I wish I could fast forward 5 years to when this stuff will be refined and affordable. :( I'm too poor for VR atm.
You know, you aren't really missing that much in my opinion. There's a total "wow!" moment when you put the headset on, but you will likely find a headset to demo somewhere in the future (if you are near northern Colorado, drive on over and I'll demo mine to you) and so you will get this experience if you look around for it.

But once you get past the "wow" moment and you play around for a bit, you play Space Pirate Trainer or Hover Junkers or something like that and gawk at how cool it is, then you start to realize that they are still figuring what content to do on this new platform and there really isn't that much. The stuff that we have is pretty cool, but it gets old kind of quickly (in my opinion anyway) and then you look around for more and there isn't any. It's all in development. If you can't afford it, then try to demo one for 20 minutes and you'll have 80% of the experience of actually owning one without the massive credit card bill that you need to pay at the end of the month.

As far as "5 years", I estimate two years and the price will be half or less what it is now, the min spec video cards will be half the price (or less) than they are now and VR will probably be "baked" enough that there will be plenty of cool things to play on it and probably none of these stupid Oculus vs. Vive DRM stuff walling things off. I think the VR experience is so compelling that developers and hardware guys are going to jump all over it and that will drive prices down as volume ramps up.

I remember when the iPhone came out and there was no App store at the time (it arrived a year later) so you just had Apple's built-in apps, the phone cost $600 (w/ 2 yr contract), and only had 2G (Edge) data connectivity. It was super expensive, lacking content and limited in capabilities. But when Steve Jobs demo'd it and when you could try one yourself for the first time, you could see the future, and the future was very cool. I see the same sort of future with VR - except not as mainstream/widescale for a target audience.
 
Last edited:

Mutilator

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2000
3,516
10
81
Just thought I'd throw this out there... got Battle Dome tonight after reading all the reviews saying how awesome it is. They weren't wrong. I can finally say I've played a true multiplayer FPS now. Sure, the graphics aren't great... but they get the job done. It's kinda like going back in time and becoming part of a game instead of staring at a screen or watching someone else play the game.

I was trying to hold off until the summer sale to see if it by chance went on sale... but $15 is cheap enough. Active devs like that deserve my money. 1st multiplayer VR game did not disappoint. Yay! :)

Probably a good thing I didn't have my mic connected though... teammates would have heard a whole lot of swearing mixed in with "THEY'RE OVER THERE ON THE RIGHT!" or something along those lines. Not to mention the few times the Vive cable tried to become a boa constrictor around my ankles from all the 180s and 360s I had to do lol. Definitely lost all track of what direction I was facing in reality... but I guess that's a sign of a good game. ;)
 
Aug 29, 2015
135
0
16
Man I wish I could fast forward 5 years to when this stuff will be refined and affordable. :( I'm too poor for VR atm.
I don't want it yet anyway, the hardware needs some improvements, and there are no games I would want to play yet anyway. They all seem to be like tech demos that would get boring fast. When there is an immersive RPG or something that I can play for hours and not feel sick, I'll get one. But I think that is going to be a couple of years off.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY