General VR discussion thread

[flexy]

I just learned that Oculus Touch will officially released on Dec 6th, and overall they're supposed to be very good and in some reviews deemed better even than the Vive controllers.

I really at this point have no means (AND NO INTEREST!) in "room scale" but motion controllers are a must. So now I am again tending towards a Rift.

I have taken a quick look at "How to set-up the Vive" and was hugely turned off by the idea possibly needing to wall-mount these boxes or putting them on statives. I am in a VERY constricted space here and really only have some space in front of my monitor to "work with", and the Rift seems "tuned" for a seated experience and the installation also seems easier.

So on the fence again between Vive and Rift+ Touch. FoV (field of view) would be a major factor for me and the Vive has a bigger one, but in some review they said it basically doesn't make a difference since the Oculus, although having a smaller FoV has overlapping left/right etc. in addition to SLIGHTLY better image quality and less pronounced SDE.

What I REALLY want to avoid is getting a Vive (even if it had here and there some advantages) and then run into annoyances basically having to do major work in my house to set it up so I can even use it.

Edit:

From some more research, the "FoV" thing seems to be an absolute can of worms, but to make a potential long debate short, ESSENTIALLY the perceived FoVs should be the same. (This is from what I read)

I also read in some reviews that the overall opinion is that for mainly seated experience (aka: 95% of people living in major cities, they simply don't have the space ) the Rift is "more suited" since the Vive would really shine standing and let alone "room scale experience". I don't have interest in standing, but that's not to say that you cannot do "seated" with the Vive because of course you can.

Short: If I had a big house and a dedicated gaming room, I wouldn't even ask. I would get a Vive, no second thought! But a Rift, especially now with the Touch (and when standing and room scale is not an option) would be equally good, hard to say who's "winning". Possibly what would speak for the Rift also that it's said to be more comfortable.

 

[Sabrewings]

As far as controllers go, the new models Valve showed off prototypes of at SDD look better than the Touch units. I'll probably be adding them to my setup when they're out.

 

[sxr7171]

I wonder which system would track better assuming the user is sitting in a high back desk chair.

 

[ImpulsE69]

they both track fine. heck my rift camera sits BEHIND my monitor facign to the left of me, and it tracks my head fine even with the monitor blocking direct view. (still trying to figure out why that works). Doesn't translate correctly in this layout, but both the arrow and circle are in the center.
<-
-------------
O

I will admit the Vive lighthouses can be a pain, but it is so worth it, not having to run cables everywhere. The Rift camera cords are short and only work with some usb extensions and due to the way they work add resource usage and require usb3 connections that only work with SOME makers. I've made due with my USB2 slot for the camera, but it doesn't like it, and has issues occasionally.

 

[flexy]

Wait, could you please elaborate on this?

So the lighthouse stations (I understand there are two) are WIRELESS, but they require A/C power?
And the Rift stations require an USB connection in addition to the power chord?
I read the lighthouses need to be 6ft from the ground as well?

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Wait, could you please elaborate on this?

So the lighthouse stations (I understand there are two) are WIRELESS, but they require A/C power?
And the Rift stations require an USB connection in addition to the power chord?
I read the lighthouses need to be 6ft from the ground as well?

I've got my light houses on opposite sides of my room 13ft each from the shared corner. With my computer just under my livingroom TV I can reach all of the room given the length of the cables. I just push the couches back when I want to play.

Mounting wasn't hard: a screwdriver was all
I needed: are you just afraid of the included drywall anchors? I also mounted them just above window height: they point downish, but are super easy to adjust. They are wireless, they "hum" like some Aperture Science spy cube. I don't know why they hum, but I've been unpluging them when not in use.

The room size experience is fantastic. I can't tell you how awesome it is to have a freaking holo deck.

Who the heck doesn't have 100sqr ft of living room
space but is going to blow 2+grand on a legit vr machine?

 

[Mutilator]

The reason they say to have the lighthouses 6ft or higher is so they are over the top of most people's heads and can always see each other. You can set them on a shelf, tripods, wall mount them, just about anything stable works. Hell, for the first month I had mine they were balancing on the corner of my TV and on top of a stack of boxes on the kitchen counter. Now they're wall mounted - too risky having expensive equipment literally balancing precariously like that when they were always 1 bump from a pet away from falling.

When I was demoing the Vive at work the first couple times they were just sitting on shelves (until I got tripods to make demoing away from home easier) and it was perfectly fine. As long as they don't move around, get bumped, or have someone walk between them and the person using the Vive you're fine. If any of that does happen it causes temporary tracking issues and an odd sensation to the user.

BTW I've probably mentioned it before but as great this thread is https://www.reddit.com/r/Vive/ should be a place all Vive owners (or potential owners) visit daily. Really is a one stop shop for all the info you could possibly need.

 

[ImpulsE69]

The lighthouses hum because they have some sort of gyroscope in them. Hold them when they are on and you can feel it. I mount one of mine on top of a curtain about 8 foot above me with zip ties, and the other sits on top of a shelf about 6 foot above me. As stated yes they are wireless but do take power. There is a sync cable that is probably 40' long that you can attach between the two if necessary (if they have problems seeing each other), but in most cases you don't need it.

The Rift camera is USB is MAYBE 3' long and does not have the range of vision that the Vive does.

Drixie: I'm a bit confused why you would assume just because you have money for a VR unit you would have tons of wide open space that you aren't using for something.

 

[Sabrewings]

The lighthouses hum because they have some sort of gyroscope in them.

Not really a gyroscope. Two spinning mirrors and lenses that perform the sweeping action of the lasers, powered by hard drive motors for precision.

 

[Kaido]

Not really a gyroscope. Two spinning mirrors and lenses that perform the sweeping action of the lasers, powered by hard drive motors for precision.

Note that you do need a solid base for the Lighthouses because of the motion. People have mounted them on cheap tripods & have had bad results because it makes them vibrate.

 

[Kaido]

Wait, could you please elaborate on this?

So the lighthouse stations (I understand there are two) are WIRELESS, but they require A/C power?
And the Rift stations require an USB connection in addition to the power chord?
I read the lighthouses need to be 6ft from the ground as well?

That is correct. The Vive Lighthouses are wireless, but need A/C power. You can optionally connect a sync cable for enhanced reliability, but then you have yet another wire strung across the room. Further instructions here:

https://www.vive.com/us/support/howto/720442.html

For mounting the base stations, they suggest:

1. Mount them diagonally
2. Mount them above 6 feet 6 inches
3. Angle them down between 30 to 45 degrees
4. Make sure that the max distance beteween them is no more than 16 feet 4 inches
5. Mount them securely so (1) they don't get jostled by people or pets, and (2) they are on a stable surface or mount

Basically, stick 'em up high & make sure you can get power to them (extension cords if you need to, just make sure the weight of the power plug isn't pulling on them). It's a pain to setup, but it's a one-time pain. The setup basically goes:

1. Mount the two base stations
2. Move all the crap in your room out of the way
3. Draw your room with Chaperone to set the boundaries (use Chaperone Tweak for more control)
4. Setup your computer, HMD, Link Box, headphones, and charge up your wireless controllers

It is a minor hassle to setup initially, but once you do, all you really have to do is hang up your headset & headphones when you're done, and plug in the two wireless controllers to charge. You do need a fair amount of space...my living room is 13' x 19', but with the couches, chairs, etc., even pushed back, it's really not all that big of a playable space.

 

[flexy]

The Rift camera is USB is MAYBE 3' long and does not have the range of vision that the Vive does.

I think it's important that we try to keep this without Bias, simply so interested people can make a decision.
So, correct me if wrong here:

Yes, CURRENTLY the Rift (without Touch) doesn't have the range and vision like the Vive since it comes only with one camera. The Rift, RIGHT NOW and out of the box is set-up for seated, while the Vive is out-of-the-box set-up for standing/room scale. It's comparing apples to pears.

But with Touch (and I would ONLY consider a Rift with Touch!!), you get a second camera which enhances movement and vision although I understand that for "true room scale" for the rift like you have with the Vivie you'd need YET ANOTHER, 3rd camera.

The important thing here is that with Touch, the "vision and range" argument doesn't work any longer even if a third camera will ultimately make the Rift $80 more than the Vive.

But a Rift with Touch (and the two cameras), and here again correct me if I am wrong, should give equal and entirely sufficient and possibly even a better experience and the same movement AS LONG AS YOU DON'T WANT TRUE ROOM SCALE (then you'd get a third one in addition).

 

[Kaido]

I think it's important that we try to keep this without Bias, simply so interested people can make a decision.
So, correct me if wrong here:

Yes, CURRENTLY the Rift (without Touch) doesn't have the range and vision like the Vive since it comes only with one camera. The Rift, RIGHT NOW and out of the box is set-up for seated, while the Vive is out-of-the-box set-up for standing/room scale. It's comparing apples to pears.

But with Touch (and I would ONLY consider a Rift with Touch!!), you get a second camera which enhances movement and vision although I understand that for "true room scale" for the rift like you have with the Vivie you'd need YET ANOTHER, 3rd camera.

The important thing here is that with Touch, the "vision and range" argument doesn't work any longer even if a third camera will ultimately make the Rift $80 more than the Vive.

But a Rift with Touch (and the two cameras), and here again correct me if I am wrong, should give equal and entirely sufficient and possibly even a better experience and the same movement AS LONG AS YOU DON'T WANT TRUE ROOM SCALE (then you'd get a third one in addition).

fwiw, the Vive does just fine at seated setups. Lots of people are using them for racing seats, flight cockpits, and desk setups for stuff like space sims.

 

[sxr7171]

The lighthouse system is very robust. I've used it with one lighthouse. It works until you occlude the lighthouse. Also I barely place them around 4 feet high, mine are not mounted. They work surprisingly well. A high back chair however does cause occlusion and that's why they recommend the lighthouses be mounted higher.

They don't need to be at a diagonal, they can just be roughly anywhere on opposite sides of your playspace. They can even be at right angles and function well. They just need to "see" each other.The system splashes IR into the room so the sensors might not even have to be visible to the lighthouse at all times.

I sit for 90% of my VR use. Room scale being a superset of seated, I think a system that does room scale can handle seated.

I'm guessing that you would need 3 Oculus cameras at 120 degree intervals to match the Valve tracking system. Which is why they are already talking about 3rd camera support.

Lastly I will admit to having lost tracking on occasion while bending, turning or contorting in some way. It is rare, and is easily fixed by getting up or turning. When it does happen I can say it is no fun. It can be very disorienting.

 

[sxr7171]

I hope everyone has seen this: http://www.sbnation.com/lookit/2016...sullivan-faceplant-vr-snooker-virtual-reality

 

[sxr7171]

I think it's important that we try to keep this without Bias, simply so interested people can make a decision.
So, correct me if wrong here:

Yes, CURRENTLY the Rift (without Touch) doesn't have the range and vision like the Vive since it comes only with one camera. The Rift, RIGHT NOW and out of the box is set-up for seated, while the Vive is out-of-the-box set-up for standing/room scale. It's comparing apples to pears.

But with Touch (and I would ONLY consider a Rift with Touch!!), you get a second camera which enhances movement and vision although I understand that for "true room scale" for the rift like you have with the Vivie you'd need YET ANOTHER, 3rd camera.

The important thing here is that with Touch, the "vision and range" argument doesn't work any longer even if a third camera will ultimately make the Rift $80 more than the Vive.

But a Rift with Touch (and the two cameras), and here again correct me if I am wrong, should give equal and entirely sufficient and possibly even a better experience and the same movement AS LONG AS YOU DON'T WANT TRUE ROOM SCALE (then you'd get a third one in addition).

Ok fair enough. It would block you from experiences that have enemies coming at you from all sides like Raw Data etc. Ok that's a choice; However also I remember they said for the PS VR version of Job Simulator they had to get rid of parts where you could look inside and under things. They did that because their tracking couldn't handle it.

So I think if you want to be open to all types of software and you choose a Rift you should consider it with the 3 cameras. Or risk being left out of experiences. I suppose most people will have 2 cameras and a genre of games catering to that limitation may arise so I doubt you'll be lacking for software in any case.

 

[ImpulsE69]

I think it's important that we try to keep this without Bias, simply so interested people can make a decision.
So, correct me if wrong here:

Yes, CURRENTLY the Rift (without Touch) doesn't have the range and vision like the Vive since it comes only with one camera. The Rift, RIGHT NOW and out of the box is set-up for seated, while the Vive is out-of-the-box set-up for standing/room scale. It's comparing apples to pears.

But with Touch (and I would ONLY consider a Rift with Touch!!), you get a second camera which enhances movement and vision although I understand that for "true room scale" for the rift like you have with the Vivie you'd need YET ANOTHER, 3rd camera.

The important thing here is that with Touch, the "vision and range" argument doesn't work any longer even if a third camera will ultimately make the Rift $80 more than the Vive.

But a Rift with Touch (and the two cameras), and here again correct me if I am wrong, should give equal and entirely sufficient and possibly even a better experience and the same movement AS LONG AS YOU DON'T WANT TRUE ROOM SCALE (then you'd get a third one in addition).

What I mean by 'doesn't have the range and vision' is that you have to be closer to them for them to track accurately, and it's FOV isn't as great. Even with more cameras, the space you can use is not as large (or so I've read). I have only1 camera, but the videos I've watched of people messing with 2 the area that they are effective is much smaller than the Vives.

I have both, so it's not bias, just my own experience. The Rift is meant to be used optimally within 3 feet away of the camera. It works past that obviously, but once you get about 5 feet from it, its tracking abilities go downhill quickly. The lighthouses on the other hand, can track me at over twice that with no issue.

I think my BIGGEST issue with Rifts implementation is the USB3 cord/requirement. It is picky about them. Requiring 3 of them is overkill for most peoples systems, especially if you are going power laptop.

For the Vive, in my experience it is much touchier, but it could be my lighthouse setup. It works great as long as you don't bump the headset or readjust it. If you do, it loses tracking pretty easily, which is strange, because at most I'm covering 1 or 2 sensors. The Rift seems to be much more tolerant of messing with the headset w/o losing tracking.

 

[ImpulsE69]

I hope everyone has seen this: http://www.sbnation.com/lookit/2016...sullivan-faceplant-vr-snooker-virtual-reality

Lol, i did somethign like that the first week in :/ Tried to lean on a desk in something and faceplanted into my couch (at least).

 

[flexy]

I think my BIGGEST issue with Rifts implementation is the USB3 cord/requirement. It is picky about them. Requiring 3 of them is overkill for most peoples systems, especially if you are going power laptop.

Yeah I am aware of that. Then again (as I understand it!!) the "typical" Rift setup would be a less complex "I stay in front of the monitor anyway" setup, so that the USB cable requirement wouldn't be THAT big a deal, as I see it not more "complicated" maybe as if you were to put two webcams on your desk.

Of course a "typical" Vive setup with two stations in opposite room corners and then USB cable requirement would be silly, but then they're wireless.

Saying, that for the "typical" use of each device, I *think* that setting each up shouldn't cause too much troubles. Unlike, say, your would want to setup a Rift in a huge room for "room scale"...but then someone should have gotten a Vive anyway instead.

The other thing that interests me would be "Fov" and immersion related (like asked earlier), and you said you have the two. Is there a NOTABLE difference, now in how the experience is *perceived*? (The technical specs here shouldn't interest, there is a lot of debate going on really and no clear "winner" as I see it). The consensus is that both devices offer "about the same" perceived FoV/immersion, given their (slight ?) differences like that the Vive has two round views and the Rift two squares (?), but smaller....but from what I read those differences won't really matter in terms of actual "experience".

The other thing that "worries" a little is the image quality difference which, as I learned, is more because of the used fresnel lenses there. Now looking at some images it looks the Rift has a "slight" edge there?

 

[ImpulsE69]

Yeah I am aware of that. Then again (as I understand it!!) the "typical" Rift setup would be a less complex "I stay in front of the monitor anyway" setup, so that the USB cable requirement wouldn't be THAT big a deal, as I see it not more "complicated" maybe as if you were to put two webcams on your desk.

Of course a "typical" Vive setup with two stations in opposite room corners and then USB cable requirement would be silly, but then they're wireless.

Saying, that for the "typical" use of each device, I *think* that setting each up shouldn't cause too much troubles. Unlike, say, your would want to setup a Rift in a huge room for "room scale"...but then someone should have gotten a Vive anyway instead.

The other thing that interests me would be "Fov" and immersion related (like asked earlier), and you said you have the two. Is there a NOTABLE difference, now in how the experience is *perceived*? (The technical specs here shouldn't interest, there is a lot of debate going on really and no clear "winner" as I see it). The consensus is that both devices offer "about the same" perceived FoV/immersion, given their (slight ?) differences like that the Vive has two round views and the Rift two squares (?), but smaller....but from what I read those differences won't really matter in terms of actual "experience".

The other thing that "worries" a little is the image quality difference which, as I learned, is more because of the used fresnel lenses there. Now looking at some images it looks the Rift has a "slight" edge there?

I should clarify - in the last few posts, I'm talking about the cameras field of vision in relation to the user, not the headsets FOV. I've read and heard many comments regarding the difference in the FOV's of the headsets, but honestly I don't really notice the difference. It also seems to be a tossup in terms of who prefers what - Supposedly the Vive has a larger verticle FOV than the Rift and the Rift has a larger horizontal FOV than the Vive. I guess I should try a few things that work on both and see if I notice anything. I haven't really done that.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Look: you just don't understand VR until you are playing portal, a voice says "Hello Friend" and you fearfully jump behind a chest high glass wall...

My wife had to take a break during "A Chair in a Room" because it was messing with her head...

 

[Kaido]

Look: you just don't understand VR until you are playing portal, a voice says "Hello Friend" and you fearfully jump behind a chest high glass wall...

My wife had to take a break during "A Chair in a Room" because it was messing with her head...

Not only that, but time flies when you're in VR. I can easily spend an hour or two in QuiVR when I think I'm only in there for 20 minutes.

 

[flexy]

Can someone please confirm this to me (or correct me?)

Most (if not all) games on Steam can be played on Rift?
You can install and use SteamVR on the Rift?
With Oculus AND Touch, you can also use Games that are written for "standing" (respective room scale) where Steam tells me "Headset: HTC Vive", like the guy above who mentioned QuiVR. So I would be able to run this on a Rift?
(Related: Not all, but MOST Rift games can run on the HTC Vive, although this needs the injector?)

 

[Kaido]

Can someone please confirm this to me (or correct me?)

Most (if not all) games on Steam can be played on Rift?
You can install and use SteamVR on the Rift?
With Oculus AND Touch, you can also use Games that are written for "standing" (respective room scale) where Steam tells me "Headset: HTC Vive", like the guy above who mentioned QuiVR. So I would be able to run this on a Rift?
(Related: Not all, but MOST Rift games can run on the HTC Vive, although this needs the injector?)

1. No. Roomscale games for the Vive will currently not play on the Rift because they need to be able to track you in 3D space. However, you can sort games by HMD brand in the Steam app, which helps you narrow things down. The game will tell you if it supports VR & also which headset(s) it supports.

2. Yes, you can install & use SteamVR games on the Rift. Super easy: https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=3180-UPHK-0900

3. No, you cannot play Vive Roomscale games on the Oculus+Touch. Well, it's more muddy than that - technically we don't know if you can use Oculus+Touch with Rift games...yet. Currently for the opposite to happen, you need to use a third-party hack program called "Revive Injector" in order to play Rift games on the Vive, so that's not natively supported either. There was some concrete information about RoomScale setup at the Connect conference the other day, however:

http://www.roadtovr.com/oculus-touch-support-room-scale-360-tracking-extra-cameras-sensor/

At the company’s ‘Connect’ developer conference it was finally revealed that Oculus now plans to support four Rift and Touch camera configurations:

• One camera in front: seated/standing gamepad experiences
• Two cameras in front: standing front-facing Touch experiences
• Two cameras opposite: standing 360 degree Touch experiences
• Three cameras in triangle layout: ‘room-scale’ Touch experience

So if you want Roomscale, you'll need to buy three (3) cameras for the Oculus+Touch combo. After that, developers will need to add support for that configuration, OR the industry will need to define a common input system for passing tracked 3D space information into games, because the Vive uses two Lighthouses for Roomscale, whereas the Oculus uses three cameras. So it's not going to be quite as easy as adding Oculus games to the Vive because you're going to have to translate an entirely different 3D-space tracking system into the game's movement mechanics.

Basically, the Vive can play all Vive & Roomscale games officially, and unofficially supports Rift games through Revive Injector. Currently the Oculus only supports Rift games; they have their 3-camera system coming up for Roomscale, but there is currently no information that I am aware of about Vive game support. If you want maximum compatibility, get a Vive. Also, Vive is working on their second-gen motion controllers already:

https://www.cnet.com/news/valve-shows-devs-new-hands-like-htc-vive-controller-vr-virtual-reality/

I think the Rift is cool, but if I had to do it all over again today, I'd still buy the Vive because there's no way I'd want to play PC-based VR without Roomscale, it's just want too cool. Also, I feel burnt from Oculus as a customer...I put my pre-order in back in like January or something, and when my early summer delivery date rolled around, they pushed it back a month while stocking up ready-to-buy units at Amazon & Best Buy, which was a complete slap in the face to everyone who had been waiting six months & invested early because you were told you had to wait another 4 weeks, while anyone else could simply hop on Amazon or buzz down to BB and buy it right away. That, plus no Roomscale were the deciding factors for me.

Roomscale is a lot of fun. The thing to keep in mind, however, is that nearly everything is still just tech demos. Honestly, I have hardly any lasting games right now. There are two things about Oculus+Touch that are appealing:

1. Set to launch with 30 full games
2. Possibility of adding a 4th camera for enhanced tracking accuracy

Here's the blog post on the games:

https://www3.oculus.com/en-us/blog/over-30-full-games-launching-with-oculus-touch-this-year/

Video on the 4 cameras:

http://www.theverge.com/circuitbrea...culus-home-rift-touch-sensors-camera-trackers

Oculus is also working on a wireless headset:

http://www.pcgamer.com/this-is-what-oculus-new-wireless-prototype-rift-is-like/

The thing to keep in mind is that everything is basically in the "early adoption" phase, so there's a lot going on right now. If you want the best you can get today, get a Vive. If you want the most fun games, I'd probably lean towards the PSVR, because games is all the console does. If you want a bunch of launch games & are really set on the Oculus, it looks like they're going to have a lot of full titles at launch, which is really cool. But you'll have to wait until December when it comes out! So, lots of options there for you.

 

[ImpulsE69]

I would say maybe 1/3 can be played on Rift at this time -- that might change with Touch. But it's hard to say because of the 400 or so VR things they have on there, at least 350 are shovelware. Anything that requires motion controls cannot be played -- gamepad only games - and most tell you if they are Rift and or Vive or both compatible.

You can use Rift with Steam VR via an option in the Oculus storefront.

It remains to be seen if Touch will work by default with Rift games. My guess is that in some cases no, and some cases yes with some glitches.

ReVive works, but doesn't always work and can break at any time. It is a risk to buy Oculus games thinking you can play them on the Vive.