Oculus Rift

dunworth1

interesting i'm good to go with an amd fx-6300 and a r9 290x

Jerichoholic

Look at it this way, my DK2 is used mostly for two things. A virtual cinema/ home theater and a virtual arcade (New Retro Arcade). Both are free applications and as far away from AAA developers as you can get, yet both still amaze me everytime I put on the headset. I also play Euro Truck Simulator, a game I wouldn't have touched usually but it's just incredible with a rift on. Again not made by a AAA developer by any stretch. I don't really care if COD comes out on it or not, or if it sells more than the Wii did. As long as there are people making stuff like I mentioned i'll be more than happy.

I also have no doubt that it will be a MASSIVE success commercially.

Falthyron

*sigh*. Long live VR. The future is here. What a time to be alive, etc., etc. No to dissenting voices, etc., etc.

Jerichoholic

What dissention do you want? EVERYONE I demoed my rift to were absolutely speechless afterwards. If you think that's the same as waving your arms around like a gimp in front of a broken on day 1 kinect then go seek help.

Zillah

Falthyron wrote: »

Personally, I find the level of angst against me astonishing.

You're getting angst because of your incredibly condescending and dismissive attitude. You imply anyone that disagrees with you is a raging fanboy incapable of reasonable discussion, and then ignore everyone else's points in favour of repeating your own.

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

http://store.steampowered.com/app/323910/

Steam have released a method of testing your computer. I only have a R9 280 so had a few points with 88 FPS but it looks like it would manage ok.

As expected, my system can handle it but upgrading my GPU is recommended. Now to play the waiting game (for Pascal).

Zillah

Jerichoholic wrote: »

Look at it this way, my DK2 is used mostly for two things. A virtual cinema/ home theater

What's the subjective quality of movies played within the virtual cinema? I've heard very worrying numbers about the objective resolution actually used for the video display, but have heard it is mitigated by a range of phenomena, including anti-aliasing, sense of presence and scale, and rerendering caused by tiny head movements.

Jerichoholic

Well the presence and sense of scale certainly adds to the experience and you forget about the screen door effect after a while. Watching 3d movies at home is something I thought I would never do, but it's there. The resolution for the consumer versions should pretty much clear up a lot of these issues.

Retr0gamer

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

And there's nothing wrong with novelty, either, it sells millions of goods daily and has it's place - but VR can't be described a novelty. It has to be experienced to be truly understood.

I think this will be a major problem with VR. It's a hard sell because nobody realises how good it is unless they try it and trying it involves having access to a VR unit and also getting over the social awkwardness or that VR headset.

It reminds me of my Virtual boy. It's the butt end of lotsof videogame related jokes. However anyone that has tried it is amazed by the excellent 3D effect and wonders how it didn't do better. The main reason is unless you use one it's just too dfficult to convey what it is and how impressive it is with traditional print or video.

Robert ninja

You could press the idea that if it's good, people will slowly but surely adopt it. If it's implemented into sports and other extremely lucrative and popular businesses then I can't see how it would fail but it won't be money from hardware it will be subsciption services. Definitely useful for sports, porn, education etc.

But I don't really need it to be successful. What I really want to take off is good hardware with lots of open-source support, projects and drivers. That way even if it's never adopted by the masses and becomes niche we can still have incredibly cool thigns to do in VR without needing big business to lead it by the collar.

Doge

Retr0gamer wrote: »

It reminds me of my Virtual boy. It's the butt end of lotsof videogame related jokes. However anyone that has tried it is amazed by the excellent 3D effect and wonders how it didn't do better. The main reason is unless you use one it's just too dfficult to convey what it is and how impressive it is with traditional print or video.

Ah come on now!

The crappy stand? The Monochrome display? The eye strain? The botched marketing campaign?

I wonder indeed! :pac:

drunkmonkey

And we're ready, was hoping for better than 6.9 but still says it's good enough.



You can download the test now through steam, 1.9GB

Dyr

Zillah wrote: »

As expected, my system can handle it but upgrading my GPU is recommended. Now to play the waiting game (for Pascal).

Pretty much this. I thought I was going to have sort out a whole new set up for the vive, but it looks like if I can upgrade my mobo bios then a new graphics card will have me good to go, so I can keep my piggy bank unbroken until pascal and icy windstorm (or whatever) surface

Wossack

this steam app.. does it check your bank balance? as I think thats where Im most likely to fall down

Skerries

pictures of the consumer Vive

http://www.engadget.com/2016/02/23/htc-vive-consumer/#

Blowfish

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

VR is here to stay, and arguably it's applications in other areas are of even greater significance. A couple can walk through their dream house before the first block is laid. A person can meet their friends in the cinema to watch a movie no matter where on this earth they currently reside. Etc.

Indeed. I've dual 24 inch monitors in work and it's still nowhere near enough space for all the applications I'm usually running.

VR could easily solve that by having an app whose only function is to show a Desktop, but allow it to have the equivalent 'real estate' of a bank of monitors like this, which would be immense in terms of productivity:

The Randy Riverbeast

Blowfish wrote: »

Indeed. I've dual 24 inch monitors in work and it's still nowhere near enough space for all the applications I'm usually running.

VR could easily solve that by having an app whose only function is to show a Desktop, but allow it to be have the equivalent 'real estate' of a bank of monitors like this would be immense in terms of productivity:

Wow, I could give facebook, boards, youtube and reddit their own screens with that set up instead of making them share.

Zillah

With current tech they'll all be gibberish until you shove your face towards them though.

I've heard from people who tried to simulate multi-monitor setups for video editing in VR and apparently the interfaces were incomprehensible.

Blowfish

Zillah wrote: »

With current tech they'll all be gibberish until you shove your face towards them though.

I've heard from people who tried to simulate multi-monitor setups for video editing in VR and apparently the interfaces were incomprehensible.

For current stuff, that's definitely the case, especially given the limitations Windows has around adding Desktops etc. but the point is, VR has potential far far beyond gaming and media, it has the potential to be completely ubiquitous.

Saying that, we are still in the very very early days of this stuff, it'll likely be years before it actually does reach its full potential and trickles down from being an early adopter tech to being mass market friendly.

drunkmonkey

I can see a space where your just dragging and dropping those screens as you need them, using a magic leap set up, I'd say it's doable with the tech that's there now.

Thargor

Zillah wrote: »

What's the subjective quality of movies played within the virtual cinema? I've heard very worrying numbers about the objective resolution actually used for the video display, but have heard it is mitigated by a range of phenomena, including anti-aliasing, sense of presence and scale, and rerendering caused by tiny head movements.

Jerichoholic wrote: »

Well the presence and sense of scale certainly adds to the experience and you forget about the screen door effect after a while. Watching 3d movies at home is something I thought I would never do, but it's there. The resolution for the consumer versions should pretty much clear up a lot of these issues.

Even a Cardboard app like Cmoar is watchable, Id say we're very close to being able to use a headset as a home cinema alternative, especially for the 3D stuff.

jumbobreakfast

Called over to friend this evening...which was nice:

http://imgur.com/gO1haq2

ondafly

jumbobreakfast wrote: »

Called over to friend this evening...which was nice:

http://imgur.com/gO1haq2

Which did you like the best ?

jumbobreakfast

ondafly wrote: »

Which did you like the best ?

The Rift is by far the most comfortable, lightest, stylish but I didn't get to try any content so I can't really comment on it other than I know it has the same resolution as the Vive so it's probably not much different (except for the lack of motion controllers and room scale tracking.....).

I tried several Vive games that I hadn't tried before and they were of mixed quality. Hover Junkers is good fun but requires you to be very accurate (you need to aim down sight) so practice would be needed. Space pirates was more casual but easier to pick up and play because of slight auto-aim.

The Vive is the best overall at the moment because of the motion controllers and room scale tracking.

moc moc a moc

I'm a bit late to yesterday's lively discussion, but anyone who thinks VR is a fad is simply not paying attention.

jumbobreakfast

moc moc a moc wrote: »

I'm a bit late to yesterday's lively discussion, but anyone who thinks VR is a fad is simply not paying attention.

It's definitely not a fad and can't be compared to 3D TVs, kinect or wii but I don't think there's any harm in being skeptical either. There are problems such as price, locomotion, lack of content and probably some other things but these are being solved. The sensible thing to do would be to wait a bit longer but I've seen enough to make me want one on release. There are also the other applications such as watching movies, space/car sims and new forms of social interaction. The controller and head tracking in the Vive is amazing and I think that's the biggest breakthrough and will make you want to get up off your seat for a change.

lmimmfn

jumbobreakfast wrote: »

It's definitely not a fad and can't be compared to 3D TVs, kinect or wii but I don't think there's any harm in being skeptical either. There are problems such as price, locomotion, lack of content and probably some other things but these are being solved. The sensible thing to do would be to wait a bit longer but I've seen enough to make me want one on release. There are also the other applications such as watching movies, space/car sims and new forms of social interaction. The controller and head tracking in the Vive is amazing and I think that's the biggest breakthrough and will make you want to get up off your seat for a change.

I really hate when VR is compared to 3D TV, its absolutely nothing like it. The comparison is as pointless as saying yourr not going to an exotic place on holiday because you've seen it on TV - a 3D one.

Shiminay

lmimmfn wrote: »

I really hate when VR is compared to 3D TV, its absolutely nothing like it. The comparison is as pointless as saying yourr not going to an exotic place on holiday because you've seen it on TV - a 3D one.

It's a perfectly valid comparison - it's a very expensive consumer level product that changes how you consume audio visual content. It can't be shared unless everyone in the room has the appropriate gear. It doesn't matter that the experience is as different as it is, as a product that people are trying to convince us to buy into, it faces the same barriers to entry and the same causes for concern. I'm honestly baffled that people don't see that.

Doge

Shiminay wrote: »

It's a perfectly valid comparison - it's a very expensive consumer level product that changes how you consume audio visual content. It can't be shared unless everyone in the room has the appropriate gear. It doesn't matter that the experience is as different as it is, as a product that people are trying to convince us to buy into, it faces the same barriers to entry and the same causes for concern. I'm honestly baffled that people don't see that.

The exteme limitations and issues of 3D glasses just arent there with VR, which doesnt make them comparable imo.

Dulled image, distorted motion, crosstalk and only limited stereoscopic layers to give the illusion of 3D. Its pretty obvious you're not seeing real 3D from it.

Not to mention absolutely no headtracking with 3D glasses which is an even bigger killer of immersion, and relying on a TV screen or projected image.

VR in its current state is the first true 360 degree 3D experience, and despite the bulkiness it is the best experience we have on offer to this date.

Its like comparing controlling an RC Toy Car to driving a supercar.

shootermacg

Blowfish wrote: »

Indeed. I've dual 24 inch monitors in work and it's still nowhere near enough space for all the applications I'm usually running.

VR could easily solve that by having an app whose only function is to show a Desktop, but allow it to have the equivalent 'real estate' of a bank of monitors like this, which would be immense in terms of productivity:

People just don't seem to grasp that VR is dependent on the pixels that are visible to each eye.

So take a phone, and split it in half, then draw a circle that fits in each half. Each half shows the same screen at a slightly different angle, then magnify them a tiny bit until your eyes see the pixels as dots on a black back ground.

So basically you'll probably not see that monitor idea in any usable fashion in your lifetime or until they find a new way to display images which doesn't use pixels, or at the very least show a 500 pixels per cm.

Zillah

shootermacg wrote: »

People just don't seem to grasp that VR is dependent on the pixels that are visible to each eye.

So take a phone, and split it in half, then draw a circle that fits in each half. Each half shows the same screen at a slightly different angle, then magnify them a tiny bit until your eyes see the pixels as dots on a black back ground.

So basically you'll probably not see that monitor idea in any usable fashion in your lifetime or until they find a new way to display images which doesn't use pixels, or at the very least show a 500 pixels per cm.

We discussed this earlier, we realise, we're just not relegating the idea to 2153. You could have a wall of floating windows, and you swipe them around so that the active one is in front of your face and uses a large percentage of the pixels to render the interface, and the others just have low res preview images.

Our lifetime is certainly going to see drastically higher screen resolutions. There are already 4k prototypes - what do you think ten years will bring?

(Also your description of the screens ignores the sophisticated lenses and software that are designed to trick the brain into not seeing the flaws. Gear VR and DKs are not the CV1)