New To The Forum? Click Here To Read The How To Guide. -- Developers Click Here.

Oculus Fuzz Question

tjstrattontjstratton Posts: 11
NerveGear
Seems like these games are designed not quite for VR then they move it over to VR and we have to deal with this fuzzy picture. I'm surprised that the devs can't overcome this with software changes or a different type of headset that is perhaps larger/longer and counter weighted in the rear with wifi tech. I'd drop up to several grand on a device with a clear picture and wireless. Heck my now dated DellU3011 monitor was $1200. The PC guys will pay for high res.

Since this is VR picture quality should be the #1 concern. I bet they had prototypes of Oculus that were better but they went with this barely sufficient one for costs etc.

Comments

  • BeastyBaiterBeastyBaiter Posts: 274 Poster of the Week
    You might be willing to pay $1200 for a monitor but very few others are. Even the current $400 is terribly pricey. In any case, there are higher res VR headsets out there but they have serious drawbacks like no head tracking. In any case, resolution will improve as newer models come out.
  • MorgrumMorgrum Posts: 636 Poster of the Week
    edited August 10
    Yep we have about as good as it gets in the generation for a balance of FoV, Resolution, and tracking.
    WAAAGH!
  • the9quadthe9quad Posts: 10
    NerveGear
    edited August 10
    And then with what magical video card are you going to push this higher resolution screen at 90fps with? The 1080ti won't push that for quite a few games once you start going 1440p and above. Your wallet might be ready, but the tech isn't. I have a 1080ti and a 3440x1440 gsync monitor and even that beast of a card doesn't hit 60 fps in some games at that res unless I turn some stuff down. Throw a 4K screen in the mix and you think it will do the needed 90fps? Nope. We have at least another generation or 2 of video cards to go until we get reliable >60 fps at 4K.


  • RolzRolz Posts: 75
    Hiro Protagonist
    be patient young grasshopper... we've only just started this VR journey... the tech will catch up to your wallet soon :)
  • tjstrattontjstratton Posts: 11
    NerveGear
    the9quad said:
    And then with what magical video card are you going to push this higher resolution screen at 90fps with? The 1080ti won't push that for quite a few games once you start going 1440p and above. Your wallet might be ready, but the tech isn't. I have a 1080ti and a 3440x1440 gsync monitor and even that beast of a card doesn't hit 60 fps in some games at that res unless I turn some stuff down. Throw a 4K screen in the mix and you think it will do the needed 90fps? Nope. We have at least another generation or 2 of video cards to go until we get reliable >60 fps at 4K.


    I'm talking about VR headsets here. It shouldn't take much of a video card to push a better res one. My video card is the ATI 295x2 watercooled by the way. The tech companies piece out their new stuff little by little. First we had Voodoo cards with the first SLI so you can buy 2 video cards. Then we get multi monitors so you can buy 2+ monitors. Its all a gimmick to sell more products and not have to retool their factory. Usually there is something you can pay a lot for that is actually good but the VR industry doesn't and they need to. Once a clear picture VR system comes out it will be sold out even at $2+grand.

    I bought my 295x2 and DellU3011 years ago. Sure they are over $2600 but I'm still using them and I haven't been staring at crap 1080p resolution this whole time or having games fail with my buggy SLI setup or acting like multi monitors are actually good. I been looking at 2560x1600 - 30inch screen at 100fps with zero problems.
  • snowdogsnowdog Posts: 2,364 Valuable Player
    Yes, you're talking about VR headsets, and his point still stands. Even if Oculus and HTC only went for 2 x 2K screens you'd still need a beefy PC to run games at 90fps.

    The biggest barrier to VR adoption is the price. Not just the price of the headsets and motion controllers but also the price of getting a PC powerful enough to run games on 2 x 1K screens at 90fps. If you only double the resolution of the screens you're still going to need a hefty GPU to run the headset.

    Next generation we'll see 2 x 2K screens using foveated rendering with a larger FOV and as a result of that foveated rendering we'll see more machines being capable of running them.
    "This you have to understand. There's only one way to hurt a man who's lost everything. Give him back something broken."

    Thomas Covenant, Unbeliever
  • tjstrattontjstratton Posts: 11
    NerveGear
    snowdog said:
    Yes, you're talking about VR headsets, and his point still stands. Even if Oculus and HTC only went for 2 x 2K screens you'd still need a beefy PC to run games at 90fps.

    The biggest barrier to VR adoption is the price. Not just the price of the headsets and motion controllers but also the price of getting a PC powerful enough to run games on 2 x 1K screens at 90fps. If you only double the resolution of the screens you're still going to need a hefty GPU to run the headset.

    Next generation we'll see 2 x 2K screens using foveated rendering with a larger FOV and as a result of that foveated rendering we'll see more machines being capable of running them.
    Well I'm using a GPU that came out in 2014 to run this currently. I think if they were to release a better headset in a year or two the GPUs available then would be more than enough.

    The point I'm making is in the VR headset realm there is no high end rig. Its all this baby end crap for console etc. They just need to make it.
  • RichooalRichooal Posts: 290
    Nexus 6
    edited August 15
    The PC guys will pay for high res.

    You're absolutely right.

    But only some of the PC guys will pay.

    The Summer of Rift sale has proven beyond doubt that lots of PC guys wanted the Rift, but the price was too high. With the huge reduction in price, came an unprecedented uptake of VR headsets. The more people with headsets, the more the word spreads, and then more headsets are sold.
    With more people using VR the development and competition will speed up and we'll be getting higher resolution and lower "fuzz" in no time.

    I say embrace what you have.......  the best consumer VR available at this time.
    i5 6600k - GTX1060 - 8GB RAM - 0 PROBLEMS
  • snowdogsnowdog Posts: 2,364 Valuable Player
    It would be pointless for HTC, Oculus or anyone else making a 'high end' headset because hardly anyone would buy it. Oculus in particular need to get headsets sold because they're not making bugger all on the hardware. Their money from VR is coming from the Oculus Store and it's in their interest to have as many Rifts or Rift 2s out there as humanly possible. More headsets means more software sales.

    VR adoption is going to happen in three stages:

    1) Enthusiast Gamer Adoption - People like us spending a fair amount of money on the headsets as early adopters and either having a powerful gaming rig capable of running it or if they don't have one they won't bat an eyelid spending even more money to get one. This stage isn't anywhere near complete yet. The magic price point is £/$350-400.

    2) Mainstream Gamer Adoption - These are the people that either own consoles or don't own a rig that's quite capable of running a headset but play games, and big franchise games, during a great deal of their spare time. They might end up upgrading their PC at some point but will only do so when a big game is impossible to play on their current rig. And when they upgrade they're more likely to go the cheapest route possible. The magic price point for these people is £/$100 lower than the Enthusiast Game price point and they're more likely to jump on board the VR hype train when the big game franchises start appearing in VR.

    3) Mainstream Consumer Adoption - Now THIS is the big one. They're either lapsed PC gamers or haven't played a video game since the Wii was released years ago. There are going to be several things that need to happen before they jump into VR.

    • VR sports and entertainment, football, American Football, Athletics, Cricket, Rugby, Olympics etc and films and TV series.
    • VR Social Media.
    • A 'Killer App' that will encourage lapsed gamers or non-gamers to jump into VR
    • A £/$100-199 price point and the ability to run these things on an average laptop.
    We might see all 3 happening in the next 5 years but I'm certain we'll see it during the next 10, particularly with Oculus being so far ahead of everyone else in terms of R&D. They're going to be key to getting the cost of entry down, we've already seen this happening with ASW lowering the minimum spec of a PC needed to run VR and we'll see their foveated rendering pissing all over the other headset manufacturers' versions.


    "This you have to understand. There's only one way to hurt a man who's lost everything. Give him back something broken."

    Thomas Covenant, Unbeliever
  • shiarishiari Posts: 140
    Art3mis

    I bought my 295x2 and DellU3011 years ago. Sure they are over $2600 but I'm still using them and I haven't been staring at crap 1080p resolution this whole time or having games fail with my buggy SLI setup or acting like multi monitors are actually good. I been looking at 2560x1600 - 30inch screen at 100fps with zero problems.
    I'm going to call bollocks on that 100 fps claim.

    There are many, many games where the 295X2 will not get anywhere near 100 fps at a 2560x1600 resolution. If it did I wouldn't feel the need to upgrade to Vega, as I'm now on a 3440x1440 75Hz ultrawide, and the 295X2 can not drive that screen (nor the Rift) adequately even in its freesync range of 45 to 75Hz. In some rare (usually old) games you can get close to that 100 fps at QHD resolutions *if* crossfire is supported well, but usually it's not supported or not supported well at all.

    Sure, many Oculus experiences and games run okay on the 295X2 as long as you're not too sensitive to framerates. And there are some apps and games that really struggle like Quill, Elite: Dangerous, X-Plane 11, ETS2, etc. SteamVR itself doesn't run that great either. What it comes down to is that as crossfire generally won't work the card is effectively equivalent to a single R9 290, and that's minimum recommended spec.

    Now lets say the displays went to QHD per eye, so 2560x1440 vs the 1080x1200 it is currently. That would more than double the number of pixels, 3.68M rather than 1.29M pixels per eye. Your performance would drop to well under comfortable ranges for most peeps, not even ASW would be able to cover that. Not even a 1080Ti or Titan would be able to drive 2 x 3.68M pixels at 90 fps, not anywhere close. You might be able to get about 50 fps or so from those, and that's only QHD. It would need eye-tracking, foveated rendering and incredibly low latency in that process to be able to boost that performance to comfortable levels.

    No, GPU power and the tech in general isn't quite there yet for a massive jump in display resolution while keeping graphics fidelity to the level of Elite: Dangerous, Lone Echo, etc.
  • kzintzikzintzi Posts: 763 Poster of the Week
    edited August 16

    The point I'm making is in the VR headset realm there is no high end rig. Its all this baby end crap for console etc. They just need to make it.
    There have been high-end rigs available for a couple of years but they were never aimed at consumers.. there was one I saw about 4 years ago that had 9 OLED screens for each eye, and they were arranged in such a way that they provided something like 160deg FOV in all axis. of course this carried a $40,000US price, and that was just the headset.

    unfortunately I can't find any references to that specific HMD any more - they used to be advertised on www.tekgear.ca back in the day but the one I'm thinking of isn't there anymore but some of the others still are, so if you're interested in what was considered cutting edge before Oculus take a look (kinda interesting to see what was the direction in the old days before hi-res single panels - the shift in thinking that happened REALLY changed how people were trying to make VR happen).
    Though you are more than slightly incoherent, I agree with you Madam,
    a plum is a terrible thing to do to a nostril.
Sign In or Register to comment.