New to the forums? Click here to read the "How To" Guide.

Developer? Click here to go to the Developer Forums.

RIFT S ...Wish List..

DilipDilip Posts: 176
Art3mis
edited March 11 in General
If there ever be RIFT S most desired features will be 

1) 2160 X 2432 pixel per eye resolution at 3.25" per display size
2) Oculus Go Optics or more improved Optics
3) Oculus Quest type tracking
4) Hardware requirement not more than current rift 
5) OS Support including windows 7
6) Only Single user replaceable cable.
7) Pricing around $ 300

With current library of RIFT titles there is good reason to amazing success. 
«1

Comments

  • ZenbaneZenbane Posts: 12,975 Valuable Player
    edited March 11

    My wish list:
    1. Increased FoV
    2. Eye-Tracking technology
    3. Less screen-door effect
    4. Less glare
    5. Improved "Black" levels
    Are you a fan of the Myst games? Check out my Mod at http://www.mystrock.com/
    Catch me on Twitter: twitter.com/zenbane
  • ShocksOculusShocksOculus Posts: 194
    Art3mis
    edited March 11
    If they can match the existing Quest specs (1600p display, GO lenses, Insight), and keep the price low ($300 max), then I think it can be a winner.  Remember, this is NOT Rift-2, but meant as a mid-generation refresh (like Xbox One S to Xbox One)

    1) I think a 2kx2k screen is just not cost feasible right now.  Vive Pro is 1600p and $800, Pimax is $700, Odyssey $600 (can be found for $300 when on sale), etc...  2k x 2k would be super high end (and thus expensive)

    2) I think the new Oculus lenses will be a given.

    3) Yup. Insight will be nice

    4) This will also be a given.  The device can have an increased display resolution, while keeping the default game resolution the same as the current Rifts.  The benefit of having an increased display resolution will come from setting our games to "Ultra" and/or Supersampling.

    5)  Not gonna happen.  The baseline is Windows 10; even going by Oculus metrics, over 97% of Oculus Rift users are on WIn10. You can see for yourself here: https://developer.oculus.com/hardware-report/pc/

    6) Yup.

    7) Yup.

    And with the BIG GAMES slated for release this year, Oculus Rift may finally be on that verge of having that increased success.


    EDIT -- !!!!
    And I forgot a big one, Making the Rift-S more Glasses friendly.  I usually wear contacts, but being able to easily use Eye Glasses with my Rift would be a pretty big win ! (I can easily use my glasses with GO and it's default facepad, so I'm hoping this should be an easy fix).
    i7-7700k, GTX 1080Ti (11G) || MSI B150m (1 USB controller) + Inateck 4-port USB to PCIe (2nd USB controller)
    Oculus RIFT - 3 sensor Room-scale
    Oculus GO

  • hoppingbunny123hoppingbunny123 Posts: 391
    Nexus 6
    a greater sweet spot so i can roll my eyes around and still read text clearly.
    less weight
    less tight
  • RedRizlaRedRizla Posts: 5,363 Valuable Player
    edited March 11
    A VR Cover made of PU as an option. Unless VR Cover have one ready from the get go and I don't have to wait. I find the current Rift really uncomfortable without VR PU foam cover.
  • pyroth309pyroth309 Posts: 655
    Neo
    Guess I'm in the minority but I feel like 300 bucks for an improved rift seems unlikely. I'm guessing it'll be around 399. Anyways most of my list has been stated but here's the priority for me.

    1. SDE reduction
    2. Higher Resolution
    3. FoV 
    4. Option to use Constellation
    5. Better Colors
    6. Less God Rays. 

  • DilipDilip Posts: 176
    Art3mis
    Wildt said:
    Constellation support
    Will increase price...If S to be cost effective ..Inside out tracking is a way to go, will reduce the number of hardware to be dealt with too, also free up USB (USB no big deal though)
  • RichooalRichooal Posts: 953
    3Jane
    Not a big fan of small step improvements on relatively expensive products.
    I'm hoping there is no "S" version. So .........

    1. Save the development time and cost by going straight to a greatly improved CV2.
    2. If there is an "S" version, I hope it doesn't end up being the last PC powered VR-HMD from Oculus.

    i5 6600k - GTX1060 - 8GB RAM - 0 PROBLEMS
  • DaftnDirectDaftnDirect Posts: 4,299 Valuable Player
    edited March 12
    Mmm, my primary wish is that hardware drivability isn't pushed beyond the PC owning percentage that was the case when CV1 launched, even have a bit larger percentage of today's PCs able to drive it. Everything else follows from that. So...

    Moderate increase in FOV (say 30% higher)
    Big improvement in God rays/contrast (ie Go/Quest optics)
    Moderate to big improvement in pixel per degree count (at least 30% higher).
    I'll take either existing tracking camera compatible or inside-out tracking although I'm quite excited to try inside-out.
    Price around £350.
    Better for glasses would be a bonus but not if it impacts on FOV (if that were the case, I'd rather have better provision for custom lenses).
    Although I haven't experienced any hardware failures (I had a scare but turned out to be software related) I hope Oculus have addressed any of the common issues some people had with CV1, I'm thinking right headphone connection.
    Slightly softer/thicker face foam and a little more flexible facial interface (I still remember the DK2).

    Intel 5820K [email protected], Titan X (Maxwell), 16GB Corsair Vengeance DDR4, ASRock X99 Taichi, Samsung 500Gb 960 Evo M.2, Corsair H100i v2 Cooler, Inateck KTU3FR-4P USB 3 card, Windows 10 Pro v1809 (17763.348)
  • AlextendedAlextended Posts: 49
    Brain Burst
    edited March 12
    Don't have a wish list as I only got the Rift recently so it will take a big upgrade and a few years of fun before I move on to something else. So, Rift 2. Or Rift S 2 (assuming by that time they have managed to make inside out tracking as good as the current Rift. Preferably with Touch 2 to match whatever HMD upgrades with new interactivity. Something to one up the knuckles like the Touch one upped the Vive wands even if they all come later on. Whatever is best for me at the time of course. I'll probably need a PC upgrade first too, to power higher resolution sets and the more demanding VR games of that time. So yeah, maybe in ~4 or so years there will be enough of a jump in tech for me to upgrade VR after upgrading my PC.
  • MradrMradr Posts: 2,930 Valuable Player
    edited March 12
    The only thing about keeping it low price and supporting the most devices is the fact is you wont have much of an upgrade. At best = better len and better comfort. You cant have the fancy better screens or the new technology.  You HAVE to push the limits just a bit so it slowly fits into what people can afford than to match everyone at once if you wish to see any real upgrade over what we currently have. With that said:

    1) 599-699$
    2) 2k or 4k screens ( I be willing to pay more for higher end screens if they have FOVA ready to go )
    3) Eye tracking technology
    4) The new improve lenses or better depending whatever they are working on now is ready for release
    a) Less glare
    b) Improve clarity
    5) Higher FOV at least 120 at most 140 for a modest increase while providing a higher PPD (pixel per degree)

    This would be more consider a 2.0 and a nice jump for the wait - but other wise - it seems we might only be getting a small jump:

    RS - Refresh
    $299-399
    Better lenses
    Vision Tracking
    Slightly better screens
    Different fit/look/comfort
    Slightly better display screens (1,600 x 1,440)

    To me, it sounds like this headset would be good for people that are just now getting into VR than for people that already have a CV1. If you have a CV1 - you would be better off waiting for the CV2 if they plan to still release one any time soon. Granted - if they release a Rift S - two things most likely will happen:
    1) They will be granted another few years before they release a CV2 because people will see the RS as the new CV1.5 and the jump to a CV2 will be seen as too soon.
    2) They will have too many product stacks. CV1, Quest, GO - and now Rift S - so supporting that many line ups might be a problem to release a CV2 any time soon again (soon being with in the next year).

    To me - if they are going to release a RS - they should make it clear that its going to replace the current CV1 as the new slightly low end option for PC and that they are going to stop the sell of CV1 while coming out saying CV2 is going to be their highest end of the PC and a possible time frame of release (like saying next year). Short of that - I have a hard time understanding where this Rift S fits into the total product stack short of them trying to just not talk about a CV2 and just slide in a 1.5 instead.
  • dburnedburne Posts: 1,779 Valuable Player
    edited March 12
    If Rift S has even slightly better resolution and decent hand tracking, I will be all over it just for that.
    I don't need a huge resolution bump like Pimax is trying to do, looks nice I am sure but if can't run my combat flight sims with decent performance that is no good to me.
    Don

    EVGA Z390 Dark MB | I9 9900k| EVGA 2080Ti FTW3 Ultra |32 GB G Skill 3200 cl14 ram | Warthog Throttle | VKB Gunfighter Pro/MCG Pro grip | Crosswind Pedals | EVGA DG 87 Case|
  • MradrMradr Posts: 2,930 Valuable Player
    edited March 12
    dburne said:
    If Rift S has even slightly better resolution and decent hand tracking, I will be all over it just for that.
    I don't need a huge resolution bump like Pimax is trying to do, looks nice I am sure but if can't run my combat flight sims with decent performance that is no good to me.
    I think you have it backwards just a bit. Pimax thing is about higher FOV - not the resolution. Rift S is vision tracking base - so it just depends on where your hands are going to be kept the most I assume (but most sims dont use the controllers so this might not effect you either way). IF the hand controllers are at your side for long periods of you not looking at them - they will slowly drift over time, but again, might not matter for sims that dont even use the controllers in the first place. I think as far as PPD - you only will see a 5 pixels more per degree if they kept the same 100 degrees of view. Itll help with some - but not much of a jump for improve text readability. In cases for sims - it is better to have the higher resolution than any FOV jump as you will want that higher PPD for text and reader clarity. With that said - any FOV increase Rift S gives will take away that 5 more pixel per degree pretty quickly.
  • bobzdarbobzdar Posts: 56
    Hiro Protagonist
    edited March 12
    Give me an Odyssey+ with touch controllers and I'm on board.  I have the Odyssey+ now and love it to the point I gave away my Rift to somebody else getting into VR, but the controllers aren't as good.  The tracking is fine on the Odyssey+, but the controllers themselves are what I miss, with the finger tracking and better ergonomics.

    However, given we're already 6 months since the Odyssey+ came out, the Rift S needs to be a true jump forward from it, whether that's higher resolution, increased FOV or whatever.  I'll be extremely disappointed if it's a 1600 pixel 110 FOV headset.  I'll probably still get one just for the controllers, but that's basically a sideways step, which after 3 years shouldn't be the case.  Oculus should be pushing the medium forward, not just treading water.

    Given that, it should be ~140FOV with similar pixel density to the Odyssey+ (so the same 1600 pixels high but 16:10 instead of square) and large sweet spot optics with reduced god rays.  If they can do that, it'd be enough to be a clear improvement over existing headsets without getting too crazy.
  • SkScotcheggSkScotchegg Posts: 780
    3Jane
    edited March 12
    I hope they never remove the built in earphones as I think they're brilliant! Also it would have been nice if Quest came with the same built-in earphones too.

    I really hope they increase the FOV to hopefully 180° or above.

    And I don't think they will match the current Rift price, I think it will be £500, so cheaper then the original but more expensive then Quest.

    Also one last thing I would add is, if they did charge a lot more I wouldn't mind as long as it had new technology, so I don't mind paying £600-£700 as long as it has eye tracking or something new. But if it's just increased FOV and optics then £400-£500 is more realistic as I guess most people wouldn't want to spend too much on just a slight upgrade.

    If I'm being realistic though I'm only expecting these changes for Rift 1.5:
    • Increased FOV
    • Increased Resolution
    • Better optics (Same as Quest and GO)
    • Touch 2.0 (same as Quest)
    • Inside out tracking (Same as Quest)
  • dburnedburne Posts: 1,779 Valuable Player
    Mradr said:
    dburne said:
    If Rift S has even slightly better resolution and decent hand tracking, I will be all over it just for that.
    I don't need a huge resolution bump like Pimax is trying to do, looks nice I am sure but if can't run my combat flight sims with decent performance that is no good to me.
    I think you have it backwards just a bit. Pimax thing is about higher FOV - not the resolution. Rift S is vision tracking base - so it just depends on where your hands are going to be kept the most I assume (but most sims dont use the controllers so this might not effect you either way). IF the hand controllers are at your side for long periods of you not looking at them - they will slowly drift over time, but again, might not matter for sims that dont even use the controllers in the first place. I think as far as PPD - you only will see a 5 pixels more per degree if they kept the same 100 degrees of view. Itll help with some - but not much of a jump for improve text readability. In cases for sims - it is better to have the higher resolution than any FOV jump as you will want that higher PPD for text and reader clarity. With that said - any FOV increase Rift S gives will take away that 5 more pixel per degree pretty quickly.
    What - Pimax is not about resolution??
    <hint> 5K 8K
    That is certainly a big reason many bought into it in the flight sim community.
    And they say it is nice, but can't get any performance so many not too happy right now.

    Don

    EVGA Z390 Dark MB | I9 9900k| EVGA 2080Ti FTW3 Ultra |32 GB G Skill 3200 cl14 ram | Warthog Throttle | VKB Gunfighter Pro/MCG Pro grip | Crosswind Pedals | EVGA DG 87 Case|
  • CongratsulationsCongratsulations Posts: 82
    Hiro Protagonist
    OS windows 7, I don’t think they will make it possible as they increased it to Minimal to windows 10.
  • MradrMradr Posts: 2,930 Valuable Player
    edited March 12
    dburne said:
    Mradr said:
    dburne said:
    If Rift S has even slightly better resolution and decent hand tracking, I will be all over it just for that.
    I don't need a huge resolution bump like Pimax is trying to do, looks nice I am sure but if can't run my combat flight sims with decent performance that is no good to me.
    I think you have it backwards just a bit. Pimax thing is about higher FOV - not the resolution. Rift S is vision tracking base - so it just depends on where your hands are going to be kept the most I assume (but most sims dont use the controllers so this might not effect you either way). IF the hand controllers are at your side for long periods of you not looking at them - they will slowly drift over time, but again, might not matter for sims that dont even use the controllers in the first place. I think as far as PPD - you only will see a 5 pixels more per degree if they kept the same 100 degrees of view. Itll help with some - but not much of a jump for improve text readability. In cases for sims - it is better to have the higher resolution than any FOV jump as you will want that higher PPD for text and reader clarity. With that said - any FOV increase Rift S gives will take away that 5 more pixel per degree pretty quickly.
    What - Pimax is not about resolution??
    <hint> 5K 8K
    That is certainly a big reason many bought into it in the flight sim community.
    And they say it is nice, but can't get any performance so many not too happy right now.

    What you are saying can be split into 3-4 different topics:
    1) Resolution
    2) FOV
    3) Performance
    4) Clarity

    IF resolution alone was their goal - then PPD would be much higher than it is. Let alone - 5k or 8k modules are just the screen technology we already have out on the market already. Their goal wasn't higher resolution. Their goal was higher FOV. To get higher FOV though without dropping into to worst quality than what the CV1 or HTC has -you have to increase the resolution along with it. This is a common misunderstanding between people that don't connect the two.

    You are correct that many did bought into it.. Pimax wasn't the best option in this case. The way the product works is just too demanding and their selling point of higher FOV was a silly one, but that is what people was demanding so they made the product to meet that demand. 

    Some people still like the 5k and 8k though and like the fact they can see better clarity using them, but the method at witch they went at it didn't make everyone happy because the fact it takes a lot of performance out of the system.

    I mean like wtf - why are you taking a base of 2k and up scaling it to 4k screen? That is going to give weird results already let alone the performance requirements that some of the pixels go to waste for! It's soo stupid.
  • ZenbaneZenbane Posts: 12,975 Valuable Player
    Pimax was not about resolution nor POV, Pimax was about... taking that Kickstarter money and GTFO
    Are you a fan of the Myst games? Check out my Mod at http://www.mystrock.com/
    Catch me on Twitter: twitter.com/zenbane
  • DilipDilip Posts: 176
    Art3mis
    Why not supporting 7/8.1/10 all ..will increase number of eligible pc, it think its best idea for expansion.
  • MradrMradr Posts: 2,930 Valuable Player
    edited March 12
    Dilip said:
    Why not supporting 7/8.1/10 all ..will increase number of eligible pc, it think its best idea for expansion.
    As a programmer (and someone that just call me up about a Windows XP machine), there are some hard limits people just need to understand that are going to be out of a programmer control. Each OS offers different features that are not cross compatible meaning each os will have a different reaction. In most cases - even if we do get it to work - it will result in poor performance or scale ability. Then you need a support team to fix issues with that OS meaning more wasted resources - let alone the readability of security and support that windows needs to support a product. Windows 7 is already going out the next by end of the year. 

    Even if we limit it to just the newest os - 8.1/10 - there are still millions of users to target for that could double or triple the current count alone. The issue isn't so much the OS limitation as it is just what can run VR in the first place along with market demand for VR. That is whole other topic/thread.
  • DilipDilip Posts: 176
    Art3mis
    Never thought OS does matter too as i was in impression OS is just placeholder till you indulge in to some game/software and act like store for applications/game.
  • LZoltowskiLZoltowski Posts: 6,649 Volunteer Moderator
    Windows 7 will no longer be supported by Microsoft in less than a year.. Mainstream support ended in 2015. It will have the end of life status in January 2020. Meaning no more patches or security updates, running windows 7 after that date will be irresponsible. Windows 8 complete end of life is 2023 but it's an awful version of windows that deserves to die.
    Core i7-7700k @ 4.9 Ghz | 32 GB DDR4 Corsair Vengeance @ 3000Mhz | 2x 1TB Samsung Evo | 2x 4GB WD Black
    ASUS MAXIMUS IX HERO | MSI AERO GTX 1080 OC @ 2000Mhz | Corsair Carbide Series 400C White (RGB FTW!) 

    Be kind to one another :)
  • AlextendedAlextended Posts: 49
    Brain Burst
    edited March 12
    Don't have a wish list as I only got the Rift recently so it will take a big upgrade and a few years of fun before I move on to something else. So, Rift 2. Or Rift S 2 (assuming by that time they have managed to make inside out tracking as good as the current Rift. Preferably with Touch 2 to match whatever HMD upgrades with new interactivity. Something to one up the knuckles like the Touch one upped the Vive wands even if they all come later on. Whatever is best for me at the time of course. I'll probably need a PC upgrade first too, to power higher resolution sets and the more demanding VR games of that time. So yeah, maybe in ~4 or so years there will be enough of a jump in tech for me to upgrade VR after upgrading my PC.
    I want to add I hope it's a more modular design in the future so things like lenses, headphones and such can be more easily fully replaced (also with prescription lenses) without having to change the whole HMD when one of those gets damaged (maybe also add an audio jack so we don't have to use wireless headphones only). And a better foam and cover choices so we don't have to go to overpriced VR Cover when Vive users can get some no name 4 covers pack for pennies and have it be surprisingly good. Also make the inside out tracking sets compatible with the trackers for those who want more range or whatever.
  • pyroth309pyroth309 Posts: 655
    Neo
    Windows 7 will no longer be supported by Microsoft in less than a year.. Mainstream support ended in 2015. It will have the end of life status in January 2020. Meaning no more patches or security updates, running windows 7 after that date will be irresponsible. Windows 8 complete end of life is 2023 but it's an awful version of windows that deserves to die.
    WIndows 8 was >< to convincing me to run Linux. An abomination of an OS. 
  • kojackkojack Posts: 4,901 Volunteer Moderator
    Windows 7 doesn't have native USB 3 support, it needs third party drivers. Windows 8 and above have a full USB 3 stack integrated into the OS. For things which already have USB 3 issues like the rift, Windows 7 isn't going to help.



  • DilipDilip Posts: 176
    Art3mis
     Windows 8 complete end of life is 2023 but it's an awful version of windows that deserves to die.
    Ohh they knew it... that's why its converted to 8.1 and after adding that much sought after "Start Menu" those "Shut Down/ Restart/ Hibernate " buttons Microsoft patched most of glitches... IMO 8.1 is lighter and resource friendly when compared with 10 which constantly LEACHES your BANDWIDTH in name of LIVE UPDATES...God only knows what MS update..or just collect your activity information and your use of software data (Read Spying).  So yeah 8 because of those non  sense TILES deserve to DIE but Long live 8.1 o:)  
  • DilipDilip Posts: 176
    Art3mis
    kojack said:
    Windows 7 doesn't have native USB 3 support, it needs third party drivers. Windows 8 and above have a full USB 3 stack integrated into the OS. For things which already have USB 3 issues like the rift, Windows 7 isn't going to help.



    Now this is what can be called "Reasonable" reason...
  • jayhawkjayhawk Posts: 643
    Neo
    edited March 13
    I'd be happy with basically a PC version of Quest. It should be cheaper than Quest considering it won't need much of the internals.
  • jayhawkjayhawk Posts: 643
    Neo
    pyroth309 said:
    Windows 7 will no longer be supported by Microsoft in less than a year.. Mainstream support ended in 2015. It will have the end of life status in January 2020. Meaning no more patches or security updates, running windows 7 after that date will be irresponsible. Windows 8 complete end of life is 2023 but it's an awful version of windows that deserves to die.
    WIndows 8 was >< to convincing me to run Linux. An abomination of an OS. 
    Bad era for MS, they were fumbling everything, including xbox. About killed it.
«1
Sign In or Register to comment.