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

Developer? Click here to go to the Developer Forums.

Brace yourselves: Official Rift-S reveal is coming

1356736

Comments

  • ZenbaneZenbane Posts: 14,598 Valuable Player
    Mradr said:
    In correct - analog been doing fine without software for a long time.
    You're jumping the shark there.

    Software isn't need for everything. Instructions and software are not the same thing even though they work the same way.

    Software is literally a set of instructions.


    I already gave an example of why hardware would get better without the need of software -

    Incorrect. You made a general statement about hardware and intentionally ignored the role software plays in that hardware getting better.


    Hardware can still exist and function just fine without software.

    Are you still talking about computers? Regardless, you said yourself that "software is just a thought," so no... there isn't a piece of hardware that exists today that wasn't created as a result of "thought." By your own admission, all hardware requires software (thought) to work.


    Software on the other hand can't live without hardware
    Wrong. Using your own example about the "beads" to help with Math. The Math (software) came first, and the hardware comes second. Do you know what the first real computer is? The human brain. And the brain can very much carry out the Software (thought) that humans invent. Hardware came later when our brains proved to have limitations. Software first, sugar pie.

    Software doesn't care what resolution you are running at

    The Drivers (software) dictate otherwise. Uninstall all your drivers on your PC and let me know how that hardware works out for ya

    :D

    Are you a fan of the Myst games? Check out my Mod at http://www.mystrock.com/
    Catch me on Twitter: twitter.com/zenbane
  • ZenbaneZenbane Posts: 14,598 Valuable Player
    RedRizla said:
    @Mradr - I'm trying to work out what you are saying. Are you saying Oculus should make an expensive headset that only the rich people of this world can afford? Because if you that makes no sense what so ever to me. Who is going to continue to create software for something only a small amount of people own? Oculus want to sell millions of VR headsets not just hundreds or thousands, but millions. You can't reach that goal by making a headset that costs a fortune. But maybe I've misunderstood what you are trying to say.

    To get an idea of what Mradr is saying... just look at HTC. They made expensive hardware first, before there was enough software demand to warrant global consumer adoption. The result? 9 straight quarters of financial loss, and then selling IP to Google to avoid Bankruptcy.

    That's what happens when someone puts hardware first and software second. Financial ruin.
    Are you a fan of the Myst games? Check out my Mod at http://www.mystrock.com/
    Catch me on Twitter: twitter.com/zenbane
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,535 Valuable Player
    edited March 16
    Zenbane said:
    Mradr said:
    The problem is you said there would be no need - the problem is that humans always have a been creating things before there really is a need.
    Exactly. Humans created software before there was a need. Then hardware was developed to support it.

    It's no different than what we are doing right now with SSD and faster channel memory.

    All memory storage is controlled by Software.


    A customer doesn't need a SATA 4 speed when SATA3 is good enough for nearly 99% of the applications out there already - yet - we still have customer grade NvMe drives with read speeds in gig ranges.

    That "99%" figure is a fictitious number. The need increased due to the demand of Data (software) increasing. The current quote for data processing is, "There are 2.5 quintillion bytes of data created each day." That's software, and that creates the need for increase processing speed, memory, and storage.

    There are plenty of reasons why to make hardware better or faster without the need or thought of software controlling it in the first place.
    Hardware cannot function without the software telling it what to do.

    Going back to the oj topic - if Rift S is no better than Quest - then software wise - we wont be seeing a 4k pretty game with a ton of eye candy.

    Invalid assumption. Rift-S can be the same as Quest as an HMD specification, but the software ecosystem on a PC will drive it forward, and GPU's can respond to the demand of experiencing 4K in VR (software).

    I just gave an examle of a tool that wasn't built for that reason:) so no - a tool doesn't have to be developed for that reason - it can be made by mistake and later used as another tool. One cool thing about humans - we can make anything into a tool - but that doesn't mean we created the tool in the first place. Much to that - hardware can be created before software has a need for it or even a want. 

    That is true sweetie :D but you are wrong - I said it on purpous - but the idea that NvMe for customers is a bit pointless when customers themselves don't chunk that much data per day on their local device. SATA3 speed limits are already good enough for the 99% of the applications they're going to need such as for gaming, basic web stuff, and opening and closing applications. I think you are confusing customer grade with workstation grade or even enterprise grade of hardware.

    Again sweetie - hardware can function just fine without software telling it what to do:)

    Na, it's no different than my question before - if you could play on either of these witch would you pick:
     A system running at 1080p 120 FPS or a 4k at 60 FPS on a monitor that runs at 1080p or 4k at 60 Hzs?

    The only different is that the resolution or the monitor is going to be the same - you wont be able to get 4k res out of Quest/Rift S (if they are same spec) no matter how well your computer is or what hardware you are running with it. At best what you will trigger is SS or super sampling that will help with the recreation of a better looking image - but its still going to be running at whatever resolution your monitor supports as it is a physical limit of what can be display. Over all - it'll run MUCH MUCH smoother and you can have more objects loaded into the game - but visually it would still look the same in terms of resolution.  Granted - there is more to a visual and reaction than just resolution - I do wonder how they will look and function once they come out and are in hands on everyone.
  • ZenbaneZenbane Posts: 14,598 Valuable Player
    Mradr said:
    I just gave an examle of a tool that wasn't built for that reason:) so no - a tool doesn't have to be developed for that reason - it can be made by mistake and later used as another tool. One cool thing about humans - we can make anything into a tool - but that doesn't mean we created the tool in the first place. Much to that - hardware can be created before software has a need for it or even a want.
    This is a bit of a messy argument, but even if I were to agree, the flaw here is that you are creating an exception and treating it as the rule. That is invalid. The exception to the rule is not the rule.

    SATA3 speed limits are already good enough for the 99% of the applications

    That fictitious 99% figure completely ignores global enterprise. Fake news!


    hardware can function just fine without software telling it what to do

    False.


    if you could play on either of these witch would you pick:
     A system running at 1080p 120 FPS or a 4k at 60 FPS on a monitor that runs at 1080p or 4k at 60 Hzs?

    This is a software dependent question.

    Are you a fan of the Myst games? Check out my Mod at http://www.mystrock.com/
    Catch me on Twitter: twitter.com/zenbane
  • snowdogsnowdog Posts: 7,112 Valuable Player
    We'll technically HTC didn't make expensive hardware, unless you think the Rift being £10 cheaper is a big deal. What they failed to do was cut the price to match the Rift's price.

    Unless of course you're referring to the Vive Pro? They certainly cocked up with that one.

    And my human brain is a supercomputer B)
    "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
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,535 Valuable Player
    edited March 16
    RedRizla said:
    @Mradr - I'm trying to work out what you are saying. Are you saying Oculus should make an expensive headset that only the rich people of this world can afford? Because if you that makes no sense what so ever to me. Who is going to continue to create software for something only a small amount of people own? Oculus want to sell millions of VR headsets not just hundreds or thousands, but millions. You can't reach that goal by making a headset that costs a fortune. But maybe I've misunderstood what you are trying to say.


    There is like 5 different convocations going on LOL. Honestly - I can keep up with all of them - but boy does it confuse everyone else XD

    1) No, I think a low price headset is a wonderful idea :D no one ask me what I thought about a lower price point:) Zen sweetie should really watch out putting words into people mouths like that though:) it's going to cost him sooner or later.
    2) With that said - there are two markets that everyone is looking at wanting - the higher end and the lower end. Both have pros and cons to their wants and needs.
    3) People wanting the low end in cost are wishing for higher cost items and that doesn't make sense. For example, increasing the resolution + the fov + keep the same or lower hardware entry requirements + keep the old tracking method + a lower price point? I think that is some wishful thinking there:) Something will have to give up the ghost or we they increase the price.
    4) Software VS Hardware and why its a good idea to boost hardware just a bit so software can scale into the hardware better.
    5) Zen and I are discussing what came first - hardware or the software - the chicken or the egg :D

    @ Zen - if the brain is the first computer:) it would be hardware base - software didn't come around until many generation of life. The brain it self is just a bunch of neurons that forum a lump of matter that just had basic input output - we still see life forms with this basic biology still. Therefore - if your arguments if going to solo base on what came first of that - then it was hardware not software.
  • ZenbaneZenbane Posts: 14,598 Valuable Player
    edited March 16
    Mradr said:
    @ Zen - if the brain is the first computer:) it would be hardware base - software didn't come around until many generation of life. The brain it self is just a bunch of neurons that forum a lump of matter that just had basic input output - we still see life forms with this basic biology still. Therefore - if your arguments if going to solo base on what came first of that - then it was hardware not software.

    Ah yes, I did anticipate that you would consider the brain "hardware." But now we must explore the inner workings of "life" and how it is created. What comes first, the brain or the mind? The Brain may be the hardware, but the Mind is the Software.

    Afterall, the mind is not confined to the brain.

    This argument has taken quite the turn!

    "In yogic science, the brain is simply a physical manifestation of the mind itself. "
    Based on this theory... the Software came first, and the Hardware was secondary.



    Are you a fan of the Myst games? Check out my Mod at http://www.mystrock.com/
    Catch me on Twitter: twitter.com/zenbane
  • RedRizlaRedRizla Posts: 6,707 Valuable Player
    edited March 16
    Zenbane said:

    Afterall, the mind is not confined to the brain.

    This argument has taken quite the turn!

    "In yogic science, the brain is simply a physical manifestation of the mind itself. "
    Based on this theory... the Software came first, and the Hardware was secondary.




    That hurt my brain just trying to get my head around it  :p
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,535 Valuable Player
    edited March 16
    Zenbane said:
    Mradr said:
    @ Zen - if the brain is the first computer:) it would be hardware base - software didn't come around until many generation of life. The brain it self is just a bunch of neurons that forum a lump of matter that just had basic input output - we still see life forms with this basic biology still. Therefore - if your arguments if going to solo base on what came first of that - then it was hardware not software.

    Ah yes, I did anticipate that you would consider the brain "hardware." But now we must explore the inner workings of "life" and how it is created. What comes first, the brain or the mind? The Brain may be the hardware, but the Mind is the Software.

    Afterall, the mind is not confined to the brain.

    This argument has taken quite the turn!

    "In yogic science, the brain is simply a physical manifestation of the mind itself. "
    Based on this theory... the Software came first, and the Hardware was secondary. 

    lol yogic science will always win LOL

    Real science says that the hardware came first - input output - follow by reaction responses - and because I dont fully understand everything I am reading - specialize zones of actions to sensory data then finally logic and reasoning:) our "mind" came from that point on. True fact - our brains still grow and change until our late 20s. You are not the same "you" as a kid. Basically - the hardware was strong enough to run DOS - then follow into linux follow by a more complex OS such Windows Bob:)
  • ZenbaneZenbane Posts: 14,598 Valuable Player
    Mradr said:
    Real science says that the hardware came first

    No sir. Both science and history illustrate that software came first, in the form of Algorithms as far back as 300 BCE.

    I'll say it again, as you have not countered historical and scientific fact:

    Charles Babbage invented the “Analytical Engine” (a computer made out of gear wheels and levers and stuff) - that would have been the “first computer” during Victorian times.

    Ada Lovelace (a rich countess with a fondness for math and science - daughter of the poet Byron) took it upon herself to write a description of the machine - and included a program that she (probably) wrote in her description.

    Since Babbage never did finish building the Analytical Engine - Ada’s software existed for almost 100 years before the first working computers came along.


    Software came first according to science and history.
    Are you a fan of the Myst games? Check out my Mod at http://www.mystrock.com/
    Catch me on Twitter: twitter.com/zenbane
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,535 Valuable Player
    edited March 16
    We also found the first gate logic even before then alone back in Egypt - gate logic was even before math  it self! 1 and 0 / on and off before written history. Tools were created along side man as they found them to be useful - aka hardware existed in nature that was already producing computer like effects before man even existed. Heck nature was producing nuclear energy correct before we found out not to eat it XD 
  • ZenbaneZenbane Posts: 14,598 Valuable Player
    edited March 16
    Before Man created tools, they created ideas (software) and then they created the tools (hardware) to help Implement those ideas.

    There is no example in the history of Humanity, Earth, or the Cosmos that puts Hardware before Software.
    Are you a fan of the Myst games? Check out my Mod at http://www.mystrock.com/
    Catch me on Twitter: twitter.com/zenbane
  • RedRizlaRedRizla Posts: 6,707 Valuable Player
    I'm starting to think we need God himself to sort this argument out  :D
  • DaftnDirectDaftnDirect Posts: 5,222 Volunteer Moderator
    I'm here.
    Without reading everything that's been typed... it's too much! I would just like to chime in on the software or hardware debate (sorry if I repeat anything already said) but.....
    software and hardware organically evolve together, I'd say they both remain successful, provided one doesn't jump too far ahead of the other cos that's when things could stall.
    Especially if the hardware and software in question is very confined in respect to choice of what's available and what's technically possible.

    The Vive Pro only makes sense to enterprise users who have a business case, Pimax only makes sense to people who can risk throwing that kind of money at what seems to be emerging to be a flawed device. There just aren't enough people in those 2 camps to sustain an industry where all the players push too fast or charge too much.

    Organic evolution is what we must have.
    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 v1903 (18363.476)
  • LuluViBritanniaLuluViBritannia Posts: 466
    Trinity
    edited March 17
    Hey there,
    Just want to throw my two cents in that Hardware vs Software debate as well ^^.

    I think you guys should take a look at the best Asian philosophy point ever: the yin and the yang. That's a concept called Duality.
    By definition, a duality is a junction of two concepts that are both totally opposite and totally dependent. One is nothing without the other.
    That's exactly what the hardware/software relationship is.

    The original question was: "what drives the sales, software or hardware?". The answer, obviously, is: both. VR headsets won't sell well without great apps, but said great apps wouldn't sell if there was no headset for us to play it.

    For example, let's say we're designing a flying car. You develop the software for the embedded system (software), but you struggle to design the vehicle itself. Will you be able to sell the software you managed to create? Absolutely not : there's no car to run it. On the other hand, if you manage to make the flying car but struggle to write the software, you won't sell much vehicle either.

    Another example: If each next-gen console sells well, it's not only because of the games. It's also because the consoles are more powerful than the previous ones. Try and create a brand new console that is only as powerful as the Dreamcast, you'll see how people react.

    Another less hypothetical example? Just take the number of people who consider current VR is not good enough for them. They don't even care about the games on it: as long as the visual clarity (hence: hardware) is not good enough, they won't buy it.


    Again, this is a Yin/Yang situation. Without hardware evolution, you'll hit a rock even with the best software you can do. Without software evolution, you'll drown with your powerful hardware.
    Each concept is highly dependent on the other. Hardware is improved to run better software ; Software is improved to create better hardware.

    In the end, there are four solutions to get:

    - bad hardware with bad software,
    - bad hardware with good software,
    - good hardware with bad software,
    - good hardware with good software,

    The best solution among them is obvious, so obvious I can't believe you've been arguing about that.
    As for the n°2, that one is highly subjective so then again, there's no need to argue. Some will prefer good hardware with poor software (i.e: VR headset with arcade games) while others will prefer poor hardware with good software (i.e: pancake gaming: great games but with limited controllers :) ).

    So stop trying to prove each other wrong, you are both right xD!
    Current VR results imo:
    - Great small apps. Great ports of bigger games.
    - Great VR-specific features. Not enough showcased!!!
    - Too many actors in the industry, the market is totally broken.


    My hopes for VR next gen:

    - Better ratio between visual quality and power needs. No more godrays and less SDE.
    - Full Body Tracking.


    "If you don't mind, do you want me to take you there? Where dreams come true."
  • RuneSR2RuneSR2 Posts: 3,726 Valuable Player
    edited March 17
    MowTin said:
    RuneSR2 said:
    I'm really fond of my 3 sensors and love the tracking. Unless Oculus can make even better tracking somehow (and not just "nearly as good"), I'd greatly appreciate being able to use my sensors with a new HMD. 

    Well not sure I'll upgrade soon, I really love my Rift CV1. We have a special bond, I even like the SDE to some degree - like scanlines in my MAME arcade games :blush:
    Aren't you the guy who cranks up the super sampling to 2.0 even if it kills your frame rate? But you love the SDE? :)
    Yup - but ss 2.0 doesn't kill my frame rate. In Shadow Legend I mostly get solid 90 fps. Same in a most other games like for example Moss, Mage's Tale, Transference, Beat Saber,  Torn, Transpose, Fisherman's Tale, Windlands 2 etc. - but of course there are games like Lone Echo and Obduction where you have to chose between "90 fps + ss < 2" or "45 fps asw + ss=2", where I often prefer the latter. 
    If we get a new HMD with higher res that may mean I won't need to crank up ss as much a now. Not really trying to defend SDE, but our brains fill in the holes, which is why SDE to some extend may help produce a perceived sharper picture and help disguise some pixels, much the same happens when using scanlines in MAME arcade games (image quality looks more sharp, like using a higher res). I read that some users trying higher res in WMR HMDs experienced a more "PC-like" image where you more easily could see individual pixels (and needed antialiasing to a higher extend), which diminished their immersion. My point being that SDE and the CV1 lenses may help provide a special illusion. For games where I constantly move I rarely notice SDE (and god rays), but yes SDE and god rays are annoying when watching movies. 

    My main problem with higher res is that it probably will require more GPU power to get 90 fps (like Vive Pro, even HTC admitted that the higher res wasn't free). Currently a lot of users seem happy for CV1 ss 1.0, but if you increase HMD res by 80% (or something like that) getting 90 fps in current Rift CV1 games will require rendering a lot more pixels. Since I'm already pushing many more pixel than ss 1.0 requires, I'm not very concerned about my own performance, but the last thing VR needs right now is to make it even more inaccessible to common users. Interesting if Oculus can make a higher res HMD compared to CV1 without increasing hardware requirements (foveated rendering could be one method, but I'd be surprised to see that in 2019)... 

    The main question for me may be if Rift-S + ss 1.5 is significantly better than Rift CV1 + ss 2.0 (plus tracking considerations of course)...
    Intel i7 7700K (4.5 GHz); MSI GeForce GTX 1080 8GB Gaming X (oc 2100 MHz gpu boost, 11 GHz mem speed); 16GB Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3200 MHz; MSI Z270I Gaming Pro Carbon AC (VR-Ready) mainboard; Samsung 960 Evo M.2 SSD + Toshiba P300 HD; Windows 10 OS; Valve Index and Oculus Rift CV1 - the latter nearly always using super sampling 2.0. 

    "Ask not what VR can do for you – ask what you can do for VR"
  • RuneSR2RuneSR2 Posts: 3,726 Valuable Player
    edited March 17
    pyroth309 said:
    Not to overanalyze a rumor but, to expand upon my thinking...

    If the Rift-S is just a quest without the SoC it kind of confirms my suspicions that VR just needs more power than is available. (Outside of outrageous price points for average gamers). As I mentioned when I bought my Odyssey+, it was eye opening at how far away we are from me getting the kind of clarity I want. I ran into several games that had performance problems that I didn't on the Rift. And it is a relatively small bump in resolution. The amount of power I needed to super sample the O+ significantly, coupled with the results not being worth the loss of performance made me realize we're far off from the clarity I'd like. So I can't blame Oculus for going this route until something like foveated rendering is ready to leap us forward. 

    This is much in line with my previous post. I think Oculus easily could make a new HMD with awesome specs if they wanted to - but what's the point if you can't even get 90 fps using a 2080 Ti... Already using the old 2160x1200 res games like Lone Echo and Robe Recall easily require a 2080 Ti for solid 90 fps and optimal image quality. It seems we often tend to forget that fact. Personally I'd love 4K - or 8K - HMD res in 90 fps in high-poly games like upcoming Lone Echo 2 and Stormland, but unless GPU power requirements somehow are reduced that may require 2 to 4x the power of a GTX 1080 (Ti) or RTX 2070/2080 (non-Ti). - ok. maybe less if there limited need for antialiasing due to the res, but you get the idea...
    Intel i7 7700K (4.5 GHz); MSI GeForce GTX 1080 8GB Gaming X (oc 2100 MHz gpu boost, 11 GHz mem speed); 16GB Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3200 MHz; MSI Z270I Gaming Pro Carbon AC (VR-Ready) mainboard; Samsung 960 Evo M.2 SSD + Toshiba P300 HD; Windows 10 OS; Valve Index and Oculus Rift CV1 - the latter nearly always using super sampling 2.0. 

    "Ask not what VR can do for you – ask what you can do for VR"
  • pyroth309pyroth309 Posts: 1,568 Valuable Player
    edited March 17
    RuneSR2 said:
    This is much in line with my previous post. I think Oculus easily could make a new HMD with awesome specs if they wanted to - but what's the point if you can't even get 90 fps using a 2080 Ti... Already using the old 2160x1200 res games like Lone Echo and Robe Recall easily require a 2080 Ti for solid 90 fps and optimal image quality. It seems we often tend to forget that fact. Personally I'd love 4K - or 8K - HMD res in 90 fps in high-poly games like upcoming Lone Echo 2 and Stormland, but unless GPU power requirements somehow are reduced that may require 2 to 4x the power of a GTX 1080 (Ti) or RTX 2070/2080 (non-Ti). - ok. maybe less if there limited need for antialiasing due to the res, but you get the idea...
    Yea Lone Echo was one I was referring to that gave me problems with my Odyssey+ with performance that I didn't with the Rift. I will say though once I got it fine tuned it looked incredible. There's definitely some benefits to the higher res for sure. I've noticed recently with the swapping to my 49" TV to my Rift to my O+ and all around, that the FoV of the Rift bothers me a lot more recently. It never did in the past. Kind of disappointed if we don't get at least a ten degree bump. 
  • LZoltowskiLZoltowski Posts: 6,774 Volunteer Moderator
    edited March 17
    A Quick reminder that "Fixing" other peoples comments by quoting them then changing the content is not allowed. Thanks.
    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 :)
  • pyroth309pyroth309 Posts: 1,568 Valuable Player
    A Quick reminder that "Fixing" other peoples comments by quoting them then changing the content is now allowed. Thanks.
    Ah didn't realize my bad. I will remove. 
  • HiThere_HiThere_ Posts: 1,276
    3Jane
    For a critical upgrade I'd want eye tracking, because then you can have a wide FOV, using a single big screen instead of two screens, without sacrificing pixel density, without requiring a huge GPU upgrade, and without all the physical IPD slider hardware making things heavier and more complicated then they should be.

    As for what we're getting : I just hope it's not another child sized headset, like my toy CV1  :)

  • HiThere_HiThere_ Posts: 1,276
    3Jane
    A Quick reminder that "Fixing" other peoples comments by quoting them then changing the content is now allowed. Also I'm gay.
    If you say so.
  • Shadowmask72Shadowmask72 Posts: 3,775 Valuable Player
    A Quick reminder that Shadowmask72 is awesome and you should listen to what he says. Thanks.
    Hehe. >:)


    System Specs: RTX 2080 ti , i9 9900K CPU, 16 GB DDR 4 RAM, Win 10 64 Bit OS.
  • LZoltowskiLZoltowski Posts: 6,774 Volunteer Moderator
    Ahem! ...

    My wallet is ready for the Quest ... can't wait for tomorrow!

    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 :)
  • bigmike20vtbigmike20vt Posts: 4,074 Valuable Player
    edited March 17
    A Quick reminder that "Fixing" other peoples comments by quoting them then changing the content is now allowed. Thanks.

    Honestly I don't really care but why on god's green earth would you do this? Changing rules to allow this is one of the most bone headed decisions I have seen on a forum. No offence meant but it really pisses me of when people deliberately alter the meaning of my posts by miss quoting.

    Edit after 3 hrs sleep last night am wondering if I missed sonething?
    Fiat Coupe, gone. 350Z gone. Dirty nappies, no sleep & practical transport incoming. Thank goodness for VR :)
  • inovatorinovator Posts: 2,094 Valuable Player
    I'm like a kid waiting for Christmas! I hate the sensors and set up. I love using the rift but I find myself lately using my Playstation vr more and only using the rift only on weekends.
  • snowdogsnowdog Posts: 7,112 Valuable Player
    I actually read that as not lol :o :D
    "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
  • nalex66nalex66 Posts: 4,931 Volunteer Moderator
    Same, didn’t see the now until it was pointed out. 
    i7 5820K @ 4.25 GHz | EVGA GTX 1080 SC | Gigabyte GA-X99-UD4 | Corsair DDR4 3000 32 GB | Corsair HX 750W
    Corsair Hydro H100i | Samsung SSDs: 860 Evo 1 TB, 850 Evo 1 TB, 840 Evo 1 TB | Seagate BarraCuda HDD 3 TB
  • DaftnDirectDaftnDirect Posts: 5,222 Volunteer Moderator
    Ahem! ...

    My wallet is ready for the Quest ... can't wait for tomorrow!

    I just had to check I hadn't missed a Quest release date announcement! Its GDC on Monday...  calm... calm.
    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 v1903 (18363.476)
Sign In or Register to comment.