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

Developer? Click here to go to the Developer Forums.

Rift S Disappointment Thread so Oculus knows our feedback!

124678

Comments

  • ShineHunterShineHunter Posts: 26
    Brain Burst
    RedRizla said:
    OmegaM4N said:
    Techy111 said:

    His face, i feel for him, must have thought he had won the lottery. lol

    I had a strange encounter like this walking through my town once. There was this girl with two lads and she did exactly what this woman did, but did hug and kiss me. At first I thought she must have mistaken me for someone else, but she just walked away after doing it leaving me not knowing what to think. I have to admit for the rest of the day I thought I was Gods gift to women :D
    When you say women. 
    Image result for transgender gif
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,535 Valuable Player
    edited March 22
    TC1999 said:
    Yes PC hardware is an absolute issue and producing an HMD that only a small minority or people with 1080ti or 2080ti can use is also not the answer. Pimax have only sold around 6000 to 8000 units that's ok for them but a drop in the ocean for any company trying to build a platform and infrastructure.  

    I feel if they had given us a tethered Quest with a larger FOV of 140 degress that would at least been interesting and a pathway to what the future can hold. This would have been possible to run on a mid level PC. 
    We still have static FOV as a setting we could've used to increase the resolution while providing just better lenses over what the CV1 had. Plus - there is new hardware coming out that is 25-30% faster than what 10s provided. Then even then both companies are going to be pushing soon a new render methods that also will help with shader performance by another 10-25%. On top of that - end of this year we are getting next generation cards possible from AMD and/or start of next year from NV. That year gap is large enough to allow a slightly harder requirement that will get fill in over time naturally. 

    I can understand why not increasing FOV - without eye tracking - that just can't really happen and you are better off looking at Pimax as to what a increase in FOV right now without supporting methods and hardware just doesn't fly so well with everyone.

    Na, if they would've gave us a tethered Quest with a few more cameras I dont think we have so many questions/worrying on what Oculus is planning here going forward.

    Keeping it in a nice price range is the way to go with nice features.. Removing features to save on cost just to bring out a low cost device - is just backwards unless you already have TWO options in place for that. They don't. Period. We just don't know their plans going forward now and what it means for the CV2. If Rift S is their going forward product - then it has a lot of catching up to do because it went backwards in many key areas that everyone else was use to having in a higher quality device from Oculus.


    Except that isn't what they did - Honestly if the did the following I feel like Rift S and the current enthusiasts wouldn't be saying much:
    1) Change out the lens for better ones (the idea it has to be GO lenses is just example of what people want and not the product aka give us better lenses)
    2) Change out the panels for higher resolution and full RGB only.  (Don't fucking change anything else - the design and lay out was just fine for everyone. OLED even with its short falls still look amazing in the end).
    3) Aim for more comfort - but don't take away anything else.
    4) Improve for options later on (add that jack for people that do not want to use headphones and/or micro phone).
    5) Honestly - lets make one change here - lets go for the new tracking method to help lower the requirements into getting into VR. Explain to everyone that, hey, this is a refresh so it will still provide a good enough experience, but may not be 100% the same as we had before. The benefit here is that now we don't have to deal with senors and the upside it removes more problems the old tracking had. 
    6) Remove some of the extra design elements for a more stream line lower cost shell while keeping the basic still there. For example removing the cloth around the headset (I don't mean the cloth inside) just the cloth on the outside.
    7) Don't remove current features (such as IDP adjustment)
    8) Fix some key issues of the current design. For example, instead of running a cable between the headphone - run flat wires that slide across each other to make the contact so nothing is stretch or pull when adjusting the head strap.
    Price - 399 or 349$.
    *I've open my Oculus Rift - there are more screws (and I mean thic screws too) in that thing then there is anything else. A LOT of plastic is used just for the shape and the shell. They could remove almost another 20% of that plastic off and have a better cost while providing the same design and look. Most of the metal that was use inside the headset could be turn into hard plastic as well or use another material instead while providing less weight.


  • CyionCyion Posts: 13
    NerveGear
    edited March 22
    Cyion said:
    Hello Oculus,

    I just would like to express my severe disappointment at the now confirmed features of the Oculus Rift S.

    Here are the deal breakers for me (ranked from biggest deal breaker to smallest):

    #1 - Lack of outside-in tracking (was hoping for something of the level of tracking that the vive has without having to plug 3 usb sensors in and all the hell that comes with that because of crappy motherboards/cords etc.)

         The reason this bothers me so much is I play games like Echo Arena and you need AMAZING tracking, I am constantly pushing off walls that are completely behind my back without looking and inside out tracking is insufficient.  I also will take a swing behind my back without looking and again inside out tracking won't cut it.

    #2 - Lack of a physical IPD adjustment

       My IPD has to be bang on or I end up getting headaches after playing longer then 2 hours.  If it is even 1 mm off, the headaches happen, if it is set just right, I can play for 8 hour plus with no side effects.  I cannot play test a rift S to find out if it will give me headaches for more then 2 hours.

    #3 - No option to set your refresh rate to 90 Hz

        If you want the default refresh rate to be 80 Hz fine, but give me the option to allow it to be 90 Hz.  When the fps gets lower than 90 fps I notice it and it does not feel good for me.

    #4 - Lack of quality headphone included with the headset

       I love the sound on my rift CV1 and I will not accept anything less and I don't want to have another wire that my hand can bump into when I am playing highly competitive games since I would have to plug in my own headphones.

    The small jump in resolution doesn't outweigh all the negatives I have mentioned above and a slight increase in the FOV would have been nice!

    I think Oculus has failed in that they should have been developing the Rift S and another new Rift headset that is geared towards those enthusiasts who are willing to pay a bit more for a QUALITY headset.  You have made an AFFORDABLE headset that will get a lot of new people into VR but you have neglected the wants of a LARGE CORE (enthusiasts) of your fans!

    Your future headsets has to have a outside in tracking option and an physical adjustable IPD or I will never buy another oculus headset.  At this point I don't want to wait another 2 years for a new proper headset that meets these requirements and my money will likely go to another company that pulls this off in the mean time.  I wish I bought all of my games on the steam store now.  Wouldn't have imagined Oculus's next headset would be so contrary to what I want.

    Sincerely,

    Cyion
    I think these complaints are either going to be a non-issue or there is nothing officially released to confirm your complaints.

    #1- According to the stuff that has been released to date by Oculus (not some "leak" from the dark corners of the internet), the headset is not confirmed to be non-360 tracking and I doubt that they would release a headset under the Rift name that wouldn't have 360 tracking. Especially in 2019.

    #2- With the new lenses, there is no need for an IPD adjustment due to the wide viewing angle. It's the same reason it was removed on the Go.
    #3- Where are you reading that it will be sub 90Hz?
    #4- I actually agree with this.

    I would be weary to call this headset a failure before there is any more official information that has been released. It is your choice to not buy the headset, I am not here to make you buy it. But using a public voice to negatively review a product with initial launch information is a little premature in my opinion.

    If the poster wants to share their sources of this information, I would be more than happy to read it and change my mind but any third party website should be taken with a grain of salt.

    ~Chump_Change
    I think this video covers most of the information:


    The guy in this video says that tracking is taking a slight step backwards as far as ingame performance, in favour of easier setup for noobies, this is unacceptable to me because they are talking about using inside-out tracking on the next headset after the rift S as well in addition to my previous complaints about tracking.  Some people cannot use the oculus go because they get headaches because of the lack of a proper IPD adjustment, it's not worth it for paying less.  The headset runs at 80 Hz, it is mentioned in the video.

    My other source would be from MRTV videos, he was at GDC.
  • HiThere_HiThere_ Posts: 1,276
    3Jane
    Feels like they took an Oculus Quest, replaced it's two screens with the single older and lower resolution GO screen, probably replaced the storage capacity and higher end mobile hardware found in the Quest with lesser versions too, added a 5th camera on top to reduce the extent of the hand tracking downgrade, and somehow ended up at the same high price as the Quest, despite using older and inferior internal hardware for the CV1-S...

    Which works out for anyone wanting to use a GO screen with Quest level tracking, for the price of a Quest, on their PC, in 2019 and beyond... I guess.

    Who the hell wanted that ?

    Specs should have been : 499$ (an extra 100$ spent on twin oled screens, maintaining the audio quality of the CV1, and not cutting corners), running at ~45FPS on low-end PC hardware (using software tricks to generate 90 FPS), and running at 90FPS on high-end PC hardware. Then you can worry about reducing it's price down to 399$ later on, because the product wasn't already outdated before being announced.

  • zork2001zork2001 Posts: 544
    Trinity
    edited March 22

    The worst part it sounds like it has a smaller FOV like a 95 degree or even lower… ya not the way to go on any PC HMD.


    The way I see what happened is the came out with the rift and than started to develop the next one. That was not going so hot, so they then decided where it was really at was going to be a wireless stand alone experience. Carmack has been pushing that since day 1. Of course coming out with a stand alone is completely different set of requirements from a PC HMD, compromises will need to be made especially if you want to keep the cost down. At the last second they think now that we came up with this stand alone HMD with all its compromises is there anyway we can also make that into a PC HMD as well. We are going to be manufacturing all these parts anyway and we can pawn it off as a new HMD 1.5 or whatever. That's exactly what they did, now we are left 3 years latter with this disappointment. I mean seriously it would have been better had they just taken the current rift and slapped a higher resolution screen on it. I bet you the manufacturing cost are going to be cheaper for the Rift S than the current Rift, that's why they were so thrilled to stop making it .
  • RedRizlaRedRizla Posts: 6,705 Valuable Player
    Where are people getting it's smaller FOV from? I've read it is the same as CV1.
  • zork2001zork2001 Posts: 544
    Trinity
    edited March 22
    I am sure it says its the same but everyone who has tried it is saying FOV feels tighter in than the rift and vive.

    The thing with FOV is you can claim whatever you want there is no real accurate way to measure it.


  • snowdogsnowdog Posts: 7,102 Valuable Player
    TC1999 said:
    Not sure what to say but disappointed it feels like the original people who invested in oculus not longer matter, may be this is true in the larger scheme of things, but it still stings. 

    Waiting 3 years for an exciting update and we get a Go with tracking, hmm. Well I had a Go and had to return it due headaches which I never have with the rift.

    I like the inside out tracking but thats all. 
    Where is the following: 
    140 degree field of view, they have lenses that can do this from 2017 referenced by Carmack in his OC4 Talk. 
    Why not the same resolution as the Quest
    Why not the Quest Screens with full IDP adjustment not software

    I would have been over the moon if they had done that, instead a race to the bottom. 

    Disappointing, sorry. 


    Your headaches with the Go might be down to the Go not having an adjustable IPD setting, the IPD of the Oculus Go is permanently stuck at 64mm. The Rift S does have adjustable IPD settings, in software, but we have no news on the range of settings possible yet. I saw that someone at GDC tried it with an IPD of 70mm and they didn't experience any problems.

    With regards to the 140 degree FOV, increasing the FOV by so much will need a substantial increase in display resolution which, in turn, will need eye tracking and foveated rendering to be used. If you increase the FOV and don't increase the resolution that much you'll end up with a low PPD (pixels per degree) and it'll look like a pile of old pants.

    And the development of Oculus headsets in a timeline goes like this, from first developed to last developed from left to right:

    Oculus Quest -> Oculus Go -> Oculus Rift S

    Carmack wanted the Quest to have BOE's fast-switch LCDs in them but time didn't allow for it. If the Quest and Go had switched places in that timeline all three headsets would have LCDs in. Now Oculus COULD have added 1600p lenses in the Rift S but that would mean that the minimum and recommended specs of the Rift S would have changed. Those specs are three years old now, and at the time they were high-end specs but these days not so much given how much time has passed and Moore's Law. By not increasing the specs needed (by having a larger resolution and dropping the refresh rate to 80Hz) they've increased the number of PCs able to run the Rift S rather than decreasing the amount of PCs capable of running a higher resolution version.

    Abrash at OC5 said that we were years away from the technology in Half Dome being ready, in terms of the hardware inside the headset so I'm personally not expecting Half Dome prototype's features being in a commercial Oculus headset until 2022.

    We'll see the CV2, based on the Half Moon prototype, in 2022 and a CV2 S update in 2025 imo.
    "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
  • snowdogsnowdog Posts: 7,102 Valuable Player
    RedRizla said:
    Where are people getting it's smaller FOV from? I've read it is the same as CV1.

    It's actually slightly larger than the Rift, the problem is that the headset has the option to pop out the faceplate to make room for glasses wearers so I'm guessing the people that have tried it and said that the FOV is lower have tried it after someone wearing glasses has done, so it appears that the FOV is lower.
    "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
  • KoBak07KoBak07 Posts: 42
    Brain Burst
    snowdog said:

    Abrash at OC5 said that we were years away from the technology in Half Dome being ready, in terms of the hardware inside the headset so I'm personally not expecting Half Dome prototype's features being in a commercial Oculus headset until 2022.

    We'll see the CV2, based on the Half Moon prototype, in 2022 and a CV2 S update in 2025 imo.
    Unfortunately for me it's rather looking like that FB is trying to go the same route that consoles went. Release as low as spec device at as low of a price possible, and let developers build games for this lowest hardware requirements.

    I understand why they built the Quest, you have to start somewhere on that road. I don't think that its anything interesting for people who started with the better end of the Gen 1 hardware. What kind of VR immersion would come from something that is build on already obsolete mobile phone chip, when we are talking about having to make compromises to drive PCVR for a higher resolution, with graphics power already 10-40X that of the mobile SOC.

    I just feel, they wanted to dumb down PCVR as much as possible, so that there is not that big of a gap with the Quest. Almost Deja Vu with Sony and MSFT paying off AAA devs to downgrade games on PCs to "keep parity"

    Very disappointed with the Rift S, not necessarily because they are maybe trying to release a more accessible headset option for PC VR, but rather that all things point to them exiting the mid/high end market. First alarm was Iribe leaving, then now replacing their PCVR solution with an overall downgraded product, one build by Lenovo, who I would argue built the by far the shittiest WMR headset before.

  • snowdogsnowdog Posts: 7,102 Valuable Player
    They will ALWAYS have a high end PC VR headset on the way because they need them to test out new technology that enthusiasts are willing to pay for before said technology matures and becomes cheap enough to be included in both of their standalone headsets.

    High-end PC VR headsets aren't going anywhere, they're just using the tick tock model for 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
  • ZenbaneZenbane Posts: 14,572 Valuable Player
    snowdog said:
    They will ALWAYS have a high end PC VR headset on the way because they need them to test out new technology that enthusiasts are willing to pay for before said technology matures and becomes cheap enough to be included in both of their standalone headsets.

    High-end PC VR headsets aren't going anywhere, they're just using the tick tock model for them.

    Agreed. The biggest problem with the current landscape is that only Oculus with the Rift CV1 has the "perfect" overall experience from HMD to Touch controllers. Everything else feels like a sacrifice/downgrade in comparison, in one way or another. Once we have a better level playing field, then high-end PCVR as a niche market will be badass!
    Are you a fan of the Myst games? Check out my Mod at http://www.mystrock.com/
    Catch me on Twitter: twitter.com/zenbane
  • rVRclosetrVRcloset Posts: 369
    Trinity
    I was really disappointed as well about the Rift S, been hoping for a new rift some time now.
    But I don't think it's all bad, I welcome the inside out tracking! 
    With one sensor in the closet for sim racing and two in the hallway outside the closet I often have tracking issues, and have to disconect and reconnect my sensors constantly.. .

    But why get rid of the headphones Oculus??
    Really like my Rift headphones! And if you improve on comfort, how comfortable will it be with another pair of headphones on our heads with the Rift S!?.. . No thanks!
    Also find it weird that the Quest will get better rez and screens than the Rift S..

    So sadly I'm going to pass on this.. 
    But if you would keep the headphones, put in the oled screens, lens and rez as for the Quest and I would buy this in a heartbeat!!
    You can call it The Rift S+ :)






    The Closet Sim Rig
    Aourus Pro Z390 - i7 8086K 32GB Ram - MSI RTX 2080 Ti Gaming X Trio 11GB - Windows 10  / GT Omega WS - NLR V3 - RS6 - Jetseat kw-908 / Fanatec CSW 2.5 / Fanatec ClubSport V3 pedals / Fanatec SQ Shifter 1.5 / Fanatec CS HB V.1.5 / HE SQ Shifter / SHH Shifter / TH8A Shifter / G27 Shifter - Button Box / DSD Button Box / BBJ Button Box / Wind simulator / Rift - S
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,535 Valuable Player
    edited March 23
    Zenbane said:
    snowdog said:
    They will ALWAYS have a high end PC VR headset on the way because they need them to test out new technology that enthusiasts are willing to pay for before said technology matures and becomes cheap enough to be included in both of their standalone headsets.

    High-end PC VR headsets aren't going anywhere, they're just using the tick tock model for them.

    Agreed. The biggest problem with the current landscape is that only Oculus with the Rift CV1 has the "perfect" overall experience from HMD to Touch controllers. Everything else feels like a sacrifice/downgrade in comparison, in one way or another. Once we have a better level playing field, then high-end PCVR as a niche market will be badass!
    I agree with this statement - we need an AMD of things to Intel of things of Oculus. I hope Steam might release their HMD as that might be able to keep/combat Oculus on a store to store front - but knowing them - that might never happen.
  • Devlin-DarksideDevlin-Darkside Posts: 130
    Art3mis
    All this has made me have a harder look at HTC stuff
  • edmgedmg Posts: 1,152
    Wintermute
    rVRcloset said:
    But why get rid of the headphones Oculus??
    Because the Go-style speakers in the headband work very well for casual users.
  • RedRizlaRedRizla Posts: 6,705 Valuable Player
    All this has made me have a harder look at HTC stuff

    I suspect HTC will not stick with outside in tracking which is something to note.
  • Devlin-DarksideDevlin-Darkside Posts: 130
    Art3mis
    RedRizla said:
    All this has made me have a harder look at HTC stuff

    I suspect HTC will not stick with outside in tracking which is something to note.
    Well looking at the cosmos I think you are probably right. I dont need super accurate tracking so much though as I don't play energetic stuff like beat sabre etc. For me it is the resolution so HP Reverb and a 2080ti might be better.
  • edmgedmg Posts: 1,152
    Wintermute
    RedRizla said:
    I suspect HTC will not stick with outside in tracking which is something to note.
    No-one is going to stick with outside-in tracking. It's a technological dead-end.
  • Little.Robot.FairyLittle.Robot.Fairy Posts: 20
    NerveGear
    edited March 23
    Will I able to use my Oculus "camera", the camera accessories for Oculus Rift that are outside in tracking? I bought three of then and have been considering buying a 4th for a while now. If the new inside out cameras are in any way a tracking downgrade, I would rather use the accessories I get with the original CV1. Plus I bought them, and might as well use them.

    If I can't use my cameras, that's really disappointing because what I want most out of VR right now isn't better screens, it's better tracking. I definitely don't want to buy a Rift S from my Rift CV1 if it's a downgrade in any way on tracking. It has several more cameras than Windows Mixed Reality headsets have, but I don't know if it's enough to overcome the shortcomings. The reason I prefer my Rift to Windows Mixed Reality is because the tracking is very difficult to put up with and not nearly as good as Rift. Good tracking is kind of the major reason I enjoy Rift. And why I've found Windows Mixed Reality a big disappointment. If adding all these extra Inside Out cameras to the headset is enough to make the tracking as good as the original CV1 Rift, then that's fine. But if it isn't, then that's a downgrade.

    And that's a disappointment. And means I will want to keep my original Rift. The problem is, I may not have a choice. I've had to send my Rift in for repairs several times by now, and while I've gotten luck this time, I don't know how long it will last. With them stopping production of CV1 Rifts, and Rift S being a replacement and not a third pillar, that means I can't go back to what I'm anticipating will still be the better tracking method. Because of this, I'm kind of in a rush to get an extra Rift camera and possibly even an extra CV1 Rift.

    As a Samsung Odyssey+ and several other WMR owner now, I have to say that, while a better screen resolution is wonderful, it isn't nearly as important as tracking for a fun VR experience. The last thing you want is to lose your hands inexplicably in the middle of play. And I feel like I made a mistake by buying WMR headsets instead of just saving up for a Vive.

    As such, if I won't be able to use the original Rift outside in tracking method with Rift anymore, if anything happens to my CV1, I won't be replacing it with a Rift S. I'll be waiting for the real Rift 2, and in the meantime, saving for a Vive. No a Rift S, or an HP Reverb, as nice as the resolution sounds. But what I want most out of VR right now, and what I think is most important to VR at the moment; good tracking. I already really wanted Full Body Tracking and Finger Tracking most from VR and I made a thread several months ago saying that was what I wanted and needed most from VR at the moment, better tracking and more kinds of tracking. But Windows Mixed Reality offers worse tracking than Rift, and it feels like, I fear, that Rift is going backwards in this area. Leaving only Vive who prioritizes what I think they should; good tracking and more tracking options.

    I'm really looking forward to Vive Knuckles at this point, and I wish I had invested in a Vive far sooner. Any direction for VR that doesn't prioritize tracking, isn't a direction for me. I can easily put up with 10 less FPS, even though we as an industry should be moving towards 120Hz/FPS VR and gaming in general. And I can put up with LCD screens, WMR mostly uses LCD and I think they look gorgeous. But I firmly believe that the most important thing that needs improving in VR, and is definitely the most important thing for me, is tracking. I can't put up with Inside Out tracking if it means being even slightly worse than the original Rift. And I don't think that's an acceptable compromise.

    I'm not inspired confidence by the Rift S and by Inside Out tracking so far. And if it is a downgrade, I'm afraid I'm going to jump ship and buy a Vive. Possibly even selling my Rift and WMR headsets in the meantime to pay for it if Knuckles is announced and released soon. I hate to do that because I do enjoy my games on the Oculus Store and I like having several options. But if the Rift S is as much of a downgrade as I fear it is, and this signals the direction of Rift and Oculus, I'm better off investing wholly in the Vive ecosystem instead.
  • MAC_MAN86MAC_MAN86 Posts: 2,262
    Wintermute
    Plus we now need Headphone accessories if we don't want a downgrade. It's a severe bad choice to do the same as Go when this is presently Oculus TOP OF RANGE VR UNIT!
  • ZenbaneZenbane Posts: 14,572 Valuable Player
    edmg said:
    RedRizla said:
    I suspect HTC will not stick with outside in tracking which is something to note.
    No-one is going to stick with outside-in tracking. It's a technological dead-end.

    To that end, everything is a technological dead-end. Even the VR HMD's. One day we'll replace them with glasses. Then contact lenses. Then brain chip implants.
    Are you a fan of the Myst games? Check out my Mod at http://www.mystrock.com/
    Catch me on Twitter: twitter.com/zenbane
  • jayhawkjayhawk Posts: 812
    3Jane
    edited March 23
    RuneSR2 said:
    jayhawk said:
    Are you going to notice a difference between 80 and 90hz? So far no one seems to.

    Would you consciously notice the difference between 80 and 70 Hz on a LCD (LCDs are flicker-free); would you notice the difference between 70 and 60 Hz on a LCD? I bet many persons wouldn't.
    Not a great comparison. As you get lower in Hz, a difference of 10 becomes more noticeable. I absolutely would notice the difference between 10hz and 20hz. Only the most trained would ever notice the difference between 120hz 130hz. Question here is are we going to notice 90 to 80. I'm not going to speculate until I see it for myself.
  • MadSheogorathMadSheogorath Posts: 1
    NerveGear
    edited March 23
    When company puts marketing in first place - it gains earnings. But loses progress. Though progress most likely brings much more earnings in long terms. Hard to understand, but so many examples... Well it's Vive's turn now I guess.
  • edmgedmg Posts: 1,152
    Wintermute
    Zenbane said:
    To that end, everything is a technological dead-end. Even the VR HMD's. One day we'll replace them with glasses. Then contact lenses. Then brain chip implants.
    VR glasses and contact lenses will be an evolution of VR headsets, not a replacement. Outside-in tracking was a quick hack to get cheap 6DOF VR working, not a long-term technology. There's not a lot in common with the inside-out tracking that will replace it.
  • ZenbaneZenbane Posts: 14,572 Valuable Player
    edited March 23
    edmg said:
    Zenbane said:
    To that end, everything is a technological dead-end. Even the VR HMD's. One day we'll replace them with glasses. Then contact lenses. Then brain chip implants.
    VR glasses and contact lenses will be an evolution of VR headsets, not a replacement.

    You don't see how the evolution of VR headsets in to contact lenses would serve as a replacement for VR HMD's?? Then how do you see Inside-Out tracking as a replacement for Outside-In? lol

    There's a very obvious answer that allows contact lenses and VR glasses (in the future) to replace an HMD. The answer lies within the reason Inside-Out tracking for WMR, Quest, and Rift-S are considered successful with their tracking despite having blind spots.
    Are you a fan of the Myst games? Check out my Mod at http://www.mystrock.com/
    Catch me on Twitter: twitter.com/zenbane
  • dburnedburne Posts: 2,763 Valuable Player
    jayhawk said:
    RuneSR2 said:
    jayhawk said:
    Are you going to notice a difference between 80 and 90hz? So far no one seems to.

    Would you consciously notice the difference between 80 and 70 Hz on a LCD (LCDs are flicker-free); would you notice the difference between 70 and 60 Hz on a LCD? I bet many persons wouldn't.
    Not a great comparison. As you get lower in Hz, a difference of 10 becomes more noticeable. I absolutely would notice the difference between 10hz and 20hz. Only the most trained would ever notice the difference between 120hz 130hz. Question here is are we going to notice 90 to 80. I'm not going to speculate until I see it for myself.
    Well certainly there was a time Oculus believed less than 90 HZ would not be good.
    Things change.
    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| Rift S | Quest |
  • edmgedmg Posts: 1,152
    Wintermute
    edited March 23
    Zenbane said:
    You don't see how the evolution of VR headsets in to contact lenses would serve as a replacement for VR HMD's?? Then how do you see Inside-Out tracking as a replacement for Outside-In? lol
    This is just getting silly. VR contact lenses are just VR HMDs in a more convenient package. Inside-out tracking is a fundamentally different technology, even if both use cameras.

    Outside-in tech was necessary in 2016, but no-one would have used it if inside-out was easy to do at that time. The cool kids might still use VR HMDs in twenty years when VR contact lenses are readily available, just as they play vinyl records today. But only a handful of people with very specialized requirements are going to be using outside-in tracking.
  • ZenbaneZenbane Posts: 14,572 Valuable Player
    edited March 23
    edmg said:
    Zenbane said:
    You don't see how the evolution of VR headsets in to contact lenses would serve as a replacement for VR HMD's?? Then how do you see Inside-Out tracking as a replacement for Outside-In? lol
    This is just getting silly. VR contact lenses are just VR HMDs in a more convenient package.

    Silly indeed. HMD stands for "head mounted display." If you are wearing contact lenses, then your head is no longer being mounted! lmao

    Inside-out tracking is a fundamentally different technology, even if both use cameras.

    Completely wrong. As Nate from Oculus explained, the same team that built outside-in tracking is now working on inside-out tracking. The camera placement has simply moved from external cameras to internal cameras.

    It is a Fact to say the following: VR Contact Lenses are a fundamentally different technology, moreso than the difference between Inside-Out vs Outside-In tracking.


    Outside-in tech was necessary in 2016, but no-one would have used it if inside-out was easy to do at that time.

    That's pure guesswork on an imaginary situation, and not even worth addressing based on your current understanding of HMD's and tracking.

    Are you a fan of the Myst games? Check out my Mod at http://www.mystrock.com/
    Catch me on Twitter: twitter.com/zenbane
Sign In or Register to comment.