Why don't one of the big VR companies make a VR headset with a decent resolution? — Oculus
New to the forums? Click here to read the "How To" Guide.

Developer? Click here to go to the Developer Forums.

Why don't one of the big VR companies make a VR headset with a decent resolution?

RedRizlaRedRizla Posts: 6,560 Valuable Player
edited September 4 in General
I was just wondering why one of the big VR companies like Oculus, Valve & HTC, don't give us the choice of having a really good resolution displays like the HP Reverb? I know some people will say it's because not everyone has the graphics card to run VR at high resolutions, but the HP Reverb is capable of running well on just a Geforce 1080ti and plenty of people have those graphics cards. HP also said there was huge demand for their VR Headset, which they didn't expect, but they soon realized this was due to the fact no other headset was pushing their resolutions and the sim community especially were really interested.
Given that the sim community isn't what you would call a small community, (hence the reason why some companies make expensive steering wheels and Hotas Joysticks) I just thought one of the bigger VR companies might have given the sim enthusiasts a decent resolution headset. But it's not only sim enthusiast I'm talking about here because other games will run good with these higher resolution. We all know sims can be demanding, so other games should have no problems.
I do get why Oculus want to cater for the lower end VR market and for people with a Geforce 1060, but they can still cater for these people and give people with a higher end computers something to shout about. Surly it can't be that hard to make a line of VR headsets with just higher resolution displays like the HP Reverb.
Since Oculus are not currently catering for the higher end Graphics cards, it is just forcing me to look elsewhere for a VR headset and I don't really want to do tbh.
«1

Comments

  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,406 Valuable Player
    edited September 3
    Because of eye tracking...

    Once that is on the table that will fix everything you said above:)

    To be real here - the number of pixels to really get what we would call high-def would be something in the 16k by 16k and there isn't really an option for that yet. The other side of the flip coin is that the higher we go in res - the more it cost and there for means less people in the area where they need massive amounts of people to be in.

    What does that mean? Well it means we wont see 1000$ headsets from Oculus anymore... their goal now is to get in as many people as they can so they can sell headsets on the lower end to create demand and growth from the every day user. Once the growth is there - then they might think about creating a "pro" version in the future. As of right now - it doesn't fit to be their plans though as Quest seems to show that lower cost devices are still a better way to get more users in than higher cost ones.

    Plus we can't look at the HMD companies alone - there are other markets that also really impact the rest of industry as well such as supply shortages on Intel, AMD, AMD/GPUs, Nivida/GPUs etc. Then the high cost of that hardware as well when there is said shortages or when they want to be greedy such as NV/GPUs. 

    At the start of VR alone there was the mining craze that created all shorts of problems let alone that is when consoles prices were also starting to look good compare to buying/building a computer. That might even start to become even more real with the trade war between China and America as tech continues to get tax more and more.

    As for why Oculus can't do both - who knows? Seems silly to me not to support both side of the coin... at the same time - it does cost money to make a new design. The Rift S is the 1.5 upgrade over CV1, so I guess you could call that the "pro" version Oculus wanted to release to match the new tracking path they're moving towards over external sensors. 

    Over all - if Oculus doesn't carter to you though - don't be scare to look else where. I know a lot of people bash others here for going down another route - but money is power - so vote with your wallet if you are not happy about something from another company. If you like to wait - there is still OC6 just around the corner as well. Rumor is there might be something new they want to show off.. whatever that means:)?

    https://www.oculusconnect.com/
     Wed, Sep 25, 2019 – Thu, Sep 26, 2019
  • RedRizlaRedRizla Posts: 6,560 Valuable Player
    edited September 3
    @Mradr - While I respect you opinion did you read what I said? HP said their was high demand for their headset and the HP doesn't have eye tracking and can be used using a Geforce 1080i. If there's high demand for something it means people want it. Why does someone with a higher end Graphics card want to bother with the low resolution of Rift S that mainly caters for graphics card starting with the Geforce 1060?
    The only reason you would want Rift S and not something higher with a higher resolution is if you have a Geforce 1060 or Geforce 1080. You can even use the Valve index with a Geforce 1080 and that doesn't have eye tracking either.
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,406 Valuable Player
    edited September 3
    RedRizla said:
    @Mradr - While I respect you opinion did you read what I said? HP said their was high demand for their headset and the HP doesn't have eye tracking and can be used using a Geforce 1080i.
    Yes, but they also have a high return rate as well let alone the supply (shortages) to supply their current customers - so HP really isn't a good example in all this =/

    The point is just because you can make a higher end product - it doesn't means it'll always be good as well. You need supply chains that can keep up with demands. Along with that - HP headset doesn't have the best tracking either - something money also has to be spent on and R/D done for. WMR did the tracking for HP and it really isn't that great when we talk about tracking compare to a 4 camera system for example that we see on Rift S. 

    There is a whole list of things that make a good HMD. Resoultion alone isn't the day and night game changer to making a better headset. There is also the store, the community, the easy of access (SDK) and etc that also needs to be in place and easy to use. Without all that - you could make the best headset in the world - but it'll just be too hard to use and setup that most people will give up on. We saw some of that with the Pimax alone already.
  • RedRizlaRedRizla Posts: 6,560 Valuable Player
    Mradr said:
    RedRizla said:
    @Mradr - While I respect you opinion did you read what I said? HP said their was high demand for their headset and the HP doesn't have eye tracking and can be used using a Geforce 1080i.
    Yes, but they also have a high return rate as well let alone the supply (shortages) to supply their current customers - so HP really isn't a good example in all this =/
    Well then you obviously haven't read that HP have fixed the issues. It was down to some components with a high tolerance instead of a low tolerance and also a simple clip. Should we now derail the thread and start talking about problems with all the current VR headsets instead now?
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,406 Valuable Player
    edited September 3
    RedRizla said:
    Mradr said:
    RedRizla said:
    @Mradr - While I respect you opinion did you read what I said? HP said their was high demand for their headset and the HP doesn't have eye tracking and can be used using a Geforce 1080i.
    Yes, but they also have a high return rate as well let alone the supply (shortages) to supply their current customers - so HP really isn't a good example in all this =/
    Well then you obviously haven't read that HP have fixed the issues. It was down to some components with a high tolerance instead of a low tolerance and also a simple clip. Should we now derail the thread and start talking about problems with all the current VR headsets instead now?
    Problems of each headset comes down to the price at witch they are set at or limited to with their technology witch is what I pointed out already. It's not a derail - it's just a understanding that everyone needs to understand before moving on calling out a company on why they don't make a higher end headset.

    What would be the point if they can't keep up with supply, increasing FOV if the lenses create distortion, or even keeping prices with in reason (every other $1.5k+ headset).
  • dburnedburne Posts: 2,594 Valuable Player
    Heck Oculus at least in my opinion, did not even want to give us an updated Rift. Pretty sure they caved into the 
    vocal majority that clamored for one, as well as seeing what others were bringing out. So they called Lenovo and told them to build them something fast that they could bring to market as well.

    So while Oculus still says PC-VR is important to their overall strategy, currently I believe the Rift for them is the red headed stepchild.
    It will be interesting to see where their focus lies going forward now that all three headsets are on the market.

    At one time I believe Oculus would have been in best position to make the aforementioned headset, not sure that is the case today.
    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|
  • RedRizlaRedRizla Posts: 6,560 Valuable Player
    edited September 3
    Mradr said:
    Problems of each headset comes down to the price at witch they are set at or limited to with their technology witch is what I pointed out already. It's not a derail - it's just a understanding that everyone needs to understand before moving on calling out a company on why they don't make a higher end headset.

    What would be the point if they can't keep up with supply, increasing FOV if the lenses create distortion, or even keeping prices with in reason (every other $1.5k+ headset).
    Well if they can't keep up with supply then they shouldn't really call themselves a company. The Rift S is £399 right now. How much do you think it would cost to put the HP displays in a Rift S? Do you seriously think that would increase the cost to $1.5 when the HP Reverb sells for £594? I'd say it would cost no more then maybe £200 more to put them displays in a Rift S, bringing the total to £599.
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,406 Valuable Player
    edited September 3
    RedRizla said:
    Well if they can't keep up with supply then they shouldn't really call themselves a company. The Rift S is £399 right now. How much do you think it would cost to put the HP displays in a Rift S? Do you seriously think that would increase the cost to $1.5 when the HP Reverb sells for £594? I'd say it would cost no more then maybe £200 more to put them displays in a Rift S, bringing the total to £599.
    Hmmm so Intel isn't a company:)? I think that is a bit of poor reasoning to say that. Well with better controllers and extra cameras we be looking at $699 or $749 realistically. Hey, as I said - I think they could support a higher end headset as well and I don't understand why they don't really. It's just the numbers they saw told them that range of number didn't sell that many headsets compare to the $399 range did.


    It's possible this OC6 they might show off a headset like that such as the HD2 with eye tracking that can support 4k by 4k displays in that $749 range. Short of that - Rift S was more of a time issue from what it sounds like and there for was more of a drop in placement because Quest had bigger and better specs than the CV1. I mean going off what I said before about supply - Rift S is a supply chain dream when you break it down compare to the CV1 and allows a much lower price than the CV1 could such as for dual screens vs one, no moving parts, more shell design plastic vs multi layer design, less breakable external parts, no external "parts" such as cameras, easy to setup, even added a feature base off already existing changes, etc


    My prediction is going forward here - what makes a headset stand out wont be the higher resolution or specs that one can offer in a headset - but what technology are they going to use to help support the higher specs + keep it still usable to the general public in terms of cost and support. What I mean is - that it's too late for Oculus to focus on a "pro" version of a headset now - they are better off just aiming for the next leap to better support higher end specs instead.
  • kevinw729kevinw729 Posts: 4,619 Valuable Player
    Its interesting to consider that Samsung monopolises the panel business - and that the majority of these available consumer headsets use their product. It is also interesting to consider those other panel manufacturers that also use Samsung (Sony being one of the big surprises - entering into a unique agreement soon after the GearVR).

    We were going to see other new resolution and higher performance platforms enter the market, and had seen a number of prototypes, like the ambitious Acer system (image) - but with a plateauing of the consumer VR market - the economics of starting up a new fabrication operation to support significantly lower than promised numbers has meant we are at this point were the no one is making any major advances in resolution - and even the work on eye-tracking seems to have hit some issues.  

    Kind of explains why the Half Dome prototype never materialised (at this point), and why many have placed all their hopes on the Standalone approach, while leaving high-end as a pet-project of Valve. 



    P6ftmuw.jpg
    ** New Book **
    "The Out-of-Home Immersive Entertainment Frontier: Expanding Interactive Boundaries in Leisure Facilities"
    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Out-Home-Immersive-Entertainment-Frontier/dp/1472426959
  • RedRizlaRedRizla Posts: 6,560 Valuable Player
    edited September 3
    Mradr said:

    My prediction is going forward here - what makes a headset stand out wont be the higher resolution or specs that one can offer in a headset - but what technology are they going to use to help support the higher specs + keep it still usable to the general public in terms of cost and support. What I mean is - that it's too late for Oculus to focus on a "pro" version of a headset now - they are better off just aiming for the next leap to better support higher end specs instead.
    Now that's the kind of input I was looking for, which kind of makes sense. But I just wish they had made Rift S more of an upgade to CV1 rather then having to spend £399 on not much of an upgrade at all. I won't go into what has already been said a few times in these forums, but for some (me included) Rift S is a downgrade. But to be fair I think Oculus themselves have said it isn't really an upgrade to CV1 though.
    I hope there is some mention this month what their future plans are regarding PV -VR, because if not it looks like it's a HP Reverb for me this time around even with it's shitty controllers. I just want to see an improvement in display instead of feeling short sighted in VR all the time. I've heard HP Reverb is very 2D monitor like and that's all I want VR to be like.

  • saami81saami81 Posts: 144
    Art3mis
    I think that they will, if HP Reverb makes good and solid profit. Companies tend to love money. They are not doing what they do to just angry VR enthuasists.
  • RuneSR2RuneSR2 Posts: 3,051 Valuable Player
    edited September 3
    I do understand the frustration, but after having used the Index for 6 weeks I don't have a problem with res, in fact should I wish for something I'd like an oled screen with same res, number of subpixels and lack of SDE. 
    Dialing in the Index will theoretically reduce res and increase fov - but I don't notice reduced res, which implies to me that res has reached a point where it's really good. 
    Of course you can always dream of more, but right now I don't see a problem using Index for the next 2-3 years. Res is just one variant to increase presence, fov means just as much to me and Hz. 144 Hz is truly awesome - you're present like never before - I'll probably need a gpu 3 times faster than my current to explore the full potential of the Index (144 Hz in ss 200%).

    In the more demanding games, you may need 2080 (Ti) just to run Index at ss 100% to get solid 90 fps (I get a lot of dips below 90 using my GTX 1080). Although Reverb looks great in some games and apps, I don't think the time is right for 4K hmds yet. I think HTC also reached a similar conclusion when choosing res for Cosmos.

    Even though I got nice performance in Lone Echo (Index ss 100%), the amount of gpu power needed to really make this game shine using Index res is extremely high, probably about twice the gpu power of 2080 Ti (or more). Also the Index and Reverb will show you everything - and hide nothing - increasing the need for antialiasing, so higher res isn't the only concern when adding more pixels to a hmd. In Arizona Sunshine I can suddenly see all the bad (semi-low-res) textures and jaggies, while the CV1's SDE made a great cover-up, lol.   
    TAA for example looks awesome using the CV1 in Lone Echo, and I could disable MSAA with no problem. Not so using Index - here TAA looks super-blurry and completely destroys the game, and suddenly I need MSAA for the jaggies. Problem is that TAA doesn't require much gpu power, while (4x)MSAA requires tons of gpu power, and even using high levels of ss MSAA still helps a lot, double-sigh. Now, Lone Echo in Index ss 200% + 4xMSAA looks beyond amazing (I could clearly see the very small/semi-microscopic eye lashes below Olivia's eyes, never noticed these in the CV1), but I get like 20 fps, sigh. Not sure Reverb is doing much better - and I think that's close to the main reason why Oculus isn't going to make a super-high-res hmd in the near future... So far the eye tracking in Vive Pro Eye didn't seem to lower gpu requirements much, not sure if eye tracking will be the gpu savior I hoped for - but I still have hope  o:)  
    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"
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,406 Valuable Player
    edited September 3
    kevinw729 said:
    Its interesting to consider that Samsung monopolises the panel business -...
    Talking in general here - not at you kevin for say~

     Samsung and a few others do support up to 4k and experimental 8k screens - so we still do have room to keep going in. The problem at the time was both a video card shortage and a video card price hike that really set back the reality of what VR can still move forward smoothly. Also, AMD didn't help releasing something a subpar cards either in both RT, VSR, and etc. that set us back as well.

    On a side note - 4k and 8k have yield issues at their sizes. Meaning, you will want a big market to sell to to get the most bang for your buck. So you are not wrong in terms of needing a market for sure to keep going forward with higher end screens. I mean, look at the yield issues we currently see with reports on the forum. Small amount of users having issues for sure, but every bad screen is just one more cost Samsung or Oculus has to cover from their own profits.

    In the up coming years though - we should see VR hardware make a come back though as both AMD is working on bring these features to their next line up cards and with the new RNDA keeping prices lower with scale (look at the 5700XT vs 2070 S offering - $400 vs $700). 

    The problem is as we saw and talk about before is that to run these screens it still requires a top end card - so VR really needs a way out so it can scale as well and that is where VSR and eye tracking shines the best in. Even with out ET - VSR + static FOVA is more than enough to lower performance requirements by 10-15% just in a software method. Even on top of that - looks like AMD force NV hand by creating a new method different from DLSS to help upscale the image without the FPS drop that comes with it with only a few small artifacts. 

    Funny enough a lot of this is coming to consoles first as AMD is release RT and possible VSR for them and thus support from game devs should follow up to PC once they get a bit more time on the AMD/Console hardware next year. I wouldn't be surprise to see Sony, Oculus, and Pixmax jump on this by late 2020 early 2021. HTC and Vavle will release addons I am sure to support it later on as well (Pimax will be an addon as well - but they are already showing it off so I wouldn't put it past them to just ingratiate it for another headset release).
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,406 Valuable Player
    edited September 3
    RuneSR2 said:
    ISo far the eye tracking in Vive Pro Eye didn't seem to lower gpu requirements much, not sure if eye tracking will be the gpu savior I hoped for - but I still have hope  o:)  
    Interesting - the numbers some of the early devs reported was in the 20-35% range. That seems like a lot to me just using FOVA methods and not FSR along with it. I guess - to what end would be the question if adding eye tracking increase the headset cost more than the value gain.
  • kevinw729kevinw729 Posts: 4,619 Valuable Player
    edited September 3
    Mradr said:
    ......
    Talking in general here - not at you kevin for say~

     Samsung and a few others do support up to 4k and experimental 8k screens - so we still do have room to keep going in.
    .......
    Also, AMD didn't help releasing something a subpar cards either in both RT, VSR, and etc. that set us back as well.
    .......

    Understand @Mradr - and again in general terms.

    Yes all the panel manufacturers showed varying 4k and even 8k capabilities - we covered this in our IFA and CES reporting. But again, these need major fab set-ups to move from the bench to the box - and there is no real interest to place these in headsets at this point. 

    Funny enough there is a new tech-industry on the horizon that needs 4k panels, and is not linked to previous issues - but is fresh and new. I think at CES 2020 we will see the first deployments there - and I expect to hear a lot in the VR community crying "...hey why are we not getting these panels!!"

    I totally agree about the "Power" issues with more high-performance VR headsets. Even Valve hinted that they had throttled back the capabilities of the Index design to suit a benchmark able to accommodate a wider audience demographics, rather than going full "prosumer". This is a factor why the new high-performance Pimax RE (image) is targeted squarely at Enterprise - why many of the reviewers could not see all the elements promised from the headset on their consumer unit. 

    This kinda leads to the growing gulf of what the consumer VR journey started, and how long it can be part of the ride moving forward - I think a number of the community are seeing the gulf grow between what they want to see next, and what the consumer sector can present. The best example being that everyone wants eye-tracking, but its only Enterprise that has it available now.





    P6ftmuw.jpg
    ** New Book **
    "The Out-of-Home Immersive Entertainment Frontier: Expanding Interactive Boundaries in Leisure Facilities"
    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Out-Home-Immersive-Entertainment-Frontier/dp/1472426959
  • SkScotcheggSkScotchegg Posts: 1,200
    Wintermute
    I reckon if Oculus sold a new Rift now with better screens and resolution it would 100% out sell Rift S for sure. 

    If they could meet or exceed anything else on the market right now it would 100% outsell them too.

    So I agree with RedRizia, they should definitely do this and I don't understand why they haven't done it already.

    They have already released CV1, GO, Rift S, Quest, now they need to focus on high end again and give us what we we want.
    UK: England - Leeds - - RTX 2080 - Make love, not war - See you in the Oasis!
  • kevinw729kevinw729 Posts: 4,619 Valuable Player
    I reckon if Oculus sold a new Rift now with better screens and resolution it would 100% out sell Rift S for sure. 
    ......

    I think that a good portion of the high-end PC VR community - including those that have not made the jump to Index or compromised with Rift-S - would buy a more powerful CV1.2 style system  @SkScotchegg

    I would envisage a CV1.2 being the Half-Dome as promised; with eye-tracking, and in a ideal scenario a cross-over tracking solution (supporting both Constellation and Inside-Out), if we are going to play the "perfect storm" then also include a smoothing of the Valve feud towards also supporting both Touch and Knuckles - lets go wild and include a open platform, USB-C and 5G support, just for good measure!

    And with that flight of fantasy you suddenly realise how far we have yet to travel, and how private eco-systems really do add up to the reason why advancement seems to be on a hiatus - but there is always the possibility of big announcements at OC6 ! [fingers-crossed]




    P6ftmuw.jpg
    ** New Book **
    "The Out-of-Home Immersive Entertainment Frontier: Expanding Interactive Boundaries in Leisure Facilities"
    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Out-Home-Immersive-Entertainment-Frontier/dp/1472426959
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,406 Valuable Player
    edited September 3
    Isn't that basically what the HTC Cosmos is? A HMD with better specs at a higher price point?
  • snowdogsnowdog Posts: 6,989 Valuable Player
    RedRizla said:
    @Mradr - While I respect you opinion did you read what I said? HP said their was high demand for their headset and the HP doesn't have eye tracking and can be used using a Geforce 1080i. If there's high demand for something it means people want it. Why does someone with a higher end Graphics card want to bother with the low resolution of Rift S that mainly caters for graphics card starting with the Geforce 1060?
    The only reason you would want Rift S and not something higher with a higher resolution is if you have a Geforce 1060 or Geforce 1080. You can even use the Valve index with a Geforce 1080 and that doesn't have eye tracking either.

    There's not much difference between the Rift S and the Index and Vive Pro in terms of resolution. In fact in some ways the Rift S is better because you can super sample a 1440p 80Hz display more than a 1600p 90/120/144Hz display and of course you have the added bonus of ASW 2.0 too.

    As for why they and others haven't gone for 2K+ resolution displays it simply comes down to economics. Until foveated rendering is available we're not going to see headset manufacturers producing 2K+ resolution headsets because there's only a minority of people with PCs capable of running them.

    When the CV2 is released in 2022 I can see it being a 4K headset with a 140° FOV with eye tracking and foveated rendering, and even then we'll probably see the current Recommended Specs being the new Minimum Specs.
    "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
  • kevinw729kevinw729 Posts: 4,619 Valuable Player
    snowdog said:
    .....
    When the CV2 is released in 2022 I can see it being a 4K headset with a 140° FOV with eye tracking and foveated rendering, and even then we'll probably see the current Recommended Specs being the new Minimum Specs.

    Did you not say you expected it in 2021 last time?
    P6ftmuw.jpg
    ** New Book **
    "The Out-of-Home Immersive Entertainment Frontier: Expanding Interactive Boundaries in Leisure Facilities"
    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Out-Home-Immersive-Entertainment-Frontier/dp/1472426959
  • SkScotcheggSkScotchegg Posts: 1,200
    Wintermute
    edited September 3
    kevinw729 said:
    snowdog said:
    .....
    When the CV2 is released in 2022 I can see it being a 4K headset with a 140° FOV with eye tracking and foveated rendering, and even then we'll probably see the current Recommended Specs being the new Minimum Specs.

    Did you not say you expected it in 2021 last time?
    lol I reckon everyone that predicts dates keeps adding 1 year on each year that passes! hahaha  :p
    UK: England - Leeds - - RTX 2080 - Make love, not war - See you in the Oasis!
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,406 Valuable Player
    edited September 3
    I say 2021 would be a safe bet to see a CV2.0 if they do release or early 2022. All the tech is there - just really comes down in how well do they pull it all together at that point. The problem I think we're going to face though - is that out side the price that Oculus wants to be in though.... so I guess we will see if Oculus is willing to jump/leap forward (greater than $700 range) or just stick safe with mirror upgrades instead ($399 range). Judging from last release - I think Oculus wants to stick to the safe number range instead... but who knows.
  • kevinw729kevinw729 Posts: 4,619 Valuable Player
    I think we may be missing the point that it will be Lenovo that will be defining what the CV2 will be like and when it appears? I still think OculusVR has a major involvement in this process, it does feel like their Standalone investment is the focus of the remaining internal R&D team - and Oculus Texas.
    P6ftmuw.jpg
    ** New Book **
    "The Out-of-Home Immersive Entertainment Frontier: Expanding Interactive Boundaries in Leisure Facilities"
    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Out-Home-Immersive-Entertainment-Frontier/dp/1472426959
  • RedRizlaRedRizla Posts: 6,560 Valuable Player
    edited September 3
    snowdog said:

    There's not much difference between the Rift S and the Index and Vive Pro in terms of resolution. In fact in some ways the Rift S is better because you can super sample a 1440p 80Hz display more than a 1600p 90/120/144Hz display and of course you have the added bonus of ASW 2.0 too.

    As for why they and others haven't gone for 2K+ resolution displays it simply comes down to economics. Until foveated rendering is available we're not going to see headset manufacturers producing 2K+ resolution headsets because there's only a minority of people with PCs capable of running them.

    When the CV2 is released in 2022 I can see it being a 4K headset with a 140° FOV with eye tracking and foveated rendering, and even then we'll probably see the current Recommended Specs being the new Minimum Specs.
    There might not be a big difference between Rift S and Valve index, but I wouldn't know because I don't own either of them to test this out for myself. Maybe @Shadowmask72 could answer that if he has a Rift S or someone else who owns both headsets. What I do know is there is a big difference between the HP Reverb & Rift S, because the HP Reverb has nearly double the resolution of the Rift S, so there has to be a big difference. 

    There's also plenty of people who own a Geforce 1080ti and I for one believe HP when they said there's a big demand for their headset due to it's resolution. And if there is a big demand for the HP Reverb, it also means people have computers capable of using the HP Reverb or why bother getting one.
  • RedRizlaRedRizla Posts: 6,560 Valuable Player
    edited September 3
    kevinw729 said:
    I think we may be missing the point that it will be Lenovo that will be defining what the CV2 will be like and when it appears? I still think OculusVR has a major involvement in this process, it does feel like their Standalone investment is the focus of the remaining internal R&D team - and Oculus Texas.

    Well I hope they have learnt a lesson with Rift S, which is not to release a headset to the consumer unless it's virtually bug free. We get a release date for these headsets and can't use them properly until all the major bugs are sorted out 3 months later. 
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,406 Valuable Player
    edited September 3
    RedRizla said:
    kevinw729 said:
    I think we may be missing the point that it will be Lenovo that will be defining what the CV2 will be like and when it appears? I still think OculusVR has a major involvement in this process, it does feel like their Standalone investment is the focus of the remaining internal R&D team - and Oculus Texas.

    Well I hope they have learnt a lesson with Rift S, which is not to release a headset to the consumer unless it's virtually bug free. We get a release date for these headsets and can't use them properly until all the major bugs are sorted out 3 months later. 
    Bugs are bound to happen though on release. If you want maturity you will always be a generation behind by design. Rift S was a major change in tracking witch was one of the major reason why it was giving a 1.5 upgrade status. Even the Samsung, Intel, AMD, man I can go on with products that have bugs on release that cause the product to not work well for the first 3 months on release... It's how the company goes about fixing problems that shows if they are worth their salt. The fact that they did fix the issue and improve on the tracking bugs does go to show they are working hard on their products.


    @kevinw729
    Hmm... I feel like Oculus had its hands still on the Rift S even though it was design by Lenovo for over all build. By that I mean - they set the price and told Lenovo to build the best HMD they could at that price to scale for their supply chains. Really they did a good job at this when it comes to this... but Oculus really needs to scale that thought up and allow that higher price point to exist for PC-Owners... that is why I am wondering, even with Lenovo behind the vial, if they are going to just focus on the lower price point or allow that other ter to exist at all. 

    Standalone has a large floor to scale in as well - so I am sure it's going to seem like that area is going to get more love than the other headsets. I mean most of the hardware benefits from others pushing/creating the roads already such as from cell phones and other mobile devices. It also has a larger cooling and power envelope than most devices will have also allowing it to scale larger than what we see too from the other platforms. What most people wont understand is just that it'll be easy to scale that side of the hardware much easier than a headset design around a computer that has unknown variables. Prediction wise - Quest 2 will have a 35% increase in raw graphical and cpu power when it releases at the same 399$ tag it release next year. Quest 3 will also be another 35% above that.
  • snowdogsnowdog Posts: 6,989 Valuable Player
    kevinw729 said:
    snowdog said:
    .....
    When the CV2 is released in 2022 I can see it being a 4K headset with a 140° FOV with eye tracking and foveated rendering, and even then we'll probably see the current Recommended Specs being the new Minimum Specs.

    Did you not say you expected it in 2021 last time?

    Nope. I originally said 2019, three years after the CV1 was released. But then they released the Rift S, so I've said previously that 2022 would be the release date of the CV2. I've never said 2021 because that wouldn't make any sense because Oculus appear to be giving their headsets a three year lifespan.

    You may be getting confused with my view on the Vive products, they released the Vive in 2016, the Vive Pro in 2018 and I HAD been expecting the Vive Cosmos to be released in 2020. We'll have to wait and see. They're supposed to be releasing the Vive Cosmos THIS year but things have been pretty quiet so far for a headset that's supposed to be releasing in a few months. I didn't think that HTC could afford to release three headsets in three years so there is method to my madness.
    "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
  • dburnedburne Posts: 2,594 Valuable Player
    Oculus certainly could have made a better headset, they just have chosen to go a different direction now.
    I am very much enjoying my Rift S, but I doubt we will see any further technology advancements in PC-VR from them anytime soon. The higher tier will come from others I suspect.

    At one time Oculus users were the majority in the flight sim and even racing sim forums. That has certainly changed now. They are all about Reverb ( a Win MR device at that) and Index, with eyes on upcoming Cosmos. I am one of the few remaining Oculus holdouts in the ones I frequent.


    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|
  • RichooalRichooal Posts: 1,114
    Wintermute
    dburne said:
    Oculus certainly could have made a better headset, they just have chosen to go a different direction now.
    I am very much enjoying my Rift S, but I doubt we will see any further technology advancements in PC-VR from them anytime soon. The higher tier will come from others I suspect.

    I agree.
    Facebook targets the people with their faces buried in their mobile phone screens all day. The best we can hope for (PCVR) is a tech share with Lenovo, I think. ( the Oculovo DRift maybe)
    i5 6600k - GTX1060 - 8GB RAM - 0 PROBLEMS
  • kevinw729kevinw729 Posts: 4,619 Valuable Player
    snowdog said:
    ....
    Nope. I originally said 2019, three years after the CV1 was released. But then they released the Rift S, so I've said previously that 2022 would be the release date of the CV2. I've never said 2021 because that wouldn't make any sense because Oculus appear to be giving their headsets a three year lifespan.
    ....

    Thanks for clarifying. 
    P6ftmuw.jpg
    ** New Book **
    "The Out-of-Home Immersive Entertainment Frontier: Expanding Interactive Boundaries in Leisure Facilities"
    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Out-Home-Immersive-Entertainment-Frontier/dp/1472426959
Sign In or Register to comment.