02-03-2015 02:36 AM
02-04-2015 03:24 AM
"jngdwe" wrote:
After seeing the lessened SDE of the Note 4, I see no reason not to go for 1440p. At the very least the screen should be 1440p, even if we don't render native.
02-04-2015 03:39 AM
"WhiteSkyMage" wrote:
will it be possible to remain at 60+ FPS?
02-04-2015 02:15 PM
"MrsVR" wrote:"WhiteSkyMage" wrote:
will it be possible to remain at 60+ FPS?
90 FPS with CV1. So funny.
02-04-2015 10:47 PM
02-05-2015 03:36 AM
02-05-2015 04:02 AM
"RonsonPL" wrote:"VRoom" wrote:
I don't care if it's 1440p or 1080p as long as the SDE is almost solved (and, as I read, CB prototype is practically there). No matter what, resolution won't be perfect for quite some time... so as long as the image quality is good enough that it doesn't bother you anymore and the experience itself becomes more important (again, CB seems to deliver in that department), I'm OK with it.
Well...yes.
And no.
You don't care in the same way people say "I don't want 3D or VR, since I don't see anything wrong with 2D. 2D is fine, it's enough". And that's originating from the lack of knowledge of what you are loosing, what things are blocked, what you cannot experience.
Go play Battlefield 4. Set the resolution to 800x600 and resolution scale to the lowest. Now go play a round, when you're on foot and in a building. If you were playing any game for your first time in your life, you would say it's sufficient to enjoy. After all, you scored a few kills. It was fun.
But go fly a heli at this resolution...
Go drive a tank and try to shoot a guy at some distance.
Go read a small text/indicators in a flying simulators.
and you'll see what's the problem.
These are the limits you get when dealing with "good enough" hardware.
For example, right now, some people with 3D Vision and DK2 are playing Project Cars on their monitors because they don't exactly see (DK2) the objects on which they judge their braking points. That's just another example.
You didn't see a hi-res VR - you don't know what difference it makes.
You didn't see a much wider (than DK2 and probably CV1) FOV in VR, so you don't know what doors it opens either.
We now know we're not getting any proper and widely accepted (by developers) controller. Then we are limited (very much!) at the very beginning. 1080p would make even more limitations.
Don't get me wrong. I know what DK2 can do, I know it can be fun, and with SDE improved, CV1 will be significantly better. But I also know what people said when 320x240 was a standard. And then at 480p. And then at 720p and 1080p.
Always the same - resolution doesn't matter. And then... you go back to the lower one, that you called "OK" back in the days and... you clearly see you were wrong, and you decide to watch out for this mistake in the future. At least that's what I did.
We should get to 4x the pixel amount as DK2, as soon as possible. Even if it means changing the price from Facebook-casualish 300$ to the levels initially announced, which means 450-500$.
Similar FOV and not more than 20-30% additional pixels compared to DK2 is simply as far from the promised "best VR we can offer under 500$" as it gets. And the quote about 500$ is from Oculus Kickstarter times.
edit: and if PS3 is able to display 60fps at 1080p (2006's Ridge Racer), if a smartphone can do VR on 1440p display, then single-GPU card cheaper than Titans, can handle the 1440p+50% without a problem. Even with some DSR, which you can easily replace with proper AA, although not when you want to stick to the advantages of deferred rendering engine. But no one forces anyone to use it, so DSR is not the only option we got to improve the quality that much.
02-05-2015 05:47 AM
"pappythefoo" wrote:
I agree.. Oculus Rift does simulate human eye view (see things with 2 eyes) but currently(DK2) the view via severe near-sighted without glasses.
and it's definitely problem in most game we play on the regular monitor.
It's not like me asking for a fighter pilot level of eyesight but an eyesight that can read out little text 3 feet away.
02-05-2015 06:36 AM
"TomSD" wrote:
This stands in contrast to the frame rate. When things are working properly with low persistence and timewarp, 75Hz in DK2 seems to be quite sufficient, especially for a version 1 kind of thing. Much more sufficient than 1080p. So what's the motivation for the increase to 90Hz? Is it one of those "if you experienced 90Hz and then went back to 75Hz you'd understand" kind of things? What's the benefit that justifies the (substantial) cost?
02-05-2015 09:00 AM
02-05-2015 09:32 AM
"RonsonPL" wrote:"TomSD" wrote:
This stands in contrast to the frame rate. When things are working properly with low persistence and timewarp, 75Hz in DK2 seems to be quite sufficient, especially for a version 1 kind of thing. Much more sufficient than 1080p. So what's the motivation for the increase to 90Hz? Is it one of those "if you experienced 90Hz and then went back to 75Hz you'd understand" kind of things? What's the benefit that justifies the (substantial) cost?
1. The biggest part of 75Hz being not enough is flickering. Some people are OK with 75Hz, while others are not until it goes over 110Hz. 75Hz is not enough for most. For me 90Hz isn't enough. This will limit your time before your eyes/brain get fatigued, so the more, the better. I wouldn't mind 240Hz for just this reason. Also, the brighter the screen/scene, the more obvious and painful is the flicker. DK2 is awfully dim in LP mode, so 75Hz would look a lot worse on CV1 (I sure hope the CV1 screen is much brighter than DK2, but after playing on Sony's HMZ-T2 (also OLED screen) I'm starting to be afraid. Smaller space between pixels and sub-pixels could help a lot here).
2. The latency- the more Hz, the lower the latency, for positional tracking and for controllers.
3. The higher the framerate, the more useful time warp technique gets.
4. If framerate is higher, then latency goes down, and there are game genres requiring a lot more than 90Hz to feel good while playing. My opinion: The framerate should be as high as possible. We should choose less detailed assetss in graphics over lower framerate/screen frequency.