cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

First Look at the Rift, Shipping Q1 2016

Gypsy816
Expert Protege
Since the earliest days of the Oculus Kickstarter, the Rift has been shaped by gamers, backers, developers, and enthusiasts around the world. Today, we’re incredibly excited to announce that the Oculus Rift will be shipping to consumers in Q1 2016, with pre-orders later this year.

The Rift delivers on the dream of consumer VR with compelling content, a full ecosystem, and a fully-integrated hardware/software tech stack designed specifically for virtual reality. It’s a system designed by a team of extremely passionate gamers, developers, and engineers to reimagine what gaming can be.


A first look at what the world can expect in Q1 2016

The Oculus Rift builds on the presence, immersion, and comfort of the Crescent Bay prototype with an improved tracking system that supports both seated and standing experiences, as well as a highly refined industrial design, and updated ergonomics for a more natural fit.


A peek inside the Oculus Rift

In the weeks ahead, we’ll be revealing the details around hardware, software, input, and many of our unannounced made-for-VR games and experiences coming to the Rift. Next week, we’ll share more of the technical specifications here on the Oculus blog.

Virtual reality is going to transform gaming, film, entertainment, communication, and much more. If you’re interested in building a next-generation VR game or application, everything you need to start developing for the Rift is available at the Oculus Developer Center.

E3 is just around the corner — this is only the beginning.

– The Oculus Team
Oculus Community Manager - kweh!
507 REPLIES 507

SuperDre
Honored Guest
"mrmonkeybat" wrote:
"vizionvr" wrote:
If 1440 is incapable of 90hz+ then how did CB do it? Review after review of CB claimed at least 1440 plus 90 hz. Or is Oculus doing something else to make these reviewers believe a 1440 res?


People where guestimating the resolution people who tried Vive DK said it looked similar resolution to CB even though it had a slightly wider FOV.


That's something I'm really wondering about, why is Oculus going for more vertical resolution instead of going for more horizontal resolution, in most cases people seem to like a wider FOV..
But it's true, Oculus never publicly said what the real resolution was of the CB, so it could be these double screens, but ofcourse it's also possible it was a single 2560x1440p screen inside the CB (as I believe there were different CB prototypes)..
DK2 CPU: i7 4770K Mem: 16GB GPU: GTX760 2GB OS: Windows 8.1 pro x64 Controllers: Wireless xbox360 controller, Logitec Extreme 3D Pro, Logitec Momo steeringwheel, LeapMotion

Malkmus1979
Explorer
"SuperDre" wrote:
"mrmonkeybat" wrote:
"vizionvr" wrote:
If 1440 is incapable of 90hz+ then how did CB do it? Review after review of CB claimed at least 1440 plus 90 hz. Or is Oculus doing something else to make these reviewers believe a 1440 res?


People where guestimating the resolution people who tried Vive DK said it looked similar resolution to CB even though it had a slightly wider FOV.


That's something I'm really wondering about, why is Oculus going for more vertical resolution instead of going for more horizontal resolution, in most cases people seem to like a wider FOV..
But it's true, Oculus never publicly said what the real resolution was of the CB, so it could be these double screens, but ofcourse it's also possible it was a single 2560x1440p screen inside the CB (as I believe there were different CB prototypes)..


I don't have the quote offhand, but when people were trying the Vive (which has the same "taller" vs "wider" FOV) they said it was better because you tend to look up and down with your eyes more, and actually turn your head when looking side to side. Or something like that. Either way, it seems to have its benefits.

ThreeDeeVision
Superstar
I am guessing having two screens allowed them to get the most out of both screens, so there are less wasted pixels outside the lens FOV. The better pixel density and getting more out of the 1200p screen(s) should be a pretty substantial upgrade from the DK2.

And there has to be a reason the Vive went with the same specs. It sounds like these screens are a good mix of resolution and refresh rate.

I wonder if they did cascaded screens as well?
i7 5960X @ 3.8 GHz | Corsair Vengeance LPX 16GB DDR4 PC2800 | GTX Titan X Pascal | Win 10 64 bit | Asus ROG PG348Q | EVGA X99 Classified

obzen
Expert Protege
Availability I guess. also allows for a more curved form factor, instead of that blocky face mask. Wonder if you can make gains in comfort and bulk by orienting the screens and optics slightly inwards.
DK1 FREAK...

schmeltzer
Protege
"ThreeDeeVision" wrote:
"JET" wrote:
So many people here are missing the point on the resolution. The issue is that you need silky-smooth refresh rates in VR. DK2 was 75Hz, CV1 is 90Hz. Right now, there is no display technology that can handle a higher resolution than Rift at 90Hz. 1440p screens are 60Hz. That will get you the dreaded "judder" that so many people complain about. It's good enough for GearVR because that's all there is, but I'd much rather have CV1 resolution at 90Hz than GearVR resolution at 60Hz.

NVidia's latest drivers, released yesterday, do not support 90Hz at any resolution beyond CV1. HDMI 1.3 does not support 90Hz at any resolution beyond CV1. They are hitting the absolute ceiling of current technology. Once panels improve, drivers improve, and HDMI improves, the resolution will improve. That's what CV2 - x are for, right?

Persistence is also the reason Sony is incorporating frame-doubling tech into Morpheus. 60Hz is not good enough, so they're doing internal processing to interpolate up to 120Hz (I believe you can also render natively at 120Hz, at the expense of a lot of graphic detail). Interpolated 120Hz is still not as good as native 90Hz, though.

Based on what we know, CV1 will have exactly what Oculus claims it will have - the best VR display of any headset.


Thanks for this post Jet, that clears things up for me. I was wondering why they wouldn't go to at least a 1440p screen, but if they are all 60Hz refresh, that would explain it. That would explain why Vive went with the same resolution as well.

Having the Vive and Rift share specs will also help with software compatibility.


If this is true and for arguments sake let's assume this is true, chances are slim that we will have a Conumser Vive with a higher resolution than the devkit. Where to find a 1440p 90 Hz screen within this very limited timeframe?

Kalec84
Heroic Explorer
Any other news?
Like, when we can start preordering?
My DK2 want to know his son...
😛

kojack
MVP
MVP
"Malkmus1979" wrote:
I don't have the quote offhand, but when people were trying the Vive (which has the same "taller" vs "wider" FOV) they said it was better because you tend to look up and down with your eyes more, and actually turn your head when looking side to side. Or something like that. Either way, it seems to have its benefits.

I read this somewhere too, it said something about being able to easily see your feet helps make the experience more comfortable when moving around. Or something like that.

One possible technical reason for going for this screen arrangement is due to the fact that high res panels aren't available in landscape orientation (pretty much every panel over 720p is intended for a phone). The DK2 has a portrait mode screen mounted sideways, requiring rotation of the image before display (by the drivers in extended mode or the oculus sdk in direct mode). Plus frame tearing (when vsync isn't uses) goes across rather than down, causing eyes to be out of sync.

Having dual portrait screens means no rotation needs to happen, they just need to split the input to two panels, which should simplify things.
Author: Oculus Monitor,  Auto Oculus Touch,  Forum Dark Mode, Phantom Touch Remover,  X-Plane Fixer
Hardware: Threadripper 1950x, MSI Gaming Trio 2080TI, Asrock X399 Taich
Headsets: Wrap 1200VR, DK1, DK2, CV1, Rift-S, GearVR, Go, Quest, Quest 2, Reverb G2

SuperDre
Honored Guest
"kojack" wrote:
I read this somewhere too, it said something about being able to easily see your feet helps make the experience more comfortable when moving around. Or something like that.

One possible technical reason for going for this screen arrangement is due to the fact that high res panels aren't available in landscape orientation (pretty much every panel over 720p is intended for a phone). The DK2 has a portrait mode screen mounted sideways, requiring rotation of the image before display (by the drivers in extended mode or the oculus sdk in direct mode). Plus frame tearing (when vsync isn't uses) goes across rather than down, causing eyes to be out of sync.

Having dual portrait screens means no rotation needs to happen, they just need to split the input to two panels, which should simplify things.


But the vive uses these displays in landscape mode, and seeing your feet (unless it's virtual) isn't a good thing IMHO, it would mean the vizor isn't close enough to your face.

I don't think with the new displays used tearing would be a problem (unless as a developer you put it in there yourself), I think the displays used will use something like AMD's Freesync or nvidia's G-sync, they are special low latency .. Also from software side there isn't really a difference in speed if you render something portait or landscape.
DK2 CPU: i7 4770K Mem: 16GB GPU: GTX760 2GB OS: Windows 8.1 pro x64 Controllers: Wireless xbox360 controller, Logitec Extreme 3D Pro, Logitec Momo steeringwheel, LeapMotion

Malkmus1979
Explorer
"SuperDre" wrote:

But the vive uses these displays in landscape mode


No they don't.

http://www.tested.com/tech/concepts/504 ... takeaways/

Valve’s design actually arranges the two screens in portrait orientation, extending the vertical FOV. Simply, the image is taller.

SuperDre
Honored Guest
"Malkmus1979" wrote:
"SuperDre" wrote:

But the vive uses these displays in landscape mode


No they don't.

http://www.tested.com/tech/concepts/504 ... takeaways/

Valve’s design actually arranges the two screens in portrait orientation, extending the vertical FOV. Simply, the image is taller.


So that means there isn't a real difference between de vive and the oculus in regard to the screens, they'll both use exactly the same screens (can't believe there would be 2 different suppliers with the same odd resolution at this time)..
DK2 CPU: i7 4770K Mem: 16GB GPU: GTX760 2GB OS: Windows 8.1 pro x64 Controllers: Wireless xbox360 controller, Logitec Extreme 3D Pro, Logitec Momo steeringwheel, LeapMotion