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

Developer? Click here to go to the Developer Forums.

Well If This Ends Up Happening I'm Jumping Ship!

13567

Comments

  • LZoltowskiLZoltowski Posts: 6,536 Volunteer Moderator
    edited February 7
    kevinw729 said:
    ....I would hedge a bet there are 2.5 million of them [Oculus GO] out there.

    Find that very hard to consider - at best there could be 1.3m - but if there had been over 2m we would have seen news from the Chinese production operation of re-tooling and also I think that kind of news would have forced OVR management to "hint" at it to media and devs. Best we moderate expectations there  

    That doesn't make sense 300k on iPhone only?, also I haven't understood a word of what you said. News from the Chinese operation of retooling, what does that mean?

    I don't see a reason for FB to randomly tout numbers just yet, I would save that for the FB Dev Conference or OC

    There is no denying that the GO has been a relative success and continues to sell well.
    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 :)
  • kevinw729kevinw729 Posts: 4,085 Valuable Player
    LZoltowski said:
    ..... I haven't understood a word of what you said. News from the Chinese operation of retooling, what does that mean?

    I don't see a reason for FB to randomly tout numbers just yet, I would save that for the FB Dev Conference or OC

    There is no denying that the GO has been a relative success and continues to sell well.

    Okay will try and been more specific - if the GO had sold higher than was expected that would be implied by your number quoted then I am sure we would have heard from one of the sources at the Chinese fabrication factories that they had started to increase the roll out.

    Its great to see GO  be a "relative success", and I think sharing the numbers with the community would encourage publishers and Indies alike to start considering the platform for development.

    I look forward to your speculation of a number announcement at FB Dev Conference or OC6.
    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
  • snowdogsnowdog Posts: 5,638 Valuable Player
    You won't see an announcement of numbers I don't think. They haven't announced numbers for the Rift yet so I can't see them doing so for the Go.

    Wise money would be on them selling over 2m now though.
    "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: 12,572 Valuable Player
    2-million really does seem to be within reason.

    Just my from experience attending Oculus Venues events, I can say that the online presence from around the world is very noticeable. Especially compared to how it was with Rift multiplayer games. I encounter large groups of people that are up to 3 times greater than Rift experiences, both in volume and consistency.
    Are you a fan of the Myst games? Check out my Mod at http://www.mystrock.com/
    Catch me on Twitter: twitter.com/zenbane
  • kevinw729kevinw729 Posts: 4,085 Valuable Player
    snowdog said:
    .....
    Wise money would be on them selling over 2m now though.

    Would that include the Chinese [Xiaomi] units?
    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
  • Techy111Techy111 Posts: 5,140 Volunteer Moderator
    kevinw729 said:
    snowdog said:
    .....
    Wise money would be on them selling over 2m now though.

    Would that include the Chinese [Xiaomi] units?
    Maybe the Chinese re-toolers could answer that one???
    A PC with lots of gadgets inside and a thing to see in 3D that you put on your head.
    And FlyInside Forum Admin.
    Flyinside Flight Simulator RELEASED.
  • snowdogsnowdog Posts: 5,638 Valuable Player
    kevinw729 said:
    snowdog said:
    .....
    Wise money would be on them selling over 2m now though.

    Would that include the Chinese [Xiaomi] units?

    Obviously not, it's a different app. Once you add in the Chinese numbers you're probably looking at more like 3m or so sold I reckon.
    "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
  • HiThere_HiThere_ Posts: 1,254
    3Jane
    The way I see it :
    - The inside-out tracking makes the Rift setup a whole lot easier, and does work 360°, with only a minimum impact on hand tracking (meaning only a few games will be impacted,and could be easily patched).
    - If you use a custom sized super long screen, instead of using a pair of smartphone screens like the CV1 did, you don't need a physical IPD slider anymore.

    And in both cases it's a step forward, that wasn't used for the CV1 only because the technology didn't exist yet.
  • inovatorinovator Posts: 1,328
    Wintermute
    I would buy it for the inside out tracking alone. And yes an extra camera or two towards the back would cover games having blind spot issues.
  • Digikid1Digikid1 Posts: 1,566 Valuable Player
    Techy111 said:
    3 thirds true mate........3 thirds true ;)
    I have heard the next Rift will be called CV2b. Let's discuss whether it's 2b or not 2b. 
    Good one. 
  • WildtWildt Posts: 1,524
    Project 2501
    HiThere_ said:
    - If you use a custom sized super long screen, instead of using a pair of smartphone screens like the CV1 did, you don't need a physical IPD slider anymore
    That doesn't solve the issue of aligning your eyes with the lenses. 
    Asus Z370-A ||  Watercooled 8700K || 16 GB gSkill ram 3200 || Samsung SSD 840PRO 256GB + 850PRO 256GB + 850EVO 500GB || Watercooled FE Geforce 1080ti || Zalman Reserator XT watercooler || TPcast wireless adapter || MamutVR Gun stock V3 || Asus ROG PG279Q  G-sync monitor
  • DaftnDirectDaftnDirect Posts: 4,154 Valuable Player
    I'm wondering, if the lenses are large enough, whether the algorithm for correcting aberrations and distortion can't be used to also correct for IPD variation without having to move the lenses, it should be possible shouldn't it?

    Also, that may be a clue that the headset has a larger FOV, requiring the larger lenses. Just guessing of course.
    The only possible downside being, the larger your IPD, the smaller your FOV is going to be, but that would be the case anyway assuming the screens don't move, or its a single screen.
    Gateway 2000, Pentium II 300 Mhz CPU, 64Mb RAM, STB Velocity 128 AGP Graphics Card with 4MB SGRAM, 6.4Gb Hard Drive, US Robotics 56.5kbps Internal Modem, 12/24x CDROM Drive, Ensoniq AudioPCI, Windows 95.
  • WildtWildt Posts: 1,524
    Project 2501
    I'm wondering, if the lenses are large enough, whether the algorithm for correcting aberrations and distortion can't be used to also correct for IPD variation without having to move the lenses, it should be possible shouldn't it?

    Also, that may be a clue that the headset has a larger FOV, requiring the larger lenses. Just guessing of course.
    The only possible downside being, the larger your IPD, the smaller your FOV is going to be, but that would be the case anyway assuming the screens don't move, or its a single screen.
    There's more distortion than just CA, when looking through fresnel lenses with a viewpoint offset from the center of the lens.
    Asus Z370-A ||  Watercooled 8700K || 16 GB gSkill ram 3200 || Samsung SSD 840PRO 256GB + 850PRO 256GB + 850EVO 500GB || Watercooled FE Geforce 1080ti || Zalman Reserator XT watercooler || TPcast wireless adapter || MamutVR Gun stock V3 || Asus ROG PG279Q  G-sync monitor
  • DaftnDirectDaftnDirect Posts: 4,154 Valuable Player
    edited February 8
    Yes, chromatic aberration is one thing, distortion is another. But what's preventing any type of distortion being corrected by an algorithm? Even with physical IPD adjustment, distortion is currently being compensated for via correction algorithms, not just CA correction. Unless I'm mistaken.

    It would just become increasingly difficult to achieve, if the lenses are too small too cover the IPD variations such as with the current Rift lenses. Hence why I suggest this could be clue to the new design and FOV.
    Gateway 2000, Pentium II 300 Mhz CPU, 64Mb RAM, STB Velocity 128 AGP Graphics Card with 4MB SGRAM, 6.4Gb Hard Drive, US Robotics 56.5kbps Internal Modem, 12/24x CDROM Drive, Ensoniq AudioPCI, Windows 95.
  • WildtWildt Posts: 1,524
    Project 2501
    Yes, chromatic aberration is one thing, distortion is another. But what's preventing any type of distortion being corrected by an algorithm? Even with physical IPD adjustment, distortion is currently being compensated for via correction algorithms, not just CA correction. Unless I'm mistaken.

    It would just become increasingly difficult to achieve, if the lenses are too small too cover the IPD variations such as with the current Rift lenses. Hence why I suggest this could be clue to the new design and FOV.
    Yeah, I reckon you (to some extend) can correct everything in software, and I don't know how computationally heavy it is, or how heavy artifacts it will introduce. The current CA correction isn't perfect.
    Asus Z370-A ||  Watercooled 8700K || 16 GB gSkill ram 3200 || Samsung SSD 840PRO 256GB + 850PRO 256GB + 850EVO 500GB || Watercooled FE Geforce 1080ti || Zalman Reserator XT watercooler || TPcast wireless adapter || MamutVR Gun stock V3 || Asus ROG PG279Q  G-sync monitor
  • DaftnDirectDaftnDirect Posts: 4,154 Valuable Player
     Wildt said:
    Yeah, I reckon you (to some extend) can correct everything in software, and I don't know how computationally heavy it is, or how heavy artifacts it will introduce. The current CA correction isn't perfect.

    Certainly some things just can't be corrected, such as artefacts generated within the lens like godrays… nor can focus adjustments, outside of the magical world of NCIS... 'can you enhance the face Abby?'

    IPD distortion correction may fall within the easy to compute or the impossible, I don't know enough, I'm just guessing.

    It would be great to have some input from someone with expertise in optics and mathematics... perhaps someone currently working for Oculus? ;)

    Gateway 2000, Pentium II 300 Mhz CPU, 64Mb RAM, STB Velocity 128 AGP Graphics Card with 4MB SGRAM, 6.4Gb Hard Drive, US Robotics 56.5kbps Internal Modem, 12/24x CDROM Drive, Ensoniq AudioPCI, Windows 95.
  • MradrMradr Posts: 2,770 Valuable Player
    edited February 8
    It would make sense for them to drop the current tracking method and focus on a more simple design. Plus all the benefits that come with inside out track has that most customers will like to make it a simple setup for them.

    I know some people thought I was silly for saying that they might go down this route, but I could totally see it being a thing once they feel it was good enough. The only thing I hope they do add is another set of cameras to match the full rotation of the arm if they are for CV2. Before you say anything like its already good - well there were people that said it still had its limits when using Quest as far as where you can move your arm and stuff. With that said - there needs to be a few extra cameras that either point backwards down or on the side down/up. This way it covers a good chunk more of the arm rotation. I wouldn't think it add much cost or more required horse power to do so for.

    The software IPD adjustment sounds like maybe we might be getting an early taste of eye tracking to help auto adjust the IPD? 

    Honestly - the news is soo thin for a leak it sounds like the Oculus S might be a different product than the CV. If it is a the CV - well that sucks that it sounds like were going backwards a little bit here if theyre going to remove some the extra controls we had. Other wise it sounds like a balance choice more than anything. Not a real 2.0 headset everyone was hoping for, but more of a upgraded CV one specs as a 1.5.

    What I think it be neat is if the Rift S - being a just a 1.5 upgrade - could mean is that they license the device out to other third party vendors to allow them to make the hardware while Oculus works on the CV 2.0 later at a higher price point. In theory this would compete with WMR as the low end cost device factor while selling their platform to the massive. On the flip side - they only need to make 2-3 designs so the other companies take on the load while allowing them to give a different level of hardware to split what they can do for the end headset while not costing FB or Oculus the sink it wouldve cost them to do it themselves. 
  • kevinw729kevinw729 Posts: 4,085 Valuable Player
    Mradr said:
    ......
    I know some people thought I was silly for saying that they might go down this route, but I could totally see it being a thing once they feel it was good enough. 
    .....
    Honestly - the news is soo thin for a leak it sounds like the Oculus S might be a different product thank the CV. If it is a the CV - well that sucks that it sounds like were going backwards a little bit here if theyre going to remove some the extra controls we had.

    Have to agree Mradr, though I think we understand that things have changed internally at OVR and that directions and business focuses have been refocused. The Oculus-S sounds like one of a range of products. That investment into Half-Dome is not going to evaporate, and I expect a CV-2 to placate the community, (unless those behind this work have left the company?)

    I think the passion of the VR community will mean that if OVR did decide to only focus on a Go, Quest and O-S business approach then they would feel betrayed and be very vocal (as seen above). But the reality of what Facebook VR is prepared to invest into this acquisition (no matter how committed to VR in general) is the issue. 
    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
  • DaftnDirectDaftnDirect Posts: 4,154 Valuable Player

    Plus I think we need to keep in mind where our hands will be in relation to the headset and how often and for how long they move outside of the headset's forward view.

    There will be many times when we're looking left and our right hand remains at the far right or vice versa, but not for extended periods of time. I don't think super accurate hand tracking at those moments would be vitally important if the controller's internal motion detection is accurate enough to fill in the gap plus a disparity may only be noticeable when we see our hands provided any corrections when returning to camera tracking are small and subtle.

    Maybe 360 cameras aren't necessary, I'm thinking maybe 200-220 or there abouts? so that would probably equate to side mounted cameras, or front quarter mounted.

    Gateway 2000, Pentium II 300 Mhz CPU, 64Mb RAM, STB Velocity 128 AGP Graphics Card with 4MB SGRAM, 6.4Gb Hard Drive, US Robotics 56.5kbps Internal Modem, 12/24x CDROM Drive, Ensoniq AudioPCI, Windows 95.
  • MradrMradr Posts: 2,770 Valuable Player
    edited February 8

    Plus I think we need to keep in mind where our hands will be in relation to the headset and how often and for how long they move outside of the headset's forward view.

    There will be many times when we're looking left and our right hand remains at the far right or vice versa, but not for extended periods of time. I don't think super accurate hand tracking at those moments would be vitally important if the controller's internal motion detection is accurate enough to fill in the gap plus a disparity may only be noticeable when we see our hands provided any corrections when returning to camera tracking are small and subtle.

    Maybe 360 cameras aren't necessary, I'm thinking maybe 200-220 or there abouts? so that would probably equate to side mounted cameras, or front quarter mounted.

    True - but even at the Oculus Quest demo people were finding places that the tracking wasn't work as well as it could've. This means future software will have to keep this in mind and cant be as flexible as it once was. For example, shooting from the hip might not be possible and instead all gun actions have to happen with it forward out. Grabbing things behind that take some positing might fail more times than not - so grabbing that tablet from your butt might start getting annoying if you grab your ammo instead. 

    With that said - Quest is a good compromise for the price - but if S is going to replace CV - then it needs to have extra cameras to cover more of the arm rotation - period. The idea is that CV lines take it to the next level - be limited to what we have for Quest is not the next level.






    By adding side cameras - you basically double your tracking numbers and now software can be more flexible in what your community can pull off and use with in their games/software. There will be a little ring between the cameras but soo small it wouldn't even matter because that ring is the dead space your arms get tried in. There will also be a ring of dead space around the headset. Then there is still the back back side of they body - but because of the armor rotation limit and dead zone of where your arms want to be most of the time - that wouldn't be a problem anymore either. But you would gain behind the head/neck area, the hips, greater clipping of the back area, and greater clipping of the lower body too.
  • DaftnDirectDaftnDirect Posts: 4,154 Valuable Player
    edited February 8

    Yep, I don't want to downgrade people's expectations over what should be a premium experience over Quest. We definitely don't want anything less capable than what we already have.

    Im confident it won't be less capable, I'm maybe more optimistic over what can be done, with what may be on the face of it, less hardware, given advancements in the tech.

    That said, companies don't always deliver what we want, and i've got no illusions about the possibility of Oculus disappointing us!

    Edit, I still reckon 200-220 degree camera coverage would be pretty good for almost all circumstances, if it's in both the horizontal and vertical, even shooting from the hip. That would equate to 10-20 degree behind the plane of the headset in all directions.

    Gateway 2000, Pentium II 300 Mhz CPU, 64Mb RAM, STB Velocity 128 AGP Graphics Card with 4MB SGRAM, 6.4Gb Hard Drive, US Robotics 56.5kbps Internal Modem, 12/24x CDROM Drive, Ensoniq AudioPCI, Windows 95.
  • MradrMradr Posts: 2,770 Valuable Player
    edited February 8
    Yep, I don't want to downgrade people's expectations over what should be a premium experience over Quest. We definitely don't want anything less capable than what we already have.

    Im confident it won't be less capable, I'm maybe more optimistic over what can be done, with what may be on the face of it, less hardware, given advancements in the tech.

    That said, companies don't always deliver what we want, and i've got no illusions about the possibility of Oculus disappointing us!
    Honestly - I am ok with a little bit of a down grade over the current tracking system so long as it:
    1) Makes setup easier for everyone aka less cameras to setup, less USB ports, and less wires.
    2) It helps lower the cost (witch it should as its one less product/item that has to be produce) and over all one less thing that could junk up the system.
    3) Oculus adds what is needed to make it still the same or little less than what we have now.

    Sadly - I have this feeling they are going to really disappoint us yet again. Really - any time they release big news - it hasn't been taken well xD I remember still the first time PM was happy to let us know about GH :D soo many face plats could be heard around the world:) but at the time - I understood still it was the first step in the right direction to get name brand titles on the Rift.
  • kevinw729kevinw729 Posts: 4,085 Valuable Player
    DaftnDirect said:
    .......
    Im confident it won't be less capable, I'm maybe more optimistic over what can be done, with what may be on the face of it, less hardware, given advancements in the tech.

    That said, companies don't always deliver what we want, and i've got no illusions about the possibility of Oculus disappointing us!

    Strong comments DaftnDirect - I can stand behind those sentiments.
    I am keeping my powder dry over Quest - other than a question on the selection of the SD825 chip, I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt about the optimisation and achieved performance. A number of the AAA devs who have systems and we speak with are keen to say that minimal optimisation was needed in their port, but there are compromises.

    Quest will be a 'make or break' platform for the community. In effect the majority of the VR community have approached VR from a High-end PC direction, many dismissive of mobileVR. With Quest, the promise has been made that it offers "Rift-like experiences", that is a make or break statement, and the proof will be in the reaction in a matter of months time. Launching with a promised 50 titles, this platform has all the opportunity, with no excuses if if can not deliver.
     
    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
  • Stepphen_RobertssStepphen_Robertss Posts: 0
    NerveGear
    snowdog said:
    https://uploadvr.com/oculus-rift-s-code-references/

    The Rift S has been referenced in code somewhere apparently and is using inside-out tracking and a software IPD instead of a physical one.

    ...
    Can say more about this?
  • DaftnDirectDaftnDirect Posts: 4,154 Valuable Player
    edited February 8

    @Mradr Yeah, Guitar Hero really felt like it was PM's dream experience and unfortunately it was a bit of a niche dream there.

    But yes I absolutely agree, we've had enough of expectations not really being met to the full during recent times. But hey, think how much worse it's been for Pimax kickstarters!

    Gateway 2000, Pentium II 300 Mhz CPU, 64Mb RAM, STB Velocity 128 AGP Graphics Card with 4MB SGRAM, 6.4Gb Hard Drive, US Robotics 56.5kbps Internal Modem, 12/24x CDROM Drive, Ensoniq AudioPCI, Windows 95.
  • DaftnDirectDaftnDirect Posts: 4,154 Valuable Player
    edited February 8
    kevinw729 said:
    Quest will be a 'make or break' platform for the community. In effect the majority of the VR community have approached VR from a High-end PC direction, many dismissive of mobileVR. With Quest, the promise has been made that it offers "Rift-like experiences", that is a make or break statement, and the proof will be in the reaction in a matter of months time. Launching with a promised 50 titles, this platform has all the opportunity, with no excuses if if can not deliver.

    I'm genuinely excited about Quest and it will be a definite day 1 purchase for me. It will be really compelling for anyone who's like me, and has their VR confined to the small room where the computer is, as well as those who haven't considered VR because of cost, cordless convenience, PC complexity/compatibility reasons, and who weren't interested in non-6dof, non-hand-tracking varieties of stand-alone VR.

    I think that covers a lot of people out there. It doesn't have to be perfect but provided it's good, it'll tell us if the public is really as ready for VR as we think they are.

    Gateway 2000, Pentium II 300 Mhz CPU, 64Mb RAM, STB Velocity 128 AGP Graphics Card with 4MB SGRAM, 6.4Gb Hard Drive, US Robotics 56.5kbps Internal Modem, 12/24x CDROM Drive, Ensoniq AudioPCI, Windows 95.
  • AlextendedAlextended Posts: 12
    NerveGear
    edited February 8
    I mean, you don't have to buy the S, just wait for Oculus Rift 2 if you really wish to upgrade (or whatever they name the next upgrade with external tracking), your current Rift won't stop working because they're making a set to compete with WMR/Vive Cosmos in terms of ease of setup and what not. Just as Oculus Go didn't stop your Rift from working and the Quest won't either. It only makes sense that they make a product competing with those as they can also probably give it out for a cheaper price (or for the same price with upgrades in other areas like the resolution) given that as you said it could well be like an Oculus Quest that is powered by being tethered to a PC rather than a weak mobile chipset, although I kinda wish they had done both products in one instead of do two variants if that's the case, but maybe they differ in other ways as well. I doubt it will have any kind of eye tracking to enable foveated rendering though, that's probably gonna be left for a very premium product like Vive's for ludicrous pricing if done any time soon, or left for later. S sounds like a decent budget iteration much like Rift itself.

    If in the mean time another company has come out with a better choice you can go for it, nobody has brand loyalty or anything silly like that. If Valve or another company comes out with another VR set with lighthouse + tracking, knuckle-like controllers and a solid HMD before a Rift 2 comes along and you have money you wish to spend, sure, go for it, I would too. I'll probably not look into upgrading (beyond getting a 3rd sensor for my current Rift) for a few years at least though, even if Rift 2 comes out before that, I'm not one to change gear yearly or something, plus with Rift's low resolution I don't need to upgrade my PC to run most games fine. I'll probably first upgrade my PC before getting a higher end set so that will come even later and I'll see what the best choice is then, Oculus, HTC, Valve, or something else altogether and what has the best features to price ratio and what kind of tracking solutions have been devised by then and how well each works in different scenarios.

    Or who knows maybe the same way you buy a 3rd or 4th sensor for the current Rift to add to its tracking quality/versatility maybe a future S-like model (if the upcoming one doesn't have any infrared reflective points for sensors to track) will support doing the same thing, buying (or digging up for your by then old Rift sensors) a couple external sensors for the front and back for additional accuracy and versatility, even if the out of the box experience relies on inside out tracking alone, who knows.

    Either way you obviously don't have to buy every product from the company just because you liked one model. Personally I'm curious to see how it will work out, I'm sure it will be fine for 360 gaming but I'm not sure how it will work out with the FPS and other games that often have you holding the controllers in your face or fumbling to your chest/belt/hip for gear without having to look at it, I guess it won't be too bad if you simply have to look down for a moment to get them but the aiming with the controllers close to your face really has to work well so hopefully it overall works better than the WMR sets.

    As for actual business decisions I hope the Oculus Quest software will be ported to PC to work with the Rift since it's more than capable of running those, I don't want to miss out on cool Oculus funded stuff like the Star Wars stuff just because I don't have the mobile model. The opposite is not possible, not every single PC game can be ported down to a mobile chipset like the Quest uses, so that's understandable if they don't port everything to it, but every Quest software should be made for Rift and S too.
  • MradrMradr Posts: 2,770 Valuable Player
    edited February 8
    Or who knows maybe the same way you buy a 3rd or 4th sensor for the current Rift to add to its tracking quality/versatility maybe a future S-like model (if the upcoming one doesn't have any infrared reflective points for sensors to track) will support doing the same thing, buying (or digging up for your by then old Rift sensors) a couple external sensors for the front and back for additional accuracy and versatility, even if the out of the box experience relies on inside out tracking alone, who knows.
    I can pretty much assume that if they go with inside out tracking - outside in tracking camera are going to be remove along with ir lights for the headset. That extra money and design will be used to replace the cameras instead. Even though the electronics dont cost much to make the IR lights - its the cost of labor to put them there in the first place that does.

    What would be neat is if they could add the same cameras to the controllers instead - then you get full 360 and the headset would only need to track it self instead of things whizzing by. Have it wireless send its data back to the headset and boom you have the perfect system I feel. The only down side is they would need a bigger battery for sure - so there would be more weight to the controllers, but might be worth the trade off just for the simple setup + full 360 tracking. That be a game changer right there. Let alone - on the go VR for the most part. Granted - much like anything - itll take another release before we see it on Quest for example, but that be a future upgrade people would be excited for.
Sign In or Register to comment.