If there ever be RIFT S most desired features will be
1) 2160 X 2432 pixel per eye resolution at 3.25" per display size
2) Oculus Go Optics or more improved Optics
3) Oculus Quest type tracking
4) Hardware requirement not more than current rift
5) OS Support including windows 7
6) Only Single user replaceable cable.
7) Pricing around $ 300
With current library of RIFT titles there is good reason to amazing success.
4
Comments
Catch me on Twitter: twitter.com/zenbane
less weight
less tight
PSVR: PS4 Pro || Move Controllers || Aim controller
WMR: HP Reverb
1. SDE reduction
2. Higher Resolution
3. FoV
4. Option to use Constellation
5. Better Colors
6. Less God Rays.
I'm hoping there is no "S" version. So .........
1. Save the development time and cost by going straight to a greatly improved CV2.
2. If there is an "S" version, I hope it doesn't end up being the last PC powered VR-HMD from Oculus.
Dear Oculus, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", please.
Moderate increase in FOV (say 30% higher)
Big improvement in God rays/contrast (ie Go/Quest optics)
Moderate to big improvement in pixel per degree count (at least 30% higher).
I'll take either existing tracking camera compatible or inside-out tracking although I'm quite excited to try inside-out.
Price around £350.
Better for glasses would be a bonus but not if it impacts on FOV (if that were the case, I'd rather have better provision for custom lenses).
Although I haven't experienced any hardware failures (I had a scare but turned out to be software related) I hope Oculus have addressed any of the common issues some people had with CV1, I'm thinking right headphone connection.
Slightly softer/thicker face foam and a little more flexible facial interface (I still remember the DK2).
1) 599-699$
2) 2k or 4k screens ( I be willing to pay more for higher end screens if they have FOVA ready to go )
3) Eye tracking technology
4) The new improve lenses or better depending whatever they are working on now is ready for release
a) Less glare
b) Improve clarity
5) Higher FOV at least 120 at most 140 for a modest increase while providing a higher PPD (pixel per degree)
This would be more consider a 2.0 and a nice jump for the wait - but other wise - it seems we might only be getting a small jump:
RS - Refresh
$299-399
Better lenses
Vision Tracking
Slightly better screens
Different fit/look/comfort
Slightly better display screens (1,600 x 1,440)
To me, it sounds like this headset would be good for people that are just now getting into VR than for people that already have a CV1. If you have a CV1 - you would be better off waiting for the CV2 if they plan to still release one any time soon. Granted - if they release a Rift S - two things most likely will happen:
1) They will be granted another few years before they release a CV2 because people will see the RS as the new CV1.5 and the jump to a CV2 will be seen as too soon.
2) They will have too many product stacks. CV1, Quest, GO - and now Rift S - so supporting that many line ups might be a problem to release a CV2 any time soon again (soon being with in the next year).
To me - if they are going to release a RS - they should make it clear that its going to replace the current CV1 as the new slightly low end option for PC and that they are going to stop the sell of CV1 while coming out saying CV2 is going to be their highest end of the PC and a possible time frame of release (like saying next year). Short of that - I have a hard time understanding where this Rift S fits into the total product stack short of them trying to just not talk about a CV2 and just slide in a 1.5 instead.
I don't need a huge resolution bump like Pimax is trying to do, looks nice I am sure but if can't run my combat flight sims with decent performance that is no good to me.
EVGA Z390 Dark MB | I9 9900k| EVGA 3090 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 |
However, given we're already 6 months since the Odyssey+ came out, the Rift S needs to be a true jump forward from it, whether that's higher resolution, increased FOV or whatever. I'll be extremely disappointed if it's a 1600 pixel 110 FOV headset. I'll probably still get one just for the controllers, but that's basically a sideways step, which after 3 years shouldn't be the case. Oculus should be pushing the medium forward, not just treading water.
Given that, it should be ~140FOV with similar pixel density to the Odyssey+ (so the same 1600 pixels high but 16:10 instead of square) and large sweet spot optics with reduced god rays. If they can do that, it'd be enough to be a clear improvement over existing headsets without getting too crazy.
I really hope they increase the FOV to hopefully 180° or above.
And I don't think they will match the current Rift price, I think it will be £500, so cheaper then the original but more expensive then Quest.
Also one last thing I would add is, if they did charge a lot more I wouldn't mind as long as it had new technology, so I don't mind paying £600-£700 as long as it has eye tracking or something new. But if it's just increased FOV and optics then £400-£500 is more realistic as I guess most people wouldn't want to spend too much on just a slight upgrade.
If I'm being realistic though I'm only expecting these changes for Rift 1.5:
<hint> 5K 8K
That is certainly a big reason many bought into it in the flight sim community.
And they say it is nice, but can't get any performance so many not too happy right now.
EVGA Z390 Dark MB | I9 9900k| EVGA 3090 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 |
1) Resolution
2) FOV
3) Performance
4) Clarity
IF resolution alone was their goal - then PPD would be much higher than it is. Let alone - 5k or 8k modules are just the screen technology we already have out on the market already. Their goal wasn't higher resolution. Their goal was higher FOV. To get higher FOV though without dropping into to worst quality than what the CV1 or HTC has -you have to increase the resolution along with it. This is a common misunderstanding between people that don't connect the two.
You are correct that many did bought into it.. Pimax wasn't the best option in this case. The way the product works is just too demanding and their selling point of higher FOV was a silly one, but that is what people was demanding so they made the product to meet that demand.
Some people still like the 5k and 8k though and like the fact they can see better clarity using them, but the method at witch they went at it didn't make everyone happy because the fact it takes a lot of performance out of the system.
I mean like wtf - why are you taking a base of 2k and up scaling it to 4k screen? That is going to give weird results already let alone the performance requirements that some of the pixels go to waste for! It's soo stupid.
Catch me on Twitter: twitter.com/zenbane
Even if we limit it to just the newest os - 8.1/10 - there are still millions of users to target for that could double or triple the current count alone. The issue isn't so much the OS limitation as it is just what can run VR in the first place along with market demand for VR. That is whole other topic/thread.
ASUS MAXIMUS IX HERO | MSI AERO GTX 1080 OC @ 2000Mhz | Corsair Carbide Series 400C White (RGB FTW!)
Be kind to one another
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