Brace yourselves: Official Rift-S reveal is coming - Page 2 — Oculus
New to the forums? Click here to read the "How To" Guide.

Developer? Click here to go to the Developer Forums.

Brace yourselves: Official Rift-S reveal is coming

2456736

Comments

  • davejohnblackdavejohnblack Posts: 10
    NerveGear
    edited March 16
    I think people might be over estimating how much it saves to remove the snapdragon 835... a quick search suggests $40 plus heatsink and ram, then they have to replace it with something less powerful to coordinate the sensors (If not perform image processing)...
  • RedRizlaRedRizla Posts: 6,399 Valuable Player
    edited March 16
    I think people might be over estimating how much it saves to remove the snapdragon 835... a quick search suggests $40 plus heatsink and ram, then they have to replace it with something less powerful to coordinate the sensors (If not perform image processing)...

    Well if that's the case it certainly doesn't make it worth $600, which is the post I was mainly responding to. For $600 it would need to have a lot more then what Oculus Quest offers. Unless of course the the sensors you talk about come in at $250.

    Edit: I was basically responding to a post where some said it would be worth $600 without even knowing what we are getting. I'm thinking it will have similar specs to Oculus Quest, which should keep it around the same price or cheaper. But we shall see soon enough.
  • davejohnblackdavejohnblack Posts: 10
    NerveGear
    RedRizla said:
    I think people might be over estimating how much it saves to remove the snapdragon 835... a quick search suggests $40 plus heatsink and ram, then they have to replace it with something less powerful to coordinate the sensors (If not perform image processing)...

    Well if that's the case it certainly doesn't make it worth $600, which is the post I was mainly responding to. For $600 it would need to have a lot more then what Oculus Quest offers. Unless of course the the sensors you talk about come in at $250.

    Efit: I was basically responding to a post where some said it would be worth $600 without even knowing what we are getting.
    By sensors, i meant the cameras, accelerometers etc which are built into the quest(etc) to track it's position.

    Indeed for $600 I would expect a few decent upgrades...

    David
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,366 Valuable Player
    edited March 16
    The problem and some of the reason of the kick back is there are two different markets wanting access/share of Oculus/Facebook resources to make a product for their wants and needs. You have the bleed edge guys that wants something at around 600-400$ while the rest of the market wants something in the 200-300$ range. Both have their pros and cons when it comes to business and keeping customers happy. Both will be equally right in their point of view as far as what Oculus should do with the Rift S.

    There will be some back lash over one over the other side of the market to whoever they choose to go with in terms of price, new features, and upgrades.

    With that said - if you are the camp for the 600-400 then you are wanting more in terms of what the PC can do. That means higher resolution and a bump in FOV that still at least 50% better PPD over current generation 1 headsets. More if they can get eye tracking into the device.

    While the other side wants that too - they are just not wanting to spend the money on that half meaning if it isn't in a price range - then they are not even considering it for a while. The lower price really limits what can happen though. This means maybe Rift S losses current tracking ability with the external tracking to save worker cost of having to place them in there in the first place resulting in less complexity and a lower price point. New technology is usually cut as well unless it's coming from another product line already, so stuff like eye tracking is usually the first to be cut.

    This can be a topic of its own really.

    I will say software in king - but without good hardware support it - software can only do so much. At some point - the river just needs to be bigger if they wish to push more water down stream. If VR can't stand out more in terms of what it can provide outside of gaming too - it'll have a slow progression. For example, if the headset is only slowly progressing - then it'll take another 2-3 years before the rift finally hits readable text inside the headset. This means people that want to use VR as another monitor will have to again wait many more years to finally be able to do that resulting in less over all software sells and hardware sells - again an example. There are other facts as well at play with this example that have as much of a impact to the over all user experiences as the resolution and lenses have such as taking off and on the head set.

    We should know more by GDC what they aim for either way it sounds like from those rumors and other sources coming up with the same information.

  • ZenbaneZenbane Posts: 14,249 Valuable Player
    edited March 16
    Mradr said:
    I will say software in king - but without good hardware support it - software can only do so much. At some point - the river just needs to be bigger if they wish to push more water down stream. .


    As of today, there isn't enough software in the VR ecosystem to warrant improved hardware. Which is why I've always joked about the price of the Pimax 5K/8K and even the Vive Pro... when all people end up doing is playing old games like Elite Dangerous and Skyrim.

    Yes software can "only do so much" and one of the things it does is flood a market and drive hardware innovation forward.
    Just look at what Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, and Cryptomining has done for the evolution of GPUs.
    Are you a fan of the Myst games? Check out my Mod at http://www.mystrock.com/
    Catch me on Twitter: twitter.com/zenbane
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,366 Valuable Player
    edited March 16
    Zenbane said:
    As of today, there isn't enough software in the VR ecosystem to warrant improved hardware. 

    I like to feel like that might be a chicken and a egg problem than a software or hardware problem. Like I said - both markets have pros and cons - the biggest pro for a cheaper price headset is that it is going to bring in a ton more people and this results in a larger user base software designers will want to cater to to make their software and games for meaning they will put more time, money, and resources into making their product number one and a better over all user experience.

    On the flip side for hardware and software - you sure do need software that can push today's hardware - but usually software comes second as you need the hardware first out there so software devs knows what to program for. Using my text readability example - if the hardware can't already provide a good enough focal point viewing - software can't show off how clear the resolution or lenses are. Another example for gaming, is if you don't have eye tracking hardware - you can't improve lower end specs to allow lower end hardware access to VR and there for software will not be working out the details on how FOVA should work or ways to improve it.

    It's all a balance act and trade offs. I do agree both view points either way are correct and have a impact on what a customer is looking for at the end of the day. Everyone is just different and as a result - are in the market for different reasons. 
  • RedRizlaRedRizla Posts: 6,399 Valuable Player
    I believe software is king to success and also cheaper hardware. I wonder how many people are going to rush out and buy an 8k television with no content. If you want to sell a product to millions of people and not just to the rich people of this world, then you have to create a product that people can afford. I think Oculus is looking to do what @Zenbane and @ShocksOculus have said. 
  • ZenbaneZenbane Posts: 14,249 Valuable Player
    edited March 16
    Mradr said:
    Zenbane said:
    As of today, there isn't enough software in the VR ecosystem to warrant improved hardware. 

    I like to feel like that might be a chicken and a egg problem than a software or hardware problem.
    Historically, it's not a problem but a direct observation. When the computer first hit consumers hands, Word Processors were the driving force. The need was there first, from the mass amount of Data Entry workers world-wide. Software has always driven hardware.

    but usually software comes second as you need the hardware first out there so software devs knows what to program for.

    This is 100% false if we're going by factual human history. The software comes first, and drives hardware innovation forward. Software first came in the form of Algorithms which go back to 300 BCE.

    And some further history on how Software emerged before Hardware:

    Charles Babbage invented the “Analytical Engine” (a computer made out of gear wheels and levers and stuff) - that would have been the “first computer” during Victorian times.

    Ada Lovelace (a rich countess with a fondness for math and science - daughter of the poet Byron) took it upon herself to write a description of the machine - and included a program that she (probably) wrote in her description.

    Since Babbage never did finish building the Analytical Engine - Ada’s software existed for almost 100 years before the first working computers came along.


    Software has always come first, and it drove the need for hardware. History and facts reveal this without question. VR is no different.

    Are you a fan of the Myst games? Check out my Mod at http://www.mystrock.com/
    Catch me on Twitter: twitter.com/zenbane
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,366 Valuable Player
    edited March 16
    RedRizla said:
    I believe software is king to success and also cheaper hardware. I wonder how many people are going to rush out and buy an 8k television with no content. If you want to sell a product to millions of people and not just to the rich people of this world, then you have to create a product that people can afford. I think Oculus is looking to do what @Zenbane and @ShocksOculus have said. 
    True, but then you progress more slowly - it's also one of the downside of a low price market. The jump between products is longer and reach jump of specs is a lot lower meaning there isn't anything that will show off eye candy that some people enjoy or dream about getting later on. I mean Crysis did do one thing - it require and even push top end customers to bite into higher end cards than what mainstream was aiming for.

    Mainstream only wants 1080p-1440p right now and 60FPS for around 200-400$. Your higher end customers want 4k and 144FPS for around 400-800$. 
  • MowTinMowTin Posts: 1,565
    Project 2501
    edited March 16
    Zenbane said:
    when all people end up doing is playing old games like Elite Dangerous and Skyrim.


    You underestimate these old games. Elite Dangerous is not "an old game." It's not even finished. It's always growing and expanding. They still haven't delivered everything they promised in the kickstarter. 

    And there are other "old games" like Asseto Corsa and maybe Project Cars 2 which are sims. Sims don't get old. People play them for years and years. The sim gamer space is VR's greatest strength. 

    And many of us, you may disagree, feel that Skyrim VR is the best VR game. Skyrim VR helped sell a lot of headsets. 

    The VR market is just not big enough to support AAA VR from the ground up games. It's better to mod old and new pancake games properly. That way the buyer feels he has a better platform to play existing games rather than playing a bunch of student game projects on a new platform. 
    i7 6700k 2080ti   Rift-S, Index
  • ZenbaneZenbane Posts: 14,249 Valuable Player
    Mradr said:
    RedRizla said:
    I believe software is king to success and also cheaper hardware. I wonder how many people are going to rush out and buy an 8k television with no content. If you want to sell a product to millions of people and not just to the rich people of this world, then you have to create a product that people can afford. I think Oculus is looking to do what @Zenbane and @ShocksOculus have said. 
    True, but then you progress more slowly - it's also one of the downside of a low price market. The jump between products is longer and reach jump of specs is a lot lower meaning there isn't anything that will show off eye candy that some people enjoy or dream about getting later on. I mean Crysis did do one thing - it require and even push top end customers to bite into higher end cards than what mainstream was aiming for.
    That doesn't make sense. Software is what allows things to progress more quickly. Computer hardware and mobile devices are constantly upgrading incrementally to keep up with the software demands.

    You have things backwards. If hardware innovation came first, then everything would move more slowly. Information Technology is the fastest moving Industry in human history; and it's an industry that began with Software first.
    Are you a fan of the Myst games? Check out my Mod at http://www.mystrock.com/
    Catch me on Twitter: twitter.com/zenbane
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,366 Valuable Player
    edited March 16
    Zenbane said:
    Mradr said:
    RedRizla said:
    I believe software is king to success and also cheaper hardware. I wonder how many people are going to rush out and buy an 8k television with no content. If you want to sell a product to millions of people and not just to the rich people of this world, then you have to create a product that people can afford. I think Oculus is looking to do what @Zenbane and @ShocksOculus have said. 
    True, but then you progress more slowly - it's also one of the downside of a low price market. The jump between products is longer and reach jump of specs is a lot lower meaning there isn't anything that will show off eye candy that some people enjoy or dream about getting later on. I mean Crysis did do one thing - it require and even push top end customers to bite into higher end cards than what mainstream was aiming for.
    That doesn't make sense. Software is what allows things to progress more quickly. Computer hardware and mobile devices are constantly upgrading incrementally to keep up with the software demands.

    You have things backwards. If hardware innovation came first, then everything would move more slowly. Information Technology is the fastest moving Industry in human history; and it's an industry that began with Software first.
    Hardware has to come first before software can move faster though. Sure software can request to be faster - but it's not going to make it self faster if there isnt a way to improve it self anymore. Compression can help - but if your ping times between packets are large - then you are going to have huge spikes of communication delays.

    I mean look at another prime example of hardware first - the RTX line of cards or even Direct X12. You can't run any of the Direct x12 features unless your hardware already supports the technology and API calls in the first place. RTX on the other hand needs something out there first so devs can work on software to use RT cores and create software around that.

    All software does is help drive the need for stronger hardware - hardware still drives the software to get that point though. One side can get there faster than the other - but the other still requires each other to perform its task with in a reasonable amount of time. Software is arguably is still more important than hardware - but hardware still is what allows software to do some amazing things with it self.

    Let me ask this: Would you rather play at 1080p at 120FPS or 4k at 60FPS with a monitor that can do either ore but limited to 60 FPS even if they are both price the same?
  • ZenbaneZenbane Posts: 14,249 Valuable Player
    MowTin said:
    You underestimate these old games.
    Possibly. Or maybe I'm just not beyond the appeal of games that entail mass redundancy.

    Elite Dangerous is not "an old game."
    I've owned Elite Dangerous since 2016. The game was released in 2014, it's nearly half a decade old.

    It's not even finished. It's always growing and expanding. They still haven't delivered everything they promised in the kickstarter.

    Add-ons don't counter-act the process of aging. Getting a new haircut, for example, doesn't suddenly make a person young. And omg, if failing to deliver a Kickstarter promise somehow keeps a game "fresh and new," then the world is screwed.


    And there are other "old games" like Asseto Corsa and maybe Project Cars 2 which are sims. Sims don't get old. People play them for years and years. The sim gamer space is VR's greatest strength.
    Yes, they are old games. They are often referred to as "classics." The "feeling" may never get old, but the software itself is still old. There seems to be some confusion here about how time and aging works.

    And many of us, you may disagree, feel that Skyrim VR is the best VR game. Skyrim VR helped sell a lot of headsets.

    Beat Saber outsold Skyrim, and has helped sell more headsets. Beat Saber is literally used at VR marketing events and at VR Arcades.


    The VR market is just not big enough to support AAA VR from the ground up games. It's better to mod old and new pancake games properly.

    I agree that Ports are needed from a financial/sales perspective. The only reason AAA VR titles haven't arrived yet is because it takes 3-5 years to develop and this April we are barely hitting the 3 year mark of the release of the Rift and Vive CV1. Ports are only needed to "buy more time."


    That way the buyer feels he has a better platform to play existing games rather than playing a bunch of student game projects on a new platform. 

    Yes, I agree that VR Ports are an effective visage.

    Are you a fan of the Myst games? Check out my Mod at http://www.mystrock.com/
    Catch me on Twitter: twitter.com/zenbane
  • dtrjonesdtrjones Posts: 33
    Brain Burst
    Zenbane said:
    I'm really hoping for:
    1. Increased FoV
    2. Reduced Screen Door
    3. Reduced God Rays
    4. Improved Black Levels
    5. Eye Tracking
    Hello we have another brendan iribe here LOL! I think it's just a refresh mate, unlikely to get an increased fov or eye tracking. I think a teathered quest is your best comparison and that should keep the price down..
  • dtrjonesdtrjones Posts: 33
    Brain Burst
    Wildt said:
    All naive wishes aside my gut tells me its a Wired Quest without the SoC, at an even cheaper price. 
    Pretty much yes. we knew that was coming when the other guy left. You'll have to wait a little longer for a next gen Rift. I'm still excited and I'm almost certain to buy this anyway!
  • ZenbaneZenbane Posts: 14,249 Valuable Player
    edited March 16
    Mradr said:
    Hardware has to come first before software can move faster though.

    Again... history dictates otherwise. This isn't about opinions or theory, this is about an observable truth. Software literally came first, and pushed hardware innovation forward. Software creates the need to "move faster."


    Sure software can request to be faster - but it's not going to make it self faster if there isnt a way to improve it self anymore.

    True, and that is when Hardware comes in secondary to push the industry forward. But you just described the exact process where Software comes first, Hardware second. Which is the literal opposite of your initial argument that claimed Software comes second.


    I mean look at another prime example of hardware first - the RTX line of cards or even Direct X12.

    That's not "hardware first." Graphic cards were birthed due to the demand created by Software. Software came first:

    The first computer graphic to be used on a computer was in the 1940s, when the Whirlwind I was developed for the U.S. Navy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The Whirlwind was a flight simulator that could locate objects.
    https://www.techwalla.com/articles/who-invented-the-graphics-card

    You like to argue personal theory when it comes to technology; yet technology is driven by and reflects a recorded history which does contradict your personal theory.


    All software does is help drive the need for stronger hardware

    Correct.

    hardware still drives the software to get that point though.

    Incorrect.


    Let me ask this: Would you rather play at 1080p at 120FPS or 4k at 60FPS with a monitor that can do either ore but limited to 60 FPS even if they are both price the same?

    Let me ask this: Play what, exactly?

    Because the specs you listed in your question were created as a result of Software demand.

    Are you a fan of the Myst games? Check out my Mod at http://www.mystrock.com/
    Catch me on Twitter: twitter.com/zenbane
  • dtrjonesdtrjones Posts: 33
    Brain Burst
    Zenbane said:
    RedRizla said:
    Am I missing something here? Why are some people thinking the RIft S could be expensive? My thinking is the Rift S is like an Oculus Quest, but it uses PC hardware instead. How could that make it more expensive then Oculus Quest when an Oculus Quest needs a snapdragon processor and the Rift S doesn't? Please tell me if I'm missing something here in regards to pricing? If eye tracking is added that could increase the price, but I can't think of anything else that would make it more expensive then Oculus Quest. Infact it should be cheaper given it will be using PC hardware.
    Depends on the Resolution, FoV, and other features of the HMD. The final product specs and features will determine the final pricing. Yes the snapdragon processor adds overhead to Quest, but that could easily be matched with state-of-the art visuals that surpass Quest.

    In all likelihood though, Rift-S will either be the same or slightly cheaper. Just a few more days and then we get to move away from speculating about specs and price... and move towards speculating about the death of PCVR.
    mmmm yummy
    The death of PCVR? thats the one thing which is keeping me going LOL! I am hoping of course we can become unteathered one day however I think that will just mean that we have a viable wireless solution - I think it will be a long time before standalone brings the highest fidelity games and experiences - that for now has to come from a PC.
  • ZenbaneZenbane Posts: 14,249 Valuable Player
    dtrjones said:
    The death of PCVR? thats the one thing which is keeping me going LOL! I am hoping of course we can become unteathered one day however I think that will just mean that we have a viable wireless solution - I think it will be a long time before standalone brings the highest fidelity games and experiences - that for now has to come from a PC.

    Yeah, sorry, I was being tongue-in-cheek and making fun of all the comments from 2016 up to present day, from those who claim that PCVR is dead and dying.
    :D
    Are you a fan of the Myst games? Check out my Mod at http://www.mystrock.com/
    Catch me on Twitter: twitter.com/zenbane
  • ZenbaneZenbane Posts: 14,249 Valuable Player
    dtrjones said:
    Hello we have another brendan iribe here LOL! I think it's just a refresh mate, unlikely to get an increased fov or eye tracking. I think a teathered quest is your best comparison and that should keep the price down..
    You're probably right. But let a brutha dream!
    :'(
    Are you a fan of the Myst games? Check out my Mod at http://www.mystrock.com/
    Catch me on Twitter: twitter.com/zenbane
  • Shadowmask72Shadowmask72 Posts: 3,658 Valuable Player
    Wallet is prepped...


    System Specs: RTX 2080 ti , i9 9900K CPU, 16 GB DDR 4 RAM, Win 10 64 Bit OS.
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,366 Valuable Player
    edited March 16
    Zenbane said:
    Mradr said:
    Hardware has to come first before software can move faster though.

    Again... history dictates otherwise. This isn't about opinions or theory, this is about an observable truth. Software literally came first, and pushed hardware innovation forward. Software is creates the need to "move faster."

    The first computer graphic to be used on a computer was in the 1940s, when the Whirlwind I was developed for the U.S. Navy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The Whirlwind was a flight simulator that could locate objects.
    https://www.techwalla.com/articles/who-invented-the-graphics-card

    You like to argue personal theory when it comes to technology; yet technology is driven by and reflects a recorded history which does contradict your personal theory.

    Let me ask this: Would you rather play at 1080p at 120FPS or 4k at 60FPS with a monitor that can do either ore but limited to 60 FPS even if they are both price the same?

    Let me ask this: Play what, exactly?

    Because the specs you listed in your question were created as a result of Software demand.

    Correct - it creates the need to move faster - but hardware is what makes it faster in the first place. All software is - is a thought - hardware is the tool to make it happen. Hardware can still live without that thought being there. Hardware had to come first before more complex software could be created because software is just the idea on how to use our tools in a new or better way. The first computer was actually just a rope with beads on it to help with math that later allow us to do more complex math. The tool actually wasn't created for that porous - but as clothing that was later use as a tool for keeping track of math. The fact that hardware can't relax on its improvements without software imploding on it self goes to show that hardware has to be there first to give software its shape.

    I look more into that - it sounds more like him and his team just collected the idea and design from different technology to build this so call first GPU. The GPU it self didn't actually stim from software - but a hardware requirement meaning the hardware did come first before the software did. Base off why they did it is because v-tubes where not really reliable.

    Resolution isn't a software demand its a hardware demand of your monitor:) Now the work it self is done in software - but the over all need doesn't come from software - it stims from hardware.

  • kzintzikzintzi Posts: 1,068
    Wintermute
    edited March 16
    I think Zenbane's point is that if programmers didn't try and make 32 colours with CGA graphics by dithering, there would have been no need to make EGA, and if they'd then not tried to cram more info into the same screen, then VGA wouldn't have been necessary.. the hardware gets designed because the current hardware has limitations that people want to exceed.

    I agree that software can't expand into a given specification until the hardware exists, but the drive for faster/better has always been the software that was running on the generation that proceeded it needing more resources or not being good enough.

    Generally speaking, gaming has been driving the PC industry for years and the push for faster processing in the desktop market (which has then flowed back into the commercial sector and improved things there and so on); unless you're playing games you don't need a multicore, multi GHz PC... you can do decent looking spreadsheets and documents with a P3 120 and 1MB of video RAM (I remember doing it).

    [Edited to make the CGA/EGA point more accurate :smiley: )

    Though you are more than slightly incoherent, I agree with you Madam,
    a plum is a terrible thing to do to a nostril.
  • ZenbaneZenbane Posts: 14,249 Valuable Player
    Mradr said:
    Correct - it creates the need to move faster - but hardware is what makes it faster in the first place.

    That's an odd statement that combines two different concepts entirely. Software creates the need for technological innovation to move forward faster. Software is what makes it possible for hardware to innovate forward.

    The speed in which the data is being transferred is controlled by hardware, but it is the software that innovates everything forward.

    All software is - is a thought - hardware is the tool to make it happen.

    Incorrect. Software is a collection of data and instructions that tell a computer how to work. Without software, computer hardware cannot function.


    Hardware can still live without that thought being there.

    Hardware can "exist" without the Software being there, but the Hardware won't do anything. It isn't alive.


    Hardware had to come first before more complex software could be created

    Incorrect. As I already demonstrated, factual history dictates that Software came long before hardware.


    The first computer was actually just a rope with beads on it to help with math that later allow us to do more complex math.

    You just proved yourself wrong again. In that example, Math is the software that existed first, and the rope with beads is the hardware that existed later, driven by the need to process Math software faster. Software first.


    The fact that hardware can't relax on its improvements without software imploding on it self goes to show that hardware has to be there first to give software its shape.

    That statement is pure fiction.


    The GPU it self didn't actually stim from software -

    Yes it did.


    but a hardware requirement meaning the hardware did come first before the software did.

    Incorrect. The software came first, then the hardware.


    Resolution isn't a software demand its a hardware demand of your monitor

    The need for better Resolution comes from the abundance of quality Software that has caused consumers to demand more graphically. When someone invests in a higher resolution device, they aren't staring at a blank screen. There's software running.

    Are you a fan of the Myst games? Check out my Mod at http://www.mystrock.com/
    Catch me on Twitter: twitter.com/zenbane
  • GtAwyFrmMyRamenGtAwyFrmMyRamen Posts: 135
    Art3mis
    I hope they put the Quest up for order and give a release date for the S at GDC or I'm gonna be PISSED.

    not rlly but pls oculus daddy
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,366 Valuable Player
    edited March 16
    kzintzi said:
    I think Zenbane's point is that if programmers didn't try and make 32 colours with CGA graphics by dithering, there would have been no need to make EGA, and if they'd then not tried to cram more info into the same screen, then VGA wouldn't have been necessary.. the hardware gets designed because the current hardware has limitations that people want to exceed.

    I agree that software can't expand into a given specification until the hardware exists, but the drive for faster/better has always been the software that was running on the generation that proceeded it needing more resources or not being good enough.

    Generally speaking, gaming has been driving the PC industry for years and the push for faster processing in the desktop market (which has then flowed back into the commercial sector and improved things there and so on); unless you're playing games you don't need a multicore, multi GHz PC... you can do decent looking spreadsheets and documents with a P3 120 and 1MB of video RAM (I remember doing it).

    [Edited to make the CGA/EGA point more accurate :smiley: )

    The problem is you said there would be no need - the problem is that humans always have a been creating things before there really is a need. They always want to push things forward and try and get a better tool they have now. The need doesn't always have to exist at that time either - but the need can come later on. It's no different than what we are doing right now with SSD and faster channel memory. A customer doesn't need a SATA 4 speed when SATA3 is good enough for nearly 99% of the applications out there already - yet - we still have customer grade NvMe drives with read speeds in gig ranges.

    I agree that software drives for better hardware - no one can deny that - but why hardware gets better isn't always a software driven reason either. There are plenty of reasons why to make hardware better or faster without the need or thought of software controlling it in the first place. Money being one of the biggest reasons - but if you could make a chimp (for example) 75nm at 30 Hz speeds at cost of 300 + 25 profit or you could make a chip at 37.5 at 40 Hz that cost you only 150 (and you can make 2 of them) + 25 each profit you would do that instead would you not? 50 vs 25 - just saying not all improvements are software driven and its one of the reasons shrinking is good all around. The end customer just sees the improvement of 25% and a lower price point.

    Going back to the oj topic - if Rift S is no better than Quest - then software wise - we wont be seeing a 4k pretty game with a ton of eye candy. Players that love eye candy might shy away from VR. If they don't add eye tracking - then we wont see early work being done for FOVA. No FOVA - no work on trying to improve software for weaker hardware to get access to higher end VR technology. It's all a time scale factor - the longer/weaker a link is - the slow/weaker the whole chain is. With that said - and before someone blows this out of the water - I am not saying go the route of Vive Pro or Pimax - I am just talking about how hardware has to be there before we can jump to the next level of what people want and that a refresh of current hardware is not the same as going to a cv2.0. Its all trade offs and that there are two markets that see a different point of view and are equally correct in their own pros and cons.
  • snowdogsnowdog Posts: 6,891 Valuable Player
    I've always thought that Ada Lovelace sounds like a dodgy Porn actress lol  :D

    I think we'll also see fast-switch LCDs in the Rift S too. I seem to remember Carmack saying something about wanting to put those displays in the Quest but time didn't allow it.

    Using LCDs will also help drive the price down.

    Can't wait to see what they've had cooking :)
    "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: 14,249 Valuable Player
    edited March 16
    Mradr said:
    The problem is you said there would be no need - the problem is that humans always have a been creating things before there really is a need.
    Exactly. Humans created software before there was a need. Then hardware was developed to support it.

    It's no different than what we are doing right now with SSD and faster channel memory.

    All memory storage is controlled by Software.


    A customer doesn't need a SATA 4 speed when SATA3 is good enough for nearly 99% of the applications out there already - yet - we still have customer grade NvMe drives with read speeds in gig ranges.

    That "99%" figure is a fictitious number. The need increased due to the demand of Data (software) increasing. The current quote for data processing is, "There are 2.5 quintillion bytes of data created each day." That's software, and that creates the need for increase processing speed, memory, and storage.

    There are plenty of reasons why to make hardware better or faster without the need or thought of software controlling it in the first place.
    Hardware cannot function without the software telling it what to do.

    Going back to the oj topic - if Rift S is no better than Quest - then software wise - we wont be seeing a 4k pretty game with a ton of eye candy.

    Invalid assumption. Rift-S can be the same as Quest as an HMD specification, but the software ecosystem on a PC will drive it forward, and GPU's can respond to the demand of experiencing 4K in VR (software).

    Are you a fan of the Myst games? Check out my Mod at http://www.mystrock.com/
    Catch me on Twitter: twitter.com/zenbane
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,366 Valuable Player
    edited March 16
    Zenbane said:
    In correct - analog and even digital been doing fine without software for a long time. Software isn't need for everything. Instructions and software are not the same thing even though they work the same way. Software is instructions sets written or program in a static or dynamic configuration base of the needed task. That is not the same as hardware sending time instruction sets base on how the hardware is lay out. Aka, its no different than a flash light NOT needing software to function.

    I already gave an example of why hardware would get better without the need of software - so your point is mute here sweetie. Hardware can still exist and function just fine without software. Software on the other hand can't live without hardware sweetie. Hardware is the box the software sits in:) without a home sweetie - it'll be sad =/

    Na, look it up - the team didn't like the way the V-Tubes work - they got it working with what they already had - but they wanted better hardware that could function at a faster rate and was more reliable. It didn't stim from software - it stim from needing a better tool to do the job. The software in this case just gave it a job to do even though there was already working example.

    Software doesn't care what resolution you are running at - its the user that cares and the monitor refresh rate + pixel count that matters. At the end of the day - software couldn't care less - but everything tells software what to do so it can produce the correct image back to the user. It's a hardware demand - in this case as you need to be able to fill in the correct pixels to reproduce the image correctly even though software tells the hardware to do it its still bound to what the hardware can do.
  • RedRizlaRedRizla Posts: 6,399 Valuable Player
    @Mradr - I'm trying to work out what you are saying. Are you saying Oculus should make an expensive headset that only the rich people of this world can afford? Because if you that makes no sense what so ever to me. Who is going to continue to create software for something only a small amount of people own? Oculus want to sell millions of VR headsets not just hundreds or thousands, but millions. You can't reach that goal by making a headset that costs a fortune. But maybe I've misunderstood what you are trying to say.


Sign In or Register to comment.