04-12-2019 02:53 PM
04-14-2019 06:59 AM
04-14-2019 07:12 AM
DaftnDirect said:
OK bigmike, I completely understand where you're coming from. I'm not totally sure if my IPD is within the Rift-S limits being 69, it's within the adjustment limits but outside the recommended limits as far as I can make out. So maybe it'll be ok, maybe not.
I think I'm less pessimistic though in that I believe there will always be a choice of headset that best suits my needs and I'm also optimistic about OpenXR removing cross platform tie-ins.
Maybe I'm just a glass half full bloke but it seems to me that things generally turn out better than most people say... when most people say it'll turn out bad.
(Neville Chamberlain probably felt the same)
04-14-2019 07:20 AM
LuluViBritannia said:
Ouch. That's literally the last thing I wanted to hear from Oculus (well, except for "we wont be making a Rift 2 at all").
What now?
....
- Valve... I don't get why so many people overhype their future headset when we know strictly nothing about it for now.
.....
04-14-2019 07:24 AM
bigmike20vt said:
DaftnDirect said:
You've lost me a bit with the store and getting behind... as far as I can tell, the Rift-S is intended for Oculus to move ahead.... much more so than with a higher priced HMD, and not just that, but in selling more HMDs, they will instil more confidence in developers to produce more software, not just for the Oculus store but for the Steam Store, in either case, additional faffing isn't what's going to happen. It's an interesting idea that allowing a company to do this as being selfish. I would argue that that point of view is the opposite.
bigmike20vt said:
DaftnDirect said:
Surely there's room for flexibility and changes of direction that a company takes, given that so much must have been learnt from the last 3 years of manufacturing and selling consumer hardware and funding software?
There will always be high end, if not from Oculus, then from somebody else, but if Oculus doesn't produce a mainstream headset with sufficient quality and capability that prospective mainstream will want it... then will somebody else? I don't see that happening at the moment, and if nobody else does... what would that spell for VR?
Isn't it possible that emergent technology like VR needs to begin high-end for it to make sense to early adaptors, but doesn't have to stay that way? indeed mustn't stay that way in order to survive and become sustainable?
Personally I'm not comfortable with views that equipment from a particular company should be high-end for fear of alienating sections of their costumers. Are existing users really that rigid? and if so, fine, there will be new users joining us who've been waiting for a more accessible yet capable PC headset, or who would otherwise have just waited even longer to get into VR if PC requirements continued to rise.... and I won't be looking down on these users either.
Changes of direction seem to me to be what successful companies do.... and consumer VR needs at least one successful company.
In Which cases the naysayers about oculus stores were correct then .... Don't buy apps from oculus or when they get behind you will be left faffing about with 3rd party hacks. No one (afaik) is complaining about the existence of rift s or catering for the main stream but a company the size of Facebook must surely be capable of supporting a range of products (even if licenced out).!
Lenovo make the rift s. I am sure they would happily make a rift X too. And I am not talking about a £1300 device either ...... I don't think a £700 hmd with adjustable IPD and improved fov is outrageous. And besides you are being a bit selfish imo. Oculus themselves are admitting people at the extremes of ipd are no longer supported by oculus. Think about that..... Oculus sold software to preoole and are now saying sorry we no longer supply a device you can use comfortably....... Sorry about that!
We can all argue over what headset could be produced, at what price and with what features... but if you're saying that nobody's complaining about the Rift-S itself, then ok, even though I'm not convinced ok, we can park that.
That just leaves what high-end headset could be produced. We seem to be in agreement that high-high-end (let's agree that's £1300 isn't the right thing for Oculus but medium-high-end is ok (£700). Fine, I'll go with that, but I'm not going to get on a high-horse and say Oculus are abandoning me because they aren't doing that. That would be selfish. (and I'm not accusing you of that bigmike but it's definitely a sentiment that's being expressed).
@kojack , I understand your analogy with the digital cameras. I waited many years, avoiding early digitals until I felt they were good enough to replace 35mm. Eventually I went with a 20D cos at £1200 (I think) it was just about affordable but pretty much equivalent in quality to the 35mm I had.
But there are some fundamental differences with digital cameras. There's no dependence on an ecosystem, in the way that VR has a dependence on software sales. As far as I know the likes of Canon, Nikon and Sony profited on all cameras sold regardless of specification. I have a feeling Oculus loss-lead or at least sell at cost in order to build base users. I have a feeling the same is true for the software they fund also.
I just think it's easy for everyone to pick and choose price points and specifications that we think should be met but we're not the ones doing it for real.
Perhaps I didn't express myself properly. My issue is I am worried the rift s physically is not going to work for me. I have my IPD set to max on my CV1 ... And if I am honest I would expand it a bit more if I could.
So (perhaps selfish was the wrong word) but once my rift dies (right headphone is already glued together and am on my 2nd facial insert already) I will end up with a bunch of software on a store with potentially NO headset officially supported for me to use.
Anyone saying "stop complaining rift s works for most people " is missing a big problem imo.
This is exactly why many of my purchases were made on steam. Instill have probably £500 with of apps on there tho.
A more quest like design would definitely have been more usable and would have locked of fewer people imo
Sorry if I am getting a bit ranty but I am just getting a bit tired of people essentially accusing people like me of being moaners just because they have an average ipd that oculus choose to support and screw those who are SOOL.
Some have.said ipd of 70 works however as far as I know this has been 15 min sessions. Oculus themselves admit they no longer supoort ipds as high as CV1 and iirc the max my CV1 goes to is 69 or 70 and I am hitting that now
04-14-2019 07:36 AM
CrashFu said:
Luciferous said:
Definitely need to bring the average joe into VR, so agree there.
however we already have a plethora of other companies doing that, we don’t need ‘everybody’ doing that.
You can drown in the number of affordable mediocre headsets on the market.
Unless you're referring to those lame phone-insert VR toys, I'm not sure who this "plethora" of other companies is.
Right now, the only companies I see making decent entry-level devices are Oculus and Sony, and Oculus are the only ones making one for PC.
Every other company that has dipped its toes into VR products (again, excluding those silly phone-insert toys) has focused exclusively on making expensive, high-end models. (Or in the case of the first Vive, a needlessly expensive parallel to CV1.)I was just hoping for a reasonable improvement in resolution or FOV three years later, is that what you refer as wanting high end?I think that you and others are really underestimating just how much of an improvement the Rift-S' graphics are, over CV1. On paper, it may only sound like a few hundred more points of resolution each way, but it also has significantly better lenses and 50% more subpixel density (which means the effective resolution, the overall clarity of the image, is SIGNIFICANTLY higher than CV1)
Perhaps you missed the article by a certain flight-sim dev who was talking about how Rift-S's graphics are so sharp, he could easily read every instrument panel in his sim cockpit? That's a big step up from CV1, where you can't even read most menus in Subnautica.CrashFu said:
Luciferous said:
Definitely need to bring the average joe into VR, so agree there.
however we already have a plethora of other companies doing that, we don’t need ‘everybody’ doing that.
You can drown in the number of affordable mediocre headsets on the market.
Unless you're referring to those lame phone-insert VR toys, I'm not sure who this "plethora" of other companies is.
Right now, the only companies I see making decent entry-level devices are Oculus and Sony, and Oculus are the only ones making one for PC.
Every other company that has dipped its toes into VR products (again, excluding those silly phone-insert toys) has focused exclusively on making expensive, high-end models. (Or in the case of the first Vive, a needlessly expensive parallel to CV1.)I was just hoping for a reasonable improvement in resolution or FOV three years later, is that what you refer as wanting high end?I think that you and others are really underestimating just how much of an improvement the Rift-S' graphics are, over CV1. On paper, it may only sound like a few hundred more points of resolution each way, but it also has significantly better lenses and 50% more subpixel density (which means the effective resolution, the overall clarity of the image, is SIGNIFICANTLY higher than CV1)
Perhaps you missed the article by a certain flight-sim dev who was talking about how Rift-S's graphics are so sharp, he could easily read every instrument panel in his sim cockpit? That's a big step up from CV1, where you can't even read most menus in Subnautica
04-14-2019 07:51 AM
04-14-2019 07:58 AM
04-14-2019 08:02 AM
04-14-2019 08:17 AM
LuluViBritannia said:
....Do you mean that all the people praising the Valve Index actually had the chance to use it? I highly doubt it ^^'.
For now, all I heard was rumors on the specs and people stupidly believing in those rumors. As of today, the Valve Index barely exists officially. When the speecs are released, then, there will be matter to be hyped... if said specs are good, of course.
Hum, no, it's not. Those headsets aren't part of the current VR ecosystems. And they aren't at the same level as the others in terms of specs.
Sony did nothing for the PC VR market. I do respect them for their PSVR ecosystem though.
04-14-2019 08:18 AM
Luciferous said:
Well it makes no sense if you only ever buy from Oculus. I hope the index kicks Rift S ass, otherwise I fear I may be doomed for three years of mediocre VR gaming.