cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

High end oculus vr.. don't hold your breath

bigmike20vt
Visionary
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=3&hl=de&nv=1&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=...

Pretty bleak reading imo excuse long link Google shortener not working on it
Fiat Coupe, gone. 350Z gone. Dirty nappies, no sleep & practical transport incoming. Thank goodness for VR 🙂
401 REPLIES 401

Luciferous
Consultant

I am feeling pretty sad I must say, I signed up on Kickstarter just a couple days after it reached its target. I joined here the day the forum opened back in March 2013 and have visited here nearly every day since then (Often multiple times).

DK1, DK2 and CV1 the launches always made me feel like a kid again waiting for Christmas. I never thought anything would make me feel that way again.

The crazy joy of the order system, thousands of us pounding the keyboard desperately trying to get their orders through before the website crashed. F5ing my order status for months.

Staring out of my window and hoping to see the most beautiful sight in the world, a UPS driver. God I love gold and brown.

Despite my previous arse kicking comments, I really do hope Oculus do well with the Rift S, alas with quite a fair amount of sorrow, it is not for me. I guess I will always be chasing that feeling again.

If the Half Dome Rift 2 does eventually surface, I no doubt will be back for more. 

Wish you guys the best with your Rift S purchase and look forward to hearing a positive outcome.


Netheri
Rising Star
"Connecting People"..well that has some bad ring to it (if you know which companys slogan it was before huge drop as the company didin't listen what the public and customer wanted). Also, just leaving this formula here: Rift + 2k resolution 2 screen system with physical ipd + 150 degree fov + better fresnells =profit with customers happy. But no, letsago with one screen with software ipd and crappy resolution with gray blacks.  :disappointed: 

Edit: yeah i know it would cost more, but Oculus already has the throw-in hardware which is known as Oculus Quest.
i9-9900K@ 5GHz, ASUS Rog Strix 2080 Super OC , 32gb 3466MHz DDR4, ROG Strix Z390 E Gaming, 1 x Inateck 4 port USB 3.0 card, 2x3.1, USB, 6x3.0 USB on mobo, 1x USB-C on G-card, Reverb G2

kojack
MVP
MVP

I joined here the day the forum opened back in March 2013


Damn, you beat me by 1 hour 11 min. 🙂


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


kojack said:


I joined here the day the forum opened back in March 2013


Damn, you beat me by 1 hour 11 min. 🙂

you two make me feel like a youngster, that's an achievement in itself

pyroth309
Visionary

KoBak07 said:


To me having Lenovo to drive the development of the product is to me a big surprise. Why would a company like Oculus with their depth and experience dump this on a team, which has only brought to market products considered "junk" from a PCVR standpoint?



Well to be fair, the Lenovo Explorer was actually praised by most people who used it. The LCD panel was sharper than the Rift or Vive with less SDE and easier to read text. I can tell you I was actually jealous of the SDE and the hinge that they added that let you flip it up to look at things. Lenovo has been around a long time and know what they're doing.
As a complete package it was behind Rift or Vive but that wasn't really Lenovo's fault or role. That was more of a fault of the Windows Mixed Reality platform which was on Microsoft. It came up a bit short but at the same time proved that Inside Out is viable.
The partnership with Oculus made a lot of sense to me for both companies. Some of the design choices that were made for cost savings I don't like or agree with but I never really had a problem with Lenovo building it. 

That all being said, what did concern me about Lenovo was a lot of people had problems getting support or warranty coverage. I'm curious if Lenovo or Oculus is going to handle/foot the bill with this one.

inovator
Consultant

Zenbane said:


inovator said:
snowdog said:
If you think for even a split second that Oculus won't release the Half Dome prototype as a consumer headset until 2025-2028 then you're insane. Seriously


I was answering the insane accusation as you can see. Calling people insane is different than saying people are in denial. Your very selective of what you say is insulting. We all are in denial about something from time to time. I have told my kids if they are in denial for something. I wouldn't tell them they are insane. Lol



I wasn't picking sides, and I wasn't sure who you were referring to as being in denial to be honest. I saw that Mradr and snowdog were posting a lot and I skim read their stuff. I figured it was one of them you might be referring to. I don't consider either of them to be in denial. I've had a lot of debates with Mradr, and while I think he is "biased" at times (but lets face it, we are all biased), I wouldn't say he is in denial. Samesies for snowdog. Both of these posters have different perspectives, and both perspectives are quite valid because both perspectives stem from valid positions that both Facebook and Oculus have openly taken in the past year.

So again, it is not about being in denial (at least not in this situation). It's about different perspectives.


Well said. I have to agree that your opinion is a valid one.

Luciferous
Consultant

kojack said:


I joined here the day the forum opened back in March 2013


Damn, you beat me by 1 hour 11 min. 🙂




Slacker.

Anonymous
Not applicable

KoBak07 said:

I still feel that they are shooting way under to in the PCVR space. Or to use your argument, they are only shooting for what is now the bottom of the VR space, spec wise. I would argue that graphics processing power has increased quite a bit since the initial Gen 1 launch, but they are still holding the line for that level of target specs.
IMO, if companies stop innovation, not pushing the envelope any further, then what's the point. The level of immersion with the current gen screens, the low FOV is all immersion breaking. I still argue, that the barrier to greater adoption is actually the fact that the tech they are pushing in Gen 1 is not good enough for people to spend money on, since the viewing experience / quality much worse than 1080p / 4K regular screens.



I would argue that GPU performance has increase - but it hasn't increase that much. For a few reasons such as: The shrink size coming down the pipe line, AMD focus on their CPU line vs their GPU line, NV pricing on the 20s cards, Bitcoin backlash, memory prices, etc

I feel like PC hardware took a beating the last few years really and we still have another year to go before it will recover from all that mess. With that said - there is still the future we know that should still happen such as AMD releasing better GPU after the console lunches, NV RTX getting cheaper, Intel joining the race, hardware advancements such as eye tracking, and some software advancements such as VRS coming down the pipe line for all 3 companies.

This is why I feel like the Rift S still makes 100% sense in what they did. That's why the comment "actively trying to devalue their PCVR lineup" doesn't make sense when on the graphic side of things is till recovering from before.

With that said - I  agree that it should not stop innovation. If we're just around the bin for something like eye tracking - it REALLY shouldn't stop Oculus to release a product that takes use of that and sell it above the 450 mark and ignore the na sayers. At the end of the day - specs do make or break a product still and the only way forward for PCVR is if we can get these specs high enough to make them a better value to the end customer than what flat screen can give. With in reason of course. Once we pass that bump - I be happy to focus once again on price, but until that happens - PCVR just hasn't hit that "good enough" mark just yet considering we are still on gen 1. Granted, that isn't everything for sure - software is still king to draw in people - but having the freedom to do a little extra for detail reasons goes a long way as well. At the heart of hardware innovation is to give us the resources for that pretty life like game and take it that one more step forward than we had before.

PCVR at the end of the day will never be mainstream - as I said in other post - but it can be the flag ship for VR to show off what VR can be like in the future. While Quest and GO devices will carry VR forward for the masses with less hassle, reasonable price points, and more accessibility.

Zenbane
MVP
MVP

KoBak07 said:
The main difference is that Oculus already has been selling what I would consider a top of the line Gen 1 product, while Valve did not release a product of their own, rather looked for a partner out of the box to start their product lines. So I view this as going from the benchmark of the cutting edge to a product produced by a partner that is a "mediocre" player in the VR space.

Also, Lenovo might be a profitable company on the PC side, but I would argue that they have not set the world on fire with design or performance.



"Not setting the world on fire" is not the same thing as "creating junk," which is what you tried to argue earlier. So you are issue dodging here and pivoting the original point.

Based on the first version of your argument, it was false to state that Lenovo is known for making junk. And there is nothing inherently wrong with any partnership, as seen by HTC and Valve. Not to mention that Oculus partnered with Xiaomi for GO, which turned out to be a surprising success.

As for your new argument, there is still wrong information in there. Rift, GO, and Quest are Facebook products. They officially own this IP and Facebook owns Oculus. On the timeline of history, the Rift CV1 was made specifically by Oculus as it existed when Facebook and Oculus became partners as part of a Buyout. So technically, these Facebook products have always been built by another company. First it was the original Oculus building the Rift CV1, and now Facebook has someone else building GO and Rift-S. There is nothing bad or uncommon happening here.

What you seem to be doing is trying re-frame the situation to make it appear inherently bad. And it's not.

Zenbane
MVP
MVP

KoBak07 said:
I still feel that they are shooting way under to in the PCVR space. Or to use your argument, they are only shooting for what is now the bottom of the VR space, spec wise.




You are making the same mistake others make so often by portraying the "PCVR space" as something that is limited to hardware. Because Facebook isn't competing direct with the Vive Pro and Pimax 5K/8K with the Rift-S on a purely hardware level, people want to pretend that Oculus has left PCVR or trying to lower their commitment to it.

Once Stormland and Defector come out, I'm confident that people will be reminded that the "PCVR space" requires high-end software to push hardware, not the other way around.