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

RedRizla
Honored Visionary

Mradr said:


RedRizla said:

@Mradr - Lets take televisions as an example. New televisions are about to be brought out and some will be 8k this time around. But whose going to buy them while they are ridiculously expensive? Even Oled and QLed television are expensive, so most people settle on purchasing a television that has just 4k. 

Once these 8k televisions arrive then Oled & Qled 4k televisions will start to drop in price and the majority of people will then start to buy these televisions and not 8k televisions. So do you now see what Oculus is doing? They are catering for the majority and not the minority.




I see, so you feel like screen technology will be able to keep up even if we hit 6k that 8k will be around the bin next?



Sorry, I don't understand what you mean?

bigmike20vt
Visionary

RedRizla said:

@Mradr - Lets take televisions as an example. New televisions are about to be brought out and some will be 8k this time around. But whose going to buy them while they are ridiculously expensive? Even Oled and QLed television are expensive, so most people settle on purchasing a television that has just 4k. 

Once these 8k television arrive oled & Qled 4k televisions will start to drop in price and the majority of people will then start to buy these televisions and not 8k televisions. So do you now see what Oculus is doing? They are catering for the majority and not the minority.


I guess it depends where you draw your line.

if varjo VR1 is the equvalent to the 146inch samsung "Wall"
and the cheapest windows MR HMD you can buy is the 32 inch HDReady set

then i would argue oculus are going much closer to the bottom end than the top..... I would be happy somewhere in the middle 😉

Fiat Coupe, gone. 350Z gone. Dirty nappies, no sleep & practical transport incoming. Thank goodness for VR 🙂





possibly paradox's post is a bit cringeworthy, especially if Netheri is French


hmmmm, ok potential foot in mouth comment incoming but.... it is a shame, it was / is / will be again a beautiful building with a history... but AFAIK no human life was lost, it is bricks and mortar at the end of the day...... Had it of been an image of grenfell tower or similar I would have agreed with you but...........................…


Yeah I'm not an overly sentimental person and you're absolutely right, human life is the only thing that really matters. There's something about history and heritage though that means something even to someone like me who isn't French and isn't religious.

Well, people get quite heated over a change of direction that a VR company takes after just a few years.

edmg
Trustee

bigmike20vt said:
then the vive came out with its full 360degree tracking and oculus adapted.... it took some time with some buggy issues in the early days but now, with a 3 sensor set up i believe in an average - above average sized room the rift tracks every bit as well as the vive in full 360 degrees.
but with out the vive i think we would still be like at touch lauch, with a much more psvr like tracking.

so for that i thank valve.



This is just repeating the same old nonsense. The Rift was always capable of 360 tracking with a single sensor; something the Vive requires two lighthouses for.

What it didn't originally have were motion controllers. Because they didn't want to ship with something as sucky as the Vive wands.

The reality is that Oculus were going to do what they were going to do, and HTC just rushed out a second-rate headset because they wanted to beat Oculus to market.

Anonymous
Not applicable

RedRizla said:


Mradr said:


RedRizla said:

@Mradr - Lets take televisions as an example. New televisions are about to be brought out and some will be 8k this time around. But whose going to buy them while they are ridiculously expensive? Even Oled and QLed television are expensive, so most people settle on purchasing a television that has just 4k. 

Once these 8k televisions arrive then Oled & Qled 4k televisions will start to drop in price and the majority of people will then start to buy these televisions and not 8k televisions. So do you now see what Oculus is doing? They are catering for the majority and not the minority.




I see, so you feel like screen technology will be able to keep up even if we hit 6k that 8k will be around the bin next?



Sorry, I don't understand what you mean?



Mradr said:

@RedRizla @Zenbane @DaftnDirect
Yes I know its theory crafting - but I like to get your thoughts - anyone can jump in - but going off the scale of hardware and the current reasoning that Oculus wants to keep it low price as possible for VR - 

What if the 30s is more than powerful enough to run 6k at 80hz even go as far as to say they did get eye tracking working for the 20s and 10s cards to be supported, but the problem is that the 6k cost WAY too much even though the hardware could support it. Would your argument that keeping price low still be valid or should they try and push something a bit stronger out? I bring this up because scale of screen technology is going to hit a wall sooner than our GPUs or future improvements to VR will hit. Our biggest cost in a HMD is the screen(s). Eye tracking sort of resets FOV cost and a percent of resolution demand. With a time scale of 3 years - that be almost 2 generation of video cards depending on release dates. Personally - I dont think this question too wild of what might happen by then. 4k already a thing at around 80-144fps  - with 5k already hitting 30-45Hz - 2 more gen + software improvements along with eye tracking doesn't sound too far off to already be supporting 6k by then.


What I am getting at is that (if you want me to use majority or minority) is that the majority of users will be able to hit 6k screens by 2022 - but the problem is that 6k screens at that size will be too costly (lets say they cost 200$) putting the Rift S2 above the 450$ mark. Base on improvement rate for GPUs, Software improvements, and Eye tracking - the majority could support the higher end screens. Would your argument that keeping prices low then change? Same with S3 for 8k screen (all the way up to 16k that we need to hit for perfect 60PPD over FOV near eye). I mean that is a real future that could happen as screens that size continue to get harder to fix more pixels in them. TVs for example have a bit of size they can work with - but 5 inches doesn't have near the same work space.

foldale
Explorer
So can anyone recommend a PC VR unit that will work well with an IPD of 58? I have a RIFT CV1 and have been waiting over 2 years for an upgrade but so far I haven't seen anything that will work for me. I would have loved to stay with OCULUS but although they  have 3 new products sadly none of them look like they will work for me 😞

RedRizla
Honored Visionary



RedRizla said:

@Mradr - Lets take televisions as an example. New televisions are about to be brought out and some will be 8k this time around. But whose going to buy them while they are ridiculously expensive? Even Oled and QLed television are expensive, so most people settle on purchasing a television that has just 4k. 

Once these 8k television arrive oled & Qled 4k televisions will start to drop in price and the majority of people will then start to buy these televisions and not 8k televisions. So do you now see what Oculus is doing? They are catering for the majority and not the minority.


I guess it depends where you draw your line.

if varjo VR1 is the equvalent to the 146inch samsung "Wall"
and the cheapest windows MR HMD you can buy is the 32 inch HDReady set

then i would argue oculus are going much closer to the bottom end than the top..... I would be happy somewhere in the middle 😉




Oculus are not going to the bottom end they are catering for people who have a Geforce 1060 to 1080. Steam stats show that is what the majority of gamers are using, so why would they bring out a headset that requires a Geforce 2080Ti?

The only sticking point is the Ipd, but nobody knows for sure if that is going to be a big problem for people outside of the range. On saying that the majority of people are within range though.

bigmike20vt
Visionary

edmg said:



This is just repeating the same old nonsense. The Rift was always capable of 360 tracking with a single sensor; something the Vive requires two lighthouses for.

What it didn't originally have were motion controllers. Because they didn't want to ship with something as sucky as the Vive wands.

The reality is that Oculus were going to do what they were going to do, and HTC just rushed out a second-rate headset because they wanted to beat Oculus to market.


Do you have proof to back this up?
as for the evidence to support what i am saying...
even when touch launched, it only supported 2 senors for a number of months, and only supported front facing set ups. I believe had oculus had always have been planning on it tracking controllers a full 360 degrees then more would have been done to get 360 degree set up, and oculus would not have been so reticent to insist "unsupported", and then later "experimental" for the 360 degree.

the vive may not be perfect, but neither is the rift, both have their plusses and minuses over each other and you coming out with stuff like the vive being second rate is i would say more nonsensical than anything I have ever said on here.

As of today i believe the rift with 3 sensors can happily trade tracking blows with the vive.... but it does sadden me when people seem desperate to completely downplay any other headset.  it is the opposite side of the coin to those who are suggesting the rift s is rubbish.
Fiat Coupe, gone. 350Z gone. Dirty nappies, no sleep & practical transport incoming. Thank goodness for VR 🙂

foldale
Explorer



CrashFu said:

Fortunately, I think the specs of Rift-S will be more than good enough for the large majority of people.

But for the ones who think they absolutely NEED something "better"... I hope Oculus will either consider adding third-party headset support to Home in the near future, or continue being supportive of programs like Revive.

'cause even high-spec tech snobs shouldn't have to miss out on the best content and community that VR has to offer. :kissing_heart:


Nailed it (but without the shot a cross the bow of the high end users). Imo it's not a problem if Oculus can get official support for high end VR hmds but if they don't it really sucks for those happy to invest a little more into VR but realise that oculus still have the best software infrastructure



Anonymous
Not applicable



RedRizla said:

@Mradr - Lets take televisions as an example. New televisions are about to be brought out and some will be 8k this time around. But whose going to buy them while they are ridiculously expensive? Even Oled and QLed television are expensive, so most people settle on purchasing a television that has just 4k. 

Once these 8k television arrive oled & Qled 4k televisions will start to drop in price and the majority of people will then start to buy these televisions and not 8k televisions. So do you now see what Oculus is doing? They are catering for the majority and not the minority.


I guess it depends where you draw your line.

if varjo VR1 is the equvalent to the 146inch samsung "Wall"
and the cheapest windows MR HMD you can buy is the 32 inch HDReady set

then i would argue oculus are going much closer to the bottom end than the top..... I would be happy somewhere in the middle 😉



Cool - yea this isnt a trick question - I just want to know where people would stand if the majority could run it - but in real world we are sort of hitting the limit of phone screen technology right now. I think Apple is maybe thinking about releasing a 6k screen - but sort of them - I haven't heard of anyone else doing that or having a need to as the pixels at that point are already too small to see and that increasing it past 4k is just a power waste. Thus if we don't have the backing of the phone market for these screens - that means cost for VR screens is going to increase over time if we wish to continue increasing our resolution.