New to the forums? Click here to read the "How To" Guide.

Developer? Click here to go to the Developer Forums.

Would 2,160 by 2,160 pixels per eye look like a 1080p monitor in VR?

2»

Comments

  • OmegaM4NOmegaM4N Posts: 659
    Neo
    RedRizla said:
    @DaftnDirect @Mradr - Do you reckon you would need something better then a Geforce 1080 for 2,160 by 2,160 pixels per eye? I super sample Skyrim and other games at 1.5 on the CV1, but if I didn't super sample do you think a Geforce 1080 would be alright at this higher resolution per eye?
    The screens themselves can be of a higer res but the games do not need to be natively rendering at those type of numbers, i bet the higher res screen would be great for removing the SDE yet say a games could render at a lower res and still look fantastic, bloody SDE. lol
  • pyroth309pyroth309 Posts: 1,576 Valuable Player
    edited April 2019
    Mmm yeah, you'd be pushing a 1080 to its limits for sure. I'd hazard a guess that for most games it probably would be a push too far. I mean you have a lot of options in games like Fallout and DCS but I'm not sure what you gain in pixels would be enough to balance what you'd lose in effects like shadow detail for example.
    Yea I guess it comes down to what you want to do with it. The 1080 is listed as a minimum for a reason. I would imagine it would be like usinga Rift on a 970 or 980 performance wise. Doable but you aren't going to get the best possible experience out of it in the graphic intensive games. It will probably also depend on how much a clear image is important to you. I pointed out DCS and Fallout because those are games that while I feel you could get them playable on a 1080 with a reverb, it will come at a high costs to graphics. IE it will probably look a lot better on a Rift-S. But as OmegaM4n pointed out, we don't know how games will look when rendered lower than native res yet. It might still look great.

    As far as Shadows, I normally turn those off or low even when I have the performance for them lol. So those aren't a big loss for me. If they're important for you though a 1080 probably won't get it done. Ditto with things like motion blur. The most important settings for me personally in VR is texture quality and Anisotropic filtering and also making sure aliasing is as low as possible. I'm likely to upgrade from my 1080 but I haven't decided to what yet. I likely will wait until I have a new headset in my possession to judge how far I want to jump. I will go up to a 2080TI if I need to but I'd rather wait another generation.
  • RedRizlaRedRizla Posts: 6,939 Valuable Player
    edited April 2019
    OmegaM4N said:
    RedRizla said:
    @DaftnDirect @Mradr - Do you reckon you would need something better then a Geforce 1080 for 2,160 by 2,160 pixels per eye? I super sample Skyrim and other games at 1.5 on the CV1, but if I didn't super sample do you think a Geforce 1080 would be alright at this higher resolution per eye?
    The screens themselves can be of a higer res but the games do not need to be natively rendering at those type of numbers, i bet the higher res screen would be great for removing the SDE yet say a games could render at a lower res and still look fantastic, bloody SDE. lol

    How would you do that without a setting in the game? Also, it would look awful no doubt rendering at a lower resolution.
  • pyroth309pyroth309 Posts: 1,576 Valuable Player
    edited April 2019
    RedRizla said:
    OmegaM4N said:
    RedRizla said:
    @DaftnDirect @Mradr - Do you reckon you would need something better then a Geforce 1080 for 2,160 by 2,160 pixels per eye? I super sample Skyrim and other games at 1.5 on the CV1, but if I didn't super sample do you think a Geforce 1080 would be alright at this higher resolution per eye?
    The screens themselves can be of a higer res but the games do not need to be natively rendering at those type of numbers, i bet the higher res screen would be great for removing the SDE yet say a games could render at a lower res and still look fantastic, bloody SDE. lol

    How would you do that without a setting in the game? Also, it would look awful no doubt rendering at a lower resolution.
    By supersampling to a number less than 1.0 for Oculus or 100% in SteamVR. Or also changing the Render target for WMR/Reverb.
  • RedRizlaRedRizla Posts: 6,939 Valuable Player
    edited April 2019
    I just wish Rift -S had bumped the resolution up a bit more. I'm sure a Geforce 1080 would have being capable of more, but I think their catering for the Geforce 1060 crowd too.
  • OmegaM4NOmegaM4N Posts: 659
    Neo
    ^^^SteamVR already does it with a thing called auto-resolution scaling on the Vive, so it will look at your hardware and scale it up or down to give you the best expereince, of course i don't own at Vive(at present ;) ) , so we would need to hear from someone who uses it to get their opnion on it.
  • pyroth309pyroth309 Posts: 1,576 Valuable Player
    edited April 2019
    OmegaM4N said:
    ^^^SteamVR already does it with a thing called auto-resolution scaling on the Vive, so it will look at your hardware and scale it up or down to give you the best expereince, of course i don't own at Vive(at present ;) ) , so we would need to hear from someone who uses it to get their opnion on it.
    It's pretty simple and doesn't do it dynamically. If it does, that's news to me. What it does do is give you a target based on your GPU and headset. You can override this manually and put it where you want. For me with a Samsung Odyssey+ it recommends/auto sets to 178% which is 1901x2377 but I actually run it at 200% which is 2015x2520 and use the WMR reprojection.

    There is also a per application setting that applies over the top of the Auto/Manual resolution. It's simlar to profiles in Oculus Tray Tool. So for example I could leave the auto at 178% and then just bump up Doom VFR for example to 112% in the application setting and everytime I play Doom my resolution in that game would be 2023x2530.
  • DaftnDirectDaftnDirect Posts: 5,471 Volunteer Moderator
    edited April 2019
    I think VR has a big premium over the equivalent resolution on a monitor, as 2 separate views have to be calculated as well as lens distortion compensations, then there's 3 sets of 6dof calculations for head and each hand, lag is so much more critical too.

    It's very difficult to put a figure on what resolution would be OK, but I guess you could do a very rough guess and say if a 1070 runs almost everything well in a CV1, and a 1080 is 16% quicker at 4k, then a 16% increase in pixels would be no problem, with a 1080Ti then 30% increase in pixels would be no problem.

    This is total guesswork though and if you think a 1060 is OK for almost all games then those increases would be that much higher...  maybe 50% increase in pixels for a 1080Ti especially if ASW 2 performs well.
    Intel 5820K [email protected], Titan X (Maxwell), 16GB Corsair Vengeance DDR4, ASRock X99 Taichi, Samsung 500Gb 960 Evo M.2, Corsair H100i v2 Cooler, Inateck KTU3FR-4P USB 3 card, Windows 10 Pro v1903 (18363.657)
  • DilipDilip Posts: 252
    Nexus 6
    pyroth309 said:
    OmegaM4N said:
    ^^^SteamVR already does it with a thing called auto-resolution scaling on the Vive, so it will look at your hardware and scale it up or down to give you the best expereince, of course i don't own at Vive(at present ;) ) , so we would need to hear from someone who uses it to get their opnion on it.
    It's pretty simple and doesn't do it dynamically. If it does, that's news to me. What it does do is give you a target based on your GPU and headset. You can override this manually and put it where you want. For me with a Samsung Odyssey+ it recommends/auto sets to 178% which is 1901x2377 but I actually run it at 200% which is 2015x2520 and use the WMR reprojection.

    There is also a per application setting that applies over the top of the Auto/Manual resolution. It's simlar to profiles in Oculus Tray Tool. So for example I could leave the auto at 178% and then just bump up Doom VFR for example to 112% in the application setting and everytime I play Doom my resolution in that game would be 2023x2530.
    Super sampling may do some indirect anti aliasing for given resolution but without physical presence of those pixel applying Super resolution image to play on lesser number of pixels is actually wastage or processing done by CPU and GPU. Why not playing these high setting output on HP Reverb and enjoy real pixel visuals. 
  • pyroth309pyroth309 Posts: 1,576 Valuable Player
    edited April 2019
    Dilip said:
    pyroth309 said:
    OmegaM4N said:
    ^^^SteamVR already does it with a thing called auto-resolution scaling on the Vive, so it will look at your hardware and scale it up or down to give you the best expereince, of course i don't own at Vive(at present ;) ) , so we would need to hear from someone who uses it to get their opnion on it.
    It's pretty simple and doesn't do it dynamically. If it does, that's news to me. What it does do is give you a target based on your GPU and headset. You can override this manually and put it where you want. For me with a Samsung Odyssey+ it recommends/auto sets to 178% which is 1901x2377 but I actually run it at 200% which is 2015x2520 and use the WMR reprojection.

    There is also a per application setting that applies over the top of the Auto/Manual resolution. It's simlar to profiles in Oculus Tray Tool. So for example I could leave the auto at 178% and then just bump up Doom VFR for example to 112% in the application setting and everytime I play Doom my resolution in that game would be 2023x2530.
    Super sampling may do some indirect anti aliasing for given resolution but without physical presence of those pixel applying Super resolution image to play on lesser number of pixels is actually wastage or processing done by CPU and GPU. Why not playing these high setting output on HP Reverb and enjoy real pixel visuals. 
    Because it makes the image look sharper than it would at the Native resolution. It's preference. To me supersampling looks better, especially on Text on my Odyssey. It's not a required thing to do. With the HP with 4k panels at native, supersampling effects may not even be worth the performance hit above native. We don't know yet.
  • OmegaM4NOmegaM4N Posts: 659
    Neo
    pyroth309 said:
    OmegaM4N said:
    ^^^SteamVR already does it with a thing called auto-resolution scaling on the Vive, so it will look at your hardware and scale it up or down to give you the best expereince, of course i don't own at Vive(at present ;) ) , so we would need to hear from someone who uses it to get their opnion on it.
    It's pretty simple and doesn't do it dynamically. If it does, that's news to me. What it does do is give you a target based on your GPU and headset. You can override this manually and put it where you want. For me with a Samsung Odyssey+ it recommends/auto sets to 178% which is 1901x2377 but I actually run it at 200% which is 2015x2520 and use the WMR reprojection.

    There is also a per application setting that applies over the top of the Auto/Manual resolution. It's simlar to profiles in Oculus Tray Tool. So for example I could leave the auto at 178% and then just bump up Doom VFR for example to 112% in the application setting and everytime I play Doom my resolution in that game would be 2023x2530.
    Ah, that would explain why the Dell Vr visor runs great with SteamVR games yet the Rift is a complete pig when SteamVR is running........although i have noticed that some Steam bought VR games are actually now giving you the option to run the game directly with the Oculus SDK, well we are getting there, slowly but surley......and don't call me Shirley. ha

  • DaftnDirectDaftnDirect Posts: 5,471 Volunteer Moderator
    I should have said, my assumption are based on making the most out of those pixels rather than just improving SDE, or edge sharpness, after all you can drive 2 8k screens with a modest card if we're not talking about detail increase.
    Intel 5820K [email protected], Titan X (Maxwell), 16GB Corsair Vengeance DDR4, ASRock X99 Taichi, Samsung 500Gb 960 Evo M.2, Corsair H100i v2 Cooler, Inateck KTU3FR-4P USB 3 card, Windows 10 Pro v1903 (18363.657)
  • pyroth309pyroth309 Posts: 1,576 Valuable Player
    edited April 2019
    I should have said, my assumption are based on making the most out of those pixels rather than just improving SDE, or edge sharpness, after all you can drive 2 8k screens with a modest card if we're not talking about detail increase.
    Yea, there's still too many unanswered questions. I think with the resolutions we're dealing with, Upscaling might actually be viable with it. If you upscaled 1800x1800 or something, it might still look better than other headsets...or it might look distorted and horrible. Time will tell.
  • DaftnDirectDaftnDirect Posts: 5,471 Volunteer Moderator
    Yes indeed, from my own perspective I'd be a little reluctant getting a PCVR headset that had twice the pixels if I wasn't getting twice the benefit with regard to detail... I'd be thinking I may as well stick with what I had and wait for GPU improvement to cost ratio to increase to the point that the upgrade becomes worthwhile.

    Standalone is another matter though where the processor limits how graphically impressive it is to a much bigger degree. So resolution is bound to outperform graphical detail. Plus there's a bigger use case for media viewing in standalone which benefits a lot from that res without taxing the processor to the same degree.
    Intel 5820K [email protected], Titan X (Maxwell), 16GB Corsair Vengeance DDR4, ASRock X99 Taichi, Samsung 500Gb 960 Evo M.2, Corsair H100i v2 Cooler, Inateck KTU3FR-4P USB 3 card, Windows 10 Pro v1903 (18363.657)
  • RedRizlaRedRizla Posts: 6,939 Valuable Player
    edited April 2019
    I'm back to thinking the Rift -S is going to be my next headset because with the hardware I have it's the safest bet. Even if Valve index has a slightly better resolution the price with base stations is going to have to be cheap. I just wish Nvidia weren't charging so much for their Geforce 2080 Ti. I just want a powerful graphics card to run VR great, but we are having to pay for the RTX tech. 

    I really can't drop £1100 on a graphics card :/
  • pyroth309pyroth309 Posts: 1,576 Valuable Player
    edited April 2019
    Yes indeed, from my own perspective I'd be a little reluctant getting a PCVR headset that had twice the pixels if I wasn't getting twice the benefit with regard to detail... I'd be thinking I may as well stick with what I had and wait for GPU improvement to cost ratio to increase to the point that the upgrade becomes worthwhile.

    Standalone is another matter though where the processor limits how graphically impressive it is to a much bigger degree. So resolution is bound to outperform graphical detail. Plus there's a bigger use case for media viewing in standalone which benefits a lot from that res without taxing the processor to the same degree.
    No doubt, but that's something I need to see for myself. If I can run native Res for most of my games or upscale and maintain 90% or even 80% of the clarity then that's a better path to me than doing a GPU upgrade now for bad performance per dollar. I'd also prefer that than dropping several hundred on a hold me over headset and ditching it as soon as a new GPU comes out and still buying the same headset anyway.

    But that's a decision each person has to make for themselves. I'm in wait and see mode.

  • DaftnDirectDaftnDirect Posts: 5,471 Volunteer Moderator
    I'm definitely with you on the cost front RedRizla, I'm still waiting for news of more non-RTX cards. Where's that 1180?
    Intel 5820K [email protected], Titan X (Maxwell), 16GB Corsair Vengeance DDR4, ASRock X99 Taichi, Samsung 500Gb 960 Evo M.2, Corsair H100i v2 Cooler, Inateck KTU3FR-4P USB 3 card, Windows 10 Pro v1903 (18363.657)
  • pyroth309pyroth309 Posts: 1,576 Valuable Player
    edited April 2019
    I'm definitely with you on the cost front RedRizla, I'm still waiting for news of more non-RTX cards. Where's that 1180?
    I think Nvidia ruled it out sadly, or it might have been the 1680 they ruled out. They want to get RTX going. And sadly, it probably won't change because AMD is not in a position to force it yet. I hope Intel provides some competition next year.
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,585 Valuable Player
    pyroth309 said:
    Dilip said:
    pyroth309 said:
    OmegaM4N said:
    ^^^SteamVR already does it with a thing called auto-resolution scaling on the Vive, so it will look at your hardware and scale it up or down to give you the best expereince, of course i don't own at Vive(at present ;) ) , so we would need to hear from someone who uses it to get their opnion on it.
    It's pretty simple and doesn't do it dynamically. If it does, that's news to me. What it does do is give you a target based on your GPU and headset. You can override this manually and put it where you want. For me with a Samsung Odyssey+ it recommends/auto sets to 178% which is 1901x2377 but I actually run it at 200% which is 2015x2520 and use the WMR reprojection.

    There is also a per application setting that applies over the top of the Auto/Manual resolution. It's simlar to profiles in Oculus Tray Tool. So for example I could leave the auto at 178% and then just bump up Doom VFR for example to 112% in the application setting and everytime I play Doom my resolution in that game would be 2023x2530.
    Super sampling may do some indirect anti aliasing for given resolution but without physical presence of those pixel applying Super resolution image to play on lesser number of pixels is actually wastage or processing done by CPU and GPU. Why not playing these high setting output on HP Reverb and enjoy real pixel visuals. 
    Because it makes the image look sharper than it would at the Native resolution. It's preference. To me supersampling looks better, especially on Text on my Odyssey. It's not a required thing to do. With the HP with 4k panels at native, supersampling effects may not even be worth the performance hit above native. We don't know yet.
    With your powers combine -  I am caption VR!!! LOL. Anyways, I think it would be possible. Here are a few key reasons - and a bit of my joke too:

    VSR:
    https://developer.nvidia.com/vrworks/graphics/variablerateshading
    Games so far tested with this feature saw anywhere between 10% to 15% improvement.

    ASW2.0:
    https://www.roadtovr.com/oculus-launches-asw-2-0-asynchronous-spacewarp/
    You could get away with lower motion control for still high everything else allowing you to push for higher pixel count for better visuals while using last generation cards.

    Lenses:
    The reason for SS and steams target render scalier is to allow enough pixels to be drawn so the final image product can be warp to match what happens with the lenses that then warp the image back to your eyes that make sense. If you could remove this warping effecting, in theory, we wouldn't need to target higher SS or target renders and instead render naturally at the screen resolution therefore not needed more horse power or about a savings of 15-25%.

    Static FOV:
    Depending on the FOV - you could in theory turn on static FOV as a setting much like ASW works. Anything greater than around 100+ degrees could see a benefit of another 5-15% until you hit the 135+ degrees where you start seeing leaps in performance gains in the upper 15-45% depending on the scale.

    Stronger Hardware:
    I know your target was using a 1080, but can't say there isn't a newer generation cards out there either. AMD should be releasing new cards this year as well at or close to 1080 performance for less meaning there should be a jump to them. They are also going to be offering VSR too from what it sounds like.

    With that said - and going back to my joke - When you put all these technologies together - we could easily see another 30-60% performance boost just from software changes and possible 100% boost with hardware changes.
  • DaftnDirectDaftnDirect Posts: 5,471 Volunteer Moderator
    pyroth309 said:
    I'm definitely with you on the cost front RedRizla, I'm still waiting for news of more non-RTX cards. Where's that 1180?
    I think Nvidia ruled it out sadly, or it might have been the 1680 they ruled out. They want to get RTX going. And sadly, it probably won't change because AMD is not in a position to force it yet. I hope Intel provides some competition next year.
    bugger
    Intel 5820K [email protected], Titan X (Maxwell), 16GB Corsair Vengeance DDR4, ASRock X99 Taichi, Samsung 500Gb 960 Evo M.2, Corsair H100i v2 Cooler, Inateck KTU3FR-4P USB 3 card, Windows 10 Pro v1903 (18363.657)
  • MowTinMowTin Posts: 1,859 Valuable Player
    It doesn't matter what resolution you use if the space between pixels is too large. I think that's why we're seeing a shift back to LCD panels. 
    i7 6700k 2080ti   Rift-S, Index
  • CrashFuCrashFu Posts: 1,756 Valuable Player
    I mean... when I watch high-quality videos on my Oculus Go  (especially rips of BluRays) it already looks as good as 1080p videos do on my 1920 x 1080  LCD monitor?  In fact, I ONLY watch movies on my Go now;  I don't think I've bothered watching a single one on my PC since getting that thing.
    It's hard being the voice of reason when you're surrounded by unreasonable people.
  • DilipDilip Posts: 252
    Nexus 6
    Pico Already Planned 4K stand alone...Check below their G2 4K model, Granted Pico has issues with no promising apps configuration of G2 4K certainly suffice to support that  SD835 can do stand alone 4K VR.

    https://www.pico-interactive.com/g2-4k
  • CrashFuCrashFu Posts: 1,756 Valuable Player
    Dilip said:
    Pico Already Planned 4K stand alone...Check below their G2 4K model, Granted Pico has issues with no promising apps configuration of G2 4K certainly suffice to support that  SD835 can do stand alone 4K VR.

    https://www.pico-interactive.com/g2-4k
    Huh.  Strange that they exclusively sell those things to businesses.  And don't list the price for any of them.

    And yet for content the page says they support both Pico's own store and Viveport..  Since when does Viveport carry content for 3DoF devices?  Also, Viveport requires a Steam and SteamVR installation to run*,  how is a mobile headset supposed to manage that, I wonder?

    * (Found this out when I decided to check out Viveport myself.. I immediately cancelled :tongue: )
    It's hard being the voice of reason when you're surrounded by unreasonable people.
Sign In or Register to comment.