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

Developer? Click here to go to the Developer Forums.

Did FB just kill the Oculus Rift S???

Chris_WGChris_WG Posts: 1
NerveGear
Anyone watch Oculus Connect 6?

It was basically announced that the Oculus Quest will receive PC VR support, essentially making it a Rift S as well as a standalone headset.  Also, they plan to introduce hand-tracking with the Quest.

Did they just kill the Oculus Rift S in one fell swoop with this announcement?  As a Rift S owner, not sure how I feel about it.  The Quest is now going to be able to do everything the Rift S can do plus a few more things it seems.

Did Mark Zuckerberg just give all Rift S user s a big FU?
«134

Comments

  • RichooalRichooal Posts: 1,200
    Wintermute
    Chris_WG said:
    Anyone watch Oculus Connect 6?
    Not me, but someone did.

    Did they just kill the Oculus Rift S in one fell swoop with this announcement?
    No. Oculus did that when the Rift S was handed to Lenovo.

    Chris_WG said:
    Did Mark Zuckerberg just give all Rift S user s a big FU?

    Let's hope that Rift S support lasts a bit longer than Rift cable support.


    i5 6600k - GTX1060 - 8GB RAM - 0 PROBLEMS
  • falken76falken76 Posts: 2,877 Valuable Player
    Chris_WG said:
    Anyone watch Oculus Connect 6?

    It was basically announced that the Oculus Quest will receive PC VR support, essentially making it a Rift S as well as a standalone headset.  Also, they plan to introduce hand-tracking with the Quest.

    Did they just kill the Oculus Rift S in one fell swoop with this announcement?  As a Rift S owner, not sure how I feel about it.  The Quest is now going to be able to do everything the Rift S can do plus a few more things it seems.

    Did Mark Zuckerberg just give all Rift S user s a big FU?

    No
  • uKERuKER Posts: 154
    Art3mis
    Chris_WG said:
    Did Mark Zuckerberg just give all Rift S user s a big FU?
    That'd be a yes in my book.
    Enumerating each device's advantages and disadvantages, the Quest sweeps the floor with the Rift S.
    Tough pill but...
  • ZenbaneZenbane Posts: 14,597 Valuable Player

    Are you a fan of the Myst games? Check out my Mod at http://www.mystrock.com/
    Catch me on Twitter: twitter.com/zenbane
  • DaftnDirectDaftnDirect Posts: 5,217 Volunteer Moderator
    Exactly what MisterBump73 said.

    Possibly the next Quest will do both roles well but it would have to overcome a lot of technical and ergonomic hurdles to be a replacement for a dedicated PCVR headset. All of the features necessary to make it a great stand-alone device add weight and cost without necessarily contributing to what we want from a PCVR device.

    The only problem is that many people thinking of getting into VR for the first time will not know and therefore get a Quest for both roles. That could affect the likelyhood of Oculus and of other manufacturers designing combined devices only in the future.

    Alternatively, stand-alone devices able to access PCVR games will increase the likelyhood of developers investing in VR games for PC. Which in turn could have the opposite effect of increasing the likelyhood of PCVR headsets being produced.

    In any event, for this generation of headsets, the best tool for either PCVR or stand-alone is one that's been designed for the job. You'll find that people who don't have one or both device are the ones proclaiming the Quest is a Rift-S killer. The people who do have them know that it isn't.
    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 (18362.449)
  • dburnedburne Posts: 2,770 Valuable Player
    edited October 9
    Depends on how well the tethered Quest can run PC games, especially the more demanding ones.
    I doubt it will be replacing my Rift S anytime soon.
    However for the near future I do not see Rift  type device getting much if any attention.
    I do own both Quest and Rift S.
    Don

    EVGA Z390 Dark MB | I9 9900k| EVGA 2080Ti FTW3 Ultra |32 GB G Skill 3200 cl14 ram | Warthog Throttle | VKB Gunfighter Pro/MCG Pro grip | Crosswind Pedals | EVGA DG 87 Case| Rift S | Quest |
  • MowTinMowTin Posts: 1,777 Valuable Player
    Unfortunately, from what I heard, the Quest connected to the PC is not as good as a Rift S connected to PC. 
    i7 6700k 2080ti   Rift-S, Index
  • dburnedburne Posts: 2,770 Valuable Player
    edited October 9
    MowTin said:
    Unfortunately, from what I heard, the Quest connected to the PC is not as good as a Rift S connected to PC. 
    I wouldn't think it would be.
    While they seem to have streamlined it fairly well based on the tech talk, it still has to go through more in the pipeline to render a final display in the headset.

    I think it will still open the door for Quest users to enjoy some better games in their Quest headsets. But for those that already have PC-VR devices, not so much. I look forward to trying it myself when it becomes available just to see how it does.
    Don

    EVGA Z390 Dark MB | I9 9900k| EVGA 2080Ti FTW3 Ultra |32 GB G Skill 3200 cl14 ram | Warthog Throttle | VKB Gunfighter Pro/MCG Pro grip | Crosswind Pedals | EVGA DG 87 Case| Rift S | Quest |
  • ZenbaneZenbane Posts: 14,597 Valuable Player
    MowTin said:
    Unfortunately, from what I heard, the Quest connected to the PC is not as good as a Rift S connected to PC. 

    This was to be expected, despite all the early gripes. Once this reality sets in across all consumers, we'll be back to business as usual.
    Are you a fan of the Myst games? Check out my Mod at http://www.mystrock.com/
    Catch me on Twitter: twitter.com/zenbane
  • bigmike20vtbigmike20vt Posts: 4,074 Valuable Player
    MowTin said:
    Unfortunately, from what I heard, the Quest connected to the PC is not as good as a Rift S connected to PC. 
    For me quest tethering is exciting as it shows a statement of intent for the future.  Tethered quest is not going to replace my PCVR HMD, however it shows where oculus are heading.... For Quest 2 maybe it will be USB4.0, or if not hopefully they will just wack a display port in there.  The next generation of quest will hopefully not be limited to the low refresh rate of this quest either.

    its also a  real boon for quest owners who just want to dabble with PCVR. I dont think any PCVR user should be binning their headset of choice this gen however.
    Fiat Coupe, gone. 350Z gone. Dirty nappies, no sleep & practical transport incoming. Thank goodness for VR :)
  • kevinw729kevinw729 Posts: 4,779 Valuable Player
    bigmike20vt said:
    For me quest tethering is exciting as it shows a statement of intent for the future.  Tethered quest is not going to replace my PCVR HMD, however it shows where oculus are heading.... 

    I agree that on paper the Quest Link is not seen to replace the PCVR system.
    I just have to wonder if the way the message has been steered so far that the audience may be jumping to their own decision, thinking that Quest Link is a replacement. The poor Rift-S reception, in some places, have added to this.

    The reality however seems to be that a Rift2 is less a short term reality compared to a Quest2 - and with a better tethered system, and in face of new competition - I think a high-end PC headset (based on what we have seen with HD) will not be with us for some time. By then we will be looking at a very different market.

    It is going to be interesting to see how Lenovo and OculusVR move forward with Rift-S support. Or if a complete Quest focus will become inevitable.
    P6ftmuw.jpg
    ** New Book **
    "The Out-of-Home Immersive Entertainment Frontier: Expanding Interactive Boundaries in Leisure Facilities"
    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Out-Home-Immersive-Entertainment-Frontier/dp/1472426959
  • bigmike20vtbigmike20vt Posts: 4,074 Valuable Player
    edited October 10
    thing is so long as it is decent i would be fine with a quest 2 tethered to a pc. The screen tech is coming down in price nicely so my hope it just because quest 2 may not be primarily focused on PC VR doesn't mean it wont make a pretty decent PCVR device when hooked up to the right machine. just because the screens are high res does not mean a device has to output natively.  my 65inch 4k TV looks amazing even scaling up from QHD.  Quest 2 could do exactly the same potentially running at (for instance) QHD upscaled @ 80hz in quest mode and ramping up to 4k native 120hz when in PCVR mode.

    RiftS is no good for me due to my IPD, I wont lie i was dissapointed with RiftS, but if (some parts of) oculus dome prototype is actually in an early design for quest 2 rather than a CV2 it actually does not matter that much really imo.... so long as what ever is used to hook it to a PC has a decent bandwidth (more than quest 1 link has)

    or i could be talking rubbish.... but my view is imo no more likely to be wrong than those doomsayers who have been predicting the death of oculus PCVR for years.

    The most important thing for me what ever comes next from oculus, is that they recommit to 2 screens with manual IPD adjustment. (either that or a much larger digitial IPD adjustment but this would mean a much more inefficient system WRT getting the most out of the panel.
    Fiat Coupe, gone. 350Z gone. Dirty nappies, no sleep & practical transport incoming. Thank goodness for VR :)
  • DuxCroDuxCro Posts: 26
    Brain Burst
    Why would it be dead? It still has better tracking thanks to 1 extra camera, higher refresh rate and tethered Quest will get compressed video because of USB cable bandwidth limitations. Sure, with next gen VR headset from Oculus, we'll get just one headset. Quest and Rift S cost the same. But you don't want to split up your consumer base. I'm sure the next headset will be wireless and you'll be able to play on the go, as well as get a great experience with wireless connection to PC.
  • hoppingbunny123hoppingbunny123 Posts: 643
    Trinity
    edited October 10
    the rift s has a 90 fps, the quest has a 75 fps. i watched a review and he said he felt the drop in fps from the index 120 fps to the rift s 90 fps, so there is a even bigger drop in fps on the quest so its pretty useless for games on the pc at 75 fps when you compare it to the index at 120 fps.

    but if you just watch videos using virtual desktop theres a benefit from the quest going to connect to the pc. 75 fps wont bother that in the least.

    right now oculus has a no ipd adjustment and a 90 fps cap on their pc vr, and a 75 fps cap on their other ipd adjustable vr headset, so theyre in a bad spot right now compared to the index.

    pretty useless. but theres always the future to look forwards too with their price commitment.
  • kojackkojack Posts: 5,607 Volunteer Moderator
    the rift s has a 90 fps, the quest has a 75 fps.
    Rift-S is 80, Quest is 72.
    Rift CV1 is 90.

  • nalex66nalex66 Posts: 4,928 Volunteer Moderator
    the rift s has a 90 fps, the quest has a 75 fps.
    Rift S is 80 Hz, and Quest is 72 Hz. 
    i7 5820K @ 4.25 GHz | EVGA GTX 1080 SC | Gigabyte GA-X99-UD4 | Corsair DDR4 3000 32 GB | Corsair HX 750W
    Corsair Hydro H100i | Samsung SSDs: 860 Evo 1 TB, 850 Evo 1 TB, 840 Evo 1 TB | Seagate BarraCuda HDD 3 TB
  • TomCgcmfcTomCgcmfc Posts: 1,455
    Project 2501
    edited October 10
    the rift s has a 90 fps, the quest has a 75 fps. i watched a review and he said he felt the drop in fps from the index 120 fps to the rift s 90 fps, so there is a even bigger drop in fps on the quest so its pretty useless for games on the pc at 75 fps when you compare it to the index at 120 fps.

    but if you just watch videos using virtual desktop theres a benefit from the quest going to connect to the pc. 75 fps wont bother that in the least.

    right now oculus has a no ipd adjustment and a 90 fps cap on their pc vr, and a 75 fps cap on their other ipd adjustable vr headset, so theyre in a bad spot right now compared to the index.

    pretty useless. but theres always the future to look forwards too with their price commitment.
    Sorry I don't mean to nitpick but the Rift S is capped at 80 fps, not 90 fps like the Rift cv1.  I have used both and to be honest I could not tell the difference.  Even my poor old Oculus Go looks pretty good to me and it's mainly running at only 60 fps (sometimes up to 72 fps), lol!

    Custom built gaming desktop; i9 9900k (water cooled) oc to 5ghz, gtx 1080 ti (from my old AGA), 32 gb 3000hz ram, 1 tb ssd, 4 tb hdd.  Asus  ROG Maximus xi hero wifi mb, StarTech 4 port/4 controller sata powered usb3.0 pcie card, Asus VG248QE 1080p 144hz gaming monitor, Oculus Rift cv1 w/2x sensors. Vive Cosmos, currently work in progress.

  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,535 Valuable Player
    edited October 10
    I think when people ask this - they're not looking at current for say - but future releases of a Quest 2 and how that will improve to the same or more than Rift S is. So for example, more tracking cameras could be added, better fit/feel of the headset, and increase FPS as the hardware improves almost 3 generations of CPU from now along with USB4 and better compression rates later down the road. With the added "basic" eye tracking - even a smart compression could be taken into a factor basically making it nearly impossible to notice (this is different than FOVA though that has to talk with the pipe line). Eye tracking of that speed can be had for around 50-75 from the market already and in house I am sure can be much cheaper than that.

    As for space - I dont think space is a problem. Again - they can easly move the computer half off the headset and onto another attachable device on the back of the headset making lots of space for the headset side of things if space is really a problem. As of right now - from x-ray views-  there still seems to be a lot of room left though where they could put the new Half Dome technology there. Plus - HD wont be out for a while - not even next release base off the talks from OC6. So - even if they are planing to do that over all - it simply will be broken up instead for minor release do to the money limit they set-forth onto their releases of around 400. So we wont see that VF tech - but we will see smaller lighter lenses technology instead that might allow higher Field of View.

    If so - then you could say Rift S is dead - as in - it really wont have a future in terms of a reason to get a Rift S if Quest can get nearly there already. Instead - we would get a Quest 2 Basic, Quest 2 Advance, and Quest 2 Pro. One that offers to a range of users while supporting both mobile and PC at the same time as a optional thing. Thus - bring more VR to the mass while not worrying about if your VR unit can play x game or not thus allowing Devs to support more units and users in one shot. Now, most of the benefits seem to be really slim - for the same cost you could have a 85-90% experience of what the Rift S is witch is kind of scary when you break it down. Even with compression being a factor - we have to understand that - that is software limitation - meaning that can be improve on later down the road. Even if that only leads to another 10% that still be really puts it scary close to a value that people going forward will have to think about. Why get a Rift S if it can only play PC games when you can get a Quest that can play both? 

    Over all - currently it's not dead - but who knows how Oculus will move forward with Quest. If they move in the above direction (witch benefits more devs/software/customers/etc) then yes - Rift S is dead weight in terms of a not really having a future past this release sadly. But if you are really looking into getting into PCVR - don't hesitate to get the Rift S now - VR will improve either way and waiting for that next bin around the river is just that much longer you will not know the pleasure of playing in VR. As it stands - get either or that benefits you the most. If you are a user that doesn't have powerful computer - then yes - get a Quest. If you do have a powerful PC - I recommend getting the Rift S for now. With Link - if you have powerful computer - but still on the move a lot - then I recommend the Quest - as it can do a bit of both for you.

    --- just for fun--
    Quest 2 Basic  - No controllers, comes with hand tracking, same hardware found on Quest 1 - basically replaces GO with a really good price point. Can be upgraded in terms of buying controllers and Link to support PC as well. Will support static compression for Link. Over all it would be a +35% improvement over GO.

    Quest 2 Advance - Comes support for hand tracking - but does come with controllers. Has either the snapdragon 855 or 865 that might support 5G networks. Will use USB4 headers to increase Link speeds and other fancy features such as phone calling (maybe). Over all - it'll have higher refresh rates (80Hz) and small bump in resolution on the screens (maybe moving to LCD instead of OLED). They might drop IDP for a single screen as they mention before doing to help lower the cost for the other added features. The will add another camera to match that of what Rift S has now or maybe even another for the back area. Over all it would be a +35% improvement over Quest 1.

    Quest 2 Pro -  Same as the advance but higher specs such as sporting a 875 CPU - higher resolution screens - MIGHT support IDP and thus keep the two panel design - 80-90HZ but older refresh will still be supported if needed for performance reasons for Link. Another camera or two for backwards viewing from the side of the headset for more coverage area. Over all it would be a +35% improvement over Rift S.

    Addon -

    Really I am glad I got a few Quest knowing we're getting Link soon. Seem like a good choice now that we had something useful for now with our Quest - but soon we could hook them up to our PCs. Again - wont be Rift S - but even still getting an 80% experience is still a step up witch is nice to know.
  • bigmike20vtbigmike20vt Posts: 4,074 Valuable Player
    I would agree with the possibility that RiftS is an evolutionary dead end..... or in other words a stop gap.
    but that is a slightly different thing and does not mean that anyone with a riftS needs to worry.

    (imo)


    Fiat Coupe, gone. 350Z gone. Dirty nappies, no sleep & practical transport incoming. Thank goodness for VR :)
  • blanesblanes Posts: 1,096
    3Jane
    edited October 10
    I looked long and hard at the Quest to replace my CV1 couple weeks ago and it was fairly easy decision that Quest was not for me and imho tethered or not the gameplay would not be of the same quality for my purpose. So I bought the RiftS for aussie $630 and sold my CV1 within a day for $360 ~ upgrade cost me 270 and I am more than happy with the very noticeable upgrade in screen resolution and clarity. I do not understand why so many rag on Lenovo as I have a tablet made by them which is really nice and has a metal shell, my young lad gives it a thrashing and it has stood the test of time over last few years.  The RiftS plastic housing build quality reminds me of my DK2 and that was a tough little cookie that lasted good few years with lots of use and abuse. 

    The inside out tracking has blown me away just how accurate it is and I no longer get the stutter and intermittent lost tracking of the CV1. Also I prefer the feel of the new touch though have not used it except for quick game of Robo Recall which felt great. Screen wise I cannot notice any difference from 90 to 80hz and in fact I now get much better frame rates than before on my older system of i7-6700K and 1080 both overclocked modestly. The new halo system is far more comfortable and easier to take on/off for me and yeah the sound is not great but better than I thought just very low volume.  Anyway I have some Koss KCS75 headphones and they work perfectly for RiftS.  All in all I think this is an excellent VR headset for the money. Watching reviews of Valve Index and HTC Cosmos and seeing the price just reinforces my belief that Rift S is a little powerhouse and extremely good value for money.

    I think we will get the Quest hand tracking somewhere down the line,  at least I hope so but if we don't then not too bothered. But anyway I say good luck to the Quest owners who will be able to do more with the new tether, evolution is evolution and I do not see it as any sort of loss for the Rift S,  it will be around for good while yet I think. 
  • ZenbaneZenbane Posts: 14,597 Valuable Player
    edited October 10
    Downloading Asgard's Wrath right now, for my Rift CV1. FB hasn't killed CV1 yet, so doubtful that Rift-S will be killed 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
  • hoppingbunny123hoppingbunny123 Posts: 643
    Trinity
    i was referring to this video at around the 9 minute mark;


    he didnt mention the fps of the rift s as 90 fps. i did that. glad you cleared up the actual fps.

    i think the fps is noticeable if you know whats 120 fps so you have something to compare 80 or 72 fps too. otherwise your guessing is it 60 fps or 72 fps or 80 fps?
  • blanesblanes Posts: 1,096
    3Jane
    edited October 10
    At the time I bought my 72hz Dk2 in 2014 I had a 120hz Asus screen which was really nice and great for racing, so I thought the drop to 72hz would be really jarring and quite noticeable. Well it wasn't and felt very smooth, so maybe I just adapted quickly and perhaps other users are more sensitive to seeing the difference, So dropping 10hz on the Rift S I cannot distinguish at all and if I wasn't told, would never have known.
  • bigmike20vtbigmike20vt Posts: 4,074 Valuable Player
    Really? I could not stand my DK2 in 72mhz mode. Low persistence 75hz was fine but I found 60hz and 72hz practically unusable. 

    That said I believe quest 72hz and DK2 72hz are very different beasts
    Fiat Coupe, gone. 350Z gone. Dirty nappies, no sleep & practical transport incoming. Thank goodness for VR :)
  • bigmike20vtbigmike20vt Posts: 4,074 Valuable Player
    Lol I blame lack of coffee and a 3 year old who decided it was "morning time" at 5am
    Fiat Coupe, gone. 350Z gone. Dirty nappies, no sleep & practical transport incoming. Thank goodness for VR :)
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,535 Valuable Player
    edited October 11
    Maybe I can notice it a bit more than others. I mean I remember everyone around me like "60Hz is fast enough" when I could clearly see that sync line back in the day where 75Hz was when it vanish for me but still could notice a weird flicker to it that gave me headacks one in a while.

    Now a days, where I really notice the difference is when motion happens. I don't mean when moving the mouse everywhere - but how the animations move from one position to another. I think when people think Hz change - they think they are going to see that flicker motion I said above - but really it it is how smooth everything can look when running at a higher FPS. In most cases - you should see a improvement going higher Hz than lower - but 10 or so will be a bit harder to notice unlike 60 to 120 is. Also that is a myth the eye can't see past 60Hz - they can see near the speed of light - but it only takes about 5 frames of change to create motion is where that understanding comes from.

    With that said - I don't agree with Oculus that is an "ok" thing to do though. Yes, it might help support more hardware and it might be harder to notice - but where does it stop for them to keep taking things away and making it a lower value? Why not give the option instead to lower the value when there is need? Why not give choice to the customer instead. I mean - it's possible to do - Index allows user to set their refresh rates - why can't we with Oculus hardware?

    This is what I would call an evolutionary trend that needs to stop. Allow us to set the refresh rates that the hardware can support and stop going backwards to try and meet the common denominator. Let it be a bit dynamic in how we want to use the hardware as well with other settings too usually found on a monitor. Same thing with using one screen for IDP adjustment. Sure it might work with the common denominator and I would think to see that on lower cost headsets - but just seems silly to remove IDP adjustment for a software on a higher costing headset. A lot of this is fine at the start - but customers need choice because no one is the same and will have different needs and setups that require even a little bump here and there.
  • blanesblanes Posts: 1,096
    3Jane
    I agree Mradr and having choice is key going forward. I think with Rift S oculus purely wanted to meet a price point and they underestimated the reaction of lowering refresh rate and even more the fact users did not want to sacrifice the mechanical ipd adjustment by using only one screen as that seems to have caused alot of problems.  My ol' gals 56mm ipd is too slim for Rift S and she gets instant eyestrain / headache.  

    BigMike I think I meant 75hz if that is what dk2 did as standard,  but I really could not tell much difference, maybe due to my low brain waves / intellect  !  :dizzy:
Sign In or Register to comment.