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???

24

Comments

  • T_K_TT_K_T Posts: 2
    NerveGear
    From a technical standpoint, no. I don’t have a quest, but I at least know that it doesn’t run as well as the Rift S. FB is doing this to give Quest users much more content. Sure, the quest can go wireless and wired, but in the end the experience won’t be as polished as the rift s
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,535 Valuable Player
    edited October 11
    T_K_T said:
    From a technical standpoint, no. I don’t have a quest, but I at least know that it doesn’t run as well as the Rift S. FB is doing this to give Quest users much more content. Sure, the quest can go wireless and wired, but in the end the experience won’t be as polished as the rift s
    Interesting point. Do you mean the Quest experiences or do you mean the over all PCVR experience isn't as polished for Quest if you don't mind me asking? I ask, because, coming from CV1 to Quest - the games fit for Quest seem to be alright really. Maybe not as high detail if I was to compare to the computer performance, but the games seem polish for the system and its hardware (I don't see any weird glitches).
  • BlackPixel_BlackPixel_ Posts: 62
    Hiro Protagonist
    I'm waiting for the QUEST 2
    That will certainly be a game changer. 
    It seems Facebook is providing several options and following the option that generates the most consumer interest.
    The Quest is just better than the Rift. 
    Not only can it standalone because it has its own built in PC, it can then integrate with your high end PC merging to make it a fused Super Saiyan.
    Currently the Rift is just a MONITOR for your face that's reliant on the PC. 
    I'm looking forward to this new Quest 2. 
    I'll wait till the end of 2020 for that option because it will surely be where all the attention lands. 
    I may just settle and purchase the current Quest.  ;)  
    MSI X99 GODLIKE Board / Intel Core i7-6900K / 32GB Extreme DDR4 2400MHz Memory / GTX 1080 Founders / 

  • dburnedburne Posts: 2,775 Valuable Player
    I think Oculus may also have underestimated the number of Rift CV1 users that would bail and go with another higher spec headset this year. I myself did not as I went with Rift S, but I am one of a very few that did not in the forums I frequent.
    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 |
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,535 Valuable Player
    edited October 11
    dburne said:
    I think Oculus may also have underestimated the number of Rift CV1 users that would bail and go with another higher spec headset this year. I myself did not as I went with Rift S, but I am one of a very few that did not in the forums I frequent.
    In a way - I dont think so - there is a video out there that discuss this in a better matter than I could. Basically - PCVR is a great place to start - but we can't keep running VR in general. They need another platform like Quest or more uses out of PCVR gaming if we wish VR to keep growing. With that said - Oculus releasing Rift S is that stop gab needed to keep with in focus while providing a way to please some (most?) users/customers. Basically, the ones leaving is a smaller group than the ones coming in even if the smaller group leaving usually has more money to spend/willing to spend - the greater should still spend more long term than short term.

    As a customer - I still like to see them break their line up a bit better. GO, Quest, Rift S isn't that gear towards [starting -> best]. It seems a bit over the place esp now that Quest can do a bit of what the Rift S can do now. If anything - what I like to see from them next year is a real start at pushing the idea of a 1 - 2 - 3 lay out with 3 offering something a bit more than what 1-2 can even do instead of the slim design differences that can be easily over lap in a next release. If anything - the big thing I wanna stop seeing is the split between product software. No more Go software this or that - but VR software this and that that all their line up can support.

    Basically - what I am saying is - this will support that higher end headset we all want - but also support all headsets in terms of our software library access witch benefits everyone and not just a 1, 2, or 3. That means every OC# will benefit everyone instead of that 1, 2, or 3 release cycle. 
  • bigmike20vtbigmike20vt Posts: 4,074 Valuable Player
    blanes said:
    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:
    Lol I don't think intellect comes into it mate so I wouldn't worry about that ;).
    DK2 supported 3 modes 60hz, 72hz and 75hz

    I must admit whilst CV1 "felt" a bit better than DK2 at 75hz I didn't find the difference between CV1 and DK2 instantly noticeable.
    Fiat Coupe, gone. 350Z gone. Dirty nappies, no sleep & practical transport incoming. Thank goodness for VR :)
  • SpuzzumSpuzzum Posts: 685
    Neo
    T_K_T said:
    From a technical standpoint, no. I don’t have a quest, but I at least know that it doesn’t run as well as the Rift S. FB is doing this to give Quest users much more content. Sure, the quest can go wireless and wired, but in the end the experience won’t be as polished as the rift s

    Until it actually releases to the public, and people get hands-on reviews, then all this is just speculation. The Quest's OLED screens are far better for blacks and colours than the Rift-S's LCD panel, and being able to manually adjust the IPD slider, to a broader range of eyes out there, that alone makes the Quest better than the Rift-S. The Quest also has 2880x1600 resolution, while the Rift-S is still only 2560x1440. The Quest, while tethered, will be reduced to the Rift-S's 2560x1440 though. Personally, I'd rather have the Quest and Link than a Rift-S. Now if we could convince Carmack to get the Quest recertified for 90Hz/fps, then we're laughing. He said the panels can do it, it's just that hardly any games would run at 90 on the Quest's processor power. But 90fps while tethered would be perfect.
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,535 Valuable Player
    edited October 11
    Spuzzum said:
    T_K_T said:
    From a technical standpoint, no. I don’t have a quest, but I at least know that it doesn’t run as well as the Rift S. FB is doing this to give Quest users much more content. Sure, the quest can go wireless and wired, but in the end the experience won’t be as polished as the rift s

    Until it actually releases to the public, and people get hands-on reviews, then all this is just speculation. The Quest's OLED screens are far better for blacks and colours than the Rift-S's LCD panel, and being able to manually adjust the IPD slider, to a broader range of eyes out there, that alone makes the Quest better than the Rift-S. The Quest also has 2880x1600 resolution, while the Rift-S is still only 2560x1440. The Quest, while tethered, will be reduced to the Rift-S's 2560x1440 though. Personally, I'd rather have the Quest and Link than a Rift-S. Now if we could convince Carmack to get the Quest recertified for 90Hz/fps, then we're laughing. He said the panels can do it, it's just that hardly any games would run at 90 on the Quest's processor power. But 90fps while tethered would be perfect.
    Hmmm he also goes on to say - while this might be possible to do at 90Hz - the method at witch they encode/decode wouldn't be fast enough and thus the reason why they drop the resolution from 2880x1600 to 2560x1440. If there are any improves in the compression - it'll go to not having to compress as hard for image quality it self.

    Though - I dont care how smart they are - if you have to redraw a image - you have to redraw an image. Enough moving data is going to take a large amount of data you still will have to move though a tiny pipe. In that case - at best using something like H.265+ it'll only net gain about 30% better improvement over USB3.0 on moving data without moving too much. 

    Though 30% is still a huge improvement either way you look at it and does it take up the issue that Quest is scary close to being a Rift S if they can pull it off. That be like 90 to 95% image quality value. With USB4.0 - they could run at native resolution still have that gains from behind and still have room to push more frames per second.
  • nalex66nalex66 Posts: 4,931 Volunteer Moderator
    Spuzzum said:
    ...Now if we could convince Carmack to get the Quest recertified for 90Hz/fps, then we're laughing. He said the panels can do it, it's just that hardly any games would run at 90 on the Quest's processor power. But 90fps while tethered would be perfect.
    It’s not just about recertification though. Due to the decoder bottleneck, you’d be trading off frame rate against resolution or compression. I believe Carmack commented that between getting more frames or higher resolution, he’d rather have the better image quality. 
    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
  • SpuzzumSpuzzum Posts: 685
    Neo
    Mradr said:
    Spuzzum said:
    T_K_T said:
    From a technical standpoint, no. I don’t have a quest, but I at least know that it doesn’t run as well as the Rift S. FB is doing this to give Quest users much more content. Sure, the quest can go wireless and wired, but in the end the experience won’t be as polished as the rift s

    Until it actually releases to the public, and people get hands-on reviews, then all this is just speculation. The Quest's OLED screens are far better for blacks and colours than the Rift-S's LCD panel, and being able to manually adjust the IPD slider, to a broader range of eyes out there, that alone makes the Quest better than the Rift-S. The Quest also has 2880x1600 resolution, while the Rift-S is still only 2560x1440. The Quest, while tethered, will be reduced to the Rift-S's 2560x1440 though. Personally, I'd rather have the Quest and Link than a Rift-S. Now if we could convince Carmack to get the Quest recertified for 90Hz/fps, then we're laughing. He said the panels can do it, it's just that hardly any games would run at 90 on the Quest's processor power. But 90fps while tethered would be perfect.
    Hmmm he also goes on to say - while this might be possible to do at 90Hz - the method at witch they encode/decode wouldn't be fast enough and thus the reason why they drop the resolution from 2880x1600 to 2560x1440. If there are any improves in the compression - it'll go to not having to compress as hard for image quality it self.
    nalex66 said:
    Spuzzum said:
    ...Now if we could convince Carmack to get the Quest recertified for 90Hz/fps, then we're laughing. He said the panels can do it, it's just that hardly any games would run at 90 on the Quest's processor power. But 90fps while tethered would be perfect.
    It’s not just about recertification though. Due to the decoder bottleneck, you’d be trading off frame rate against resolution or compression. I believe Carmack commented that between getting more frames or higher resolution, he’d rather have the better image quality. 

    Crap...I never even thought of that. :P 150Mb/s @ 72fps definitely looks better than 150Mb/s @ 90fps at the same resolution. The pipeline is limited to 150Mb/s...can they create multiple pipelines, acting in SLI? :P
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,535 Valuable Player
    edited October 11
    Spuzzum said:
    Crap...I never even thought of that. :P 150Mb/s @ 72fps definitely looks better than 150Mb/s @ 90fps at the same resolution. The pipeline is limited to 150Mb/s...can they create multiple pipelines, acting in SLI? :P
    They could - but then you still would have to sync the split image or data thus creating a frame or more of lag thus it wont work well enough. Not to say they can't make it work - if SLI has proven anything - split data can be harder to handle than a single run. For example, what if half the image is harder to encode/takes time - what do you do then? What if the next frame is ready to be drawn? One way around this is to interlace - but this bring ghosting as well.

    I'm sure there is a balance that could be made - but it would also add cost and that link cable is already 80$... that be 160$ o.o; More or less you would be better off supporting display-port over USB C than you would be to keep adding USB connections. Something they still will have to add later on as even USB4 or 5 wont have the bandwidth of HDMI or Display-port will have for higher resolution screens.
  • SpuzzumSpuzzum Posts: 685
    Neo
    edited October 11
    Mradr said:
    Spuzzum said:
    Crap...I never even thought of that. :P 150Mb/s @ 72fps definitely looks better than 150Mb/s @ 90fps at the same resolution. The pipeline is limited to 150Mb/s...can they create multiple pipelines, acting in SLI? :P
    They could - but then you still would have to sync the split image or data thus creating a frame or more of lag thus it wont work well enough. Not to say they can't make it work - if SLI has proven anything - split data can be harder to handle than a single run.

    If you watch the video on Oculus' youtube channel about the Link cable, they're rendering 1/3 of a frame at a time, which reduces latency, resulting in an 'almost' 1:1 render to encode time. Yeah, I've read SLI can be difficult...I was just being curious...and an ass. :P But I know Carmack said they created the pipelines in the chip, and seeing as they render/encode 1/3 of a frame at a time, I was thinking they could split that over more pipelines.



    Interestingly, I just came across an article from 2009, talking about Carmack playing with 'dTech 5 megatexture content creation pipeline' for the iPhone 3GS.

    https://kotaku.com/carmack-just-about-everything-id-makes-coming-to-iphon-5303694


    edit: Actually, the 1/3 of a frame at a time is the encoding on the pc, before being sent as a whole frame to the Quest. So that wouldn't work. Regular SLI would be the only hope.
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,535 Valuable Player
    edited October 11
    Their method is still slow in that they slice the image into 3 parts - witch will help some - but H.265+ for example takes only the differences and updates the required pixels instead. So while their 3 part slice will help show the image faster - it still takes almost 1/3 more data than just uploading the difference would take instead. You could in theory add both methods to both show a third of that image to the screen - while sampling the next image thus creating a far less bandwidth update - but it still only maybe be around a 35% improvement at best. Still - really neat stuff! All above my head for sure, LOL. This is why I belive Quest will keep improving on Link and continue to get super close to that of the Rift S image. Scary to think for Rift S users in a way ;P For Quest owners - this is super amazing news our headsets will have a LONG life.

    As or SLIing that data - hmm in theory, like I said, its possible to just add more data lines to upload two or more chunks at the time - it just has added cost on the cable, weight, and stiffness along with the encoding/decoding channels to process the data. The video covers that as well. They made their own cable to get around some of the issues. What's fun about fiber optic cable - all you would have to do is get more colors in the cable to get more data thus they could see full on 255Tbps cables while still only being the size of a stander cable while HDMI would be the size of a chair lol.


    https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/192929-255tbps-worlds-fastest-network-could-carry-all-the-internet-traffic-single-fiber
  • SpuzzumSpuzzum Posts: 685
    Neo
    edited October 11
    So, instead of 90fps, how about the 80 the Rift-S is getting? They're using a fixed foveated render, so could they push the codec/process for another 10%?
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,535 Valuable Player
    Spuzzum said:
    So, instead of 90fps, how about the 80 the Rift-S is getting? They're using a fixed foveated render, so could they push the codec/process for another 10%?
    All possible - yes. There is only one problem - and that is why I said above - is that if they have to redraw te whole image - I don't care how smart they are - they will have to redraw the whole image and that is where the problem lies in terms of hitting that 80 Hz. The more moving data there is - the more bandwidth you need to keep up with.
  • SpuzzumSpuzzum Posts: 685
    Neo
    edited October 11
    Mradr said:
    Spuzzum said:
    So, instead of 90fps, how about the 80 the Rift-S is getting? They're using a fixed foveated render, so could they push the codec/process for another 10%?
    All possible - yes. There is only one problem - and that is why I said above - is that if they have to redraw te whole image - I don't care how smart they are - they will have to redraw the whole image and that is where the problem lies in terms of hitting that 80 Hz. The more moving data there is - the more bandwidth you need to keep up with.

    That's why I said to push the codec/process. If it can do it with the same bandwidth, then there's no problem. As long as the quality doesn't suffer. Is the audio signal included in that 150Mb/s(?). If so, then that could be tweaked a bit as well. If the signal is 150Mb/s, then 10% more is only 15Mb/s. That's not a hell of a lot to squeeze out.
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,535 Valuable Player
    edited October 11
    Spuzzum said:
    Mradr said:
    Spuzzum said:
    So, instead of 90fps, how about the 80 the Rift-S is getting? They're using a fixed foveated render, so could they push the codec/process for another 10%?
    All possible - yes. There is only one problem - and that is why I said above - is that if they have to redraw te whole image - I don't care how smart they are - they will have to redraw the whole image and that is where the problem lies in terms of hitting that 80 Hz. The more moving data there is - the more bandwidth you need to keep up with.

    That's why I said to push the codec/process. If it can do it with the same bandwidth, then there's no problem. As long as the quality doesn't suffer. Is the audio signal included in that 150Mb/s(?). If so, then that could be tweaked a bit as well.
    It would though - they can't really "overclock" the part of the process or else they would've anyways I would assume. I dont think it's a latency issue - it be more of a bandwidth issue more than anything. 
  • SpuzzumSpuzzum Posts: 685
    Neo
    edited October 11
    Mradr said:
    Spuzzum said:
    Mradr said:
    Spuzzum said:
    So, instead of 90fps, how about the 80 the Rift-S is getting? They're using a fixed foveated render, so could they push the codec/process for another 10%?
    All possible - yes. There is only one problem - and that is why I said above - is that if they have to redraw te whole image - I don't care how smart they are - they will have to redraw the whole image and that is where the problem lies in terms of hitting that 80 Hz. The more moving data there is - the more bandwidth you need to keep up with.

    That's why I said to push the codec/process. If it can do it with the same bandwidth, then there's no problem. As long as the quality doesn't suffer. Is the audio signal included in that 150Mb/s(?). If so, then that could be tweaked a bit as well.
    It would though - they can't really "overclock" the part of the process or else they would've anyways I would assume. I dont think it's a latency issue - it be more of a bandwidth issue more than anything. 

    What would be overclocked? the panels can run more than 80Hz, and the encoding gets done on the pc side. As long as you can squeeze that extra 10% into the same 150Mb/s, then that's all you need. My 'guess' as to why they didn't go that route...is it would definitely had killed the Rift-S.

    edit: Carmack also said the panels will do 90Hz, but that they couldn't get games to run at 90fps, rendered on the Quest itself, so they settled for 72Hz instead.
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,535 Valuable Player
    edited October 12
    The data needs to be both encoded and decoded. It's no different than how streaming works. Not to sound rude - but I dont think you understand how it fully works:) not to say I do as well - but lets stop here:)
  • SpuzzumSpuzzum Posts: 685
    Neo
    edited October 11
    If you say so. Cheers. But it only decodes video on the Quest side.
  • bigmike20vtbigmike20vt Posts: 4,074 Valuable Player
    If they could do it having the option of a per game setup of 72,Hz or 90hz with a locked in ASW (so only 45fps) may be an answer.
    It would likely need to be configurable per game as some games suit a locked 45,FPS better than others. PC users are used to having configuration options so I think the option is ok if it is doable.
    Fiat Coupe, gone. 350Z gone. Dirty nappies, no sleep & practical transport incoming. Thank goodness for VR :)
  • kojackkojack Posts: 5,622 Volunteer Moderator
    ASW wouldn't really help Quest Link though. There's still 90 fps of data being generated that needs to be sent over the cable, it just saves on the pc's GPU (by the game doing half the work and the oculus runtime filling in the gaps).

    It might be possible to distribute the work though, have the reprojection part of ASW run on the Quest's GPU. Send 45fps, generate the in between frames on the headset. But that would only really suit ASW 1. For ASW 2 you need z buffer data as well, which is going to increase the needed bandwidth back up. There could be reduced z buffer precision to cut down on data, but it's probably still going to take 1.5 to 2 times the data of ASW 1.

    I don't know the current state, but before the Quest's release Oculus said that it would have positional time warp, but not ASW 2. Carmack said that ASW is a bigger hit on the GPU than a typical mobile frame anyway.
  • bigmike20vtbigmike20vt Posts: 4,074 Valuable Player
    AHH ok, (I guess I just didn't think it through then :) )
    Fiat Coupe, gone. 350Z gone. Dirty nappies, no sleep & practical transport incoming. Thank goodness for VR :)
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,535 Valuable Player
    edited October 12
    Spuzzum said:
    If you say so. Cheers. But it only decodes video on the Quest side.
    coughdatafromtheheadsetmovementcough

    Yes, but it still takes time to do both as I said... so you can't "overclock" it. Aka, you can't make one side faster to get more data - both sides have to keep up. This is why 265+ gets away with it because it doesn't send as much data in the first place. Their 3 slice is only helpful in showing the frame faster - over all it should still take the same amount or close to the same amount of time to show the frame in full. There for, you have a limit and that limit is bandwidth at that point if the frame updates over a percent. So while they could improve on movements in the frame it self - if there is a whole new sense to draw each time - you are just stuck. What this will help though is instead of compression/static FOVA - you could turn down static FOVA allowing a clear image for that 30% boost making it pretty close to a 1:1 clear image you would've gotten from Rift S or maybe another 3 frames for a slight improvement to 75Hz refresh rate. On the other hand - you could allow for a "burst" of frames up to 90Hz if the screen isn't moving much. Maybe this would help in some games that are keeping you looking at the same images like a movie or pictures. This could be done because you are only updating the movement then while keeping the same current pixels therefor increasing the total speed by a lot.
  • RedRizlaRedRizla Posts: 6,709 Valuable Player
    edited October 14
    I really don't want to wade through this thread, but I have a question. Are we going to see another Pc -VR headset from Oculus in the future, or is it just going to be an Oculus Quest that you can tether to a PC from now on? That is the main question I wanted answered at OC6, so can someone tell me if they did answer this question at OC6?
  • dburnedburne Posts: 2,775 Valuable Player
    RedRizla said:
    I really don't want to wade through this thread, but I have a question. Are we going to see another Pc -VR headset from Oculus in the future, or is it just going to an Oculus Quest that you can tether to a PC from now on? That is the main question I wanted answered at OC6, so can someone tell me if they did answer this question at OC6?
    No they did not answer that question, very little talk on the Rift brand.
    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 |
  • RuneSR2RuneSR2 Posts: 3,730 Valuable Player
    Some perspectives:

    Intel i7 7700K (4.5 GHz); MSI GeForce GTX 1080 8GB Gaming X (oc 2100 MHz gpu boost, 11 GHz mem speed); 16GB Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3200 MHz; MSI Z270I Gaming Pro Carbon AC (VR-Ready) mainboard; Samsung 960 Evo M.2 SSD + Toshiba P300 HD; Windows 10 OS; Valve Index and Oculus Rift CV1 - the latter nearly always using super sampling 2.0. 

    "Ask not what VR can do for you – ask what you can do for VR"
  • kevinw729kevinw729 Posts: 4,781 Valuable Player
    dburne said:
    RedRizla said:
    I really don't want to wade through this thread, but I have a question. Are we going to see another Pc -VR headset from Oculus in the future, or is it just going to an Oculus Quest that you can tether to a PC from now on? That is the main question I wanted answered at OC6, so can someone tell me if they did answer this question at OC6?
    No they did not answer that question, very little talk on the Rift brand.

    Yeah, @dburne - there was a active move to avoid talking about future Rift beyond some Rift-S commentary. And obvious there was the promotion of the prototypes for Half Dome 1/2 and the new 3. There was no Lenovo representation to answer questions, and it seems now that Rift is being pushed to one side as the focus is on Quest. 

    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
  • RuneSR2RuneSR2 Posts: 3,730 Valuable Player
    edited October 16
    kevinw729 said:
    dburne said:
    RedRizla said:
    I really don't want to wade through this thread, but I have a question. Are we going to see another Pc -VR headset from Oculus in the future, or is it just going to an Oculus Quest that you can tether to a PC from now on? That is the main question I wanted answered at OC6, so can someone tell me if they did answer this question at OC6?
    No they did not answer that question, very little talk on the Rift brand.

    Yeah, @dburne - there was a active move to avoid talking about future Rift beyond some Rift-S commentary. And obvious there was the promotion of the prototypes for Half Dome 1/2 and the new 3. There was no Lenovo representation to answer questions, and it seems now that Rift is being pushed to one side as the focus is on Quest. 

    It will be very interesting if Oculus can get the streaming quality using Quest to work so well that most users won't observe any difference to using a non-streaming HMD. Observing some inconsistencies with image quality on oled and lcd hmds, it could be an awesome move for Oculus to get thousands of games designed for oled hmds to work flawlessly on Quest (oled). I believe Oculus cares a lot about quality, and going from CV1 to Quest for PCVR may be a really good idea - again, only if streaming doesn't introduce any noticeable latency or image degradation. Games like Lone Echo and Asgard's Wrath, which benefit a lot from temporal anti-aliasing, may shine much more on the Quest than Rift-S. Also black levels and in-game/app lighting, Quest may make sure that everything designed for CV1 still looks as good as ever. (If 72 Hz are enough for everyone ;-)
    Intel i7 7700K (4.5 GHz); MSI GeForce GTX 1080 8GB Gaming X (oc 2100 MHz gpu boost, 11 GHz mem speed); 16GB Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3200 MHz; MSI Z270I Gaming Pro Carbon AC (VR-Ready) mainboard; Samsung 960 Evo M.2 SSD + Toshiba P300 HD; Windows 10 OS; Valve Index and Oculus Rift CV1 - the latter nearly always using super sampling 2.0. 

    "Ask not what VR can do for you – ask what you can do for VR"
  • dburnedburne Posts: 2,775 Valuable Player
    I like my Quest and will certainly be having a look at the tethered option when available out of curiosity.
    Only downside to the Quest for me is mine has fairly significant God Rays (more than my CV1 did) and the heat generated. Maybe when used tethered to PC it might not generate as much heat. Really can't see it replacing my Rift S though.
    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 |
Sign In or Register to comment.