cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

HP Reverb G2 - collaboration between HP, Valve and Microsoft

RuneSR2
Level 16
https://youtu.be/cz9wHbOOjpw

More here - sounds big with HP working together with Valve and Microsoft:

https://uploadvr.com/hp-reverb-g2-teased/

1coeczfe0b7v.png

Valve Index & Oculus Rift CV1, Asus Strix OC RTX™ 3090, i9-10900K (5.3Ghz), 32GB 3200MHz, 8TB
"Ask not what VR can do for you, but what you can do for VR"

240 REPLIES 240

RuneSR2
Level 16


No FOV upgrade no sale for me, I'll wait for the Quest 2 news but I don't hold out my hopes there either. I hope I live to see a FOV increase in the next 20 years. 


Personally I think HP's argument for not providing bigger fov was some kind of pillow talk and did not make any sense. G2 would be perfect for bigger fov due to the res. Dialing in the lenses is just an option with the Index, you don't need to do it - but it offers the possibility to increase fov for those who want it. HP took that option away probably to keep down production costs. 
I have my Index lenses dialed in as much as possible (I'm using glasses, but I nearly have it dialed all in) and the reduced res doesn't really matter compared to the great leap in immersion. I do not notice reduced res at all, but I'm using high ss in most games - maybe that's why I can't take SteamVR res 100% for long, lol.

Never heard of anyone dialing Index lenses out to increase res at the expense of fov. 

Valve Index & Oculus Rift CV1, Asus Strix OC RTX™ 3090, i9-10900K (5.3Ghz), 32GB 3200MHz, 8TB
"Ask not what VR can do for you, but what you can do for VR"

RedRizla
Level 16


inovator said:


RedRizla said:


inovator said:

When said oculus should produce a higher res headset to cater to lower and higher end users it is not understood that oculus cares the most about making vr mainstream. You need a low enough price point to go in that direction.


I'm not sure I understand your post if I'm honest. I know Oculus cares about making VR mainstream, but the only way to make something main stream in the computer world is to cater for both the higher end computer user and to those that can't afford the latest graphics cards etc. That means producing two VR headsets and doing a simple thing like changing the display's. They high end user numbers are tiny in comparison to how many people facebook wants in vr. If a billion people use vr only a sliver will care about a high end pc. 






It's ok that we disagree. Maybe I'm not articulating the words good enough. Facebook's longterm goal is for a billion people to use vr. That will not work with high end pc vr.The long term goal is stand alone high end vr at a reasonable price. Only a sliver of that billion people will care about high end pc vr.


You quoted me as saying this in the quote box when I didn't even write it: "They high end user numbers are tiny in comparison to how many people
facebook wants in vr. If a billion people use vr only a sliver will care
about a high end pc." Can you remove it from the quote box please. I know the text sometimes gets stuck in that quote box, but it just confuses people when I didn't write it. You did manage to place the rest of your reply out of the quote box though, so can I suggest when you see that you are writing in the quote box to just delete it and start again. That's what I do if my text gets stuck in the quote box. Cheers!
Yes Face book wants billions in VR, so I'll I agree with you on that. That's probably why they will go mobile VR now while also allowing you to connect their device to a PC. The only problem I have with this is a mobile chip is not that great for running games with better graphics at higher resolutions and then there's the display's themselves. I think they will have to remain lower resolution display's for mobile VR, and that isn't great if you hook your Quest up to a PC and your PC is capable of much higher resolutions.
Maybe Facebook could use a display that would allow you to switch to a higher resolution when using a PC with your Quest. I'm not just talking about scaling either, I mean change the resolution like you do on a PC monitor when you want higher resolution. When you want to play a game in 4k on a monitor it's best to buy a 4k monitor. You don't want to buy a 1080p monitor and use that scaling technique because it's nothing like the 4k you will get on a 4k monitor.
One more thing. I think you underestimate just how many people own a Geforce 1080ti and above. People who are really into pc gaming usually want he best they can get. Then there's the casual games who just want to play the odd game and are happy with their middle of the range rigs. Back in the day I was in a large clan of around 30 players and I'd say about half of them had the highend stuff. I wasn't particularly bothered about shadow and high textures back then though, so I was in the mid range.

Luciferous
Level 12
For me an OLED rift S resolution (meaning it ends up at the Rift S resolution after FOV increase) hmd With true (no bullshit) 130 or 140 FOV would been an instant buy. My cv1 still looks great to me at ss 2.0 but the binocular vision really does bother me.

If the new quest had the the same FOV I would be devastated, I would love to stay with Oculus. 

The only other feature that could tempt me with no FOV increase was the natural focusing we saw on the shelved prototypes. I think from an immersion perspective that could really be a game changer.



Shadowmask72
Level 16
I think increased FOV can be somewhat overrated.On-paper it sounds like a must. Sure, it's very nice to have (see Pimax 8K) but you have to remember when engrossed in VR your eyes are constantly fixed at what is in front of you so after a while the extra FOV loses its impact.I guess it also depends on what experiences you are playing that benefit from the wider view. Obviously when you do a quick hot-swap between wide FOV and Low it's very noticeable but that isn't a real scenario for most VR experiences.

I found that going back to a lesser FOV from the 8K was fine and not a massive downgrade you might expect. The brain tends to get used to its surrounds very quickly hence why we've all been content with the lower FOV headsets up until now. I assume then that Oculus, HP, Valve etc see this and don't feel it's worth expanding at this time for what it's worth. Getting a wider FOV manifests its own set of issues to overcome where in Pimax's case eye strain, distortions and other issues weren't entirely removed from the equation.

Anecdotally I much preferred the huge increase in resolution of the HP Reverb over many other things in VR.  Take that as you will. I guess we all have our preferences. 


System Specs: ASUS NVIDIA RTX 3090 TUF GAMING OC 24GB , i9 9900K CPU, 16 GB DDR 4 RAM, Win 10 64 Bit OS.

RuneSR2
Level 16
I constantly swap between CV1 and Index, even often on the same day, and fov and res are the main differences to me (tracking and sound are great on both hmds - and I use 90 hz for now). Sure fov can mean less in very dark games where oled provides other advantages compared to the Index, but in bright games like Pistol Whip fov is the one thing I notice the most. I'm much more "there" in Pistol Whip using Index. Using glasses, my CV1 lenses stretch perfectly to the frame of my glasses - but using Index I got fov beyond the frame of my glasses. Both horizontally but especially vertically - vertically I think my eyebrows are the limit like in the real world. 
Even dialed in, the text on the gloves' chips in Alyx is super-sharp - way beyond what CV1 ss 2.0 ever could do. 

Maybe it's about a lot of small things adding up - fov, res, sound, tracking, Hz - what does it take to really fool your brain to believe it's there?

When I think back about Alyx, it is more like some sort of vacation memory to me. I do not feel I played a game, no, I was there - I shot things with a real gun in my hand, I touched and threw stuff, and I saw everything with my own eyes . Not sure I had quite the same experience with other games. I think that's what the devs call Ultramersion in Boneworks:

https://www.reddit.com/r/boneworks/comments/eljcr4/ultra_immersion_ultramersion/

To me Alyx, Boneworks and Room VR are the first games to support Ultramersion, because it requires ultra-high-res textures beyond what we've seen before - and hmds with enough pixels to properly display these high res textures. Room VR might be the black sheep when it comes to Ultramersion due to lack of full locomotion and smooth turning, but it got the textures. To me the fov is an important part of Ultramersion, because it's about reducing variables which tell your brain that you're not really present in another reality. 

Btw, the effect of pure fov might be nicely described when Sebastian tried StarVR One - that hmd has quite low res (1830 × 1464 per eye - but remember that's across a very large fov, G2 is 2160 x 2160), but StarVR One has awesome fov  (210 degrees - human fov is normally said to be 220 degrees, but there's probably some biological variation present):

https://youtu.be/1v23Pe51uvc

Valve Index & Oculus Rift CV1, Asus Strix OC RTX™ 3090, i9-10900K (5.3Ghz), 32GB 3200MHz, 8TB
"Ask not what VR can do for you, but what you can do for VR"

Luciferous
Level 12
I had a DK1 and it had a bigger FOV than the DK2. The moment I tried on the DK2 I was really, really disappointed. Then out come the CV1 and they reduced it again.  

I never got used to the reduced FOV, to me it is a big leap backwards and a massive eye sore every time I use it. It is a constant reminder of compromise and reality. 

Looking back at OC6 they said the half dome would have the natural focus, more compact form factor but resulting in a reduced FOV. Now they said it would be still 20 percent bigger FOV than the Quest. Does that mean 120-130 Degree FOV ish?

If the new headset had this technology in it and 130 degree FOV, oh wow that would be very difficult to beat. Experience tells me though this wont happen with Oculus. It's likely to be a moderate upgrade, improving on clarity,mobile processing power, same FOV and smoother PC integration.

VR is obviously a side quest for Facebook. I just wish Mark with all his money would just say 'f**k it lets blow them away with the next release'.

Alextended
Level 5
Eh, dunno why so many are excited. It's basically Windows Mixed Reality 1.5 but a really nice high quality implementation, like Samsung's Odyssey was in its time. Hopefully the tracking matches Oculus this time. Still, I doubt this thing will be worth it for most, especially if Oculus drop the price of the S (it's already ~200 less for its lower resolution and lesser audio mind), though it'll probably kill HTC's VR with their Cosmos mishaps. Hopefully other companies will follow suit and provide their own take on WMR 1.5 for varying price ranges that can compete, down to the $200 of last gen WMR models but with the base improvements seen here, just different HMD/screen/build quality specs and stuff. Otherwise if you're gonna spend a premium you might as well go full Index. Although it can also be a decent choice for simmers as it has pretty good resolution for that ~600 it costs, not like a Pimax or XTAL kit (though simmer games like DCS and IL-2 struggle for performance already).

I like seeing new VR models that don't overhaul stuff too much though, lol, first Cosmos, now this use a very similar controller layout (which is why I thought the earlier leak of the G2 might be fake, the controllers looked like a photoshopped mix of WMR and Oculus, haha), it only means Oculus controllers/features remain competitive and on par longer rather than become obsolete (it's crazy they got it so right in ~2016) and I don't need to upgrade except when some real sweet stuff arrive for modest prices: VR 2.0 with eye tracking for foveated rendering/gameplay features and finger tracking smoother than index for less moneys or whatever. Maybe wireless connection to PC if that becomes possible already (without crazy extra costs like the Vive wireless adapter). I feel like Quest 2 should have proper wireless (5G?) for PC finally, not the laggy homebrew stuff. But not the other things, too premium to sell any time soon unless they also maintain Quest alongside it and that becomes Quest Pro rather than 2, using its power to run the same games at higher res/hz/settings until they abandon the first and utilize it fully.

I still dunno if this is WMR 1.5 by Microsoft updating the base specs (to 4 cameras and that control layout etc.) which means we will see more companies offer their own take on it or just HP's deal, I saw talk of how the HP controllers are compatible with old WMR models (same tracking ring and all see) and will be sold separately for people who want them (though unless they broke I don't think it's an upgrade worth investing in, especially if you have Samsung's controllers which were already improved).

TomCgcmfc
Level 16
I just hope that no one comes out with a great distortion-free 130deg FOV high res OLED headset with a wireless option too soon because this is gonna hurt my bank account, lol!
9 9900k, rtx3090, 32 Gb ram, 1tb ssd, 4tb hdd. xi hero wifi mb, 750w psu, Quest 2 w/Air Link, Vive Pro.

MPires
Level 5
Am I the only one who thinks that the launch of the Reverb G2 will speed up the launch of a Rift S2? Unlike many, I do not see Oculus leaving the VR market for PC in the hands of others, especially after the investments it has made and the know-how acquired. For me the fact that they don't give much support to the Rift S means that a replacement is coming and this time, with real news.

Luciferous
Level 12
Maybe, Rift S was a rush job in answer to the index.

Internally do Oculus consider the Lenovo collaboration a success? The lack of attention to it afterwards, I think not.

They may have learned a lesson from that but what that lesson is, I don't know.

I don't think the G2 is big enough leap to warrant another panic release.