My concern is that any of these "VR" instruments may have a long use effect on vision. I sure would hate to see people using these things for 2 plus hours per day or so and latter find that they have become vision impaired. Are any studies being done to see that no ill effects come from extended use?
You mean similar to staring at a monitor, smart phone, tablet for 8-16 hours per day?
These things are quite a bit different then looking at a monitor. At least you can easily (or somewhat more easily) look away from a monitor. Also, monitors are not normally well within the normal focal length of the human eye lens. To me, this could lead to some extreme strain on the eye. Much more so then looking at a standard monitor. Again, I do not know this....just a potential downside.
I am interested in the OR but have some questions that I feel need to be answered BEFORE I go head over heels for something like this. Tech is generally a good thing but sometimes in the rush to improve common sense leaves the building. I recall reading an article about how watch makers came up with a super fantastic way to make the then common analog watch dial visible at night or in the dark. These people came up with painting a radioactive substance upon the numbers. Numbers were very readable in the dark but the radiated paint led to low level radiation poisoning. Point is that the questions have to be asked.
Even NASA is checking it out. Although the rift is developed with gaming in mind, I think people will definitely find ways to use it for other practical purposes. Personally, I'm more interested in seeing how this technology can filter/expand into uses other than gaming.
The thing is its not just the Oculus that is in the market place right now, its as if everyone is trying to get our hands off the K+M and eyes off the screen and its about time.
Cost:
It looks like I will also be buying the Razer Hydra motion sensing device which is about $400, which is more than the Rift.
But here is how I look at it. about 15 years ago I spent $3000 on a surround sound system and TV which end up staying under my bed around the year 2008 because I rarely ever used it. I eventually sold it.
So with that I dont mind spending up to around $3k for a full VR experience as it turns out it looks like the total cost for a complete sixsense system with a headset will run folks around $600 at retail launch next year and will be of better quality.
Resolution:
What is interesting is that because the screen is so close to your eyes it has to have a higher resolution than a monitor to display the same 'per pixel' effect. What that means basically is that consoles really will not be able to make use of this revolution at all because 720p is flat out going to be too burly.
So what will Sony and Microsoft do now? I dont know.
Supply and demand. Razer's gear is always ludicrously expensive. I know, I have one of their gaming mouse and keyboards. The Hydra will get cheaper as demand goes up, or someone will make a cheaper one. What they are building isn't all that technically amazing, they are just early to market.
The Xbox One and the PS4 can do 1080p, so that should be good enough for the first generation of VR on consoles. They will lag behind PCs in this space, of course, but that's nothing new.
First off at least speaking for Xbox One its fairly well known that it upscales to 1080p and is not native.
Afterting having experienced the Oculus myself I can see how even 1080p is not going to be good enough, again because our eyes are so close to the screen.
Try it at 1080p.
I cant because the dev kit doesnt do 1080p.
What I CAN say is this. Running the same resolution as the Dev kit on my monitor looks better.
Again, my face is so close to the screen I can literally see the grid between the pixels running at near 720p.
Xbox and PS4 do not have a chance. They do have a chance at transparent technology with agumented reality approach however.
Oculus VR and various developers have been showing off the 1080p version at various expos and conventions. Since August, the EVE: Valkyrie demos have been using the higher resolution model. Visible grids and the screen door effect seem to be addressed by the shader. Here's a look at Reset with some shots taken as they would appear in the Oculus Rift.
Again, when you get the opportunity to, check out the 1080p (CV1?) set.
I just watched a video on the about the 1080p (my version doesnt allow that high)and they said that the screen door effect is basically no longer an issue at that resolution. You can still see the screen door effect but its not that bad. What this means for me is that 1080p is the minimum resolution of entry. Speaking from experience the 720p can give you an idea of what VR is going to be like but the screendoor effect is to strong for it to be viable.
So, with the consoles being upscaled to 1080p at best I fully understand why they have decided to not do one for the consoles.
Guess what though......Steambox? yup
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I just watched a video on the about the 1080p (my version doesnt allow that high)and they said that the screen door effect is basically no longer an issue at that resolution. You can still see the screen door effect but its not that bad. What this means for me is that 1080p is the minimum resolution of entry. Speaking from experience the 720p can give you an idea of what VR is going to be like but the screendoor effect is to strong for it to be viable.
And multiple posters have told you already that is lower rez than what will be released, so it isn't an issue.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I just watched a video on the about the 1080p (my version doesnt allow that high)and they said that the screen door effect is basically no longer an issue at that resolution. You can still see the screen door effect but its not that bad. What this means for me is that 1080p is the minimum resolution of entry. Speaking from experience the 720p can give you an idea of what VR is going to be like but the screendoor effect is to strong for it to be viable.
So, with the consoles being upscaled to 1080p at best I fully understand why they have decided to not do one for the consoles.
Guess what though......Steambox? yup
The PlayStation 4 and Xbox One will have enough hardware power to render for a 1080p Oculus Rift if the games built for it don't get carried away with using too intensive of graphical effects. But they may not have the means to transmit the rendered images to it. They've got however much output bandwidth they have, and if it's not as much as needed, there's nothing the Oculus Rift people can do. And it's unlikely that Sony or Microsoft made tons of output monitor bandwidth into a high priority.
Originally posted by SEANMCADI just watched a video on the about the 1080p (my version doesnt allow that high)and they said that the screen door effect is basically no longer an issue at that resolution. You can still see the screen door effect but its not that bad. What this means for me is that 1080p is the minimum resolution of entry. Speaking from experience the 720p can give you an idea of what VR is going to be like but the screendoor effect is to strong for it to be viable.
And multiple posters have told you already that is lower rez than what will be released, so it isn't an issue.
your not following what I am saying,
1080p at 60fps IS THE MINIMUM that will not have the screen door effect.
The word minimum in this context is like saying 1080p in an oculus = 800x600 gaming on a monitor.
why is this so hard to understand?
why do you think the makers of oculus rift basically said exactly what I just said.
"We're seeing games that are already saying they're gonna run in 720p on next gen so they can barely hit 60 in 2D," says Luckey. "It's hard to imagine them running a VR experience that's on par with PC. And certainly five years from now the experiences and the technology for virtual reality that will be available on PC is going to be be so far beyond anything that a console can provide.
"What we're most excited about - really the core direction of our company - is trying to make something that works on platforms that are moving quickly and that are continuously getting more powerful, and consoles are not those."
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Originally posted by SEANMCADI just watched a video on the about the 1080p (my version doesnt allow that high)and they said that the screen door effect is basically no longer an issue at that resolution. You can still see the screen door effect but its not that bad. What this means for me is that 1080p is the minimum resolution of entry. Speaking from experience the 720p can give you an idea of what VR is going to be like but the screendoor effect is to strong for it to be viable.
And multiple posters have told you already that is lower rez than what will be released, so it isn't an issue.
your not following what I am saying,
1080p at 60fps IS THE MINIMUM that will not have the screen door effect.
The word minimum in this context is like saying 1080p in an oculus = 800x600 gaming on a monitor.
why is this so hard to understand?
why do you think the makers of oculus rift basically said exactly what I just said.
"We're seeing games that are already saying they're gonna run in 720p on next gen so they can barely hit 60 in 2D," says Luckey. "It's hard to imagine them running a VR experience that's on par with PC. And certainly five years from now the experiences and the technology for virtual reality that will be available on PC is going to be be so far beyond anything that a console can provide.
"What we're most excited about - really the core direction of our company - is trying to make something that works on platforms that are moving quickly and that are continuously getting more powerful, and consoles are not those."
So if the devs have no plans on bringing it to console, I'm not following your reasoning behind bringing console up.
A: The 2014 Ford will fail because the Model T doesn't meet safety standards and doesn't fly.
B: The 2014 Ford doesn't have the issues of the Model T and they aren't designing it to fly.
A: But I have a Model T. It doesn't meet safety standards and will fail if you try to fly it.
B: Awesome! We're talking about a modern 2014 Ford made for driving.
A: But I have the Model T and I am using it right now and I from what I see the 2014 Ford won't meet safety standards and will fail at flying.
B: Some of us have the 2014 Ford and some of us have driven the 2014 Ford, and it meets safety standards. It's also not intended for flying.
A: Why can't you understand this won't fly!
Good luck and happy new year.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
just the fact that people have to be sold this idea of virtual reality headsets makes my jaw just drop.
Its going to a huge game changer to ALL entertainment media
In a way, I get their skepticism.
Why would anyone not be skeptical of another round of VR goshwow?
Sit back and watch. The folks to get it right will grind the competing techs in the dust, and the great PC evolution race will be back on again.
To be perfectly fair, this is the first product that actually delivers on some of the promise I've personally been hearing about in VR for 20 years.
We'll see in five years. VR isn't a tech that's provided good return on investment to date.
You "new video card five times a decade" guys can throw your cash to be First. But how long until you're goshwow-ing the next piece of gear?
To say this is going to take five years is to be completely out of touch with the reality of technology in today's age. The smartphone is barely five years old in the mainstream and changed the world. The fact that the cost of these goggles is a stopping point for some does not make them any less valid as a technology, and it's not going to take five years for them to go mainstream. My personal experience in conjunction the all the praises being sung all over the internet about this technology trumps the skepticism of people who have not experienced it.
I have, here in my office, an autonomous multirotor drone, which I built, that I can send off on GPS waypoint and spline altitude missions, complete with a GoPro and a camera gimbal I can fix on a GPS coordinate while the drone flies around its GPS path. Besides fun and aerial photography, they are now being used for industrial inspections, precision farming, search and rescue, wildlife observation and other science, etc. I talk to people every day who think they are just toys with no future. I know better.
You might want to learn history first, before you start spouting crap. Smartphones have been around since 1994. So 20 years not 5.
just the fact that people have to be sold this idea of virtual reality headsets makes my jaw just drop.
Its going to a huge game changer to ALL entertainment media
In a way, I get their skepticism.
Why would anyone not be skeptical of another round of VR goshwow?
Sit back and watch. The folks to get it right will grind the competing techs in the dust, and the great PC evolution race will be back on again.
To be perfectly fair, this is the first product that actually delivers on some of the promise I've personally been hearing about in VR for 20 years.
We'll see in five years. VR isn't a tech that's provided good return on investment to date.
You "new video card five times a decade" guys can throw your cash to be First. But how long until you're goshwow-ing the next piece of gear?
To say this is going to take five years is to be completely out of touch with the reality of technology in today's age. The smartphone is barely five years old in the mainstream and changed the world. The fact that the cost of these goggles is a stopping point for some does not make them any less valid as a technology, and it's not going to take five years for them to go mainstream. My personal experience in conjunction the all the praises being sung all over the internet about this technology trumps the skepticism of people who have not experienced it.
I have, here in my office, an autonomous multirotor drone, which I built, that I can send off on GPS waypoint and spline altitude missions, complete with a GoPro and a camera gimbal I can fix on a GPS coordinate while the drone flies around its GPS path. Besides fun and aerial photography, they are now being used for industrial inspections, precision farming, search and rescue, wildlife observation and other science, etc. I talk to people every day who think they are just toys with no future. I know better.
You might want to learn history first, before you start spouting crap. Smartphones have been around since 1994. So 20 years not 5.
Originally posted by SEANMCADI just watched a video on the about the 1080p (my version doesnt allow that high)and they said that the screen door effect is basically no longer an issue at that resolution. You can still see the screen door effect but its not that bad. What this means for me is that 1080p is the minimum resolution of entry. Speaking from experience the 720p can give you an idea of what VR is going to be like but the screendoor effect is to strong for it to be viable.
And multiple posters have told you already that is lower rez than what will be released, so it isn't an issue.
your not following what I am saying,
1080p at 60fps IS THE MINIMUM that will not have the screen door effect.
The word minimum in this context is like saying 1080p in an oculus = 800x600 gaming on a monitor.
why is this so hard to understand?
why do you think the makers of oculus rift basically said exactly what I just said.
"We're seeing games that are already saying they're gonna run in 720p on next gen so they can barely hit 60 in 2D," says Luckey. "It's hard to imagine them running a VR experience that's on par with PC. And certainly five years from now the experiences and the technology for virtual reality that will be available on PC is going to be be so far beyond anything that a console can provide.
"What we're most excited about - really the core direction of our company - is trying to make something that works on platforms that are moving quickly and that are continuously getting more powerful, and consoles are not those."
So if the devs have no plans on bringing it to console, I'm not following your reasoning behind bringing console up.
A: The 2014 Ford will fail because the Model T doesn't meet safety standards and doesn't fly.
B: The 2014 Ford doesn't have the issues of the Model T and they aren't designing it to fly.
A: But I have a Model T. It doesn't meet safety standards and will fail if you try to fly it.
B: Awesome! We're talking about a modern 2014 Ford made for driving.
A: But I have the Model T and I am using it right now and I from what I see the 2014 Ford won't meet safety standards and will fail at flying.
B: Some of us have the 2014 Ford and some of us have driven the 2014 Ford, and it meets safety standards. It's also not intended for flying.
A: Why can't you understand this won't fly!
Good luck and happy new year.
The reason I brought it up is because I said I am very curious to see how Microsoft and Sony react to this.
Maybe they have some magic bullet that nobody knows about that could solve the resolution problem but until then the only thing that will increase the resolution for them is a console hardware upgrade.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
just the fact that people have to be sold this idea of virtual reality headsets makes my jaw just drop.
Its going to a huge game changer to ALL entertainment media
In a way, I get their skepticism.
Why would anyone not be skeptical of another round of VR goshwow?
Sit back and watch. The folks to get it right will grind the competing techs in the dust, and the great PC evolution race will be back on again.
To be perfectly fair, this is the first product that actually delivers on some of the promise I've personally been hearing about in VR for 20 years.
We'll see in five years. VR isn't a tech that's provided good return on investment to date.
You "new video card five times a decade" guys can throw your cash to be First. But how long until you're goshwow-ing the next piece of gear?
To say this is going to take five years is to be completely out of touch with the reality of technology in today's age. The smartphone is barely five years old in the mainstream and changed the world. The fact that the cost of these goggles is a stopping point for some does not make them any less valid as a technology, and it's not going to take five years for them to go mainstream. My personal experience in conjunction the all the praises being sung all over the internet about this technology trumps the skepticism of people who have not experienced it.
I have, here in my office, an autonomous multirotor drone, which I built, that I can send off on GPS waypoint and spline altitude missions, complete with a GoPro and a camera gimbal I can fix on a GPS coordinate while the drone flies around its GPS path. Besides fun and aerial photography, they are now being used for industrial inspections, precision farming, search and rescue, wildlife observation and other science, etc. I talk to people every day who think they are just toys with no future. I know better.
You might want to learn history first, before you start spouting crap. Smartphones have been around since 1994. So 20 years not 5.
Monitors don't scale with Moore's Law. My dad got a monitor with 1200 vertical pixels about 13-14 years ago, and the first monitors with more than 1600 just recently showed up.
The problem isn't getting the CPU or GPU power to render the frames. That's easily doable on current or even somewhat dated hardware just by making the scenes less detailed. The problem is making monitors that can attach to your face and getting the rendered frames to them fast enough (more a bandwidth problem than latency, though latency isn't a trivial thing, either).
just the fact that people have to be sold this idea of virtual reality headsets makes my jaw just drop.
Its going to a huge game changer to ALL entertainment media
In a way, I get their skepticism.
Why would anyone not be skeptical of another round of VR goshwow?
Sit back and watch. The folks to get it right will grind the competing techs in the dust, and the great PC evolution race will be back on again.
To be perfectly fair, this is the first product that actually delivers on some of the promise I've personally been hearing about in VR for 20 years.
We'll see in five years. VR isn't a tech that's provided good return on investment to date.
You "new video card five times a decade" guys can throw your cash to be First. But how long until you're goshwow-ing the next piece of gear?
To say this is going to take five years is to be completely out of touch with the reality of technology in today's age. The smartphone is barely five years old in the mainstream and changed the world. The fact that the cost of these goggles is a stopping point for some does not make them any less valid as a technology, and it's not going to take five years for them to go mainstream. My personal experience in conjunction the all the praises being sung all over the internet about this technology trumps the skepticism of people who have not experienced it.
I have, here in my office, an autonomous multirotor drone, which I built, that I can send off on GPS waypoint and spline altitude missions, complete with a GoPro and a camera gimbal I can fix on a GPS coordinate while the drone flies around its GPS path. Besides fun and aerial photography, they are now being used for industrial inspections, precision farming, search and rescue, wildlife observation and other science, etc. I talk to people every day who think they are just toys with no future. I know better.
You might want to learn history first, before you start spouting crap. Smartphones have been around since 1994. So 20 years not 5.
Monitors don't scale with Moore's Law. My dad got a monitor with 1200 vertical pixels about 13-14 years ago, and the first monitors with more than 1600 just recently showed up.
The problem isn't getting the CPU or GPU power to render the frames. That's easily doable on current or even somewhat dated hardware just by making the scenes less detailed. The problem is making monitors that can attach to your face and getting the rendered frames to them fast enough (more a bandwidth problem than latency, though latency isn't a trivial thing, either).
The monitors that have come out just in the last 3 years are SPECFICALLY what makes the oculus work so well.
In the 90s they had crt monitors for christ sake.
what kind of monitor is being use on the oculus retail? a 1080p cell phone monitor
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Money well spent for the gadget addict, or the early adaptor who tends to buy every new tech because it may be the tech. My money is on this being just another step on the long road to a truly successful VR platform. It's a dead end for now.
The majority of gamers today (console and PC) should demand quality, value, and innovation. But they don't. They want ease of access, ease of operation, and to play with friends. This doesn't really address any of those wants in a new and forward thinking way. I may be wrong, and if I am I will go over to my friends house and watch the news about it on his 3DTV.
Monitors don't scale with Moore's Law. My dad got a monitor with 1200 vertical pixels about 13-14 years ago, and the first monitors with more than 1600 just recently showed up.
The problem isn't getting the CPU or GPU power to render the frames. That's easily doable on current or even somewhat dated hardware just by making the scenes less detailed. The problem is making monitors that can attach to your face and getting the rendered frames to them fast enough (more a bandwidth problem than latency, though latency isn't a trivial thing, either).
The monitors that have come out just in the last 3 years are SPECFICALLY what makes the oculus work so well.
In the 90s they had crt monitors for christ sake.
what kind of monitor is being use on the oculus retail? a 1080p cell phone monitor
While that is true, monitor advances have historically come erratically, not on a smooth exponential curve. And they don't scale by anything remotely similar to Moore's Law. Modern chips can have about a thousand times as many transistors as those from 20 years ago. Today's monitors are better than those from 20 years ago, certainly, but literally a thousand times better?
You're the one that brought up Moore's Law, not me. Unless you meant "morse" or "morose" or "moors" or something else.
just the fact that people have to be sold this idea of virtual reality headsets makes my jaw just drop.
Its going to a huge game changer to ALL entertainment media
In a way, I get their skepticism.
Why would anyone not be skeptical of another round of VR goshwow?
Sit back and watch. The folks to get it right will grind the competing techs in the dust, and the great PC evolution race will be back on again.
To be perfectly fair, this is the first product that actually delivers on some of the promise I've personally been hearing about in VR for 20 years.
We'll see in five years. VR isn't a tech that's provided good return on investment to date.
You "new video card five times a decade" guys can throw your cash to be First. But how long until you're goshwow-ing the next piece of gear?
To say this is going to take five years is to be completely out of touch with the reality of technology in today's age. The smartphone is barely five years old in the mainstream and changed the world. The fact that the cost of these goggles is a stopping point for some does not make them any less valid as a technology, and it's not going to take five years for them to go mainstream. My personal experience in conjunction the all the praises being sung all over the internet about this technology trumps the skepticism of people who have not experienced it.
I have, here in my office, an autonomous multirotor drone, which I built, that I can send off on GPS waypoint and spline altitude missions, complete with a GoPro and a camera gimbal I can fix on a GPS coordinate while the drone flies around its GPS path. Besides fun and aerial photography, they are now being used for industrial inspections, precision farming, search and rescue, wildlife observation and other science, etc. I talk to people every day who think they are just toys with no future. I know better.
You might want to learn history first, before you start spouting crap. Smartphones have been around since 1994. So 20 years not 5.
And what does that have to do with anything? The guy stated that smartphones have only been around 5 years. I was proving him wrong. Perhaps you should reread my post, as you clearly read something that was not there.
Oh and most expect that Moore's law is in fact dead (not that it was really a "law"). Also Moore's Law is about transistors, not sure how that applies to monitores as its not the same thing. Now perhaps you didn't understand what Moorse Law was well read up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law. "However, the 2010 update to the International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors predicts that growth will slow at the end of 2013,[12] when transistor counts and densities are to double only every three years." So in fact Moore's law does not even apply anymore.
The rift sounds cool for very short periods of time to me. I couldn't possibly stand it for long periods of time. I hate wearing the glasses *I have to wear* for near sighted-ness. If I can possibly remove them, I do. I recently bought some very nice G35 headphones/mic to play co-op games with.... and it sits on the floor next to the computer because I can't stand wearing them for any length of time (headache, sweaty ears, etc). I so much as read a sentence in a book while in a car = instant motion sickness.
When I play shooters on my PC, rarely do I get motion sickness (I think Quake 1 and Rage both made me motion sick a bit, funny, they're both ID products). Games like EQ1/2, SWG, SWTOR, LOTRO, et al don't.
But I can imagine a VR headset giving me headaches, sweaty head, and motion sickness very very rapidly.
The rift sounds cool for very short periods of time to me. I couldn't possibly stand it for long periods of time. I hate wearing the glasses *I have to wear* for near sighted-ness. If I can possibly remove them, I do. I recently bought some very nice G35 headphones/mic to play co-op games with.... and it sits on the floor next to the computer because I can't stand wearing them for any length of time (headache, sweaty ears, etc). I so much as read a sentence in a book while in a car = instant motion sickness.
When I play shooters on my PC, rarely do I get motion sickness (I think Quake 1 and Rage both made me motion sick a bit, funny, they're both ID products). Games like EQ1/2, SWG, SWTOR, LOTRO, et al don't.
But I can imagine a VR headset giving me headaches, sweaty head, and motion sickness very very rapidly.
I just got finished watching a video of a helicopter sim...pretty friggin sweet.
I have a rift and I have tried a motorcycle jumping sim and a sky diving sim and its true that it can make you motion sick. But the thing is, in real life doing those things would too.
I dont think anyone has a plan for making games 'require' the Rift for that very reason.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
The whole thing about it lacking any peripheral vision is true, but it's still really cool. Although when I played the rift coaster, I didn't react like the people in the reaction vids at all.
Also, disappointingly, Hawken is HORRIBLE with the rift. It's pretty much unplayable, even more so using the sniper. Although I have a feeling that there's definitely going to be a X-rated market for it. It's... something else for sure.
The whole thing about it lacking any peripheral vision is true, but it's still really cool. Although when I played the rift coaster, I didn't react like the people in the reaction vids at all.
Also, disappointingly, Hawken is HORRIBLE with the rift. It's pretty much unplayable, even more so using the sniper. Although I have a feeling that there's definitely going to be a X-rated market for it. It's... something else for sure.
I checked my monitor setting and yup..no peripheral vision there either
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Comments
These things are quite a bit different then looking at a monitor. At least you can easily (or somewhat more easily) look away from a monitor. Also, monitors are not normally well within the normal focal length of the human eye lens. To me, this could lead to some extreme strain on the eye. Much more so then looking at a standard monitor. Again, I do not know this....just a potential downside.
I am interested in the OR but have some questions that I feel need to be answered BEFORE I go head over heels for something like this. Tech is generally a good thing but sometimes in the rush to improve common sense leaves the building. I recall reading an article about how watch makers came up with a super fantastic way to make the then common analog watch dial visible at night or in the dark. These people came up with painting a radioactive substance upon the numbers. Numbers were very readable in the dark but the radiated paint led to low level radiation poisoning. Point is that the questions have to be asked.
Let's party like it is 1863!
Just found this. http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-uses-kinect-oculus-rift-204527389.html
Even NASA is checking it out. Although the rift is developed with gaming in mind, I think people will definitely find ways to use it for other practical purposes. Personally, I'm more interested in seeing how this technology can filter/expand into uses other than gaming.
I just watched a video on the about the 1080p (my version doesnt allow that high)and they said that the screen door effect is basically no longer an issue at that resolution. You can still see the screen door effect but its not that bad. What this means for me is that 1080p is the minimum resolution of entry. Speaking from experience the 720p can give you an idea of what VR is going to be like but the screendoor effect is to strong for it to be viable.
So, with the consoles being upscaled to 1080p at best I fully understand why they have decided to not do one for the consoles.
Guess what though......Steambox? yup
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Please have the paitence and vision to understand what is about to happen given this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bc_TCLoH2CA
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
And multiple posters have told you already that is lower rez than what will be released, so it isn't an issue.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
The PlayStation 4 and Xbox One will have enough hardware power to render for a 1080p Oculus Rift if the games built for it don't get carried away with using too intensive of graphical effects. But they may not have the means to transmit the rendered images to it. They've got however much output bandwidth they have, and if it's not as much as needed, there's nothing the Oculus Rift people can do. And it's unlikely that Sony or Microsoft made tons of output monitor bandwidth into a high priority.
1080p at 60fps IS THE MINIMUM that will not have the screen door effect.
The word minimum in this context is like saying 1080p in an oculus = 800x600 gaming on a monitor.
why is this so hard to understand?
why do you think the makers of oculus rift basically said exactly what I just said.
they are NOT making a rift for the consoles.
Here is what Oculus themselves are saying:
http://www.techradar.com/us/news/gaming/oculus-rift-creator-xbox-one-and-ps4-are-far-too-limited-for-what-we-re-planning-1198420
from artcile:
"We're seeing games that are already saying they're gonna run in 720p on next gen so they can barely hit 60 in 2D," says Luckey. "It's hard to imagine them running a VR experience that's on par with PC. And certainly five years from now the experiences and the technology for virtual reality that will be available on PC is going to be be so far beyond anything that a console can provide.
"What we're most excited about - really the core direction of our company - is trying to make something that works on platforms that are moving quickly and that are continuously getting more powerful, and consoles are not those."
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
So if the devs have no plans on bringing it to console, I'm not following your reasoning behind bringing console up.
A: The 2014 Ford will fail because the Model T doesn't meet safety standards and doesn't fly.
B: The 2014 Ford doesn't have the issues of the Model T and they aren't designing it to fly.
A: But I have a Model T. It doesn't meet safety standards and will fail if you try to fly it.
B: Awesome! We're talking about a modern 2014 Ford made for driving.
A: But I have the Model T and I am using it right now and I from what I see the 2014 Ford won't meet safety standards and will fail at flying.
B: Some of us have the 2014 Ford and some of us have driven the 2014 Ford, and it meets safety standards. It's also not intended for flying.
A: Why can't you understand this won't fly!
Good luck and happy new year.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Lcd screen this close to eye, it hurts your eyes and permanently damage your vision.
Have fun untill you go blind?
You might want to learn history first, before you start spouting crap. Smartphones have been around since 1994. So 20 years not 5.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone
OH MY GOD...
are you serious?
moorse law mean anything to you?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
The reason I brought it up is because I said I am very curious to see how Microsoft and Sony react to this.
Maybe they have some magic bullet that nobody knows about that could solve the resolution problem but until then the only thing that will increase the resolution for them is a console hardware upgrade.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Monitors don't scale with Moore's Law. My dad got a monitor with 1200 vertical pixels about 13-14 years ago, and the first monitors with more than 1600 just recently showed up.
The problem isn't getting the CPU or GPU power to render the frames. That's easily doable on current or even somewhat dated hardware just by making the scenes less detailed. The problem is making monitors that can attach to your face and getting the rendered frames to them fast enough (more a bandwidth problem than latency, though latency isn't a trivial thing, either).
The monitors that have come out just in the last 3 years are SPECFICALLY what makes the oculus work so well.
In the 90s they had crt monitors for christ sake.
what kind of monitor is being use on the oculus retail? a 1080p cell phone monitor
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Money well spent for the gadget addict, or the early adaptor who tends to buy every new tech because it may be the tech. My money is on this being just another step on the long road to a truly successful VR platform. It's a dead end for now.
The majority of gamers today (console and PC) should demand quality, value, and innovation. But they don't. They want ease of access, ease of operation, and to play with friends. This doesn't really address any of those wants in a new and forward thinking way. I may be wrong, and if I am I will go over to my friends house and watch the news about it on his 3DTV.
While that is true, monitor advances have historically come erratically, not on a smooth exponential curve. And they don't scale by anything remotely similar to Moore's Law. Modern chips can have about a thousand times as many transistors as those from 20 years ago. Today's monitors are better than those from 20 years ago, certainly, but literally a thousand times better?
You're the one that brought up Moore's Law, not me. Unless you meant "morse" or "morose" or "moors" or something else.
And what does that have to do with anything? The guy stated that smartphones have only been around 5 years. I was proving him wrong. Perhaps you should reread my post, as you clearly read something that was not there.
Oh and most expect that Moore's law is in fact dead (not that it was really a "law"). Also Moore's Law is about transistors, not sure how that applies to monitores as its not the same thing. Now perhaps you didn't understand what Moorse Law was well read up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law. "However, the 2010 update to the International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors predicts that growth will slow at the end of 2013,[12] when transistor counts and densities are to double only every three years." So in fact Moore's law does not even apply anymore.
"The smartphone is barely five years old in the mainstream..."
You didn't disprove anything with your wiki quote. 'in the mainstream' - get it? You could argue that point, but the point is, you didn't.
I could claim that the color TV was around since 1927, but it wouldn't have that much to do with the widespread, mainstream adoption of color tv.
If the Oculus Rift becomes a popular, commercially successful paradigm, it will be known as the first 'popularizer' of this idea.
If you are holding out for the perfect game, the only game you play will be the waiting one.
The rift sounds cool for very short periods of time to me. I couldn't possibly stand it for long periods of time. I hate wearing the glasses *I have to wear* for near sighted-ness. If I can possibly remove them, I do. I recently bought some very nice G35 headphones/mic to play co-op games with.... and it sits on the floor next to the computer because I can't stand wearing them for any length of time (headache, sweaty ears, etc). I so much as read a sentence in a book while in a car = instant motion sickness.
When I play shooters on my PC, rarely do I get motion sickness (I think Quake 1 and Rage both made me motion sick a bit, funny, they're both ID products). Games like EQ1/2, SWG, SWTOR, LOTRO, et al don't.
But I can imagine a VR headset giving me headaches, sweaty head, and motion sickness very very rapidly.
I just got finished watching a video of a helicopter sim...pretty friggin sweet.
I have a rift and I have tried a motorcycle jumping sim and a sky diving sim and its true that it can make you motion sick. But the thing is, in real life doing those things would too.
I dont think anyone has a plan for making games 'require' the Rift for that very reason.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
The new prototype Rift at CES
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REwYVlscLJk
The whole thing about it lacking any peripheral vision is true, but it's still really cool. Although when I played the rift coaster, I didn't react like the people in the reaction vids at all.
Also, disappointingly, Hawken is HORRIBLE with the rift. It's pretty much unplayable, even more so using the sniper. Although I have a feeling that there's definitely going to be a X-rated market for it. It's... something else for sure.
I checked my monitor setting and yup..no peripheral vision there either
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me