Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

New VR Headset on Kickstarter Offers 210 Degree FOV

blueturtle13blueturtle13 Member LegendaryPosts: 12,344

eyeForce VR Headset, no black view, 210° FOV




Key features and specifications

The display resolution of 3840 x 1080 means that your eyes are seeing 13 pixels per angle. When we noticed that every aspect relates to the latency of the system, we also noticed that the latency is less than 20ms. In addition, the position tracking camera works at 100 Hz, giving you a high precision.

The pupil distance could be adjusted, so all of the viewers could make the view of each eye collapse and get a good experience. The focal distance can be adjusted so that the viewer is able to experience the scene with no eyeglasses required!. 

Computer requirements

Graphics Card: GTX970/AMD R9 290 or above is required,

2 display Interfaces, which could transport high definition video signal, are required now, such as 1 HDMI and 1 DVI or 1 HDMI 1 DP.

Production Road Map

 

2016 December: Final mechanical and electronics design.

2017 January: Tests and tooling.

2017 February: Certification and component sourcing.

2017 February: Mass production.

2017 April: Shipping.

SDK and GAME

We use OSVR SDK and any apps surporting OSVR could be played in our hardware.  






거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다












fov.png 236.3K

Comments

  • laseritlaserit Member LegendaryPosts: 6,298
    "I just caught it with the corner of my eye"

    you naturally see with about a 220 degree field of view, very important for immersion and not feeling like your inside a box.

    interesting he's got a jet max in the background. Hardcore simmers try to achieve a 220 degree field of view. 

    "Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 22,090
    There are some serious complications here.  For starters, when you have a curved screen like that, you've completely left the realm of linear algebra.  If you want to make it perspective correct, existing games, game engines, and even hardware just can't do it.  That completely breaks the rasterization approach that GeForce and Radeon cards have so much fixed-function hardware to do.

    You might say, but there are already curved monitors.  And indeed there are, but games played on them aren't perspective correct.  Indeed, games played on a single monitor generally aren't perspective correct, either, and usually aren't even close to it.  But when both eyes are looking at the same screen, you adjust and usually handle it fine.  Even with a single screen, the perspective being sufficiently wrong can make your brain mishandle it, but it's pretty forgiving.

    That's not at all true when your two eyes are looking at two different screens and relying on small differences between them to be perceived as depth.  Large errors in the pictures not being perspective correct will overwhelm the small differences you're looking for.  If two eyes looking at two flat screens that can at least be very close to the correct perspective as in the Oculus Rift causes nausea for a lot of people, this is going to be many times worse.

    I'm not quite willing to say that this is a bad idea.  It might be more a problem that it's just too soon--and likely by decades, not years.  If games were all raytracing, this would work fine.  Oculus Rift or something much like it will be mainstream with tens of millions of people playing games on it every day before anything like this can progress past its infancy.

    If each eye had three flat screens with sharp angles between them, that could give you a wide field of view, too, while playing nicely with existing video cards and requiring only minor tweaks to game engines.  That could at least theoretically work well, though it would be very sensitive to getting the seams correct.  But separate, curved screens for each eye are a terrible idea for the foreseeable future.
  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,059
    Don't worry, it will sell out more often than not.
  • laseritlaserit Member LegendaryPosts: 6,298
    Quizzical said:
    There are some serious complications here.  For starters, when you have a curved screen like that, you've completely left the realm of linear algebra.  If you want to make it perspective correct, existing games, game engines, and even hardware just can't do it.  That completely breaks the rasterization approach that GeForce and Radeon cards have so much fixed-function hardware to do.

    You might say, but there are already curved monitors.  And indeed there are, but games played on them aren't perspective correct.  Indeed, games played on a single monitor generally aren't perspective correct, either, and usually aren't even close to it.  But when both eyes are looking at the same screen, you adjust and usually handle it fine.  Even with a single screen, the perspective being sufficiently wrong can make your brain mishandle it, but it's pretty forgiving.

    That's not at all true when your two eyes are looking at two different screens and relying on small differences between them to be perceived as depth.  Large errors in the pictures not being perspective correct will overwhelm the small differences you're looking for.  If two eyes looking at two flat screens that can at least be very close to the correct perspective as in the Oculus Rift causes nausea for a lot of people, this is going to be many times worse.

    I'm not quite willing to say that this is a bad idea.  It might be more a problem that it's just too soon--and likely by decades, not years.  If games were all raytracing, this would work fine.  Oculus Rift or something much like it will be mainstream with tens of millions of people playing games on it every day before anything like this can progress past its infancy.

    If each eye had three flat screens with sharp angles between them, that could give you a wide field of view, too, while playing nicely with existing video cards and requiring only minor tweaks to game engines.  That could at least theoretically work well, though it would be very sensitive to getting the seams correct.  But separate, curved screens for each eye are a terrible idea for the foreseeable future.
    I don't know anything about a VR application for 210 degrees of view on a single screen. But Flight simming has had wrap around views for almost a decade now.

    In flight simming it's an expensive proposition. It takes 3 projectors or 5 led's to achieve a 220 degree field of view. The poor mans way is to do it with an application and hardware such as this

    http://www.matrox.com/graphics/surroundgaming/en/games/zone/flightsim/

    The proper more expensive way is to have a separate rig and flight sim software for every monitor, These days programs like Prepar3d handle and sync the separate views within the application itself.

    "Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 22,090
    laserit said:
    Quizzical said:
    There are some serious complications here.  For starters, when you have a curved screen like that, you've completely left the realm of linear algebra.  If you want to make it perspective correct, existing games, game engines, and even hardware just can't do it.  That completely breaks the rasterization approach that GeForce and Radeon cards have so much fixed-function hardware to do.

    You might say, but there are already curved monitors.  And indeed there are, but games played on them aren't perspective correct.  Indeed, games played on a single monitor generally aren't perspective correct, either, and usually aren't even close to it.  But when both eyes are looking at the same screen, you adjust and usually handle it fine.  Even with a single screen, the perspective being sufficiently wrong can make your brain mishandle it, but it's pretty forgiving.

    That's not at all true when your two eyes are looking at two different screens and relying on small differences between them to be perceived as depth.  Large errors in the pictures not being perspective correct will overwhelm the small differences you're looking for.  If two eyes looking at two flat screens that can at least be very close to the correct perspective as in the Oculus Rift causes nausea for a lot of people, this is going to be many times worse.

    I'm not quite willing to say that this is a bad idea.  It might be more a problem that it's just too soon--and likely by decades, not years.  If games were all raytracing, this would work fine.  Oculus Rift or something much like it will be mainstream with tens of millions of people playing games on it every day before anything like this can progress past its infancy.

    If each eye had three flat screens with sharp angles between them, that could give you a wide field of view, too, while playing nicely with existing video cards and requiring only minor tweaks to game engines.  That could at least theoretically work well, though it would be very sensitive to getting the seams correct.  But separate, curved screens for each eye are a terrible idea for the foreseeable future.
    I don't know anything about a VR application for 210 degrees of view on a single screen. But Flight simming has had wrap around views for almost a decade now.

    In flight simming it's an expensive proposition. It takes 3 projectors or 5 led's to achieve a 220 degree field of view. The poor mans way is to do it with an application and hardware such as this

    http://www.matrox.com/graphics/surroundgaming/en/games/zone/flightsim/

    The proper more expensive way is to have a separate rig and flight sim software for every monitor, These days programs like Prepar3d handle and sync the separate views within the application itself.
    Is that both eyes looking at the same screens, or separate screens for each eye relying on small differences between them to give the illusion of depth?  The latter is much, much harder to do than the former.
  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    also keep in mind that StarVR and ACER plan to start building public VR 'arcade centers' (my word, best I can come up with for public space VR) and StarVR has a large POV as well

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    Ridelynn said:
    Don't worry, it will sell out more often than not.
    VR is doing very well often for something that isnt supposed to be doing well aint?

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • laseritlaserit Member LegendaryPosts: 6,298
    Quizzical said:
    laserit said:
    Quizzical said:
    There are some serious complications here.  For starters, when you have a curved screen like that, you've completely left the realm of linear algebra.  If you want to make it perspective correct, existing games, game engines, and even hardware just can't do it.  That completely breaks the rasterization approach that GeForce and Radeon cards have so much fixed-function hardware to do.

    You might say, but there are already curved monitors.  And indeed there are, but games played on them aren't perspective correct.  Indeed, games played on a single monitor generally aren't perspective correct, either, and usually aren't even close to it.  But when both eyes are looking at the same screen, you adjust and usually handle it fine.  Even with a single screen, the perspective being sufficiently wrong can make your brain mishandle it, but it's pretty forgiving.

    That's not at all true when your two eyes are looking at two different screens and relying on small differences between them to be perceived as depth.  Large errors in the pictures not being perspective correct will overwhelm the small differences you're looking for.  If two eyes looking at two flat screens that can at least be very close to the correct perspective as in the Oculus Rift causes nausea for a lot of people, this is going to be many times worse.

    I'm not quite willing to say that this is a bad idea.  It might be more a problem that it's just too soon--and likely by decades, not years.  If games were all raytracing, this would work fine.  Oculus Rift or something much like it will be mainstream with tens of millions of people playing games on it every day before anything like this can progress past its infancy.

    If each eye had three flat screens with sharp angles between them, that could give you a wide field of view, too, while playing nicely with existing video cards and requiring only minor tweaks to game engines.  That could at least theoretically work well, though it would be very sensitive to getting the seams correct.  But separate, curved screens for each eye are a terrible idea for the foreseeable future.
    I don't know anything about a VR application for 210 degrees of view on a single screen. But Flight simming has had wrap around views for almost a decade now.

    In flight simming it's an expensive proposition. It takes 3 projectors or 5 led's to achieve a 220 degree field of view. The poor mans way is to do it with an application and hardware such as this

    http://www.matrox.com/graphics/surroundgaming/en/games/zone/flightsim/

    The proper more expensive way is to have a separate rig and flight sim software for every monitor, These days programs like Prepar3d handle and sync the separate views within the application itself.
    Is that both eyes looking at the same screens, or separate screens for each eye relying on small differences between them to give the illusion of depth?  The latter is much, much harder to do than the former.
    It's both eyes looking at the same screen, isn't it the same case with this device?

    "Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee

  • GruntyGrunty Member EpicPosts: 8,657
    edited August 2016
    laserit said:
    Quizzical said:
    laserit said:
    I don't know anything about a VR application for 210 degrees of view on a single screen. But Flight simming has had wrap around views for almost a decade now.

    In flight simming it's an expensive proposition. It takes 3 projectors or 5 led's to achieve a 220 degree field of view. The poor mans way is to do it with an application and hardware such as this

    http://www.matrox.com/graphics/surroundgaming/en/games/zone/flightsim/

    The proper more expensive way is to have a separate rig and flight sim software for every monitor, These days programs like Prepar3d handle and sync the separate views within the application itself.
    Is that both eyes looking at the same screens, or separate screens for each eye relying on small differences between them to give the illusion of depth?  The latter is much, much harder to do than the former.
    It's both eyes looking at the same screen, isn't it the same case with this device?
    One of the on head virtual reality device's primary attractions is 3D vision.  That requires two images, one for each eye, with slightly different perspectives to achieve 3D vision.  A single 'screen' flight simulator setup is not capable of 3D by itself.
    "I used to think the worst thing in life was to be all alone.  It's not.  The worst thing in life is to end up with people who make you feel all alone."  Robin Williams
  • zymurgeistzymurgeist Member RarePosts: 5,484
    SEANMCAD said:
    Ridelynn said:
    Don't worry, it will sell out more often than not.
    VR is doing very well often for something that isnt supposed to be doing well aint?

    Depends on how you define very well. It hasn't flopped but it hasn't achieved deep market penetration either. The nascent market is in danger of becoming over saturated with manufacturers which is good for consumers but bad for developers. The main question of is it a fad or the next big thing hasn't been decided yet.

    "We have met the enemy and he is us." ~Pogo Possum. 

  • laseritlaserit Member LegendaryPosts: 6,298
    edited August 2016
    Grunty said:
    laserit said:
    Quizzical said:
    laserit said:
    I don't know anything about a VR application for 210 degrees of view on a single screen. But Flight simming has had wrap around views for almost a decade now.

    In flight simming it's an expensive proposition. It takes 3 projectors or 5 led's to achieve a 220 degree field of view. The poor mans way is to do it with an application and hardware such as this

    http://www.matrox.com/graphics/surroundgaming/en/games/zone/flightsim/

    The proper more expensive way is to have a separate rig and flight sim software for every monitor, These days programs like Prepar3d handle and sync the separate views within the application itself.
    Is that both eyes looking at the same screens, or separate screens for each eye relying on small differences between them to give the illusion of depth?  The latter is much, much harder to do than the former.
    It's both eyes looking at the same screen, isn't it the same case with this device?
    One of the on head virtual reality device's primary attractions is 3D vision.  That requires two images, one for each eye, with slightly different perspectives to achieve 3D vision.  A single 'screen' flight simulator setup is not capable of 3D by itself.
    Except for a ViewMaster, I've only experienced 3D with a single screen and 3D glasses. I would imagine that having two completely separate images would be far superior.  It will be interesting seeing these technologies evolve over the next few years. 

    "Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee

  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    edited August 2016
    guys...I am not following you completely however you might want to know that Oculus DK1 and DK2 was a single screen, CV1 is two. You can do it either way its the image itself that matters be it on 2  screens or 1 longer screen. I would assume without knowing more details that 2 is better though


    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    SEANMCAD said:
    Ridelynn said:
    Don't worry, it will sell out more often than not.
    VR is doing very well often for something that isnt supposed to be doing well aint?

    Depends on how you define very well. It hasn't flopped but it hasn't achieved deep market penetration either. The nascent market is in danger of becoming over saturated with manufacturers which is good for consumers but bad for developers. The main question of is it a fad or the next big thing hasn't been decided yet.
    would you like me to define it in this context?

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • GruntyGrunty Member EpicPosts: 8,657
    edited August 2016
    laserit said:
    Grunty said:
    One of the on head virtual reality device's primary attractions is 3D vision.  That requires two images, one for each eye, with slightly different perspectives to achieve 3D vision.  A single 'screen' flight simulator setup is not capable of 3D by itself.
    Except for a ViewMaster, I've only experienced 3D with a single screen and 3D glasses. I would imagine that having two completely separate images would be far superior.  It will be interesting seeing these technologies evolve over the next few years. 
    Yup, I saw the recent Star Wars movie in '3D'. They still used those glasses. What I saw wasn't good 3D.  I saw a lot of oddly shaped heads and all of the actors looked like they had had a stroke. Apparently I wasn't sitting in the 30-odd seats sweet spot necessary to get the good 3D effect.
    "I used to think the worst thing in life was to be all alone.  It's not.  The worst thing in life is to end up with people who make you feel all alone."  Robin Williams
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 22,090
    SEANMCAD said:
    guys...I am not following you completely however you might want to know that Oculus DK1 and DK2 was a single screen, CV1 is two. You can do it either way its the image itself that matters be it on 2  screens or 1 longer screen. I would assume without knowing more details that 2 is better though


    It doesn't matter whether two eyes are looking at two different portions of the same screen or two different screens entirely.  The difference is between two eyes looking at two different images versus two eyes looking at the same image.  The latter flatly doesn't work for something you wear on your face.  Try reading a book three inches from your face, for example.
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 14,397
    Ridelynn said:
    Don't worry, it will sell out more often than not.
    Preorder sales speed will set records... news at 11!
    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED

    "... the "influencers" which is the tech name we call sell outs now..."
    __ Wizardry, 2020
  • laxielaxie Member RarePosts: 1,065
    edited August 2016
    Quizzical said:
    If you want to make it perspective correct, existing games, game engines, and even hardware just can't do it.
    I recall Nvidia talking about accurate multi-monitor support.
    They were showing how their drivers dynamically adjust for the correct perspective.

    I don't know any specifics (and don't remember what the feature was). It was in a presentation video.

    Have you heard about this?

    Edit: Found the video.

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 22,090
    laxie said:
    Quizzical said:
    If you want to make it perspective correct, existing games, game engines, and even hardware just can't do it.
    I recall Nvidia talking about accurate multi-monitor support.
    They were showing how their drivers dynamically adjust for the correct perspective.

    I don't know any specifics (and don't remember what the feature was). It was in a presentation video.

    Have you heard about this?

    Edit: Found the video.

    Games have been able to do that ever since we got geometry shaders in DirectX 10 way back in 2007.  They generally haven't.  My guess is that it's partially because most computer game programmers simply don't have the math background to do it, and partially because perspective correct gives you such a narrow field of view as to be awkward for most games.  The latter is why even on a single monitor, games are virtually never perspective correct for where you actually sit.  They commonly design around the implicit assumption that you're maybe 8 or 12 inches from the screen, so as to give you a wide enough field of view to make the game playable.

    But it's not that hard to figure out which monitor a vertex is on, and do manual clipping in geometry shaders for any triangles that cross boundaries.  That's all still linear algebra that plays nicely with rasterization, with two or three or whatever flat planes rather than one.  Curved screens have to do away with linear algebra entirely if they want to be perspective correct.  Mostly they just decide not to be perspective correct, but that will break badly on VR.
  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    Quizzical said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    guys...I am not following you completely however you might want to know that Oculus DK1 and DK2 was a single screen, CV1 is two. You can do it either way its the image itself that matters be it on 2  screens or 1 longer screen. I would assume without knowing more details that 2 is better though


    It doesn't matter whether two eyes are looking at two different portions of the same screen or two different screens entirely.  The difference is between two eyes looking at two different images versus two eyes looking at the same image.  The latter flatly doesn't work for something you wear on your face.  Try reading a book three inches from your face, for example.
    agreed.

    I was not sure about the conversation at hand but yeah you are right

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    bascially...

    This


    is coming and these high end headset like StarVR is part of the masterplan 

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

Sign In or Register to comment.