Oculus Rift Consumer unit 1 on schedule ( Announced on Twitter )

Tuttle said:
Because this is how I drive my real car; I watch the road flowing through my windshield and I use my hands to do manual operations.

Not sure why you want to convince people your opinions are facts and everything different from this make no sense. Told you, VR will be lot of fun for gaming but don't tell me it make no sense to not move on it. There'll be people who don't want to drop a full functional Formula wheel, a full functional handbrake, a H shifter, a sequential, a button set, rotaries for brake balance, switches for setups, Neutral button, Kers, DRS, PL, PIT, mapping buttons, wheel display function browsing etc etc.

You need just 1 single person, like me or anyone else, not moving on VR for these reasons to prove you're wrong.

For me, this still make a lot of sense. :)
Click to expand...
Add in to that the people who can't because of visual issues that make their eyesight largely incompatible with such technology and, with existing screen technology, are unlikely to be included any time in the next decade; people with motion sickness issues; the huge advancements in fast refreshing, high-chroma screens, ultra-resolution monitors and the likes which will always leave proprietary technology like VR headsets behind the curve; budgetary constraints; the added development time in supporting the technology on multiple levels... it's never going to be anything other than a very cool accessory that some people can enjoy in the games that cater to them. Even if these issues were fixed the reality is it's yet another never-less-than-costly optional hardware accessory with limited application in an absolutely heaving market and that's not going to change.

Don't misunderstand, it's really damn cool and I'm sure people will have a blast racing with it but, again, it's never going to be a must-have.
 
Last edited:
Guineapiggy said:
At best that's a dubious statement. Honestly for a number of the same reasons, (as well as a host of other new ones) it seems unlikely that VR will ever be anything other than a niche tool for enthusiasts. That's not a bad thing, the technology has significant merit in a lot of senses but its laundry list of drawbacks and limitations can't be ignored. Aside from anything else I'd guess the launch price of the rift says that the producers know that too.
Click to expand...

" it seems unlikely that VR will ever be anything other than a niche tool for enthusiasts " this is just stupid. vr is allready more than for just enthusiasts before it even comes to the consumer market. it would be the same like vor 7 years someone would say a smartphone is just for enthusiasts... im mean open ur eyes and watch how vr allready change ur sports, porn, military, movies, Games or buisness like Audi has a deal with htc vive etc.
 
Last edited:
Tuttle said:
Because this is how I drive my real car; I watch the road flowing through my windshield and I use my hands to do manual operations.

Not sure why you want to convince people your opinions are facts and everything different from this make no sense. Told you, VR will be lot of fun for gaming but don't tell me it make no sense to not move on it. There'll be people who don't want to drop a full functional Formula wheel, a full functional handbrake, a H shifter, a sequential, a button set, rotaries for brake balance, switches for setups, Neutral button, Kers, DRS, PL, PIT, mapping buttons, wheel display function browsing etc etc.

You need just 1 single person, like me or anyone else, not moving on VR for these reasons to prove you're wrong.

For me, this still make a lot of sense. :)
Click to expand...

Yes and vr make u feel that ur a in a real car not a triple screen. And no i don t look at my shifter when i drive a real car because i know what to do in a real car and where my buttons are. But like i allready told u u can see everything in vr and the awnser is htc vive. so ur opinion about ur button are gone anyway that has nothing to do with my statement about buttons. valve allready said u can use the cam of the vive to see ur cockpit wheel shifter etc.
 
gkz said:
Yes and vr make u feel that ur a in a real car not a triple screen. And no i don t look at my shifter when i drive a real car because i know what to do in a real car and where my buttons are. But like i allready told u u can see everything in vr and the awnser is htc vive. so ur opinion about ur button are gone anyway that has nothing to do with my statement about buttons. valve allready said u can use the cam of the vive to see ur cockpit wheel shifter etc.
Click to expand...

I'll never, ever, waste my money (how much? 1000? 1500$?) to do what I can already do with my own eyes. No Way, LOL. :D

How seriously evil can be marketing on people? :D

I would invest such money for new monitors, or a DD, or a new DIY wheel...but I'm not saying you have to do the same. You see that's just personal preference and needs. That all I'm saying; your facts are just your opinions, needs. Don't twist logic, doesn't work. Never did.

gkz said:
Tuttle how old are u mate ?
Click to expand...

Old enough to not eat marketing for breakfast.
 
gkz said:
" it seems unlikely that VR will ever be anything other than a niche tool for enthusiasts " this is just stupid. vr is allready more than for just enthusiasts before it even comes to the consumer market. it would be the same like vor 7 years someone would say a smartphone is just for enthusiasts... im mean open ur eyes and watch how vr allready change ur sports, porn, military, movies, Games or buisness like Audi has a deal with htc vive etc.
Click to expand...
Uh...huh. I'mma go do something more constructive.
 
WhiteShadow said:
If you are racing endurance races and get minor damage which don`t cost you any time lost on the track and you don't want to repair this damage you simply can not edit pit menu not to repair damage before you enter to pit and it going to cost you lot of extra time in the pit lane. I own DK2 and Nvidia 3D vision>trackir>triple screens is much better suited to sim racing and it has better picture quality.
Click to expand...

....i think for now your right and that most people with both (like yourself) would agree also given vr's current state of technology. For example it's very hard to read text in the dk2 (which i don't think will be much better in the cv1) but that will inevitably be resolved with higher res displays (provided vr is here to stay, grow and not a gimmick which i myself do not believe it to be though ofc i could be wrong). I think many if not all the issues that have been raised are resolvable in time. Prices should also go down with time ofc, etc, etc.

Tuttle, just out of curiosity, have you tried a rift before?
 
No, I don't. There are millions of things I didn't try but I know I don't need it. :)

I'm not judging without knowing. I'm saying I don't need it and why. Anyone saying I'm saying BS or nonsense, when just talking about opinions, it's not welcome here. That's the point.

Cheers.
 
DrR1pper said:
....for now. For example it's very hard to read text in the dk2 (which i don't think will be much better in the cv1) but that will inevitably be resolved with higher res displays (provided vr is here to stay, grow and not a gimmick which i myself do not believe it to be). I think many if not all the issues that have been raised are resolvable in time. Prices should also go down with time ofc, etc, etc.

Tuttle, just out of curiosity, have you tried a rift before?
Click to expand...

Yes dk2 is blurry and when I read spec.of cv1 I think you are right. Sure vr is here to stay but I bet it is going to take many years before vr beats my 3 x Predator X34 G-Sync monitors.
 
Tuttle said:
I'll never, ever, waste my money (how much? 1000? 1500$?) to do what I can already do with my own eyes. No Way, LOL. :D

How seriously evil can be marketing on people? :D

I would invest such money for new monitors, or a DD, or a new DIY wheel...but I'm not saying you have to do the same. You see that's just personal preference and needs. That all I'm saying; your facts are just your opinions, needs. Don't twist logic, doesn't work. Never did.

Old enough to not eat marketing for breakfast.
Click to expand...


Yes maybe higher than 1500 ... And ? Thats a new type of hardware ofcourse it coast mutch money for the first time. I remember when my father bought me my first tft montior for 1200 euro and it has crapy 50 ms latency so i could not play my main game half life 1 was to fast. But as a 14 years old child i knew the time will come for tft to replace oldshool monitors. But whats 1500 dollars compared to a triple screen setup where i need even more pc power. So 1500 - 2000 dollar for my pc and if i want good screens u have to pay 700-1000 dollar too.

i know that u guys are old enough and this is where i see the problem. a guy who is 40+ don t see the things like young ppl.

I don t go for marketing. I play rf 2 only with my dk 2 thats why i can talk about it. Did u test oculus or vive ?
 
Tuttle said:
No, I don't. There are millions of things I didn't try but I know I don't need it. :)

I'm not judging without knowing. I'm saying I don't need it and why. Anyone saying I'm saying BS or nonsense, when just talking about opinions, it's not welcome here. That's the point.

Cheers.
Click to expand...


Well, no one needs vr of course, they only want it if they like it but even if they liked it i agree with you that there will be some people in the world who'd still prefer the non vr option for a multitude of possible reasons. :)

If you ever get the chance to try vr though, i'd highly recommend it. It may surprise you or simply confirm your already held beliefs about it. Either way, "one good test is worth a thousand expert opinions".
 
DrR1pper said:
....i think for now your right and that most people with both (like yourself) would agree also given vr's current state of technology. For example it's very hard to read text in the dk2 (which i don't think will be much better in the cv1) but that will inevitably be resolved with higher res displays (provided vr is here to stay, grow and not a gimmick which i myself do not believe it to be though ofc i could be wrong). I think many if not all the issues that have been raised are resolvable in time. Prices should also go down with time ofc, etc, etc.

Tuttle, just out of curiosity, have you tried a rift before?
Click to expand...

that funny because the most ppl who tested the cv1 on ces 2016 said its big improvment to dk 2 and u can read the text pretty good.
 
I think people saying it's never going to be anything more than a fad are going to look back at those comments and chuckle at how silly they were.

VR has failed in the past because the technology wasn't ready. It's the only reason. There are so many uses outside of gaming it's not even funny. Something like The Apollo 11 Experience is what really convinced me. It literally gave me goose bumps. And from that point forward, it became obvious to me that this was the future of education (history, medical, whatever). It really was like the first time I used the internet and how it was immediately obvious it was going to revolutionize everything. There's a reason all the major tech companies have formed VR divisions (Google just announced theirs the other day). It's the next platform revolution.
 
While it gave hope that Tim liked VR and thought it was good for sim racing I guess it is not so good to see other ISI developers state it's rubbish and would never want to use it.

That doesn't help me imagine I will see it soon in rf2.

Tuttle, I assume you are familiar with RF2 (yes that is a joke), so it's not really fair to say only 'serious' sim racers would race with their triples, BB etc. I dont know what you race but like many, many racers I dont race cars requiring 20 buttons just to control car features like drs, brake bias, engine mode, etc, etc.

I would bet the majority of racers dont need that many buttons but do have a lot of buttons for 'unrealistic' things like chatting, pit stuff etc.. That is much more realistically done using voice commands, not a button box.

I never look at my wheel racing, I never look at my shifter while racing. I am surprised on your take at what is 'serious' sim racing.

It sounds like when I put on my rift and race an average gt3, older F1 etc that my experience is closer to reality than yours. Which is then more serious in that context?
 
interesting, reading all the strong comments I would like to ask @Tuttle, @WhiteShadow .. what VR HMD and what racing simulation you tried and is the base of your prognosis? did you even tried VR with racing simulations?

EDIT: oh sorry, seems DrR1pper already adressed this question.
 
gkz said:
that funny because the most ppl who tested the cv1 on ces 2016 said its big improvment to dk 2 and u can read the text pretty good.
Click to expand...

Can you link me to those reports please? And were they comparing the same test imagine (i.e. same word font and size) on the cv1 as on the dk2? Ofc if you make the text large enough, then it becomes easily readable.

I could be wrong but as it currently stands, i'm just a bit sceptical that a 25% increase in pixel count will make text notably more legible than it was on the dk2. I'll find out for myself anyway when the cv1 arrives.

Someone who's claimed to have tried the cv1 at oculus connect (https://forums.oculus.com/viewtopic.php?t=26997) recalls thinking to themselves "This looks just as pixelated as my DK2".

edit: Found a post from someone claiming to have an engineering sample of cv1 and has the opinion that despite only 25% increase in resolution from dk2, it feels like the same leap from dk1 to dk2. Which if true (however i'm still somewhat sceptical that it's true since dk1 to dk2 saw a literal 100% increase in pixel count) it's impressive as i know just how god awful the dk1 was.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=220774&page=2&p=3366854&viewfull=1#post3366854
 
Last edited:
metalnwood said:
While it gave hope that Tim liked VR and thought it was good for sim racing I guess it is not so good to see other ISI developers state it's rubbish and would never want to use it.
Click to expand...

I never state it's rubbish. I just said I would never need it because I like, and I want, my "real" stuff in my cockpit.

What's wrong with that? I don't understand.
 
vittorio said:
interesting, reading all the strong comments I would like to ask @Tuttle, @WhiteShadow .. what VR HMD and what racing simulation you tried and is the base of your prognosis? did you even tried VR with racing simulations?

EDIT: oh sorry, seems DrR1pper already adressed this question.
Click to expand...

Yes i own dk2. LFS :)
 
Last edited:
Tuttle said:
I never state it's rubbish. I just said I would never need it because I like, and I want, my "real" stuff in my cockpit.

What's wrong with that? I don't understand.
Click to expand...

How can you even write that when you never tried any VR HMD in racing simulations? You simply don't know it.
 
It's fair to say that one will never need it but not that one will never want it.
 
DrR1pper said:
Can you link me to those reports please? And were they comparing the same test imagine (i.e. same word font and size) on the cv1 as on the dk2? Ofc if you make the text large enough, then it becomes easily readable.

I could be wrong but as it currently stands, i'm just a bit sceptical that a 25% increase in pixel count will make text notably more legible than it was on the dk2. I'll find out for myself anyway when the cv1 arrives.

Someone who's claimed to have tried the cv1 at oculus connect (https://forums.oculus.com/viewtopic.php?t=26997) recalls thinking to themselves "This looks just as pixelated as my DK2".

edit: Found a post from someone claiming to have an engineering sample of cv1 and has the opinion that despite only 25% increase in resolution from dk2, it feels like the same leap from dk1 to dk2. Which if true (however i'm still somewhat sceptical that it's true since dk1 to dk2 saw a literal 100% increase in pixel count) it's impressive as i know just how god awful the dk1 was.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=220774&page=2&p=3366854&viewfull=1#post3366854
Click to expand...

man there to many...but here 2 links: https://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/3zsa69/i_just_tried_the_ces_rift_cv1_demos/ and https://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/3ynsim/i_got_to_try_the_consumer_beta_ecv7_and_here_is/

U go in the complete rong direction... The key in vr is not the resolution it is the screen and the lense. Means gear vr has a much higher res than cv 1 but every body says gear vr is worst from the visuals. If u go only for more pixel ofcourse it
would not be enough compared to dk 2. CV1 has 2 seperate screens with costums optik and higher res. dk 2 = 1 note 3 handy screen.
 
DrR1pper said:
It's fair to say that one will never need it but not that one will never want it.
Click to expand...

thats right, i dont need a high end racing wheel, i don't need motion simulator, i don't need even a wheel, pedals not even a color monitor and computer. and i don't need a simulation. there's not much one really need. ;)
 
gkz said:
man there to many...but here 2 links: https://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/3zsa69/i_just_tried_the_ces_rift_cv1_demos/ and https://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/3ynsim/i_got_to_try_the_consumer_beta_ecv7_and_here_is/
Click to expand...

Thanks for the links. Checking them out now.


gkz said:
U go in the complete wrong direction... The key in vr is not the resolution it is the screen and the lense. ....
Click to expand...

For clarity, i've not said nor am i saying that resolution is the only important issue but i certainly believe it's up there. For example, if all other issues (e.g. SDE, lens quality, etc) were resolved, would you be happy to remain with dk2/cv1 type resolution? I would not.
 
One of the problems with screens is correct perception of speed and distance. And no, there is no "correct" FOV that solves this. The low FOV's most of us "serious" sim racers probably use that looks naturalistic and aids detecting rotation, is very misleading at low speeds. You must have noticed this! And apparently, these problems are well researched and known about in military simulators.

VR should solve this. So it seems odd someone would choose not to avail themselves of an opportunity to see what a racing driver should see (budget allowing). Personally, I've never needed to take my eyes off the screen. But then I favour older cars and technology. ;)
 
DrR1pper said:
Thanks for the links. Checking them out now.

For clarity, i've not said nor am i saying that resolution is the only important issue but i certainly believe it's up there. For example, if all other issues (e.g. SDE, lens quality, etc) were resolved, would you be happy to remain with dk2/cv1 type resolution? I would not.
Click to expand...


Now after i understand that a higher res is not possible in q1 2016 im happy. U have to get stable 90 fps on 2 screens this is impossible on next gen games even with high end pcs if u have a higher res. But as i know the screen is better than dk 2 and i prefer dk 2 over monitor im fine with it.
 
gkz said:
Now after i understand that a higher res is not possible in q1 2016 im happy. U have to get stable 90 fps on 2 screens this is impossible on next gen games even with high end pcs if u have a higher res.
Click to expand...

High end SLI (e.g. 980Ti's) should be able to give you stable 90 fps per eye in any game with something like 1280x1440 (if not more) per eye. You may have to lower the graphics settings a bit in some games coming out in the future but it should still be perfectly doable with currently available hardware (provided the game is not unoptimised).


gkz said:
But as i know the screen is better than dk 2 and i prefer dk 2 over monitor im fine with it.
Click to expand...

And that's fair enough. You're happy with dk2 quality to replace your monitor use, others on the other hand may not.
 
DrR1pper said:
Thanks for the links. Checking them out now.




For clarity, i've not said nor am i saying that resolution is the only important issue but i certainly believe it's up there. For example, if all other issues (e.g. SDE, lens quality, etc) were resolved, would you be happy to remain with dk2/cv1 type resolution? I would not.
Click to expand...

I would want the resolution to get better, absolutely but the resolution isnt low enough to make me go back to triples. The nice thing is that the resolution will get better.

Touching on something someone else said that I have noticed.. The sensation of speed is certainly better in VR. We are used to things as they are, racing on screens and it does take time to adapt. The sensation of speed is not really there, not like real life and we have to learn what the speed is in the sim. I have personally noticed people are much better as first time racers when they get a demo in my rift, they have a proper sensation of the speed and dont think they are only doing 50 when they are in fact doing 120. In VR that sensation of speed is much more natural than a learned thing that we have with screens.
 
vittorio said:
thats right, i dont need a high end racing wheel, i don't need motion simulator, i don't need even a wheel, pedals not even a color monitor and computer. and i don't need a simulation. there's not much one really need. ;)
Click to expand...

Voice attack. Tell your sim what you want :)
 
I find it amusing that many are dismissing VR even before it has reached consumers hands.

It's like saying the next new phone to come out is rubbish, when you haven't even tried it.

Maybe some of you need more of an open mind just to see what happens?

It's an intriguing technology.
 
I am curious to try it, I love the idea of being immersed in the cockpit with the same view I have in a vehicle in the real world. Certainly a tech store nearby will have a demo display setup, but even if it functions perfectly I will wait for ophthalmologist studies about the tech... and the salty price is unwelcome. Button positioning wouldn't be an issue as I only have the ones on my wheel, easily memorized. Having a cozy home with a room with a nice 2 projector setup would absolutely kick butt, maybe way more than VR headset.
 
DrR1pper said:
High end SLI (e.g. 980Ti's) should be able to give you stable 90 fps per eye in any game with something like 1280x1440 (if not more) per eye. You may have to lower the graphics settings a bit in some games coming out in the future but it should still be perfectly doable with currently available hardware (provided the game is not unoptimised).




And that's fair enough. You're happy with dk2 quality to replace your monitor use, others on the other hand may not.
Click to expand...

vr sli must be supported from the publisher and i don t think that isi cares much about this in the near future. i think we can be happy if 2017 will have vr support. But anyway a vr headset which needs two 980 ti is a joke. U can t sell it to the normal consumer. That would not make any sense for oculus or vive.

Yes the dk 2 is really hard in terms of resolution and u can say its not a finish product so its not for everyone I found a good way to make special tweaks to bring the most out of it. But cv1 is a finish consumer product.
 
gkz said:
vr sli must be supported from the publisher and i don t think that isi cares much about this in the near future.
Click to expand...

True, sli must be supported, though i'm not sure if it's up to the publisher and not nvidia but i digress. Sli scaling performance is supposedly flawless (i.e. nearly 100% scaling) in rf2 in stereoscopic 3d according to people like Spinelli who only plays rf2 in 3d vision, so provided rf2 gets native rift support, VR performance with sli should be double that of a single card from the get go in rf2.

gkz said:
But anyway a vr headset which needs two 980 ti is a joke. U can t sell it to the normal consumer.
Click to expand...

I simply used the sli 980Ti as an example to demonstrate why i disagreed with your statement that it's impossible to get stable 90hz in vr with higher resolution displays in next gen games. Unrealistic for the masses on the other hand, i absolutely agree.


gkz said:
Yes the dk 2 is really hard in terms of resolution and u can say its not a finish product so its not for everyone I found a good way to make special tweaks to bring the most out of it. But cv1 is a finish consumer product.
Click to expand...

Sorry, i'm not sure what you're trying to say here. That the cv1 being a finished consumer product means it will be without fault?
 
Last edited:
DrR1pper said:
True, sli must be supported, though i'm not sure if it's up to the publisher and not nvidia but i digress. Sli scaling performance is supposedly flawless (i.e. nearly 100% scaling) in rf2 in stereoscopic 3d according to people like Spinelli who only plays rf2 in 3d vision, so provided rf2 gets native rift support, VR performance with sli should be double that of a single card from the get go in rf2.
Click to expand...

rFactor2 is NVidia 3D supported game but it don`t have Nvidia SLI support. SLI performance is not being only based in GPU drivers but the game programming aswell.
Spinelli`s statement about perfect SLI scaling is from 07-12-15 and it was fine with Nvidia driver 353.30 however there has been windows updates and this driver don`t work anymore with SLI/Nvidia 3D sorround. NVidia profile (rFactor2 Mod Mode.exe, rFactor2.exe) is created 2011-09-22 and when ISI updates gmotor2, additional SLI optimizations etc. in 2015 and never submit the latest build of the rF2 executables to Nvidia so that an updated working SLI profile can be created. It is ISI and their communication with NVIDIA which is the reason to rFactor2 SLI problems. Nvidia has released hole bunch of new drivers after release of 353.30 and none of them gives you, satisfying fps and scaling to achieve normal game experience with Nvidia SLI or SLI/Nvidia 3D surround.

DrR1pper said:
I simply used the sli 980Ti as an example to demonstrate why i disagreed with your statement that it's impossible to get stable 90hz in vr with higher resolution displays in next gen games. Unrealistic for the masses on the other hand, i absolutely agree.
Click to expand...

GeForce GTX GPU’s that meet the performance requirements of VR Ready include GeForce GTX 970, GTX 980, GTX 980 Ti and TITAN X. NVIDIA partners that meet these standards display a “GeForce GTX VR Ready” badge on their systems and graphics cards.
 
I always wonder why in these sorts threads I hardly see people vouch for the 3d effect the rift does. It's easily the best 3d I've seen, ever. That impressed me more than the fov to be frank, because the perception of depth was so natural.

But having tried a DK1 for about an afternoon, I thought it was awesome tech as a whole, but not for me :) And, surprise surprise, all of my gripes are the same as Tuttle's.

edit:
I agree with the sensation of speed, depth and the bit of peripheral vision adds loads!
 
wgeuze said:
I always wonder why in these sorts threads I hardly see people vouch for the 3d effect the rift does. It's easily the best 3d I've seen, ever. That impressed me more than the fov to be frank, because the perception of depth was so natural.

But having tried a DK1 for about an afternoon, I thought it was awesome tech as a whole, but not for me :) And, surprise surprise, all of my gripes are the same as Tuttle's.

edit:
I agree with the sensation of speed, depth and the bit of peripheral vision adds loads!
Click to expand...

I'm honestly surprised anyone has anything nice to say about the DK1 ever. DK1 was purely a proof of concept that had way too many flaws to be usable for 99 percent of the people. DK2 has a bunch of flaws, but low persistence alone made it 5X better. Of course, CV1/Vive is a massive jump over that. And Gen 2, with foveated rendering and high resolution panels, will be another massive leap. And so on, and so on.

Basically CV1/Vive is like the equivalent of the Apple II computer. In the coming years, it'll be rendered an antique and laughable primitive. But if you use it at the time of its release, it's finally ready for mass consumption and will be a revelation for its owners.
 
It wasn't all bad. However, for me, the use of the product will not change with the advances in its technology and the same core issues I have with it apply. I know image quality sucked, and didn't see what as a disadvantage to discount the entire thing on as I knew that beforehand.

On the other hand, I'm still surprised nobody is mentioning the sense of depth as a big plus, or people just take it for granted :p
 
Think people take it for granted. Part of simulating reality, is simulating the way we see. Obviously we have 3D depth in real life. So maybe it's overlooked, but obviously it's a part of why it's so convincing (especially when the scale is perfect).

I know some 3D Vision people (huge supporter myself) complain you can't control convergence with VR, but why would you want to? VR wants natural depth when everything is at lifelike scale. So it's probably just a subtle element that's taken for granted (at this point in time. There was a lot more mention when Carmack unveiled that first kit at its E3 unveiling).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top