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

Regarding resolution.
DK2 resolution was in the limit of playability. The short distance is OK but I struggle to see clearly more than 100 meters away. Chromatic aberration is also very big which increases the pixelation effect. The lense quality and geometry was inadequate .

I have heard that Zeiss is getting interest in this area. That would be great since they are experts in chromatic aberration.

After spending some minutes with it, you know that it clearly asks for a 4K resolution. 2K per eye.

Probably this technology is still unavailable for such small displays.

I wouldn't be care so much about performance. The true 4K resolution would only be required in the center of each eye. The surrounding could be rendered at a lower resolution/quality.

I would expect such hybrid resolution/quality to help a lot with performance issues. The area of the eye FOV where you can actually focus correctly is quite limited. Probably less than 20% of the stereoscopic angle.

Many things will change in the next years. VR is in embryo phase. The future looks amazing however.

Enviado desde mi ONE A2001 mediante Tapatalk
 
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...

That's a pretty naive statement. I highly doubt you are still using Nokia 5110 instead of a smartphone... but why do you need a smartphone right, a phone is used to make phone calls so the old Nokia will be just as good ;)
Obviously just like every consumer product people have a choice but if you haven't tried VR, then you shouldn't be dismissing it because you don't know what you don't know and you are completely missing the point.

The sad thing is (and I really hope I am wrong) it's safe to say we will not be able to enjoy RF2 in VR any time soon if at all...
 
Last edited:
Euskotracks said:
Regarding resolution.
DK2 resolution was in the limit of playability. The short distance is OK but I struggle to see clearly more than 100 meters away. Chromatic aberration is also very big which increases the pixelation effect. The lense quality and geometry was inadequate .

I have heard that Zeiss is getting interest in this area. That would be great since they are experts in chromatic aberration.

After spending some minutes with it, you know that it clearly asks for a 4K resolution. 2K per eye.

Probably this technology is still unavailable for such small displays.

I wouldn't be care so much about performance. The true 4K resolution would only be required in the center of each eye. The surrounding could be rendered at a lower resolution/quality.

I would expect such hybrid resolution/quality to help a lot with performance issues. The area of the eye FOV where you can actually focus correctly is quite limited. Probably less than 20% of the stereoscopic angle.

Many things will change in the next years. VR is in embryo phase. The future looks amazing however.

Enviado desde mi ONE A2001 mediante Tapatalk
Click to expand...

http://uploadvr.com/smi-hands-on-250hz-eye-tracking/

As I posted earlier, it's basically been solved (camera tracks where you're focused, and that's the only cone that's rendered at full resolution). It's pretty much a certainty to be in Gen 2 sets. I guess the real limit will be the cost of the panels. Pretty sure small 4k Oled panels have been demo'd for a good year now.

P.S. Abrash (formerly at Valve and now at Oculus) reckons 8k X 8k is the minimum resolution needed to start becoming indistinguishable from reality (although I think he may have left open the door it's 16k X 16k). Still, 4k would be a huge step up and no longer seems like a pipe dream due to the stagnant chip market.
 
It's impressive technology... I like that the VR generation is inspiring devs to think outside the box to create VR content from the ground up.

I look forward to hand tracking with haptic feedback and being in a virtual world (Hopefully on a horse, in a suit of armour outside a castle) ;)
 
I'm of the simracing almost 13 months and it is almost 2 months that I was thinking to return to this my big love by purchasing the Rs1 cockpit with the triple screen stand and three 42 inch TV, but now I'm really thinking to wait to see if the Oculus is a better option and if it is really worth.
Triple screen stand and 3 42" TV is almost 1700$ here in Israel so this Oculus would cost me less too!
The only thing that I don't understand, what resolution will the first Consumer unit support?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Rift (cv1) runs at 2160×1200 at 90Hz split over dual displays, consuming 233 million pixels per second.
 
WhiteShadow said:
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.
Click to expand...

Oh...bummer. Thanks for correcting me.
 
Last edited:
Considering it's about a sixth of what your eyes can make out in a single un-moving glance detail-wise? Yeah, not nearly enough. I doubt most people want perfection but an interesting fact nevertheless - to match the human eye with a VR device that can track your eyeballs even assuming uneven distribution you'd need around 8MPX per eye and without somewhere near 576MPX to be free from visible pixelation.
 
Last edited:
C'mon, just like your monitors can't give you a realistic visione detail, and everybody is happy with it, why a VR system should give you a natural vision detail level to be acceptable? Except for flight simulator entusiast, who would need to detect and enemy airplane from several km away, other players or users, just don't need to see a tiny object moving several hundreds meters away or worse Km away.For too many people it would be like being shortsighted, but for many kind of uses, what we will have, will be plenty enough.
 
Last edited:
Comante said:
C'mon, just like your monitors can't give you a realistic visione detail
Click to expand...

Honestly, if you're saying what i think you're saying, a very strange thing to hear. Have you never experienced a retina or some kind of 4k display before?
 
It's true, there are monitors that due to their difference in function, (not needing to encompass anywhere near the full FOV) can have undetectable pixels. That's far from the only issue with monitors being fully realistic of course - the biggest problems VR will face (and nobody has a solution to these yet) are high-chroma (few screens can actually display all the colours your eye can detect and due to the way displays work this is unlikely to be brought to VR), working with physiological issues that VR products seem to present no answer to. Remember that as a proprietary technology VR will always be somewhat behind the curve in that respect at best.

It's weird that some people (even in this thread) seem to think that if you don't hail VR as the new way you hate it and are condemning it to fail. VR is here to stay at this point, we have the technology to make it a product with a good number of applications, but again, due to its basic function it will remain a luxury accessory. Its function, however cool, is not broad enough or functionally revolutionary enough for people to need it and it simply isn't practical for a good number of applications. I'm pretty damn certain that the makers of these devices realise this too. No amount of 'I had my doubt and then I used it' testimonials will change these facts. No amount of broader usage will shoehorn it in to controlling the consumer market. Acknowledging that seems to bring hysteria to some though. Yes, it has a lot of advantages. Yes, it's very cool. Yes, I'm glad you enjoy the advantages it brings. Technology and the experiences it gives are a marvel to behold. I mean it. The fact I even need to put that disclaimer in shows how over-invested some people have become.

Oh, and while we're at it, 'some people said the same about technology X' will always be a catastrophic failure at syllogistic reasoning. Always.
 
Last edited:
My mistake, think i understand what he meant now. No monitor can provide a just as realistic/detailed image as real-life with the same physical fov as the rift.
 
DrR1pper said:
My mistake, think i understand what he meant now. No monitor can provide a just as realistic/detailed image as real-life with the same physical fov as the rift.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's a tricky function of the human eye that the vast majority of the detail it perceives is exclusively in a tiny area known as the fovea so VR could conceivably get there in the next few years but only if non-uniform screen resolutions are perfectde, which does, in turn, come with its own significant issues. Without eye-tracking a screen like the rift would need a mind-bending 97000 PPI resolution to match a retina display's peak crispness. The human body is an impressive and scary thing.
 
Last edited:
Thanks, thought I had but I must have read other pieces. I hadn't seen that foveated rendering had come quite that far. It's pretty badass, isn't it?

Oh hell, I'm just going to say it, technology makes me horny.

I ultimately can't blame people for being excited but everyone could do without another silly tech crusade.
 
Last edited:
GTClub_wajdi said:
Is this good enough to have a good vision quality?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Depends what you mean? It's not as good as it will be in the future but it is good enough that I have not heard of anyone using them say that it has made them slower for racing.

I have heard that they are the same or if they were not really good racers then this made them better as they found it easier to nail the apex's etc in the rift.

So for racing, the quality wont make you slower.
 
Guineapiggy said:
Oh, and while we're at it, 'some people said the same about technology X' will always be a catastrophic failure at syllogistic reasoning. Always.
Click to expand...

Oh wow... I had to look that one up! Not sure if it fits the bill but hey, I learned a new word! :D

One thing that strikes me about the whole "how close to perfect it looks" issue is that for cripes sake, we're looking at fake computer images inside a game. Does it have to be 4K or 8K res or perfect color, or perfect smoothness etc?... when in fact your looking at artificially created objects with photos or made up textures pasted to the surface. It's never going to fool you. It will always look like a game.

To me, just the fact that it is 3d "look around" and "pretty good" visually is enough to make me want one. But I just know I'm going to feel like puking. I just know it! :(
 
Last edited:
Ricknau said:
One thing that strikes me about the whole "how close to perfect it looks" issue is that for cripes sake, we're looking at fake computer images inside a game. Does it have to be 4K or 8K res or perfect color, or perfect smoothness etc?
Click to expand...

Depends on what your after of course right? If you're after indistinguishable from reality levels of visual detail, then it's a resounding yes. If you're after something that just works, then no. You could stick with a dk1 type resolution and display quality though the experience will simply not be as great as newer models.

Ricknau said:
... when in fact your looking at artificially created objects with photos or made up textures pasted to the surface. It's never going to fool you. It will always look like a game.
Click to expand...

Everyone has the right to their own opinions/beliefs ofc but i'm confused how assured some people are in believing that (for example) real-time graphics is never going to become realistic enough to fool you into thinking that it's real. But even if we could hypothetically know that it's true, it's a poor reason not to improve screen resolution, colour, smoothness, etc, because non artificial images (i.e. vr-movies) will still benefit from such improvements. If you want the same visual quality/experience as if watching a movie in a real cinema through a VR headset then you're going to need a very high resolution display. This is simply a fact.

Ricknau said:
To me, just the fact that it is 3d "look around" and "pretty good" visually is enough to make me want one. But I just know I'm going to feel like puking. I just know it! :(
Click to expand...

Have you tried a dk2 before?

If not, you should perhaps wait till you have before believing so strongly in the above. It may just surprise you as it has for what seems like most initial sceptics.
 
Last edited:
https://steamcommunity.com/app/250820/discussions/0/485624149151282216/

So I decided to check out the Oculus forums and wanted to see what the Richard Burns Rally bump was for (since it's obviously a DX9 game and seemingly doesn't have a consumer VR future because of it). Turns out he's considering supporting OpenVR/Vive so RBR can work on consumer headsets.

More interestingly, it sent me doing some google searches and it turns out LFS not only has implemented early Vive support, but Valve actually sent them a Vive kit. That's how LFS was able to add support. LFS isn't even available on Steam. Guess Valve isn't stupid after all. They are sending kits out to the right people if there's interest.

EDIT: I don't actually think Valve is stupid, just thought it was odd they were seemingly freezing out sim developers. Glad to know it isn't the case. Although, obviously, it requires two-way interest.
 
DrR1pper said:
Have you tried a dk2 before?

If not, you should perhaps wait till you have before believing so strongly in the above. It may just surprise you as it has for what seems like most initial sceptics.
Click to expand...

If there was a DK2 within 50 miles of me I'd drive to it to get a glimpse. Regarding my fear of puke... I really hope you are right. If not I'll be one of those people dumping it back into the market at a loss. :(

Regarding the inevitability of near perfect realism, I agree we'll get there some day. I hope I live that long... seriously.
 
/\

If you have a pre-order, I'm sure they'll be no dumping at a loss. It'll be like bailing with a hefty profit margin:)
 
Ricknau said:
Regarding my fear of puke... I really hope you are right.
Click to expand...

If you had only tried the dk1, i would whole heartedly understanding your fears. dk1 was a real nauseating experience for me (as it was for a lot of people) for numerous reasons. dk2 resolved all the technical reasons, all bar one that is still being worked on (but may never be resolvable), that is motion sickness from movement in first person without a virtual cockpit frame of reference. Racing sims, flight sims, space sims, etc, feel perfectly comfortable for hours on end. But heck, just because the vast majority are comfortable with it does not guarantee you will be too ofc. You could be hyper sensitive to the disconnect between what you're seeing and what you're not feeling (e.g. not feeling acceleration when you visually see the car accelerating) in your vestibular system. There will be a small percentage of the population who will suffer from this regardless but if you don't suffer from this at all in the slightest bit with games on a monitor, then odds are quite low that you will on a vr headset.

Ricknau said:
If not I'll be one of those people dumping it back into the market at a loss. :(
Click to expand...

PaulG said:
If you have a pre-order, I'm sure they'll be no dumping at a loss. It'll be like bailing with a hefty profit margin:)
Click to expand...

So true. You can practically guarantee that you'll at the very least make all your money back, even if you opened it to try for a week or so before getting rid of it on ebay.

Ricknau said:
Regarding the inevitability of near perfect realism, I agree we'll get there some day. I hope I live that long... seriously.
Click to expand...

As do I. Hoping Unlimited Detail technology is real in all it's promises and will come about in the near future.
 
Last edited:
Final 1.0 SDK can be requested by devs for games. Please can ISI contact Oculus and get 1.0 and test it with their DK2. They can be ready for launch in April.
 
Cv1 needs directX 11 , rf2 is DX9 yes ? , rF2 will need to upgrade to DX11 before the can test , Would this be correct ?

its being a while since I played rf2 , Im a bit out of touch here .
 
maniac618 said:
Final 1.0 SDK can be requested by devs for games. Please can ISI contact Oculus and get 1.0 and test it with their DK2. They can be ready for launch in April.
Click to expand...

where the hell has isi a dk 2 ? thats new for me :D but anyway sdk 1.0 don t run with dk 2 and they don t need a dk 2 because osulus as htc vive would gave them a headset for free.
Developers get free cv1 edition if they want.
 
Yeah. From what I've recently gathered, Valve has been giving Vive away like candy lately (assuming you have any legitimacy... which isn't an issue here). I'm sure Oculus is similar (assuming the DX9 isn't a dis-qualifier here). I'm guessing Tuttle's opinion represent's ISI company position and we should just assume it's not coming at all.

gkz said:
where the hell has isi a dk 2 ? thats new for me :D but anyway sdk 1.0 don t run with dk 2 and they don t need a dk 2 because osulus as htc vive would gave them a headset for free.
Developers get free cv1 edition if they want.
Click to expand...

Tim commented on DK2 work a long time ago. Apparently they had numerous issues trying to implement support. And SDK changes would break what progress they had made.
 
PaulG said:
Yeah. From what I've recently gathered, Valve has been giving Vive away like candy lately (assuming you have any legitimacy... which isn't an issue here). I'm sure Oculus is similar (assuming the DX9 isn't a dis-qualifier here). I'm guessing Tuttle's opinion represent's ISI company position and we should just assume it's not coming at all.



Tim commented on DK2 work a long time ago. Apparently they had numerous issues trying to implement support. And SDK changes would break what progress they had made.
Click to expand...

Yes tim has dk 2 but i know nothing about isi did anything for vr yet. Oculus said on there homepage that developer does not need more than sdk 0.8 for dk 2. But like i said every developer get a consumer free version.
 
I assumed he was posting on behalf of ISI. If my memory is even remotely correct: they received a kit, tried to implement, solved some issues, new SDK would come out, break some of the previous fixes, etc. So they decided to scrap until the SDK was a non-moving target. Somewhere there's a post where he details exactly why they stopped.
 
PaulG said:
I assumed he was posting on behalf of ISI. If my memory is even remotely correct: they received a kit, tried to implement, solved some issues, new SDK would come out, break some of the previous fixes, etc. So they decided to scrap until the SDK was a non-moving target. Somewhere there's a post where he details exactly why they stopped.
Click to expand...
I guess it is the same for everybody. Maybe we should stop modding for rF2 just in case some new code makes old content obsolete!

Enviado desde mi ONE A2001 mediante Tapatalk
 
We see the same thing over and over again. People dismissing VR, then trying CV1 and changing opinions dramatically.

I've tried CV1, and it will be awesome for most people who want to race, huge improvement over DK2 even in visual clarity. It's not only about the 25% extra pixels, it's also about much better custom optics, and the way they utilize those custom screens made for VR. That makes the perceived resolution much better than DK2, and even than Gear VR, which has a 1440p display. Obviously we will still want more resolution in the future and foveated rendering will help us get there.

I can only chuckle when I read people that they will never use VR. Yeah, when it has over 150º FOV and over 4K resolution per eye, I want to see them saying the same when all VR users pass them left and right easy. Actually VR doesn't necessarily make you faster, but it does definitely make you more consistent because you can judge distances much better. Only DK2 resolution can affect some people in that respect and make it more difficult to see the braking points, but CV1 won't have this problem.

By CV3 most serious simracers will use VR, except the ones with a trauma with wearing things on their heads or with looking stupid, and even those might give in if they see that the best drivers use VR.

I'm looking forward to consumer VR to go back to sim-racing (I haven't competed since I tried racing with DK2 but wasn't usable for championships), and I hoped to join a rF2 league. It saddens me that it seems I will have to go elsewhere, I've been competing in rFactor since the beginning, but I'm definitely not giving up virtual reality for it.
 
Narrowbackwing said:
Cv1 needs directX 11 , rf2 is DX9 yes ? , rF2 will need to upgrade to DX11 before the can test , Would this be correct ?

its being a while since I played rf2 , Im a bit out of touch here .
Click to expand...

Cv1 needs directx 11? This sounds scary. Yes rF2 is DX9 and i think ISI is not willing to move to DX 11 :(
 
PaulG said:
I assumed he was posting on behalf of ISI. If my memory is even remotely correct: they received a kit, tried to implement, solved some issues, new SDK would come out, break some of the previous fixes, etc. So they decided to scrap until the SDK was a non-moving target. Somewhere there's a post where he details exactly why they stopped.
Click to expand...

1. There are developer and get cv 1 for free. It just stupid to not ask for it as a dev 2. dk2 + sdk 0.8 is all a dev need to make it ready for simracing titel. But i never heard of isi trying anything with vr yet.
 
I really believe isi will be left behind if they do not implement support, and it saddens me to see isi developers downplaying the importance of vr without even trying it.

For me personally, I genuinely love rf2, but I simply haven't played it once in the 18 months since I got my dk2. Assetto Corsa is currently my racer of choice purely because of their (limited) dk2 support. This situation is only going to ramp up when the consumer version is released.

Although not racing, this video gives a good insight into the real difference vr can make.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0-UR3FVH1E
 
A game won't be left behind because it doesn't have VR, especially 1st generation of the headsets. There is more that goes into it. Life for Speed and GP Bikes are two minuscule operations that do have that support - incredible, really - but all it has done was help bring LFS to the forefront of demo displays and some new sales as people tried them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top