Oculus Rift over 100k DevKits sold -is ISI going to support with rf2 integration ??

Iracing get their unit Tuesday (apparently ) I think there will be support quite quickly (with a plugin ) maybe couple of weeks,
with official support it built into the UI etc on the next build

sure it will not be long for rfactor 2 hopefully either

oclulus support have told me mine has been shipped but my notification still says processing so not sure what to believe

 

Yeah. I know David Tucker mentioned they received the hybrid model a while ago (1080p LCD, no tracking). And they say they're adding support, but it's in line behind some other things ATM. So it'll be shortish. There's room for others to swoop in and be first.

If support has said it's shipped, and your order time stamp is during a period where it should be shipping (versus others confirmed shipped), I wouldn't worry about it. Seems like you'll be one who gets the infamous "shows up on the door" while still not updated online.

 

how long till consumer product will be available ???????????

 

1) Less motion blur at 95 Hz than 120 Hz eyefinity? What makes you say that? My 3 ASUS VG248QE monitors in stroboscopic mode (NVIDIA Lightboost, BenQ Blur Reduction, ASUS ULMB, Eizo Turbo240, etc.) has some of the least motion blur in the market besides CRT monitors/televisions.

What makes the 95 Hz Rift so special in terms of motion blur when compared to the 85 - 144 Hz strobing mode gaming monitors such as, but not limited to, the ASUS VG248QE and ROG Swift PG278Q, and the BenQ XL2411T, XL2411Z, XL2420T, XL2420Z, and XL2720Z?

2) I thought the Rift was supposed to have a super wide FOV (not the game settings FOV, but the monitor/screen itself and how much of your vision it covers)??......The FOV that I've seen in just about every single rift video doesn't seem like my triple monitor setup. It's difficult to judge from videos though, can someone elaborate on this? Will the rift be able to provide the same FOV as sitting 30 inches (2.5 ft) away from 3 27" 16:9 monitors with outer screens angled in 45 degrees?? It doesn't seem like it can even get close to this, but I could be wrong....

3) Has anyone found any total input lag tests for any of the Rift models? How do they compare to the top gaming monitors on the market (some of these monitor models are listed above in the first paragraph)...Actual tests please (especially from guys who really know how to test, like prade.de and tftcentral), not "I don't see/feel any lag"...

 

^^ some1 answer the ????????????"s above pls

 

Spinelli he meant 95hz with low persistence (oculus inplented their own equivalent 2d lightboost with oled screen) vs ordinary 120hz (he never said 2d lightboost).

The rift has alway been stated to have a 110 degree diagonal field of view that works out to be 90 degrees in the horizontal field of view. Aspect ratio 8:9 per eye ( slight cross over gives a little extra overall horizontal FOV but not much)

To put the equivalent monitor dimension in perspective at your 30" viewing distance, it's the equivalent of a 57.5" monitor in the horizontal and 64.7" vertical.

Your 27" monitors are 23.5" horizontally. If and only if you sat then next to one another in a straight line (which almost no one does, they usually curve them to increase FOV), the total horizontal dimension is 70.6". About 23% more than the rift.

In vertical, yours are 13.2" and the oculus is 64.7". That's equivalent to a 390% taller screen.

 

yes but with my current in-game vertical FOV of 25-30 degrees the 300% "taller" screen of the rift is pretty irrelevant to sim-racing (of course it's nice to have don't get me wrong).

So does the Rift not wrap around your vision like triple monitors with the outer monitors angled-.in towards you? Instead it's just like staring at a single, flat, big screen??...

 

for me it the dk1 felt like wearing a ski mask -which I'm fine with as I wear one all day whilst away snowboarding
not sure how this compares to racing helmets

its not a flat screen as its 3d so you really dont feel as though your looking at a screen at all unless your noticing to the screen door limitation ( reduced in the dk2 it seems ), looking forward to giving a review when mine shows up

 

Looking forward to getting my DK2 today, then just have to wait for some proper race support. Loks like pCARS may be first then iRacing I guess.

 

No. It's like sitting in a racing car with a helmet on. If you want to look to your left, you look to the left. You wanna look to your right, you look right. You wanna focus on the apex of a curve up ahead, you look at the apex of the curve up ahead. And this is 1:1 head tracking (with no latency), not the goofy head tracking that turns your view 180 degrees if you shift your head 3 inches.

As for your earlier post about not being able to see details ahead, that's because of the awful screen that was in DK1. Not only was the resolution horrible (corrected some in DK2, but really in need of 1440p to get to a more acceptable baseline), but the screen also didn't have the best motion resolution just because of the tech in it.

As for input lag, OLED + John Carmack means it's going to be as low as humanly possible. Gonna trounce the latency you'd get using a 3D monitor with some sort of tracking device.

 

It's viewed in full steroscopic 1:! 3d spinelli. Any screen when used in 3d will no longer appear flat. You know that, you use your monitor in 3d, no?

A proper panaramic oculus rift will take a while time. The screen doesn't actually have to be wrapped around your face actually….you can achieve that via lens warp to increase the fov but as it stands, the resolution is just not good enough to use a higher fov and/or the screens are not available.

I can understand the hesitance of someone with triple screen to therefore pickup an rift. I do wonder though if despite having a smaller horizontal fov, whether in practice the pro's would outweigh the con's for a triple screen user (provided the image resolution was acceptable to them).

 

I wouldn't go that far. The tech for removing motion blur and pixel latency (also part responsible for input lag) is pretty much 100% fixed on the best monitors with 2d lightboost.

The oled approach is the same in essence, only legal because it doesn't involve strobing a backlight (how light boost works) which is nvidia patented technology. Oled has no backlight, each pixel is it's own light source and so they just disable the pixel for the majority of the refresh cycle (thereby strobing the oled's) to remove the pixel persistence another way.

 

Well, it depends though. I did say 3D with tracking.

A 120hz monitor in 3D is only updating at 60fps. The physical limitation is the picture updates at every 16.67 ms.

A consumer model that updated at 95hz (seems like the floor at this point) would be a physical limitation of every 10.5 ms.

Now let's add to the fact that input lag is almost never measured in 3D mode. It's always in the most optimal 2D mode. 3D mode does have additional processing requirements that do add to the lag.

When Oculus lays out their lofty goals for motion-to-photon latency, they're obviously not talking about 2D modes, they're including 3D optimizations.

Then you factor in after-market tracking solutions available right now are very laggy in the motion-to-photon category.

So I'll stick by it: If you want both stereo 3D and head tracking, Oculus Rift will trounce a 3D monitor and tracking solution in the lag department

EDIT: The goal for CV1 is to have motion-to-photon be 20ms. Which means from the time you move your head, that data is read by the tracking sensors, sent to the game, accounted for, rendered by the engine, and drawn back on your screen. They want to do all that in 20ms. That's an insanely lofty goal to have.

 

Yes, i know. But that's why i didn't comment on the tracking. I stopped using my trackir some years ago now.

Ah yes, great point, you're quite right! I was referencing my 2d lightboost user experience since that is what i use so the screen is updating 120hz. I dislike using my monitor in 3d when playing games due to the dimming of the screen from the polarised glasses amongst other nuances. I recall feeling the difference when playing with 3d on and resultantly playing at a perceived 60fps effectively. Others will argue that's not the case and i can't explain why i feel that i can tell a sincere difference in the smoothness experience between the two modes.

I look forward to when that is achieved.

At which point, you'll have triple screen loyalists, buying an oculus rift, gutting all the display internals, drilling two little holes for their eyes to pear through so they may use their triple screen and the rift's ultra low latency and highly accuracy head tracking solution. But they'll never be able to match display performance unless they come out with 240hz 3d light boost displays i guess.

 

Completely, 100% wrong about the 3D and 60 fps. It's 120 fps, 60 fps alternating per eye, in 1 second you see 120 frames. Not only can you research this easily if you don't believe me but you can clearly see that "60" fps in 3D has the exact same fluidity as 120 fps in 2D.

I'm not nearly as concerned with the head tracking lag as I am with the overall input lag. I'm talking about traditional input lag -the length of time it takes for the image that's been processed to actually show up on screen. If the head tracking has a hint of lag then that's not going to affect my laptimes or lap consistency (I don't even use head tracking and don't need it in racing sims on a triple screen setup). I'm talking about general input lag of the monitor itself like you see in monitor reviews regardless of the head motion system...

 

i looked into this a while ago

on monitors (nvidia 3d vision)

the big question : is the alternate frame the same exact frame (of the non alternate) simply viewed from a slightly different angle (for 3d) ?

or is it also a progressional frame?

from the info i could fine its actually the exact same frame and only from a slightly different angle for the 3d
I was hoping it would be a processed progressional frame (also from a different angle for 3d)

so if a monitor is working at a refresh of 120hz , in 3d mode the refresh rate would give a realtime effect of a 60hz monitor in 2d
(sadly)

with uncapped fps (in nvidia 6 series and up) my lag is to an min level

with a rift there are 2 continuous images (no switiching) so at 60hz this would be equivalent, above 60hz then an improvement

edit: the dk2 I believe is 75hz (3d) so this will offer a greater progressional update rate than a 120hz monitor in 3d vision as there is no eye by eye alternation

 

That would be sort of like interpolation on TVs where they insert extra or duplicate frames to make it seem like more than 60 fps/hz. So you're saying the 3D is theoretically just like normal 60 fps, but just with a duplicate frame from the other eye's POV "thrown in" between each of the 60 fps...

Fom my research, the other eye's view is not just a duplicate of the previous and now outdated frame, but rather the current, proper, and up to date frame...Of course it's possible that my sources were incorrect. I'll have to do more resesrch on this later. .I'll be extremely disappointed if infact every second frame was just a repeat/duplicate of the previous "old" frame (but just from the other eye's POV).

 

hiya

the way I understand it -the frames progress/update the same as they would for a 60hz monitor (2d)

every even number refresh (2, 4, 6, 8 etc ) is a duplicate of the odd number frame except processed from that slightly different angle to produce 3d vision

so the user actually gets updated equivalent to that of a 60hz monitor in 2d, nothing falls behind

if the user runs a 120hz monitor in 2d, then there will be 120 separate progressional frames
(as oppose to 60 with a duplicate but one ....thats a duplicate but altered view for 3d)

i find its not a big deal though as at high fps (90+ fps) no vsynced lag is not a problem (for me) in 3d vision


of course i'm happy about the rift being 75hz at this stage, its only a positive thing,
CV1 rumoured to be 90hz, again we must remember that there is no alternating with the rift the 3d system is continuous image (or should i say progressional frame by frame for each eye simultaneously )

 

I'm very curious what it's like to race with the DK2. I would love to blindly drop $300 on them but I would much rather test drive them before hand. If anyone is reasonably close to Jacksonville, FL and gets a DK2, send me a PM if you would be willing to let me come over for a spin.

 

mine shipped & due tomorrow , great!

don't know why I'm excited as nothing works with it yet lol