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

 

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...

 

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.

 

Oh...bummer. Thanks for correcting me.

 

NP Mate Thats why I made this thread: http://isiforums.net/f/showthread.php/26985-New-NVIDIA-SLI-profile but not so many seems to support it

 

Is this good enough to have a good vision quality?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Having the vr device near to your eyes in my mind 2160x1200 at 90hz is not good enough.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Did you happen to see PaulG's post on eye-tracking btw?

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

 

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.

 

Indeed it is.

lol

Agreed.

 

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.