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

ok you win

No it seems the performance follows that trend across all titles (racing and flightsims are the only ones I've cared about enough to test) Ac had slightly higher fps and I only have the base content in Iracing so that had like a billion fps cause it looks bad.

 

Oh, ok so a big hit to performance regardless. Actually looks to be around/nearly half (same as when using full 3d on your monitor) despite using the same resolution with or without rift mode (I.e. pixel count remains the same).

 

I'd imagine it is kind of like the performance hit of three monitors.

Does the rift only output from one port on the gfx card? HDMI/DVI? Most gfx cards nowadays have 2 of both.

 

Thanks for the report, I'm currently running tripple screen 3d vision in 720x4120 res

So going to single screen ( rift dk2 ) I'm fairly confident I'll see a performance boost & not notice much difference in res.

will not use vsync -hopefully will get away with it with 100+ fps

 

What resolution do you actually run with then?

http://static.oculusvr.com/sdk-downloads/documents/OculusBestPractices.pdf

On page 14, they discuss the resolution you should render with using the stock 1280*800 screen of DK1.

Because of the distortion and greater pixel density in the center of the screen, they recommend rendering the resolution at 1820 * xxxx.

If you keep that same ratio, you'd ideally want to render at 2730 X xxxx on a 1920*1080 screen.

This has been on topic on the iracing forums. And people wondering why Live For Speed looks so much better. And it turns out iracing is locked in at rendering resolution in Rift mode and it's well below the ideal rendering resolution.

EDIT:

The SDK handles most of the details, but it is important to understand that the physical
resolution of the Rift hardware is not directly related to the size of the target that the scene is
rendered to. As a concrete example, with an eye relief of 10mm and a horizontal FOV of 100°, to
match the density of the Rift’s display density at the center needs an image 910 pixels wide for
each eye—a total of 1820 pixels wide. This is significantly wider than the physical size of the
display, which is 1280 pixels— this is a direct result of the way the lenses distort the image.

Such large render targets can be a performance problem for some graphics cards, and
dropping framerate produces a poor VR experience, so an application may choose to drop
resolution to improve performance. Rather than drop the resolution of the signal sent to the Rift,
it is better to drop the resolution of the texture used to render the scene, and then let the
distortion processing scale that up or down as necessary as part of the distortion process. This
preserves as much visual fidelity as possible while increasing performance.

This process is covered in more detail in the SDK. Dynamically-rendered impostors

 

I no longer gave the DK1 , hope to simply run in 1080x1920 for the dk2 ( it's split for per eye I know )

be selling x2 of my 3d monitors too if I'm happy with it after a few weeks using

 

Oops. Should have mentioned I was referring to the other Adrian who was using the 1080p replacement screen.

Looking forward to DK2 myself. Although if possible, and if it doesn't crush my framerate, I'm definitely going to experiment with higher resolutions since it does seem like there's a practical purpose to it. Oculus mentions this quite often. Even in some interviews.

 

we could be better off running the oculus at a higher resolution than it can handle ?

I thought run at the actual max of it's resolution ( or lower ) only, the same case with monitors etc

( I only had my DK1 for a week )

 

I don't think its just down to resolution, with the "800p" screen(and the 1080p screen just not to the same effect) the less special effects/nice shadows etc you have the easier it is to look at and the "better" it seems. i.e. Rfactor "looks" better than RF2 in the rift because its easier to see things and everything looks sharper.

I've tried downsampling with the rift and TBH never really noticed a large difference, certainly not enough to justify the performance drop.

 

Oculus will continue to look like crap in comparison to monitor gaming till they hit the 4k mark (take a magnifying glass and look at your monitor, it looks like crap).
When that happens the performance hit will be much more than just "equal to 1080p triples", but then again I'm sure that by then the GPU's have much more power as well.

Initial customer release will most likely have 1440p (crosses fingers), and as time goes by, there most likely will be oculus rift 2.0 with better screens and bells and whistles, to make things look and feel more up to snuff with the rest of the screen technology available to people who like things pretty.

 

I run triple screen at 720x4196 resolution ( to help me achieve high fps as I also run in 3d vision )

so I'm hoping the DK2 for me is good enough to replace my monitors ( I'll keep one monitor setup ) as I'm fairly use to lower resolutions -& rf2 actually to me looks pretty good at these lower resolutions & more fluid/less digitised

1440p I think will give that extra sharpness though needed for a higher res look but hopefully the DK2 will be a suitable option until the consumer release

 

http://www.tested.com/tech/461791-hands-oculus-rift-games-e3-2014-new-details/

Things are looking pretty good for July. Seems like they've got things running fairly smoothly and hiccups should be minor.

 

If that's true then there is no point in buying a consumer version unless you have a TitanZ to go with it.

 

ii think (guess) 1440p will be more than enough pixel count for gaming & sims
hoping the CV1 will have this res,

higher res later for things like virtual cinemas & live events so they can be viewed with razor sharp clarity

1080p im hoping will be only just enough in the meantime ( the DK1 resolution fell below a usuable level for me )

 

http://www.stuff.tv/oculus/oculus-founder-tells-stuff-were-going-sell-rift-cost-price/news

Interview.
I'd say, give them a year or two and then start throwing money at them.

 

But i doubt we will see 4k (even in the oculus) before we have a titan z like-performance card that costs no more than the current mid-high end cards such as the gtx 760ti/770.

Regarding comparison to montiors, yes it will look crap in terms of pixel density if your going to compare them but as a whole the rift is more than just about pixel density (not that pixel density isn't important ofc). But admittedly there is a threshold of acceptability which in my view the dk1 did not have at all. I'm with you on this one adrian, reckon 1440p will be acceptable enough and from then the higher the merrier.

 

It is going to get to a stage where everything required to run a game will be strapped to your head. GameFace has got a headstart with this I believe. The future for this VR tech is very interesting, even if I only ever buy one product.

 

Its going to be like consoles or cellphones have been... you get a new one every few years to keep up with the technology.
The consept of screen technology has advanced really slow, from the first tv to our best screens today, its nothing but a better image quality.
Rest is still, you sit and watch a box.
VR (virtual reality) has its limits at the Holodeck (Star Trek) that was refered to, and its what this is all about. Actually trying to push the envelope.

 

Definitely more like cell phones than consoles in terms of time scales.

http://www.siliconrepublic.com/digital-life/item/37234-oculus-rift-expects-just/

Interesting interview from E3. They expect to ship a little over 1 million units next year. And CV1 is going to be more of a large scale testing bed for CV2 (which will come out a year or two later). Also turns out they were pretty locked into CV1 specs before Facebook's purchase and it won't be until CV2 that the fruits of that money really comes into play.

Still if CV1 is 1440p, 90hz+, 120FOV... that's going to be pretty amazing.

Also makes sense that they're limiting their expectations. CV1 is for the hardcore gamers with beefy rigs. I would fully expect CV2 to have the latest mobile tech built in for casuals who want VR without hooking a PC up. And in another two years, who knows how close mobile tech will be to console power.

 

Facebook will no doubt have a VR meeting place as an alternative to a text and picture/vid stream,
maybe virtual shopping centers too

I can see how Facebook got evolved ( other than having a big pile of investors cash they had to use for something )