Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Adrianstealth, Jan 21, 2013.
Wow, criticism = ban.
If you had read all 52 pages, you'd not be asking at least two of these suggested responses, and not be saying "nothing" has been said. Consumer version is the safest answer, but it could happen before or after that. Whenever the devs see it as towards the top of their lengthy list of priorities.
Frankly it's disappointing to think of and see some people who have been on this forum for years trying to force it (or any specific area of interest) there. No matter how much respect a developer has for it's customers, it would be somewhat foolish to let them dictate your development schedule based on how negative they can be. My three year old daughter laid flat on her face in a store the other day, her first full blown tantrum. She didn't get what she wants, and I love her to pieces. Not putting in native support quick enough to stifle negativity about it and our company, when it's not available yet even in consumer form, has nothing to do with a lack of respect towards customers.
His post history as a whole = banned.
Try posting like that yourself, see what happens.
wow this turned sour fast :/
How can any racing enthusiast, not just simracing enthusiast not look at this and be completely hyped I will never understand.
That is exactly what we dreamed about 25 years ago in an arcade in a ****ty racing game and wooden racing chair.
Ok Tim, I didn´t read any post telling something like "of course, we´ll can play rF2 in the Rift".
On the other hand, I would like to suggest you (ISI) give us DK2 support, at least as experimental way; why?
- You could to work to prepare rF2 to CV1.
- Driver who tries the Rift, driver who doesn´t want to drive with a screen. This point is very important because others sims is working to offer DK2 support (some sims are already), and we have to wait still several months to get CV1. In this term rF2 can loose a lot of drivers.
And don´t forget the advertise to rF2 in youtube (from DK2 users), VR communities..
Can you pin this post?
As stated, the devs do not want to do an experimental version, ultimately which may be a loss of hours. When they do it fully, they'll do it fully. Until DK2 there was third party support, if that gets updated and works nice with DK2, great, if not, it will be required to wait until the team decides.
Hm i am very worried about the latency.. even TrackIR5 has suprisingly massive latency that makes it soo counter intuitive, it takes time to get used to it and even then your head movements tends to be less smooth because you dont see how you move instantly,
Plus on that video the field of view is very small, alteast it looks small to me
I think the point rift owners are trying to make is that naturally if you have a rift you want your favourite games to work with it, but more than that, games that are getting or have rift support now are being thrown into the limelight and gaining popularity which brings a sudden and pretty quick rise in sales.
There's over 20,000 DK2's in the wild now (and rising) and a safe estimate is at least 75% of those are probably with gamers and enthusiasts so are fair game as potential customers.
I'm a retailer so I'd always jump on a sales opportunity
Of all the things to be worried about, latency isn't it. It's like me being worried the sun is going to rise in the west and set in the east tomorrow. It's a non-issue. If this were an SAT question, it would be framed like this. Track IR is to lag as ______ is to non-lag. (ANSWER = Rift)
In fact, when games are able to incorporate direct to rift mode, they're literally bypassing Windows display to cut out the crud of the Windows OS. The 0 latency input lag of CRT still had lag from Windows and GPU rendering inefficiencies. Oculus is trying to go where we've never been before in terms of responsiveness.
As for FOV, it blows away a single monitor view. Does it have the FOV of triples? No. But then again, when you're driving in your car, just because you can see the mirrors in your peripheral, you still have to move your head to focus on it (Oculus is totally natural in this regard).
Shame it is not 75% devs with the rift, the developing would be going a bit faster! Call them enthusiasts all you want, I just see it as grabbing up a piece of hardware that a dev could make more use of for the future of gaming.
Check this a few times daily, useful info instead of discussing between yourselves: http://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/new/
There would not be that many devs
Anyway, it's up to the devs to buy the kits, that's hardly the enthusiasts fault. Anyone interested (dev or gamer) had the same notice and opportunity to order the DK2 when preorders started. Serious developers had their kits in advance of DK2 preorders
Let me assure you there is no need to worry. TrackIR doesnt hold a candle to the speed of the rift. Internal tracking rate is at 1000hz and positional tracking at 60hz. Coupled with low persistence of the oled display you straight up dont feel or see delay and motion blur.
Remember John Carmack is basically one of the biggest advocate for ultra low latency all throughout his career. If anything we can be sure he wont settle for less than crazy good and efficient with VR. He even looked into audio latency lately.
Is it not obvious that implementing Oculus Rift support sooner rather than later is just plain good business sense ? I am like everyone else who has the DK2 or is waiting for it, I read everything I can about it and it is patently obvious that any quality game out there that has support implemented right now or is being worked on right now gets sales from people who may not have even been interested in the genre.
You can read plenty of posts from buyers of LFS, Elite, ETS2... even Half Life2 VR ! to name but a few, who have bought those games purely to experience them on the Oculus Rift. Now I realise ISI cannot fulfill every wish of every user and they have a list of priorities but surely sales of 60,000 Oculus since March 19, is worth their time to take a closer look at the possibilities and get in early ?
Anyway at the end of the day we can only offer our comment and opinion, personally I will be happy either way because I have several good titles including those mentioned above and pCars to keep me busy ... just seems a missed opportunity is all, I guess time will tell.
I would like to see ISI give us the tools (the things we can't do, the thing they are best at) and not worry about adding content (as the best content at the moment are mod's anyway).
I consider myself a typical customer of RF2 (here because of the best tyre model available - the weather is also a huge plus point) but I am not at all interested in a fake Charlotte track or whatever is coming next, even though many, many man hours have been invested in that. I am interested in what ISI can bring us next to improve the simulation experience. The biggest improvement I could think of at the moment is also (possibly?) the quickest to implement - breaking down the 4th wall with Rift integration.
Yes a 3rd party could do it, but it would not be possible to do it as well as ISI could do it. I know the argument that the track guy can't do the rift integration... but ISI are choosing to give money to the track guy that could be given to a rift integration guy (sorry track guy ). The suggestion that Rift integration is not a relatively high priority because the Rift is still in development is quite odd, given the long and ongoing development of RF2 itself.
If I was to start from scratch to build the best sim experience available now I would buy: RF2, a steering wheel, and an Oculus Rift DK2 (i.e. DK2 > triple screens).
I will try not to keep banging my drum, but urge others - please take the time to speak up if you have an opinion (either way!)
I think we need to take a pause and direct our thoughts to the big white bear & what he is going through,
.....big white bear we feel for you buddy
The PCars vid quoted in post #1043....
Does the sim automatically set the perfect 1:1 real-life FOV when it knows you have a Rift, or is it still set by the user?... Because the visible FOV looks really bad in that video, I mean just completely terrible. I've been in my share of racecars with a racing helmet on, and that video above looks...bad, single screen-ish, and just very video game-ish in terms of the vision. I know the video can't give a representation of what it's like to use, but the video shows just how much the player can see, and it's very bad in that video.
I have such a love/hate relationship with the Rift
Sorry but it makes no sense what isi says. DK 2 is for developer to make there game consumer ready. There are no diffrents between the dk 2 and cv1 in sdk ( This wat oculus said and it makes sense ). But the dk 1 and 2 are for consumer too to get oculus the hype they need to get bigger. So that means if u plan to support cv 1 its start with dk 2..... this means too that dk 2 is allready a serious hardware.
Now I've had a proper go with the DK2 I have to say I am impressed. Playing Live For Speed in the rift with simvibe running is pretty amazing. The resolution is terrible, but the virtual reality effect still works brilliantly. Your brain completely believes you are there, the virtual cockpit, tyres, the surface of the road, it all seems so solid like you can reach out and touch it. Of course for driving games it is important to be able to see clearly in the distance so I look forward to the higher resolution of the consumer versions.
In the DK2 your peripheral vision is limited, perhaps a little worse than a race helmet. You have to turn your head to check your side mirrors. But the great thing is you can also look behind over your shoulder or shift your head to see around the A pillars. Oculus say the consumer version should see improvements to the field of view. One day I think they could use a curved OLED screen to give you a wide horizontal field of view. You are clearly happy with your 3d triple screens so it would make sense to wait a few years for the Rift to improve before you switch over.
Good to hear that rF2 Oculus Rift support will be there around the time of the consumer version.
Separate names with a comma.