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

[gkz]

I am really thankful that ISI aren't spending time and resources on supporting a piece of devkit that only a handful of people are using.

lol u are really a ****. If u don t have a dev kit than u have no rights at all to post in this thread in my opinion. If ppl complain about triple screen support i would never think about to make any comments if i don t have it. Thats respectless ! I think there more ppl with dk 2 than rf 2 have online race users so ...... IsI is just out of date even gamestockcar plans dk 2 support

 

[crz]

Does anybody know what happened to this?

From rFactor2 Facebook page:

Rift offers some rewards commercially, there is a chance it'll be done fairly soon as there is right now a commercial client wanting to pay us to develop it. If that comes through, obviously rf2 users would benefit sooner with the rift. Not often something like that comes along, but whenever you can have someone else pay dev costs it's very nice.

 

[stonec]

lol u are really a ****. If u don t have a dev kit than u have no rights at all to post in this thread in my opinion. If ppl complain about triple screen support i would never think about to make any comments if i don t have it. Thats respectless ! I think there more ppl with dk 2 than rf 2 have online race users so ...... IsI is just out of date even gamestockcar plans dk 2 support

Since it's a devkit, technically only developers should complain . By the time final product is out, I would expect rift support to be sorted based on Tim's quoted message above.

 

[Adrianstealth]

Does anybody know what happened to this?

yes i wondered about this also,
in my mind right now ISI (as they stated previously to this) will support the oculus rift around the release date of the rift CV1
would be nice before of course but no further updates have came since this newer statement

...I wonder if the commercial client & ISI are progressing this?

it really needs enthusiasm (for VR) of a dev to develop & do a good job, not sure if there is that enthusiasm (for VR) in ISI at this moment

 

[Txus]

So you are upset because isi is not supporting today a piece of hardware that is not on the market

not on the market? Yes it is on the market, and has also sold more than 40,000 units, if that's not in the market.

Just like we should make a list of users who have oculus rift.

not sure if there is that enthusiasm (for VR) in ISI at this moment

Seeing as is being treated the issue in isi.I would say none.

 

[hexagramme]

lol u are really a ****. If u don t have a dev kit than u have no rights at all to post in this thread in my opinion. If ppl complain about triple screen support i would never think about to make any comments if i don t have it. Thats respectless ! I think there more ppl with dk 2 than rf 2 have online race users so ...... IsI is just out of date even gamestockcar plans dk 2 support

You just keep addressing me like that, and watch what happens.

I'll post anything anywhere whenever I feel like it. You on the other hand will not address me again in such rude fashion, ever. Be sure of that.

Was I rude towards you? No. Did I call you names? No. I merely expressed an opinion. Were you threatened by that? Do you think ISI will drop all Rift support because of my opinion?

I will take the high road on this one, and just be thankful that the likes of you is a very, very small, insignificant minority.

Have a good evening.

 

[gkz]

Since it's a devkit, technically only developers should complain . By the time final product is out, I would expect rift support to be sorted based on Tim's quoted message above.

1. Its a kickstarter project and for customers too. 2. So its a developer and isi don t have it as a developer ? i mean ISI can do what they want. But fact is u lose money if u don t support dk 2 vs AC and co. But what i really don t understand
is that there ppl in the forum who support the way rfactor 2 handle the dk 2. If u play AC with the dk 2 u don t want go back to single screen.... The only prob for me is that ac don t have ai in lan and still not competion ready for real races.

 

[Kokomo]

Did I call you names?

No, and he didn't either, unless **** is a name

VR will be a much bigger thing than RF2 in no time, so I don't really care what ISI does tbh. If they don't support the CV1 I won't play it, and no serious simracer (because all of those will own it after knowing what it does) will either

 

[Narrowbackwing]

They did say they will support CV1 .

To the above few get a room ,lol .

 

[stonec]

VR will be a much bigger thing than RF2 in no time, so I don't really care what ISI does tbh. If they don't support the CV1 I won't play it, and no serious simracer (because all of those will own it after knowing what it does) will either

It will take several years until VR will replace traditional monitors for average sim racer, simply because almost everyone needs to replace current PC hardware to get playable FPS with rift, especially as its resolution will increase further from dk2. And also because rF2 is known to scale quite badly with resolution as we have seen on triple screen systems.

 

[hexagramme]

No, and he didn't either, unless **** is a name

Good one... nothing hiding behind those asterisks, I'm sure.
Just me being paranoid.

 

[Kokomo]

It will take several years until VR will replace traditional monitors for average sim racer, simply because almost everyone needs to replace current PC hardware to get playable FPS with rift, especially as its resolution will increase further from dk2. And also because rF2 is known to scale quite badly with resolution as we have seen on triple screen systems.

AC ran on my old GTX 560 on med settings, so I don't think the rig has to be that good

 

[Depco]

AC ran on my old GTX 560 on med settings, so I don't think the rig has to be that good

For rF2 it probably does though. Think about how well, or poorly, rF2 runs on your machine vs the same machine running AC. For me, running rF2 is significantly more demanding on my machine to get pretty graphics and steady FPS vs what can be achieved in AC. The DK2 requires 75 FPS to achieve the stutter free buttery smooth graphics seen in many youtube videos. This means several things in rF2.

1. You have a beefy machine that can run max settings and get 75 FPS on two screens (one render per eye)

2. You knock down the settings to get the required frames and have less eyecandy.

3. Your machine cant handle the rift at its current FPS requirements and you start puking all over the place due to high latency and poor frame rates.

I suspect that most current players would fall into category 2 or 3. Those running rF1 likely are firmly planted in category 3 but that's a different thread all together.

When a person can run a game like AC with the requisite FPS vs the same machine not being able to on rF2, it is telling about the engine running the sim. Personally, I think that a lot of the rF2 resources are used in the physics side of things and that the graphics engine is secondary to that goal. This is why no one doubts or even tries to argue that rF2 is anything but the king of physics in Sim racing today. That comes at a cost though. Graphics. The DK2 needs a specific FPS as listed above. I don't thin that ISI has optimized the graphics engine to handle the needed FPS on lower/Mid-grade machines. Mostly because I dont think they think graphics matter. With the DK2 they do. This also may be the reason that they are somewhat quiet on the matter, that and they have the commercial client to keep happy.

As an aside I am building a new machine with the Rift CV1 in mind. (8 core AMD FX CPU, 16 GB ram, R9 290 4GB Video Card) I plan on running all my games, if possible, through it when it comes out. This includes rF2 if I am still playing it when the CV1 comes to market. I hope so. However, like some other racing games I have played in the recent past (SRW, ACR) rF2 may go into the "has been" bin if it does not officially support the Rift. Too bad too since I really do enjoy the game.

 

[Kokomo]

Mostly because I dont think they think graphics matter. With the DK2 they do. This also may be the reason that they are somewhat quiet on the matter, that and they have the commercial client to keep happy.

Trust me, with the Rift the graphics are a lot less important than in a monitor. LFS is a great experience just because of the Rift, and the graphics are worse than RF1 by far. You would definitely choose RF1 graphics in a 4K Rift than Project Cars maxed graphics at 1080p, resolution is what matters at this point because VR still needs to grow first. Once resolution improves enough that it stops to be a problem like 1080p in monitors, then graphics should become the main focus again

As an aside I am building a new machine with the Rift CV1 in mind. (8 core AMD FX CPU, 16 GB ram, R9 290 4GB Video Card) I plan on running all my games, if possible, through it when it comes out.

I recommend holding for CV1 for the upgrade if your current rig can make it. Also, ask people that are into hardware what should you be buying by then. Obviously I don't think a R9 290 is a good choice at all because even now it has much worse price/performance ratio than the GTX 970 and AMD is going to release new cards by Q1 2015 if it's AMD what you want to buy because you hate nVIDIA

 

[Txus]

I do not understand anything. Rf 2 is the only and I repeat only simulator that currently not provides support on oculus. Is not it quite unusual ?.
What is hidden behind the initiative to isi, to not support the oculus?
Does not it seem all a bit strange?
along with a complete lack of official communiques on the matter, a simple note on facebook that says nothing.
Although there is always someone who raises the flag of isi at your own risk and gives his opinion on something he has not tried.
Why it so slow ISI at all?
Why not said anything isi?

Best regards

 

[crz]

I do not understand anything. Rf 2 is the only and I repeat only simulator that currently not provides support on oculus. Is not it quite unusual ?.
What is hidden behind the initiative to isi, to not support the oculus?
Does not it seem all a bit strange?
along with a complete lack of official communiques on the matter, a simple note on facebook that says nothing.
Although there is always someone who raises the flag of isi at your own risk and gives his opinion on something he has not tried.
Why it so slow ISI at all?
Why not said anything isi?

Best regards

Gjon himself was asked abou that matter in an interview:

Doug: What about new technology with the virtual headsets? Any updated news to report?

Gjon: We did some work on it with the original Rift device. We already had some of the basics in there from earlier products and the Rift work enhanced this further. At some point soon we will carve out time and finish this up for not only the Rift but for all devices of this class.

There is communication, Tim also gave some statements in the forum. Maybe not what we like to hear but to say there is no communication at all isn't right. They just decided to spend their development time on other subjects which is fair enough in my opinion.

I don't want to dig through the forum on my mobile but it was stated (probably in this thread) that ISI plans to support the rift when CV1 is finished.

 

[Txus]

Hi

Hey that sounds like I have read it. but after 1304 post, it seems insufficient, and really think you can say more which soon. Does not it seem all a bit strange, so much darkness around the issue? with a weak statement and then complete silence.

Personally I think waiting for the cv1 is a mistake to think that the same rv not going to replace the monitor, do not say that whoever oculus but do happen and soon.

Typically the technology is like a race, you can boot with it or wait it out for your hand and start running after it. Usually the second option brings more problems than advantages.

Best regards

 

[Spinelli]

3D, especially 3D-VR headsets, is the future, and the near-future at that. I hope ISI get's going with pre-CV1 VR headset support.

 

[stonec]

I do not understand anything. Rf 2 is the only and I repeat only simulator that currently not provides support on oculus. Is not it quite unusual ?.
What is hidden behind the initiative to isi, to not support the oculus?
Does not it seem all a bit strange?
along with a complete lack of official communiques on the matter, a simple note on facebook that says nothing.
Although there is always someone who raises the flag of isi at your own risk and gives his opinion on something he has not tried.
Why it so slow ISI at all?
Why not said anything isi?

Best regards

It is not unusual. If you have followed ISI strategy over last years, you would have seen they don't jump on new technologies or adapt to new things very quickly, it's simply not their strategy. rF2 is also the only new simulator to use DirectX 9 and an UI which base was built in 1990s.

Regarding performance with CV1, it was quoted: "A GTX 770 is probably the minimum spec that would be OK. I wouldn't go any cheaper than that."
Now considering how rF2 runs in general and how much FPS rF2 needs to look smooth, I would be surprised if that was enough. Likely almost everyone has to buy new hardware.

 

[88mphTim]

Hi

Hey that sounds like I have read it. but after 1304 post, it seems insufficient, and really think you can say more which soon. Does not it seem all a bit strange, so much darkness around the issue? with a weak statement and then complete silence.

Personally I think waiting for the cv1 is a mistake to think that the same rv not going to replace the monitor, do not say that whoever oculus but do happen and soon.

Typically the technology is like a race, you can boot with it or wait it out for your hand and start running after it. Usually the second option brings more problems than advantages.

Best regards

Why should a company keep repeating themselves based on your expectation for change?

We will support Oculus Rift. We have done work on it, we're hoping to do it soon, but might not (waiting for consumer versions). This is the status.

Thread closed.