No need for hard numbers, just watch this video: http://youtu.be/J0n5B3fl-bU?t=5m34s
The latency was really, really bad. No comparison to that what the Oculus Rift is capable of.
Cellphones sure are cute. And, yes, I do mean that in the most condescending way possible.
Look, I understand just how cool cellphones may seem to my tech nerd brothers and sisters. And I shouldn't judge something before I've tried it. But every time someone tells me how awesome this cutting-edge handheld phone technology is supposed to be, I can't help but see the gigantic, unwieldy phones of the 1980s and 90s flash in front of my eyes.
Cellphones might be a little smaller, cheaper, and easier to use, but the idea of holding a slab of plastic to your head to communicate with people is a quaint idea that I just don't see consumers adopting.
wsippel, is that you?Thank you for the write-up. Extremely jelly.
As for the VR naysayers... I'll just post this quote from Palmer which I think it's relevant:
Cellphones sure are cute. And, yes, I do mean that in the most condescending way possible.
Look, I understand just how cool cellphones may seem to my tech nerd brothers and sisters. And I shouldn't judge something before I've tried it. But every time someone tells me how awesome this cutting-edge handheld phone technology is supposed to be, I can't help but see the gigantic, unwieldy phones of the 1980s and 90s flash in front of my eyes.
Cellphones might be a little smaller, cheaper, and easier to use, but the idea of holding a slab of plastic to your head to communicate with people is a quaint idea that I just don't see consumers adopting.
I agree. This is also the reason why I'm not interested at all in omnidirectional treadmills (Virtuix Omni) or full body tracking systems (Sixense STEM system).I personally have no desire to do that unless it is holodeck-style where there is no HMD and objects have substance. I would rather restrict motion to head tracking and just use a controller for movement and manipulation in the game world. To be honest, I prefer sitting on my ass while playing video games.
That video has me wondering whether descent and quake have any way to work with the oculus rift
What a weird angle that article/headline has..
Another article thats mistakenly assuming that(or at least unknowingly making it sound like) this is Valve in the stages of making a consumer product.
I think this is everyone's knee-jerk reaction to the concept, but the truth is, there's nothing you wear on your face that has practical application that people don't use. People wear sunglasses because they prefer not to be accosted by the sun, people go skiing with goggles, they go diving, they go to play paintball, etc.
There really has never been a good reason to wear anything like a VR headset while at home until now, so while I would agree people don't really want to wear a headset, they will be more than happy with it for the experience it derives.
Protection because the activity they're choosing to take part in requires it, so they're prioritizing entertainment over the inconvenience of wearing face gear. Beyond that, I really don't see what difference it makes, unless I'm misunderstanding your point.pretty much every single one of your examples is people putting something over their eyes for protection
VR is not protection
Protection because the activity they're choosing to take part in requires it, so they're prioritizing entertainment over the inconvenience of wearing face gear. Beyond that, I really don't see what difference it makes, unless I'm misunderstanding your point.
1) About equal, IMO.SMH at VR naysayers. Once you try it you'll understand like everyone else. 3D and waggle aere gimmicks, this is the real deal.
The demos sound great. That cdak thing seems incredible. I want it.
My questions for you:
- How does the latency feel compared to the EVE VR (Valkryie) demo at E3? (Already felt fantastic and I'm picky and sensitive about this, all other VR testing fails horribly compared to that experience)
- How does the resolution compare to the 1080p Oculus if you have tried that? (1080p is still not enough imo, or needs to be downsampled / heavily AA'd)
- Did you notice any applied motion blur for quick head (change of direction) movements?
Thanks!
The tech is amazing, and can be enjoyed by practically everyone. I just can't understand how people are doubting this without having tried it. The average person is actually going to be more impressed than us jaded gamers, because they genuinely do not really know what to expect.
My wife, a complete non-gamer, loves using the Rift. Not for games, but just for the experience. Our children are obsessed with it. Every single person I have let try the Rift has loved it, and I've brought this thing to gaming tournaments, work, etc. The experiences they are having is real, and almost every person asks me where they can buy one after trying it.
This girl came by the other day, and had never done anything VR related in her life. Pretty awesome reactions, imo.
http://youtu.be/NWX_Fk7X3eM
http://youtu.be/zbjhMURvQsw
I'll just never be able to wrap my head around the, "the tech was lame in the 90's... so therefore it must still be shit" argument.
still looks better than kinect latency wiseNo need for hard numbers, just watch this video: http://youtu.be/J0n5B3fl-bU?t=5m34s
The latency was really, really bad. No comparison to that what the Oculus Rift is capable of.
Posting again ....
I have not been fortunate to get my hands on OCR or any VR so I am hoping someone can answer this:
Do you think any VR solution can be used for mainstream games like COD or other FPS etc where you usually play for hours and not get sick? Or there would be specialized gaming experience in bite size that will be more suited to this VR experience. I know a lot of people get motion sickness even playing current FPS shooters etc (including myself on some of them) and I can imagine this will be much worse if played for long hours.
I really love the idea of VR but don't think a person can just put it on play COD MP for hours and not get sick in the process. Maybe I am wrong?
Thanks Feep <31) About equal, IMO.
2) I have no idea, because I haven't tried a 1080p Oculus, but as people in the thread have pointed out, it might have actually been 2 1080p screens? I don't know. Resolution was not an issue for me.
3) If there was any, I didn't notice it.
I was gonna ask if they were using a 1000x1000 section out of each Galaxy display, but it sounds like you're not even sure whether the unit you used was even dual-display. lol Did it not look like the prototype we've seen pics of?Valves solution is lightyears ahead of the original Oculus Dev Kit. Resolution, while not at retina level perfection, was no longer really a significant issue. The screen door effect was almost completely negligible, thanks to a shiny 1080p display. (Not actually shiny, shiny like in Firefly.)
Interesting. Did they say why they went with this system rather than a static camera like Sony and Oculus? Just trying something new? Better freedom of movement? For the AR demo?Positional tracking is an absolute must for any VR set, as lack of said tracking is the biggest cause of motion sickness, the one thing that could kill VR in its tracks. Valves solution was, as expected, extremely accurate. It involved sticking QR Code-like papers on the walls (so anyone visiting your home, without prior knowledge, would instantly assume you were a crazy person) so that a camera mounted on the headset could get an optical read on its own position. There was a downside (literally), though because there were no QR codes littering the floor, looking straight down caused the system to lose its positional tracking.
So assuming the demo you tried followed the reference design of ~1MP per eye, it sounds like that resolution looks quite nice indeed.- Next were some spheres orbiting each other. Once again I felt the need to dodge the spheres movement, which I did, but I thought this demo showed off the pixel clarity of the display: the spheres were extremely anti-aliased, and damn if they didnt look hyper smooth. Nothing much else.
Thanks for this. I've been thinking that you can play map-based games like Starcraft or Civ or Populous in a virtual environment with the map laid out before you like a little diorama. You can use a pair of Move wands to fly around the environment, directing your troops, even flying in and out of the diorama as needed. ("Zooming.")- As cool as big things are in VR, though, small things are equally impressive. Someone had taken the set from the Portal 2 Valentines Day advertisement, moving stick figures and all, and placed it down as a miniature model a la Beetlejuice in front of the player. Tiny desks, tiny people, tiny coffee mugs! In a normal game, you could manipulate the camera to get close enough to the tiny coffee mugs so that they appeared to be large, but that simply isnt possible in VR: you matter how close you got, they were still little tiny coffee mugs, because your perceptions of distance and scale are accurate. It would really be an incredible sensation for any god game, towering over and examining your creations from a giants throne above. And you know what? The stick figures looked great in 3-D. Really cool.
Thanks for this as well. People often forget that "awesome graphics" is secondary to the experience itself.- Next was something genuinely horrifying: a mechanical moving toddlers face, complete with gears, sprockets, pistons, servos, everything. I immediately questioned the mental stability of Valves modelers, but I soldiered on, getting up close and personal with absolute nightmare fuel. Its important to note here that whatever the brain uses to ascribe the this is a real object tag to things, it isnt related to textures: every material in the contraption was entirely untextured, only possessing a color and a soft specular highlight, but it sure looked real to me. I called next on this one a little quicker than the others.
How do you think the Street View cam would look as you're racing past the scenery in something like DriveClub VR? "Good enough"?- Next were three skybox scenes, created from the types of 360 degree cameras that Google Street View uses. These were, unfortunately, not stereoscopic, so they werent quite as convincing as they could have been. Still, the photorealism was pretty impressive, and its obvious how incredible VR tours could be in the future. There was a beach scene, St. Peters Basilica in the Vatican (which Ive been to, and the sensation was eerily close to deja-vu), and a jungle somewhere.
Oooh!! Link?Sony had research with richard marks showing augmented reality using no AR cards, but finding elements in the room to lock onto. Something like that could work?
It would be cool if Sony could set up some kind of "VR Showcase" on the Store, where they could fast-track free demos and stuff.With PS4, my fear is that there may not be a large amount of content rolling in regularly due to the fact that even indies need to get approved by Sony, or some content won't be made for VR but will simply work with VR (a big difference).
To be fair, you won't be able to run that game at full settings on Rift either, if they're aiming to max out your card even on a regular monitor. PCs will be making exactly the same sacrifices in graphics that the PS4 will.If you want to run Star Citizen at the highest quality settings in VR at full res with AA and every switch flipped to max, you'll likely need more power than what a console can provide (the game is shooting for 2015 high-end visuals after all and if you've seen their content it looks amazing by any standard).
What exactly needs to be done with increased field of view? "Geometry," yes, but what are they calculating exactly, and is it something that can be aided significantly by hUMA GPGPU?You need about 90 degrees, but wider is better, and yes, a larger PoV does mean more geometry, which is an additional performance concern.
Excellent point. In thinking about transporting themselves in to their games, people seem to be forgetting they needn't still be human when they arrive. I was thinking of a game where you play as a hawk, or maybe an albatross, gliding around looking for thermal updrafts and eating fish or whatever albatrosses eat. Or maybe a game where you're a mouse, trying to find food and avoid detection. How about Mr. Mosquito: VR Edition? Or maybe a game where you're often changing scale, like being a Robotech pilot. One minute you're hanging out in the mess hall on Liberty island, and then next you're 10 m tall and boosting off to fight the Zentradi.The scale thing is really making me excited.
I never got a chance to try VR yet, but for those who did, do you think a Godzilla-like game, or something EDF style would deliver in VR? That's what i fantasize about, atm.
When SotC was mentioned, I was thinking of something very similar to that, except with Move wands. See 2:38 in this video for an example. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtY12ziHuIICheck this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkO1k6CLLiw&list=UUJX-J5swWw4haTS4D02CqOQ&feature=share&index=1
Just replace the wall with a colossus.
I was being conservative because I didn't want to get into a big debate about it, but the truth is FoV increase is not notably more demanding in modern systems. You might lose a few frames from 90 to 110, but it's nothing of note, certainly if you're investing in VR, as you already know you're going to be taking a visual hit.What exactly needs to be done with increased field of view? "Geometry," yes, but what are they calculating exactly, and is it something that can be aided significantly by hUMA GPGPU?
They have.Why on earth haven't they done a Half Life 2 demo..?
Unless they want to try (and fail lol) to steer people away from the idea of Half Life 3..?
Interesting. I knew FoV was chosen primarily based on apparent screen size, but I didn't know it had so little effect on performance. Thanks.I was being conservative because I didn't want to get into a big debate about it, but the truth is FoV increase is not notably more demanding in modern systems. You might lose a few frames from 90 to 110, but it's nothing of note, certainly if you're investing in VR, as you already know you're going to be taking a visual hit.
There's a common misconception that consoles have smaller FoV because it's less demanding, that isn't the case at all, they have it because FoV is a calculation based on display size and player position, consoles are generally played on TVs from couches, and the TV takes less of your field of vision, so the game's FoV is designed to accommodate that. PC gaming primarily takes place very close to monitors and takes up a larger amount of the players vision, so a larger FoV is needed. While people tend to abuse FoV controls for things like competitive gaming, the point is to have it match your vision to avoid motion sickness, amongst other things.
There are console games with FoV adjustments and it has negligible impact.
Sounds great and I'd love to be able to try one of these products.
However, you mentioned walking around, and wishing you could manipulate things with your hands, etc. I personally have no desire to do that unless it is holodeck-style where there is no HMD and objects have substance. I would rather restrict motion to head tracking and just use a controller for movement and manipulation in the game world. To be honest, I prefer sitting on my ass while playing video games.
It's going to be interesting, because that desire to reach out and touch something is also obviously going to lead to a break in immersion.Although you say that you wouldn't want to do those things, apparently the compulsion to do so in VR, especially where presence is involved, is really strong. I guess it's one of those things many people will only understand when they use it and see how compelling it is.
Oooh!! Link?
According to some reliable anonymous sources, Valve may be in talks to buy, or at least exclusively license, the Oculus Rift virtual-reality technology. The reasons for this, aside from the obvious gains on both sides, is to bypass a certain patent or license that Oculus VR owns. It would seem, but has not been confirmed, that without Valves direct involvement the Oculus Rift may have some trouble going forward.
There is interesting rumor here: http://www.steamfirst.com/rumor-valve-may-acquire-oculus-rift/
We all heard Valve is developing their own VR device but they will also fully support Oculus Rift. I know source is not that reliable but absolutely interesting news.
There is interesting rumor here: http://www.steamfirst.com/rumor-valve-may-acquire-oculus-rift/
We all heard Valve is developing their own VR device but they will also fully support Oculus Rift. I know source is not that reliable but absolutely interesting news.
With the current units, you can still see some edges if you look hard enough, but it's not nearly as intrusive as something like Virtuality was back in the day.What was the field of view like? could you look down with just your eyes and see game or is it still tunnel vision?
That's why I think we may see a little motion renaissance; for a lot of experiences, a pair of Move wands really will be the most natural way to interact with them. Trouble is, unless you expect players to pull themselves about by their fingernails, directing locomotion can be a challenge when you only have a pair of wands for interaction. Sony have patents showing wands with joysticks and trackpads, but the Move teams said they didn't include stuff like that because players had trouble directing avatar movement with their thumbs while also performing complex tasks with their hands like swinging a sword or whatever.It's going to be interesting, because that desire to reach out and touch something is also obviously going to lead to a break in immersion.
Thanks!! <3 Damn, that's some really impressive stuff, especially the table warping, and that's just with a mono camera running on a Vita. I'd considered the possibility of putting cameras on the PSVR, but I wasn't sure the utility would really justify the added cost and weight. After watching those videos, it looks like a pair of 1MP cameras positioned directly behind the displays with the same FoV and refresh rate could allow them to do some pretty amazing things.Demo from 2011
Vita demo from 2011
'Magnet' demo from GDC 2012 on vita
Bear in mind that was a demo for AR, so they need lots of interest points to allow them to plot objects in the world. For basic translation tracking, you could probably get away with a lot fewer points, making it more lightweight to track.
A playstation camera from PS4 mounted on the visor would be ideal. Twin lenses, 120hz update. (Remove the mics and surround, you'd only need the lenses)
I tried the Rift today, for the first time. I am absolutely certain that this will bring some awesome gameplay in the future. I am incredibly eager to get my hands on this and a good flight sim, some Elite Dangerous or perhaps even a car game. Why not a tank game. Hell, give me some Arma gameplay our some new Battleground Europe.
Will most definitely look out for this as soon as a good version is available for consumers.
Its just a whole new level of immersion, forget kinect or PS move, VR is where the future is going. I could see it being incorporated with the kinect to give another dimension of head movement like back and forth for peaking around walls and such.
lol sounds like my kinda world. Dildos, dragons and cheese moons. :')In some years this will be portable. Imagine it together with items mapped to real world objects and places, see the above post with YouTube videos for an example. Now imagine Big Ben, that will forever be a dildo, the moon as a piece of cheese, and the Hollywood letters spelling C U N T. Oh, and aliens everywhere. And dragons. And orcs. Glorious.
Until then, we get to settle with insanely captivating experiences. Can't wait, really.
Oh, I see what you mean. Just for head tracking purposes? Well, keep in mind that in that one demo, as it was building up its view of the scene, he pointed out how as they were gathering more points, they were getting a better idea of where the Vita was actually located, so they'll need some minimum number of points for reliable tracking.Bear in mind that was a demo for AR, so they need lots of interest points to allow them to plot objects in the world. For basic translation tracking, you could probably get away with a lot fewer points, making it more lightweight to track.
You'd want something that matched the aspect ratio and FoV of the displays, but yeah, basically.A playstation camera from PS4 mounted on the visor would be ideal. Twin lenses, 120hz update. (Remove the mics and surround, you'd only need the lenses)
Really? Are you sure you're not thinking of the DS4, which has gyros and accelerometers?Fun fact: the PS Camera for the PS4 has gyros.
I was being conservative because I didn't want to get into a big debate about it, but the truth is FoV increase is not notably more demanding in modern systems. You might lose a few frames from 90 to 110, but it's nothing of note, certainly if you're investing in VR, as you already know you're going to be taking a visual hit.
There's a common misconception that consoles have smaller FoV because it's less demanding, that isn't the case at all, they have it because FoV is a calculation based on display size and player position, consoles are generally played on TVs from couches, and the TV takes less of your field of vision, so the game's FoV is designed to accommodate that. PC gaming primarily takes place very close to monitors and takes up a larger amount of the players vision, so a larger FoV is needed. While people tend to abuse FoV controls for things like competitive gaming, the point is to have it match your vision to avoid motion sickness, amongst other things.
There are console games with FoV adjustments and it has negligible impact.
There was a thread with lots of benchmarks just a few months ago actually, I remember it specifically dealing with Crysis 3 amongst other titles.got any benchmarks to actually back that up? i've had the exact opposite experience in games
My last example would be saint's row 4 , where upping the fov to 100 from the default cost me a good 30 percent of my framerate (from 40-50 ish fps down to 30-40)
I was cpu limited in this game btw
There is no way rendering more geometry, more textures etc does not affect performance, obviously it won't be a linear increase since the resolution stays the same but it is there
if it wasn't then there would be no reason for devs to bother with LoD transistions either (which we all know they abuse agressively in console versions of games)