I don't think the Joycons do positional tracking either so... they'll have to upgrade those too
The ir camera in the JoyCon-R could be used to track one of your hand or ir leds on the helmet.
I don't think the Joycons do positional tracking either so... they'll have to upgrade those too
Not with the 720p you don't. It was a wasted opportunity for Nintendo. If they had gone for a 1080p screen for Switch then it could have become part of a decent VR system. 720p is going to look like shite in VR.
People in this thread should also have a quick recap of what allows good VR to work:
- Camera or Lighthouse setup to track headset and hand peripherals. Peripherals would need to be designed for the camera to pick up on in 3d space (lights, covered in external sensors)
- 1080p screen at bare minimum, and even then Sony made a custom OLED with tighter pixels and of course faster refresh rate.
- External console that is on par with PS4 vanilla. GearVR overheats like a motherfucker, so having the console actually in the headset doesn't work for extended play unless you get crazy with fans and coolant.
So, in all earnest its going to require a whole new console from Nintendo for any of it to work. Not even sure a Switch revision would cut it since the cost of upgrading the Joycons, power of the unit, external camera, and then adding on a headset with good screen is just not something Nintendo would be willing or able to do.
TL;DR: Topic title is woefully inaccurate. Kimishima gave VR the usual lip service to wave off investor "WHY AREN'T YOU DOING THIS" questions.
Am I wrong for thinking that this means we will get a higher resolution Nintendo Switch for VR? Since Switch only has a 720p screen.
The ir camera in the JoyCon-R could be used to track one of your hand or ir leds on the helmet.
The headset could use inside out tracking, negating the need for an external camera or lighthouse. It could also use the Nvidia tech outlined in this thread to up the resolution in a relatively affordable way. That's the two most important issues down. I think that the negatives of it's lower power could be canceled by the fact that the device would be a completely untethered experience.
Just because some do have issues doesn't mean we dont have vr that can be played for hours.You don't have issue with VR doesn't mean other people also don't.
VR isn't going to be a mainstream product for awhile. They have the right model to get there when it goes big.
Upgrade the joycons and the resolution of the display in the 3 years along with a die-shrink and you've got yourself a stew.
Given the Switch system specs, I can't imagine the framerate will be particularly good (unless they reduce the poly count considerably, which could work out fine)
CPU/GPU NVIDIA customised Tegra processor
Be sure to burn that little mistake into your brain. Sensationalist and outright false headlines/news is rampant. Please don't contribute to this problem. You can contact a mod to change the title.... I'd change the topic title to "might" instead of "will" if I could. I wasn't trying to mislead anyone, it was a simple mistake. I even spoke about how it's not confirmed in the actual post. I didn't realise one word would cause this much grief :/
The OP talks about a twitter post specifically talking about the Switch which is why I specifically mentioned the Switch in my reply but you're talking about some fictitious future consoles.
Please try harder.
Judge for yourselves:If their solution involves using the tablet screen, sounds horrible!
Not only with it being a 720p, but strapping a tablet to your face?
I can't imagine it being comfortable to use.
i' ve talked about this since the speculation threads, only thing preventing VR working in the Switch is the screen resolution. Your list is not a requirement for VR, what you describe in there is high end VR. The Switch could do well and bring a new level for mobile VR thanks to it's engineering and control method for seated and stand VR experiences.VR 'hands' require tracking in a 3d space. Accelerometer and short range IR doesn't work. You need an external camera (or Valve's far better Lighthouse system that fills the room with lasers) to track the controllers. If those controllers aren't giving off light from all over themselves, they can't be tracked. This is why the Oculus Touch and Vive Wands have ring like designs so your hand can't get in the way.
Not only are the Joycons completely engulfed by hands, they're also not equipped with a big ass light or all the sensors required to track them in a 3d space.
HD rumble would be great for VR, no doubt. It's just everything else isn't there.
That would limit it's functionality a bit then. A Switch with a higher resolution screen would have offered a new level of mobile VR at the lowest point of entry. im not counting Google cardboard for obvious reasons XDAlternatively, they could stream to a VR headset via the usb-c port.
You could easily have a VR add on that connects to switch via USB-C
I get it. Not criticizing you.
Look at the big picture. NO ONE has figured out how to take VR mainstream. Do we use a phone? Do we tie it to the PC? Do we make an all-in-one headset? What do you do about controls?
Whether or not Nintendo ships a VR accessory to the current Switch, my point is they may have stumbled on to the right model to make VR mainstream. They may even have been planning it.
If it is the right model, it doesn't matter whether they ship VR tomorrow or in 3 years with Switch+1. If they're right, they already have a significant advantage that folks like Oculus and Samsung may struggle to replicate.
Think bigger picture.
I get it. Not criticizing you.
Look at the big picture. NO ONE has figured out how to take VR mainstream. Do we use a phone? Do we tie it to the PC? Do we make an all-in-one headset? What do you do about controls?
Whether or not Nintendo ships a VR accessory to the current Switch, my point is they may have stumbled on to the right model to make VR mainstream. They may even have been planning it.
If it is the right model, it doesn't matter whether they ship VR tomorrow or in 3 years with Switch+1. If they're right, they already have a significant advantage that folks like Oculus and Samsung may struggle to replicate.
Think bigger picture.
Alternatively, they could stream to a VR headset via the usb-c port.I think we'll see a Switch Pro 1080p in 2-3 years but VR will probably support the 720p screen too.
They will still have to sell the headset, and they will still have to court 3rd parties to make content. Besides the fact that this Switch or even a Switch 2 will be greatly underpowered for any real VR gaming... it's not looking good for Nintendo VR
Be sure to burn that little mistake into your brain. Sensationalist and outright false headlines/news is rampant. Please don't contribute to this problem. You can contact a mod to change the title.
To be fair the quote says: "will add VR to Switch once they figure out how users can play for hours without problems."
It litterally says they will add it, albeit after they figure some things out. He didn't use the word "if" or anything. Weather this was an accurate translation/weather this actually comes to fruition is another matter.
Totally disagree. Nintendo made really smart choices. They've moved to ARM which means they can continue to ride Moore's Law unlike x86. They've moved to NVIDIA which means they can follow their performance curve. They made sure they supported the big game engines.
The headset will be dirt cheap. All the pricey electronics are already in the Switch itself.
A 4K portable screen in 3 years will be cheap. Portable Pascal will be cheap. Remember, Oculus set a baseline for VR performance that they intend to maintain for many years.
You guys are so obsessed with today's specs. You need to be thinking about performance curves. Nintendo has a legit story here.
The more I think about it, the more I think that Switch (as a high-level model) was designed to accommodate VR from the outset. I hope they don't ship a headset this gen and are disciplined enough to wait for their next-gen product.
VR 'hands' require tracking in a 3d space. Accelerometer and short range IR doesn't work. You need an external camera (or Valve's far better Lighthouse system that fills the room with lasers) to track the controllers. If those controllers aren't giving off light from all over themselves, they can't be tracked. This is why the Oculus Touch and Vive Wands have ring like designs so your hand can't get in the way.
Not only are the Joycons completely engulfed by hands, they're also not equipped with a big ass light or all the sensors required to track them in a 3d space.
HD rumble would be great for VR, no doubt. It's just everything else isn't there.
i' ve talked about this since the speculation threads, only thing preventing VR working in the Switch is the screen resolution. Your list is not a requirement for VR, what you describe in there is high end VR. The Switch could do well and bring a new level for mobile level VR thanks to it's engineering and control method for seated and stand VR experiences.
The IR motion camera in the joycon can be easily set in a base and track LEDs in the head set. So you would get fairly good head tracking, then the left Joycon works even better than the solutions you have in Gear VR or Google's daydream, non of which feature absolute tracking of any kind.
So contrary to your assertion, almost everything is in fact there for VR to function, save for the screen resolution. Now, maintain the same design and bring the screen's resolution up in a new Switch revision and surely VR would work.
Although someone brought up a very insteresting point (although not sure how plausible) with that Nvidia LCD tech.
It's just a patent. Switch is a heavy, low-res display for a plug-in-headset type of VR. A proper VR headset via cable would be more practical.
Will they ever figure it though?
You are much more positive about Nintendo's ability to deliver great VR. Stay positive. I hope you are right. Mario/Zelda in VR would be awesome.
Totally disagree. Nintendo made really smart choices. They've moved to ARM which means they can continue to ride Moore's Law unlike x86. They've moved to NVIDIA which means they can follow their performance curve. They made sure they supported the big game engines.
The headset will be dirt cheap. All the pricey electronics are already in the Switch itself.
A 4K portable screen in 3 years will be cheap. Portable Pascal will be cheap. Remember, Oculus set a baseline for VR performance that they intend to maintain for many years.
You guys are so obsessed with today's specs. You need to be thinking about performance curves. Nintendo has a legit story here.
The more I think about it, the more I think that Switch (as a high-level model) was designed to accommodate VR from the outset. I hope they don't ship a headset this gen and are disciplined enough to wait for their next-gen product.
We don't know the specs of the IR Motion Camera to make any definitive statements. A reason for the short range is explained because the Joycon has to provide the IR emition by itself, since it most have 1 or 2 LEDs inside which is not a powerful enough infrared source.Fuzzy thinking.
IR sensor isn't going to be on same level as a 1280x800 camera, and is intended for short distance stuff.
The Switch is capable enough to handle mobile VR type experiences and it could do so with improved controls. i don't know why you set the standards so high, expecting similar VR experience to 800 U.S. HMDs alone.2 screen and console overlap with processing to pair up and also work with tracking, as above, generates this stuff called heat.
Current Switch aint doing any kind of quality VR. Revision might.
Just because some do have issues doesn't mean we dont have vr that can be played for hours.
Works both ways.