• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

off screen pics Driveclub VR

Paganmoon

Member
Jan 14, 2013
7,219
0
0
From everything we hear about VR, that's just not possible at all. Or they have some magic happening.

I mean Drive Club runs at 30 fps.

This runs at 60 fps + twice the geometry to display, bigger fov, point of view changing super fact.. From what is known the cost of VR is something like 4 or 5 times the cost of a normal game. There is NO CHANCE IN HELL the games has "minimal cuts"
Driveclub runs at 30FPS locked iirc, which means, it's most likely above that. "minimal cuts" could possibly have it at 60FPS locked. and "minimal cuts" might mean, minimal in number, but with big impact on framerate, could be cuts to things most people don't notice or think about. But yeah, will have to see to believe it.

One thing to add, I tested out Battle Zone at EGX, the first minute or so was just the tank moving up to the arena, I could see aliasing, and in the beginning when I put on the HMD I noticed screendoor effect, but as soon as I was in the arena, actually playing, all that was "gone" as in I didn't notice it at all. VR could look like shit, but still feel "real", cause of the presence. Just as long as you don't have flickering textures due to aliasing, or dropped frames, I think it'll work.
 

orioto

Good Art™
Mar 10, 2005
12,026
354
1,645
39
Paris
www.facebook.com
There isn't one. It's nonsense.
It's such a nonsense, that there was a thread about it on GAf, that i can't find back. Carmack also said the cost was huge and we shouldn't wait for PS4 (nor PS3) graphics in VR on Morpheus, but he was probably exaggerating.

But anyway do the math. Take a 30 fps game, make it stable 60 fps and i mean super stable, so you need it to run at more, with twice the point of view for 3D. That's 4 times the resources and now don't forget a VR game doesn't work with a predetermined camera (or even many). The player has to be able to look at every part of the background, at 360° at any time immediately. That means you can't use the tricks most games use to save resources. So yeah 5 or even 6 times the cost of a normal game.
 
Feb 24, 2010
5,370
0
0
Sounds like a 60FPS mode might be incoming for the main game.

I would take cuts to DC for a VR mode, I prefer the time trial and drifting events anyway :p
VR > Lighting + Weather > 60FPS.
 

Piggus

Member
Mar 12, 2008
11,477
1
0
Ashland, Oregon
www.gtagaming.com
It's such a nonsense, that there was a thread about it on GAf, that i can't find back. Carmack also said the cost was huge and we shouldn't wait for PS4 (nor PS3) graphics in VR on Morpheus, but he was probably exaggerating.

But anyway do the math. Take a 30 fps game, make it stable 60 fps and i mean super stable, so you need it to run at more, with twice the point of view for 3D. That's 4 times the resources and now don't forget a VR game doesn't work with a predetermined camera (or even many). The player has to be able to look at every part of the background, at 360° at any time immediately. That means you can't use the tricks most games use to save resources. So yeah 5 or even 6 times the cost of a normal game.
The system isn't rendering two full 1080p images, it's rending two images at 960x1080.
 

googleplex

Member
Jun 7, 2010
9,072
0
0
It's such a nonsense, that there was a thread about it on GAf, that i can't find back. Carmack also said the cost was huge and we shouldn't wait for PS4 (nor PS3) graphics in VR on Morpheus, but he was probably exaggerating.

But anyway do the math. Take a 30 fps game, make it stable 60 fps and i mean super stable, so you need it to run at more, with twice the point of view for 3D. That's 4 times the resources and now don't forget a VR game doesn't work with a predetermined camera (or even many). The player has to be able to look at every part of the background, at 360° at any time immediately. That means you can't use the tricks most games use to save resources. So yeah 5 or even 6 times the cost of a normal game.
Oh god.. just stop. You don't know a thing about VR optimization and even less about game development.
 

orioto

Good Art™
Mar 10, 2005
12,026
354
1,645
39
Paris
www.facebook.com
The system isn't rendering two full 1080p images, it's rending two images at 960x1080.
3D means something you know, same resolution but twice the things to calculate..

Oh god.. just stop. You don't know a thing about VR optimization and even less about game development.
I'm not inventing things lol i'm talking about what game developers said... Of course nobody will back me up on this so let's forget about it anyway. I know too much when everyone in a thread goes in the same direction, better not go in the other way :)
 

Glorified G

Member
Jan 24, 2012
7,966
0
0
3D means something you know, same resolution but twice the things to calculate..



I'm not inventing things lol i'm talking about what game developers said... Of course nobody will back me up on this so let's forget about it anyway. I know too much when everyone in a thread goes in the same direction, better not go in the other way :)
Not even the game developers who are actively working on VR projects and browse GAF?

Gee, I wonder why they wouldnt?
 
Feb 18, 2013
3,285
0
0
Do those banners say 'DRIVER' and not 'DRIVECLUB'
Yeah. It's because we were also showing a demo called 'Passenger' where you simply sit in the passenger seat and look around. Driving at 180mph, you don't really get chance to have a good look around, so the Passenger demo encourages that. The guys at Evolution are also talking about an idea where you could download a friend's replay and watch their lap from the passenger seat.

As it stands, there are no weather effects at all, nor a time cycle, nor mirrors, as reflections are very taxing. However, the demo has only been in development for around three months and has made spectacular progress in that time. At first, the engine could only handle one car and no trees without the framerate dropping; after three months, you can see the vast improvement.
 

5taquitos

Member
Apr 8, 2014
6,860
5
0
Sounds like a 60FPS mode might be incoming for the main game.

I would take cuts to DC for a VR mode, I prefer the time trial and drifting events anyway :p
VR > Lighting + Weather > 60FPS.
Don't count on it coming to the main game, they know exactly how appealing Driveclub screenshots and GIFs are and I doubt they'd sacrifice visuals and gameplay in the base product for it at this point.
 

pastrami

Member
May 23, 2014
2,174
0
290
3D means something you know, same resolution but twice the things to calculate..



I'm not inventing things lol i'm talking about what game developers said... Of course nobody will back me up on this so let's forget about it anyway. I know too much when everyone in a thread goes in the same direction, better not go in the other way :)
You are probably thinking of what Krejlooc said about VR, how power hungry it is, and how bad VR games will look. And to an extent, he is right, if maybe overly pessimistic. But we're seeing some impressive things coming out of VR, even from the relatively underpowered PS4. I'm optimistic that the things that come out for PSVR will be pretty damn good, even if they are overshadowed by PC VR headsets.
 
Feb 24, 2010
5,370
0
0
Yeah. It's because we were also showing a demo called 'Passenger' where you simply sit in the passenger seat and look around. Driving at 180mph, you don't really get chance to have a good look around, so the Passenger demo encourages that. The guys at Evolution are also talking about an idea where you could download a friend's replay and watch their lap from the passenger seat.

As it stands, there are no weather effects at all, nor a time cycle, nor mirrors, as reflections are very taxing. However, the demo has only been in development for around three months and has made spectacular progress in that time. At first, the engine could only handle one car and no trees without the framerate dropping; after three months, you can see the vast improvement.
Absolutely incredible work. Thanks for the insight :) Does the lighting still have that richness that the game has? Or has that been dialed back? (I guess I mean HDR, but I don't know how taxing or not that is, like global illumination without the time shifts?).
 

Pie and Beans

Look for me on the local news, I'll be the guy arrested for trying to burn down a Nintendo exec's house.
Apr 23, 2010
13,063
1
940
But anyway do the math. Take a 30 fps game, make it stable 60 fps and i mean super stable, so you need it to run at more, with twice the point of view for 3D. That's 4 times the resources and now don't forget a VR game doesn't work with a predetermined camera (or even many). The player has to be able to look at every part of the background, at 360° at any time immediately. That means you can't use the tricks most games use to save resources. So yeah 5 or even 6 times the cost of a normal game.
Yeah, you need to get a bit of a reality check here. Just as VR is demanding in its 3D and high frame-rate, its not as demanding in other ways. Your character isn't going to be moving at Bayonetta speeds. Your turning speed, by way of not making you barf up your entire lifejuice all at once, is now realistic. That means you can infact pull more 'not in use' render tricks coz you're not gonna be right click re-centering and 180-ing your view on a dime.

VR experiences should always be about quality over quantity in size of the gameworld as well. Its not going to be about empty barren sandboxes to fill a characters time. Its gonna be about crafting smaller rooms, towns, situations and going from there.

Nothing demands going photorealistic either. Indeed some of the most compelling VR stuff to me is the more cartoony approach with Colosse: A Story in Virtual Reality, Lands End, and more. Indies are doing VR fine. Things like UE4 are taking a lot of the heavy lifting off dev of the past.

Development, uh, finds a way. So chillax. Let the metaverse envelop you.

Not even the game developers who are actively working on VR projects and browse GAF?

Gee, I wonder why they wouldnt?
The way such a huge swathe of GAF is about VR, most VR devs should be all:

"But what about that shadowy place?"
"That's beyond our borders. You must never go there."
 

kyser73

Member
Sep 29, 2013
8,119
0
0
It's such a nonsense, that there was a thread about it on GAf, that i can't find back. Carmack also said the cost was huge and we shouldn't wait for PS4 (nor PS3) graphics in VR on Morpheus, but he was probably exaggerating.

But anyway do the math. Take a 30 fps game, make it stable 60 fps and i mean super stable, so you need it to run at more, with twice the point of view for 3D. That's 4 times the resources and now don't forget a VR game doesn't work with a predetermined camera (or even many). The player has to be able to look at every part of the background, at 360° at any time immediately. That means you can't use the tricks most games use to save resources. So yeah 5 or even 6 times the cost of a normal game.
Incorrect. PSVR renders a single 1080p image split in two (920x1080 per eye) and duplicated. It isn't doing significantly more work than it would be normally.
 
The guy is asking a question, what kind of a reply is that? Also why spread misinformation?

DriveClub is rendering at a smooth 60fps, but the output is essentially 'upscaled' to 120fps on transmission to the VR headset. Those additional, interpolated frames are calculated based on updated sensor information supplied by the PlayStation VR headset. In effect, the game itself is running at 60fps, but the sense of movement and response looks and feels twice as smooth
So its not going to be 60 reprojected to 120?
Yep it's 60fps reprojected to 120.
 

orioto

Good Art™
Mar 10, 2005
12,026
354
1,645
39
Paris
www.facebook.com
Not even the game developers who are actively working on VR projects and browse GAF?

Gee, I wonder why they wouldnt?
Sorry to read what some say. Don't treat me like i'm some kind of lunatic with an agenda against PS4 VR or something lol..

And again Carmack said the same thing.

Maybe people with so much science can explain dumb people like me why it's now so easy to run VR games.

Maybe it's just a big scam to make people think the PS4 is not enough to run VR after all who knows.
 
Feb 18, 2013
3,285
0
0
Absolutely incredible work. Thanks for the insight :) Does the lighting still have that richness that the game has? Or has that been dialed back? (I guess I mean HDR, but I don't know how taxing or not that is).
Basically, from what I understand, this demo was done as a project. Everything you see has been designed in such a way as to just to get the core Driveclub VR experience working at a rock solid framerate, just to say "Hey, it works!"

It's absolutely nowhere near a final product. Hell, it might not even make it to that stage. That's why it's being shown behind closed doors and wasn't mentioned in the press conference. Every day, the guys at Evo are finding ways to add things back into the build without impacting performance. Exceptionally talented bunch of developers, you should have every faith that, should it make it to market, it will look incredible.
 

EatinOlives

Member
Oct 23, 2011
16,849
0
0
Wipeout would make my brain explode.

Yeah, I kind of doubt this will happen since one of the cuts included reducing the cars from 12 to eight. That's a pretty big change to make without calling it a new game.
Eh, if you're halfway decent at the game you're battling between places 1 and 6. I could easily remove the 4 last places and not see that much of a difference in gameplay.

I'm talking AI, though. Online would have to suffer.

So driveclub isn't smooth? ok got it.
It's a constant framerate so it's smooth in that regard, but 30fps on a racer with speeds as high as DC's speeds get, yeah 30fps doesn't cut it for me.
 
Feb 24, 2010
5,370
0
0
Basically, from what I understand, this demo was done as a project. Everything you see has been designed in such a way as to just to get the core Driveclub VR experience working at a rock solid framerate, just to say "Hey, it works!"

It's absolutely nowhere near a final product. Hell, it might not even make it to that stage. That's why it's being shown behind closed doors and wasn't mentioned in the press conference. Every day, the guys at Evo are finding ways to add things back into the buid without impacting performance. Exceptionally talented bunch of developers, you should have every faith that, should it make it to market, it will look incredible.
In EVO I trust :p I know they're amazing devs. I want to see some internal competition between Guerrilla, Santa Monica, Naughty Dog and Evo. Hell throw Media Molecule in there too with that incredible Dreams showing. Sony's got some serious technical power in house.
 

Blanquito

Member
Jul 19, 2013
2,003
0
0
Sorry to read what some say. Don't treat me like i'm some kind of lunatic with an agenda against PS4 VR or something lol..

And again Carmack said the same thing.

Maybe people with so much science can explain dumb people like me why it's now so easy to run VR games.

Maybe it's just a big scam to make people think the PS4 is not enough to run VR after all who knows.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1112695

[edit] This thread is about game devs who are actually developing for all three headsets, and how easy it was to put a VR game onto PSVR.
 

Orayn

Member
Jul 4, 2010
34,289
4
820
Minnesota
Incorrect. PSVR renders a single 1080p image split in two (920x1080 per eye) and duplicated. It isn't doing significantly more work than it would be normally.
The workload does increase quite a bit because the scene has to be rendered from two independent perspectives to produce the 3D effect. At minimum it's comparable to running a game in splitscreen, which almost always leads to visual cutbacks and can even cut the framerate in half in some cases.
 

inpHilltr8r

Member
Jun 7, 2004
2,947
0
0
The workload does increase quite a bit because the scene has to be rendered from two independent perspectives to produce the 3D effect. At minimum it's comparable to running a game in splitscreen, which almost always leads to visual cutbacks and can even cut the framerate in half in some cases.
Split screen can have players at totally different locations on the map. Your eyes do not do this under normal conditions.
 

farisr

Member
Nov 5, 2011
10,188
1
635
The workload does increase quite a bit because the scene has to be rendered from two independent perspectives to produce the 3D effect. At minimum it's comparable to running a game in splitscreen, which almost always leads to visual cutbacks and can even cut the framerate in half in some cases.
Why at minimum? Unlike splitscreen, you're not going to have the 2 perspectives potentially in vastly different areas, so you don't have to worry about having to render/load different assets/textures, lighting conditions (depending on the game and how it handles lighting) etc.
 

Portugeezer

Member
Dec 11, 2008
19,624
1,929
1,270
London
abload.de
The workload does increase quite a bit because the scene has to be rendered from two independent perspectives to produce the 3D effect. At minimum it's comparable to running a game in splitscreen, which almost always leads to visual cutbacks and can even cut the framerate in half in some cases.
But is that really the case? With VR you would be focussing in the same general direction. Splitscreen can look and render two completely different areas of a level, which seems like a higher workload.
 
Feb 24, 2010
5,370
0
0
Don't forget that at a certain distance, you don't even need to render an object twice, as both eyes view it identically. It's really only things at a fairly close range that need it.
 

Orayn

Member
Jul 4, 2010
34,289
4
820
Minnesota
Split screen can have players at totally different locations on the map. Your eyes do not do this under normal conditions.
True, but you still don't get to "keep" the overlap just because the cameras are close together. You're not rendering the same scene twice at half the resolution, you're introducing a non-trivial amount of overhead by rendering two (slightly) different scenes at the same time.

I guess a better comparison might be a game featuring a very high fidelity "rear view mirror" that renders at a resolution comparable to the main window. Still not cheap.
 

orioto

Good Art™
Mar 10, 2005
12,026
354
1,645
39
Paris
www.facebook.com
Why at minimum? Unlike splitscreen, you're not going to have the 2 perspectives potentially in vastly different areas, so you don't have to worry about having to render/load different assets/textures, lighting conditions (depending on the game and how it handles lighting) etc.
In my vast ignorance of non dev gaffer i will try to explain something, sorry in advance.

In splitscreen, you can say for exemple, you don't render twice the polys, cause the surface you render is half as big, so it doesn' change a lot in the end, same resolution, same textures, same number of polys, except when for exemple you see all the cars in both windows (it's then twice the cars).

Now the problem in VR is that each half of the screen is the total screen. It's not half of it. So each cars, mountain, trees etc has to be rendered twice. Except it' WORSE cause the fov has to be bigger and the internal rez to, cause you will have to do a barrel distortion on some fish eye view to render it correctly on the vr screen.

So yeah that's way way more than splitscreen.

But again, sorry.
And i'm not saying there isn't a possibility devs progressed around those issues, but yeah, the cost of vr is huge.
 

Blanquito

Member
Jul 19, 2013
2,003
0
0
What's the point ? I'm not talking about comparing psvr to other devices there.. I'm saying a device, any device, will do way less things in vr than without it.
That link was addressing one misconception you brought up.

This link will address the other one [which is VR needs massively more power. PSVR has implemented techniques to reduce what's required to render, and the others either already have or are in the process of doing it]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=179028304&postcount=78

I'm just here to help :)
 

farisr

Member
Nov 5, 2011
10,188
1
635
In my vast ignorance of non dev gaffer i will try to explain something, sorry in advance.

In splitscreen, you can say for exemple, you don't render twice the polys, cause the surface you render is half as big, so it doesn' change a lot in the end, same resolution, same textures, same number of polys, except when for exemple you see all the cars in both windows (it's then twice the cars).

Now the problem in VR is that each half of the screen is the total screen. It's not half of it. So each cars, mountain, trees etc has to be rendered twice. Except it' WORSE cause the fov has to be bigger and the internal rez to, cause you will have to do a barrel distortion on some fish eye view to render it correctly on the vr screen.

So yeah that's way way more than splitscreen.

But again, sorry.
And i'm not saying there isn't a possibility devs progressed around those issues, but yeah, the cost of vr is huge.
Why do you keep ignoring the resolution of PSVR? The res is a very big factor as to why it's not that hard to get a PS4 game working in PSVR without many other sacrifices.

Yes, the cost of 1:1 VR is big (especially if you want to retain full fidelity comparable to the regular, non-VR game), but that's not what's happening here with PSVR.
 

orioto

Good Art™
Mar 10, 2005
12,026
354
1,645
39
Paris
www.facebook.com
Why do you keep ignoring the resolution of PSVR? The res is a very big factor as to why it's not that hard to get a PS4 game working in PSVR without many other sacrifices.
I'm sorry i don't get that. PSVR is 1080p.. That doesn't change the problem of having to render a lot more objects in VR, compared to a PS4 game in 1080p that is 2D and on a tv.

And again, maybe i read really bad things on internet and then, sorry, but it seems to me barrel distortion needs some down sampling from a bigger rez. At least in the DK2 i have, the internal rez of games is displayed as 2560x something.

Maybe they don't do that and they have different tricks on PS4.

Anyway there is a cost
 

inpHilltr8r

Member
Jun 7, 2004
2,947
0
0
True, but you still don't get to "keep" the overlap just because the cameras are close together. You're not rendering the same scene twice at half the resolution, you're introducing a non-trivial amount of overhead by rendering two (slightly) different scenes at the same time.
Actually there are techniques that do this as a post process. You render a middle eye, then reproject left and right. IIRC, Crytek claimed under 1ms for the reprojection pass.

Here's a paper that discusses the technique.

http://www.marries.nl/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Fast-Gather-based-Construction-of-Stereoscopic-Images-Using-Reprojection.pdf

I guess a better comparison might be a game featuring a very high fidelity "rear view mirror" that renders at a resolution comparable to the main window. Still not cheap.
Still bad since the mirror is still looking at a completely different set of geometry.
 

Nafai1123

Banned
Apr 7, 2008
12,712
0
0
I'm sorry i don't get that. PSVR is 1080p.. That doesn't change the problem of having to render a lot more objects in VR, compared to a PS4 game in 1080p that is 2D and on a tv.

And again, maybe i read really bad things on internet and then, sorry, but it seems to me barrel distortion needs some down sampling from a bigger rez. At least in the DK2 i have, the internal rez of games is displayed as 2560x something.

Maybe they don't do that and they have different tricks on PS4.

Anyway there is a cost
Nobody is arguing there is no cost, they are arguing the cost is not "5 or 6 times" more.
 

farisr

Member
Nov 5, 2011
10,188
1
635
I'm sorry i don't get that. PSVR is 1080p.. That doesn't change the problem of having to render a lot more objects in VR, compared to a PS4 game in 1080p that is 2D and on a tv.
I'll explain it to you.

Looks at it in terms of pixels. A standard PS4 game is rendering 1920x1080 pixels worth of objects.

PSVR is rendering 960x1080 (1st render for 1st eye) + 960x1080 (2nd render for the 2nd eye) pixels worth of objects = a total of 1920x1080 pixels worth of objects (both renders combined)

In terms of rendering the pixels, it's actually performing pretty much the same amount of work. And thanks to the nature of VR, devs don't have to worry about texture streaming, lighting, asset loading issues as your eyes are pointed in the same direction. The main hurdles that can come up are framerate, like if the game isn't 60fps to begin with, needing to pull back the camera/better fov if the game isn't optimized to allow such options, and if the game devs designed a game to the point where they assumed that you will have the camera pointed in a certain direction at all times.
 

danhese007

Member
May 6, 2012
3,660
2,492
825
NYC
Is it not still a prototype design?
Its a prototype as in, not the final hardware but i think Sony is taking an open design method whereby the actual prototype is the product that will continue to be tweaked until the final product is ready to be shipped for mass market. Unlike how in some cases like oculus, the final design looks way different from early prototypes.
 

orioto

Good Art™
Mar 10, 2005
12,026
354
1,645
39
Paris
www.facebook.com
I'll explain it to you.

Looks at it in terms of pixels. A standard PS4 game is rendering 1920x1080 pixels worth of objects.

PSVR is rendering 960x1080 (1st render for 1st eye) + 960x1080 (2nd render for the 2nd eye) pixels worth of objects = a total of 1920x1080 pixels worth of objects (both renders combined)

In terms of rendering the pixels, it's actually performing pretty much the same amount of work. And thanks to the nature of VR, devs don't have to worry about texture streaming, lighting, asset loading issues as your eyes are pointed in the same direction.
That's exactly what i'm saying. But you don't want to acknowledge the numbers of objects doubling and more cause of the bigger fov + barrel distortion. I'm saying exactly that and everyone is repeating that resolution thing.. It's the same resolution with way more objects to render. Nobody is answering about the need to down sample a bigger resolution neither.
 

farisr

Member
Nov 5, 2011
10,188
1
635
That's exactly what i'm saying. But you don't want to acknowledge the numbers of objects doubling and more cause of the bigger fov + barrel distortion. I'm saying exactly that and everyone is repeating that resolution thing.. It's the same resolution with way more objects to render. Nobody is answering about the need to down sample a bigger resolution neither.
What you're not getting is that while the the number of objects being rendered are doubling, the requirements of rendering the objects is nearly being cut in half at the same time thanks to the resolution drop. Bigger fov is not necessarily going to strain the system more, as many games are designed to run with various fov options to begin with.

I have no idea where downsampling fits into this whole equation. I've only seen your posts talking about resolution, rendering objects twice, 3d and splitscreen and that's what I'm going to respond to.
 

Blanquito

Member
Jul 19, 2013
2,003
0
0
That's exactly what i'm saying. But you don't want to acknowledge the numbers of objects doubling and more cause of the bigger fov + barrel distortion. I'm saying exactly that and everyone is repeating that resolution thing.. It's the same resolution with way more objects to render. Nobody is answering about the need to down sample a bigger resolution neither.
.
That link was addressing one misconception you brought up.

This link will address the other one [which is VR needs massively more power. PSVR has implemented techniques to reduce what's required to render, and the others either already have or are in the process of doing it]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=179028304&postcount=78

I'm just here to help :)