This was a jokeDoes anyone know if this is 60 fps reprojected to 120?
This was a jokeDoes anyone know if this is 60 fps reprojected to 120?
Do people actually *read* the article before posting? Seriously...
...I would like a source for this.
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"
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.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.
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.
Oh god.. just stop. You don't know a thing about VR optimization and even less about game development.
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
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.Do those banners say 'DRIVER' and not 'DRIVECLUB'
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
VR > Lighting + Weather > 60FPS.
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
So its not going to be 60 reprojected to 120?This was a joke
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.
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.
Not even the game developers who are actively working on VR projects and browse GAF?
Gee, I wonder why they wouldnt?
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.
This was a joke
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?
Not even the game developers who are actively working on VR projects and browse GAF?
Gee, I wonder why they wouldnt?
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!"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).
Those two things are very very similar though. Like, almost exactly the same with just a small difference in the projection transform.3D means something you know, same resolution but twice the things to calculate..
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.
So driveclub isn't smooth? ok got it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm just not digging the look of the PSVR Headset...
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.
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.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.
Still bad since the mirror is still looking at a completely different set of geometry.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.
1080 lines sure, but each eye is only 960 columns.I'm sorry i don't get that. PSVR is 1080p..
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
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.
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.Is it not still a prototype design?
I think DieHard linked this video to me a bit back, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvtEXMlQQtI
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.
.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