Support NeoGAF

[samn]

Bummer. FPS seems to me the best fit.

But again, havent tried VR yet.

FPSes have too much rapid acceleration and deceleration. Resulting in motion sickness.

 

[DieH@rd]

Very cool. I wonder how they'll address possible judder since it's a 120hz display.

There will be no judder. Display will switch to a native 90hz refresh.

 

[tuxfool]

PSVR only has one screen, it doesn't need to send to send 2 images. rift and vive each have two screens (one for each eye)

Even then the Vive and Oculus are essentially sending half the total resolution to each eye, like PSVR.

 

[ChronotriggerJM]

I could have sworn a few people said they couldn't discern a noticeable difference between 60 FPS reprojected, and 120FPS reprojected. If that holds any truth, the only reason for a 90hz mode that I could see, would be to experiment with 45fps reprojected. People say 60 native is quite convincing with Sony's implementation of timewarp, perhaps 45's not nearly as bad as we think?

 

[Sephiroth_VII]

PSVR only has one screen, it doesn't need to send to send 2 images. rift and vive each have two screens (one for each eye)

Even though it only uses one panel, it still needs to send two images, one for each eye. The optics split the one panel into two.

It shouldn't be much more taxing than 3D though, since it's "just" two 1K images.

 

[bj00rn_]

I could have sworn a few people said they couldn't discern a noticeable difference between 60 FPS reprojected, and 120FPS reprojected. If that holds any truth, the only reason for a 90hz mode that I could see, would be to experiment with 45fps reprojected. People say 60 native is quite convincing with Sony's implementation of timewarp, perhaps 45's not nearly as bad as we think?

There is no such thing as 45 fps nor 45fps reprojected. There is only 60to120, native 90 and native 120. That's it.

And of course there's a difference between reprojected and native.. If there wasn't, 1. It wouldn't be optional in PSVR.. 2. Reprojection/Async Timewarp would be built into every GPU on the market for decades already.

 

[Sephiroth_VII]

There is no such thing as 45 fps nor 45fps reprojected. There is only 60to120, native 90 and native 120. That's it.

And of course there's a difference between reprojected and native..

Couldn't you do it though? I know it hasn't been announced, but would it be technically difficult to do a smooth reprojection of 45 to 90 fps?

EDIT: Also, while I would agree that there is definitely a difference between reprojected and native, I do remember quite a few reporters saying that there was no "noticeable difference", which is exactly what the poster you quoted is saying. Of course, this may vary from person to person, but based on what we know so far, it doesn't sound like there is too much of a difference.

 

[Illucio]

Very good news, PSVR sounds more and more promising. They showe'd off a few cool games but I hope bigger titles like The Last of Us or No Mans Sky get support.

Sony needs to support this dang thing from start to finish. But the one problem with Sony is that if something isn't a instant hit then it's not worth investing in.

So here's to hoping for no Sony bullshit regarding support this device will do great if they actually spend time working on it.

 

[Skyrise]

There is no such thing as 45 fps nor 45fps reprojected. There is only 60to120, native 90 and native 120. That's it.

You can have 90 + reprojection and 120 + reprojection.

 

[NewDust]

...

Also Sony should allow users to chain 2 PS4 together to get native 120 fps on PSVR games.

This reminds me of a technical showcase sony did with Wipeout HD. There they chained together 4 ps3's, for either 4k@60 or 1080@240. Can't find the article anymore sadly.

 

[EdReedFan20]

This reminds me of a technical showcase sony did with Wipeout HD. There they chained together 4 ps3's, for either 4k@60 or 1080@240. Can't find the article anymore sadly.

I thought they did that for Gran Turismo.

 

[bj00rn_]

Couldn't you do it though. I know it hasn't been announced, but would it be technically difficult to do a smooth reprojection of 45 to 90 fps?

Sure. But the lower the rendering framerate the higher the chance of uncomfortable artifacts. Near-field objects would be especially prone.

https://developer.oculus.com/blog/asynchronous-timewarp-examined/

 

[ChronotriggerJM]

There is no such thing as 45 fps nor 45fps reprojected. There is only 60to120, native 90 and native 120. That's it.

And of course there's a difference between reprojected and native.. If there wasn't, 1. It wouldn't be optional in PSVR.. 2. Reprojection/Async Timewarp would be built into every GPU on the market for decades already.

Not sure I'm following you. With a native 120hz display, they can take a 60FPS feed, and use the tracking data to feed the inbetween frames no? So if they slowed the frequency of the display to 90hz, and pushed a 45fps feed, could they not feed the tracking data in the between frames once again to double up?

I never said there wasn't a difference between reprojected and native lol, I said people were having difficulty discerning the difference. The 60FPS games are apparently very convincing in Sony's VR.

So my question was, if 60 FPS games are made very convincing by the nature of the 120hz panel, would 45 FPS be convincing in their now slowed down frequency mode. Because if 60 is amazing, why would they bother trying for 90?

This was taken from the blog you quoted

Additionally, the frame rate ratio between the game rendering and device refresh rate affects the perceived quality of the motion judder. In our experience, ATW should run at a fixed fraction of the game frame rate. For example, at 90Hz refresh rate, we should either hit 90Hz or fall down to the half-rate of 45Hz with ATW. This will result in image doubling, but the relative positions of the double images on the retina will be stable. Rendering at an intermediate rate, such as 65Hz, will result in a constantly changing number and position of the images on the retina, which is a worse artifact.

 

[Freedom = $1.05]

PSVR only has one screen, it doesn't need to send to send 2 images. rift and vive each have two screens (one for each eye)

it has to render two images for each eye regardless. doesn't matter if it's one screen or two, it has to spend resources rendering two images, one for each eye. this costs more than just rendering the game in non-VR and thus increases the overhead for VR games compared to non-vr

 

[bj00rn_]

You can have 90 + reprojection and 120 + reprojection.

I was basing the details on the article in the OP which did not mention that there is no option for 45 fps reprojected to 90 Hz. If this is wrong they should fix the article.

Although I don't see much point in such an option and afaik nobody should use it.

 

[NewDust]

I thought they did that for Gran Turismo.

That explains why I couldn't find it...

 

[tuxfool]

it has to render two images for each eye regardless. doesn't matter if it's one screen or two, it has to spend resources rendering two images, one for each eye. this costs more than just rendering the game in non-VR and thus increases the overhead for VR games compared to non-vr

It isn't quite linear but the image for each eye is rendered at half the resolution to a regular screen on equivalent total resolution.

 

[bj00rn_]

So my question was, if 60 FPS games are made very convincing by the nature of the 120hz panel, would 45 FPS be convincing in their now slowed down frequency mode. Because if 60 is amazing, why would they bother trying for 90?

This was taken from the blog you quoted

The very same blog which explained some of the issues with ATW. As it says; ATW is not a silver bullet. And if it was, why would Sony make native 90 and 120 Hz optional, they would be redundant.

PSVR may be amazing in itself so-to-speak, but I wouldn't use the word "amazing" about reprojection/atw as a framerate doubler as long as there are other better options. I'd rather use the words "adequate in some scenarios".

 

[tuxfool]

The very same blog which explained some of the issues with ATW. As it says; ATW is not a silver bullet. And if it was, why would Sony make native 90 and 120 Hz optional, they would be redundant.

PSVR may be amazing in itself so-to-speak, but I wouldn't use the word "amazing" about reprojection/atw as a framerate doubler as long as there are other better options. I'd rather use the words "adequate in some scenarios".

Yup. The intent of that article is to show how it can be used to compensate for the odd dropped frame, not validate its use 100% of the time.

 

[Afrikan]

so I guess that official email that mentioned a Curved OLED screen was a mistake then huh?.... *sad panda*

 

[ChronotriggerJM]

The very same blog which explained some of the issues with ATW. As it says; ATW is not a silver bullet. And if it was, why would Sony make native 90 and 120 Hz optional, they would be redundant.

PSVR may be amazing in itself so-to-speak, but I wouldn't use the word "amazing" about reprojection/atw as a framerate doubler as long as there are other better options. I'd rather use the words "adequate in some scenarios".

Oh I agree, don't get me wrong. I'm assuming the bulk of developers will just try for 60FPS, reprojected to 120. But I imagine in some games, where tracking hands might not be utilized, locking the framerate to 45, to inject timewarped images in perfect synchronization with the 90hz could be a decent experience, mind you an absolutely locked 45 FPS.

Also it seemed like Sony said to hell with using it as backup, and they've seemingly just baked it into the experience lol. But it's supposed to be quite convincing, so whatever works I guess lol.

 

[Neuromancer]

so I guess that official email that mentioned a Curved OLED screen was a mistake then huh?.... *sad panda*

I don't know. The page that the email links to is still up and it still says curved.

http://view.playstationmail.net/?j=...em_211309&et_rid=22364917&Linkid=Morpheus&r=0

 

[magnumpy]

it has to render two images for each eye regardless. doesn't matter if it's one screen or two, it has to spend resources rendering two images, one for each eye. this costs more than just rendering the game in non-VR and thus increases the overhead for VR games compared to non-vr

I was wrong, here in this video a guy from sony confirms that it has 2 1080p screens!

 

[googleplex]

I was wrong, here in this video a guy from sony confirms that it has 2 1080p screens!

I'm pretty sure that guy misspoke. Morpheus/PSVR only uses a single screen.

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

Also don't expect a lot of traditional games in VR. The medium is ill suited even for standard fpses.

Then what is the point?

 

[EventHorizon]

Then what is the point?

That's like saying back in the 90s "What's the point of 3D games if 2D games don't work as well?" We had to find out what worked best for 3D games.

What is meant by not expecting traditional games in VR is that there aren't going to be a lot of ports of normal games. The biggest issue is movement. VR is all about tricking your brain into thinking it is real. That is fundamentally at odds with a traditional FPS. In reality you are sitting in a chair holding a controller but in VR you'd be running around at great speeds shooting a gun. That disconnect will give many people motion sickness and will likely hurt the VR presence to some extent.

Games that have you sitting in a cockpit/car help with that because the game mirrors more closely what you'd be doing in real life. Then you have the fact that in VR you are more likely to want to use your hands with motion controls, while traditional games will more likely use a controller. There are basic differences between VR and traditional games which will mean that games built specifically for VR will just be better.

 

[tuxfool]

Then what is the point?

It is an amazing experience, but games have to be designed for VR.

 

[SeeNoWeevil]

Going back to a standard LCD monitor after strobed 90Hz is going to be difficult. The motionblur is going to be unbearable.

 

[orioto]

It is an amazing experience, but games have to be designed for VR.

Which doesn't mean classic genres can't use it. If done well any genre of game can be done with it.

 

[tuxfool]

Which doesn't mean classic genres can't use it. If done well any genre of game can be done with it.

You'll note I said traditional FPS design, which surely does not work well in VR. A FPS in VR needs to be designed specifically for VR. Same for any other game such as a platformer.

As somebody stated above, cockpit based games are easiest to transition without specifically changing the game design.

 

[MaLDo]

PSVR may be amazing in itself so-to-speak, but I wouldn't use the word "amazing" about reprojection/atw as a framerate doubler as long as there are other better options. I'd rather use the words "adequate in some scenarios".

In fact this reprojection has nothing in common with framerate doublers.

People have to see VR reprojection as a way to turn your head at 120 fps into a 60 fps game. If you are static looking at the game, the game is in fact running at 60 fps, not 120. Using 120 fps reprojection allows to minimize disorientation and dizziness while you're moving your head, but the game you're into, is locked to 60 fps. I mean, characters will move at 60 fps and animations will be 60 fps too.

 

[kyser73]

You'll note I said traditional FPS design, which surely does not work well in VR. A FPS in VR needs to be designed specifically for VR. Same for any other game such as a platformer.

As somebody stated above, cockpit based games are easiest to transition without specifically changing the game design.

Didn't Sony do a closed door presentation on this at E3? One of their research guys cludged together a control system that reduced a lot of the nausea caused by fast moving FPS by a combination of using the Move gun add-on and some clever design?

I remember reading that making the environment spread out, so distance cues were more difficult to make, and creating unfamiliar environments were the key.

 

[Fafalada]

This is good news, it means we'll have more games rendering at native framerates rather than faking it.

Reprojection is still used with Oculus and PSVR at native fps - as far as onscreen information is concerned it's always being faked.
Vive doesn't - but there's a different tradeoff with that.

There is no such thing as 45 fps nor 45fps reprojected.

Strictly speaking when you have control over the Async shaders, nothing is stopping you from doing 45->90 upsample. Whether it's temporally acceptable to the user and whether the platform holder would allow you to ship software with it is another question.

 

[tuxfool]

Didn't Sony do a closed door presentation on this at E3? One of their research guys cludged together a control system that reduced a lot of the nausea caused by fast moving FPS by a combination of using the Move gun add-on and some clever design?

I remember reading that making the environment spread out, so distance cues were more difficult to make, and creating unfamiliar environments were the key.

Yup, exactly. Doing a 1:1 translation of a standard FPS is asking the general public to start feeling really uncomfortable.

 

[Soi-Fong]

As a dev, this is awesome to hear!! More choices to tailor experiences is never a bad thing!!

 

[plagiarize]

You'll note I said traditional FPS design, which surely does not work well in VR. A FPS in VR needs to be designed specifically for VR. Same for any other game such as a platformer.

As somebody stated above, cockpit based games are easiest to transition without specifically changing the game design.

Cockpit games are the best fit out of traditional games.

That said, if you think Half Life 2 and Doom 3 don't work well in VR I'm going to presume you haven't played either. Both work fantastically well, and both are significantly enhanced by the format.

I've played both through to completion in VR. Sure you might have to get your 'VR legs' before you can play them without getting motion sick (I had no problems personally but I know others have) but if I could play them both on the DK1 without much problem (and the DK2 offers an even better time), standard FPS will be a compelling experience on the PSVR, et al.

 

[UrbanRats]

Something like Mario3dWorld would work so well in VR (with some minor adjustments, ofcourse).
I hope 3rd person platformers will bloom on the platform.

 

[pottuvoi]

I thought they did that for Gran Turismo.

They did.

 

[tuxfool]

That said, if you think Half Life 2 and Doom 3 don't work well in VR I'm going to presume you haven't played either. Both work fantastically well, and both are significantly enhanced by the format.

I got sick playing those. Additionally they were modded to work better in VR. Things developers have said regarding this: VR needs slower movement speed, independent head movement (obviously) and appropriate scaling of the world.

You may have found it fine, but I'm fairly sure that VR needs to be palatable to people without forcing them to get VR legs, if they get them at all; I haven't so far (for those games) but I've only ever tested it in limited sessions.

 

[pooptacular]

I was able to complete Doom 3 on the DK2 from start to finish and it was an excellent experience. I could play that game for hours on end with no queasiness.

Half life 2, however, was pretty good until the water jet ski craft crap part of the game lol. That's where I had to stop playing. I should revisit that soon now that my tolerance is higher. .

 

[Pai Pai Master]

Good, if devs want to put a simpler game out that isn't as taxing, 90 or 120fps will help a lot

 

[bj00rn_]

I got sick playing those. Additionally they were modded to work better in VR. Things developers have said regarding this. VR needs slower movement speed, independent head movement (obviously) and appropriate scaling of the world. You may have found it fine, but I'm fairly sure that VR needs to be palatable to people without forcing them to get VR legs, if they get them at all; I haven't so far (for those games) but I've only ever tested it in limited sessions.

Heh, I was gagging after 15 seconds in Half-Life 2 with a DK1. With a DK2 I could manage 3-4 minutes before I just couldn't do it anymore (even though the VR mode in HL2 was very well implemented, thanks krejlooc).

.. all the while I could do barrel rolls in a jet around the himalayan mountains a whole day without a problem.. For me that really showed me the power of a seated experience in VR compared a traditional FPS. So it's not without reason FPS and VR (in combination with controller-walking) infamously doesn't go well together.

Strictly speaking when you have control over the Async shaders, nothing is stopping you from doing 45->90 upsample. Whether it's temporally acceptable to the user and whether the platform holder would allow you to ship software with it is another question.

Yeah I guess that make sense now that they opened up for 90Hz in the firmware. It wasn't listed in the recommended options that the article in the op appeared to have been making from asking for details from Sony. I don't know (it's just a conjecture from my side..), but perhaps there's a reason for that..

Good, if devs want to put a simpler game out that isn't as taxing, 90 or 120fps will help a lot

Maybe I misunderstand you (apologies if so) but the native 120Hz render&refresh option has always been there. But yeah, the 90/90 is indeed a good thing (but is more taxing than 60/120).

 

[Skyrise]

The very same blog which explained some of the issues with ATW. As it says; ATW is not a silver bullet. And if it was, why would Sony make native 90 and 120 Hz optional, they would be redundant.

You definitely want to keep reprojection on, also at 90 / 120 if you can hit the framerate target. We've used it at 120 native to get an extra edge.

It works really well.

 

[bj00rn_]

You definitely want to keep reprojection on, also at 90 / 120 if you can hit the framerate target. We've used it at 120 native to get an extra edge.

It works really well.

Ah yes. Antonov also mentioned this in that blog post. And I've also noticed both OVR and Valve saying that's their recommended use of async timewarp, and if I remember correctly that's also Carmack's conclusion during his VR testing(?).

Do you know if Sony is doing any compensations for reprojection-artifacts btw?

 

[AmyS]

Two PS4s in SLI would be nice, once they become cheaper.

Na, I'll take the inevitable PS5 instead

 

[Fafalada]

but perhaps there's a reason for that..

I haven't tested it myself yet - but I'd guess the latency you end-up reprojecting for becomes too large resulting in (too)visible artifacts.

 

[TetraGenesis]

Wish I would have seen this yesterday before making a fool of myself in another thread this morning. Hahaha