Support NeoGAF

[stryke]

http://www.roadtovr.com/sony-confirms-new-90hz-display-mode-for-playstation-vr-formerly-morpheus/

Now Sony has confirmed that PlayStation VR will have a third, native 90Hz mode. This will offer developers, who want the benefits of faster native rendering, a new middle option for their target framerate.

A representative from Sony working closely with PlayStation VR confirmed to Road to VR that the new 90Hz display mode does not come from a new display, but rather new firmware. The rep told us that they expect the 60Hz rendering + 120Hz reprojection mode to be a “very popular choice,” though the native 90Hz and 120Hz options will be there for developers who want to push the limits; it also affords good headway for future growth as game developers get increasingly adept at optimizing their virtual reality experiences for the PS4.

 

[Freedom = $1.05]

my understanding of this is higher is better but 90 seems to be the middle ground between not being as taxing as 120 and still fast enough to prevent motion sickness.

so this is good news

 

[jediyoshi]

Have there been a lot of impressions/talk over asynchronous reprojection for the 60->120hz mode? Is that what any demos right now the press have seen are running with?

 

[Nzyme32]

my understanding of this is higher is better but 90 seems to be the middle ground between not being as taxing as 120 and still fast enough to prevent motion sickness.

so this is good news

There was a discussion on if there was a perceivable difference between rendering at 75hz and 90hz on the Oculus subreddit. One of the Cloudhead devs pitched in:

Its significant. As cliche as it sounds, the jump is the difference between having the sense of being in a tangible place "presence" vs feeling like you're in a game.

Rendering at 90hz or 120hz certainly will be the best options even with the sacrifices in fidelity that need to be made to achieve that. 60hz reprojecting to 120hz isn't going to be the same, but again is a pretty good compromise if deciding on rendering at 60hz for better fidelity.

 

[Dictator93]

my understanding of this is higher is better but 90 seems to be the middle ground between not being as taxing as 120 and still fast enough to prevent motion sickness.

so this is good news

Great news.

 

[valkillmore]

Amazing

 

[Dreamwriter]

There was a discussion on if there was a perceivable difference between rendering at 75hz and 90hz on the Oculus subreddit. One of the Cloudhead devs pitched in:

Yeah, between 75hz and 90hz is significant, 90hz is where the "magic" happens, what Palmer Lucky said was the minimum needed for the true feeling of "presence", as well as the framerate where tiny tiny movements of your head can reveal more detail than the screen resolution. I wonder if there will be a noticable difference between 90hz and 120hz, though....

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

 

[DavidDesu]

The more options the better. I imagine this will benefit quite a few games, where 60fps was easy to hit but 120fps far too taxing. The consumer will get 90fps native which is a step up from 60fps reprojected to 120fps. Can imagine games straddling that middle ground technically will have better immersion as a result.

Can't wait for more information. I want to see Dreams at Paris Games Week and see what they're doing with that and if it really is a PSVR game.

 

[googleplex]

I could see a games like battle Zone, Rigs and maybe even Summer Lesson hitting 90hz on PS4.

 

[RoboPlato]

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

 

[Vlaphor]

As long as I get the best possible option for Summer Lesson, I'm good.

 

[Garrett Hawke]

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

I'm not an expert but can't some displays change their refresh rate? Like a lot of monitors and stuff have 50 and 60Hz modes.

 

[googleplex]

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

I would imagine the the PS4 would reproject the remaining 30 frames to get it to 120.

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

 

[baconcow]

I would imagine the the PS4 would reproject the remaining 30 frames to get it to 120.

Also Don't should allow users to chain 2 PS4 together to get native 120 fps on PSVR games.

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

 

[googleplex]

Please let this be due to PC compatibility. Even if unofficial, I can't see much other reason for having this.

Please, please, please.

There would be zero benefits in PSVR supporting PC for Sony. I can't ever see it happening.

 

[tuxfool]

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

It is just a question of changing the clocks on the display. Most displays aren't 144,120,60hz or bust. It is a limitation of the controller. If it supports arbitrary values then so should the display overall (within rated parameters).

For example I can underclock my 60hz monitor to 50hz or overclock to 75hz.

 

[googleplex]

It is just a question of changing the clocks on the display. Most displays aren't 144,120,60hz or bust. It is a limitation of the controller. If it supports arbitrary values then so should the display overall (within rated parameters).

For example I can underclock my 60hz monitor to 50hz or overclock to 75hz.

This is true, but I think they'll still reproject the 90fps native image to 120fps. It'll look much better and cleaner then an image reproject from 60fps

 

[Raticus79]

Very nice option to have. 90Hz native > 60 with 60 reprojection.

I've been looking forward to trying out the native 120Hz ones too.

This is true, but I think they'll still reproject the 90fps native image to 120fps. It'll look much better and cleaner then an image reproject from 60fps

That wouldn't work - the frame timing would be uneven. With the engine pushing 90 (11.11 ms), you're trying to fit them into 8.33ms frames at 120. Try charting that out and you get a big mess.

 

[RoboPlato]

It is just a question of changing the clocks on the display. Most displays aren't 144,120,60hz or bust. It is a limitation of the controller. If it supports arbitrary values then so should the display overall (within rated parameters).

For example I can underclock my 60hz monitor to 50hz or overclock to 75hz.

Ah, gotcha. I usually only follow TV displays so refresh rates are pretty much set in stone there.

 

[Felix Lighter]

Options will be key when VR games of different scale are being developed. Very good news.

This is true, but I think they'll still reproject the 90fps native image to 120fps. It'll look much better and cleaner then an image reproject from 60fps

I'm sure the headset will run at 90hz for native 90fps games. Nothing else makes sense.

 

[Dictator93]

Ah, gotcha. I usually only follow TV displays so refresh rates are pretty much set in stone there.

My TV does 24, 25, 30, 48, 50, and 60

I think it is just consoles that only expose fixed refresh rates.

On topic though: I wonder how many games will go for 90hz.

 

[n0razi]

75Hz to 90Hz is definitely noticeable.. which is why im sad that theres no 34" 90Hz IPS display on the horizon

 

[rambis]

This is true, but I think they'll still reproject the 90fps native image to 120fps. It'll look much better and cleaner then an image reproject from 60fps

Idk. I would think 60 reprojects better to 120.

In video, 2:2 conversion is almost always smoother than 3:2 or 2:3.

 

[tuxfool]

This is true, but I think they'll still reproject the 90fps native image to 120fps. It'll look much better and cleaner then an image reproject from 60fps

That would result in judder.

 

[Neuromancer]

They are a hardware company, they want this thing to sell.
Its not a platform, its a display device, and the devs use x86 for it anyway.

Sony considers it a platform though:

“VR for us, it’s not a peripheral,” Layden said. “It’s not a, ‘here’s the latest way to interact with the game’ thing. It’s a platform."

http://vrfocus.com/archives/17919/sony-project-morpheus-is-not-a-peripheral-but-a-new-platform/

They want to sell Playstation games, not PC games. I would love for it to be PC compatible, but I just don't think it's going to happen.

 

[tuxfool]

My TV does 24, 25, 30, 48, 50, and 60

I think it is just consoles that only expose fixed refresh rates.

On topic though: I wonder how many games will go for 90hz.

I can think of a few of the smaller or more abstract games that would easily manage that even on a PS4, like for ex. that 3D tetris game that Phil Fish is working on.

 

[Raticus79]

75Hz to 90Hz is definitely noticeable.. which is why im sad that theres no 34" 90Hz IPS display on the horizon

Yeah, I'd love to have a 90Hz option on my displays (especially with strobing backlight).

 

[Dreams-Visions]

Sony considers it a platform though:


http://vrfocus.com/archives/17919/sony-project-morpheus-is-not-a-peripheral-but-a-new-platform/

They want to sell Playstation games, not PC games. I would love for it to be PC compatible, but I just don't think it's going to happen.

3rd party PC developers and enthusiasts will determine what this thing ends up being unless this headset comes heavily locked down. If you think PC gamers will not create their own drivers and software, you've got another thing coming.

 

[Neuromancer]

3rd party PC developers and enthusiasts will determine what this thing ends up being unless this headset comes heavily locked down. If you think PC gamers will not create their own drivers and software, you've got another thing coming.

I was taking about Sonys positioning of the device though. I would not be surprised if there is some hacky PC workaround and in fact I think that would be great.

 

[Katori]

120 is VR's 60, 90 is VR's 30, 60 is VR's 15, is the general gist I get.

Still, anything at or above 60 at sufficient resolution (plus head tracking) will be difficult for PS4, I'd imagine.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

120 is VR's 60, 90 is VR's 30, 60 is VR's 15, is the general gist I get.

Still, anything at or above 60 at sufficient resolution (plus head tracking) will be difficult for PS4, I'd imagine.

I think we'll see VR as the third category of games because of the tech differences. You'll get your console games where devs chuck shaders and PP at the screen, mobile where the emphasis is on making the most of what you have, and VR, where you can throw loads of triangles around but you have to make them work with less image-polishing code available.

 

[Freedom = $1.05]

120 is VR's 60, 90 is VR's 30, 60 is VR's 15, is the general gist I get.

Still, anything at or above 60 at sufficient resolution (plus head tracking) will be difficult for PS4, I'd imagine.

it all depends on what level of graphic fidelity theyre going for.

Likely, you wont see anything that looks much better than a last gen game given the level of overhead VR requires and how the PS4 doesn't have the oommph needed to process anything more taxing than that.

Still should look decent though.

 

[Generic Power Ranger]

120 is VR's 60, 90 is VR's 30, 60 is VR's 15, is the general gist I get.

Still, anything at or above 60 at sufficient resolution (plus head tracking) will be difficult for PS4, I'd imagine.

Always depend om the game. You could have a 400fps 8k game om a ps3 (internally) in theory
Edit: beaten

 

[belmonkey]

Sounds like console VR has a lot of room to work with if it can go from 60 fps with reprojection, to 90 fps, to 120 fps, whereas PC seems to be stuck at 90 fps for now. Would have been nice if a PC VR headset intended to do the same thing with refresh rates as the Morpheus, at least for the sake of weaker hardware.

 

[tuxfool]

Sounds like console VR has a lot of room to work with if it can go from 60 fps with reprojection, to 90 fps, to 120 fps, whereas PC seems to be stuck at 90 fps for now. Would have been nice if a PC VR headset intended to do the same thing with refresh rates as the Morpheus, at least for the sake of weaker hardware.

Nah. Reprojection for this use case is to be avoided if possible. It is just a hack to attempt to compensate for limitations of 60hz.

 

[bj00rn_]

120 is VR's 60, 90 is VR's 30, 60 is VR's 15, is the general gist I get.

What.the.. lol

No. I guess I can't blame people who haven't followed the technical talk surrounding VR the last couple of years for thinking it can be parsed that way, but that's not how it works.

It doesn't really make sense to compare a traditional fixed screen at a distance with a VR HMD like that. Most of the context behind the framerates/refresh rates when talking about VR has to do with motion-to-photon, low persistence flicker-free display technology, and to find the sweet spot where the inducing of presence happens.

 

[meanspartan]

Ok but to run at that framerae, 90 or 120, wont these VR games look like early ps3 games at best, but with higher rez?

Im ignorant on this, so tell me if Im wrong. Any way we see ps4 level graphics on PSVR?

 

[Jacksinthe]

Ok but to run at that framerae, 90 or 120, wont these VR games look like early ps3 games at best?

Im ignorant on this, so tell me if Im wrong. Any way we see ps4 level graphics on PSVR?

You don't need mind blowing visuals to trick the brain. You'd be surprised.

 

[tuxfool]

Im ignorant on this, so tell me if Im wrong. Any way we see ps4 level graphics on PSVR?

No.

But it may not matter as much in many cases.

 

[bomblord1]

You don't need mind blowing visuals to trick the brain. You'd be surprised.

I'de be happy with Wii graphics as long as it was running at the proper resolution and framerate.

 

[TrojanBlade]

I just want the price and release date Sony!!! And tons of content.

 

[Freedom = $1.05]

Ok but to run at that framerae, 90 or 120, wont these VR games look like early ps3 games at best, but with higher rez?

Im ignorant on this, so tell me if Im wrong. Any way we see ps4 level graphics on PSVR?

No. 90-120 fps alone would make that difficult. You then have a camera that needs resources, a headset that needs resources, and you have to render more than a frame at a time since you'll be sending out two images (one for each eye).

So what you're likely to see are games that are going to look like decent last gen experiences at the most. Maybe better if the game's scope is limited so as to allow for higher fidelity visuals.

But VR isn't really about making things looks real, it's more about presence. You can have a game that looks like it was made on the ps1 but if the tech is done well you will feel like you're actually in that world. And that's the point, to make you feel like you're in a virtual reality and fooling the brain into thinking its in a completely different place.

 

[meanspartan]

You don't need mind blowing visuals to trick the brain. You'd be surprised.

Fair enough. I havent had the pleasure of trying any VR yet, but I am for sure excited about ots potential!

Itd be really cool if they went back and redid appropriate ps3 titles for VR.

Killzone 2 in 1080p and 90-120fps!

Thats the kind of HD Remake I could get behind.

EDIT: Fuck. I really like my own KZ2 idea. That would be mind blowing being in that hellish warzone. Game still even looks great in 720p30.

Make it happen Sony!

 

[tuxfool]

Fair enough. I havent had the pleasure of trying any VR yet, but I am for sure excited about ots potential!

Itd be really cool if they went back and redid appropriate ps3 titles for VR.

Killzone 2 in 1080p and 90-120fps!

Thats the kind of HD Remake I could get behind.

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

 

[bj00rn_]

Ok but to run at that framerae, 90 or 120, wont these VR games look like early ps3 games at best, but with higher rez?

Im ignorant on this, so tell me if Im wrong. Any way we see ps4 level graphics on PSVR?

A few will, many won't. It depends on how developers choose to balance IQ, detail and precision.

My funny prediction is that the best VR games for PSVR will probably look worse than the bad ones.. Meaning some developers will just tack on VR mode on a non-VR game and rely on Reprojection, while some developers will build VR games from scratch for VR and balance it out with less detail at native 90 Hz.

 

[Blanquito]

Yeah, this is great news.

Nah. Reprojection for this use case is to be avoided if possible. It is just a hack to attempt to compensate for limitations of 60hz.

While the 60->120fps isn't as good as native 90/120hz, we've heard from a lot of developers, media, and others that have tried PSVR's reprojection system that it works quite well and isn't janky.

 

[meanspartan]

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

Bummer. FPS seems to me the best fit.

But again, havent tried VR yet.

 

[tuxfool]

Bummer. FPS seems to me the best fit.

But again, havent tried VR yet.

First person games, sure. But fpses as designed for traditional displays and control schemes, no.

 

[Tagyhag]

It's good that they have the option, but like they said, most devs will unfortunately go the reprojecting route.

Even in VR, graphics trumps performance lol.

 

[magnumpy]

No. 90-120 fps alone would make that difficult. You then have a camera that needs resources, a headset that needs resources, and you have to render more than a frame at a time since you'll be sending out two images (one for each eye).

So what you're likely to see are games that are going to look like decent last gen experiences at the most. Maybe better if the game's scope is limited so as to allow for higher fidelity visuals.

But VR isn't really about making things looks real, it's more about presence. You can have a game that looks like it was made on the ps1 but if the tech is done well you will feel like you're actually in that world. And that's the point, to make you feel like you're in a virtual reality and fooling the brain into thinking its in a completely different place.

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)