googleplex
Member
Isn't the problem with VR that you have to output for 2 different screens?
But isn't each 'screen' in the occulus 960x1080p?
Yes.
Isn't the problem with VR that you have to output for 2 different screens?
But isn't each 'screen' in the occulus 960x1080p?
Augmented reality through glasses is the thing that sells PlayStation Move. Partner with EA to integrate it in to Battlefront for Lightsaber duels. 2 people wearing glasses wielding a move controller, as the floor falls away around them to reveal lava? While they duel in a living room. Outstanding.
But isn't each 'screen' in the occulus 960x1080p?
http://reald.com/Content/Files/Stereoscopic3DHowitWorks.pdfBut isn't each 'screen' in the occulus 960x1080p?
I don't see virtual reality taking off on consoles. Just like 3d in the past generation the consoles are far too weak for vr.
Sure they might be able to render a game on the rift but at what cost I can already imagine how poor the iq would be and the insanely low res it would have to render at.
If Sony reveals a VR device, you won't be playing Killzone on it so it's irrelevant whether the PS4 is powerful enough for existing titles. VR-titles will be like Kinect-titles last gen. Most games that weren't designed with VR in mind simply won't deliver a good experience, particularly fast-paced games like Killzone.
If Sony reveals a VR device, you won't be playing Killzone on it so it's irrelevant whether the PS4 is powerful enough for existing titles. VR-titles will be like Kinect-titles last gen. Most games that weren't designed with VR in mind simply won't deliver a good experience, particularly fast-paced games like Killzone.
Who says the indy community wouldn't embrace though?
VR doesn't need head tracking and shit like that anyway, at least not yet. I would prefer a simple solution, because in the end we will still be using the controllers so I would rather control the camera with them. Just get me that 3D display VR headset, that can be used for movies also.
I don't see how game developers couldn't just develop a VR mode with stripped down effects, in order to keep resolution and framerate high.
The immersion factor will likely trump the extra effects, so it's a worthwhile tradeoff.
Again, I disagree.You need to output 2 screens. Not the same thing. And given the screens are just a few inches from your retina the resolution and framerates need to be much higher than your TV that's 12 feet away.
Can you explain why first-person games aren't well-suited to first-person play? Do we need to design games to be played from a second-person perspective or something?If Sony reveals a VR device, you won't be playing Killzone on it so it's irrelevant whether the PS4 is powerful enough for existing titles. VR-titles will be like Kinect-titles last gen. Most games that weren't designed with VR in mind simply won't deliver a good experience, particularly fast-paced games like Killzone.
Again, I disagree.
Can you explain why first-person games aren't well-suited to first-person play? Do we need to design games to be played from a second-person perspective or something?
I don't see how game developers couldn't just develop a VR mode with stripped down effects, in order to keep resolution and framerate high.
The immersion factor will likely trump the extra effects, so it's a worthwhile tradeoff.
Oh, so the problem is not the perspective, but rather the unnaturally fast gameplay? Well, good. Unnaturally fast gameplay is unnatural.There's nothing wrong with first-person play, the problem is fast-paced fps gameplay being particularly strenuous, if not nauseating in VR. I mean...Cliffy even says so and he's an investor.
thatsthejoke.gifThere's not a smartphone currently on the Market that's anywhere close to as powerful as the ps4.
Isn't there a ps3 game that already uses the move and a vr headset ??
Its a weird game about moving a hand around, don't remembr the name.
I think that game you're thinking of is Datura?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGJJ8HQu9LI
Plastic, the team behind Datura was asked to implement VR to the game by sony using the HMZ-T1, move, a camera, and a ps3... this was for GDC 2012.
http://vimeo.com/41350330
Also, Datura was made with the help of Sony Santa Monica, which Thuway recently said on Twitter was also working with VR for their upcoming ps4 title. When I first read that tweet, the first thing that came to mind was Datura, so I'm really curious what they might have in store, if this whole thing does pan out.
https://twitter.com/thuway/statuses/418667366981984256
As someone that has both the Oculus Rift and a Sony HMZ-T2 with TrackIR I can tell you that the HMZ-T2 is definitely not made for VR. The tunnel effect is pretty large and is like watching a 60" screen at 10 feet or so in a dark room.
Correct me if I'm wrong but, i thought the HMZ-T2 wasn't really made for VR from the start
No, it's made to seem like you're watching a 60" screen from 10' away in a dark room.
Not to debunk this but I have a set of HMZ-T2's (the latest HMD from Sony released in 2013) because I mess around with HMD's. I can tell you that the HMZ's are good for short movies and thats about it. I've been horribly unimpressed with the T2's because the tunneling effect is pretty dramatic as well as they are really not comfortable even while lying down with the aftermarket head pad supports. The Oculus rift is fundamentally different given it is only 1 large panel vs 2 720p oleds and even with the drastic resolution difference the immersion you get in the Oculus is a considerable upgrade over the HMZ-T2's and the T2's were 6 times the price of the Rift.
Unless Sony's rumored new HMD is dramatically different from their HMZ product I don't see how it would be better than the Oculus for games. If it is anything like their HMZ it will likely just be 1080p upgrade and likely very expensive.
edit: I should mention I used the T2 for VR game testing. Head tracking was just as good as the Oculus and was accomplished by TrackIR by attaching a TrackIR sensor to the HMZ, but the tunneling effect was to much.
Again, I disagree.
Can you explain why first-person games aren't well-suited to first-person play? Do we need to design games to be played from a second-person perspective or something?
This is what Palmer Luckey also insists and I agree. Cut down on the extra effects and make it a priority to hit the highest possible framerate without it looking dull.
Sony could do it like the HMZs - they can do low volume runs to seed the technology and use the halo effect to benefit their brand. Like with 3D, they can get their first parties to support too, then see what happens.
Sony are doing it... but unlikely to be announced tomorrow. I imagine Vita TV launches outside Japan alongside some steaming services - perhaps Gakai - more in keeping with the CES type thing.
Sure, but that's true of all VR implementations. I was wondering specifically about the claim that Killzone wasn't well suited to VR, and apparently it's because things happen so fast, it's likely to induce motion sickness in the user, which I suppose makes some sense.Optimally, first person games should be designed to produce a sensation of 1:1 true to life scale (orthostereoscopy). This will require a number of physical variables to be taken into account (e.g. an individual's IPD, lens type if there are choices, distance from lens, etc...), and a shit ton of software variables to be scaled to match them. Given the abysmal and embarrassing efforts put into 3D support (particularly on consoles), it seems likely developers are going to opt for the bare minimum, which will just be producing stereoscopic output at a high FOV and feeding it to the warping algorithm. It will look comically unnatural and crappy to a lot of people, but that's how they rolled with 3D and there's no reason to believe VR will be any different. This would be what people are referring to and looking to avoid when they talk about "ground up" VR design and caution against slapping support on existing TV focused titles.
As has already been pointed out to you in this very thread, the HMZ was never intended for VR use, so why even bring it up... again.
I honestly don't believe you should be worrying this much in the comparison of past designs for a product that wasn't its intended purpose. The fact that they are able to achieve proper head tracking on a device that was not built with that purpose in mind, should instill great confidence in a VR headset with those capabilities built in from the get go. You couple that with the fact that Sony is one of the top manufactures in displays, they have the makings of a home run here, now all they have to do is execute on price.
Maybe it'll project directly onto the retina, like this prototype from Avegant.
http://reviews.cnet.com/wearable-tech/avegant-virtual-retinal-display/4505-34900_7-35828603.html
Article says they're also supposed to show up at CES.
Wow that's so damn cool, but it seems like something that won't come out within the next five years
Maybe it'll project directly onto the retina, like this prototype from Avegant.
http://reviews.cnet.com/wearable-tech/avegant-virtual-retinal-display/4505-34900_7-35828603.html
Article says they're also supposed to show up at CES.
Dunno, apparently they're crowd funding soon and want to release something by end of the year. More impressions
I've only just read up on this VRD but it seems way better than any LED/OLED VR display solution.
I apologize I didn't keep up with this thread and necropost to correct the people that incorrectly think that the HMZ is only designed for movies.
If you had been keeping up with the HMZ news you would see my point is valid. Sony displayed a prototype of the HMZ-T2 in 2012 with head tracking specifically for VR, then demoed it again in mid 2013 running an exploratory game using the Unity engine. Sony is also specifically using the words Virtual Reality in their reports showing their new HMZ-T3W which is basically a T2 in a newer and lighter case but with the same 720p dual OLED displays. The fact of the matter is, is if Sony is going to continue with the HMZ line as VR then they need to fundamentally change the design to work around the inherent tunneling effect they are going to get by using small 0.7-inch 720p OLED screens. Also OLED's are expensive and not many people are going to lay down $2000 for a head mounted movie viewer with head tracking. The fact of the matter is that the Rift was a game changer and in order to keep up other manufacturers are going to have to mimic the technology in order to produce a relatively low cost, high resolution, panoramic or even borderless head mounted display. I'm not saying that Sony isn't doing this, what I am saying is that they keep charging up the VR wall with the HMZ movie viewer line of products based around .7in OLED's.
Link? If you could also provide a link of them saying that the PSVR will be a carbon copy of the HMZ displays, that'd be great. <3Sony is also specifically using the words Virtual Reality in their reports showing their new HMZ-T3W which is basically a T2 in a newer and lighter case but with the same 720p dual OLED displays.
Given that Sony isn't run by the intellectually challenged, it seems likely they'll do precisely that. I'm not sure why you're so certain they won't.The fact of the matter is, is if Sony is going to continue with the HMZ line as VR's then they need to fundamentally change the design to work around the inherent tunneling effect they are going to get by using small 0.7-inch 720p OLED screens.
Maybe, maybe not. What you seem to be forgetting/ignoring is unlike Oculus, Sony won't be building their headset with scavenged cellphone parts. Oculus aren't using a single display because it's a superior solution; they're using a single display because unlike Sony, they can't custom build displays of the appropriate size and shape. Oculus start with a cellphone display and use lenses to trick your eyes in to thinking you're looking at two displays. Sony can just use two displays, eliminating the need for the lenses, meaning the displays can be closer to your eyes. This in turn improves comfort and it means the display doesn't need to be as large to fill your field of view.The fact of the matter is that the Rift was a game changer and in order to keep up other manufacturers are going to have to mimic the technology in order to produce a relatively low cost, high resolution, panoramic or even borderless head mounted display.
Well let's see here, am I correct in that you don't believe sony can make a capable product because the HMZ line as it currently stands is lacking as a VR device because it has a tunneling effect? All the while knowing that its intended purpose is that of simulating a theater screen? If that is the case, I don't understand is why you assume they will wholesale copy that device for something that is being dedicated to gaming? Of course they will take some design cues from all the work they have done with HMD's in the past, but that is just common sense. Also, I never said anything about OLEDs...I have no clue what they will end up using, but I have confidence in them providing a very solid performing display... at this point tho we don't even have anything official, so its all kinda moot. It is fun discussing the possibilities and ramifications tho lol..
Given that Sony isn't run by the intellectually challenged, it seems likely they'll do precisely that. I'm not sure why you're so certain they won't.
I'm not saying that Sony isn't doing this, what I am saying is that they keep charging up the VR wall with the HMZ movie viewer line of products based around .7in OLED's.
Both of you need to read my post before replying:
I really hope Sony is making a VR headset I really do and if they go away from the 2 OLED's I'm sure it will be awesome. If their rumored VR it is based off of the HMZ line of products using small OLED's I simply don't see how that could match the immersion of the Rift. I've been messing with HMD's for years and there are physical limitations with screens under and inch. Yes Oculus is using repurposed hardware, however what they have done by having a larger screen is to use corrective lenses on a larger display to produce a panoramic near borderless display, this is physically not possible even with corrective lenses on a ~1" OLED display, there simply isn't enough real estate to compensate for eye movement (unless the OLEDs move with your eyes). Additionally by using a larger single display Oculus was able drastically reduce their cost.
Here's exactly what I'm saying. If Sony releases a VR at CES that is similar to the rift or fundamentally different than the HMZ's I'm going to go nuts but if it is based off of the HMZ and 2 OLED's its probably going to be less immersive than the rift.
Actually depending on the size of the screen and optics, using two OLED screens would be a MUCH better solution to VR then the rift.
InfinitEye Uses two screen and it has vastly superior FOV then the rift.
Actually depending on the size of the screen and optics, using two OLED screens would be a MUCH better solution to VR then the rift.
InfinitEye Uses two screen and it has vastly superior FOV then the rift.
The open space on the sides aren't distracting??
http://vrwiki.wikispaces.com/InfinitEye+V2#Development-Hardware
How is everyone expecting this thing to connect to the PS4? Direct connect like Vita remote play?
Sony really shouldn't have skimped on their wireless card.. the Xbox One is actually more suited to this.
Of course we all know MS is coming with augmented reality in 1-2 years... can Sony compete... Did they think far enough ahead?