Support NeoGAF

[Minsc]

Tunnel vision anyone? These look like you'll have permanent binocular view.

I wonder how this form factor is supposed to work. Comfort yes, but visibility? Not so much.

 

[mckmas8808]

The consumer version currently has a tentative price of $1699 listed on their website. Which makes sense for the "PCMR" market, considering how much they trip over themselves to pay for GPU's or 27" monitors.

 

[THE DUCK]

The PSVR2 is true HDR. You can verify that yourself playing flat HDR games in cinema mode and watching HDR videos on Youtube.

In flat games that let you adjust the HDR brightness, like the Assassin's Creed series, it only starts clipping the detail at 1000 nits, with 900 nits being the optimal setting for those games. There is also a notable difference turning it on and off, both in brightness and highlight detail.

Comparing flat games in cinema mode is better to see the HDR doing its job, since we can't turn it off in VR games to see how they would look.

HDR videos look very striking in the PSVR2, with very saturated colors and good brightness.

I thought it was measured at only 250-300 nits........
Still better than other headsets but not where tvs are at. Perhaps the closeness of the panel makes the perceived brightness increase?

 

[Dane]

 

[LordCBH]

They need to change the name. I keep reading it as shitfall.

 

[nemiroff]

The specs aren't particularly exceptional for 2023, it's powered by the Quest 1 SOC (circa 2018 technology) and a Micro OLED HMD isn't novel (Sony made one 12+ years ago for 3D movies and games, the HMZ-T1). It's more the lack of competition in specialty VR components (i.e. displays, lenses) and the incredibly high margins all the company's charge cause the market is so niche.

Once it became clear VR wasn't going to rocket the moon in terms of sales, many of the big companies effectively abandoned VR investment (e.g. Samsung and LG), which has led to 1 or 2 companies (e.g. BOE) now owning the supply market. Older headsets were both cutting edge and affordable primarily because Samsung was still investing heavily into VR R&D. They were happy to take orders at reasonable prices cause they expected the market to take off like cellphones, with lots of competition from other suppliers. They GTFO when it didn't and LG never even entered (despite having some insane working prototypes). This led to B-tier suppliers like BOE, who were 5-10 years behind Samsung/LG in display technology, being able to charge exorbitant prices for inferior products. This is why VR displays have been advancing at a snails pace compared to what everyone expected (8 years later they've barely doubled the resolution of each axis, nearly all of them are 800:1 LCD's, and we just got the first pseudo-HDR headset a few weeks ago).

To be fair I only skimmed through it but I don't think I read much I agree with in your post.. and I've been deep into vr for ages.

Palmer Lucky brought us a giant leap closer to consumer VR with the DK1. And in the big picture this happened just a few moments ago. Since then VR has transformed from a torture device to a fully functional experience. Even proper standards have been established. Resolution, displays, lens configuration, tracking and form factor today is literally nothing like the DK1 just a few years ago.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

Yeah this design is not properly researched.

This isn't the final version.

Serious question, what kinda res/power we need until vr looks clear like if we were watching it on a tv screen? Finally got my psvr 2 only tried Kayak and switchback so far and kinda dissappointed. Thought with the new tech and ps5 processing would be enough.

Probably tech that costs $3000 minimum. We aren't there yet.

Once it became clear VR wasn't going to rocket the moon in terms of sales, many of the big companies effectively abandoned VR investment (e.g. Samsung and LG),

Who do you think are making those Chinese LCDs? Sony and LG are supply for the display for Apples headset according to a recent report as well.

 

[nemiroff]

Tunnel vision anyone? These look like you'll have permanent binocular view.

I wonder how this form factor is supposed to work. Comfort yes, but visibility? Not so much.

You serious..? VR headset doesn't work like binoculars.. I mean, display and lens configuration technology has come a long way. I dont think anyone sane would release a headset like this with much less than the usual FOV of ~95-105 degrees in 2023.

 

[Delt31]

Serious question, what kinda res/power we need until vr looks clear like if we were watching it on a tv screen? Finally got my psvr 2 only tried Kayak and switchback so far and kinda dissappointed. Thought with the new tech and ps5 processing would be enough.

Right now with a 4090 and aero VR headset. I just got an aero and with the setup, it’s so clear it’s insane. Problem is aero 2k, 4090 1700 = expensive. But it’s possible.

I have a PSVR2 as well and it’s hard to go back to it although it’s good for the cost and exclusive games.

 

[Minsc]

You serious..? VR headset doesn't work like binoculars.. I mean, display and lens configuration technology has come a long way. I dont think anyone sane would release a headset like this with much less than the usual FOV of ~95-105 degrees in 2023.

Seems I'm not the only one wondering this though? Like a dozen other people said the same thing. Is there another VR set using the same form factor with specs released to show the FOV?

 

[mckmas8808]

The good things about these types of heafe is that we can see VR tech improving and relatively quickly. The downside of course is price, however, this all will ultimately lead to better specs for low-end and mid-tier headsets.

Hopefully within 5 years we will have an ideal lens/screen combination, whether that be Pancake/microLED or some other new variation. Either way, it bolds well for VR.....just need engaging high-end software. That is going to be where we see true innovation, but publishers have to put their A-Teams in the game.

The thing that's frustrating is that we already have innovation in the VR gaming space. It's just some people are waiting for the holodeck before jumping in. I wish people would understand that VR needs to go through it's Atari -> NES -> SNES -> PSone -> PS2 -> Xbox 360 -> PS4 - > PS5 stages.

Some are wanting their first VR hardware purchase to be the equivalent of the PS4 and we just aren't there yet. But gaming during the NES days was fun too.

 

[coffinbirth]

I read shitfall lol

Same.
Clicked through to see if I have mild dyslexia, did not disappoint.

 

[Fess]

This isn't the final version.

I don’t understand how they’ve stayed on it long enough to create a physical unit, should’ve never left the drawing board, it’s like the whole design team is 20 year olds with perfect eyes. How do anyone with glasses wear this? Looks like it’s two tubes resting directly on the eye sockets from these pics.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

I don’t understand how they’ve stayed on it long enough to create a physical unit, should’ve never left the drawing board, it’s like the whole design team is 20 year olds with perfect eyes. How do anyone with glasses wear this? Looks like it’s two tubes resting directly on the eye sockets from these pics.

I think part of the problem is the lack of promotional images showing the back/inside of the headset as well as anything showing scale.

 

[Fess]

I think part of the problem is the lack of promotional images showing the back/inside of the headset as well as anything showing scale.

Yeah okay maybe you’re right. They could have easily replacable prescription lenses too or something I guess. At first sight I feel extremely left out though I can tell you that, no VR without glasses here.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

Yeah okay maybe you’re right. They could have easily replacable prescription lenses too or something I guess. At first sight I feel extremely left out though I can tell you that, no VR without glasses here.

I mean I assume they aren't giving us all angles of the headset to know for sure, because the hardware isn't finalized yet.

But if the final product is made to be narrow and no room for glasses that would alienate a lot of people. But Panasonic usually has a good research team about stuff like that as well as their subs by relation, but you never know.

 

[kvltus lvlzvs]

NGL every time my eyes pass over this thread I think it has something to do with Shin megami tensei, and after a third of a second I realize that it is a vr thread. Just popped in to say that.

 

[Haint]

To be fair I only skimmed through it but I don't think I read much I agree with in your post.. and I've been deep into vr for ages.

Palmer Lucky brought us a giant leap closer to consumer VR with the DK1. And in the big picture this happened just a few moments ago. Since then VR has transformed from a torture device to a fully functional experience. Even proper standards have been established. Resolution, displays, lens configuration, tracking and form factor today is literally nothing like the DK1 just a few years ago.

Not really anything to agree or disagree with, just a summary of facts. If you've been following VR for ages, you no doubt watched the long form Carmack and Abrash Keynotes from 6+ years ago where they confidently spoke of having 4K+ panels per eye "within a year or two" (i.e. like 5 years ago). You should be aware of all the prototype panels Samsung and LG unveiled at display conferences, like the 5K x 4K OLED they demoed 5 years ago (that was supposedly easily scalable to 10K x 9K), or Samsung's 4K 120Hz OLED's (also from 5 years ago). It's clear display progress came to a screeching halt when Samsung noped out of the market after their 1400x1600 panel's in the Odyssey, Vive Pro, and Quest 1 failed to achieve sufficient volume or a positive enough outlook/forecast. LG never even bothered entering. The DK1 is literally a decade old, and built buy a kid in his garage. The Vive and CV1 are over 7 years old and are in many ways superior to modern headsets, with superior audio solutions, comfort, and display quality (excepting resolution). VR has been stagnant (if not actively regressing) for over half a decade.

 

[nemiroff]

Not really anything to agree or disagree with, just a summary of facts. If you've been following VR for ages, you no doubt watched the long form Carmack and Abrash Keynotes from 6+ years ago where they confidently spoke of having 4K+ panels per eye "within a year or two" (i.e. like 5 years ago). You should be aware of all the prototype panels Samsung and LG unveiled at display conferences, like the 5K x 4K OLED they demoed 5 years ago (that was supposedly easily scalable to 10K x 9K), or Samsung's 4K 120Hz OLED's (also from 5 years ago). It's clear display progress came to a screeching halt when Samsung noped out of the market after their 1400x1600 panel's in the Odyssey, Vive Pro, and Quest 1 failed to achieve sufficient volume or a positive enough outlook/forecast. LG never even bothered entering. The DK1 is literally a decade old, and built buy a kid in his garage. The Vive and CV1 are over 7 years old and are in many ways superior to modern headsets, with superior audio solutions, comfort, and display quality (excepting resolution). VR has been stagnant (if not actively regressing) for over half a decade.

Once again I struggle.. I mean, I'm an owner of all of those headsets. If you think the Vive's and the CV1's image quality is superior to f.ex. the Reverb G2 then I don't know what the hell I'm supposed to tell you.. Samsung failed the DK2 with their ass pentile AMOLED displays with their atrocious sub-pixel res (and funnily enough everyone had to mod their HUDs in Elite to green to be able to read) , no wonder why they was more or less denied out of the industry.

 

[nemiroff]

Seems I'm not the only one wondering this though? Like a dozen other people said the same thing. Is there another VR set using the same form factor with specs released to show the FOV?

My question to you is; Is there a technical reason other than that it kinda looks like binoculars which made you come to the conclusion that it will have "tunnel vision"? My question doubles as both genuine and rhetorical.

 

[01011001]

we are getting closer to that desired swimming goggles form factor!

 

[Haint]

Once again I have no contextual idea what you're talking about or what your actual point is. I mean, I'm an owner of all of those headsets if you think the Vive and CV1 is superior to f.ex. the Reverb G2, then I don't know what the fuck I'm supposed to tell you. I mean, I love the occulusion-less nature of the lighthouses, but come on now, that's crazy talk right there. Samsung failed the DK2 with their ass pentile OLED displays, no wonder why they was more or less denied out of the industry.

I was just pointing out why modern headsets are so expensive, and why the specs haven't really kept pace with the price or amount of time that has elapsed. Which you said you disagreed with for some reason, so I was providing further examples.

 

[Minsc]

My question to you is; Is there a technical reason other than that it kinda looks like binoculars which made you come to the conclusion that it will have "tunnel vision"? My question doubles as both genuine and rhetorical.

I'm mostly just curious what FOV you could actually get in this form factor, and the lack of the info made me suspicious. Now I'm sure you can arrange lenses to make it appear pretty darn big in theory, but if it were that easy why are so many VR sets that are so much larger sporting low/average FOVs? I'm just suspicious something with this small a footprint could compete there, but I'd like to see someone who knows more link me to a headset in a similar form factor with a FOV of like 130 or more. I guess even 110-120 is fine, but obviously no one is happy with those numbers as the end goal, everyone wants more.

 

[reinking]

I read shitfall lol

I can’t read it as anything else no matter how hard I try.

 

[AREYOUOKAY?]

 

[Barakov]

 

[StreetsofBeige]

The thing that's frustrating is that we already have innovation in the VR gaming space. It's just some people are waiting for the holodeck before jumping in. I wish people would understand that VR needs to go through it's Atari -> NES -> SNES -> PSone -> PS2 -> Xbox 360 -> PS4 - > PS5 stages.

Some are wanting their first VR hardware purchase to be the equivalent of the PS4 and we just aren't there yet. But gaming during the NES days was fun too.

The big difference between VR vs console generations is that a console generation has a giant set of games from some shitty bargain priced games of Monopoly and Game of Life to AAA Hall of Fame franchises like Mario or Zelda someone can sink 30 hours into, the console cost can be anywhere from $200-500 pending the generation, and once you buy a console that's all you need to get going playing games. Lower risk. And easy to understand and pay for entertainment.

VR is $500 right off the bat on top of a PS5, PC VR headsets are $500+, the games are mostly indie quality, skewed heavy to first person view, has almost no recognizable popular franchises, and many involve motion moving which everyone has moved on from the Wii, Kinect, Move days from 2006-2012.

Why would anyone jump in given this? Right off the bat, the prices arent even going down. If anything they are going up. I dont know how many active PS5 and PC gamers there are, but there's only so many that will jump in. And that even excludes all the Nintendo, MS and mobile gamers who dont have a VR set who can get teased to buy one. The overall pool of active gamers across all platforms is probably like 500M or whatever.

At least with a console (even looking back at the early Atari/NES years), the price was cheap, games got much better, was easy to use, and they werent an additional purchase on top of hardware needed in the first place. VR right now is kind of like Sega CD, MS Kinect or Sony Move. Different kinds of games. Some people like it, some dont. But the games themselves need starting hardware to run in the first place, and the games arent as good as the traditional library of games.

The key features right now vs flat screen gaming is 360 camera views, VR adds back the motion movement from 10 years ago for some games (I've seen those games you slash a club or sword in an arena, and I played Creed where you pretend boxing), and it's enclosed around your eyes so your view doesn't get muddied playing a game on a TV where the corner of your eyes also see the pictures hanging on a wall or the glass of juice on the coffee table in front of you.

Some gamers think these features are solid to pay money and try them out. Thats fine and fair. But most people wont see VR worth doing.

To me, it's not even about the specs as all these VR makers are making all this super fancy ultra res VR sets, with improving form factor. It's the games and price.

 

[Haint]

The PSVR2 is true HDR. You can verify that yourself playing flat HDR games in cinema mode and watching HDR videos on Youtube.

In flat games that let you adjust the HDR brightness, like the Assassin's Creed series, it only starts clipping the detail at 1000 nits, with 900 nits being the optimal setting for those games. There is also a notable difference turning it on and off, both in brightness and highlight detail.

Comparing flat games in cinema mode is better to see the HDR doing its job, since we can't turn it off in VR games to see how they would look.

HDR videos look very striking in the PSVR2, with very saturated colors and good brightness.

You're referencing artificial tonemapping here, not panel capabilities. Actual measurements I've seen place PSVR2's panels somewhere between 250 and 300 nits, and just subjectively, they're nowhere close to LG's mainstream C Series OLED's, which are themselves only 700-800 nits. Hence why I said pseudo-HDR.

 

[nemiroff]

I was just pointing out why modern headsets are so expensive, and why the specs haven't really kept pace with the price or amount of time that has elapsed. Which you said you disagreed with for some reason, so I was providing further examples.

Got it. And I was pointing out that they kinda do. The visual clarity in a Reverb G2 is far superior to the ones you mentioned. Inside out tracking could be seen as a step back in some ways, but then again the lighthouses are ironically much more expensive..

I'm mostly just curious what FOV you could actually get in this form factor, and the lack of the info made me suspicious. Now I'm sure you can arrange lenses to make it appear pretty darn big in theory, but if it were that easy why are so many VR sets that are so much larger sporting low/average FOVs? I'm just suspicious something with this small a footprint could compete there, but I'd like to see someone who knows more link me to a headset in a similar form factor with a FOV of like 130 or more. I guess even 110-120 is fine, but obviously no one is happy with those numbers as the end goal, everyone wants more.

It's kinda complicated.. I mean, you need to take into account that all types of lenses and configurations have their pros and cons. Pancake lenses is actually nothing new, it's just that we're at a place on the timeline now where the technology and display configuration can make for a better balanced total package, including a much smaller form factor.

Article snip (fresnel = more FOV in theory, but pancake lenses' distortion-less image sort of makes up for it):

The difference between pancakes lenses and current fresnel lenses found on VR headsets - VRX by VR Expert

In this article you will learn about the most important difference between pancakes lenses and current fresnel lenses found on vr headsets.

vrx.vr-expert.com

The Fresnel optics features a wide field of view compared to Pancake but is prone to chromatic aberrations (ghosting/overlapping colors). Furthermore, software calibration taking up processing power must account for the Fresnel lens known as ‘pincushion distortion’. This distortion is similar to an image being stretched out in all four corners. The software then must artificially stretch the image further to normalize what is viewed by the wearer, all in real-time.



Pancake, on the other hand, works by folding many lenses together in a curve, bouncing light within the glass or plastic. In effect, slimming the distance needed between the wearer’s eyes and the display. This opens VR HMDs to be thinner and lighter, while it also frees up processing power, as the distortion problem for the Pancake is not present. Lastly, the Pancake design does not have the chromatic aberration present like the Fresnel.

The downside to the Pancake optics, compared to Fresnel, stems from Pancake’s bouncing of light within the lens itself, resulting in low light efficiency. In short, it dims the perceived image for the wearer and is why John C.C. Fan, the founder of Kopin, pointed out that the P95 Pancake lens works well with ‘high-brightness micro displays’. Furthermore, the problem of ghosting is also a scourge for the Pancake lens.

In summary, Pancake features more benefits than disadvantages compared to Fresnel, both in perceived image quality and the significantly slimmer and lighter form factor that Pancake enables.

 

[Haint]

Got it. And I was pointing out that they kinda do. The visual clarity in a Reverb G2 is far superior to the ones you mentioned. Inside out tracking could be seen as a step back in some ways, but then again the lighthouses are ironically much more expensive..

As I said, excepting the resolution. However the contrast, colors, calibration quality, mura (or rather lack thereof), and brightness were all exceptional, particularly on the Vive.

 

[Minsc]

Got it. And I was pointing out that they kinda do. The visual clarity in a Reverb G2 is far superior to the ones you mentioned. Inside out tracking could be seen as a step back in some ways, but then again the lighthouses are ironically much more expensive..



It's kinda complicated.. I mean, you need to take into account that all types of lenses and configurations have their pros and cons. Pancake lenses is actually nothing new, it's just that we're at a place on the timeline now where the technology and display configuration can make for a better balanced total package, including a much smaller form factor.

Article snip (fresnel = more FOV in theory, but pancake lenses' distortion-less image sort of makes up for it):

The difference between pancakes lenses and current fresnel lenses found on VR headsets - VRX by VR Expert

In this article you will learn about the most important difference between pancakes lenses and current fresnel lenses found on vr headsets.

vrx.vr-expert.com

The Fresnel optics features a wide field of view compared to Pancake but is prone to chromatic aberrations (ghosting/overlapping colors). Furthermore, software calibration taking up processing power must account for the Fresnel lens known as ‘pincushion distortion’. This distortion is similar to an image being stretched out in all four corners. The software then must artificially stretch the image further to normalize what is viewed by the wearer, all in real-time.



Pancake, on the other hand, works by folding many lenses together in a curve, bouncing light within the glass or plastic. In effect, slimming the distance needed between the wearer’s eyes and the display. This opens VR HMDs to be thinner and lighter, while it also frees up processing power, as the distortion problem for the Pancake is not present. Lastly, the Pancake design does not have the chromatic aberration present like the Fresnel.

The downside to the Pancake optics, compared to Fresnel, stems from Pancake’s bouncing of light within the lens itself, resulting in low light efficiency. In short, it dims the perceived image for the wearer and is why John C.C. Fan, the founder of Kopin, pointed out that the P95 Pancake lens works well with ‘high-brightness micro displays’. Furthermore, the problem of ghosting is also a scourge for the Pancake lens.

In summary, Pancake features more benefits than disadvantages compared to Fresnel, both in perceived image quality and the significantly slimmer and lighter form factor that Pancake enables.

Right - that's a good summary and thanks - but I guess my original question still stands - what would be the best FOV you could hope for in this form factor? That's what I wanted to know what I clicked this thread. Ideally for a gaming VR headset it'd be nice to have an FOV all the way up to like 200, or whatever real life is (plus it would need to account for if you move your eyes all the way to the left or right can can further the extremities of your FOV at the cost of shortening the reverse side, without moving your head). Then when you put on the headset or glasses or whatever the form factor is, your entire field of vision is recreated in VR.

 

[nemiroff]

As I said, excepting the resolution. However the contrast, colors, calibration quality, mura (or rather lack thereof), and brightness were all exceptional, particularly on the Vive.

I loved my Vive... I agree, it was an exceptionally well balanced headset. Here's a pic of the day I got mine, I remember it well

 

[Techies]

Another VR headset that only 100 people will care about.

 

[mckmas8808]

The big difference between VR vs console generations is that a console generation has a giant set of games from some shitty bargain priced games of Monopoly and Game of Life to AAA Hall of Fame franchises like Mario or Zelda someone can sink 30 hours into, the console cost can be anywhere from $200-500 pending the generation, and once you buy a console that's all you need to get going playing games. Lower risk. And easy to understand and pay for entertainment.

VR is $500 right off the bat on top of a PS5, PC VR headsets are $500+, the games are mostly indie quality, skewed heavy to first person view, has almost no recognizable popular franchises, and many involve motion moving which everyone has moved on from the Wii, Kinect, Move days from 2006-2012.

Why would anyone jump in given this? Right off the bat, the prices arent even going down. If anything they are going up. I dont know how many active PS5 and PC gamers there are, but there's only so many that will jump in. And that even excludes all the Nintendo, MS and mobile gamers who dont have a VR set who can get teased to buy one. The overall pool of active gamers across all platforms is probably like 500M or whatever.

At least with a console (even looking back at the early Atari/NES years), the price was cheap, games got much better, was easy to use, and they werent an additional purchase on top of hardware needed in the first place. VR right now is kind of like Sega CD, MS Kinect or Sony Move. Different kinds of games. Some people like it, some dont. But the games themselves need starting hardware to run in the first place, and the games arent as good as the traditional library of games.

The key features right now vs flat screen gaming is 360 camera views, VR adds back the motion movement from 10 years ago for some games (I've seen those games you slash a club or sword in an arena, and I played Creed where you pretend boxing), and it's enclosed around your eyes so your view doesn't get muddied playing a game on a TV where the corner of your eyes also see the pictures hanging on a wall or the glass of juice on the coffee table in front of you.

Some gamers think these features are solid to pay money and try them out. Thats fine and fair. But most people wont see VR worth doing.

To me, it's not even about the specs as all these VR makers are making all this super fancy ultra res VR sets, with improving form factor. It's the games and price.

To answer the bolded........to have fun with video games in a way they haven't before. But the reasons you gave will make it niche. And to me that's okay, as long as things are progressing. But yes, the games and the price are the top 2 things that will need to be solved if VR wants to continue growing in a real way.

 

[Buggy Loop]

To answer the bolded........to have fun with video games in a way they haven't before. But the reasons you gave will make it niche. And to me that's okay, as long as things are progressing. But yes, the games and the price are the top 2 things that will need to be solved if VR wants to continue growing in a real way.

To add to this, Half Life Alyx was single down the best gaming experience I ever got. That game alone was worth the price of admission.

I really don’t care that it’s niche, it’s not a popularity contest, if peoples have criterias that stop them from buying, fine. It’ll only get better. But as an early adopter since oculus DK1, I’m happy with what VR is nowadays. 20M Quest 2 headsets, I mean, “niche” stigma is chipping away, for the FIRST mainstream VR headset it’s incredible.

 

[Lunarorbit]

Not sure about the name shiftall. Looks way too like Shitfall