Oculus Rift CV1 to Release In May?


"It turns out there’s a magic number right around 300 pixels per inch, that when you hold something around to 10 to 12 inches away from your eyes, is the limit of the human retina to differentiate the pixels."

Whatever they say, we know they are classifying a really high resolution. It is a bit of marketing, but by their wording, my 1080p monitor is a Retina-like display and I don't think that's how they intended it.
 
It's going to be big at basically every consumer event coming in the next year. I don't think people realize we're about to get a ton of awesome VR news in 2 days. Fox seems like they're going to bring their A game.
It's already begun:
OdVDDFQ.jpg

Oculus CES booth
 
Looking forward to it. I've been waiting for this for years.
 
Does it make sense just to wait on CV1 instead of buying the current version?

I'd say so.. most likely will have more features and better specs.

The whole purpose of the DKS is feedback and development leading up to the CV1.

Anyways Im hyped, I hope we get some good news soon.
 
I'd say so.. most likely will have more features and better specs.

The whole purpose of the DKS is feedback and development leading up to the CV1.

Anyways Im hyped, I hope we get some good news soon.
GDC is for Palmer to convince gamers and developers that they have a good product.

CES is for Facebook to prove that they have a company that was worth investing in.

I have a feeling we'll see something new or at least hear something new.
 
It's going to be big at basically every consumer event coming in the next year. I don't think people realize we're about to get a ton of awesome VR news in 2 days. Fox seems like they're going to bring their A game.
Bigtime, i seriously hope they have a new kit on show, its probably too early for any demo of Nimble VR or 13th Lab, hopefully though.
 
If Kreijlooc is right about it being decades before we even get to the fidelity of my 1080p monitor, I really don't see VR movies and whatnot taking off at all. It might be cool at first, but I think a lot of people are going to be disappointed by how bad the fidelity is and if you cant tell them that it will improve drastically in the near future, then that's a lot of wind out of the sails if you ask me. People might put up with it in the beginning, but when 4k TV's are more popular and affordable, I think its a really hard sell to ask people to put on goggles to watch movies in SD-like fidelity instead.

I'm still interested in VR, particularly for sim racing, but I kind of agree with the doubters that its not going to be big now. I'm also super bummed because of it.... :(
 
If Kreijlooc is right about it being decades before we even get to the fidelity of my 1080p monitor, I really don't see VR movies and whatnot taking off at all. It might be cool at first, but I think a lot of people are going to be disappointed by how bad the fidelity is and if you cant tell them that it will improve drastically in the near future, then that's a lot of wind out of the sails if you ask me. People might put up with it in the beginning, but when 4k TV's are more popular and affordable, I think its a really hard sell to ask people to put on goggles to watch movies in SD-like fidelity instead.

I'm still interested in VR, particularly for sim racing, but I kind of agree with the doubters that its not going to be big now. I'm also super bummed because of it.... :(
CV1 is supposed to be higher than 1080p. Let's hope for at least 2k
 
Ikr. They just have to announce something big or it would be pointless
You need a big booth to show the Crescent Bay-style demos. At Oculus Connect they were encouraging people to walk around a fairly large square area. They probably have several set up to reduce waiting times, so that requires a huge space. I wouldn't interpret a large booth to mean they have anything to announce. (However, they always have something interesting to say, so I look forward to the various interviews.)
 
UGhhhhh, I'm so freaking ready for the CV to come out, so I hope this is true. I bought the DK1, and it blew me away and that's with the motion sickness and shitty resolution included. I remember walking into the train station on Half Life 2, and just looking around the room amazed at how real it all felt... I embrace the VR future, it's a dream come true. This is what I've been waiting for since I first encountered virtual reality. It's gonna be off the hook.
 
You need a big booth to show the Crescent Bay-style demos. At Oculus Connect they were encouraging people to walk around a fairly large square area. They probably have several set up to reduce waiting times, so that requires a huge space. I wouldn't interpret a large booth to mean they have anything to announce. (However, they always have something interesting to say, so I look forward to the various interviews.)
Let me be hopeful
 
If Kreijlooc is right about it being decades before we even get to the fidelity of my 1080p monitor, I really don't see VR movies and whatnot taking off at all. It might be cool at first, but I think a lot of people are going to be disappointed by how bad the fidelity is and if you cant tell them that it will improve drastically in the near future, then that's a lot of wind out of the sails if you ask me. People might put up with it in the beginning, but when 4k TV's are more popular and affordable, I think its a really hard sell to ask people to put on goggles to watch movies in SD-like fidelity instead.

I'm still interested in VR, particularly for sim racing, but I kind of agree with the doubters that its not going to be big now. I'm also super bummed because of it.... :(

The Wii sold insane numbers of systems and was 480p. You overestimate the desire of Average Joe Consumer to have pristing perfect visuals.
 
Well yea, 1440p/2.5k will obviously be minimum resolution for CV1, I expect.

I'm just thinking beyond that.

I'm replying to this post but also to previous ones where you said you're "bummed" that VR might not be where we would like it to be.

Have you tried the DK2?

With the right content and setup, it could already be viable for consumers. The biggest problem is the setup and the inconsistency of the experience.

I've demoed Assetto Corsa on my rig to many, many non-gamers (even my mom, who even dislikes - read: ignores - sci-fi movies, lol) and almost everyone was so positive about it to ask curious things (other than "where can I buy this") like "is 3D in movies like this"?

All this to say that if CV1 mitigates current problems while making the experience immediately accessible, it will be a huge, huge success.

As an enthusiast though, I agree with what you said: it's at the same time depressing that we can't even reach the clarity of a simple 1080p monitor yet.

But the benefits of VR are so huge that even at this stage (I'm talking DK2, since it's the only VR device we have right now; GearVR notwithstanding given it's impossibility to display complex contents) it's something magical.

Excited to see what CES brings. And I'm doubly excited since I'm not only a consumer but I'm investing in VR and the release of a CV1 is crucial for my future business endeavour(s).
 
The Wii sold insane numbers of systems and was 480p. You overestimate the desire of Average Joe Consumer to have pristing perfect visuals.
The key difference there is a low resolution Wii game on a TV doesn't give you motion sickness or vision discomfort (at least, not to a significant extent for most people). A low resolution (and for VR, 1080p is low resolution) VR game can cause motion sickness and vision discomfort for many people. It isn't the sole cause of these things, but it contributes. As metareferential says, with the right content, 1080p can be made to work, but it is borderline. One more step up in resolution is what it needs, even for Average Joe. The enthusiast will still want more, but that should be the baseline to aim for.
 
The Wii sold insane numbers of systems and was 480p. You overestimate the desire of Average Joe Consumer to have pristing perfect visuals.
And in 5 years when 4k TV sets are commonplace? Is SD-like fidelity still going to be acceptable?

And resolution in VR is important for several reasons. When you're actually *in* the game, being able to see stuff clearly, especially in the distance, takes on a new importance.

As an enthusiast though, I agree with what you said: it's at the same time depressing that we can't even reach the clarity of a simple 1080p monitor yet.
Yea, I've tried a DK2. But I think you are misunderstanding what I'm bummed about. Its not about not having the fidelity of a 1080p monitor now. Its about not being able to have that within the next 20 years! I can fully accept 1440p or whatever right now and have it look subpar(compared to what I'm used to), but if that's not gonna rapidly improve, I wouldn't say the future is very bright for VR in terms of global appeal and casual usage. I was always under the impression that things were going to improve quite quickly, so I'd been very bullish on VR's chances, because even if the first 2-3 years only sees VR as a niche device, I could always respond to the complaints about how it looks with, "It'll look a lot better really soon, don't worry." If I cant say that, I can do nothing but admit, "Yea, VR doesn't look very good, sorry...".
 
Yea, I've tried a DK2. But I think you are misunderstanding what I'm bummed about. Its not about not having the fidelity of a 1080p monitor now. Its about not being able to have that within the next 20 years! I can fully accept 1440p or whatever right now and have it look subpar(compared to what I'm used to), but if that's not gonna rapidly improve, I wouldn't say the future is very bright for VR in terms of global appeal and casual usage. I was always under the impression that things were going to improve quite quickly, so I'd been very bullish on VR's chances, because even if the first 2-3 years only sees VR as a niche device, I could always respond to the complaints about how it looks with, "It'll look a lot better really soon, don't worry." If I cant say that, I can do nothing but admit, "Yea, VR doesn't look very good, sorry...".

I don't think we'll need 20 years to reach that.

Games built for VR from the ground up on adequate hardware will be mind-blowing. And progress is achieved not only through hardware innovation but (mostly?) through software and clever programming/developing.

Let's not forget that VR has no set specs right now, and the sdk is far (very far) from being easy to use.

Still, we've seen great leaps forward from the software side of things (think about all the tools that are now VR-ready, for example) and I'm sure that a couple hardware iteration from now we'll all look back at our DK2 and laugh.

Moreover, games like AC, Elite and others will be playable on cheap, very cheap hardware in a very short time (allowing them to run on advanced VR devices without compromising fidelity).
 
The key difference there is a low resolution Wii game on a TV doesn't give you motion sickness or vision discomfort (at least, not to a significant extent for most people).
Nor will a low resolution VR system. Resolution makes absolutely no difference whatsoever on VR sickness or discomfort. All low resolution does is make it hard to see details (same as doing any activity, VR or not, in low res).

As for movies, DVDs still outsell Blu-Rays. As much as I hate it, normal people do not care about visual quality for their movies.

here's me wishing
but realistically May sounds too soon
Agreed - in November Oculus said it would be "many months". May is not "many months" from November.
 
They were also in the previous CES with the dev kit so... :P

Yea, and two months later they got bought by Facebook. This is gotta be a big show for them. Rolling into 2015 with expectations through the roof and just having help ship GearVR, they could come out and show something new like the final design of the CV1 but who knows.

The faster they get the CV1 out, the sooner they can get going on the next iteration. Something we're gonna see once the first consumer version comes out is rapid iteration with evolving technology.
 
I don't think we'll need 20 years to reach that.
I want to be sceptical too, but Kreijlooc typically knows what he's talking about when it comes to VR.

Games built for VR from the ground up on adequate hardware will be mind-blowing. And progress is achieved not only through hardware innovation but (mostly?) through software and clever programming/developing.

Let's not forget that VR has no set specs right now, and the sdk is far (very far) from being easy to use.

Still, we've seen great leaps forward from the software side of things (think about all the tools that are now VR-ready, for example) and I'm sure that a couple hardware iteration from now we'll all look back at our DK2 and laugh.

Moreover, games like AC, Elite and others will be playable on cheap, very cheap hardware in a very short time (allowing them to run on advanced VR devices without compromising fidelity).
I know VR will be awesome. You're preaching to the choir here. I'm in Day 1. But getting that across to the entire world? I think VR will absolutely blow people away when they try it, but if I don't have a good response to, "Why does this look so bad?", I feel that's a major hurdle to overcome, especially when people's standards are about to go up even further with affordable 4K TV's on the horizon. Again, I'm thinking more how VR is going to come across to people in 3-5 years than it will now. Will people really want to watch a movie or a sports event in the equivalent of 480p when they have a 4K television in the living room?
 
Nor will a low resolution VR system. Resolution makes absolutely no difference whatsoever on VR sickness or discomfort. All low resolution does is make it hard to see details (same as doing any activity, VR or not, in low res).
I completely disagree. Resolution is one of many contributing factors that affect motion sickness, and it is quite clearly related to vision discomfort. A lower resolution causes you to strain your eyes more to resolve distant detail, and it means that there is only a strong sense of stereo depth at shorter distances. This is one of the reasons why VR demos with cockpit views tend to reduce nausea - there is a lot of close detail that is less affected by the low resolution and provide a greater sense of depth. A low res also means that you can see individual pixels, and in the case of DK2, the subpixels too - meaning that there are times where immersion can break down, and you stop seeing the display as your world and start seeing it as a display panel, potentially upsetting your spatial awareness. A low resolution also produces more severe aliasing, which is a bigger, more distracting problem with stereoscopic 3D.

Some of these things can be described of low resolutions on standard displays too, however the effect is quite different. Playing a Wii shows noticeable resolution problems, but it's not a big deal as you are still very much experiencing the real world around you. Wearing a DK2 is like making the entire world a lower fidelity than the Wii game you were staring at, and there is no escape. You can't look away, unless you close your eyes. It's a very different thing, and can be very uncomfortable. And if you're not comfortable, your brain can decide that you must be ill, and therefore nausea kicks in.
 
If Kreijlooc is right about it being decades before we even get to the fidelity of my 1080p monitor, I really don't see VR movies and whatnot taking off at all. It might be cool at first, but I think a lot of people are going to be disappointed by how bad the fidelity is and if you cant tell them that it will improve drastically in the near future, then that's a lot of wind out of the sails if you ask me. People might put up with it in the beginning, but when 4k TV's are more popular and affordable, I think its a really hard sell to ask people to put on goggles to watch movies in SD-like fidelity instead.

I'm still interested in VR, particularly for sim racing, but I kind of agree with the doubters that its not going to be big now. I'm also super bummed because of it.... :(

You put that much stock in consuming traditional 2D in VR? It wouldn't even put that feature on the back of the box. If it's success hinges on being a TV replacement, let's just wrap it up now. People en masse aren't going to sit in their living room with something on their heads to watch a movie.... unless it's been produced for VR. :)

I just don't think it's going to be burdened by technical comparisons to 2D. Resolution matters a lot of course, but there are many, many more serious hurdles to get over before VR is widely accepted. Resolution isn't going to be it's killer. Unique, compelling VR software will make or break it.
 
Oculus was so full of shit when they said they had no motion control solution. This is awesome.

They didn't have a motion control solution until now. They acquired Nibble fairly recently. But even this solution is incomplete. There still needs to be some type of controller with buttons added to the mix IMO.
 
I dont mind goggles for VR. What I do mind are headphones though. I. despise. headphones(in ear/on ear/over ear)
Surround headphones arent necessary are they if you have a 5.1 system?
 
I dont mind goggles for VR. What I do mind are headphones though. I. despise. headphones(in ear/on ear/over ear)
Surround headphones arent necessary are they if you have a 5.1 system?

You can use whatever you want so long as the sound eventually reaches your ears. It works better with headphones, though.
 
And in 5 years when 4k TV sets are commonplace? Is SD-like fidelity still going to be acceptable?

And resolution in VR is important for several reasons. When you're actually *in* the game, being able to see stuff clearly, especially in the distance, takes on a new importance.


Yea, I've tried a DK2. But I think you are misunderstanding what I'm bummed about. Its not about not having the fidelity of a 1080p monitor now. Its about not being able to have that within the next 20 years! I can fully accept 1440p or whatever right now and have it look subpar(compared to what I'm used to), but if that's not gonna rapidly improve, I wouldn't say the future is very bright for VR in terms of global appeal and casual usage. I was always under the impression that things were going to improve quite quickly, so I'd been very bullish on VR's chances, because even if the first 2-3 years only sees VR as a niche device, I could always respond to the complaints about how it looks with, "It'll look a lot better really soon, don't worry." If I cant say that, I can do nothing but admit, "Yea, VR doesn't look very good, sorry...".


How quickly did phones jump in resolution once Iphone 4 was announced? Before that they'd been stagnant for years at 'good enough' resolutions. and OR is still just a phone screen strapped to a couple of cheap lenses. If/when this takes off and has big investment behind it from multiple companies, who knows what technology will evolve to help with resolution?

- higher resolution screens (an extension of what we have now)
- diffusion technology to reduce screen door (projectors used to use this kind of thing quite effectively)
- maybe multiple small panels rather tha one big one?
- micro displays projecting into the eye?
- laser shit?

Yes, there will need to be a huge step forward in tech, but from impressions it sounds like CV1 is already incredibly good so I don't think there is reason to be too pessimistic.
 
Oculus was so full of shit when they said they had no motion control solution. This is awesome.
I wouldn't expect this as their solution for gaming motion controls, though. This seems far more useful for menu/UI navigation and whatnot. Which should still be really cool, but it doesn't solve the issue that gamers are interested in.

How quickly did phones jump in resolution once Iphone 4 was announced? Before that they'd been stagnant for years at 'good enough' resolutions. and OR is still just a phone screen strapped to a couple of cheap lenses. If/when this takes off and has big investment behind it from multiple companies, who knows what technology will evolve to help with resolution?

- higher resolution screens (an extension of what we have now)
- diffusion technology to reduce screen door (projectors used to use this kind of thing quite effectively)
- maybe multiple small panels rather tha one big one?
- micro displays projecting into the eye?
- laser shit?

Yes, there will need to be a huge step forward in tech, but from impressions it sounds like CV1 is already incredibly good so I don't think there is reason to be too pessimistic.
Well basically, I don't see VR being 'mainstream' for general media use before it gets moderately high fidelity and we get something like foveated rendering for dealing with the 'power issue' for gaming. Until then, I think its something that will still be damn cool, but not necessarily something everybody wants to have or use regularly. I don't necessarily expect VR to explode in the 1-2 years following its commercial release, so I'm worried about it being a case of big name content creation and potential R&D seeing the 'not huge' market for it yet and knowing that the major advances are still far off and simply not investing to produce this accelerated timeline.

I dunno, I would say this places more expectations on VR becoming a big deal quicker than anticipated.
 
I thought at some point we would have lasers projecting straight into our eyes. That would resolve the screen door issues and allow foveated rendering.
 
I thought at some point we would have lasers projecting straight into our eyes. That would resolve the screen door issues and allow foveated rendering.
Well its not lasers, but Magic Leap is basically all about projecting the image directly onto your retina. We haven't seen it yet, but it is exciting if it works.

I'm not sure any of this 'allows' foveated rendering, though. The eye tracking is the easy part.
 
Oculus launched an app so people can reserve their spots for CresentBay demos.

At least Oculus stuck to their specs. Hopeful for CV1 reveal?
Well its not lasers, but Magic Leap is basically all about projecting the image directly onto your retina. We haven't seen it yet, but it is exciting if it works.

I'm not sure any of this 'allows' foveated rendering, though. The eye tracking is the easy part.

According to the people who got hands on with it...you can't turn your head or eyes in order for it to work. Sounds bad.
 
Just wondering, if announcement from Oculus there would be, when can we expect it to be ?

Do they hold some kind of press event, or something like that ?
 
Top Bottom