So it's pseudo 3D like in Crysis? Where the background is effectively 2D and you get a little bit of 3D on the weapons?
Oculus Rift - Dev Kit Discussion [Orders Arriving]
- Thread starter Gowans
- Start date
So it's pseudo 3D like in Crysis? Where the background is effectively 2D and you get a little bit of 3D on the weapons?
No, the whole image is processed to be 3D based on the Z buffer. It's fast and avoids problems with postprocessing/HUD, but it introduces problems with alpha blended effects and large depth gradients, among others.
I picked up a hydra about a year ago, I never really use it, unfortunately it was released without great support.
I hope you find it useable, it's not for me though, it might feel ok with the rift, but good luck without having the magnetic tracker being 2 feet from you. :-(
I don't think everyone is avoiding saying anything bad. It feels like large numbers of posts both here and on other forums with first impressions mentions the screen door effect, for instance. Oculus Rift themselves is aware of it. They kept repeatedly mentioning, drawing attention to, and/or apologizing for it during the development period, I thought?
I was literally reading last night about text being unreadable in TF2, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't a comment from videos either.
I have heard mention of motion blur during motion in one or two particular demos, and I think some of those same people have mentioned that it's not the case or not as bad in other demos, so I think there's more research to be done there as well. It may turn out to just be the display response time, yes.
I think part of it may be that people can get motion sickness or disoriented if action is ultra fast, like an instant mouse look or direction change could produce. Slower, gradual movements are what you would see in real life. It's going to be interesting to see how it feels to play the scout in TF2, a class I can't precisely aim the double jump with even WITHOUT a Rift.
I'm going to ask a stupid question, but I forgot if there was a conclusion the last time this was discussed. Does the Rift let you peek around corners left to right, or does it only track head rotation around its central axis, so to speak? I thought some people were suggesting that extra hardware was required to detect lean, but I don't know either way.
Watching that footage is painful, after many hours put into Hawken.
Why are they standing there? Where are the dashes?! fuuuuck
Only tracks rotation, there is no translation (leaning side to side or forward/backward and crouching). They said it's a feature they want to include in the consumer version.
Pretty sure there's no way to detect body leaning vs. tilting the head without extra hardware. To gyro/tilt sensors attached to your head, there is no difference between these two actions.
Currently, leaning is supported to some extent by a head/neck model, i.e. your viewpoint automatically shifts in location when you lean your head, based on the rotation. Try it, it's very unnatural to rotate your head around the Z axis without shifting your viewpoint a bit.
However, as Orbis says, there's no way to distinguish body leaning from head leaning without positional tracking.
I think we'll see people with Move controllers and Oculus Rifts strapped to their head before the week is out. Certainly the month.
You're probably right, since I think there was already some big Hydra + Move head contraption someone was demoing in a video.
Actually, my plan is rather to have the PS Eye strapped to my head (in 120Hz mode). Maybe 3 of them.
You think you'll be able to process the images fast enough for it to not cause motion sickness?
I wonder if translation movements aren't as susceptible to latency as rotational movements...
Process a 320x240 image (they are restricted to that in 120 Hz mode) on a modern, fast PC, with easily visible specifically designed markers placed around me? Easily. My worry is more about the hardware/driver level latency, not at all about processing.
I'm "going against the grain for the hell of it" because I don't think that one guy is a douchenozzle simply for giving his honest impressions and saying that the device has (for you guys already obvious) limitations?
Great, thanks. Why the fuck is everyone so hostile in here.
I don't think everyone is being hostile at all -- I don't believe I was. However, you did call the Rift dev kit "worthless" and a "broken experience", because of a limitation that (a) has been made abundantly clear time and time again, (b) does not impact its use for its primary purpose (testing and developing VR applications), and (c) will be improved in the consumer version. I don't believe you can expect that to go without some very doubtful replies. That doesn't change the resolution being a considerable limitation, even more so in the dev kit, but it also doesn't render it a worthless or broken device. From all we have heard, it seems to perform its primary duty -- aiding VR development -- admirably.
Are you wanting to use them for augmented reality live video display, or just for motion/room tracking? If you're doing live video then yes, getting sub-100-ms latency may be a huge challenge, but let us know if you figure out something awesome!
cyberheater
PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 Xbone PS4 PS4
I'm being hostile. Anyone who disses the Rift will bring on the nightmare...
xn0
Member
So I have an HMZ-T2 system I imported and slapped together a TrackIR tracking system to the visor. It works very well. It gives me responsive stereoscopic 3D with 2 1280x720p resolution panels operating at 120hz. I've been playing Arma 2, Dirt 3, Skyrim, HAWX, Wings of Prey, and Freespace 2 in 720p resolution, stereoscopic 3D, and full and very responsive (X,Y,Z,Yaw,Pitch,Roll) head tracking. The HMZ-T2 is much lighter and smaller than the rather clunky HMZ-T1, and I really enjoy it.
However I am still more excited about my Rift. I understand it is lower resolution than the T2, and I understand that Occulus VR lowered the resolution of the production dev kits to save money. The HMZ's have a pretty large tunneling effect, mainly because it is meant for simulating a theater/cinema experience and not for games/emersion.
I understand that this is a dev kit and I'm willing to overlook the lower resolution, its about emersion, and I'm really looking forward to a stereoscopic 3d experience with a near borderless display. I really hope it changes things for VR, and in the end we end up with a great, widely supported consumer product in the next 3 to 5 years.
I run my HMZ-T2 at 1280x720p in stereoscopic 3D with full head tracking at 60+FPS on every game I've tried it on. I'm running it with 2 6990's in xfire.
Since the day the Rift was announced they made it very very clear this is not a consumer product, and it's blurry as hell. It's fine for people to talk about their experience being inline with those things, but to bitch about it is pretty stupid, given it was always assured to be that.
It's super exciting now it's here, but as just a consumer, I shall be waiting for the one made for consumers, and if I get to try the current one, I'll do so expecting a blurry mess.
It's super exciting now it's here, but as just a consumer, I shall be waiting for the one made for consumers, and if I get to try the current one, I'll do so expecting a blurry mess.
At that resolution, and three of them? Sounds like positional tracking. I thought you might get away with two cameras, but three sounds good too
I bet if you gutted the PSeye it'd be pretty tiny and light too. Could probably concoct a baseball cap or cycle helmet with them mounted on it.
That Abrash blog was interesting. We basically need to avoid comparing it to PC monitors and smartphones, it'll just be pointless. We need to consider the OR devkit as a new device with a low res display, and let it evolve naturally - all elements of the china need to evolve along with the screen - GPU power especially. It could be a long ride, but I remember happily playing on a C64 at super low resolutions, and each time the computer or console got upgraded it was a big jump in experience. I'm kind of looking forward to that.
I don't follow the Rift closely enough to know the spec sheet by heart. I apologize for coming off as abrasive.
You people need to realize that i'm probably the most hyped about actual Virtual Reality out of all of us. I just finally want it done right.
Current impressions are hopeful that it will eventually end up amazing, but they also serve a purpose in letting us know that the current dev unit is not "the promised land", perse.
For you all that might be old knowledge and I need to "get a clue", but it kind of disappointed me. I didn't realize.
These statements are not congruent.
Personally, I don't think I could overstate the importance of VR on our future. But that just makes it more important for me to avail myself of the finer working points of the technology as it emerges from the proverbial tech wilderness.
D
Deleted member 10571
Unconfirmed Member
Questions for the guys actually playing on a Rift:
1. Do you see the screen 'floating' a few inches (or even feet?) before your eyes, with black frames, similar to old 3d glasses, or is the image completely covering your field of vision?
2. Outside of GUIs, do you see the pixels as huge blocks (since the display is so close by the eye) or do you barely notice the low resolution?
3. Is the performance on the 2 smaller screens notably worse or better than on one high-res monitor, or is it basically what you've been used to per game?
Edit: 4 Bonus question: I don't know if there's a demo covering that, but can you imagine actual dizzyness and maybe stomache prickling when it comes to really fast or falling movements, as in real life? Because that would be freaking awesome.
1. Do you see the screen 'floating' a few inches (or even feet?) before your eyes, with black frames, similar to old 3d glasses, or is the image completely covering your field of vision?
2. Outside of GUIs, do you see the pixels as huge blocks (since the display is so close by the eye) or do you barely notice the low resolution?
3. Is the performance on the 2 smaller screens notably worse or better than on one high-res monitor, or is it basically what you've been used to per game?
Edit: 4 Bonus question: I don't know if there's a demo covering that, but can you imagine actual dizzyness and maybe stomache prickling when it comes to really fast or falling movements, as in real life? Because that would be freaking awesome.
No, just for positional tracking. I also bought two wide-FoV lenses for potential AR use, but that's for later.
You shouldn't be though. I don't think the Rift needs "defenders" on the internet, go fight for Vita or Wii U or something
1. It covers up almost your entire field of vision horizontally, but you can notice some black to the left and right of your face if you look for it. It's not distracting though. Vertically, it covers the whole field. It's definitely not at all like floating screen/3d glasses experience.
2. The pixels and especially the space between pixels are absolutely noticeable. That plus the motion blur are the two things I can think of that will definitely need big improvements before this thing is released as a consumer product. It's still very immersive and playable in it's current state, but I'm always aware of the pixels.
3. Nothing I've run has had any problem keeping a steady 60+ FPS framerate at the native resolution, but there's not much available so it's hard to say how much overhead there is right now.
cyberheater
PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 Xbone PS4 PS4
I don't think the Rift needs "defenders" on the internet, go fight for Vita or Wii U or something
I'm sorry. I don't fight lost causes
cyberheater
PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 Xbone PS4 PS4
Thanks for that response. It's answered a lot of question that I had.
The added benefit of low resolution is that you won't need a monster PC to provide the resolution at the required framerate. A medium spec machine will be good enough to keep things running smoothly.
I've got no problem with seeing the inter pixel spacing, otherwise known as screen door. The immersive effect will more then compensate.
GraveHorizon
poop meter feature creep
Are there any direct captures of demo footage? It'd be nice to see the best external view of gameplay so I can cross/separate my eyes and not have to look at an off-center screen.
jacksepticeye
Member
Hyped about VR but not following the Rift? :/ Wut?
Also if you're not following it then don't go throwing false statements about it around like it's fact
I just tried forcing it in the AMD Control Panel and it seems to work. I'm not sure how much of an improvement it is though.
I'm following the Rift, but apparently not closely enough to know that the devkits came with severe downsides.
As has been stated several times now, it's not really "severe." If you weren't throwing around inflammatory words I don't think you'd be getting piled on quite as hard as you are right now.
But honestly, these severe downsides have been mentioned in almost every single interview from the start. By Oculus themselves even.
GraveHorizon
poop meter feature creep
Thanks! I'm gonna GIF-size that to make it small enough for my eyes to look at without hurting.
Not being able to read the UI or see any close details or textures because the screen is so blurry sounds pretty severe to me. But then again, that's one or two people I heard that said that so maybe it's not all that bad.
Piercedveil
Member
So what resolution do you guys think it will take to mostly eliminate the screen door effect? Will 1080p be enough so that it isn't noticable? Obviously higher res/pixel density is the answer, but I wonder if 1080p would be good enough.
MrCunningham
Member
Incredible :O
Forget about games with better graphics delivering us the same experiences we have seen before, this is really next generation stuff right here. But of course it`s going to be a matter of finding alternative control schemes that will do the Rift justice. Using the Razer Hydra controls is already a pretty good starting point.
I could see a first person styled adventure game done like this... Or even a new God Hand
Screen door is not jsut dependen on resolution but also the display fill factor. Which I'm sure they'll consider when selecting the screen. In terms of pixelation/detail, 1080p is still far from ideal. You'd probably need 4k at least to get similar fidelity resolution-wise comapred to a 1080p TV/monitor.
Piercedveil
Member
Yeah, I was going to mention that as well. I know that they were planning to use a smaller screen which obviously would have helped a bit. I'm curious to see what they say about the feedback from people who ordered the dev kit.
cyberheater
PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 Xbone PS4 PS4
As Durante has already mentioned. Resolution has nothing to do with inter pixel spacing. In theory you can have a 1080p device with more screen door then a 720p display.
It's all about the display tech.
Interestingly, Panasonic had a special type of lens on their LCD projectors to reduce the effect of screen door at the expense of the image looking slightly soft.
It would be interesting if the Occulus team tried the same thing.
xn0
Member
Not necessarily. I have a hmz-t2 with a 1280x720p display and it is difficult to pick out individual pixels, however if you really look for them on a white screen you can find them. That being said proper filter technology can "blend" pixels so they cannot be seen.
I see this problem as being primarily about pixel density. The Oculus Rift originally had a 5.6 inch display instead of the 7 inch display they've put into the production dev kits. Both panels had the same resolution meaning that the older (5.6 in) version had higher pixel density given it was smaller and held the same resolution (and we didn't hear anyone complain about blurriness or low resolution from any devs that tested out the old gear). They put the 7in panel in order to bring down cost of the dev kits and I think everyone completely understands that decision.
Remember this is a dev kit, and panels are expensive. In a month Apple will probably be showing their Ipad Mini with a little over 7 inch retina display with likely over 1080p resolution. Give that panel 3 to 5 years to come down in production costs and slap that into the Oculus Rift consumer version it will likely be much better from what that guy was calling a "blurry" and low resolution experience. But the dev kit will likely be perfect for me and other devs to work on new ideas for worlds and games.
Additionally I don't believe 4k or beyond HD resolution is necessary for the Rift to be successful. You can blend pixels of oled displays 2 inches from your face as Sony has done with the HMZ's, the technology is already there. The only thing I see the consumer Rift needs is a display with the perfect amount of pixel density.
I believe that Oculus VR is going to take into account the cost of panels in the Rift as well as the types of system it would take to run it for the consumer versions, maybe even make higher resolution models. Such as for $300 to $500 you get a 1080p version of the Rift that you could run it on most gaming machines, then a $1000 model that has a 4k panel but you need a massive gaming rig to run the games at that resolution in stereoscopic 3d at 60+FPS without tracking or rendering latency.
The thing is, many people can clearly see the pixel structure on those. It's decent enough that some can't, but it's still most definitively there.
And from a pixels per degree, a 1080p screen is going to be half as pixel dense as HMZ. So it's not remotely going to eliminate the problem.
That said, I don't see them going any higher anytime soon. This whole thing has been driven by the mobile market. And I feel we're going to stagnate at 1080p for a while. It's a good marketing number and with such a small FOV on mobile devices, anything higher is just overkill that makes everything else more expensive.
Maybe Valve will be in a position to fabricate something more exotic. Or a big player. But from a stock parts POV, don't see Oculus going above 1080p anytime soon.
Still, that should be a pretty awesome experience where the positives still greatly outweigh the negatives.
Haint
Member
1) There is no screen at a distance effect, but it is obvious you're looking through circular lenses. It's very much like looking through a pair of binoculars.
2) If you have better than 20/20 vision, you will be able to see the individual RGB elements of each pixel and the black spacing will look like a literal screen door/window. If you have 20/20 or lower, you will just see very large pixels and grid structure. It looks very similar to a 27"-32" SD CRT from a close distance.
4) You can make yourself a 50'+ tall giant in the SDK Tuscany demo, but I haven't found any option to fly around or fall. Motion discomfort in general is a very real problem though. Even people who have never had a hint of sickness in their life may find themselves having to bail out in the first five minutes.
That Rift on Ebay is up in the $500 range with a day left to go. Hopefully a dev is buying it.
Edit: It's at $560 now and there's no sign of it slowing down. If it hits $600, I'm going to be jealous. $300 profit would kind of be my "Okay, I guess I'll take the chance that this asshole is going to charge back on me" threshold.
I think we'll see 2560xWhatever screens in the 7" range in the near future thanks to Apple forcing the competitions hand. Whether or not those will be available to Oculus is obviously another matter.
1080p would probably make for easier compatibility with the next-gen consoles if they're trying to form those partnerships. It would also allow them to go back to the 5-6" form factor instead of 7", if they decide that it's necessary.
Edit: It's at $560 now and there's no sign of it slowing down. If it hits $600, I'm going to be jealous. $300 profit would kind of be my "Okay, I guess I'll take the chance that this asshole is going to charge back on me" threshold.
I think we'll see 2560xWhatever screens in the 7" range in the near future thanks to Apple forcing the competitions hand. Whether or not those will be available to Oculus is obviously another matter.
1080p would probably make for easier compatibility with the next-gen consoles if they're trying to form those partnerships. It would also allow them to go back to the 5-6" form factor instead of 7", if they decide that it's necessary.
I knew I should have bit that first day: lol. Could have got my curiosity satisfied and then taken an easy profit. Oh well, hopefully my non-order got a real developer higher in the que.
I think they want to go back to 5 inches for the weight reduction. Although if things do go 2560X resolution in the 7 inch area, that would certainly sway things. I've just been assuming the 7 inch Androids would be 1080p. But Apple does seem to have weird issues about scaling. So maybe they will find a way to do 7 inches at that resolution. Although that's almost 8 inches. Should be interesting to see how it shakes out.
'+' key is supposed to let you fly. I think it's only in one of the Tuscany versions though - not sure which one.
Iced_Eagle
Member
Has there been any talk of the Virtuix Omni at all? It's an Omni directional treadmill with no moving parts that is made for VR. It uses a specially designed low friction surface and comes with special shoes you have to wear. You can walk, run, strafe and jump. It uses Kinect which sends input into the game which is how they can support things like jumping. It's still at the prototype stage, but they're doing a Kickstarter in May to start a push towards getting it released. This + Rift would be awesome.
Video of them playing Skyrim using it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxwknXZ_fR0
Video of them playing Skyrim using it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxwknXZ_fR0