Good race footage of iRacing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qCAfkPjvgCo&hd=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qCAfkPjvgCo&hd=1
Those are not the reports I've been hearing. Kinect 1 latency was quite high and the uses for VR was limited.
But the 2 has by accounts from the various gaming websites that have tested, improved markedly.
Also, while it's not suitable for head tracking, body tracking latency doesn't need to be quite as rigorous. Especially for body parts that are out of sight (i.e. legs).
Also, you can nonetheless find ways of integrating the data from a laggy camera sensor - like the ideas I mentioned involving detecting obstacles and people coming into the user's space.
As far as I can remember, Kinect 2 has indeed improved markedly over its predecessor -- to a minimum of 60 ms end-to-end latency. That's still too much for VR.
IMHO, that depends on whether the body tracking is just mainly for immersion or the direct interaction mechanic. And I guess on the genre as well. But just as I wouldn't want to use Kinect 2 as a primary input in a regular (played on a flat display) action game due to response times, the same is at least as true for VR.It's too much for the head tracking, because it doesn't help on the motion sickness.. But for body-tracking it's fine.
One thing you spoke about during your GDC talk is that the reduction of latency is a huge priority on your end -- you want to get as much latency out of the loop as you can on the hardware side, right?
PL: That is absolutely true. And actually, the stuff that we're doing in the lab right now, we think that we've got latency basically solved. We think that, for the consumer launch, we're going to be able to get latency to the point where it's not even an issue -- it's a completely nonexistent issue, completely beyond the level of human perception.
So it is a really hard thing to solve. We think, on our side, we're going to be able to get the latency down to next to nothing. Where the difficulty is going to remain is with game developers, and how they do buffering in their engines, how they do vsync. How their game engines handle rendering and whether they can stay at 60 or 90 or 120 frames per second. And that's going to be the difficulty. Because if we make perfect hardware, developers still have to make low-latency game loops.
This is great news on the hardware front, since I felt like hardware latency and/or predictive motion in software was still bothering me a bit.
This is great news on the hardware front, since I felt like hardware latency and/or predictive motion in software was still bothering me a bit.
The interview preceded that articular rumour, but this answer is still applicable:Wonderful interview! Surprised there was no questions about Sony's rumored VR headset.
Obviously you got a really good head start, and you've got really good technical chops. But in the end, this is probably going to be one of the first products in this sphere, but there are going to be people following you. What is going to keep you ahead of the curve as competition starts to catch up?
PL: Well, we have the first mover advantage. We've got a really good SDK that makes it really easy for game developers to port games over and make virtual reality games. I think we've got the best team in the industry so far. I think that we're going to continue to make the best hardware in the industry. As long as we can make the best hardware, have the best people, and make the best software for developers, I think that we'll be able to stay in front.
And there will be other people, I'm sure, and in a way that's good, because the more people get into the space the more that legitimizes it. We're not just one crazy company. It shows that there actually is a market and that there are plenty of people that are interested in doing it besides us, and I think that it might mean more content. The more players that there are in this industry, the easier that it will be to make virtual reality content if there are multiple platforms that it can be on.
PL: The HD prototypes that we're showing do have a lower field of view than the dev kit, because we're using the same optics that we used for the dev kit in these prototypes. We just swapped out a panel, we didn't change the optics, or the ergonomics, or anything else.
The field of view for the consumer version, we do plan on increasing. And not just the field of view, but also the clarity of the optics and their sensitivity to adjustment, so that people can have a much more clear view across their entire field of view, rather than having it blurred in the edges.
PL: Optically, as you go past 100 degrees, there are a lot of limits of optics you run into, and it can't just be solved with clever design. They're just the hard limits of refractive optics, and it's very hard to get around those. You can greatly increase the size -- like, if you double the size of the panel, then you can get a little further, but you're not doubling the field of view for doubling the size of the panel. It's diminishing returns. You end up with a huge headset with a slightly improved field of view. There are a few tricks that I am trying that I think that are going to be able to pump the field of view up beyond even where we are right now.
One of the issues with going at a larger field of view -- we're already at a fairly low resolution in terms of pixels per degree -- most of our vision is focused out here [gestures to the sides of his field of view in real life]. Let's say that you wanted to up the field of view to 200 degrees. Now are you cutting the resolution in half, it's actually even worse than that, because you have resolution here that's cut in half, but you're also throwing away all that resolution into the edges where you can't, unfortunately, utilize most of it most of the time. So it's a set of tradeoffs. How much field of view do you have, and what kind of pixels per degree compromise are you trying to make? But, like I said, I have a few tricks.
GAF I received my dev kit and to my sincere disappointment get violent motion sickness. I don't want to sell it on eBay for profit and happy to get it to a legit person for cost plus how you want it shipped. Reach out to me if you are keen
GAF I received my dev kit and to my sincere disappointment get violent motion sickness. I don't want to sell it on eBay for profit and happy to get it to a legit person for cost plus how you want it shipped. Reach out to me if you are keen
Dramamine and more time in the headset. You will more than likely be able to get over the motion sickness if you stick with it.
IMHO, that depends on whether the body tracking is just mainly for immersion or the direct interaction mechanic. And I guess on the genre as well. But just as I wouldn't want to use Kinect 2 as a primary input in a regular (played on a flat display) action game due to response times, the same is at least as true for VR.
I spent all last night reading about this and now I really want one. I'm pretty sure my wife would kill me though.
Is it true that you can watch 3d movies on it? I thought I read that.
I spent all last night reading about this and now I really want one. I'm pretty sure my wife would kill me though.
Is it true that you can watch 3d movies on it? I thought I read that.
I spent all last night reading about this and now I really want one. I'm pretty sure my wife would kill me though.
Is it true that you can watch 3d movies on it? I thought I read that.
I hope it's okay to post our Rift-enabled projects here. I recently created VALKYRIE, a game made in a week as part of the 7-day FPS game jam, and last night I finished adding Rift support.
Gameplay video
VALKYRIE Mac Download
VALKYRIE Windows Download
Non Rift-Enabled Builds
Looks a bit confusing, just by watching the video. But I liked Dungeon Hearts so I will give it a try (without OR)
So are these now shipping relatively soon after making an order? Last time I checked I think it was was a few month delay. I might consider ordering one if it doesn't take too long.
To combat the motion sickness, the first thing I did when we got the Rift was just stand still in the demos and look around. It helped immensely, and the more I used it the better it got for me. I still can't try a racing game, but I'm confident that I will be able to one day.
My friend came by and tried it, and went RIGHT into all the insane demos. He feels no motion sickness ever, and I'm incredibly jealous because he got the best experience right out of the box.
Regarding that developers get four months free access to Unity Pro - does this mean after four months, I'll no longer be able to access the software required to write for the Rift without paying the $1.5k license?
I was hoping to do some neat stuff with this down the road, but by the time I learn what I'm doing, I think much more than four months would have gone by.
I'm really excited for the Oculus Rift tech, but one big downside for me is that I typically play games with my wife watching or playing, so I'd love for there to be a way for my wife to join in. Right now it seems she'd need her own computer AND her own headset. Ideally, there would at some point be a possibility for 2 headsets with the same computer. It would likely require a pretty powerful graphics card and/or significantly dropping the FPS, but it would be better than requiring 2 computers.
So the consumer version with 1080p screen and position tracking will be out around summer 2014.
So the consumer version with 1080p screen and position tracking will be out around summer 2014.
Ordered on 21st August, received today 6th September. Was expecting 6 to 8 weeks. gonna be a long day at work. Any hidden gems, games or demos to look out for. I am rift enabled.
Huh, Palmer actually said that?.
200 years = 2400 months.I see, thank you! (For the record and being silly: 23 months is also "months not years")
Ordered on 21st August, received today 6th September. Was expecting 6 to 8 weeks. gonna be a long day at work. Any hidden gems, games or demos to look out for. I am rift enabled.