the-pi-guy
Member
I'm really jealous of Shu.
Pretty cool that he gets all the headsets.
Pretty cool that he gets all the headsets.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The High-end VR Discussion Thread (HTC Vive, Oculus Rift, Playstation VR)
- Thread starter Cartman86
- Start date
That's a good point. An earlier post about combining the two for a best of both worlds on the last page made me think about this. It's design targets and trade offs like all of engineering so I wondered how the Rift would've changed had it been designed for lighthouse tracking.
Oculus targeted the seated/standing experience so as a result left out a front camera to save weight, the cable can be shorter and so thinner and lighter, different fov targets and I'm sure there's more. Not including lens distance adjustments helps with form factor. Each of these has different trade offs, but helped target a minimum size and weight for their intended goals.
serversurfer
Member
I haven't seen this mentioned, but there's a Kickstarter to make prescription lenses for Rift and Vive. They'll either make lenses for you or sell you mounts for lenses you get from your own optician. They're also offering blanks to use as "screen protectors" for those not fortunate enough to need corrective lenses.
I wear contacts myself, but I know we have a lot of bespectacled gaffers. <3
Edit: It's called VR Lens Lab.
I wear contacts myself, but I know we have a lot of bespectacled gaffers. <3
Edit: It's called VR Lens Lab.
Yup, which is why I am planning to keep both, assuming my Rift gets delivered before 2nd gen is out (sigh). From all the reviews out so far, barring a few exceptions, it seems like the Rift may very well be the better headset for seated experiences, with the only additional drawback of not having a camera for finding the keyboard/gamepad, which is a minor annoyance in the grand scheme of things. And both these headsets are filled with minor annoyances anyway.
The big question for me is, how many seated experiences out there do I even care about? Ethan Carter looks like vaseline coated garbage in VR compared to maxed out 4K. Project Cars and Lucky's Tale are the only ones I'm interested in right now. Not really feeling Elite: D or Eve: V. I can't believe they are releasing The Climb before motion controls are out. Perhaps Edge of Nowhere or RAD's next game will keep me interested? Time will tell, but my current outlook for seated VR is quite pessimistic, until something truly mindblowing comes out. On the other hand, even the bite sized games and tech demos of room scale are truly mindblowing. Hopefully Touch would help bridge that gap enough until gen 2 comes out and everyone wholeheartedly hops onto the 360 roomscale bandwagon.
Guardian Monkey
Member
How can you see anything with the camera anyhow. When I turn it on I just see the matrix green color everything.
I dont know. I had a dk2 for a year and have tried a few sit down games for the Vive but it just doesnt work for me.
It helps you reorient quickly if you put something down and need to pick it up again, such as controller, soda etc. And you can have the actual video show up instead of just the outlines. But none of that is going to let you type on a keyboard, for example.
Having said that, it really isn't all that important for a seated experience as it is for room scale. It's just a minor footnote in an A-B comparison.
Just got my Rift.
This also had setup issues that had me worrying slightly.
Most annoying is that it *needs* a HDMI port for some reason, and can't deal with been connected to DP via HDMI adapter.
That also lead to my second issue which was the screen wasn't turning on until I did my voodoo dance (don't know what I did, but it worked in the end).
But my god... that comfort difference. It's everything a VR HMD should be! Even the headphones cradle my ears - it's the most comfortable pair of headphones I've ever used.
Sweet spot is also fantastic - can look left and right and still have legible text.
Between the Oculus god rays and the Vive fresnel artifacts, I actually prefer the god rays. They look like smudges on my glasses, which I'm used to. The Vive fresnel artifacts look like smudges on my glasses... AND they have rings which I'm not used to.
As far as it been uncomfortable with the glasses - I can see where people are coming from. There was a bit of a pinch on my temple as well, but not too bad (my glass frame legs are very flat?). Biggest problem (and it's not really a problem) is that you just have to adjust the way you put the headset on - instead of hooking it around the back of your head first, I put the front over my glasses first, then pull the back part back around my head. It's a little awkward at first, but certainly far preferable to having the HMD come down against my face and glasses hard as I try to pull it around.
But the fact that it wasn't a lot of pressure on my cheeks is the biggest boon to the experience, making it feel a lot more comfortable for me than the Vive or any other headset before it. The back part actually does what it's supposed to by pulling most of the weight there, so the visor can just sit off the face (foam still makes contact though).
I'd suggest that, if you find the Vive to be comfortable than the Rift, then you're doing one or both of them incorrectly - or just have unfortunate glasses.
Overall, my view of the Rift and Vive largely mirror the opinion from Tested.
The parts of the Rift that are present feel fantastic. But in comparison to the Vive, it feels like a half launch. Because it essentially is.
This also had setup issues that had me worrying slightly.
Most annoying is that it *needs* a HDMI port for some reason, and can't deal with been connected to DP via HDMI adapter.
That also lead to my second issue which was the screen wasn't turning on until I did my voodoo dance (don't know what I did, but it worked in the end).
But my god... that comfort difference. It's everything a VR HMD should be! Even the headphones cradle my ears - it's the most comfortable pair of headphones I've ever used.
Sweet spot is also fantastic - can look left and right and still have legible text.
Between the Oculus god rays and the Vive fresnel artifacts, I actually prefer the god rays. They look like smudges on my glasses, which I'm used to. The Vive fresnel artifacts look like smudges on my glasses... AND they have rings which I'm not used to.
As far as it been uncomfortable with the glasses - I can see where people are coming from. There was a bit of a pinch on my temple as well, but not too bad (my glass frame legs are very flat?). Biggest problem (and it's not really a problem) is that you just have to adjust the way you put the headset on - instead of hooking it around the back of your head first, I put the front over my glasses first, then pull the back part back around my head. It's a little awkward at first, but certainly far preferable to having the HMD come down against my face and glasses hard as I try to pull it around.
But the fact that it wasn't a lot of pressure on my cheeks is the biggest boon to the experience, making it feel a lot more comfortable for me than the Vive or any other headset before it. The back part actually does what it's supposed to by pulling most of the weight there, so the visor can just sit off the face (foam still makes contact though).
I'd suggest that, if you find the Vive to be comfortable than the Rift, then you're doing one or both of them incorrectly - or just have unfortunate glasses.
Overall, my view of the Rift and Vive largely mirror the opinion from Tested.
The parts of the Rift that are present feel fantastic. But in comparison to the Vive, it feels like a half launch. Because it essentially is.
People need to justified their 800 dollars purchase.
Weird post, the last page or so is full of people bringing up many positives of the Rift.
Guardian Monkey
Member
Are people questioning that?
Further comments regarding Rift comfort.
When putting it on, make sure you hook the back of it down as far is it'll go (by pulling down on the hole bit thing) - that'll allow the front of the headset to stay off your face as much as possible (although my face is a bit flatter then their facial interface, so my cheeks still get a bit of pressure on them, although not very much).
When putting it on, make sure you hook the back of it down as far is it'll go (by pulling down on the hole bit thing) - that'll allow the front of the headset to stay off your face as much as possible (although my face is a bit flatter then their facial interface, so my cheeks still get a bit of pressure on them, although not very much).
Turin Turambar
Member
He is talking of available, unused free space. If you have to move your couch to play, you didn't have the needed space. Because most normal people aren't going to redistribute their rooms for a new gadget, that's his point.
Zepp Twofist
Member
Yeah, it really seemed like they made some horrible decisions, and then doubled down on them several times. I guess in the end they only pissed off their most loyal fanbase and drove them towards HTC. The fact that the Vive launch didn't go very smooth either might be the only thing saving them somewhat at this point, but I think they fucked themselves over pretty bad.
serversurfer
Member
Similarly, I think that after a few months, "I'll just move the coffee table," will turn in to, "I'll just play Valkyrie."
Also, I noticed Charles clipped the first line of the article's summary "I feel like the conversation for gamers is almost completely about Room Scale, even though most of the best stuff is technically standing only."
I feel the same way, actually. Room scale appears to have a lot of buzz, but it seems like a very vocal minority, and realistically, I don't see it being a primary focus for either devs or users overall. If nothing else, I'd at least expect support for SRO, just because of the number of PSVRs that will be out there. I'd be surprised if more than a small fraction of experiences even have significant support for room scale, much less mandate it.
And ultimately, I think we'll actually find that room scale limits game design and player performance more than it actually enhances it.
Is that what you hope for? Room scale enhances immersion and game design possibilities. We should hope for devs to embrace it. This is forward thinking, we'll get there no matter what. The earlier, the better.
serversurfer
Member
Why would I hope for it to limit game design? Who would that help?
Room scale doesn't "limit game design".
It limits some form of game design while opening up entirely new possibilities that we are only beginning to explore. It also offers hands-down (and up) the most magical experience in games designed for it, and that is one thing basically everyone who tried it can agree on.
VR without room scale also "limits game design" if you want to be reductionist about it. Plenty of highly popular current game design trends simply don't work in VR.
It limits some form of game design while opening up entirely new possibilities that we are only beginning to explore. It also offers hands-down (and up) the most magical experience in games designed for it, and that is one thing basically everyone who tried it can agree on.
VR without room scale also "limits game design" if you want to be reductionist about it. Plenty of highly popular current game design trends simply don't work in VR.
serversurfer
Member
I really am interested in discussing the tech with you, if you're willing. I promise that despite your strong beliefs to the contrary, my only goal here is to teach or learn as appropriate.
I'll grant that being able to wander freely and do whatever you want is magical and transformative. Can you explain how we realize that before we hit warehouse scale? Remind me how much space you have at home? Like 2x3m, I'm guessing? Can you walk the full 3m and still swing your arms freely?
So how does one wander freely when youre physically unable to walk more than two or three paces in any given direction? I know that redirected walking is supposed to be the answer, but nobody has been able to explain how it transforms from clever parlor trick to legitimate solution. Krejlooc linked me to a paper that was supposed to explain it, but it left me with more questions than answers.
So the user was placed in a trackable lab. I think it was 8x5m or something crazy like that, but Im guessing thats not super relevant here. The virtual environment was a long hallway in a museum or something, and the user was meant to zigzag along the hallway, pushing buttons as they go. So the player walks 8m through the lab, and think theyre walking across the hallway towards the first button. When they push it, that tells the system theyre ready to move on to the next portion. They think they need to make a 90º turn to head towards button B, but we trick them in to turning 180º instead, sending them back towards the far end of the lab. Then they do this three more times, and thats that.
So, what happens if they dont push the button? Can they only go back the way they came? Similarly, the paper said the players were specifically instructed not to wander, and instead move directly from goal to goal. As a player, the first thing I do in any game is to go every but where Im supposed to be going, just to see whats there. So will I just break the simulation when I do so? Or will I effectively be prevented from doing so in the first place, since Im almost certain to hit the chaperone if I try to head anywhere but the expected/intended direction?
Ive got more questions, but lets start with this. lol Oh, Id link you to the paper, but I cant find it right now. ><
With regard to room-scale Durante has it right: it opens up gameplay possibilities and experiences that simply aren't possible at this moment in time via any other technique.
And serversurfer also has it right: there are costs here that the majority are probably unlikely to bear.
The answer is free-market economics: get all these VR devices out into people's hands, get devs working on solutions, and see what sticks.
And serversurfer also has it right: there are costs here that the majority are probably unlikely to bear.
The answer is free-market economics: get all these VR devices out into people's hands, get devs working on solutions, and see what sticks.
room scale doesn't solve the 'walk an infinite distance in any direction unencumbered' problem. But neither does being forced to sit and hold a controller. Room scale does give you some freedom of movement and importantly the tracked hands gives you the ability to remove a layer of abstraction from the UI - which should enhance immersion and also make VR more accessible to people less familiar with gaming vocabulary.
Room scale is a red herring personally - 'standing in a 360 degree tracked space with tracked hand controllers' is more realistic for most people, but perhaps less catchy.
Sleeping Lesson
Member
Tried Ethan Carter VR last night. I just can't do gamepad locomotion. I know some can do it no problem, and I'm envious of that because it was the first time I felt nausea with one of these consumer headsets.
bloodydrake
Cool Smoke Luke
they have a few modes you can tweak i believe does disabling turning with gamepad and just having forward acceleration help?
I guess their comfort mode is predetermined teleport locations or something
Sleeping Lesson
Member
Yeah I'm going to give the comfort mode a try. Even moving forward is uncomfortable for me.
Dreams-Visions
Member
Sounds like the Windlands problem. I refunded that game after 15 minutes. Best of luck with that game bro.
For the people that have had you're VIve for a week or more, how do you feel about it? Did the novelty wear off and do you feel like this is going to be a major part of your future going forward? It might be a little to early to be asking this but I always like to get impressions after the "honeymoon" period.
I was having bad motion sickness with Ethan Carter, and I actually picked up some Dramamine and played through it over the weekend. I think that helped me get used to movement in VR. I tried Windlands last night and didn't have any problems. Cockpit based stuff like Project Cars never caused me any problems, but walking around in Ethan Carter was instant motion sickness at first.
Sleeping Lesson
Member
Thanks. I knew I was susceptible from my DK2 days, but I was hoping the higher refresh rate of the consumer headsets would help. I'm staying the hell away from Windlands for now.
I don't think those are mutually exclusive. The novelty of the experiences I have now has indeed worn off, but I'm still confident VR is going to be big for me going forward. It's just a matter of software.
Hm, interesting. I have some ginger ale, but I don't really know if it has helped. I'll look into Dramamine.
Bought it, downloaded it, played it for 5 minutes... refunded it.
Really is just a port... got no time for that, even if it does look gorgeous.
In my experience, analog stick movement (not rotation) is a lot more bearable when you can't move at less-than-full speeds. Digital speed and analog direction, I guess.
Edit: Has anybody implemented a method of rotation where you flick the right analog stick in a direction to "blink rotate"? Like, flick the right stick downwards to do a 180? You could even have an arrow-based visual cue like the movement in Farlands or something.
Edit: Has anybody implemented a method of rotation where you flick the right analog stick in a direction to "blink rotate"? Like, flick the right stick downwards to do a 180? You could even have an arrow-based visual cue like the movement in Farlands or something.
Actually I didn't intend to make them sound like I expected them to be mutually exclusive so that was my fault. I'll edit my post to say "and" instead of "or".
Man, everybody says it looks gorgeous. Am I the only one that thinks it is ugliest VR game out there? I feel nauseated not because of the gamepad movement, but because of how I need to choose between jagfest or blurfest, both borderline headache inducing.
Anything 10 feet away from you looks... coagulated, even at 130%. I don't know. I guess I got too used to the 4k maxed out version. I actually got a refund on the dlc. May be I'll try again when the rift arrives...
Wrestlemania
Banned
Yeah, I thought it looked really blurry as well. Still reasonably impressive, but it didn't feel like the 3D/head tracking made up for the lack of clarity.
Why are you responding to his post with an argument about the impracticalities of redirection? He didn't mention that in his post at all.
From what I can tell he is talking about room-scale as it currently exists on Vive. I agree with you that it has limits, but it's limitations on top of doing something totally new.
Cars have limitations vs. horses. Larger, can't refuel themselves, don't have some ability to self-repair, can't go over as many types of terrain. Would you say "why would I limit what I can do with my transportation?"?
Limitations are great motivators for innovation. I have no doubt we will see some incredible stuff with room scale. If I knew exactly what, I'd be making it instead of posting here.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Epic.
Thanks for sharing
Holy moly! How can that person be so wrong? LOLOL!!!
XiaNaphryz
LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
To be fair, he was right on some things. Particualrly on the whole online harassment and abuse bit.
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-actually-that-offbase-20150227-column.html
Well said. I think his contention is that roomscale cannot replace other types of gaming because of its inherent limitations. The thing is, everyone knows that. Roomscale is but another form of gaming and isn't meant to replace seated or standing modes, just like VR is another new form and not intended to replace traditional gaming on a 2d screen.
It's happening right now. The school districts where I live have had tablet computers for their students for about 3 years now. They're not switching back. As costs come down, it'll eventually be more normalized.
This isn't the point he was making. He was speaking that civic action wasn't going to increase with internet use. I don't think he was arguing against the concept that the internet was going to usher in an era of governing utopia.
Well yes he was on point here, but it doesn't account for crowdsourced successes, like wikipedia itself or things like The Covers Project. This problem sort of rolls into his claim that it's impossible to easily and efficiently search for specific kinds of information. By contrast, by giving everyone a voice, I have been able to listen to some remarkably informed people on incredibly niche topics that I would not have heard otherwise. The internet doesn't spread misinformation, it simply spreads information, good and bad.
Regardless, his central premise is that the internet wouldn't become massively adopted and ubiquitous, and all these are supposed instances of why.
XiaNaphryz
LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
Regardless, it's all a bit off-topic on the subject at hand so let's not dive into the tangent and derail further.
Zalusithix
Member
With SpaceX's release of the photos of their latest landing from the droneship's perspective, I got to thinking that it'd be awesome if they mounted a VR camera setup on the ship. I imagine it'd be quite impressive watching a huge rocket making a landing from the perspective of a (flame proof) person on the barge. From mere speck in the sky, to fiery touchdown, to looming giant in the middle of the sea that was in space mere moments ago.
serversurfer
Member
I appreciate the response, and while having more options is better than having fewer, I'm trying to determine precisely what the new options are, so I can make a better assessment of their overall utility than, "Yay, more!"
How does one handle elevation changes? Isn't a world without ladders, stairs, or hills "limited in design" by definition? When the redirected walker reaches the foot of the Acropolis, how do they make the long, straight climb to the top? You could argue that the standee is similarly unable to climb the steps, but I would point out that they can go up the steps precisely the same way they got to the steps, whether that was teleportation, ratcheting, comfort mode walking, or something new we think up.
Yes, we certainly can offer the same method of ascension to the walker, but that's been my argument from the beginning. If teleportation is no longer stupid and fake but instead a perfectly valid means of escape for a cornered walker, then why exactly did we just make them spend the last two hours zigzagging through every back alley in Athens to get here? Haven't we just reduced our transformative experience in to a tedious gimmick? I just realized I traded my furniture for two hours of jaw-dropping thumb-twiddling, and now I'm having the buyer's remorse. aaaand my buddy who mocked my commitment to the full experience just messaged to say he finally beat the Acropolis boss and it was fucking amazing. He actually peed a little. Le sigh.
Standing room only.
That does bring up another question I had about the paper, which I finally managed to find. They mention they can apply a baseline rotation to the scene which tricks the user to in turning the desired direction even when theyre standing still. Apparently they turn their head and torso to follow the baseline rotation, and their feet turn to follow when the user is walking in place.
I was thinking this might be useful to keep standing users facing towards the camera, but again, Im not really clear on how it works. They mention the user walking in place, which sounds like they need to be actively marching for the trick to work, but they also say the baseline rotation is applied at all times. So does that mean that once your torso has rotated uncomfortably away from your hips, you unconsciously shuffle your feet to get them back underneath you? If we can induce a reasonable amount of rotation this way, it could be a fairly useful technique, not just for keeping the user's hands in view, but even reducing cable twisting.
I initially said that I felt like the enhancements offered to design by the technique would ultimately be outweighed by the limitations it necessarily brings along with it. Since Durates counterargument was that the technique didnt present any limitations to game design, I felt that, Well, what about these ones? was a reasonable enough followup question.
I would argue that its more correct to say that limitations come with something new, and as such, you cant fully consider one without the other. Yes, room scale tracking gives users a novel way to interact with their games, just as the Wiimote did. But while the Wiimote was similarly new and exciting, once the shiny had worn off, people realized all of the experiences it delivered were in fact sorta shallow and samey. Why? Because of the limitations which were part and parcel of this revolutionary tech. It wouldve been awesome if wed only gotten the positives, but thats not how it works. Ditto for Kinect and all of the novel interactions it enabled.
Conversely, Move was widely derided as derivative and useless, and while it certainly spent its early life as a solution in search of a problem, it actually turned out to be quite useful in the long run. While some will to this day argue against it being given any credit whatsoever, the real point is that it can be difficult to properly assess something new even when youre willing to thoroughly examine all aspects of it, so cries of, Lets just focus on the positives, strike me as counterproductive at best.
Technologies are defined in terms of their limits. See above, where I hope to be able to spin users back towards the camera, but I need more information on the limitations of the technique before I can properly decide whether it represents a good solution.
Cars are a terrifically limited form of transportation, if you live in a world without roads. In the case of cars, we were able to develop support technology like roads which helps to compensate for the inherent limitations of wheeled transport. Perhaps well be able to do the same with regard to the limitations of room scale locomotion, but again, Id argue that refusing to examine those limitations will make such an endeavor considerably more difficult.
I agree wholeheartedly. And while I have no doubt that the limitations of room scale locomotion will inspire some truly imaginative stuff, I also have no doubt that the limitations of seated and/or standing play will usher in some amazing innovations in abstracted movement. Then its not difficult for me to imagine a future where experiences designed around any sort of locomotion youre able to abstract without illness will have fewer design restraints than experiences designed around any sort of action youre able to pantomime in your jail cell.
And none of this is to say that I think its bad tech or even a bad idea. If anything, I think you guys are thinking way too small. Warehouse scale would be pretty awesome. Abandoned apartment building scale would be better still. Id pay good money to go to a VR haunted house every year, but trying to build one in the spare bedroom just sounds sorta lame or preposterous, depending on which way you go with it. But hey, maybe Im missing something, which is why Im here trying to discuss it; to get more input, allowing me to form a better opinion.
Rocket's perspective too, please. <3
I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to assess based on people's input here so I'd rather ask you a question. Which methods of movement/locomotion and input have worked the best for you in VR so far?
wanderingprostheyltite
Member
I've got a gut feeling, nay, a sixth sense, that you're not going to get a satisfying answer
VR gotta be Warehouse Wonderland to be compelling apparently.
serversurfer
Member
Not nearly as many as I'd like, which is why I'm trying to learn as much as I can about the current solutions, if that's alright with you.
That's probably because it was merely a setup for a rudimentary ad hominem attack intended to distract from the discussion I've been trying to have.I've got a gut feeling, nay, a sixth sense, that you're not going to get a satisfying answer
Where did I say anything of the sort? I see strong arguments for seated, standing, and room scale VR. I'm not sold on the lasting appeal of half-assed room scale, but I'm still willing to entertain the idea that it's not actually as half-assed as I think.
I'd be even more willing if someone were able explain what makes it so.
I see strong arguments for seated, standing, and room scale VR. I'm not sold on the lasting appeal of half-assed room scale, but I'm still willing to entertain the idea that it's not actually as half-assed as I think.
I'd be even more willing if someone were able explain what makes it so.
Sounds like you'd benefit from another category - redirected walking, large room.
It's easy to come up with fun uses for room scale - standing around a tabletop game with friends (shown as models of Civ leaders thanks to inverse kinematics), virtual pool table. I wouldn't agree that they lack lasting appeal.
You're saying people are thinking too small, but it's just dealing with the realities of players lacking warehouses and battery powered backpack PCs. Lots of room for high end attractions like that to happen, but I'd expect those to be run by dedicated companies.
For your stair climbing example, how would you approach it in your warehouse? As a player, I'd probably just put up with the flat surface while climbing the virtual incline as a constraint of not having a free-moving robotic treadmill to provide satisfactory resistance in all directions. Another option (for an attraction, not a home) would be having players climb over real structures matching those dimensions and just have the visualization in VR. That carries some additional safety requirements of course.