iceatcs
Junior Member
You can have IR gloves, belt and bands on the hip, ankles and arms might be enough.
-
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
You can have IR gloves, belt and bands on the hip, ankles and arms might be enough.
E3 has so much floor space.
VR needs lots of floor space.
It's hard not to notice these things. I also feel the same thing about retail and in particular Best Buy. Walking into a store with a VR section as large and kempt as the Magnolia section would be a nice 'welcome to the future' moment.
We should be able to get pretty close when foveated rendering hits. Even without huge panel resolution increases, being able to focus rendering power to supersample at your focus point should help a lot.
Zalusithix
Member
OK, so gloves, a couple bands on each arm and leg, some torso markers, something on the foot... You're pretty much describing a full body suit minus the connecting bits between. Then you'll have to plug in some basic measurements so the skeleton can be reconstructed properly. Not worth the effort to trick the mind for comparatively little payoff.
iceatcs
Junior Member
Yep no need body suit, just bands, belt and gloves are good enough for price and everyone different body size..
We suppose discuss a full body tracking likely coming in the future, not how it work.
So I'm just can't see there will only stick controllers for a long time (10 years or so). Additional control will be coming in the future, likely it will be a full body or fingers tracking.
No... how about 1 year. 4k headsets will arrive in 2017.
PSVR official shots of all the hardware including the back of the processing unit.
http://www.giantbomb.com/playstation-vr/3000-71/images/
http://www.giantbomb.com/playstation-vr/3000-71/images/
Does it have a fan?
iceatcs
Junior Member
Zalusithix
Member
Oh, I'm sure it's beautiful. I'm also sure it's damn near impossible to render anything worthwhile at 2x 4k @ 90hz with anything but multiple extremely expensive GPUs. It'll also require two video cables to the headset unless they're going to be the first to market with Displayport 1.4 and make use of DSC. (37.62Gb/s bandwidth needed - above what HDMI / Displayport can handle. Compression will be needed.)
There's far more realistic target resolutions than 2x 4k for the near term successors to this gen. Ones that aren't over 6 times more demanding.
Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
Banned
We're at least 3 years away from seeing that happening. The display technology is already here right now, but we're at least 3 years away from having the PC hardware available in even enthusiasts' homes to run VR games at that resolution with a high enough framerate for people to play comfortably. It might even be as far as 5 years away imo.
Woah, this is the first i've heard of a 4k headset. Any other word on this? I can only imagine it will costs thousands.
cheezcake
Member
4k per eye, so I expect to be able to run practically nothing on it with modern graphics hardware. It's nice that it's already being worked on though.
1. Most people will still see a benefit for traditional media due to the fact that most people don't have home theatres. I have a 100" projector screen... and in some respects, Gear VR (not even proper premium VR) is better as a screen due to the OLED screen and that the image is actually larger on the retina.
2. Premium VR @ 90Hz actually has a boost in the perception of resolution; because our eyes don't take in all the information in every frame/moment at once, but rather blends the information together. Extra resolution information comes in from micro head movements, helping to change the angles and positions of elements on screen. Especially relevant at higher frame rates (and 90Hz is sufficient to achieve this effect). Means that the perceived resolution is higher than the actual screen resolution.
3. Useful for private usage - watching stuff while other people around you are doing something else.
4. Screen tech moving fast. Resolution jumps already double at the bleeding edge... which can reasonably be expected to be incorporated into next gen VR (2-3 years down the track). At that resolution, you get the equivalent of 1280x720 (or better with high motion) for a large screen... not the best, but pretty damn reasonable. 1080p resolution equivalent can be expected in mainstream VR within 5 or so years.
Vive is also crawl, walk, leap, jump, and most importantly whether using roomscale or not, having continuous interaction while turning around. That in combination with even a small amount of walking was just insanely awesome and natural after just using forward facing experiences. Just makes me smile thinking about it. Shame most folks probably won't know it till / if they try it, which is ultimately the point where it seriously became a matter of "we can make the space for it". Now if only I had the money to spare...
Zalusithix
Member
Pretty much. The only way it'll be remotely feasible in the near term is by using foveated rendering - ideally combined with eye tracking. That isn't something that you just plug and play into existing games though. It'll have to be explicitly developed for, or patched in later by devs.
Being optimistic, the earliest I can see it being viable would be the end of 2017, and that's with foveated rendering and without eye tracking. Modern GPUs just aren't going to cut it regardless, and the software aspect isn't there yet. Then there's the price to consider..
mugurumakensei
Member
Why aren't the Vive and Rift on Amazon yet is my only question? I need that Amazon no interest for 6 months.
Zalusithix
Member
So they can keep whatever profit margins exist on them without having a third party taking a cut.
ArtHands
Thinks buying more servers can fix a bad patch
They dont have remaining stocks to sell them on amazon.
Rift is backordered till July and they dont even have any demo unit around for news outlet reviewers.
Dan Ryckert of Giantbomb had been talking about getting a Rift and pretty much every VR thing for a year now (the only visibly excited person at GB for VR it seemed) and out of nowhere on the Bombcast today he suddenly indicated that his plan was to pick them up in the stores thinking they would be available that way. I felt so bad.
Vyse The Legend
Member
When online preorders opened, Oculus said they would also be selling units at retail stores in April.
See above. The Rift should have limited availability in stores in April.
Hmm interesting. I wonder if it will be like a console or Apple product launch with extreme lines.
Vyse The Legend
Member
Oh, it'll be SUPER limited. I'm guessing only a handful of Best Buys will get any, and the ones that do will get 2 at most. If I had a July preorder though, I would be on full alert, though.
Zalusithix
Member
I expect the "limited" aspect will be an understatement to say the least.
Edit:
That said, the Rift will eventually need a decently strong retail store presence. Facebook is targeting a wider audience than simply PC gamers who are used to ordering everything online. By comparison the Vive with Valve's backing and more niche focus needs it less. Of course HTC might have other plans for it, but I don't have much confidence in them.
BackBackPunch
Member
When I first tried the DK2, I was perfectly entertained just sitting in a poorly rendered beach scene with absolutely no interactivity (just looking around while sitting in my chair), simply because of the physical disconnect from reality that it provided.
Honestly, in VR, even "shallow" experiences can be pretty incredible.
Chronospherics
Member
This is my first post in this thread.
I like the cinematic aspect of having my head encapsulated by the screen, moving my head around, etc, but do not personally see the appeal of any of the real-world motion stuff. Although very cool, I don't see many of the mainstream audience wanting to play VR like that on a regular basis. I would love for VR to overtake traditional viewing as a platform for gaming (though I do not feel this will ever happen) but I don't see the full immersion style, with props, standing, moving around, etc being the most appealing platform.
Outside of consumer spectrums, VR has been available for a long time, my University has had VR labs for the past 10 years where you can walk through 3D environments, and having seen VR applied in clinical settings (VR can be useful for treating phobias and such) it seems that marketing the experiences and product has always been the issue, rather than the technology. Some of these setups feature integrated eye-tracking too, which seems absent from consumer VR, and as a passive feature that would enhance the experience vastly, I think that's much more important than being able to physically turn around with the device. I think that's a pretty essential component personally. From what I have read, the FOVE offers that and you can get an 'upgrade' for Occulus DK2 enabling it to support eye tracking. Hopefully this is in next-gen VR as standard.
For now, as I'm not interested in what Vive is offering - I think it's cool from a technological perspective but the games and how you interact with them do not interest me from the perspective of wanting something to play on a regular basis - I'm probably going to pick up the Occulus, or PSVR. Thus far I'm leaning to the PS VR, as it has more games that appeal to me. Battlezone, Driveclub, Rigs etc.
I like the cinematic aspect of having my head encapsulated by the screen, moving my head around, etc, but do not personally see the appeal of any of the real-world motion stuff. Although very cool, I don't see many of the mainstream audience wanting to play VR like that on a regular basis. I would love for VR to overtake traditional viewing as a platform for gaming (though I do not feel this will ever happen) but I don't see the full immersion style, with props, standing, moving around, etc being the most appealing platform.
Outside of consumer spectrums, VR has been available for a long time, my University has had VR labs for the past 10 years where you can walk through 3D environments, and having seen VR applied in clinical settings (VR can be useful for treating phobias and such) it seems that marketing the experiences and product has always been the issue, rather than the technology. Some of these setups feature integrated eye-tracking too, which seems absent from consumer VR, and as a passive feature that would enhance the experience vastly, I think that's much more important than being able to physically turn around with the device. I think that's a pretty essential component personally. From what I have read, the FOVE offers that and you can get an 'upgrade' for Occulus DK2 enabling it to support eye tracking. Hopefully this is in next-gen VR as standard.
For now, as I'm not interested in what Vive is offering - I think it's cool from a technological perspective but the games and how you interact with them do not interest me from the perspective of wanting something to play on a regular basis - I'm probably going to pick up the Occulus, or PSVR. Thus far I'm leaning to the PS VR, as it has more games that appeal to me. Battlezone, Driveclub, Rigs etc.
Zalusithix
Member
Who knows what the "mainstream" will want. They were quite happy with the Wii back in the day, much to the dismay of many "core" gamers who viewed the motion controls as a gimmick. Using that as a benchmark, I'd wager the populace at large is far more interested in intuitive interactive experiences rather than playing more traditional games from a first person perspective.
And no, VR is nothing new. It has been around for ages in various forms. From crap to advanced. From cheap to absurdly expensive. What makes right now special is that everything is at the point where it can be done (mostly) right on a consumer budget at commercial scales. For this to happen all the individual components had to reach a certain performance level while still remaining affordable. The screens, optics, sensors, CPU/GPU, and so on. If any one element wasn't up to snuff the end result would suffer greatly. Heck, we're just barely there as it stands. I've been waiting for this day since I was a kid and we got a Compaq PC with one the first Pentium processors and it had a port on the back for some sort of VR glasses (that we didn't have). Suffice to say it's been a rather long wait lol.
Spoilers for Rift setup and store. Looks like they are going for a visually appealing and inviting setup. The minimum three foot distance for the camera is pretty tough for desktop scenarios. Curious what the tracking volume is at 2 feet because the DK2's was shit.
SliChillax
Member
Only VR I've had so far has been with Google Cardboard and it was amazing (for the money). I won't be buying the first VR headsets though as they are too expensive and have lot's of room for improvement. Looking forward to buying one in two years time.
Croatoan
They/Them A-10 Warthog
Have devs talked about how they are going to accomplish games like skyrim or even linear shooters like cod?
VR looks awesome for flight, car, or mech simulation and neat on rails (in place) experiences but i am not seeing many rpgs or action games with traditional movement.
Are those games only going to work with omnidirectional treadmills? Ive seen multiple people state vr movement with a controller leads to sickness.
VR looks awesome for flight, car, or mech simulation and neat on rails (in place) experiences but i am not seeing many rpgs or action games with traditional movement.
Are those games only going to work with omnidirectional treadmills? Ive seen multiple people state vr movement with a controller leads to sickness.
Looks pretty slick, but I hope there's a more precise IPD calibration guide when you put on the headset.
Chronospherics
Member
I mean they were happy with the Wii but the motion controls didn't amount to much more than a fad right? and a large part of what made the Wii really successful was also that it had some really great games, it was cheap, and had some stellar marketing, features largely independent of the motion feature. If VR platforms were successful yet the games people are playing on them are not in fact focused on VR, can we still consider VR a success? In that regard the Wii isn't the best point of comparison, because Nintendo were selling more than a new concept with the device, but access to their new games, through that new hardware. Move and Kinect, would be better comparisons and in those cases, consumers of XBOX 360s, PS3s, and what people often see as the 'core' demographic, weren't interested in getting up and moving around on a regular basis. Considering at least for PSVR, the periferal will be targeted towards many of the same people that skipped on these other motion input devices, I doubt the Vive has much appeal within this audience. That's my speculation of course, I'm open to the possibility of being wrong.
There are a lot of ideas but it's all very much at the experimental stages. The experimentation is rapid but nothing is set in stone yet.
This talk and this video of Unseen Diplomacy are some good primers on the methods developers are using right now. There is also the Virtuix Omni. It's a stationary thing with a slippery floor that you can walk and run on. All i've heard are bad things. Future ideas could involve something called "redirected walking". You basically trick the person into thinking they are walking through a large environment, but really they are walking around in a much smaller space. Right now this requires a comparatively large space so you won't see it used in consumer products.
You are right. From my experience (and many others) you can't move in VR with a joystick. It makes me sick no matter what. Physically walking in room scale with a Vive doesn't, teleporting doesn't. Teleportation is the most common method being used right now (Budget Cuts for example). I don't see a movement joystick on a controller ever being a good method of locomotion in VR. This assumes we are talking about first person games only.
There are switches on the back no?
EDIT: At least there are on the ones i've played with. Might be DK1 versions.
Compsiox
Banned
You lucky shit. I would go to the steam developer forum since very few people here have one.
Dreams-Visions
Member
unplug them, no?
Movalpolos
Banned
I'll be looking out for one next month since I have to wait till May.
flipswitch
Member
Compsiox
Banned
Nice
I haven't jumped in yet.
You'll decide to when they sell out May n you'll regret it. Jump in
flipswitch
Member
You'll decide to when they sell out May n you'll regret it. Jump in
Nah, I'll just buy one off eBay at 2x the price
.Would an i7 3770k stock be VR ready?
Nah, I'll just buy one off eBay at 2x the price
Would an i7 3770k stock be VR ready?
Here are the results for the Steam VR Performance test from someone who has one of these. That is probably their weakest component, but if you have a 980Ti you are okay.
The Vanishing of Ethan Carter was meant to be coming at some point (they even forgot to disable it in one of their patches). That game looks amazing in 2D, I can barely imagine how good it'd look in VR.
If people are working on foveated rendering, the rendering issue isn't incredibly far fetched. And even if you can't render at that resolution, the pixel density wouldn't hurt at all. Even still, imagine some sort of dynamic resolution system where the VR device you've bought looks as good as your system can handle (much like a monitor), upgrade your system and the VR experience is better. That's the ideal situation in my mind, a VR device that won't need to be upgraded for a long time.
flipswitch
Member
Nice. Thanks for the link. All I need is 980Ti plus the VR device.
For the record I'm running a gtx 670 and stuck in Windows 8.0 because of a bug that won't let me upgrade,
ChronotriggerJM
Member
Anyone have an idea of what we can expect the Oculus Touch controllers to cost?