• 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)

I don't know what to make of that Beastcast VR discussion. It kind of deflated my hype just a tad but at the same time they talk as if there are no games coming for this on PC when I already have a few lined up for around the launch window.

It's not a huge amount, and a lot are cockpit experiences, but I am excited to play games like Dirt Rally and Elite Dangerous in VR.
 
I don't know what to make of that Beastcast VR discussion. It kind of deflated my hype just a tad but at the same time they talk as if there are no games coming for this on PC when I already have a few lined up for around the launch window.

It's not a huge amount, and a lot are cockpit experiences, but I am excited to play games like Dirt Rally and Elite Dangerous in VR.

People dont actually know how many games are coming out.

I mean for the Oculus launch you have Luckys Tale, Elite, Eve, Chronos, Adr1ft and some others.

And I guess during GDC we will see a few more that will be available for launch/been ported to the Oculus SDK 1.0 and Vive.
 
I don't know what to make of that Beastcast VR discussion. It kind of deflated my hype just a tad but at the same time they talk as if there are no games coming for this on PC when I already have a few lined up for around the launch window.

It's not a huge amount, and a lot are cockpit experiences, but I am excited to play games like Dirt Rally and Elite Dangerous in VR.

To be fair I think Oculus and Valve/HTC have done a pretty poor job of listing games and dates. If you're relying on "what was available to play on show floors" which is probably what the Beastcast guys are, then Oculus and Valve have been showing off largely the same few demos for a while with a couple of new ones as of late. To see the relatively large list of VR games in development and coming quite soon you have to go out of your way and do a bit of digging and searching.
 

mrklaw

MrArseFace
What makes me think the PSVR screen isn't just a regular 1080p screen is the presentation from Unite 2015, where the guy was talking about the PSVR screen having smaller pixels in the middle and larger pixels towards the edges of the screen. That seems pretty custom and maybe more costly to produce?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RNbZpcfAhE
Around the 15:30 mark

He is talking about optics though. My guess would be they are talking about the lenses used - stretching the edges out more to get the desired FoV and leaving the centre image less stretched. The effect would give you more pixels per degree of vision in the center than the edges.

I can't imagine for a second they have an actual panel with variable distance between pixels or variable sized pixels. That'd be a huge thing and we'd have heard more about it I think.
 

mrklaw

MrArseFace
I don't know what to make of that Beastcast VR discussion. It kind of deflated my hype just a tad but at the same time they talk as if there are no games coming for this on PC when I already have a few lined up for around the launch window.

It's not a huge amount, and a lot are cockpit experiences, but I am excited to play games like Dirt Rally and Elite Dangerous in VR.

got a link and timestamp?
 

mrklaw

MrArseFace
http://www.giantbomb.com/podcasts/beastcast/

Don't have an exact time stamp bout judging by my podcast app it starts around or a bit after the 40 minute mark.

Thanks. I'm a bit surprised by the tech comments about screendoor, but I hope that's something I can look past rather than fixate on. More comment about the vive being slightly less flexible to get a clear image - again not enough data on that so I'll be interested to find out for myself soon.

I'm in two minds about the roadmap comment though. Yes, I think HTC and valve in particular have overdosed on controlled tech demos to showcase room scale, but is it their responsibility to produce a roadmap of games coming out? Should HTC and Oculus be considered platform holders like Sony/MS, or are they peripheral makers and it is up to individual developers and publishers to communicate plans and for the gaming press to collate that information to build a picture of what is coming?
 
I know it. He said all three can bring the same gaming experience but tech differences are what bring gameplay differences.

Previewers agree the most fun games are those with real 360 degrees gameplay like Budget Cuts or Hover Junkers. Both share gameplay that is not possible in PSVR (or Rift before Touch lauch).

This is pure speculation on your part.

Move controllers work while occluded. People playing The Deep on PSVR didn't report that the flare gun didn't work while facing away from the camera that I can recall.

I'm not certain how good the dead reckoning is on the move controllers to prevent them from drifting too much while the camera doesn't have line of sight on them so it may not be practical, but it's been a function of the controller since the beginning. The headset is designed to be tracked in 360 degrees scenarios. We really don't know yet whether PSVR will offer much in the way of room scale, and if they'll avoid situations where the player needs to face away from the camera... but the deep sure didn't look like it was set up that way.

We know that Oculus believe people will mostly play touch standing and facing the PC and so are encouraging developers to design games along those lines, but we also know that it supports multiple sensors and can be scaled up to room scale if desired (and most of the games supporting the Vive are going to support the touch).

It's probably more a matter of the practical issues such as appropriate space than it is an issue of hardware capabilities. If people want room scale, I see little reason why they won't get it.

PSVR looks like a great system.

I'm in two minds about the roadmap comment though. Yes, I think HTC and valve in particular have overdosed on controlled tech demos to showcase room scale, but is it their responsibility to produce a roadmap of games coming out? Should HTC and Oculus be considered platform holders like Sony/MS, or are they peripheral makers and it is up to individual developers and publishers to communicate plans and for the gaming press to collate that information to build a picture of what is coming?

Oculus are both a platform holder and a peripheral maker. AFAIK they only provide the software on the Gear VR and Samsung make the actual headset (even if they collaborated on the design). Oculus home is probably going to have at least some unified features between PC and Gear VR. Obviously with the Rift, they are also making the peripheral.

HTC are a peripheral maker. They are making the flagship hardware for Valve's Steam VR platform. Valve believe roomscale is the thing, and so are working with a hardware manufacturer on a headset that does what they VR headsets to do. The Vive is basically specced around Valve's platform. Other headsets will work on that platform. Valve is trying to encourage as many people as possible to support roomscale with two motion controllers both in software and in hardware. The Vive is about establishing what a headset that supports Steam VR should do.

As far as messaging I think what's what we're seeing is lining up with those roles. Valve and Oculus will communicate what their platforms offer. Oculus and HTC will focus on what their hardware can do. HTC talked mostly about the hardware capabilities at CES. Valve will talk mostly about the platform and the games at GDC. Oculus will talk about both interchangeably.
 

Cartman86

Banned
I don't know what to make of that Beastcast VR discussion. It kind of deflated my hype just a tad but at the same time they talk as if there are no games coming for this on PC when I already have a few lined up for around the launch window.

It's not a huge amount, and a lot are cockpit experiences, but I am excited to play games like Dirt Rally and Elite Dangerous in VR.

lol I paused the episode last night right as Vinny said they were going to talk about VR. I figured it wasn't a good time to get my blood boiling which is inevitably what happens in any VR talk on a video game podcast. Leaving for work! Let's do this!
 
This is pure speculation on your part.

Move controllers work while occluded. People playing The Deep on PSVR didn't report that the flare gun didn't work while facing away from the camera that I can recall.

I'm not certain how good the dead reckoning is on the move controllers to prevent them from drifting too much while the camera doesn't have line of sight on them so it may not be practical, but it's been a function of the controller since the beginning. The headset is designed to be tracked in 360 degrees scenarios. We really don't know yet whether PSVR will offer much in the way of room scale, and if they'll avoid situations where the player needs to face away from the camera... but the deep sure didn't look like it was set up that way.

Nail on head, here is a video of a young lady playing "The Deep" at E3 2014 and I'm sure SDK's for PSVR have gotten better since then.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cfnf0Y7nf8E#t=1m1s
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Nail on head, here is a video of a young lady playing "The Deep" at E3 2014 and I'm sure SDK's for PSVR have gotten better since then.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cfnf0Y7nf8E#t=1m1s

Exactly. They work just like the DS4 works now (which has the same sensors in it).

I have no PS Camera, yet I can be in the other room, and the motion controls still work, especially the motion messaging because it sees the center point when you click R3, and has the 'predictive movement' that works very well.

That one little test should be enough to snuff out any debate.
 

KingSnake

The Birthday Skeleton
Motion controls without spacial awareness have some limitations though. If this is what you are talking about in the last posts.
 

TTP

Have a fun! Enjoy!
Well, galvanic vestibular stimulation is not a new concept, the real question is whether they'll be able to make it into a product any time soon.

Well, but there are more of them. A lot more. I don't really see any reason to suspect that PSVR tracking is any better than Oculus tracking. I'd especially not use the word "robust" given that visible-spectrum tracking is inherently affected by outside conditions.

Sure. I'm not implying one headset is better than another with regards to tracking.
 

Seiru

Banned
Thanks. I'm a bit surprised by the tech comments about screendoor, but I hope that's something I can look past rather than fixate on. More comment about the vive being slightly less flexible to get a clear image - again not enough data on that so I'll be interested to find out for myself soon.

I'm in two minds about the roadmap comment though. Yes, I think HTC and valve in particular have overdosed on controlled tech demos to showcase room scale, but is it their responsibility to produce a roadmap of games coming out? Should HTC and Oculus be considered platform holders like Sony/MS, or are they peripheral makers and it is up to individual developers and publishers to communicate plans and for the gaming press to collate that information to build a picture of what is coming?

I wouldn't read too much into the 'less flexible to get a clear image' thing, they said that they didn't adjust the IPD at all when they were playing it.

I wonder if the three HMDs should make it clear how important it is to adjust IPD between users. Maybe Oculus does, we haven't really seen their user interface stuff yet.
 

TTP

Have a fun! Enjoy!
The reason PS uses big colored trackers is because PS camera is a normal camera, i.e. standard sensor with IR block filter, because they wanted those sorts of mixed reality games with PS camera. You cant use infrared LEDs because the camera can't pick them up well, so they have to use light in the visible spectrum which the camera is obviously sensitive to. The reason they are big is because tracking visible light is harder than tracking relatively moderate brightness IR LEDs because in most situations there will be a lot more issues with competing visible light in your room than infrared. Making it bigger let's them identify the markers easier. The Rift doesn't need to sense visible light so they use a sensor with a visible light filter but let's IR pass through. If anything I would say the Rift tracking systen a bit more robust, though both should be adequate. Vive has the best solution.

I get that, but there have to be some shortcomings when using IR LEDs (with IR camera) compared to colored trackers, otherwise why are there so many more trackers on the Rift? You didn't address this point (which is the one I was actually trying to make). Do you have any info on that?
 

mrklaw

MrArseFace
entirely hypothetical now, but I wonder if a wide angle camera in the headset facing forward would have allowed Sony/Oculus to track motion controllers even when occluded from the main camera sensor? Probably only as a fallback but it might have helped.
 

mrklaw

MrArseFace
I wouldn't read too much into the 'less flexible to get a clear image' thing, they said that they didn't adjust the IPD at all when they were playing it.

I wonder if the three HMDs should make it clear how important it is to adjust IPD between users. Maybe Oculus does, we haven't really seen their user interface stuff yet.

we're hopefully a couple of weeks away from the two PC headsets starting to ship. I'm reading too much into everything right now :D
 
The Oculus image they output now is usually a 16:9 image. Not sure exactly what they are doing. The Vive has a mirror mode toggle to output the two eyes at the same time, only the left, or only the right. Most games that i've played do their own output as well which is a 16:9 image. Fantastic Contraption is rendering the game again actually where you can see the level from different angles or from the players eyes.
Interesting, thanks. <3 I like the spectator mode.


"Rift and Vive," sorry.


supposedly more comfortable to wear and with clearer optics - less screen door and larger sweet spot. i've seen a couple of vive videos where the user has red marks on the forehead and under the eyes, which could suggest it puts pressure on the front of the face or is front heavy

i think if it was a headset only comparison, you'd have a lot fewer people on the fence and considering both. its the vive lighthouse and motion controllers that are the big difference
Interesting. I'd have guessed HTC would beat Facebook on stuff like ergonomics and general design. Not that HTC is necessarily hot shit, but they do have more experience, at least. HTC seemed to do comparatively well on price though. /shrug

But yeah, I was actually sorta wondering why so many were still considering Rift.


The reason PS uses big colored trackers is because PS camera is a normal camera, i.e. standard sensor with IR block filter, because they wanted those sorts of mixed reality games with PS camera. You cant use infrared LEDs because the camera can't pick them up well, so they have to use light in the visible spectrum which the camera is obviously sensitive to. The reason they are big is because tracking visible light is harder than tracking relatively moderate brightness IR LEDs because in most situations there will be a lot more issues with competing visible light in your room than infrared. Making it bigger let's them identify the markers easier. The Rift doesn't need to sense visible light so they use a sensor with a visible light filter but let's IR pass through. If anything I would say the Rift tracking systen a bit more robust, though both should be adequate. Vive has the best solution.
As mentioned by TTP, the variable-visible light is actually easier for the camera to pick up than infrared light, so you need more IR sources to get a good lock. They're smaller because you need more of them, and if they're spaced too closely, they won't appear as distinct to the camera. Finally, because the IR targets are smaller, they tend to shrink to nothingness at range:

"The Rift DK2 camera has a resolution of 752×480. The headset of a user sitting just a few feet away can only be seen by a small portion of those pixels (as the view of the headset only takes up a portion of the total pixels that comprise the scene). As you get further away, the headset is represented on fewer and fewer pixels which means the computer has much less data to work with, McCauley says.

You can think of it like this: if at 8 feet from the camera the headset only takes up 94×60 of the 752×480 sensor, it’s essentially like trying to track the headset with a 94×60 pixel camera up close with the headset filling its entire field of view. The further away you move the headset, the lower resolution your camera becomes (in a sense); there’s no effective means of zooming the camera in when the headset is at range so that it can use more of its image sensor.

Several tricks have been devised to counter this reduction in available pixels at range, like dynamically boosting the LED brightness to create a larger light source for the camera to spot, using the flashing of LEDs to glean additional information about the tracked object, and utilizing dynamic exposure of the camera. At a certain point however, the resolution of the camera-based tracking becomes the fundamental range-limiting factor."



Well, but there are more of them. A lot more.
Right, not only do they need more hardware to maintain a lock, they need to get sorta fancy with it as described above. That's why I say the color(s) PSVR uses makes for more robust tracking.

I don't really see any reason to suspect that PSVR tracking is any better than Oculus tracking.
By the time Oculus add the extra hardware and implementation tweaks dictated by their color choice, it may not be.

I'd especially not use the word "robust" given that visible-spectrum tracking is inherently affected by outside conditions.
It's actually less affected than IR, which is precisely what causes all of the issues described above. So as I said, PSVR is more robust because of the color. Sure, the lasers in Vive are even more resistant to interference — making it more robust than Rift or even PSVR — but I wasn't talking about Vive, and it's not immune to interference either.


while we are talking about tracking - why do they need to figure out orientation via the lighthouse/camera? isnt it only the accelerometers that drift, not the gyros? so they would only need to see where in space the headset was, yet they have these constellation arrangements to allow them to calculate orientation too.
You can get a fairly good lock with just the IMU — that's how the Move wands work — but yes, the gyros do drift, and I think it's hard to really get a "definitive" orientation lock when you only have G to use as a reference point. The Move wands actually add a three-axis magnetometer to measure orientation against the Earth's magnetic field, but I think it's fairly prone to interference in the real world, so I don't think it got used much, and I dunno if it's being included in any of the headsets. In any case, the cameras/beacons just make for an easy way to get a solid orientation lock.


RGB subpixel for every pixel is hardly "custom".
It's atypical for OLED, as is 120 Hz and low persistence. Sony's panels are just as "custom" as the others.


I'm in two minds about the roadmap comment though. Yes, I think HTC and valve in particular have overdosed on controlled tech demos to showcase room scale, but is it their responsibility to produce a roadmap of games coming out? Should HTC and Oculus be considered platform holders like Sony/MS, or are they peripheral makers and it is up to individual developers and publishers to communicate plans and for the gaming press to collate that information to build a picture of what is coming?
I see what you're saying, but there's still a bit of a Chicken & Egg going on here. Without some sort of concerted effort to push both hardware and software, there won't be a lot of consumer interest, which makes it hard to push hardware and software… Yes, this is just another PC peripheral, but it's not simply a higher res monitor. There's no reason to buy one without content created specifically for it, and there's no reason to create content specifically for it if nobody has one.

Hype from all three parties — hardware, software, and enthusiasts — will help, to be sure, but whether that alone is enough to achieve critical mass is a valid concern, at least. On the flip side, Sony will be helping to increase adoption and mindshare of the technology in general, because they are making a concerted effort to push it. (More so than PCVR, at least; I'm not saying those guying aren't trying/bothering/whatever.) So that will help the PCVR guys just by stirring up more interest among the general population, and starting to sell high-end VR software, justifying its continued development.
 

TTP

Have a fun! Enjoy!
I don't think that's physical pixels but rendered pixels. Sony have a patented-method for variable resolution across the image. This is to adjust for the rendered image lense correction that is applied after the rendering takes place. By applyng variable resolution across the image you make sure the software rendered image resolution and the physical pixel resolution match close to 1:1.

A similar method is being introduced by Nvidia on the PC side and their Gameworks VR stack called Multi-Res-Shading.

It saves upwards of 50% of the rendering performance so it's a pretty big deal.

I agree this is what he actually meant to say (rendered vs physical pixels). Poor choice of words on his part. Just like the "most of the heavy lifting" thing he mentioned with regards to the breakout box (which is when all the misinformation started btw).
 
I don't know what to make of that Beastcast VR discussion. It kind of deflated my hype just a tad but at the same time they talk as if there are no games coming for this on PC when I already have a few lined up for around the launch window.

It's not a huge amount, and a lot are cockpit experiences, but I am excited to play games like Dirt Rally and Elite Dangerous in VR.

The Beastcast guys sounded so cynical and jaded -- Austin, in particular. It felt like they were channeling their best Alex impressions, haha.

Thanks. I'm a bit surprised by the tech comments about screendoor, but I hope that's something I can look past rather than fixate on. More comment about the vive being slightly less flexible to get a clear image - again not enough data on that so I'll be interested to find out for myself soon.

Screen door is akin to screen tearing. Many people can largely ignore it; others simply cannot stand it. YMMV.
 
http://news.yahoo.com/nobody-wants-vr-platform-war-101559288.html?nf=1

Nobody wants a VR platform war, but Oculus may start one anyway

Gabe Newell
“If I have a Vive, can I buy software on non-Steam stores? Yes. The Vive is not tied to the Steam store. If I have a non-Vive HMD, can I buy software on Steam? Yes. Steam is not tied to the Vive HMD,” according to Newell.

“We think exclusivity is a bad idea for customers, for developers, and for the long term,” said Newell. “Developers can ship their VR apps on Steam regardless of whether or not they support Vive. We think customers should buy their VR apps on whatever store they prefer.”

When pressed about why the store was only supporting the Oculus Rift and Samsung Gear VR at this time, Luckey said in a Reddit thread that “we can only extend our SDK to work with other headsets if the manufacturer allows us to do so. It does not take very much imagination to come up with reasons why they might not be able or interested.”

But Valve denies that it’s putting up a roadblock. Doug Lombardi clarified Valve’s stance on getting the Vive working with the Oculus Store, suggesting that the ball was very much in Oculus’ court.

“Anything Oculus or other stores need to work with the Vive are documented in the freely available OpenVR APIs,” he told Digital Trends.
 

TTP

Have a fun! Enjoy!
You can get a fairly good lock with just the IMU — that's how the Move wands work — but yes, the gyros do drift, and I think it's hard to really get a "definitive" orientation lock when you only have G to use as a reference point. The Move wands actually add a three-axis magnetometer to measure orientation against the Earth's magnetic field, but I think it's fairly prone to interference in the real world, so I don't think it got used much, and I dunno if it's being included in any of the headsets. In any case, the cameras/beacons just make for an easy way to get a solid orientation lock.

Well, not quite. Sphere tracking was used to correct drift, more so than the magnetometer. In principle, Move tracking is pretty much the same as PSVR tracking. Sensors for speed + camera for accurate position tracking/drift countermeasure.

Thanks for the extra bit of info with regards to IR lights btw.
 
That doesn't really deny it, right? Palmer says they can't implement Oculus SDK to work with Vive without permission, and Doug answers that Oculus is free to use OpenVR (another API), which is a different thing?

Just feels like they're both still dancing around the issue.

Making the Oculus SDK interact and understand the OpenVR API's is a relatively trivial matter. That's the entire point of an API -- to allow disparate software platforms to speak to one another. If Oculus wanted to build in the hooks, they could.

It's clear, however, that they do not. Oculus wants developers to build software natively using their SDK. They're not interested in playing nice with OpenVR; they want to control the entire platform, from end to end.

That's great from Value, shame about PC VR will have own war, but Vive titles will have some exclusive feature too.

There's a huge difference between what's Rift exclusive and what's Vive exclusive at launch. The Vive games, like Hover Junkers, are ONLY exclusive, because Touch and Oculus' roomscale solution are simply not out yet. There's no way to make those games run on Rift hardware right now, but once Touch is out, that will change. In short, it's hardware differences keeping anything that Vive exclusive, Vive exclusive for now.

The same is not true in reverse, though. Vive could technically run all the Rift software on Day 1; there are no hardware limitations barring that from happening. Right now, it's purely moneyhats, exclusivity clauses and SDK shennanigans keeping Ad1ft and company from working on a Vive at launch.
 

cheezcake

Member
I get that, but there have to be some shortcomings when using IR LEDs (with IR camera) compared to colored trackers, otherwise why are there so many more trackers on the Rift? You didn't address this point (which is the one I was actually trying to make). Do you have any info on that?

Color has nothing to do with it really. It's about marker size and it's a trade off. Smaller lights but more location points means you get better tracking accuracy at the expense of performance at distance and requiring more computation. Bigger lights but less location points means tracking works at further distances from the camera, and requires less computational power but you get worse tracking accuracy. The color really has nothing to do with it, the reason PSVR uses colored markers is because they're reappropriating old tech (PS camera) for use with it which is incapable of tracking IR lights because they wanted to do mixed reality stuff like this:

maxresdefault.jpg

FWIW I think Sony and Oculus respectively made the correct design choice. People will almost certainly be much closer to the constellation camera for the Rift meaning performance at a distance isn't an issue, and given the relatively huge amount of CPU power a VR capable PC will have compared to the PS4 the extra computational power required to process and track more points is moot.

PSVR users will generally be further from the PS camera, the processing power is more limited, and they can reappropriate old tech suitably to reduce cost, so Sony definitely made a reasonable design choice too.

It is also definitely worth pointing out that the reason both systems will effectively function the same is because the IMU does all the heavy lifting, optical tracking is for drift correction only.

As mentioned by TTP, the variable-visible light is actually easier for the camera to pick up than infrared light, so you need more IR sources to get a good lock. They're smaller because you need more of them, and if they're spaced too closely, they won't appear as distinct to the camera. Finally, because the IR targets are smaller, they tend to shrink to nothingness at range:

Who or what is TTP? I haven't heard this said before and in my admittedly limited image processing experience and looking at the frames both sources have to play with, I find this really hard to believe. Unless you're playing outside at noon or something. It sort of sounds like you may have misunderstood him saying "it's generally far easier to track variable visible light than infrared light" which is false with his intention being "it's far easier to track variable visible light than infrared light for the PS camera" which is true as the standard camera sensor would not allow IR light to pass through very well. Plus the fact that smaller lights tend to diminish at range is something I mentioned above, and is an obvious design consideration and doesn't make sense to frame as a negative without knowledge of CV1 constellation camera resolution..

Scratch that didn't read the name properly. Now I can respond a bit better that I know what you're talking about. TTP specified "number of markers being equal" as the condition for that tracking bigger , colored lights is better than tracking smaller lights. This is mostly true in that if you remove the colored part it is absolutely true. In a controlled environment assuming that you had lights of the same size and brightness one being VR and one being color there would be no difference in how easy it is to track either. Generally as no one actually uses these in controlled environments it is factually harder to track colored light which can vary in color than a controlled wavelength IR light. Anyway I explain this in my response to TTP earlier in this post.

"The Rift DK2 camera has a resolution of 752×480. The headset of a user sitting just a few feet away can only be seen by a small portion of those pixels (as the view of the headset only takes up a portion of the total pixels that comprise the scene). As you get further away, the headset is represented on fewer and fewer pixels which means the computer has much less data to work with, McCauley says.

You can think of it like this: if at 8 feet from the camera the headset only takes up 94×60 of the 752×480 sensor, it&#8217;s essentially like trying to track the headset with a 94×60 pixel camera up close with the headset filling its entire field of view. The further away you move the headset, the lower resolution your camera becomes (in a sense); there&#8217;s no effective means of zooming the camera in when the headset is at range so that it can use more of its image sensor.

Several tricks have been devised to counter this reduction in available pixels at range, like dynamically boosting the LED brightness to create a larger light source for the camera to spot, using the flashing of LEDs to glean additional information about the tracked object, and utilizing dynamic exposure of the camera. At a certain point however, the resolution of the camera-based tracking becomes the fundamental range-limiting factor."

I'm not disagreeing with any of this, but again such an obvious design consideration would likely be taken into account for all typical use cases when engineering the camera.

It's actually less affected than IR, which is precisely what causes all of the issues described above. So as I said, PSVR is more robust because of the color. Sure, the lasers in Vive are even more resistant to interference &#8212; making it more robust than Rift or even PSVR &#8212; but I wasn't talking about Vive, and it's not immune to interference either.

I'm still a bit confused, you haven't said why it's less affected than IR? Unless you're referring to TTP again? As long as you're using an appropriate camera sensor with sensible passband it will be far easier to localise a small subset of IR with known wavelength range than to track a visible light which can vary in colour with an ordinary camera sensor.
 

artsi

Member
Making the Oculus SDK interact and understand the OpenVR API's is a relatively trivial matter. That's the entire point of an API -- to allow disparate software platforms to speak to one another. If Oculus wanted to build in the hooks, they could.

It's clear, however, that they do not. Oculus wants developers to build software natively using their SDK. They're not interested in playing nice with OpenVR; they want to control the entire platform, from end to end.

So there's no performance cost vs building direct hardware support to the Oculus API?

The article also says that Oculus Store is locking Vive out, but apparently Elite Dangerous will have SteamVR support even if you buy it from the Oculus Store.
 

Raticus79

Seek victory, not fairness
Out of curiosity, why do you consider Rift superior to Vive? I thought they were more or less the same, but Vive adds the visor-cam. What's Rift got?

They're pretty close. I had heard there was less screen door effect on the Rift than Vive, so it's either better optics or pixel fill.
 

mrklaw

MrArseFace
That's great from Value, shame about PC VR will have own API war, but Vive titles will have some exclusive feature too.

It is easy for Valve to play the nice guy here though. "We don't mind what store people buy from" is easy to say when you're the 900lb gorilla that runs the biggest store in town.


It is a bit confusing on Oculus' side though - they already have a nice front end for Gear VR and presumably for the Rift. Why wouldn't they want some more of that pie by allowing the Vive to connect to their store? They could potentially become the defacto place to go to buy VR content. Locking it out to only Oculus SDK software seems short sighted.
 
So there's no performance cost vs building direct hardware support to the Oculus API?

The article also says that Oculus Store is locking Vive out, but apparently Elite Dangerous will have SteamVR support even if you buy it from the Oculus Store.

Make no mistake about it: native software will always be optimal/ideal. However, rest assured, the performance hit, if any, could be minimized to the point that it's nigh imperceptible. We're already seeing community-made Oculus SDK wrappers that allow real Rift games to stream to Google Cardboard with a negligible performance hit. It's crazy.

I have zero doubt that the community will get Adr1ft, Lucky's Tale, etc. running on a Vive, but I wish Oculus would allow official support.
 

Mindlog

Member
"Rift and Vive," sorry.
Rift doesn't have a room scale tracking solution.
I don't know what to make of that Beastcast VR discussion. It kind of deflated my hype just a tad but at the same time they talk as if there are no games coming for this on PC when I already have a few lined up for around the launch window.

It's not a huge amount, and a lot are cockpit experiences, but I am excited to play games like Dirt Rally and Elite Dangerous in VR.
People are engaged by different things. I was infinitely more disappointed by the 4X discussion. Alpha Centauri is leagues beyond anything Civilization has offered as far as an engaging story goes, but we'll never have a sequel specifically because of how much more work is involved getting the mass market to understand 'monopole magnets' instead of 'the wheel.'
 

artsi

Member
Make no mistake about it: native software will always be optimal/ideal. However, rest assured, the performance hit, if any, could be minimized to the point that it's nigh imperceptible. We're already seeing community-made Oculus SDK wrappers that allow real Rift games to stream to Google Cardboard with a negligible performance hit. It's crazy.

I have zero doubt that the community will get Adr1ft, Lucky's Tale, etc. running on a Vive, but I wish Oculus would allow official support.

Yeah, even when I'm getting both HMD's I'd really like some clarity to this thing, I feel both parties are using very carefully chosen words not to get any blame over them.

But I'm sure it will work out in the end, especially if the API wrapper doesn't cause a huge performance hit.
 

Mikeside

Member
This reminds me of what apparently Oculus did when Vive was announced and demoed at GDC. Some came forward saying Valve didn't allow them to try it, when in fact Valve invited Oculus to check it out, but "politely declined" the offer, despite John Carmack's tweet stating they were not invited.

No idea who is "telling the truth" so to speak

I really hope this gets cleared up a little over the next week as they're talking about their products at GDC, but I fear we'll basically have to wait until Vive launch to really know
 

TTP

Have a fun! Enjoy!
Color has nothing to do with it really.

Yeah, true. Poor wording on my part. Meant to refer to "PSVR big markers" (which happen to be colored).

optical tracking is for drift correction only.

I'd say "as well" rather than "only". It's mostly for XYZ position tracking (as you most likely know already). On that note, let's not forget PS camera is stereo and tracks depth (both Move and headset) via triangulation rather than pattern/object size. Don't know how that affects robustness compared to the Rift mono IR camera solution tho.
 

mrklaw

MrArseFace
annoyingly with this splintering of 'who sells what where using which SDK', any OR users will inevitably have games/apps in at least two places - assuming many of us will already have Steam games that get updated for OR support, and will buy more from steam in the future.

So the Vive might get a small brownie point if it only has one point of entry for apps&games via Steam VR.
 
Why is Oculus doing this?

Maybe you should ask: Why Valve is doing the Vive? They started as friends collaborating in research. Only at one point they stopped and later Valve did their own device.

Hint: Valve business is Steam. I think the moment Oculus said they were thinking on doing their own Store, Valve started doing the Vive to specifically to counter the Rift. They don't want anything that could be healthy competition on pc, not even remotely, even in the case of Oculus which are limited to just vr games, I suppose just for the possibility that vr rules gaming in 10 years.


They did the same the moment MS announced a Windows store : they tried to counter act by creating the Steam machines initiative (even if trying to sell Linux for gamers is damn hard). But, just in case. Preserving their business is first priority.
 

Durante

Member
This is pure speculation on your part.
It's really not. Games like Budget Cuts, which often have players crouching or even crawling while using both tracked input devices simply won't work very well on a limited (highly limited in terms of vertical FOV) single-source tracking volume prone to occlusion.

Here's an image illustrating the volumes: (bright colors are occlusion-resistant 2-source tracking):
MBjQ0FK.jpg


Hint: Valve business is Steam. I think the moment Oculus said they were thinking on doing their own Store, Valve started doing the Vive to specifically to counter the Rift. They don't want anything that could be healthy competition on pc, not even remotely
While I agree with the reasoning in your first sentence, I think the conclusion you draw is frankly ridiculous.

To "want competition" you'd like them to refrain from competing at all and just cede the entire VR marketplace?
 

Monger

Member
Yeah, even when I'm getting both HMD's I'd really like some clarity to this thing, I feel both parties are using very carefully chosen words not to get any blame over them.

But I'm sure it will work out in the end, especially if the API wrapper doesn't cause a huge performance hit.

Well both Steam and OpenVR support the Rift and both HTC and Valve have said that exclusivity is bad for the industry and are not requiring it on games they supported. The OpenVR APIs are freely available for Oculus to use. I'm not sure what else they can say or do at this point?
 

Haint

Member
I wouldn't read too much into the 'less flexible to get a clear image' thing, they said that they didn't adjust the IPD at all when they were playing it.

I wonder if the three HMDs should make it clear how important it is to adjust IPD between users. Maybe Oculus does, we haven't really seen their user interface stuff yet.

PSVR doesn't have any sort of physical IPD adjustment as far as we know (barring any last minute CV changes), which is probably as big an issue (bigger?) as the lower resolution panel and horsepower deficiency (in comparisons to PC VR). No one ever seems to mention it though. The BoM cost add to Rift and Vive is no doubt enormous, necessitating 2 screens to accommodate it. Certainly the quality difference must be substantial, or they wouldn't have done it.
 
Maybe you should ask: Why Valve is doing the Vive? They started as friends collaborating in research. Only at one point they stopped and later Valve did their own device.

Hint: Valve business is Steam. I think the moment Oculus said they were thinking on doing their own Store, Valve started doing the Vive to specifically to counter the Rift. They don't want anything that could be healthy competition on pc, not even remotely, even in the case of Oculus which are limited to just vr games, I suppose just for the possibility that vr rules gaming in 10 years.

This makes absolutely zero sense. Without the Vive, the VR space would belong entirely to Oculus; that's not good for anyone except Oculus. The Vive's existence is the very essence of competition, not its antithesis.

Moreover, Valve doesn't care if you buy software from the Oculus store. That's explicitly what they said in their response re: exclusivity. Also, I don't buy the argument that they sunk millions in R&D and partnered with HTC to make the Vive solely in response to Oculus building their own store. As you said, they were working on their own VR tech for a long, long time.

Don't forget: games on Steam will have Oculus support, too. Valve did not need to make their own hardware platform just to ensure Steam has VR software in it.
 

Man

Member
PSVR doesn't have any sort of physical IPD adjustment as far as we know (barring any last minute CV changes), which is probably as big an issue (bigger?) as the lower resolution panel and horsepower deficiency (in comparisons to PC VR). No one ever seems to mention it though.
Because it isn't an issue in this first generation (HMD's are big lumps across the line). It's a bit easier to pull a physical lever then doing it in the game menu and the optics don't follow the couple of millimeters +/- adjustments some people make but that's it. Eventually all VR 'HMDs' will start to have two physical screens (or lightfield projectors) as they get closer to swimming-goggles in shape.
 

cakefoo

Member
This is pure speculation on your part.

Move controllers work while occluded. People playing The Deep on PSVR didn't report that the flare gun didn't work while facing away from the camera that I can recall.

Nail on head, here is a video of a young lady playing "The Deep" at E3 2014 and I'm sure SDK's for PSVR have gotten better since then.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cfnf0Y7nf8E#t=1m1s
The Deep is only relying on rotational tracking for the gun. Think of how gyro shooters on cellphones/Wii U Gamepad work.

PSVR shooters designed for a 180-degree experience like London Heist can incorporate positional tracking for better hand presence and ability to aim down the sights.
 

The Chef

Member
Up until this point I was very excited about VR but haven't really felt like "OK I need to build a pc and buy this thing"...until today.
I've spent the better part of today watching video after video of impressions and demos of the Vive. Its so exciting I cant handle it.
 

Compsiox

Banned
Up until this point I was very excited about VR but haven't really felt like "OK I need to build a pc and buy this thing"...until today.
I've spent the better part of today watching video after video of impressions and demos of the Vive. Its so exciting I cant handle it.

Yaasss I can't freaking wait!
 

Evo X

Member
Regarding ergonomics and comfort, remember one of the biggest differences between Vive Pre and Consumer is the revised strap that's supposed to be much better.
 
What some answers from everyone? Which pcvr are you getting? I have both preordered, can only get 1. Leaning towards the vive

Preordered the Vive. Since I am in the July orders, I can see whether there will be an Oculus SDK wrapper and would change to a Vive then.

Right now the "exclusives" for the Oculus interest me too much sadly, even though I think the Lighthouse/Roomscale of the Vive looks great.
 
Top Bottom