-
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
plagiarize
Banned
Different effects I believe. The point is no system is without optical oddities.
brightness is probably not an issue, yeah.
how has this not been brought up by any of the 7000 Vive Pre users who haven't been under NDA? surely someone would have mentioned something.
No, it happens in the same scenarios, high contrast especially against a dark background.
Because according to reports I have read it's much less obvious on Vive.
Zalusithix
Member
Government? That's wading a bit far into paranoia territory. Anything hit by a targeted block could just alter it's electronic signature and bypass it. Worrying about stuff like that only serves to diminish the concerns that are far more grounded in reality. Namely artificially facilitating the rise of a dominant store with the vast majority of the VR software market share. This combined with a closed hardware approach can give Oculus/FB undue leverage.
plagiarize
Banned
It happens in the same scenarios, but I believe the effects are different. I wouldn't call what happens on the Rift 'halos'. They're more like the logo to The Thing. Like light is shining through a cut out into a slightly smoky room.
Wildstar75
Member
This FOV report from Stress Level Zero is highly unlikely. The dk2 FOV is pretty small. Press reviews would say something if it was smaller. Having tried Crescent Bay it felt like a decent improvement! I'm not worried. I am fortunate to have both headsets coming soon and having tried Crescent Bay there is no way in hell Id cancel.
plasticpassion
Member
So, will it be absolutely necessary to upgrade my i5-3570k for the Vive? It has served me very well for gaming and I haven't had any issues yet aside from lower synthetic benchmark scores.
I really do not want to dismantle my watercooled PC to upgrade for VR. :C
I really do not want to dismantle my watercooled PC to upgrade for VR. :C
the 1.3 thing should be a non-issue fairly quickly. most devs should be able to update with the new SDK. It would have been better if Oculus could have released that SDK a week ago though. Don't know if it is coming in hot, or they wanted the launch focus to be on the oculus store content, which requiring a new SDK and blocking off existing apps and games certainly does for launch week.
Ah, ok, now I understand what you meant by different effect. You're right.
plagiarize
Banned
This is what the effect looks like on the Rift:
plasticpassion
Member
I'm running Titan X in SLI, so that's not an issue. Thanks.
Edit: I passed the VR benchmark. It said my system is running well above what is required for VR.
Zalusithix
Member
Unlikely? There might be other factors in play for what it looks like at typical eye distances, but what it shows at that distance can't be called into question. Unless you're insinuating they're faking the images.
Zepp Twofist
Member
It could be, and I hope it is. I guess I'm a bit influenced by the DK1 days, when I could just download random binaries from sketchy sites that provided me with tons of concept demos and interesting stuff (of varying quality of course). Ideally I had hoped that I could use the CV1 to catch up on all the crazy stuff I had missed from the DK2 era. Hopefully there will still be plenty of that kind of stuff though, but over the past few months it seems like Vive is more the place to be for stuff like that.
In any case, they don't seem to be shipping my headset any time soon, so I guess I'll see what happens over the next few weeks. All I really need is support in Euro Truck Sim, and that will keep me happy until touch comes out.
Wildstar75
Member
All I'm saying is if those numbers were true a lot more people would be complaining about it when the NDA lifted yesterday. I'm not an expert in doc measurement and I doubt he is. His test is probably flawed. Also he seems biased. And having personally used dk1, dk2, gearvr, vive dk1, and crescent bay I'm not buying it for a second. Crescent Bay blew my mind over the dk2. And nobody is saying FOV regressed from CBay and i trust my own eyes. I'm not worried for a second. And btw the VIVE is a great headset too! I am psyched to be getting both.
The UK government are currently consulting on just such a block on any site considered "adult".
It's not paranoid at all.
Actually a lot of people were stating in the early impressions on reddit that the FOV seems lower on CV1 than on DK2, even before this measurement. It just seemed impossible to be true.
Wildstar75
Member
But none of the vr press, tech press, or mainstream press are saying that. And trust me those numbers would be so noticeable people would be up in arms about it. Those posters are likely Vive fanboys. Zero information has been leaking stuff (all accurate)for awhile now despite the NDA and has just responded:
I do apologize for the comment about the measured FOV and was actually going to contact you about this just now. As I said, I never measured it myself and it does look bigger than DK2's and marginally bigger than the Vive's. FOV doesn't work how you think it does. In reality your eye doesn't touch the lense and your eye's cornea doesn't rotate around the eye's perfect center. There is a reason Brandon isn't showing you a comparison of the stereo overlap and the combined FOV of both viewports. It doesn't fit his biased narrative.
In reality you don't get a 110° FOV with a DK1 or a 100° FOV with a DK2. The rendered FOV is not representative of the perceived one. None of the headsets give you a perfect 1:1 translation from rendered to perceived FOV and in my case and from what my co-workers say the perceived FOV of CV1 is higher than that of DK2.
So ultimately I trust what I have seen with my own eyes and also the fact that if those numbers were accurate people would be freaking out because that FOV size would really suck!
plagiarize
Banned
I would agree with that. Not on who is and isn't biased I mean, but on the FOV not feeling smaller than the DK2 at all.
Vyse The Legend
Member
Crazy that linknewtab on Reddit ended up being the 100% accurate, legit leaker of Oculus and Vive information. Dude got nothing but shit and downvotes for weeks.
He was the one that said the Rift had a small FoV and lower screen brightness, among other things.
He was the one that said the Rift had a small FoV and lower screen brightness, among other things.
plagiarize
Banned
Zero Information has clearly been accurate too. I'd let this one play out.
edit: Measuring how big the rendered area appears to be by putting the camera an equal distance away from the lenses doesn't allow for how far away from the lenses your eyes are in each type of headset, and that's key. This is an accurate measurement of how large the FOV is for one eyeball almost touching the lens would be. It isn't an accurate measurement of the FOV you'd see wearing the headsets.
Vyse The Legend
Member
What's left to play out? Units are out in the wild, the NDA's are done, and the claims of both have been tested to the best of the community's ability. Naturally, we can't test ZeroInformation's conspiracy theory about why Oculus and Vive can't play nice.
However, display brightness is easily tested, and FoV measuring is more difficult but still doable.
I mean, to be clear, I don't think Oculus was lying or anything. The perceived FoV on the Rift is bigger than what you get from the DK2 due to the lenses. The DK2 has a large FoV but only if your eyeball is touching the lens. It drops off dramatically as you move away, whereas with the Rift, you get the maximum FoV further away, which is why people are saying the FoV on the Rift feels wider than the DK2. It's all lens magic, and at the end of the day, that's what matters most.
But, the point remains that linknewtab was 100% right about the actual FoV.
I wasn't planning on it, but I guess I'll probably put in an order for a Vive so I can just compare them myself in a more controlled environment. Expensive test I guess but I knew damn well this was going to be an expensive year.
What I'm most concerned about with the information coming in is that I'm going to wind up wanting to use the Vive for seated cockpit stuff if it has a wider perceived FOV and use the Touch later this year for hand-tracked shit because I like those controllers better. That's not how this was supposed to work gat damnit!
Edit - On a side note, I think that would maybe be the most "first world problem" I have ever had.
What I'm most concerned about with the information coming in is that I'm going to wind up wanting to use the Vive for seated cockpit stuff if it has a wider perceived FOV and use the Touch later this year for hand-tracked shit because I like those controllers better. That's not how this was supposed to work gat damnit!
Edit - On a side note, I think that would maybe be the most "first world problem" I have ever had.
Zalusithix
Member
You can't bias a camera image, which is all that is. In this case both the Vive and CV1 have about the same amount of extra lens that isn't be used, so even when pulled back, the Vive should remain as a larger FoV. (Which is consistent with subjective reports.) There is no CB image, so DK2 is all we have to go by. In that image, while the FoV is "larger", the bounds of the image are also much closer to the edge of the lens. It's entirely possible the image will be clipped by the lenses at normal eye distances. This could lead to a reversal where the CV1 has a larger FoV at eye distances than the DK2 despite have a smaller one at the lens. I'm not about to say if that's the case or not, but you can't fight the image itself. If that's what a camera sees using the same optics at each lens at point blank, that's what the eye would. Our eyes are just fancy lenses.
plagiarize
Banned
Perceived FOV is what matters here in all cases. Whichever you perceive as larger is what matters, not what is measured at a single distance on a single lens. It doesn't tell us the 'actual' FOV.
A measurement like this... what good is it beyond system wars? It's putting people off buying one headset without giving them any idea of what using the Vive and the Rift are like. This is just people wanting to go 'I told you so!'.
This isn't what our eyes see even if it's what one eye would see if you could get it almost touching the lens in each headset.
I'd heard multiple people say the Vive felt taller and the Rift felt maybe about as wide or a bit wider. Are all those things untrue because of this image? Of course not. I certainly didn't hear anyone say the DK2's FOV was better than the Vive's as this image might make you expect.
You can't perceive more than it is, no?
Perceived FOV is lower on DK2 because of the lenses if this theory is correct, but the comparison with Vive is still valid, especially since the Vive has the distance to the lenses adjustable and the perceived FOV doesn't decrease immediately as you get a farther from the lens.
Two Titan X's in SLI? Wow, whats the wattage of your PSU?
plagiarize
Banned
I can't make any comparisons between CV1 and the Vive. I've never used a Vive. I have used the other three, and this comparison does not line up with my experiences, which is what makes me feel it's fairly useless.
I do believe that the Vive has a wider overall FOV though, because that matches up with what everyone has been telling me that have used all the headsets.
But this specific test does not. I'm sure it's accurate... I just don't think that it's representative of what people will experience, and I've only got my experiences with DK2, GearVR and CV1 to go off.
And again, this is only an idea of what one single eye sees. It doesn't tell us what we'll perceive with two eyes.
Turin Turambar
Member
CV1 is basically the same idea of VR as DK1/DK2, and people has those for years, so the "impact" is lessened. But of course, DKx were needed so the ball could start rolling on the software side.
The idea of what's VR is so relative. When they started showing Doom 3 and Tuscany in the pre-dk1, everyone was like "woah, VR! you can look around and feel like you are inside!". After they improved it further with positional tracking in DK2, and now non-positional VR like GearVR is considered not "true" VR, as you can't truly and look and move around.
The next stage are controllers, and pure 1:1 scale VR (room scale), now for some people without the controllers to have hands and interact with the VR environment with a system that makes sense in that virtual world isn't "real" VR.
And in a few years, they will improve another aspect and what's "real VR" is will again be moved again.
And eventually we will have neuro-jacks like in Ghost in the Shell and that will be true VR and what we had before was child's stuff. etc
Guardian Monkey
Member
That sounds pretty far off.
AwesomeMeat
PossumMeat
I think the general consensus is that the launch software is underwhelming. Most of the stuff I will be playing this week is stuff I've played already on the DK2. Elite, Project Cars, etc.
I will probably pick up a few titles like Chronos and Darknet.
Vyse The Legend
Member
Maybe you missed in my post where I said that the perceived FoV is what matters most. The lens magic is key.
My original comment was about how everyone called linknewtab a liar, but he actually wasn't wrong on a very technical, measurable level. Does that technical measurement matter at the end of the day if you actually perceive a wider FoV? Nope.
Turin Turambar
Member
Hah hah yeah.
But there is a point on it: the idea that people have from VR has been popularized from fiction works, not from real world VR. People want to put the HMD and be transported to another world. They want to have a epic adventure in Elder Scrolls X VR, something like that. I think some people is going to be disappointed with the reality. We are still so far away of the "ideal VR".
Zalusithix
Member
The Vive's is taller going by that image (relative to width). People are far better with relations between values than absolutes when it comes to subjective calls. So yeah, this matches up with the Vive having a taller FoV with about the same horizontal.
(The Vive has ~12 degrees more height than width. The Rift has around 8 degrees more height than width.)
plagiarize
Banned
It wasn't that I missed it, it was just that I focused on your word use of 'actual FOV' when referring to that picture. But I see where you were coming from now, so it's all good.
so its possible that the Rift FoV is accurate, but the DK2 image is over optimistic for most users, and therefore might not be a fair comparison?
Guardian Monkey
Member
It seems that the walking mechanic is going to be the big obstacle. For game movement. I am not sure about the walking treadmills. Maybe If they come down in price from $700 but they still seem to limit movement.
well we haven't had the GB Vive live stream yet..
From experience I know that we usually tend to gain a lot more common sense context after the dust from the nerd-rage has settled..
A much smaller FOV than what the DK2 had would be unheard of, it's in theory completely unlikey, and in my opinion would only make sense to acknowledge when more samples and information is provided,, including a comment from Oculus.
Guardian Monkey
Member
When is that?
plagiarize
Banned
I think that's a smart move, especially if the Rift launch line up doesn't appeal. I learnt two things yesterday.
1: Being able to walk around in virtual space is cool.
2. I need way more space than I have, whatever headset I have.
The Dreamdeck is impossible to stand still on. You will walk around. Without chaperone, you will bump into things (bookshelves, Rock Band 4 drums, sliding windows to name a few). With chaperone... you won't bump into things, but you're still going to have constant reminders of the real world limitations of your space (albeit less surprising and painful ones!). I almost never hit the bounds of the camera's FOV. The positional tracking is much better than on the DK2. Orders of magnitude better.
As I've said I would, at some point I'll drag my system to some other place in the house where I can maximize the playspace just to test it out... but where my PC lives (and where it's going to continue to live), wandering around in Dreamdeck or Ethan Carter made me feel incredibly fenced in. But for those first few steps...
Zalusithix
Member
You like this "nerd rage" thing lately don't you? There is no rage here. This is rational evaluation of a physical measurement. We've already discussed how the DK2 vs CV1 FoV situation can invert due to lens clipping at eye distances.
for sure. im not gonna rush out and go get one on day 1... shit.. i might not even get one during year one.. even though i want to.
i was impressed from the stuff i saw yesterday, but when jeff started talking about how the novelty wore off after about a week... it really made me rethink when I would consider getting one.
I started thinking motion controls is what the oculus is missing.. but when he said "I worry that when the touch comes out, we are just going to be playing motion games like Wii and PS Move while wearing a headset", it all kinda hit me.
Devs - we need some great software! Make it happen!
It will probably happen next week, but instead we had some weeks of Vive being in the hands of a lot of streamers with no NDA attached to it.
plagiarize
Banned
The Giant Bomb guys were really down on the Wii, much more so than I was certainly. It's worth bearing in mind. If they love the Vive, that's going to say a lot more than if they don't. Don't be surprised if they brand everything tech demoes that are only fun because of the novelty of room space though.
The stuff they seemed to enjoy the most on the Rift was the stuff that was most like traditional games. Like Lucky's and VR Tennis. If that Tennis game was with motion controls, they'd have probably hated it.
Ok, this is pretty concerning. Im really looking forward to their Vive stream in the next week and a half. If their impressions are the same as the Rift....