Alright nvidia. Relax with the VR hype. We get it, its demanding. 7 times more? I doubt this figure. Maybe a marketing ploy to suck the money right out of my pocket into getting a $700 graphics chip.
[QUOTE=Richard Simmons;49460015]Alright nvidia. Relax with the VR hype. We get it, its demanding. 7 times more? I doubt this figure. Maybe a marketing ploy to suck the money right out of my pocket into getting a $700 graphics chip.[/QUOTE]
Well, 7 times more is actually quite accurate. Like they said, you can game on 1080p at 30FPS quite comfortably, but in VR you have two screens with higher resolution than 1080p (AFAIK) plus a minimum of 90 FPS.
2 * 3 = 6 + resolution difference ~ 7
[QUOTE=AntonioR;49460038]Well, 7 times more is actually quite accurate. Like they said, you can game on 1080p at 30FPS quite confortably, but in VR you have two screens with higher resolution than 1080p (AFAIK) plus a minimum of 90 FPS.[/QUOTE]
Thats fair, but what kind of hype train you trying to get going to derail with 2 UHD screens that are no more than a few inches away from your face. Why not QHD? Why not just FHD? Because you're not going to notice a damn difference with either one of them.
I don't see how it's more demanding.
Oculus rift's total resolution is around 2000x1000 at 90 frames/sec,
I'm currently gaming smoothly on an old GTX670 and 2560x1440 at +60 frames/sec
So not even close to 7 times as demanding, more like x2 if anything due to the frame rate and sensor tracking.
[QUOTE=Tools;49460060]I don't see how it's more demanding.
Oculus rift's total resolution is around 2000x1000 at 90 frames/sec,
I'm currently gaming smoothly on an old GTX670 and 2560x1440 at +60 frames/sec
So not even close to 7 times as demanding, more like x2 if anything due to the frame rate and sensor tracking.[/QUOTE]
don't you have to render the scene twice though
Really all you need is a ~$300 gfx card and a decent computer overall. Most proper gamers aren't too far away from that.
[editline]5th January 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zezibesh;49460120]don't you have to render the scene twice though[/QUOTE]
Yes but at half the resolution, so it's not that bad.
[editline]5th January 2016[/editline]
One of the most demanding parts of VR rendering is the relatively high amounts of shaders going over the scene.
[QUOTE=Zezibesh;49460120]don't you have to render the scene twice though[/QUOTE]
I would actually find that silly if it does, but i wouldn't be surprised.
Even if the oculus rift was 2000x1000 (What a weird ratio) across both displays (1000x500) you should be fine with a $300 card.
The only thing I can see being taxing is for the USB controller and CPU for all the sensor data.
I think the gist is that in VR you're going to notice the stuttering even more as your input is being more noticeably delayed, therefor breaking the immersion. That or it comes out so poorly optimized you need a $5k gaming rig just to run it.
[QUOTE=Richard Simmons;49460150]I would actually find that silly if it does, but i wouldn't be surprised. [/QUOTE]
How would you solve it without rendering the scene twice?
[QUOTE=Richard Simmons;49460150]I would actually find that silly if it does, but i wouldn't be surprised. [/QUOTE]
VR is also stereoscopic 3d, so instead of rendering from essentially one eye, it has to do two. Plus with the screens right next to your eyes, you can't cheap out on things like resolution and image fidelity or else you're going to notice everything. On the reverse end, it's why consoles can get away with being relatively lower powered because it's meant to be played on a TV that you're sitting several feet away from, so you're not going to notice slightly lower resolution textures and jaggies.
If you want to play star citizen at 3024 x 1680 (total resolution as per the article, I have no idea where ya'll are pulling 2000 x 1000) at max visuals you're going to need a beefy as hell rig. Seven times more expensive? Probably not, but you're going to need a much higher end machine.
[QUOTE=paul simon;49460188]How would you solve it without rendering the scene twice?[/QUOTE]
Could you not just forgo the 3d and use one image for both eyes?
Nvidia is just hyping this up because the people that are going to be spending several hundred dollars for the rift on day one are the same people throwing money everywhere to play with VR. "Hey guys your computer isn't going to run virtual reality on launch, maybe you should buy our nvidia titan wink wink nudge nudge."
[QUOTE=paul simon;49460188]How would you solve it without rendering the scene twice?[/QUOTE]
I would assume just a single display with a wide FOV(Google cardboard). While it won't provide the finest of VR experiences, i would perceive this as being a doable work around. The oculus is dual screen, so yeah not surprised it will be rendered twice.
One or two physical screens doesn't matter, you'll still have to render the scene twice to see 3D.
[QUOTE=Richard Simmons;49460241]I would assume just a single display with a wide FOV(Google cardboard). While it won't provide the finest of VR experiences, i would perceive this as being a doable work around. The oculus is dual screen, so yeah not surprised it will be rendered twice.[/QUOTE]
Google Cardboard apps also render the scene twice.
You don't need two screens to render the scene twice.
Do you just not understand how stereoscopic vision works?
To clarify, the reason everything's rendered twice is because you need to see the same scene from two slightly different points of view, one for each eye. It's that "jumping thumb" difference that gives you depth perception.
[QUOTE=Ylsid;49460222]Could you not just forgo the 3d and use one image for both eyes?[/QUOTE]
that's what a monitor does yes
I don't see NVidia hyping up anything here. Their number is valid for their 1080p30fps baseline, it is just a weird framerate to take when 60fps is the usual PC standard.
[QUOTE=Ylsid;49460222]Could you not just forgo the 3d and use one image for both eyes?[/QUOTE]
Then you'd just be seeing a regular monitor a few centimeters in front of your eyes, that's not VR.
[QUOTE=paul simon;49460264]Google Cardboard apps also render the scene twice.
You don't need two screens to render the scene twice.
Do you just not understand how stereoscopic vision works?[/QUOTE]
Well, its right there in the prefix. Stereo.
I'm just thinking of other ways you can provide a similar experience without multiple renderings of the screen.
[QUOTE=Richard Simmons;49460289]Well, its right there in the prefix. Stereo.
I'm just thinking of other ways you can provide a similar experience without multiple renderings of the screen.[/QUOTE]
Well, if you only render the scene once, you basically lack any kind of depth perception, and that defeats the entire purpose of the product.
Everything will feel flat basically.
[QUOTE=Richard Simmons;49460289]Well, its right there in the prefix. Stereo.
I'm just thinking of other ways you can provide a similar experience without multiple renderings of the screen.[/QUOTE]
You could render the scene once and try to use post proccessing to achieve 3D effect. However it will most likely be awful and more intense in terms of computing power required. You would probably still need to render out some sort of depth map which is again rendering the scene twice, except with no lighting or textures.
There's simply no way to get around it, you either have a flat image or twice the rendering work.
Their facts are basically correct, its going to end up like the consoles, the minimum specs are up and it depends what the devs can get out of those specs to have a decent looking game.
Yeah I don't think VR is going to do very well with these kinds of requirements.
So does that mean NO computer can run vr appropriately at all?
[QUOTE=Doom64hunter;49460536]Yeah I don't think VR is going to do very well with these kinds of requirements.[/QUOTE]
It'll do fine if every developer isn't going to try to make everything have super photo realistic graphics.
[QUOTE=DEMONSKUL;49460588]So does that mean NO computer can run vr appropriately at all?[/QUOTE]It depends entirely on what's being drawn.
[QUOTE=simkas;49460288]Then you'd just be seeing a regular monitor a few centimeters in front of your eyes, that's not VR.[/QUOTE]
You still have the head tracking
Meh If I was trying to sell overpriced Titan Cards I would probably make the same claims...
[quote]By the company's own estimations, around 13 million machines worldwide are currently capable of running VR applications at those output levels. They also claim that number could be increased to 25 million by developers and gamers using NVIDIA's own Designworks VR and Gameworks VR software.
Gameworks alone provides up to a 50% performance increase, they claim.[/quote]
My ass.
EDIT: What is wrong with this article and/or NVidia?
They are comparing 1920 x 1080 @ 30 (what they think is current PC Gaming) with 3024 x 1680 @ 90 for their VR
First: 30fps 1080p is hardly an accepted standard first off, and should not be a comparative numbers.
Second: 3024 x 1680? Where does this number come from? The final Ocolus Model runs at 2160 x 1200.
(The post below me mentioned that the rendering resolution is bigger than the screen resolution so this number seems to make sense?)
Even with 2 viewports required for 3D, you don't have to do all calculations twice for two render cameras.
So yes... If you lower todays PC Standards and compare them to some future VR System which doesn't represent current headsets.... then yes.
Lets get some numbers in here:
1080p at 60hz = 1920x1080x60 = 124,416,000 pixels per second.
Oculus Rift = 2160x1200x90 = 233,280,000 pixels per second.
But wait! You have to render at 1.4x the resolution to compensate for the barrel distortion (which in turn compensates for the lenses). So what your GPU is actually doing: 3024x1680x90 = [B]457,228,800 pixels per second[/B].
Now also mind that the scene is rendered twice. And larger FOV means more of the world is visible, meaning less scenery is occluded.
There are some optimizations done of course. You can cut away some parts of the screen that get lost in the distortion transform to lower the amount of pixels that need shading. You can do several optimizations to lower the double scene rendering overhead. You can compensate for some dropped frames by warping the last complete frame. You can render the outer edges of your vision at a lower resolution. That last one is pretty important. Imagine a 4K screen for example: 3840x1.4x2160x1.4x90 = a whopping [B]1,463,132,160 pixels per second.[/B]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.