When are we going to see the Oculous rift with UHD?
I am excited for VR. I am not excited to upgrade my computer for VR.
As long as we can actually get massive development on games for it.
[QUOTE=Mr. Zombie;49433058]As long as we can actually get massive development on games for it.[/QUOTE]
And good VR headsets that don't cost just as much as the inevitable PC upgrade required to drive it.
Also a goddamn standardization on VR, because otherwise we'd have games that support one headset, but works like crap with others.
But I personally can't care, since my heterotropia kicks in hard when wearing glasses or similar, but otherwise is only noticeable for both myself and others when I'm tired or intoxicated.
i haven't really followed up on VR at all in the past year, which product seems to be the most promising one?
[QUOTE=Piciul;49434582]i haven't really followed up on VR at all in the past year, which product seems to be the most promising one?[/QUOTE]
Well if there's some line of products that don't seem too promising yet, it's the first person shooters.
Anything where you generally [I]move forwards a lot[/I], even something as small as a TF2 map, single or multiplayer. I haven't seen any demos or convincing ideas about that at all, or not much.
These type of (FPS) games could not possibly utilize the motion tracking; where you are confined within a small area to move around.
[QUOTE=Piciul;49434582]i haven't really followed up on VR at all in the past year, which product seems to be the most promising one?[/QUOTE]
If you're talking headsets, it's still an even match between the Rift and the Vive.
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;49435338]Well if there's some line of products that don't seem too promising yet, it's the first person shooters.
Anything where you generally [I]move forwards a lot[/I], even something as small as a TF2 map, single or multiplayer. I haven't seen any demos or convincing ideas about that at all, or not much.
These type of (FPS) games could not possibly utilize the motion tracking; where you are confined within a small area to move around.[/QUOTE]
is that really so?
[video=youtube;4UfZ_0yCBxM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UfZ_0yCBxM[/video]
just build a system that lets you stay in one spot and you're fine
[QUOTE=J!NX;49435535]is that really so?
[video=youtube;4UfZ_0yCBxM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UfZ_0yCBxM[/video]
just build a system that lets you stay in one spot and you're fine[/QUOTE]
This is probably because FO4 definitely isn't made for this but man his movement speed is really incongruent with his actual motions
[QUOTE=Lyokanthrope;49435636]This is probably because FO4 definitely isn't made for this but man his movement speed is really incongruent with his actual motions[/QUOTE]
that's because bethesda doesn't know how to let people use a gamepad + KB/M controls at the same time, they probably have to use WASD just so that the aim of the gyro isn't shot to shit. It's probably WAY better with actual joystick emulation.
making it work for fallout 4 is a feat
How about instead of a 'resurgence of high end PCs' we get a resurgence of people knowing how to properly optimize their games? That would be way better.
[QUOTE=kyle877;49435730]How about instead of a 'resurgence of high end PCs' we get a resurgence of people knowing how to properly optimize their games? That would be way better.[/QUOTE]
VR games are already going to have to be optimized to hell and back if they even want to stand a chance of not making their users nauseated. The problem is that you're rendering two 1080x1200 scenes at the same time, and you need to keep at least 90fps to not give your users severe motion sickness. That's taxing, no matter how optimized your game is. And then you've got shaders and all the technical computations on top of that, which further taxes the machine.
Stereoscopic 3D is not a cheap thing to render.
[QUOTE=woolio1;49435781]VR games are already going to have to be optimized to hell and back if they even want to stand a chance of not making their users nauseated. The problem is that you're rendering two 1080x1200 scenes at the same time, and you need to keep at least 90fps to not give your users severe motion sickness. That's taxing, no matter how optimized your game is. And then you've got shaders and all the technical computations on top of that, which further taxes the machine.
Stereoscopic 3D is not a cheap thing to render.[/QUOTE]
They aren't going to 'have' to be optimized, because most developers/publishers have adopted the policy of "the consumer can always just buy better hardware."
[QUOTE=kyle877;49435789]They aren't going to 'have' to be optimized, because most developers/publishers have adopted the policy of "the consumer can always just buy better hardware."[/QUOTE]
Yep. Since we have terabytes drives, we now have 40 gb+ games.
[QUOTE=kyle877;49435789]They aren't going to 'have' to be optimized, because most developers/publishers have adopted the policy of "the consumer can always just buy better hardware."[/QUOTE]
Except VR's already pushing the limits of the highest end of modern hardware. This isn't just an issue of "Oh, the consumers need to be buying new computers," those computers don't exist in any meaningful capacity right now. Optimization is necessary, and the current VR devs understand that.
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;49435338]Well if there's some line of products that don't seem too promising yet, it's the first person shooters.
Anything where you generally [I]move forwards a lot[/I], even something as small as a TF2 map, single or multiplayer. I haven't seen any demos or convincing ideas about that at all, or not much.
These type of (FPS) games could not possibly utilize the motion tracking; where you are confined within a small area to move around.[/QUOTE]
You don't need to move to have fun, games like FNAF have you seated or standing on the same spot at all times and they still work quite well (I don't like them very much but you can't deny that the first one was so successful because of this non-moving FPS system that managed to make a horror game even more scary).
Also this other game seems really fun despite being an FPS with very little space to move around.
[video=youtube;RlLw9LEmEfw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhh4dA-V2os[/video]
Besides, there are displacement methods for FPS games already being tested, I recommend [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zsg8L43k7QY"]this video[/URL] which explains pretty well some of these methods (skip to 6:00)
[QUOTE=kyle877;49435789]They aren't going to 'have' to be optimized, because most developers/publishers have adopted the policy of "the consumer can always just buy better hardware."[/QUOTE]
Oh I guarantee you VR games will need to be optimized if the developers don't want every single buyer puking all over the place due to motion sickness. This is not about "people won't mind that much if the game runs at 30fps instead of 60" or "just upgrade your PC and stop complaining", because how many times have people with monster gaming rigs complained about the game performing like shit?
VR will require AT LEAST 90fps at all times period. If a game doesn't perform correctly it will be worse than just framerate drops or freezes. It is already annoying on a typical monitor, let alone a headset where literally everything you see is the game. Imagine if you are looking around your bedroom and suddenly everything freezes but you still feel how you are rotating your head, I'd say it could be quite a terrible experience.
I've never really understood what the issue is with FPS games. I got to try out HL2 in VR for a few hours, and while it was a bit disorienting at first, I got used to moving around and aiming pretty quickly. Once I was acclimated, it was probably the most fun I've ever had in a video game.
Is it just the movement without actually moving your body that gives some people nausea? And is it a really common occurrence? Because it sometimes feels like people are overstating how bad FPS games are, but maybe I'm wrong.
It's the same principle why some people get motion sickness in moving vehicles, in layman's terms it's because you see as if you were moving but the rest of your body can't "feel" the movement so your brain doesn't quite understand what is going on
Some people are very sensitive to that while others don't have any problems with it
I did some rough approximations based on my observations.
To fill your entire field of view with an aceptable pixel density where you pretty much can't see the pixels, you'll need around 16K pixels in both directions. For both eyes.
And then you ideally want it to be at a high refresh rate too, 120Hz+.
And you want a higher bit depth and dynamic range (10-bit is ok for now, 16+ if using display tech with higher dynamic range)
It will be quite a while until we can run something like that :v:
[QUOTE=paul simon;49437823]I did some rough approximations based on my observations.
To fill your entire field of view with an aceptable pixel density where you pretty much can't see the pixels, you'll need around 16K pixels in both directions. For both eyes.
And then you ideally want it to be at a high refresh rate too, 120Hz+.
And you want a higher bit depth and dynamic range (10-bit is ok for now, 16+ if using display tech with higher dynamic range)
It will be quite a while until we can run something like that :v:[/QUOTE]
speaking with personal experience with my second iteration oculus development kit (DK2), the first consumer version will be an enjoyable experience, despite not being The Matrix
it still requires computer upgrades for many; a single GTX 970 is the target hardware (my experience before and after that upgrade confirmed for me that a GTX 970 does the job great)
rendering the scene [I]twice[/I] even at half screen sizes is no small feat for the GPU, when you need to display at an absolutely consistent 75 to 90 fps (less is jarring and leads users to motion sickness, especially sharp drops in fps)
the need for more hardware is justified
[editline]2nd January 2016[/editline]
this tech has to be comfortable to use for hours at a time
computer nerds like us who play games all the time are less susceptible to 'vr sickness', but people like my dad feel nauseous immediately if the experience is anything short of the standard
[QUOTE=J!NX;49435535]is that really so?
[video=youtube;4UfZ_0yCBxM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UfZ_0yCBxM[/video]
just build a system that lets you stay in one spot and you're fine[/QUOTE]
You can barely strafe in this thing:
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpS67kQIx9g[/media]
Pretty big flaw honestly.
[QUOTE=kyle877;49435730]How about instead of a 'resurgence of high end PCs' we get a resurgence of people knowing how to properly optimize their games? That would be way better.[/QUOTE]
What do you think endgame of each generation of consoles is for? The amount of power they managed to squeeze out of the 360 at the end of its life was beautiful
[QUOTE=Pythagoras64;49437244]I've never really understood what the issue is with FPS games. I got to try out HL2 in VR for a few hours, and while it was a bit disorienting at first, I got used to moving around and aiming pretty quickly. Once I was acclimated, it was probably the most fun I've ever had in a video game.
Is it just the movement without actually moving your body that gives some people nausea? And is it a really common occurrence? Because it sometimes feels like people are overstating how bad FPS games are, but maybe I'm wrong.[/QUOTE]
I'm just very much looking forwards to any type of control scheme, or rather [I]a solution[/I], that would namely work for a game like Half-life exactly. AKA, you walk through a very long pipe without any "limiting factors" on the way.
Anyway, what kind of a control scheme did you use? Keyboard and/or mouse, and/or track-pad or two? Sitting on a chair? (Plus vr on your head ofc.) I've never even tried it, not hoping to overstate anything.
Personally the virtuix omni treadmill just doesn't seem appealing to me, however a simple WASD+other keyboard controls might prove challenging to some people too, when you can't see your keyboard.
Anyways, I'm fine sitting down, or standing, but as long as the controllers and the whole control-scheme is fluid as fuck, or as fluid as we're used to right now.
Is it wrong to think that I expect VR to better the 'gaming experience' across the board, accommodating any type of player? Or any type of games... Which kinda brings me to wonder, could VR ever possibly work with, say strategy games, or a third-person game like the JustBecause2?
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;49438347]I'm just very much looking forwards to any type of control scheme, or rather [I]a solution[/I], that would namely work for a game like Half-life exactly. AKA, you walk through a very long pipe without any "limiting factors" on the way.
Anyway, what kind of a control scheme did you use? Keyboard and/or mouse, and/or track-pad or two? Sitting on a chair? (Plus vr on your head ofc.) I've never even tried it, not hoping to overstate anything.
Personally the virtuix omni treadmill just doesn't seem appealing to me, however a simple WASD+other keyboard controls might prove challenging to some people too, when you can't see your keyboard.
Anyways, I'm fine sitting down, or standing, but as long as the controllers and the whole control-scheme is fluid as fuck, or as fluid as we're used to right now.
Is it wrong to think that I expect VR to better the 'gaming experience' across the board, accommodating any type of player? Or any type of games... Which kinda brings me to wonder, could VR ever possibly work with, say strategy games, or a third-person game like the JustBecause2?[/QUOTE]
I just used a 360 gamepad. Like I say, a bit awkward at first, but still a lot of fun once I got the hang of it. I'm really looking forward to trying it out with the oculus or vive controllers.
[QUOTE=ZestyLemons;49437976]You can barely strafe in this thing:
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpS67kQIx9g[/media]
Pretty big flaw honestly.[/QUOTE]
Run forwards and aim sideways, obviously.
the omni is such a dumb fucking gimmick
[QUOTE=dai;49441417]the omni is such a dumb fucking gimmick[/QUOTE]
if it gets refined it'd probably be a lot better, but there aren't really that many solutions outside of making the user turn in order to continue straight ahead and marching in place, or flat out limiting them to a specific zone, and both are also kind of gimmicks.
its a dumb gimmick that does technically let you walk long distances, strafe, jump, etc. We KIND OF have to make shit that doesn't work well before we get something that actually works without flaw.
[QUOTE=ZestyLemons;49437976]You can barely strafe in this thing:
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpS67kQIx9g[/media]
Pretty big flaw honestly.[/QUOTE]
This is one of those things that is trying to fill a market that doesnt exist, nobody's going to keep something like that in their living room yet I feel like they're limiting its size for that very purpose, and the lack of space severely limits it's potential
Having something like this without minding the space and cost limitations could bring back a new iteration of the old arcades, where you have access to hardware you would never be able to afford and/or have set up in your home
[QUOTE=Raidyr;49433047]I am excited for VR. I am not excited to upgrade my computer for VR.[/QUOTE]
I am excited for VR aswell but it will be a very very long time before they (alongside the games that will support them) become common place. Probably 10-20+ years.
I mean people have been trying to make them work since the 80s and 90s and very little progress have been made. I don't even know how they can become practical. You still need to wear a stupid thing around your head or have some prop that takes up almost half the space in my room.
As i said, it's going to be a good 20-30+ years before we have comfortable, cheap and easily accessible good VR hardware and games that you can use in your room.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
