[QUOTE=DeEz;45504837]They have a fix for this that should come in a later SDK update[/QUOTE]
If they can come up with a fix for that they should send it over to Samsung/XDA too because my S4 (very similar screen) has that purple smearing on blacks and it occasionally gives me the shits
[QUOTE=K1ngo64;45506642]If they can come up with a fix for that they should send it over to Samsung/XDA too because my S4 (very similar screen) has that purple smearing on blacks and it occasionally gives me the shits[/QUOTE]
due note that they said their fix greatly reduces the smearing, I'd assume it doesn't eliminate it entirely
these software issues right now
feels good to be in the august shipment
[QUOTE=dije;45504766]There's apparently a smearing effect when pixels go from dark to bright very quickly and some users report that it's highly annoying:
[URL]http://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/2bqtyj/my_1st_day_with_the_dk2_concerns_and_comments/[/URL][/QUOTE]
That's the "True Black Smearing" I mentioned on the previous page.
You can fix it by setting all your true blacks to 1,1,1 instead, but that causes Matrix fog.
Anyway, it's not an issue with the Rift, at least not exclusively. It's actually inherent to how OLEDs work, so as long as they're using OLEDs they can't do much about it.
[QUOTE=RaptorBlackz;45506240]You could play these if you haven't already.
Couch Knights
Kokiri Forest
My Neighbour Totoro
RedofPawsBigCrazyStupidAdventureAndAmericanPie
Spirited Away Boiler Room
Radial-G[/QUOTE]
What are those Ghibli demos exactly? Just scenes from movies created to be viewable in VR space?
Yes, it lets you experience scenes from the movies as if you were there. Some of the best rift demos imo
Also, for some reason my ups tracking has died. Just shows as not available when it worked fine a few hours ago. Hopefully it just means they are updating it or something
[QUOTE=Orkel;45511088]Yes, it lets you experience scenes from the movies as if you were there. Some of the best rift demos imo
Also, for some reason my ups tracking has died. Just shows as not available when it worked fine a few hours ago. Hopefully it just means they are updating it or something[/QUOTE]
ups stole your dk2
some big fat UPS driver is sitting at home with your DK2 also not having any demos to try
[editline]27th July 2014[/editline]
I just got Elite: Dangerous working with my DK2
jesus christ, that was fucking [I]awesome[/I]
even with a few issues (chromatic aberration mainly), it was super intense, I seriously felt like I was sitting there looking out at space - seeing a massive fuck-off asteroid fly over your ship, you can actually feel the scale of it and see the craters on it, fucking incredible
[QUOTE=Beacon;45515510]some big fat UPS driver is sitting at home with your DK2 also not having any demos to try
[editline]27th July 2014[/editline]
I just got Elite: Dangerous working with my DK2
jesus christ, that was fucking [I]awesome[/I]
even with a few issues (chromatic aberration mainly), it was super intense, I seriously felt like I was sitting there looking out at space - seeing a massive fuck-off asteroid fly over your ship, you can actually feel the scale of it and see the craters on it, fucking incredible[/QUOTE]
The only thing that puts me off about Elite: Dangerous, (although I will get it) is the pricing. A regular pre-order is 40€, but a pre-order with beta access is 60€. Alpha access was 100€ before. What happened to cheaper prices during the games development stages?
[QUOTE=Panimala;45516135]The only thing that puts me off about Elite: Dangerous, (although I will get it) is the pricing. A regular pre-order is 40€, but a pre-order with beta access is 60€. Alpha access was 100€ before. What happened to cheaper prices during the games development stages?[/QUOTE]
My explanation would be that higher prices for earlier access is due to keeping the amount of users low.
If you have tons of people playing your game in early development stages there are many problems you will have to tackle.
For example, there would be the problem of users not understanding the fact that your game is [B]not[/B] finished, let alone feature-complete.
Or that the amount of people reporting minor problems very early on will be overwhelming and unproductive. Fixing minor issues a small amount of people even report is not a concern if you haven't even finished the foundation of your product.
Early Access is a difficult thing. It's not entirely positive for either side.
[editline]27th July 2014[/editline]
Also the whole thing of "Oh I played this game already, it's pretty shallow/bad" when the player is actually referring to the unfinished product.
This is not only bad for single cases of people testing, but also the fact that they will share this misinformation.
[QUOTE=RaptorBlackz;45506240]You could play these if you haven't already.
Couch Knights
Kokiri Forest
My Neighbour Totoro
RedofPawsBigCrazyStupidAdventureAndAmericanPie
Spirited Away Boiler Room
Radial-G[/QUOTE]
Doesn't hawken have oculus rift support?
[QUOTE=Ogopogo;45516930]Doesn't hawken have oculus rift support?[/QUOTE]
The games need to be updated for the new SDK for people to be able to use them with the new development kit.
[QUOTE=krix;45516227]My explanation would be that higher prices for earlier access is due to keeping the amount of users low.
If you have tons of people playing your game in early development stages there are many problems you will have to tackle.
For example, there would be the problem of users not understanding the fact that your game is [B]not[/B] finished, let alone feature-complete.
Or that the amount of people reporting minor problems very early on will be overwhelming and unproductive. Fixing minor issues a small amount of people even report is not a concern if you haven't even finished the foundation of your product.
Early Access is a difficult thing. It's not entirely positive for either side.
[editline]27th July 2014[/editline]
Also the whole thing of "Oh I played this game already, it's pretty shallow/bad" when the player is actually referring to the unfinished product.
This is not only bad for single cases of people testing, but also the fact that they will share this misinformation.[/QUOTE]
TBH I sit on the side of the fence along with other developers that this is such a stupid pricing model
I get the reasoning but the problem is that it doesn't really work out that way to your fanbase. If they want exclusive access for their alpha maybe they should only open up keys to a [I]limited number of people[/I] and not do open early access at all by just having ridiculously pricing to limit the people who join. Its just scummy
Early access is such shit for reasons like this (and others). Its got its upsides but stuff like that really bring it down IMHO.
If I ever get something to the point where I have to worry about that I will make the necessary decisions. Until then, I will focus on what is actually important. Not trying to say you are not doing the same!
I totally understand where you're coming from calling it "scummy", but you gotta make a living.
Call it sell-out or whatever, I just kind of dropped the prejudice against this kind of thing recently. What's the point in blaming people for wanting to make money off of what they do?
Also, the high price point actually funds development a good bit with the little amount of customers you want. It's a natural balance (as long as you do things right, which I admit will not be easy) that gives you some incentive to push goals further with the additional funds.
I'm not trying to judge this way of doing things as good or bad, I'm just trying to provide a different perspective.
Limiting the number of people that can get in is a "humble" way to do it I suppose, because you are trying to aim at the same amount of people to test anyway, except in this case you are asking for a smaller amount of money from them.
Being humble like this can have a negative impact on your development though, because if you don't have the necessary money to push your goals to your playerbase's expectations things can get icky. People who are included into early development cycles are more prone to feel entitled to having more power over future decisions and the expectations that will arise are not easy to cope with.
I feel this is all really complicated for both the developer and the consumer and it makes me wish more would pursue traditional approaches, but ignorance isn't exactly bliss here considering how many titles would never see the light of day without early access funds.
/derailrant
Here's a unofficial list for DK2 supportable games.
[url]http://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/2btu2o/unofficial_list_of_dk2_demos_and_resources/[/url]
[QUOTE=Beacon;45515510]some big fat UPS driver is sitting at home with your DK2 also not having any demos to try
[editline]27th July 2014[/editline]
I just got Elite: Dangerous working with my DK2
jesus christ, that was fucking [I]awesome[/I]
even with a few issues (chromatic aberration mainly), it was super intense, I seriously felt like I was sitting there looking out at space - seeing a massive fuck-off asteroid fly over your ship, you can actually feel the scale of it and see the craters on it, fucking incredible[/QUOTE]
Do you notice the missing 10 degree FOV at all vs DK1. Some people are a bit disappointed over it.
I asked him the same thing on Steam a couple of hours ago. He didn't seem to mind it but said that he could see the difference.
I can imagine the high resolution + low persistence + OLED colours + positional tracking more than make up for ~7-8% less FoV. And remember it's a devkit, not a consumer product
[editline]28th July 2014[/editline]
Here's what the devs have to say about it
[quote]I believe the specs for DK1 were listed at around 110 and the DK2 at 100. That's about right. [B]If you view at comfortable eye relief (approx 10mm) then you probably will not see a difference between the headsets. If you like to have your eyelashes brushing the lenses then you will notice the screen edges on the DK2 more than the DK1 (appearing as black bars on the sides). The DK1 was overspec'd in this regard and you pretty much couldn't see the edge even with your eyeballs touching the lens.[/B]
The seldom discussed fact about FOV is this. INCREASING FOV COMES AT HUGE COSTS TO RENDER SPEED. Why - because the pre-warp render texture size increases exponentially as FOV increases and also additional geometry must be processed. In fact, render speed is much more affected by FOV than by final resolution of the output device. Go into your Config Util while rendering the Demo Scene on DK1. Now play with the eye-relief slider while the demo is running (this is easier now with Direct Mode). You can see the rendering radius increase or decrease along with the slider. That's a function both of the lens distortion and the oversized screen of the DK1. The same thing on the DK2 will produce less variability. Render target size for DK2 is more-or-less constant, but is highly variable on DK1. So here's the interesting thing - the maximum render target size on DK1 is GREATER than on DK2 which leads to a rather counter-intuitive fact. At the same frame-rate it is actually MORE expensive to render out to DK1 than DK2. The higher render requirements for DK2 are almost entirely a result of the higher frame rate rather than the higher resolution.
Engineering for VR is a constant set of trade-offs. It's easy to say that it would be better if FOV was 120 or 140 degrees. Of course it would feel better if you can achieve it. But those values would pretty much melt all your computers because we are talking about render target resolutions of probably 6k x 4k or larger!
Edit: A clarification here since Reddit seems to be jumping to conclusions... Render target sizes are not fixed. The SDK provides "suggested" render target sizes to achieve lossless pixel sampling in the center, but developers are free to choose whatever render target size they want. Render targets can be reduced to trade performance for image fidelity. But in general - increasing FOV increases rendering costs and is yet another tradeoff associated with high FOV along with aesthetics, mechanical design, optical design and distortion, optical density, and part availability. The DK2 is what it is mainly because of physical constraints and visual tradeoffs. A positive consequence of that is that rendering costs are also kept in check.[/quote]
To keep it short: FoV was intentionally reduced a little on the DK2 to allow people to get much higher framerates (it requires 75fps afterall)
And if you like images. a bit misleading tho
[img]http://i.imgur.com/pgEU8mx.jpg[/img]
Shipping notification! Yay!
The above image is misleading - it doesn't show the changed FoV, but the changed rendering area (5in screen vs 7in) and distortion.
[QUOTE=Clavus;45526523]Shipping notification! Yay![/QUOTE]
Me too! New website to spam F5 on.
[QUOTE=Lurklet;45507416]these software issues right now
feels good to be in the august shipment[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't mind being late because of the current SDK dev problems and whatnot right now.
please someone post (doubt anyone is going to get them anytime soon) when they get a august shipment notification.
Palmer answering FoV questions on Reddit:
Regarding the decision to sacrifice FoV for FPS
[quote]It is a poor tradeoff, and one that we did not make. The lens design was driven by hard limits in optics technology, and we already had to make tradeoffs to get a large exit pupil/high FOV/flat field curvature/longer eye relief out of the smaller panel in DK2 (increased chromatic aberration in DK2 is one example, luckily we can mostly correct it in software). As Brant already said, [B]the rendering improvements were a nice side effect, not a driving force behind the design of the optics.[/B]
Aside from that, note that the horizontal FOV of DK2 is actually very similar to DK1 (most of the "loss" from 110 to 100 is a result of the aspect ratio change, and is mostly on the vertical/diagonal). [B]A lot of the perception around it having a smaller FOV is a result of the DK2 lenses being significantly larger than the DK1 lenses, allowing the user to see the edges of the display even with the same field of view.[/B] That is one of the reasons our default settings feather the displayed image out to black over ~10 pixels, it makes that edge less apparent. We could have designed it so that the lenses were the limiting factor, as in DK1, but that inevitably results in wasted pixels and reduced FOV for most users.[/quote]
Regarding CV1 FoV:
[quote]Just wait and see. That is a complex question with a complex answer that I cannot get into without giving too much away.[/quote]
god the CV1 is exciting
Wondering if I should wait for CV1, or see if they decide to make a CV2 one day.
[QUOTE=Lurklet;45526725]please someone post (doubt anyone is going to get them anytime soon) when they get a august shipment notification.[/QUOTE]
Are they even @ Mar 19 pm+ shipments yet
[QUOTE=Sgt. Khorn;45526828]Wondering if I should wait for CV1, or see if they decide to make a CV2 one day.[/QUOTE]
nah that's like waiting for a ps4 after the ps3 is released.
[editline]28th July 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Craptasket;45526939]Are they even @ Mar 19 pm+ shipments yet[/QUOTE]
oh is that how they're doing it i didn't know nvm
(plz if your shipment in august gets shipped post anyway, even if it's a month from now.)
if you're having trouble with DK2 juddering in Direct Mode demos, disable Aero on Windows, that fixed it for me
So who wants to predict when CV1 will come out?
I bet Q2 2015
[editline]28th July 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Orkel;45527627]
[/QUOTE]
Replace DK2 with CV1 for consumers, and that how I feel.
[editline]edit[/editline]
Actually, for a person who wishes to purchase a consumer version of the Oculus Rift, what are the problems, as of now, that currently delay the CV from comming out sooner?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
