[QUOTE=woolio1;45883982]You're not limited to one dialogue option here in real life... You can apologize and explain yourself, and then you won't look like a twat.[/QUOTE]
He continued talking about the course afterwards so i didnt have a chance.
[QUOTE=dai;45883930]because they were designing a [I]VR [/I]experience[/QUOTE]
oh
[QUOTE=dai;45882027]the camera has an extremely narrow FOV and can only see a segment of cheek. It was likely left uncovered either to prevent scuffing the glass above it, or in the case someone did come up with a use[/QUOTE]
Confirmed to be a proximity sensor to recognize when it's put on your head [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esTPv2PcrRA]here[/url] at 0:27
for those of you not in the ED thread, I'm playing elite dangerous in the DK2 right now, just seeking out random space dogfights. will be on for maybe 2 more hours
[ended]
[t]http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20140207120703/elite-dangerous/images/e/ec/Peek_of_the_week_18.jpg[/t]
I crashed into what amounts to a star destroyer on one or three occasions
[QUOTE=Clavus;45871290]Just to reiterate: very unlikely GMod's VR support will be fixed (it never worked in the first place) unless both Valve and Garry commit time to solving it. Right now that does not look feasible.[/QUOTE]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFBsmU_f7DE[/media]
I have seen quiet a few videos of it working though... What exactly is wrong with it right now?
That's VorpX. Which is good, but your head is basically replaces the mouse movement.
That feel when everyone is playing with their Oculus Rift and your order is still pending. Oh man why is it so hard to wait
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;45887227][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFBsmU_f7DE[/media]
I have seen quiet a few videos of it working though... What exactly is wrong with it right now?[/QUOTE]
VorpX is middleware that retroactively adds VR to games that don't have native support. However it doesn't change the game's design, and probably a lot harder to properly calibrate. Plus in this video you can clearly see the 3D effect is done using the depth buffer (just take a frame and see how both eyes see exactly the same geometry), instead of actually rendering the geometry for both eyes separately.
And like Sgt. Khorn said, headtracking is translated to mouse movement. You can't lean or roll your head or shit like that.
[url]http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-09-01-oculus-answers-the-big-rift-questions[/url]
[QUOTE]As for the eventual price: the consumer version should come in similar to what DK2 costs now. "We want to stay in that $200-$400 price range," he states. "That could slide in either direction depending on scale, pre-orders, the components we end up using, business negotiations..." [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]The good news is that the hardware specifications are already nailed down. "We know what we're making and now it's a matter of making it," Luckey says. And it will be quite a lot better than DK2. "The consumer version is significantly improved," he nods. "The jump from DK1 to DK2 is similar to the jump from DK2 to CD1 [the consumer version]."
DK2 took the resolution from 720p up to 1080p, reduced blur, smear and judder, and added positional/head tracking. But the resolution, although better, isn't good enough. I struggle in Elite: Dangerous targeting enemies because I can't clearly pick them out against the backdrop of space behind them. Luckey understands the issue and says "yes", the resolution for the consumer version will change, will increase, although he won't say to what. "It is a significant increase," I manage to get him to say.[/QUOTE]
Bit worrying they're no longer using the phrase 'cost price' eh
[QUOTE=Beacon;45888757]Bit worrying they're no longer using the phrase 'cost price' eh[/QUOTE]
Wouldn't say it's worrying, but I would say it's interesting. Wasn't the idea behind "cost price" something Facebook was pushing? Oh well, I can understand why neither company would want to put out a product without profit, it severely limits their potential in the future. I don't mind if they take a cut, as long as they keep it cheap enough that enough people can afford it.
Honestly, though, this is going to be a high-priced market to break into. You're going to want a good graphics card, which is going to be $500ish, a few high-end physical controllers depending on your game, the Rift itself, a headset... By all the calculations I've done, most of us will end up spending about $1000 on VR-capable upgrades and products. To that end, I'd say a price anywhere around what it is now would be fine, more or less.
it's a little worrying if VR is to be something that can really take off
[QUOTE=Beacon;45888819]it's a little worrying if VR is to be something that can really take off[/QUOTE]
Hey, VR took off in the 90s, and it was considerably more expensive than it is today. By order of thousands of dollars more expensive.
That didn't stop it from being popular, or taking the news by storm.
Honestly, I don't think it'll have any trouble at the current price point. With stuff like this, I'd imagine you might see one or two per group of friends, and they'll just end up sharing it. I think you'll see a lot of that sort of thing. This might not be something everyone has to buy, just something a small portion of everyone has to buy.
I guess we'll see, won't we?
I'm glad they're upping the resolution but barely anyone is going to have the hardware needed to run games maxed out at QHD keeping a stable 75FPS.
I mean you could just turn down the settings but that kinda defeats the purpose.
[QUOTE=Scot;45888873]I'm glad they're upping the resolution but barely anyone is going to have the hardware needed to run games maxed out at QHD keeping a stable 75FPS.
I mean you could just turn down the settings but that kinda defeats the purpose.[/QUOTE]
Mostly depends on the application you're running. VR games will have to account for the higher cost and take a step back in visual fidelity. We'll get that back over the years as the average graphics card becomes more powerful.
[QUOTE=Scot;45888873]I'm glad they're upping the resolution but barely anyone is going to have the hardware needed to run games maxed out at QHD keeping a stable 75FPS.
I mean you could just turn down the settings but that kinda defeats the purpose.[/QUOTE]
I don't think anyone's expecting people to run games in QHD or UHD. A lot of people are hedging their bets on games being run at 1080p on higher-resolution panels, negating the massive hardware requirement while delivering a crisp picture.
[editline]4th September 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Clavus;45888923]Mostly depends on the application you're running. VR games will have to account for the higher cost and take a step back in visual fidelity. We'll get that back over the years as the average graphics card becomes more powerful.[/QUOTE]
And also this. This is important.
It's been said before that you can render at a lower resolution on the screen and the the rest would be simple upscaling (1920x1080 > 1440x2560 / 3840x2160) The upscaled rendering (iirc) won't have a stretched image like when you upscale a picture, and the added pixels from increased resolution will further diminish the screen door look compared to being on a default 1920x1080 screen.
And since you're only rendering a 1920x1080 quality, you're not putting extra strain on your system to put out the full pixels of a QHD or UHD screen.
[QUOTE=Daemon White;45889279]It's been said before that you can render at a lower resolution on the screen and the the rest would be simple upscaling (1920x1080 > 1440x2560 / 3840x2160) The upscaled rendering (iirc) won't have a stretched image like when you upscale a picture, and the added pixels from increased resolution will further diminish the screen door look compared to being on a default 1920x1080 screen.
And since you're only rendering a 1920x1080 quality, you're not putting extra strain on your system to put out the full pixels of a QHD or UHD screen.[/QUOTE]
So now instead of a screen door you get glaucoma.
[QUOTE=Daemon White;45889279]It's been said before that you can render at a lower resolution on the screen and the the rest would be simple upscaling (1920x1080 > 1440x2560 / 3840x2160) The upscaled rendering (iirc) won't have a stretched image like when you upscale a picture, and the added pixels from increased resolution will further diminish the screen door look compared to being on a default 1920x1080 screen.
And since you're only rendering a 1920x1080 quality, you're not putting extra strain on your system to put out the full pixels of a QHD or UHD screen.[/QUOTE]
You're suggesting running a game at 720p on a 1080p Oculus Rift? Wat
[QUOTE=K1ngo64;45889512]You're suggesting running a game at 720p on a 1080p Oculus Rift? Wat[/QUOTE]
no he's suggesting running at 1080p on a 1440/2160p rift.
samsung won't sell 1440p panels to oculus until they stop using those in the latest gen galaxy phones.
[QUOTE=.Lain;45890132]samsung won't sell 1440p panels to oculus until they stop using those in the latest gen galaxy phones.[/QUOTE]
They just collaborated with them for gearVR, what do you think they get out of the deal if its not screens.
if samsung did sell the 1440p panels to oculus, it would certainly be a first. they always limit their latest-gen displays to Samsung Mobile devices.
[editline]4th September 2014[/editline]
[quote=Anandtech]Meanwhile Samsung for their part already has an interest in VR headsets and a business relationship to help make it a reality. Samsung is the manufacturer behind the display used in the Oculus Rift DK2, which uses the 1080p SAMOLED screen from the Note 3. With Samsung already involved in VR headset manufacturing, it’s only a slight extension on their part to take advantage of their in-house technology to go it alone and build their own headset out of the newer Note 4 hardware. As Samsung Display Corp. seems to only be willing to provide the latest and greatest SAMOLED panels to Samsung Mobile, there is potential to ship a VR display more compelling than anything else on the market.[/quote]
yeah, it's been said before that Samsung will give Oculus screens in return for their software and hardware expertise
[QUOTE=.Lain;45890132]samsung won't sell 1440p panels to oculus until they stop using those in the latest gen galaxy phones.[/QUOTE]
The Note 3 was (until yesterday) the latest gen Galaxy Note. It's also the display the DK2 uses.
Even if samsung don't there are others that will, like LG.
[QUOTE=Scot;45890375]Even if samsung don't there are others that will, like LG.[/QUOTE]
I thought samsung where the only people who make amoled displays that size.
[QUOTE=alien_guy;45890446]I thought samsung where the only people who make amoled displays that size.[/QUOTE]
LG make OLED TVs. I'm sure they could make a smaller display if they really wanted.
A lot of companies [I]could[/I], but not everybody has the production pipelines in place for miniaturized AMOLED screens.
That said, it's stupid to think that Samsung wouldn't give Oculus their newest tech. They already have. There's precedent. There's a working agreement. There's a business partnership. There's no reason to think that they wouldn't, outside of misinformed preconceived notions.
[QUOTE=.Lain;45890200]if samsung did sell the 1440p panels to oculus, it would certainly be a first. they always limit their latest-gen displays to Samsung Mobile devices.
[editline]4th September 2014[/editline][/QUOTE]
Samsung doesn't sell its displays to potential competitors. Oculus is giving them foothold in an entirely new industry so it's mutually beneficial.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
