Another short impression of the HD prototype.
[url]http://www.tweaktown.com/news/31799/we-go-hands-on-with-oculus-vr-hd-where-we-can-barely-contain-our-excitement/index.html[/url]
And more mysterious smiles.
[quote]I did ask one thing - about Oculus and Valve. I asked if we could see Rift on the Steam Box, with Half-Life 3... Joseph said he couldn't say anything about that, but he had a big smile on his face about it and we laughed. Could I be right? I've talked about Oculus and the future of gaming... maybe that's where we're headed. You heard it here first, folks![/quote]
[QUOTE=daijitsu;41520527][t]http://i.imgur.com/aCWONCZ.png[/t]
this is an important first step in any video game[/QUOTE]
[thumb]http://puu.sh/3GVGm.jpg[/Thumb]
It's Trespasser all over again.
We should get a bunch of rift owners to get together in team fortress and take over a team on a server. Could be fun.
[QUOTE=PredGD;41517915]how would that work?[/QUOTE]
The ascii will blend into an actual world in which he can physically interact.
He's going to jack into the Fortress.
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;41524109]
The ascii will blend into an actual world in which he can physically interact.
He's going to jack into the Fortress.[/QUOTE]
my eyes would bleed
[QUOTE=Orkel;41520118][url=http://www.destructoid.com/oculus-rift-targeting-2014-release-next-gen-cellphones-258333.phtml]Rift confirmed for somewhere in 2014[/url], so definitely not coming this year[/QUOTE]
Bit weird they're putting more focus on being able to run on smartphones than consoles. It's nice that smartphones are seemingly 'doubling' in performance every year, but you're not going to get next-gen console performance out of them for many more years. Shit has to run at 60 fps while the scenes are rendered twice, that's not cheap.
That and mobile games are like the exact opposite of the core gaming nature of VR.
[QUOTE=Clavus;41524961]Bit weird they're putting more focus on being able to run on smartphones than consoles. It's nice that smartphones are seemingly 'doubling' in performance every year, but you're not going to get next-gen console performance out of them for many more years. Shit has to run at 60 fps while the scenes are rendered twice, that's not cheap.
That and mobile games are like the exact opposite of the core gaming nature of VR.[/QUOTE]
It might be more for applications like the movie theater experience; to have a portable way to use it in situations like an airplane.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;41525939]It might be more for applications like the movie theater experience; to have a portable way to use it in situations like an airplane.[/QUOTE]
That's an extremely niche use.
I honestly don't get the hard-on everyone seems to have about mobile games and mobile game development. I understand that there's money to be made selling facebook games to people who don't know any better, but I'd imagine that the demographic that would be interested in the oculus rift is not the same one that is interested in mobile gaming. Furthermore, no matter how you slice it, you're always going to have more power and a better VR experience on a desktop. They simply have more room for more powerful graphics cards and more powerful processors.
I imagine jumping (with a button) with the omni would be unsettling.
[QUOTE=Bletotum;41527615]I imagine jumping (with a button) with the omni would be unsettling.[/QUOTE]
Can't you jump without a button?
[QUOTE=Pvt. Anderson;41527885]Can't you jump without a button?[/QUOTE]
Jumping by jumping would be a way.
[editline]20th July 2013[/editline]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqHGRwzK7Fc[/media]
"This is not surgeon simulator this is door simulator!"
[QUOTE=Djessey;41517795]There something I´ve worked on in the past in the Unreal Engine, I´ve just never really done anything else with it as I didn´t know what :v:
I don't really know how to describe it so I'll just hand you a video instead.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzfYmNadp0E[/media]
Here's a better view of the models and such I made, Don't mind the ultra shitty default skybox (Or my horrible texturing skills for that matter)
[img]http://i.imgur.com/JldtM7h.jpg[/img]
Maybe this would be cool with the rift since I could think of heaps of things I could add.
What do you guys think? Do you see yourself use something like this? (Obviously more refined then)[/QUOTE]
this is totally offtopic but that's one thing i've never really seen, a stage & lighting "simulator". That's got a lot of [B]professional[/B] potential.
[QUOTE=Instant Mix;41529135]this is totally offtopic but that's one thing i've never really seen, a stage & lighting "simulator". That's got a lot of [B]professional[/B] potential.[/QUOTE]
Yeah that's what I also think, But I've kind of lost interest into it since I didn't see any potential in it. But now with the rift and all the project is slowly growing on me again.
It's also that I haven't really made anything before (Development wise)
I've learned how to make models, textures, and learned to script for UDK just for the sole purpose of this project.
My order is from May 7th. I really want it to come in so I can play through hl2 again.
[QUOTE=Xubs;41530674]Now I know people here have asked this question so many times possibly to the point of this being annoying, but should I get a devkit? I'm a person who loves to tinker with software, oftentimes to the point of outright scripting, and I'm in active development with a game so I know a tiny bit around software and hardware.
However, I'm dreadfully bored :v:, and was really looking to complete the experience I get from the Razer Hydra/Oculus Rift HL2 mod. I own a Hydra, but felt like I was only experiencing half the full thing. I don't plan to actually [I]develop[/I] anything for the Oculus but I could if I wanted to. I got a nice handful of cash I'm willing to waste.
Also, I'm no stranger to early-days hardware and very alpha-ish experiences.
So, with everything about me and my habits in mind, would getting one early be okay in the near future? I might not if better judgement decides otherwise, but the alpha-ness is very tempting to me. If the hardware itself is so massively inferior to the consumer build I'm definitely not getting one.[/QUOTE]
I think it would be best to wait until the HD devkit that's coming this year if you want to develop software for it.
[QUOTE=ClarkWasHere;41531208]I think it would be best to wait until the HD devkit that's coming this year if you want to develop software for it.[/QUOTE]
It doesn't matter how the game "looks" per-se that's important for rift development, it's more of designing a game engine and world that feels like it's on a proper 1 to 1 scale of physical reality. Setting up a working control scheme along with your game design, you'll be ready even for the consumer version or HD version. The HD version is literally just a higher resolution screen, there's no positional tracking for it either like the current kit, so it'd just look nicer. It'd be a better "demo" rift than a "developer" rift.
Calling it a demo kit makes it sound as if it is less capable for development.
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;41533946]It doesn't matter how the game "looks" per-se that's important for rift development, it's more of designing a game engine and world that feels like it's on a proper 1 to 1 scale of physical reality. Setting up a working control scheme along with your game design, you'll be ready even for the consumer version or HD version. The HD version is literally just a higher resolution screen, there's no positional tracking for it either like the current kit, so it'd just look nicer. It'd be a better "demo" rift than a "developer" rift.[/QUOTE]
I see what you mean, but
[QUOTE=Bletotum;41537421]Calling it a demo kit makes it sound as if it is less capable for development.[/QUOTE]
And visuals help immerse, especially with that screen-door problem.
[QUOTE=ClarkWasHere;41537830]I see what you mean, but
And visuals help immerse, especially with that screen-door problem.[/QUOTE]
I suppose what I'm attempting to say, more simply, is that if a developer is making a rift game from the ground up, they'd have more time to make a game with a kit now than waiting for the next one. Being able to launch your game with the peripheral would make you a standout and one of the staples of VR gaming. The Gallery is going to be an example of this, like Mario 64 in a way. Otherwise if you are in development and want to add rift support later you could definitely wait. I was thinking immediate short term I wasn't very descriptive or clear in my statement.
[QUOTE=Djessey;41529400]Yeah that's what I also think, But I've kind of lost interest into it since I didn't see any potential in it. But now with the rift and all the project is slowly growing on me again.
It's also that I haven't really made anything before (Development wise)
I've learned how to make models, textures, and learned to script for UDK just for the sole purpose of this project.[/QUOTE]
Honestly, if you can make a "sequencer" so you can program lights, as well as allowing more complex lights such as intelligent lights to be added, you could honestly have quite a good program on your hands. Stage designers could use it to prototype and create their light shows before they have made a single part order. Amateurs could use it for their own bands, and crazy people would go out of their way to make the most complex stage setup before their computer dies on them. Imagine someone went to the effort of recreating some insane stages & light shows for bands like Iron Maiden, Rammstien & Muse?
Love how people put those fake eyes on their Rifts.
I played the Rift at PAX AU. Hype intensifies.
[editline]23rd July 2013[/editline]
NO OCULUS WHY
I saw the sign on the door that said Oculus VR, but it said no public admittance and so I was looking around for why Oculus was there. I didn't just go in...why would they do this :( They had a HD version in there and everything.
[url]http://www.kotaku.com.au/2013/07/believe-it-or-not-we-have-smartphones-to-thank-for-the-oculus-rift/[/url]
Kickstarter launched for a positional tracking system called Atlas. It's not really for normal gaming (unless maybe used with something like the omni?) but more for arcades and stuff (aka VRcade or Project Holodeck).
[url]http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/62367895/atlas-virtual-reality-made-real[/url]
Tell me if I'm missing something here but why do they need $125,000 for a body mount and Iphone exclusive app?
I got to try out the Oculus Rift at PAX Australia.
It's awesome and so very immersive, but it was quite pixelated due to the 300x300 (I think it was) resolution.
Apparently the consumer version will release at ~$300 and at 1080p.
[QUOTE=.:FoxOnFire:.;41572265]I got to try out the Oculus Rift at PAX Australia.
It's awesome and so very immersive, but it was quite pixelated due to the [B]300x300[/B] (I think it was) resolution.
Apparently the consumer version will release at ~$300 and at 1080p.[/QUOTE]
1280x800 most likely. :v:
[QUOTE=Dj-J3;41572604]1280x800 most likely. :v:[/QUOTE]
Well most of it is unused, so it's much lower in practise.
[QUOTE=Orkel;41572693]Well most of it is unused, so it's much lower in practise.[/QUOTE]
I was talking the screen resolution though, if that makes a difference
[QUOTE=Dj-J3;41572918]I was talking the screen resolution though, if that makes a difference[/QUOTE]
not really
yo shit's like this
[QUOTE=Orkel;41005378]The 1080p version uses a 5.6 inch screen and the 720p devkit uses a 7 inch screen. This is a good way to understand it:
[img]http://i.imgur.com/1VaU1bE.png[/img]
As the devkit's optics were built with the 5 inch screen in mind (they had to change it at the last second for the 7 inchers due to availability issues), a lot of the devkit's screen is left unused, so in effect the devkit's visible resolution is something like 400-500 pixels across or w/e.
The 1080p Rift is able to use a lot more of the screen due to its smaller size (and the optics made for it), [I]and[/I] has a lot more pixel density due to being 1080p. So it is in fact a much, much bigger buff in visuals than just the difference between 720 and 1080 in pixel count.[/QUOTE]
[editline]23rd July 2013[/editline]
this is just a dramatic interpretation but the main fact of the matter is that a large percentage of the current screen goes unused so it might as well be 300x300
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
