Oculus Rift Thread: Consumer release months away - Games

In five years time we'll be seeing 4K Oculus Rift and it will be glorious.

[QUOTE=Orkel;43526697][url]http://www.theverge.com/2014/1/10/5296454/reader-poll-you-pick-the-best-of-ces-2014[/url] Go give your support for the Rift, it's almost tied with a 4K TV atm, losing by 50 votes only.[/QUOTE] Rift is now winning by 600+ votes. :v:

All this talk about the Rift being difficult to drive has me wanting to clarify a bit: The Rift is a complex unity of simple parts; you've got a 720p screen (1080 in retail version?), a few sensors (accelerometer, gyroscope), and the hardware onboard to interpret it all and do the talking to the computer. When we take this into account, the Rift is actually doing most of the work. The computer is rendering two viewports, sure, but at half the resolution each; framerates shouldn't decrease much from that. Only big thing the computer has to worry about is the depth and 3D viewport movement, which isn't much more than how most games handle ingame camera movement anyways. All in all, the computer isn't doing much more than it already was doing sans Rift, so there's no reason I can see that the Rift would pose significant performance concerns on top of the game being run itself. That brings up another point; cost. A 720p/1080p screen of the size used in the Rift probably won't run much if it's a commonly manufactured size, and it looks about the same size as a portable DVD player (which are dirt cheap altogether). On top of that you have the sensor hardware which would be similar to that of a typical console motion controller. The housing being made of plastic adds negligible cost, so that only leaves the software, which is hard to put a price on. If they can get production scale of the Rift up to a reasonable level, there's no reason it couldn't retail for $250 US while still leaving a sizable profit margin as far as I can see.

[QUOTE=MrWhite;43531548]That brings up another point; cost. A 720p/1080p screen of the size used in the Rift probably won't run much if it's a commonly manufactured size, and it looks about the same size as a portable DVD player (which are dirt cheap altogether). On top of that you have the sensor hardware which would be similar to that of a typical console motion controller. The housing being made of plastic adds negligible cost, so that only leaves the software, which is hard to put a price on. If they can get production scale of the Rift up to a reasonable level, there's no reason it couldn't retail for $250 US while still leaving a sizable profit margin as far as I can see.[/QUOTE] The thing driving up the price right now is probably the 1080p OLED screen (simple LCD screens won't do, and 720p is not enough for consumers). Plus the optics, accelerometer, magnetometer and possible IR camera drive up the price even further. What remains has to pay for R&D, services and paychecks for the several dozen highly-skilled employees at Oculus. In the end it'll probably depend on the manufacturing deals they can strike.

[QUOTE=SgtTupelo;43531336]Rift is now winning by 600+ votes. :v:[/QUOTE] It's up by 5%. That's a pretty sizable gap.

The good news is OR's R&D is basically already paid for - thats what the kickstarter and venture capitalists were doing with their ballpark ~90mill in funds raised so far. So the cost of the OR pretty much just needs to account for the cost to produce and the profit left over to afford company stability/growth and the cut that the investors have a stake in.

First impressions of Valve's VR HMD prototype are starting to appear on the web. [url]https://twitter.com/TheDavidHensley/status/423591891171426304[/url] [quote]resolution is way higher, super low latency and accurate position/rotation head tracking. I was able to physically walk around[/quote] [quote]it was many experiments. I could walk around an area freely and felt like was in an altered state of consciousness.[/quote] [quote]it was all passive experiments, I could walk around a small area in the room, the head tracking was amazing. I could crouch[/quote] Seems VR has a bright future ahead of it (note: Valve's prototype is purely R&D, to showcase what the future of VR will hold. They won't be selling it). We'll need a few years to reach that level at an affordable price though.

Here's a quick compilation of what I've been able to gather from what became of Steam's VR Prototype. On what Valve's Prototype is: [quote=Michael Abrash, "What VR Could, Should, and Almost Certainly Will Be within Two Years"] We’ve figured out what affordable VR hardware will be capable of within a couple of years, and assembled a prototype that reveals what that level of VR hardware is capable of stunning VR experiences. That hardware is almost certainly going to appear in that timeframe, and it will be worth starting to develop for it now. This talk will discuss what that hardware is, and what it makes possible. A few attendees will be randomly selected to try out the prototype after the talk.[/quote] Consolidated points of data about the Prototype (tagged by how reliable/relevant/presumptuous the data is; my thoughts being tagged with "Assumption" or what I feel is a "Plausible" interpretation): * [Plausible, not confirmed] Built using available parts, though parts that are probably prohibitively expensive at this point in time but expected to drop within a few years to the point that they're feasible. * [Confirmed] This is a demonstration unit. It was not intended to be sold and is not a competitor to the Rift at this time. [Assumption] Valve's throwing their hat into the ring because they want VR to take off and so they're trying to sell all these big corps. into providing VR-specific optimizations and so forth to help ensure that the VR market does, in fact, take off. That they're posturing themselves as a VR-friendly digital storefront and are starting up Steam Machines seems to indicate that they're willing to put up a little money and time to get heads together to make it all happen. * [Not-Confirmed] Able to freely, physically, walk around with the headset on. Everything is 'in the headset'; possibly meaning the positional tracking is internal as well. * [Not-Confirmed] Headset is super-low latency, reinforcing the possibility that Crystal Cove was built off of tech. Valve was already looking into. (They may just as well have both arrived independently at the same technical innovation however) * [Plausible] John Carmack mentioned at least one of Valve's prototypes had two 1080p Samsung Galaxy S4 screens, putting it at twice the resolution of the Crystal Cove. * [Assumption] "Everything" being in the headset and being able to 'freely walk around' also implies the Headset is either being streamed to remotely or is directly connected/integrated into their prototype. Perhaps being used to demonstrate further uses of Steam Machines?

[quote]Valve’s VR demo at #SteamDevDays felt like being in a lucid dream state and very much like a holo deck #mindblown #vr[/quote] [url]https://twitter.com/TheDavidHensley/status/423591891171426304[/url] From a tripwire dev Also Figof it is confirmed you can move around. Read Clavus' post. [editline]15th January 2014[/editline] [url]https://twitter.com/TheDavidHensley[/url] He says he hasn't tried Crystal Cove yet but the Valve prototype is leaps and bounds ahead of the first OR devkit

Awesome, prototypes! I just hope some other company jumps on the VR bandwagon. It's going to need widespread support and multiple devices to actually become an industry, rather than an accessory.

Hopefully competition will speed progress and encourage better quality.

Valve's HMD is apparently called "Vortex" Fits well with the Rift.

[QUOTE=Orkel;43553473]Valve's HMD is apparently called "Vortex" Fits well with the Rift.[/QUOTE] The name has been known for a while; what it looks like and how much balloonicorn dust it's made of is still a mystery.

Also it uses two 1080p screens, one per eye. That means it has 7x more pixels than the Rift devkit (knowing that one 1080p screen split in half like in the Rift HD prototype, is 3,5x)

[QUOTE=Orkel;43561697]Also it uses two 1080p screens, one per eye.[/QUOTE] that's awesome. i was hoping someone with the ability to ship out devices with hardware like that would come around because it's so worth it hopefully more big hardware businesses catch on like everyone hopes

i just want full sensory emulation man but the rift is good enough while i wait for that to happen.

why oh why didn't I take the [U]blue[/U] pill?

my university is developing education software that uses the oculus rift to teach 6th graders about physics. ugh i need to figure out how to get access to one

[QUOTE=meppers;43564019]my university is developing education software that uses the oculus rift to teach 6th graders about physics. ugh i need to figure out how to get access to one[/QUOTE] lucky 6th graders, dang

[QUOTE=Orkel;43561697]Also it uses two 1080p screens, one per eye. That means it has 7x more pixels than the Rift devkit (knowing that one 1080p screen split in half like in the Rift HD prototype, is 3,5x)[/QUOTE] See, this is why the Rift is what it is. Oculus chose to use one screen split vertically to save on materials cost. With Vortex, you're now looking in the ballpark of $700+ per device. Oculus is aiming for an entry-level product, whereas Vortex places itself firmly in the land of Sony 3D viewers.

[QUOTE=meppers;43564019]my university is developing education software that uses the oculus rift to teach 6th graders about physics. ugh i need to figure out how to get access to one[/QUOTE] Pose as a 6th grader. Re: the Vortex, isn't it just a proof of concept for what we can expect to come in the next few years?

That was the impression I got. It's probably prohibitively expensive.

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;43566024]That was the impression I got. It's probably prohibitively expensive.[/QUOTE] It is. It's made even more expensive by it not being for sale anywhere ever.

[QUOTE=woolio1;43564591]See, this is why the Rift is what it is. Oculus chose to use one screen split vertically to save on materials cost. With Vortex, you're now looking in the ballpark of $700+ per device. Oculus is aiming for an entry-level product, whereas Vortex places itself firmly in the land of Sony 3D viewers.[/QUOTE] IIRC Carmack said there can be some sync problems while using two screens.

Oculus put together a best-practices guide for VR developers: [url]http://static.oculusvr.com/sdk-downloads/documents/OculusBestPractices.pdf[/url]

[QUOTE=meppers;43564019]my university is developing education software that uses the oculus rift to teach 6th graders [b]about breaking expensive things[/b]. ugh i need to figure out how to get access to one[/QUOTE] All i can imagine.

This was one of the demo scenes that Valve used for their HMD demo [hd]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCh3Q08HMfs[/hd] Must have been trippy when combined with the best VR system currently on the planet. Kinda starting to understand why one of the guys described the demo like a "lucid dream"

I love demoscene animations <3 There are some wicked awesome ones out there that would be cool to experience with OR [editline]18th January 2014[/editline] You can check out and download some right here: [url]http://www.pouet.net/[/url] I bet if you use a program that hacks OR support and have a devkit you could get it to work with them.

[QUOTE=KorJax;43579003]I love demoscene animations <3 There are some wicked awesome ones out there that would be cool to experience with OR [editline]18th January 2014[/editline] You can check out and download some right here: [url]http://www.pouet.net/[/url] I bet if you use a program that hacks OR support and have a devkit you could get it to work with them.[/QUOTE] ...where do I download? That page is a bit of a clusterfuck and I couldn't see anything relating to the demoscene animations.

Here's the link to the one in question: [url]http://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=55758[/url] Direct download link: [url]ftp://ftp.untergrund.net/users/ized/prods/cdak.zip[/url] Way better when it's being rendered on your own computer.