[QUOTE=woolio1;49354441]Depends on what you're trying to render.[/QUOTE]
Aren't they going for 1920x1080 @120hz? If so then good luck rendering that consistently on a PS4. I can't get stable 120fps in quite a lot of games on a gaming rig that outperforms that console by miles. Even if they manage to do it by butchering the quality of their VR games there will be no point in playing them.
[QUOTE=Killstr3aKs;49354527]Aren't they going for 1920x1080 @120hz? If so then good luck rendering that consistently on a PS4. I can't get stable 120fps in quite a lot of games on a gaming rig that outperforms that console by miles. Even if they manage to do it by butchering the quality of their VR games there will be no point in playing them.[/QUOTE]
1080 at 90. Not 120. In addition, it's a bit pointless to say 'I just don't think the PS4 can render it consistently' when they've been demoing games and devs have had them for a while now...
[QUOTE=Zombii;49354534]1080 at 90. Not 120. In addition, it's a bit pointless to say 'I just don't think the PS4 can render it consistently' when they've been demoing games and devs have had them for a while now...[/QUOTE]
With a Wii-sized box attached to it that supposedly doesn't do any graphics processing, and therefore shouldn't be too expensive. I don't buy that.
Also, source on the 90hz? I've been reading that it will be 120 everywhere.
[QUOTE=Killstr3aKs;49354594]With a Wii-sized box attached to it that supposedly doesn't do any graphics processing, and therefore shouldn't be too expensive. I don't buy that.
Also, source on the 90hz? I've been reading that it will be 120 everywhere.[/QUOTE]
The display is capable of 60, 90, and 120Hz, but they're targeting 90. They've told developers that 90Hz should be the minimum target because that's when the tracking and latency becomes 'acceptable'.
In addition, I don't know where you guys are getting that PSVR was ever going to be a cheaper alternative. Sony has said before that PSVR is going to be priced 'at the tier of a new gaming system', so ~400USD.
Regardless of any external graphics processing, we [I]know[/I] for a fact that it works, and we know the projected price point already, so why bother with pedantic arguments over what the breakout box does?
[QUOTE=Zombii;49354628]
In addition, I don't know where you guys are getting that PSVR was ever going to be a cheaper alternative. Sony has said before that PSVR is going to be priced 'at the tier of a new gaming system', so ~400USD.[/QUOTE]
More or less $400 for the headset + a box thing that increases the console performance to achieve 90Hz at 1080p. That's quite impressive to be honest, considering that just the Rift headset will cost almost the same.
I wonder how many PC/console devs will build native VR support but fuck it compeletely up by having the game locked at something stupid like 30fps
30 fps just moving a MOUSE is bad enough for me, I can't imagine how AWFUL it would be on any HMD in a game
[QUOTE=J!NX;49354833]I wonder how many PC/console devs will build native VR support but fuck it compeletely up by having the game locked at something stupid like 30fps[/QUOTE]
Nobody? Locking at 30 fps isn't incompetence, it's a performance budget choice. And for VR nobody is going to ignore the framerate minimum because it won't get past QA. VR forces every developer to choose framerate over graphics fidelity.
[QUOTE=Clavus;49354955]Nobody? Locking at 30 fps isn't incompetence, it's a performance budget choice. And for VR nobody is going to ignore the framerate minimum because it won't get past QA. VR forces every developer to choose framerate over graphics fidelity.[/QUOTE]
theres plenty of console and pc games that are locked at 30 because of incompetence
or at least, there are many incompetent reasons studio's give; IE "THE CINEMATIC FEEL"
it's especially bad for PC because the hardware isn't locked to a specific set of specs. People that have extremely powerful rigs that can run witcher 3 on ultra at 4k 4x dsr can't run these games past 30 fps at 1080p.
some idiot is going to make a game with the internal timing and programming tied to the framerate, and then add VR support afterwards and you'll get a horrible mess. (and any dev that actually programs like that clearly can't optimize for scat)
badly optimized games that try to push VR support for that quick "fast cash" VR will pull in are probably going to become somewhat commonplace tbh
[QUOTE=Killstr3aKs;49354827]More or less $400 for the headset + a box thing that increases the console performance to achieve 90Hz at 1080p. That's quite impressive to be honest, considering that just the Rift headset will cost almost the same.[/QUOTE]
Okay, I'm going to recommend you get the idea that the breakout box increases performance out of your head. The PS4 is a remarkably powerful console, and with a little more optimization it's fully capable of handling the lighter side of VR with ease.
[QUOTE=J!NX;49355000]theres plenty of console and pc games that are locked at 30 because of incompetence
or at least, there are many incompetent reasons studio's give; IE "THE CINEMATIC FEEL"
it's especially bad for PC because the hardware isn't locked to a specific set of specs. People that have extremely powerful rigs that can run witcher 3 on ultra at 4k 4x dsr can't run these games past 30 fps at 1080p.
some idiot is going to make a game with the internal timing and programming tied to the framerate, and then add VR support afterwards and you'll get a horrible mess. (and any dev that actually programs like that clearly can't optimize for scat)
badly optimized games that try to push VR support for that quick "fast cash" VR will pull in are probably going to become somewhat commonplace tbh[/QUOTE]
That's not 'incompetence'. That's 'low budget'. In those cases they barely spend any man hours on porting, hence fps locks to make sure the engine simulation stays consistent. It's not like they can't do it, they just don't spend money on it.
But that has no relation to VR game development whatsoever. If you make a VR game, you HAVE to make sure it runs at device native resolutions and framerate. I doubt there will be many studios making shitty VR ports because Steam reviews will hang them out to dry and Oculus won't even allow them on their store because they curate it. It's the one unbreakable rule of VR development that everyone is hammering in, I seriously doubt anyone spending serious money on it will ignore that.
[QUOTE=J!NX;49354833]I wonder how many PC/console devs will build native VR support but fuck it compeletely up by having the game locked at something stupid like 30fps
30 fps just moving a MOUSE is bad enough for me, I can't imagine how AWFUL it would be on any HMD in a game[/QUOTE]
That lesson has already been learned and ingrained into the minds of everybody currently developing for vr. If a developer locks their game at 30fps (or even 60!) then they are so far out of the loop or so absurdly lazy that they should not be surprised when they don't sell a single copy.
[editline]20th December 2015[/editline]
So yeah, pretty much none.
[QUOTE=woolio1;49354441]Depends on what you're trying to render.[/QUOTE]
Correct me if I'm wrong, (because I know I'm not right, I'm not tech savvy), but for immersion doesn't VR need to render for two screens at >1920x1080 and consistently >90fps?
99% of games on current-gen don't run at 1920x1080 at 60fps. Most games on current-gen don't even run at 60fps.
I guess me saying I can't see it working was kind of a bland statement now that I think about it again, in the right games I can absolutely seeing it work. But I think it will be very limited
[URL="http://www.pcgamesn.com/htc-vive-vr-headset-was-delayed-because-of-a-very-very-big-technological-breakthrough"]Apparently this is the reason the Vive was delayed 4 months[/URL]
I'm betting its some kind of full-body scanning OR photogrammetry using the camera on the headset.
[QUOTE=Kylel999;49356064]99% of games on current-gen don't run at 1920x1080 at 60fps. Most games on current-gen don't even run at 60fps.[/QUOTE]
Doesn't mean they can't if that's what the devs prioritize. People don't seem to realize that, in the end, the visual fidelity gained for triple-A games by sacrificing 60 fps or running at 900p was [b]worth it according to their market research[/b].
Now that a part of the crowd became very vocal about framerate and resolution and whatnot, you see that turn around a little (just notice how market trailers suddenly proclaim "60fps!"). But in turn that means you have 16.6ms to render your scene instead of 33ms. Meaning simpler geometry, simpler shaders, less cpu time.
For VR the need for a high framerate comes from the fact the core VR experience itself improves greatly. Higher framerate means the world looks more natural when moving your head.
[QUOTE=Kylel999;49356064]99% of games on current-gen don't run at 1920x1080 at 60fps. Most games on current-gen don't even run at 60fps.
I guess me saying I can't see it working was kind of a bland statement now that I think about it again, in the right games I can absolutely seeing it work. But I think it will be very limited[/QUOTE]
Man, current gen games are [I]not[/I] for vr. VR devs know that they have a much higher performance target. So they sacrifice 16x anti aliasing, tessellation, volumetric lighting etc. Instead, they will (at least for now) use simpler stylized graphics, fewer polygons, workarounds etc.
At some point in the future, computers will have enough power to render what today is cutting edge graphics at speeds necessary for vr to work and be comfortable.
I don't get why this concept is so hard to understand for so many people.
[QUOTE=GeneralSpecific;49357110]Man, current gen games are [I]not[/I] for vr. VR devs know that they have a much higher performance target. So they sacrifice 16x anti aliasing, tessellation, volumetric lighting etc. Instead, they will (at least for now) use simpler stylized graphics, fewer polygons, workarounds etc.
At some point in the future, computers will have enough power to render what today is cutting edge graphics at speeds necessary for vr to work and be comfortable.
I don't get why this concept is so hard to understand for so many people.[/QUOTE]
I'm totally fine with simpler graphics as long as the VR experience is fun, which should be the main objective for these kind of games (and every game for that matter).
[QUOTE=Killstr3aKs;49357534]I'm totally fine with simpler graphics as long as the VR experience is fun, which should be the main objective for these kind of games (and every game for that matter).[/QUOTE]
I've always wondered about insane tessellation for details when Parallax mapping works perfectly fine for a majority of situations (Ground planes, distant objects (buildings, water, etc), walls).
[QUOTE=Killstr3aKs;49352416][video=youtube;ett95fY4nKM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ett95fY4nKM[/video][/QUOTE]
wait
is it pronounced "vive" as in "revive".. because honestly if it's meant to be called "veev" that's ridiculous. I'm interested in the Vive's new breakthrough but damn, april?
[QUOTE=Instant Mix;49358876]wait
is it pronounced "vive" as in "revive".. because honestly if it's meant to be called "veev" that's ridiculous. I'm interested in the Vive's new breakthrough but damn, april?[/QUOTE]
Vive - like Five.
[QUOTE=GeneralSpecific;49359322]Vive - like Viva.[/QUOTE]
You sure? The Hover Junkers guys all pronounce it Vive like revive
[QUOTE=Timebomb575;49359543]You sure? The Hover Junkers guys all pronounce it Vive like revive[/QUOTE]
Oh shit i looked it up and I was wrong.
[QUOTE=GeneralSpecific;49359603]Oh shit i looked it up and I was wrong.[/QUOTE]
Good rhyme.
[QUOTE=Ott;49359624]Good rhyme.[/QUOTE]
thanks?
i dont care how they pronounce it im gonna go with the rules of the english language
Finally got to try something native vr related, gear vr. Damn it's so much better than cardboard. Mostly the screen door effect reduced, but still low res
[B]Rift SDK 1.0 Shipping to Developers with Final Rift Hardware[/B]
[quote]Rift SDK 1.0 is shipping this week to developers with early builds of final Rift hardware.
If you’re shipping a Rift title in Q1, you’ll need early access to Rift hardware and new platform features to finalize your game or application. The Rift SDK 1.0 and runtime include features tied to the consumer product, so we’ve currently limited the release to developers putting final touches on launch titles.
If you’re planning a launch title and don’t yet have hardware, you can now upload a preview of your app through the Oculus submission tool, and we’ll be in touch with next steps.
We’re shipping more Rift hardware out to developers every week in the run up to launch. In the meantime, DK2 and SDK 0.8 continue to be the right platform for early Rift development -- you only need SDK 1.0 if you’re imminently shipping.
We’re looking forward to seeing your VR experiences on Rift when it launches in Q1!
-- The Oculus Team
[/quote]
hopes are being raised
i've waited years for the final orders to open (but i did buy a DK2 along the way)
"We’re shipping more Rift hardware out to developers every week in the run up to launch"
I hope that doesn't mean weeks until the preorders, since that would go into January.
[QUOTE=Orkel;49365196]"We’re shipping more Rift hardware out to developers every week in the run up to launch"
I hope that doesn't mean weeks until the preorders, since that would go into January.[/QUOTE]
Doesn't actually say anything about the consumer pre-orders. We'll have to wait and see. Personally expecting orders to go up around CES. They might want to avoid burdening the sales team right before Christmas.
Basically:
[QUOTE]Ought to be "within a week and a half" or a "Sorry but preorders have been delayed"•really•damn soon, given•"we’re incredibly excited to announce that the Oculus Rift will be shipping to consumers in Q1 2016,with pre-orders later this year."[/QUOTE]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
