[QUOTE=Baboo00;48036503]Can any cables even carry 4k at 90hz? I'm struggling to get my 1440p monitor to work at 60hz even with HDMI 1.4 cables and everything.
Edit: I mean obv you could upscale from a lower resolution but if you wanted to run the rift at native resolution or higher, 4k wouldn't really make sense. I'm guessing they're improving specs other than resolution.[/QUOTE]
DisplayPort 1.3 can drive 7680×4320 at 60Hz so I think it'll be fine.
[QUOTE=Scot;48036528]DisplayPort 1.3 can drive 7680×4320 at 60Hz so I think it'll be fine.[/QUOTE]
We need to be higher than 60Hz though
[QUOTE=Beacon;48036539]We need to be higher than 60Hz though[/QUOTE]
And 4K is 3840x2160.
[QUOTE=Scot;48036581]And 4K is 3840x2160.[/QUOTE]
You said DP 1.3 can support 4K+ res, but only up to 60HZ, right? That's going to be a problem if the screens need to run at 70+Hz
So unless I'm mistaken about how the bandwidth of cables work, the best 16x9 resolution a displayport 1.3 cable could do at 90hz is 6256x3519. Edit: But of course the rift isn't 16x9 and resolutions are always multiples of 10 so nevermind I'm dumb.
Pretty much upgraded my cpu by end of this week, going to go for 980ti which will be overkill for the rift but playing it safe i guess
[QUOTE=Beacon;48036589]You said DP 1.3 can support 4K+ res, but only up to 60HZ, right? That's going to be a problem if the screens need to run at 70+Hz[/QUOTE]
I'm saying it comes down to how much data the cable can transfer. If it can do 7680×4320 at 60Hz then it can do 3840x2160 at 90Hz.
[QUOTE=Scot;48036686]I'm saying it comes down to how much data the cable can transfer. If it can do 7680×4320 at 60Hz then it can do 3840x2160 at 90Hz.[/QUOTE]
7680x4320 is 33177600 pixels
3840x2160 is 8294400 pixels
8k at 60hz that is 1990656000 pixels per second, so 4k should push 240 hz if the data works like that.
[url=http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/downloads/c73c6865-160f-451e-9106-ef7fef7543f4/]Oculus Rift HMD Lens cad files from MS research[/url]
What is this? I can't find it anywhere else on Microsoft research page?
[QUOTE=Ithon;48044648][url=http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/downloads/c73c6865-160f-451e-9106-ef7fef7543f4/]Oculus Rift HMD Lens cad files from MS research[/url]
What is this? I can't find it anywhere else on Microsoft research page?[/QUOTE]
Basically a demonstration of their lens designing software. DK2 lenses weren't optimal.
[QUOTE=Clavus;48046569]Basically a demonstration of their lens designing software. DK2 lenses weren't optimal.[/QUOTE]
one wonders why it was only published a few days ago
I've noticed that a lot of the time, "VR skeptics" are just uninformed or misinformed. They either don't know or have the wrong idea about the technology involved.
[QUOTE=FetusFondler;48051847]I've noticed that a lot of the time, "VR skeptics" are just uninformed or misinformed. They either don't know or have the wrong idea about the technology involved.[/QUOTE]
The truth is VR is not for everyone, like coke and tonic water or like fps and chess.
You're going to have some people be great for VR while others not and will probably like AR over VR.
When the products finally come to market you'll have some people review it and not like it right away or over time, then the people would doubled down saying VR is a fad go "I told you so!"
Fanboy and hipster battles might hurt sales and I wish before hand people would understand some people like savory while others like sweet.
I just can't stand the people that can seriously say, with a straight face, that VR today is the exact same as VR from the 90s. I saw a lot of people like that over in the Reggie Fils-Aime thread.
[QUOTE=woolio1;48052448]I just can't stand the people that can seriously say, with a straight face, that VR today is the exact same as VR from the 90s. I saw a lot of people like that over in the Reggie Fils-Aime thread.[/QUOTE]
people who worked or saw vr on the 90s moved on to this
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STMcWUtQr1Y[/media]
which is a best experience so far.
[QUOTE=Ithon;48052387]The truth is VR is not for everyone, like coke and tonic water or like fps and chess.
You're going to have some people be great for VR while others not and will probably like AR over VR.
[/QUOTE]
That's fine but the problem is people talking nonsense and making it painfully obvious in the process that they've never worn a Rift. VR isn't something you can properly form an opinion on without having tried it.
[QUOTE=Ithon;48052592]people who worked or saw vr on the 90s moved on to this
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STMcWUtQr1Y[/media]
which is a best experience so far.[/QUOTE]
Dai's got one of those. He hates it. Says it's a terrible VR implementation.
[QUOTE=woolio1;48053067]Dai's got one of those. He hates it. Says it's a terrible VR implementation.[/QUOTE]
I've tried a version of it, I prefer it over VR goggles, but Dai's story shows you a down side. I get the same interface minus some surface flaws but I get to see my body and others while if getting great tracking works great.
Let me clarify, when it works I find it to be the best. (they have these things in a chapter of CG books and it's not pretty, SLI is easy compared to some configurations).
We do not have an accurate dataset nor large group of people testing out all of the varying VR and AR products which haven't even gone to market yet.
I wish I could condense the phenomena of people are incorrectly saying while also condense the best reply in an accurate and lossless compressed manor.
longtail works is the best phrase I can come up with.
u can only have one person using it at a time tho
[QUOTE=abcpea;48053776]u can only have one person using it at a time tho[/QUOTE]
So what if only one person is setup for the room, you can still interact with the person and that person and see themselves and real world objects. Plus the expensive tracking and be the same as tracking talked about in this thread.
Now again, some people like one thing over another.
Gonna get my hands on the 980 ti later this week, and maybe upgrade my cpu closer to Q4 of this year, still haven't decided which VR device I want though.
New vision-tracking system.
[vid]http://i.imgur.com/9zf78WZ.webm[/vid]
zero latency - it's the future
Orkel, don't go poking bears. People just don't understand that VR now is different than what we've seen before.
It's a worthless discussion. So many people are against this despite never having tried it. It's bizarre.
[QUOTE=Ithon;48052592]people who worked or saw vr on the 90s moved on to this
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STMcWUtQr1Y[/media]
which is a best experience so far.[/QUOTE]
we have one of those in my office and it has been the biggest waste of money, I just went off on a long rant about that junk here not too long ago
like it's cool and the experience is better than oculus DK1 (and arguably an easier concept to grasp for people who are adverse to the idea of an HMD), but the fucker was beyond expensive, the software hasn't seen much of an upgrade since the 90's, and it's visually awful. Using four projections facing in toward each other causes severe whitewashing
So woo!, just got done presenting my thesis and Wow!, We ( me and my group ) left the judges and everyone there speechless, Based on their standing applausing and their expressions im pretty sure we left a good expression and it was even better when i offered them to try to oculus!, Im just filled with joy and happiness that they all had such a positive reaction to VR /Technology overall, Really a great day
[QUOTE=woolio1;48055739]Orkel, don't go poking bears. People just don't understand that VR now is different than what we've seen before.
It's a worthless discussion. So many people are against this despite never having tried it. It's bizarre.[/QUOTE]
I don't poke bears, I am the bear
Isn't it dumb poking yourself?
[QUOTE=kimr120;48059086]Isn't it dumb poking yourself?[/QUOTE]
I poke myself all the time
[QUOTE=Orkel;48058739]I don't poke bears, I am the bear[/QUOTE]
Don't be the Red Cyclone, Orkel.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
