Virtual Reality General V3 - You've got the Touch - Games

The thing is, I can see an iMac Pro being a decent VR development machine. But I don't see consumers using VR on Mac just yet.

[QUOTE=Xanoxis;52320655]Oh PLEASE. Are you serious? The iMac Pro is not for average person that plays some games and bought VR, it's for people that work. It's not only computer, it's a whole package, 5K monitor, MacOS, High end server grade CPU with safe ECC memory, very fast SSD, and highest end GPU with new memory technology not used in consumer technology before, and outstanding performance in many professional workloads, like machine learning etc. [b]Please tell me how does 1k PC beat that.[/b][/QUOTE] Objectively by a landslide in raw performance? v:v:v No mac has ever had a GPU with even remotely close to "highest end" performance that I can remember, QUADRO-esque features in the industries it's usually used in is an enormous waste of money IMO but regardless of how you feel about that there's no way you could argue that the performance is competitive by price. As Palmer Luckey said back when he was asked about OSX support: [QUOTE]You can buy a $6,000 Mac Pro with the top of the line AMD FirePro D700, and it still doesn’t match our recommended specs. So if they prioritise higher-end GPUs like they used to for a while back in the day, we’d love to support Mac. But right now, there’s just not a single machine out there that supports it.[/QUOTE] That computer appears to be actually $4700 currently, but either way the point still stands that you could make a VR-capable PC that could be upgraded and would have much higher performance for a tiny fraction of a price.

[QUOTE=gk99;52320813]Tbh I'd rather buy a PC for gaming and a laptop for work and end up saving myself a couple thousand rather than buy that. [editline]a[/editline] Unless the laptop is Apple-branded in which case the savings are quite a bit less. [editline]a[/editline] Who the fuck needs a 5k monitor for work realtalk [editline]a[/editline] Like fuck what occupation can you not get by with a 4k monitor at least[/QUOTE] Are you for real? Anyone in photo or video editing. Have you ever seen a Graphic design studio? Christ. [editline]7th June 2017[/editline] I dislike Macs as much as the next guy but that is top tier arrogance. They have their place in the market for a reason.

In fact, 4K content upscaled to fit a 5K display actually looks worse than it does on a native 4K display. The 5K iMac has always been a content creation tool. That's like the whole point. Which is why the vast majority of home users buy devices with Retina displays instead.

[QUOTE=gk99;52320813]Who the fuck needs a 5k monitor for work realtalk [editline]a[/editline] Like fuck what occupation can you not get by with a 4k monitor at least[/QUOTE] I'm an animator, I always want more screen space. I usually end up with a bunch of windows over my work that I end up having to close or throw onto my second monitor because I'd really rather have them open, which covers up other things.

[QUOTE=RR_Raptor65;52321373]I'm an animator, I always want more screen space. I usually end up with a bunch of windows over my work that I end up having to close or throw onto my second monitor because I'd really rather have them open, which covers up other things.[/QUOTE] But in that case wouldn't three 4k monitors, which is around the price of one 5k monitor, be more beneficial then?

i have a 5k iMac (it somehow cost less than a macbook at the time and i needed a mac for school) that screen is godtier for productivity. might need to grab one of those external gpu's for it now that apple is gonna give them official support

It'd definitely be nice to see Macs become more viable for gaming again, my first gaming computer was a Macintosh 6100 back in 1994, there were a LOT of games for Mac at the time, just as many if not more than what Windows had. Modern Macs just lack the horsepower to be good gaming machines, it's something my dev team and I are wrestling with because we really want to be able to provide Mac builds but optimizing for Mac performance is a bitch.

Just a heads-up, apparently the Vive audio strap has an issue with the foam padding deteriorating with use: [url]https://www.reddit.com/r/Vive/comments/6fqbuo/foam_padding_deteriorating_deluxe_audio_headstrap/[/url]

I also heard they're mostly sold out already.

[QUOTE=RR_Raptor65;52322441]It'd definitely be nice to see Macs become more viable for gaming again, my first gaming computer was a Macintosh 6100 back in 1994, there were a LOT of games for Mac at the time, just as many if not more than what Windows had. Modern Macs just lack the horsepower to be good gaming machines, it's something my dev team and I are wrestling with because we really want to be able to provide Mac builds but optimizing for Mac performance is a bitch.[/QUOTE] Hey, another early Mac gamer. I started out on the G4 Cube. Cro-Mag Rally was my jam.

[QUOTE=Clavus;52322764]Just a heads-up, apparently the Vive audio strap has an issue with the foam padding deteriorating with use: [url]https://www.reddit.com/r/Vive/comments/6fqbuo/foam_padding_deteriorating_deluxe_audio_headstrap/[/url][/QUOTE] turns out its only skin deep [video=youtube;L2U6tdeDs34]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2U6tdeDs34[/video]

So it's just like the facepads then? I had this same issue with my facepads when I first got my vive, kept leaving black marks on my face, rinsing it in warm water and rubbing it off didn't destroy it and I stopped getting black shit on my face.

[QUOTE=Xanoxis;52320655]Oh PLEASE. Are you serious? The iMac Pro is not for average person that plays some games and bought VR, it's for people that work. It's not only computer, it's a whole package, 5K monitor, MacOS, High end server grade CPU with safe ECC memory, very fast SSD, and highest end GPU with new memory technology not used in consumer technology before, and outstanding performance in many professional workloads, like machine learning etc. Please tell me how does 1k PC beat that.[/QUOTE] my 1k pc is literally doing all of that as we speak. Maybe not specs wise, but use wise. Hell, my office HAS 5k mac workstations, and I chose to work from home today because a scene I'm working on runs better here than it does on any of those machines.

[QUOTE=gk99;52320813]Tbh I'd rather buy a PC for gaming and a laptop for work and end up saving myself a couple thousand rather than buy that. [editline]a[/editline] Unless the laptop is Apple-branded in which case the savings are quite a bit less. [editline]a[/editline] Who the fuck needs a 5k monitor for work realtalk [editline]a[/editline] Like fuck what occupation can you not get by with a 4k monitor at least[/QUOTE] Radiology. The higher resolution and contrast resolution the monitor has, the better but you won't find any hospital using macs

[QUOTE=Kylel999;52329574]Radiology. The higher resolution and contrast resolution the monitor has, the better but you won't find any hospital using macs[/QUOTE] I used to maintain those monitors, resolution really isn't much of a bother, it's all about high contrast and maintaining a very high light output. It's all about spotting faint things, not so much about spotting tiny details, there's zoom for that.

[url]http://www.roadtovr.com/apple-and-valve-have-worked-together-for-nearly-a-year-to-bring-steamvr-to-macos/?platform=hootsuite[/url] Apple and valve's VR confrence talks about how it works and that they worked together for a year to do this

[url]https://www.pcgamingshow.com/[/url] Oculus will be at the E3 PC Gaming Show on Monday

[QUOTE=Paul-Simon;52305544][media]https://youtu.be/0t4aKJuKP0Q[/media][/QUOTE] I don't know if I'm just dumb, but I just can't accept the 4th dimension looks like the one in which the video/game portrayed. The video portrayed the 4th dimension as 'space', similar to 1st, 2nd, and 3rd dimension? I thought the 4th dimension is supposed to be 'time'? Otherwise we'll see objects disappearing all the time If there is a 4th dimension other than 'time', then that dimension would not be descrpiting 'spatial location' such as 1st, 2nd, and 3rd dimension. It would be descripting the object position/location relation to it's 'time'. But the objects in the video seems to interact only with 'space'

[QUOTE=hakimhakim;52339578]I don't know if I'm just dumb, but I just can't accept the 4th dimension looks like the one in which the video/game portrayed. The video portrayed the 4th dimension as 'space', similar to 1st, 2nd, and 3rd dimension? I thought the 4th dimension is supposed to be 'time'? Otherwise we'll see objects disappearing all the time[/QUOTE] Did you watch the video without sound? The first thing they say is that in the simulation objects exist in 4 dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time rather than 3 dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time. They're clearly not trying to suggest that there's no time dimension or anything crazy like that, they're just explaining how we can try and comprehend a reality more complicated than our own by comparing our reality to one less complicated than our own.

[QUOTE=Elspin;52339624]Did you watch the video without sound? The first thing they say is that in the simulation objects exist in 4 dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time rather than 3 dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time. They're clearly not trying to suggest that there's no time dimension or anything crazy like that, they're just explaining how we can try and comprehend a reality more complicated than our own by comparing our reality to one less complicated than our own.[/QUOTE] So it's really just a what-if situation? I guess I was confused on the justification of making that game. I thought they were trying to explain the real-world dimensions, because I can't believe they would go to a great length of making a game in VR to explain the concept of dimensions using dimension that does not actually happen in our dimensions.

[QUOTE=hakimhakim;52339650]So it's really just a what-if situation? I guess I was confused on the justification of making that game. I thought they were trying to explain the real-world dimensions, because I can't believe they would go to a great length of making a game in VR to explain the concept of dimensions using dimension that does not actually happen in our dimensions.[/QUOTE] Without a spacial fourth dimension, you wouldn't get cool shit like tesseracts.

[QUOTE=hakimhakim;52339650]So it's really just a what-if situation? I guess I was confused on the justification of making that game. I thought they were trying to explain the real-world dimensions, because I can't believe they would go to a great length of making a game in VR to explain the concept of dimensions using dimension that does not actually happen in our dimensions.[/QUOTE] The 2d man is a 2 dimensional being, but he is viewing 3d objects which can phase in and out of the 2d world, but 2d objects can't. They physically lack a 3rd dimension to move on. We live in a 3rd dimensional world, so we can only perceive that dimension, and we cant knock anything into the 4th dimension, because everything we know only exists with 3 dimensions. But if we had a fourth dimensional object, it would behave similarly as the objects in the video, in theory. It could move around inside an abstraction of space we cant perceive or feel. The fourth dimension is something that we can only really study through mathematics theory, since we have no way of interacting with it, at least not at this stage.

[QUOTE=hakimhakim;52339650]So it's really just a what-if situation? I guess I was confused on the justification of making that game. I thought they were trying to explain the real-world dimensions, because I can't believe they would go to a great length of making a game in VR to explain the concept of dimensions using dimension that does not actually happen in our dimensions.[/QUOTE] There could be a fourth spatial dimension, the point of the analogy in the video is to point out that a 2D observer would not be able to observe the third dimension, and if an object is moved in the third dimension, they will perceive it as the object seemingly disappearing inexplicably. The exact same applies to 3D observers (us), if an object came rolling into our 'plane', it would seemingly appear out of nowhere. And there [I]are [/I]particles that pop in and out of existence, after all, in the real world. Simulating a fourth spatial dimension is just a way for humans to try and imagine something that could be possible, but which would be completely undetectable to us.

[QUOTE=hakimhakim;52339578]I don't know if I'm just dumb, but I just can't accept the 4th dimension looks like the one in which the video/game portrayed. The video portrayed the 4th dimension as 'space', similar to 1st, 2nd, and 3rd dimension? I thought the 4th dimension is supposed to be 'time'? Otherwise we'll see objects disappearing all the time If there is a 4th dimension other than 'time', then that dimension would not be descrpiting 'spatial location' such as 1st, 2nd, and 3rd dimension. It would be descripting the object position/location relation to it's 'time'. But the objects in the video seems to interact only with 'space'[/QUOTE] Dimensions are one of the abstract ways of describing our empirical observations of the universe around us and if time is a dimension is more or less a matter of consensus, particular scientific frame of reference and semantics. I have underwent quite extensive mathematical study and in Czech maths and physics class nobody really ever made the "time is a dimension too, kinda" connection till like, university, iirc. We learned all the same principles but time was always the same thing. You can absolutely displace time with any number of wild additional dimensions in a mathematical situation like this game. I don't remember what's the current understanding of how many dimensions there actually are (aren't there a few more but kind of squashed so flat they are next to unnoticeable or something?) but it's worth noting that mathematicians ran off with the multi dimensional concept and use it quite extensively in context of things that aren't regular movey-thingy space. This toy is kinda basically using a pretty useful and commonly utilised apparatus in form that's in a way rather intuitive but at the same time rather useless.

[video=youtube;JYOasB6aI_A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYOasB6aI_A[/video] [video=youtube;jspdtha3t1k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jspdtha3t1k[/video] [media]https://twitter.com/bethesda/status/874116801466048513[/media] Doom looks great

"Coming to PSVR and HTC Vive" As expected, Zenimax/Bethesda doesn't mention the Rift.

[QUOTE=Orkel;52344664]"Coming to PSVR and HTC Vive" As expected, Zenimax/Bethesda doesn't mention the Rift.[/QUOTE] I have to assume it's a "room scale limitation," and that "the standard equipment doesn't offer the same capabilities as the Vive," or "we designed it for the Vive, but you can still play with your shitty cameras and 180-degree tracking on your children's toy." You know, the same excuses we get for every Vive-exclusive title, despite the fact that the Rift is very near feature parity to the Vive, and leagues ahead of PSVR.

I'm so fucking salty that I bought fallout 4 lmao I literally wanted this exact thing for fallout... VR fallout [editline]12th June 2017[/editline] I wonder if its a free thing anyone can just use because HOT DAMN

It's better than having your favorite titles announced as Rift exclusive, in any case. I have to say, their VR titles look surprisingly competent. I'm sure Fallout 4 VR will be a buggy mess regardless but it looks like a fairly complete VR title already. I'm surprised. I have to assume mods won't work though, which may kill off a lot of my excitement for it.