Oculus are "applying insights" from Valve’s new VR prototype to the Rift - Sensationalist Headlines

The screen's going to have a high enough pixel density that you won't have to worry about the screen door effect in the consumer model. A "retina" model would be pretty cool, though. Wouldn't even have to be that high, since it's a 7" screen. I'm thinking 1080p will probably handle that just fine.

I don't think people are considering the limitations of DVI/HDMI

And just what are those limitations? DVI can drive a 2560x1600 screen just fine, which is more than high enough pixel density for a 24" screen, let alone a 7" one. HDMI has the bandwidth to drive up to 4K resolution. I'm not seeing the problem.

[QUOTE=Clavus;42684238]Yet I can guarantee you that the Oculus would still provide a better experience and be a lot cheaper.[/QUOTE] I remember reading some first-hand reactions to the Rift from one of the trade shows. A guy mentioned that after the demos he went back into the halls and saw the eyefinity setups with six monitors and the 4k TVs and all that and felt that after the Rift all of these felt like toys, and that the Rift was the only thing that mattered when it came to immersive gaming.

[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;42695687]I remember reading some first-hand reactions to the Rift from one of the trade shows. A guy mentioned that after the demos he went back into the halls and saw the eyefinity setups with six monitors and the 4k TVs and all that and felt that after the Rift all of these felt like toys, and that the Rift was the only thing that mattered when it came to immersive gaming.[/QUOTE] It's true. If they get the resolution high enough for the commercial version, it'll be an amazing device. When you slip those goggles over your eyes and you truly feel part of that digital world you're used to seeing on a 2D screen, it's an amazing experience.

[QUOTE=woolio1;42693009]And just what are those limitations? DVI can drive a 2560x1600 screen just fine, which is more than high enough pixel density for a 24" screen, let alone a 7" one. HDMI has the bandwidth to drive up to 4K resolution. I'm not seeing the problem.[/QUOTE] HDMI 2 only does 4K up to 60 FPS.

[QUOTE=Map in a box;42691550]I don't think people are considering the limitations of DVI/HDMI[/QUOTE] Limitations? It's going to be running 60hz 1080p. Where do the limitations come in there? Not even close to the limitations of DVI or HDMI.

[QUOTE=danharibo;42697261]HDMI 2 only does 4K up to 60 FPS.[/QUOTE] Considering most people run their games on a 60hz monitor, I'm not sure quite what the issue is here. Heck, what can render a 4K resolution at higher than 60FPS? The highest I've seen from the Titan is 30fps at 4K.

[QUOTE=woolio1;42697822]Considering most people run their games on a 60hz monitor, I'm not sure quite what the issue is here. Heck, what can render a 4K resolution at higher than 60FPS? The highest I've seen from the Titan is 30fps at 4K.[/QUOTE] These numbers make no sense without context of what kind of workload is being thrown at the graphics card. A Titan won't have any problems running, for example, Half Life 2 at 60hz at 4K, ignoring the video interface limitations. When developers focus on making games for virtual reality, they'll make games run at high framerates, making compromises in other areas. The reason everything runs at 30 to 60 fps nowadays is because that's what game devs target.

And also because most screens, even still, are 60hz panels. But, what I was specifically referencing was Battlefield 3 at 4K on a Titan/i7 combo on high. Sure, you can throw Half Life 2 on a Titan and run it at 4K no problems, but you could probably do the same with a toaster. Half Life 2 is both old and optimized, it's not a fair comparison.