Ask HN: Do you still play with VR actively?

Post by nilkn » Thu, Aug 04, 2016, 3:39 PM UTC

chenster wrote: post #63

nilkn wrote: post #25

I was in the very first wave of Vive shipments and I got a Rift at the very beginning of June. So at this point I've had both for a pretty decent chunk of time. I haven't been using them much, but that's largely due to lack of content. I used them both heavily when they arrived, and the Vive in particular got a ton of playtime, but after a certain point I just don't want to fire up SPT again. Recently it got to a poi…

How does VR do to your eyes after wearing it for a long time?

Post by GFischer » Thu, Aug 04, 2016, 4:49 PM UTC

smacktoward wrote: post #26

excalibur wrote: post #2

I only have a GearVR, but I can tell you that the novelty has worn off for me. I still want to play it, but I rarely get around to it anymore.

I have a Gear VR as well, and wrote up my experiences with it here: https://jasonlefkowitz.net/2015/12/gear-vr-the-future-is-not... Mine's on the shelf now too, for a couple of reasons. First, there wasn't a whole lot of good VR content available at launch, and even now around nine months later there still isn't. Second, I found it the only experience where the device really provided a knockout experience was when vi…

Post by DiThi » Fri, Aug 05, 2016, 12:19 AM UTC

dogma1138 wrote: post #104

DiThi wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vast majority of those problems sound fixable by software. In the absence of MSAA, supersampling goes a long way to improve crispness. With proper text rendering (i.e. NOT E:D) you can squeeze much more information in your field of view, even when the game runs at a lower resolution. Not seeing IRL objects or not being able to do anything else at the same time are also software problems. E.g. with OVDDP[0] you ca…

I find the free look nipple on my stick considerably faster than turning my head, but then again you might be better at summoning your inner owl than me. But overall I had no issues with the graphical fidelity, I can run Raw Data on the highest settings on the dual Titan X's. As far as the FOV it's the FOV it self, in sims with a UWD or screen spanning you can easily do 150 FOV, VR's limit you to 90-110 FOV, with som…

Post by marssaxman » Fri, Aug 05, 2016, 4:23 AM UTC

DiThi wrote: post #85

marssaxman wrote: post #58

Still? God no, that was twenty-five years ago. Oh wait - Oculus. You're talking about all this new stuff that's coming up and might actually make VR work this time? No, I haven't gotten back into it again, yet. Still waiting to see if it's actually going to take off.

Apples and oranges. 25 years ago we didn't have 4000+ GFLOPS GPUs. No 90 hz, no low persistence, no 90+ deg FoV, no high enough resolution, no absolute positional tracking... at least for a sub-1000$ device (expensive ones had a couple of those features). And until this year 2016, there was no actual, released games where the VR user had hands (other than tech demos) with the Vive (or leap motion or razer hydra which…

Post by DiThi » Fri, Aug 05, 2016, 6:52 PM UTC

dogma1138 wrote: post #108

DiThi wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree completely on the FoV. More than 110 wasn't possible because of how many pixels are wasted with a linear projection matrix. That is, until now, where the latest generation of GPUs have viewport multicast and we can render parts of the screen in different resolutions and projection matrices without having to re-render each mesh for each viewport. Between this and the VR software in development, the next 2 year…

viewport multicast atm is somewhat vendor specific tho :\