Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Oculus Rift S

oculus.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 272 posts

Re: Oculus Rift S

#171

Post by Judgmentality »

ricardobeat wrote: post #153
Judgmentality wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The gameplay-experience isn't what is holding VR back. VR was good enough 3 years ago. This is wrong. All of the other things you mention matter, but at the end of the day I cannot buy a compelling VR experience at any price. VR itself still needs to be improved before all of those other things matter. VR is incredibly underwhelming at this point, regardless of price. I'd say it's still a few years away from being…

What have you tried so far? I bought myself a Rift during the last Black Friday and am very pleased. BeatSaber and Eleven Table Tennis alone make it worth.

I tried the Oculus Rift at Facebook HQ with all of the fancy dongles, including things I'm not allowed to talk about.

I've also tried the regular HTC Vive.

Both felt like a gimmick, and the Vive made my girlfriend nauseous after a few minutes.

I'm a big believer in the potential of VR, but the current options do not impress me. I think it's still a few years away for someone like me, and still another 5+ years where it starts to become mainstream (largely due to cost and lack of content).

Re: Oculus Rift S

#172

Post by jron »

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #166
dmix wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People get so angry whenever VR is brought up. Are there not other companies besides Oculus to serve the higher-end VR market? What's wrong with a company focusing on a mainstream market? The waste of talent?

Well, HP's new version of the Reverb jumped to a 2160x2160 per-eye resolution. If Pimax can get their shit together, the 4K resolution and ridiculous FOV is promising. I think the ultimate problem is that the higher-end market isn't willing to spend what it would require to build a sufficiently-good headset right now, nor are there many home gaming computers that can realistically pump 8+K low latency, high FPS graph…

The market for a high end HMD is pretty much anyone that already has no problem spending $1,000 on a video card. That is a lot of us but it isn't big enough for a company like Facebook or HTC. My fear is pushing crap at $500 instead of gold at $900 will leave a stigma on VR that will take another decade or more to wash off.

The reverb actually looks great but the tracking is a flop.

Re: Oculus Rift S

#173

Post by davefp »

cmsimike wrote: post #146
EpicEng wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The quest is an even larger step given the fact that it doesn't require an external PC. But still, I would love to see something more gamer oriented.

Didn't the second Vive release provide something more gamer oriented?

That's not what HTC were going for with the Pro, it's geared towards commercial use. Hobbyists are still buying it (naturally) but what we're really waiting for is whatever Valve are up to.

Re: Oculus Rift S

#174

Post by xbkingx »

mikenew wrote: post #47

They really phoned it in on this one. No physical IPD adjustment, an 80hz LCD rather than the 90hz OLED, a very marginal resolution increase to 1280×1440 (which is still less than the $200 WMR headset I bought almost two years ago), and no FOV increase. The move to inside-out tracking means a more convenient setup, but it will lose tracking when you put your hands behind you (like shooting a bow, which just about rui…

That's because they've got all the enthusiasts they want right now. The S is clearly meant to bring more people into the VR market, not act as an upgrade for existing owners. It's a good option for people that waited to buy an HMD too long and don't want to get an old system that will be discontinued in a few months, and those that can't/don't want to deal with wiring up all the cameras/sensors. It also isn't a terrible option as a second VR setup. I have a Vive, and if I was really interested in Oculus exclusives and a little impatient, the S wouldn't be a terrible option.

I don't see the S as an upgrade or competing product, but as an option targeted for a specific market based on all the data they've collected. That said, I agree it feels underwhelming, going to LCD from OLED is a bad move, and I don't trust inside-out tracking to work as well as advertised.

Re: Oculus Rift S

#175

Post by wildermuthn »

mikenew wrote: post #47

They really phoned it in on this one. No physical IPD adjustment, an 80hz LCD rather than the 90hz OLED, a very marginal resolution increase to 1280×1440 (which is still less than the $200 WMR headset I bought almost two years ago), and no FOV increase. The move to inside-out tracking means a more convenient setup, but it will lose tracking when you put your hands behind you (like shooting a bow, which just about rui…

The move to casual is risky if it alienates the current user-base of gamers.

However, it is my understanding that the number of VR gamers isn’t high enough to drive self-sustaining profits for VR developers.

There’s a case to be made that a platform like VR can’t be sustained by gaming. That VR needs a killer business application. If that is true, then the Quest isn’t equipped to handle business use-cases (battery-life), and neither is the current Rift, whose onerous setup is a non-starter in an office.

If the Rift S is a plug-and-play solution to sitting VR, and if the increase in resolution and lenses makes text legible, then we will finally have a practical platform for business software.

The most immediate business use I see is remote collaboration. While meetings and white boards stand out as obvious wins, I’m thinking there is opportunity in reimagining the original killer apps: spreadsheets, word-processors, calendars, email, and of course, the web browser.

No one could fix email. No one could figure out social browsing. No one could solve voice-dictation. No one seems to follow anyone’s calendar but their own. And as for spreadsheets, the monstrosity that is Airtable implies large unmet needs.

VR needs a killer app, and it won’t be Doom. It will be the next Netscape, Excel, or Word.

Re: Oculus Rift S

#177

Post by jlundberg »

philwelch wrote: post #28

I bought an Oculus Rift a couple months ago, and this seems like a mixed bag. Per https://uploadvr.com/oculus-rift-s-official/ : > The original Rift used dual PenTile OLED panels for a total resolution of 2160×1200. Rift S replaces this with a single LCD panel with a resolution of 2560×1440...This provides a higher detail image with reduced “screen door effect”. However, you don’t get the deep blacks of OLED since LC…

For anyone who havn’t tried the Oculus Go yet which use side strap audio, I have to share my experience: It’s awesome!

Probably the one thing that impresses people the most with the Go.

Re: Oculus Rift S

#178

Post by keerthiko »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #119
jimrandomh wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not actually needed. Getting high enough res to replace monitors with small fonts does require a big increase in resolution, but rendering a virtual desktop requires a lot less computation per pixel than rendering a game with lighting and shading. Current-generation consumer GPUs should be sufficient, if the panels and optics get good enough.

Yeah, but you're not going to be seeing a big push for higher PPD displays until after all the other pieces are in place to support that technology for gaming. The market for monitor replacements isn't big enough to drive that kind of change all on its own.

I think this market is hugely undervalued. As remote work gets normalized, remote workspaces will draw increasing investment to regain some of the fidelity of meatspace but with the efficiency and cost savings of remote work, and VR is poised to be central to this industry as soon as someone builds the tools.

Re: Oculus Rift S

#179

Post by throwaway34241 »

Judgmentality wrote: post #171
ricardobeat wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What have you tried so far? I bought myself a Rift during the last Black Friday and am very pleased. BeatSaber and Eleven Table Tennis alone make it worth.

I tried the Oculus Rift at Facebook HQ with all of the fancy dongles, including things I'm not allowed to talk about. I've also tried the regular HTC Vive. Both felt like a gimmick, and the Vive made my girlfriend nauseous after a few minutes. I'm a big believer in the potential of VR, but the current options do not impress me. I think it's still a few years away for someone like me, and still another 5+ years where…

FWIW I tried the Quest recently and it felt consumer-ready in a way none of the other systems I've tried so far did. Mostly due to the freedom to move without the cable, increased resolution, and better lenses (the price doesn't hurt either).

That's coming out in a few months though, and it certainly addresses the cost point. Is the main thing you think will take 5+ years content? Trying the Quest I couldn't help but be reminded of the Wii (maybe because I played a tennis game). Even though it's not perfect it offers a very novel experience at an affordable price point. I have no idea what the content line up for the system is though.

Re: Oculus Rift S

#180

Post by sundvor »

mikenew wrote: post #47

They really phoned it in on this one. No physical IPD adjustment, an 80hz LCD rather than the 90hz OLED, a very marginal resolution increase to 1280×1440 (which is still less than the $200 WMR headset I bought almost two years ago), and no FOV increase. The move to inside-out tracking means a more convenient setup, but it will lose tracking when you put your hands behind you (like shooting a bow, which just about rui…

I was wondering why they didn't post FOV and resolution, and your post answers that question. My $120 Lenovo Explorer almost (?) looks better.
Post reply on HN