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

Relativty – An open-source VR headset

relativty.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 235 posts

Re: Relativty – An open-source VR headset

#41

Post by jaywalk »

DoofusOfDeath wrote: post #29
pedrocr wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a screen that you're placing in front of each eye, giving the total resolution actually sounds pretty appropriate. Particularly since although this is technically 1440 lines it only has as many pixels as 1080p resolution, which won't be obvious to most. Given all the different aspect ratios if screens started being quoted as megapixels and a format ratio we'd actually be much better off than with the current mess…

Since head-mounted displays put the screen a mostly fixed distance from the eye, I wonder if resolution is best described in terms of solid angles[0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_angle

No, not at all. Solid angles could describe how big the display looks, but absolutely nothing about its resolution.

Re: Relativty – An open-source VR headset

#42

Post by metalliqaz »

utopcell wrote: post #13

This might be a fun weekend project to work on, but cannot be built for $200. The displays alone (and their driver PCB that accepts DisplayPort) cost $195. They are also not 2K but rather 1440x1440 (or 2.0736M pixels). Maybe the displays were cheaper when they built this. They also hookup a 6-axis tracking chip (MPU-6050) to an Arduino board and feed it to a PC via usb. Even if tracking was working perfectly, this wo…

i'm pretty sure the $200 quote is an "it's possible" type thing, like where car companies quote prices "from" the lowest-spec version.

Re: Relativty – An open-source VR headset

#43

Post by amarshall »

GodofGrunts wrote: post #24
noxer wrote: post #10

Daily reminder: 2K doesn't really exist. Yes by definition anything with around 2000 pixels vertical would be 2K but that would mean FHD is 2K because it almost 2000 pixels wide. The display in question here is 1440x1440 That is not 2K. Sure there are two next to each other that would mean 2880 pixels horizontal but the image you see cant have this resolution. Also that would be 3K not 2K. So pls everyone stop the no…

Can we just go back to calling resolutions by their height?

That doesn’t really help, as while typically it’s assumed the aspect ratio is 16:9, that’s not always true, making such a scheme ambiguous. Listing vertical resolution with aspect ratio is fairly sane, though. Or use standardized specific resolutions (e.g. FHD, QHD, 4K UHD).

Re: Relativty – An open-source VR headset

#44

Post by psadauskas »

noxer wrote: post #38
GodofGrunts wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can we just go back to calling resolutions by their height?

That was never a thing so we can't go back to it. A resolution is 2 dimensional height + aspect ratio works. But for all the popular resolutions we have a standardized short form like FHD/QHD/XGA/VGA but these obviously cant cover every existing resolution. Like for example the one from the article 1440p 1:1 there is no standardized name for it.

When widescreen LCDs were starting to replace 4:3 LCDs and CRTs, the screens were described as 720p, 1080i, etc. It wasn't until 4k was a thing that screens were described by their width instead of height.

Re: Relativty – An open-source VR headset

#45

Post by MrGilbert »

noxer wrote: post #38
GodofGrunts wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can we just go back to calling resolutions by their height?

That was never a thing so we can't go back to it. A resolution is 2 dimensional height + aspect ratio works. But for all the popular resolutions we have a standardized short form like FHD/QHD/XGA/VGA but these obviously cant cover every existing resolution. Like for example the one from the article 1440p 1:1 there is no standardized name for it.

At least for me, the short forms are hilarious and obnoxious. I can get an understanding of what 3840x2400 could mean in terms of aspect ratio and pixel density. But WQUXGA? I have to look that up.

Re: Relativty – An open-source VR headset

#46

Post by metalliqaz »

anilakar wrote: post #15
noxer wrote: post #10

Daily reminder: 2K doesn't really exist. Yes by definition anything with around 2000 pixels vertical would be 2K but that would mean FHD is 2K because it almost 2000 pixels wide. The display in question here is 1440x1440 That is not 2K. Sure there are two next to each other that would mean 2880 pixels horizontal but the image you see cant have this resolution. Also that would be 3K not 2K. So pls everyone stop the no…

Having 1440p screens would have been great two years ago. The baseline currently is Index with 1700ish vertical pixels, and competitors such as HP and Pimax have pushed past the "4K" (2160+) pixel mark. Disclaimer: I'm a sim game enthusiast and don't play any titles where the game designer can just change the gameplay mechanics and UI to work on screens with a low PPD.

> Disclaimer: I'm a sim game enthusiast and don't play any titles where the game designer can just change the gameplay mechanics and UI to work on screens with a low PPD.

I'm sorry but that sounds like pure snobbery. With the same PC running the game, and only changing the display, any game can be adapted to anything by changing gameplay mechanics and UI.

Re: Relativty – An open-source VR headset

#47

Post by andybak »

I'll repeat a comment I made on Reddit:

I was scanning the page trying to understand how you were doing positional tracking. Took me a while to realise that's what you mean by "Experimental room-scaling"

I'd suggest that this isn't the best wording. Call it "positional tracking" or "6DOF" or something.

The whole "room scale" thing was confusing at the start and isn't used much nowadays (Is seated 6DOF VR "room scale"? It's ambiguous and irrelevent for most purposes)

I'd also say that I think most people assume that being SteamVR compatibile implies having 6DOF tracking of head and hands. Most software simply won't work unless you have this. How experimental is experimental?

Re: Relativty – An open-source VR headset

#48

Post by Fabricio20 »

One interesting thing I noticed is that this project ALSO doesn't seem to have a controller. You can't really play SteamVR games without at least one! (Issue #50)

You can grab a Samsung VR for very cheap, put a phone on it and do VirtualDesktop magic, but you are still gonna struggle without controllers. Same for Google Cardboard and other similar projects.

There's some very cheap controllers you can get, with base stations for tracking like the Nolo-Home, but they are still quite behind the tracking precision and latency of some "top-of-the-shelf" headsets.

It's an interesting idea and I hope the developments on it go forward, specially since the recent Facebook/Oculus announcement.

Re: Relativty – An open-source VR headset

#49

Post by anilakar »

folli wrote: post #16
anilakar wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having 1440p screens would have been great two years ago. The baseline currently is Index with 1700ish vertical pixels, and competitors such as HP and Pimax have pushed past the "4K" (2160+) pixel mark. Disclaimer: I'm a sim game enthusiast and don't play any titles where the game designer can just change the gameplay mechanics and UI to work on screens with a low PPD.

Any sim game recommendations that fit your criteria?

Digital Combat Simulator (DCS World) has some really tiny text on the cockpit dials and screens, and distant targets are often only a few pixels in size. Those 2000+ vertical pixel HMDs I mentioned don't have any issues with cockpit details whereas my older Samsung Odyssey+ required constant use of the zoom button.

Furthermore, the performance hit when upgrading to higher resolutions is negligible. Smaller pixel densities require heavy supersampling to look good whereas higher density displays can be run at or near their native resolution.

Re: Relativty – An open-source VR headset

#50

Post by neallindsay »

noxer wrote: post #14
pedrocr wrote: post #8

The screens are 1440x1440 and square format makes a lot of sense for this application. They're best described as 2MP instead of 2K.

Jees, pls dont. MP should not be used for display resolutions. It's 1440x1440 or 1440p 1:1 But yes definitely not 2K.

I think it's a good idea to use megapixels for resolutions.

720p - almost 1MP, 1080p - 2MP, WQHD - about 3.7MP, my monitor (advertised as "4K") - more than 8MP

Also we should use area instead of diagonal measurement to convey the size of a screen.

Post reply on HN