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

First Look at the Rift, Shipping Q1 2016

oculus.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 142 posts

Re: First Look at the Rift, Shipping Q1 2016

#81

Post by dsr_ »

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #69
higherpurpose wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'll need a "gaming rig". That's the simplest way I can put it. Don't buy an "ultrabook" or an "all in one" or some $500 laptop to use Oculus. Whether it's a PC (cheaper) or a notebook, it needs to be gaming-focused one. In terms of specs I'd buy a GPU with at least a 3TF performance, and even that it's probably going to be "mediocre" for the next 2 years. 2TF should work, too, but might not last you too long, espe…

Everyone I know has a gaming rig of some type, but not anything that can do 1080p per eye at 60fps per eye, which is where this stuff actually starts to work correctly and what Oculus is designed to use (less motion sickness, better 3D illusion, etc). I don't think a lot of people interested in this technology realize how much hardware they will need to buy to make this work. You're looking, at minimum, a $400-500 gr…

That's fine. One thing that I am certain of: today's $500 video card is next year's $250 video card and the next year's default upgrade from on-motherboard.

Re: First Look at the Rift, Shipping Q1 2016

#82

Post by kristofferR »

Tepix wrote: post #79
jamespacileo wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would obviously be an upscaled resolution in games. 4k is for the screen door effect. 4k is necessary for readable text, ability to watch HD movies and using virtual monitors. Currently the resolution is too low for any of these, as in it works but not good enough for being practical.

There is no correlation between the screen door effect and resolution. Source: Palmer Luckey https://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/2rayri/hint_that_cr...

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I read that the screen door effect were even less visible in the Sony Morpheus prototype, even though it had less resolution than the Crescent Bay prototype.

Re: First Look at the Rift, Shipping Q1 2016

#83

Post by sadface »

Raphmedia wrote: post #54
adam12 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A $550 video card on top of the price of the device itself? If that is the case, I'm going to have to wait for a device to come out like Hololens that can stand on its own.

If you are a gamer, you should already have that to play current gen games at max settings. I'm on $1000 worth of GPU right now for 4k, and the 4k screen itself was about $500. Don't make it sound like Oculus is more expensive than what gamer already have to pay to get the best experience.

You're not wrong re: best experience, but your $1000 of GPU + $500 screen puts you in like the top 1% of gamers. Most ppl are gaming on cheap rigs, laptops, etc. It's possible that FB/Oculus are trying to make something that will only appeal to the big spending "prestige-rig" gamer set, but I'd think that they would be trying to make a product that will be compelling to a bigger audience.

Re: First Look at the Rift, Shipping Q1 2016

#84

Post by seanwilson »

higherpurpose wrote: post #66
drzaiusapelord wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would like to know what kind of computer and graphics card I need to make this thing work. Yeah, a cheaper VR headset pricepoint is nice, but not if you're just unloading all the expensive components onto the buyer via a $1200+ PC purchase. Not to mention, as someone who suffers with motion sickness with traditional games, how will the Oculus work for me? Have they solved this riddle? Will they ever? This is also w…

You'll need a "gaming rig". That's the simplest way I can put it. Don't buy an "ultrabook" or an "all in one" or some $500 laptop to use Oculus. Whether it's a PC (cheaper) or a notebook, it needs to be gaming-focused one. In terms of specs I'd buy a GPU with at least a 3TF performance, and even that it's probably going to be "mediocre" for the next 2 years. 2TF should work, too, but might not last you too long, espe…

I'd be interested to know how simple you can make the graphics and still have a good experience. Isn't there an inherent problem with VR that if you try to compete with state of the art non-VR graphics, you're always going to need a more powerful machine for VR than you need for non-VR (e.g. larger field of view, two screens, higher FPS)? The problem will only increase as the headset Field of View increases.

Re: First Look at the Rift, Shipping Q1 2016

#85

Post by soylentcola »

doorhammer wrote: post #30
dangerlibrary wrote: post #26

I was able to get a demo of the Crescent Bay prototype (hand-built tech demo of the consumer version) at PAX East this year. I've also tried the DK1 and DK2. If you've been playing with the DK1 or DK2, the consumer version is fundamentally better. Do not assume you know what the state of the art is until you've gotten your hands on a preview. I don't know exactly what the resolution differences are, and I don't care…

I never got to use Crescent Bay, but I've got a DK2 at home. Resolution for me will be a non-issue once I can read smallish text on virtual signs/displays. I'm thinking mostly for games like Elite Dangerous and other simulators like that, where a cockpit display is part of the game. Do you think the crescent bay prototype is at that point? (this might be a naive question as it's been awhile since I've looked up anyth…

I agree about the smaller text but at the same time, it's been more of an issue for me when the content wasn't created primarily with DK2-class hardware as the target. Elite is great and I feel like Frontier owes Oculus money because myself and just about everyone I know who got a DK2 also ended up buying Elite but it's still primarily designed for a monitor.

If you're targeting a game or other application for VR (and assuming generally similar hardware to DK2 or whatever), there are a lot of design decisions you can make to improve the experience. Something as simple as using larger text goes a long way. Color choices help, as does less focus on lists and menus in favor of gaze-based control.

Then there's the general stuff like "not trying to shoehorn that awesome first-person-shooter style that was so great on 2D screens into VR". Yeah, it's neat to look around in a FPS-style game but whereas seated or less frenetic experiences are gorgeous and immersive, asking someone to run around in first person while actually sitting in a chair is nauseating. I've seen all the omni-treadmills and other workarounds and I appreciate the way people are trying to engineer solutions but I feel like it misses the point. Some things just work well in VR while other things require a lot of tradeoffs or addons.

Re: First Look at the Rift, Shipping Q1 2016

#86

Post by currywurst »

threeseed wrote: post #40
superplussed wrote: post #10

I'm so impressed by their restraint on waiting until the product was right before going to market.

Same. Apple has shown time and time again that nothing good comes from rushing into a new market with a half baked product. You will win the fight but lose the war. Hopefully they are smart enough to ship it with a polished SDK, App Store and some good content.

Wonder why they uncharacteristically launched the Apple Watch in its current form, then.

Re: First Look at the Rift, Shipping Q1 2016

#87

Post by myth_buster »

philmcc wrote: post #77
Symmetry wrote: post #71

Everybody talks about VR in terms of games but I wonder if it might be possible to create a productive desktop using a VR helmet. Surely it would be easy to emulate having N monitors but I bet you could do better.

Yes, it will be. Here's a fairly fun demonstration of exactly that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=db-7J5OaSag

This is what excites me. 360deg desktops with depth perception. This will disrupt quite a few areas least of which would be multiple monitor setups.

An interesting implementation would be virtually working from a beach or sitting on top of a colorado 14er. Just have a table fan sending randomized breeze your way. :)

Re: First Look at the Rift, Shipping Q1 2016

#88

Post by DanAndersen »

Tepix wrote: post #43
fooqux wrote: post #12

Argh, the title of the post has the exact same amount of info as the article does. I was hoping for details on the changes to the hardware different from the current dev kit. Or more importantly, I was hoping to read why I should still care when Valve's offering is planned to come out this year and is supposedly the bee's knees.

There is a little bit of extra information hidden inside the announcement: * They have an input solution and will reveal it in the next couple of weeks * The have improved the tracking and will now officially recommend standing experiences. All in all, a Q1 release date is somewhat sad but in the big picture it won't matter.

I am curious how much of the change to allowing "standing experiences" was technical, and how much was legal. In previous Oculus demos, they would give standing demos yet all official interviews said that the Rift is a "seated experience." My guess was that they were always constrained by not only a limited tracking volume but also the potential for litigation if someone sues them for tripping and falling.

The fact that the Vive very openly was advertising a stand-and-walk-around experience may have helped convince Oculus that the risk of litigation was outweighed by the need to not be giving a sense of inferior hardware.

Re: First Look at the Rift, Shipping Q1 2016

#89

Post by corysama »

philmcc wrote: post #77
Symmetry wrote: post #71

Everybody talks about VR in terms of games but I wonder if it might be possible to create a productive desktop using a VR helmet. Surely it would be easy to emulate having N monitors but I bet you could do better.

Yes, it will be. Here's a fairly fun demonstration of exactly that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=db-7J5OaSag

There's a small subreddit devoted to the idea of programming inside VR. Several examples there.

http://www.reddit.com/r/hmdprogramming

Re: First Look at the Rift, Shipping Q1 2016

#90

Post by soylentcola »

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #46
fooqux wrote: post #12

Argh, the title of the post has the exact same amount of info as the article does. I was hoping for details on the changes to the hardware different from the current dev kit. Or more importantly, I was hoping to read why I should still care when Valve's offering is planned to come out this year and is supposedly the bee's knees.

I would like to know what kind of computer and graphics card I need to make this thing work. Yeah, a cheaper VR headset pricepoint is nice, but not if you're just unloading all the expensive components onto the buyer via a $1200+ PC purchase. Not to mention, as someone who suffers with motion sickness with traditional games, how will the Oculus work for me? Have they solved this riddle? Will they ever? This is also w…

I agree overall but at the same time, it really depends on what you already have. Sure, if you own a $400 PS4 and whatever other items you typically buy with a game console, another $300-400 for a HMD is an easier sell.

But I don't have a PS4. What I do have is a solid, modern computer since I need one for all sorts of work and play situations. I can either spend $400-500 on a PS4 and any typical addons or I can spend $400-500 on a powerful graphics card for my computer. And with graphics cards, performance goes up and price comes down every year.

The other angle I'd need to consider is what you can do with the whole package (computer + Rift or PS4 + Morpheus). Morpheus will work on the PS4 and I'll be able to buy PS4 content to use with the Morpheus. The Rift will work on any capable computer and I can either buy games/content from Steam or from other sellers or I can go to Oculus Share and download all sorts of experiments and demos and games from all sorts of developers. I can even fire up the free version of UE and start building environments to walk around in via the Rift immediately. The power to create and share content shouldn't be underrated, especially at this early stage.

I think that in 5-10 years time, if this hasn't gone the way of 3D TV (something cool and easy to find but ultimately not that big a deal), the costs will be low enough and content will be abundant enough that it won't matter whether you use a black box under the TV or a silver box under your desk. But during this early time in the market, access to demos and creative tools will be a big deal.

When someone develops a VR teleconferencing app with depth cameras and live streaming, the betas and first release won't be on some Sony or Microsoft game console. They'll be on Windows, OSX, and Linux. When you want to use a sweet HOTAS for your VR flight simulator or enable VR support in the config of some new game, you won't be able to do that on a Playstation or Xbox.

All that stuff is more than enough to get me to lean toward a $500 GPU upgrade over a $400 console purchase. I think until VR stuff isn't early adopter/enthusiast territory by definition, the more packaged solutions will be lacking. Once it's commonplace, it'll be more a question of ergonomics like PC/console gaming is now.

Post reply on HN