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

Oculus Rift

oculus.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 378 posts

Re: Oculus Rift

#251

Post by chrischen »

Cantremeber wrote: post #161
Kapura wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious as to why you think that freedom of hand motion is essential for VR. Certainly I can think of many VR experiences where it would be useful, but I can think of just as many where having discreet inputs (buttons) would be preferable. For example, a spaceship piloting game that allows the players head to rotate and look out the windows could very easily be controlled with a traditional gamepad.

Hell, even most driving games. Why would I want to use my hands to work phantom controls rather then get the physical feed back of an xbox controller. I for one am looking forward to GTA 5 which I'm convinced they added a first person mode to future proof against VR.

There's a whole industry around driving controllers (steering wheels, seats, gearboxes, breaks and pedals).

Re: Oculus Rift

#253

Post by sjs382 »

thethimble wrote: post #204
paulmd wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Resolution of the final hardware will be 1080x1200 per eye (2160x1200 total) over a 90* field of view. I'm not quite sure how to translate that into pixel density properly given the resolution is spread between your eyes, but I'd guess at least as good as a 1080p screen that fills a 90* angle of view? The user experience would be quite different, as you could simply rotate+tilt the viewport to see sections of a large…

1080p that fills a 90* angle of view would be like looking at a 40" 1080p TV from ~28 inches away. Certainly not the same experience that you're used to with a retina display, unfortunately.

That's if you're looking at the full screen. Imagine walking closer, and having the resolution "increase" as you get closer (because you have the same number of pixels, looking at less "stuff" per pixel).

Re: Oculus Rift

#254

Post by MaulingMonkey »

pavlov wrote: post #181
rough-sea wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Resolution is the main concern. Is oculus detailed enough to do programming on a virtual monitor?

Not even close. The screens for each eye probably have about 1440 pixels of vertical resolution (I'm guessing they are Samsung OLED screens, similar to the display on the Galaxy S6). Imagine that resolution stretched out to fill your field of view and distorted by the lenses -- the perceptual resolution available for a virtual monitor would probably be less than VGA. VR environments that can do high-quality typograph…

I've seen the idea of multi-resolution rendering floating around, which I think has some promise when combined with eye tracking, would help with the GPU side of things.

Not so much on the "raw display hardware" side of things though. I could still see it being a decade+ out on that alone.

Re: Oculus Rift

#255

Post by untog »

Kapura wrote: post #114
badsock wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

VR definitely needs a reinvented wheel in this case. Being able to move your head in virtual space but not your hands is clearly suboptimal, and the motion sensors in that generation of controllers are not up to the task. My take: this a bandaid, so they can get the headset out in Q1, ahead of the proper controllers in Q2. Not what they wanted to do, but Vive forced their hand on timing.

I'm curious as to why you think that freedom of hand motion is essential for VR. Certainly I can think of many VR experiences where it would be useful, but I can think of just as many where having discreet inputs (buttons) would be preferable. For example, a spaceship piloting game that allows the players head to rotate and look out the windows could very easily be controlled with a traditional gamepad.

I'm curious as to why you think that freedom of hand motion is essential for VR.

It also great increases the chances of hitting something while you're waving you arms around...

Re: Oculus Rift

#256

Post by tgb »

LesZedCB wrote: post #130
dbbolton wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was equally surprised by the on-ear style headphones. I'm sure the design team thought about the choice in depth and has good reasons behind it, but I would have imagined over-ear to be better for immersion (personally I find them more comfortable as well).

Sounds quality isn't really dependent on circumaural vs supra-aural headphones. The major complaint I hear with supra-aural headphones is that they apply pressure on the ears, which can be unconfortable. Sound quality, however, is largely affected by the drivers.

Will these apply much pressure on the ears? Many headphones use the earpieces to stay in place, but these are positioned by the Rift's straps which should be able to do it without pressure from the earpieces.

Re: Oculus Rift

#258

Post by dharma1 »

pavlov wrote: post #181
rough-sea wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Resolution is the main concern. Is oculus detailed enough to do programming on a virtual monitor?

Not even close. The screens for each eye probably have about 1440 pixels of vertical resolution (I'm guessing they are Samsung OLED screens, similar to the display on the Galaxy S6). Imagine that resolution stretched out to fill your field of view and distorted by the lenses -- the perceptual resolution available for a virtual monitor would probably be less than VGA. VR environments that can do high-quality typograph…

More than a decade sounds like a long time.

Oculus has been riding the smartphone screen density wave but I'm not sure that will continue much longer since for phone use going beyond 500ppi doesn't make much difference.

Maybe some kind of projected light field will be the next solution?

GPUs will keep getting faster and smaller. Have you seen NVIDIA X1?

Re: Oculus Rift

#259

Post by Bahamut »

pyrocat wrote: post #232
Bahamut wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The gold standard is Nintendo's controllers, not Microsoft's.

Really? I certainly liked the N64 and Gamecube controllers, but they're not exactly ideal designs for a "universal controller". The wiimote had kind of crappy motion controls and was borderline useless for anything that didn't involve motion. The Wii U uses upgraded wiimotes that suffer the same problem, and the gamepad is more like a giant gameboy than a controller. Plus we can't use any of those controllers on a PC…

Wii U Pro Controller sure beats what we have with the PS4 and XBox one controllers.

Re: Oculus Rift

#260

Post by eco »

Pxtl wrote: post #44
christoph wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was fairly disappointed by most of the keynote, but maybe my expectations were just too high? I was hoping for some real innovation that elevated it above Vive, but it just didn't seem to deliver. The new controllers look great, but they aren't going to be around until mid 2016, whereas I will probably have the Vive ones in my hands by the end of year. I think possibly Oculus are more focused on being consumer frie…

I think the cinema mode is to ensure that you don't have to take the device off when you switch between a game that's designed to support the Rift and software that does not. With that it mind, it seems like a reasonable compromise. I mean, do you want to have to take the thing off every time you alt-tab to Windows Desktop, or do you want to be 2" from the Windows Desktop?

I think it's two fold. First, you can't just slap VR into existing games. It needs to be considered and implemented deliberately. Second, I don't think the XBox One powerful enough to drive an Oculus Rift. The recommended specs for the Oculus Rift are "NVIDIA GTX 970 or AMD 290, Intel i5-4590" or better. The XBox One doesn't have that CPU power and it certainly doesn't have that GPU power.
Post reply on HN