Good luck to them, and I've bookmarked it to keep tabs on it in future, but that is an infuriating and in my opinion - very poor - choice of brand name.
Relativty – An open-source VR headset
11–20 of 235 posts
Re: Relativty – An open-source VR headset
#12Ever since Facebook bought Oculus I've really hoped something like this would spring up. I really really want it to succeed and would be happy to back it on Kickstarter or similar. How do we ensure that these projects don't end up being bought out by Facebook or Google?
If we make sure it's licensed properly, that's not possible, right? They could hire certain people but if it's all open source, we can at worst just fork it.
According to the GitHub it appears to be under GPL v3. I'm not qualified to state whether this applies to the hardware design or just the software.
I certainly wouldn't want to put any effort in to a project where the IP can be bought.
Re: Relativty – An open-source VR headset
#13This 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 would be a cut down version of an Oculus Go, which additionally has smartphone electronics integrated, can run VirtualDesktop, and can be had for $150 as of this moment.
Re: Relativty – An open-source VR headset
#14The 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.
Re: Relativty – An open-source VR headset
#15Daily 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.
Re: Relativty – An open-source VR headset
#16Daily 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.
Any sim game recommendations that fit your criteria?
Re: Relativty – An open-source VR headset
#17The 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.
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.
Re: Relativty – An open-source VR headset
#18Daily 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.
It's an open source project, you can modify it however you want
Re: Relativty – An open-source VR headset
#19Daily 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…
You missed diagonal. I believe that is how VR displays are often measured.
Re: Relativty – An open-source VR headset
#20Ever since Facebook bought Oculus I've really hoped something like this would spring up. I really really want it to succeed and would be happy to back it on Kickstarter or similar. How do we ensure that these projects don't end up being bought out by Facebook or Google?
If we make sure it's licensed properly, that's not possible, right? They could hire certain people but if it's all open source, we can at worst just fork it. According to the GitHub it appears to be under GPL v3. I'm not qualified to state whether this applies to the hardware design or just the software. I certainly wouldn't want to put any effort in to a project where the IP can be bought.
Being under an open source (the term you’re really looking for is free software) license isn’t enough to protect a project. You have to maintain forward momentum. A company can buy the trademark, and the company or group of people providing that forward momentum, like Oracle did with Sun, and then, like China assimilating Hong Kong, it’s just a matter of time. Solaris died, Java got wholly corporatized and free software mostly moved on.
Stallman, of course, realized this a long time ago and started a group of people, in the legal form of a charitable foundation, to keep that forward momentum going. To his telling, his Hail Mary was phenomenally successful.
If what you want is to work on a platform that will stay free no matter what, your best bet is to align with the FSF. They have the most momentum, the fewest corporate threats, and a long enough memory to keep it that way.