151–160 of 272 posts
No eye tracking? HTC ahead of the game there it seems
I really hoped the importance of this feature was so obvious that no next gen. headset would ship anymore w/o it. So I'm kind of flabbergasted Oculus just did that with the Rift S.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The gameplay-experience isn't what is holding VR back. VR was good enough 3 years ago. Price, PC-Specs, and ridiculously complicated setups are the reason, why VR hasn't taken off yet. The Rift-S helps with all of those issues. It makes some smart tradeoffs, so that it is accessible to more people.
If that were the case, why didn't Microsoft's WMR partners blow everyone away (pretty sure 100% have used inside out tracking which prevents the station setup of Vive/Rift plus the lower barrier to entry PC specifications)? I bought the Odyssey+ HMD during the Black Friday sale and I must admit, it is fantastic. But outside of that incredibly low priced sale ($299 I think it was?), I don't think WMR headsets have bee…
I can only speak for myself here: I bought the Rift, because I didn't know anything about VR and trusted Oculus more than some 'wierd unknown' manufacturer. (a lack of knowledge is another huge issue in my experience)
To be clear: I don't think, the Rift S is going to _fix_ any of those issues. But it certainly is an improvement. And that's what so many are debating here.
> The tethered experience seems more for the enthusiast
I don't know... If everybody with a 1070 or better is an enthusiast, then you might be right. But as PC's get faster, that will hopefully change.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The gameplay-experience isn't what is holding VR back. VR was good enough 3 years ago. Price, PC-Specs, and ridiculously complicated setups are the reason, why VR hasn't taken off yet. The Rift-S helps with all of those issues. It makes some smart tradeoffs, so that it is accessible to more people.
> 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…
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…
Now it appears that for a "good VR experience" at the high end you need a ~$600 headset, a $1300 graphics card and a dedicated/padded room with no major breakable items. Even with all these things you are still left making unappetizing tradeoffs between resolution, refresh rate and frame rate.
Announced a day after the HP Reverb, which has most of the features of the Rift S but 2160x2160 per eye. https://www.roadtovr.com/hp-rever-hands-on-impressions-pixel...
It's also $200 more than the Rift S and only has 2 tracking cameras instead of 5. Not a bad product by any means, but unless resolution is your main concern I wouldn't consider it superior to the Rift S.
John Carmack and his friends made it clear that they have no interest in the PC being a first class VR platform when they tossed Brendan Iribe to the curb. The Rift-s is a big fuck you to all of the hardcore early adopters that made the Rift a reality. I skipped gen-1 thinking gen-2 was right around the corner; unfortunately, three long years later the future truly looks like a "race to the bottom." VR is starting to…
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?
I would love to trade all these monitors for a virtual workstation. Every time there's new VR tech I hope that it's possible. 1280x1440 is definitely an improvement. I'm patient.
The weight is a big factor - even if you use the headset while lying on a couch, after an hour your face will look like raccoon's.
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…
>They clearly want to push their more casual all-in-one headsets and don't care much about the enthusiasts and gamers that helped get Oculus off the ground in the first place. So basically every company in the world that prefers marketshare to niche. Theres some nice exceptions like pinboard.in, but for the most part, everyone is willing to sell out to Walmart hoping for dominance.
John Carmack and his friends made it clear that they have no interest in the PC being a first class VR platform when they tossed Brendan Iribe to the curb. The Rift-s is a big fuck you to all of the hardcore early adopters that made the Rift a reality. I skipped gen-1 thinking gen-2 was right around the corner; unfortunately, three long years later the future truly looks like a "race to the bottom." VR is starting to…
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?