Oculus Rift discussion

[FlorbFnarb 537]

Didn't see a thread for this and a search didn't reveal one in the Computer forum, just a couple random mentions around the forums, so I figured why not start one.

 

I mentioned in my thread about my upcoming PC build that I'm wanting to future-proof my computer enough that any upgrades needed by an Oculus Rift will be minimal.  Oddly enough, Logical Increments'article on Building A PC For Virtual Reality says that Oculus' minimum recommended specs for the Rift can be met for around $800 or so, with $1100 giving a little more room for comfort, especially to maintain the 90 FPS that they say is absolutely crucial to maintaining immersion.  Apparently while the occasional dip in FPS is not a big deal on a monitor, for VR setups dipping below the 90 FPS required to match the goggles' 90 Hz refresh rate is very jarring - "uncomfortable" is the word the article uses.

What's the consensus here?  Do you think this is the time VR is gonna work?  It's been here before; I remember that good ol' Descent had the ability to work with some VR goggles that existed back then, but I have never seen anything else built expressly for compatibility with VR goggles since then.  Is this the time VR sticks - a fully cooked technology, ready for widespread adoption?

The computer requirements seem workable; an $800 system is not something only die-hard enthusiasts can afford.  My main concern, as a member in good standing of the Middle-Aged Old Farts, is presbyopia.  I simply can't focus on something sitting an inch from my eyeball.  Supposedly the things are built with backfocus lenses or something to adjust for the wearer's visual acuity, but is presbyopia likely to require more adjustment than is possible with the headset as it is now?  I would think widespread popularity would mean not being unworkable for such a large section of the middle-aged game-playing population - presbyopia is not some rare condition, it's extremely common starting at age 40.

I'm kinda excited about the idea of proper VR goggles becoming quasi-affordable for a lot of people.  According to Wikipedia Flight Simulator X is getting code written for the Rift, which would be exactly what I've wanted forever - the market in flight simulators and especially combat flight simulators could return from the grave.  How awesome would it be to see a resurrected X-Wing/TIE Fighter franchise, or a new installment of Descent?  Imagine something like Tomb Raider played on a Rift - I used to get a little tense having Lara Croft scale walls as it was - imagine doing that with a VR set, or seeing that tyrannosaur running at you in full stereoscopic 3D. Imagine playing WoT and having your look controlled by your head movement rather than the mouse.

Imagine the next Elder Scrolls game with a Rift, or even just a well-modded visit back to Skyrim.

Anybody had the chance to really read up on reports about this thing and follow its development? I'm kinda just paying attention to it just now.

[Solono 5,518]

 

According to Wikipedia Flight Simulator X is getting code written for the Rift, which would be exactly what I've wanted forever - the market in flight simulators and especially combat flight simulators could return from the grave.

Yeah, no, TrackIR was supposed to do this back in the day but even among the hardcore audience left in those games, it is not as common as one would think. I think people, as usual, are blowing yet another gimmick out of proportion where it will be another nice, niche product. 

[FlorbFnarb 537]

 

Yeah, no, TrackIR was supposed to do this back in the day but even among the hardcore audience left in those games, it is not as common as one would think. I think people, as usual, are blowing yet another gimmick out of proportion where it will be another nice, niche product. 

What was the price of TrackIR back then, and did it actually measure up in terms of performance?

If somebody could actually pull this off, I would think these sorts of games might stop being niche games, but perhaps the Rift isn't gonna live up to the hype.

[Solono 5,518]

I think around $125-$150? My memory is fuzzy but that is what comes to mind, also gotta remember this was 2001 or so, when the tech was a lot less mature and more expensive to produce.

[FlorbFnarb 537]

 

I think around $125-$150? My memory is fuzzy but that is what comes to mind, also gotta remember this was 2001 or so, when the tech was a lot less mature and more expensive to produce.

True.  So what makes you think that the Rift isn't likely to succeed where predecessors have failed?

[Solono 5,518]

Because the climate is wrong, there is no potential audience. Gamers largely have zero interest in things that take longer than 10 seconds to engage in, flight sims can take a half hour to prep alone, much less do something. 

[FlorbFnarb 537]

 

Because the climate is wrong, there is no potential audience. Gamers largely have zero interest in things that take longer than 10 seconds to engage in, flight sims can take a half hour to prep alone, much less do something. 

So were you saying that Rift won't resurrect those types of games, or are you saying it won't amount to a huge deal at all, including in other, more popular game types?

[Solono 5,518]

 

So were you saying that Rift won't resurrect those types of games, or are you saying it won't amount to a huge deal at all, including in other, more popular game types?

Rift won't resurrect them because it doesn't address the real issue with the low pops, and will it? I haven't screwed with one so I cannot say for certain but my feeling is that it is all too common for people to cling onto some trendy piece of tech, hype it to the moon, then when it doesn't change water into wine people sigh, and wander off to the next tech trend.

[FlorbFnarb 537]

 

Rift won't resurrect them because it doesn't address the real issue with the low pops, and will it? I haven't screwed with one so I cannot say for certain but my feeling is that it is all too common for people to cling onto some trendy piece of tech, hype it to the moon, then when it doesn't change water into wine people sigh, and wander off to the next tech trend.

Possibly so.  It's always hard to tell if these things are the next iPod or the next Newton, but I guess the smart money is always on it being the next Newton.

[Solono 5,518]

The thing with breakthroughs like iPods and mobile phones is that it has a long lineage leading to when it breaks through and fulfills its potential. I think VR stuff has a huge amount of potential, but it is being used in far too narrow a scope(If you want the real next level shit in gaming, look more toward what Hololens is moving toward rather than just sticking a thing to your face).

[FlorbFnarb 537]

 

The thing with breakthroughs like iPods and mobile phones is that it has a long lineage leading to when it breaks through and fulfills its potential. I think VR stuff has a huge amount of potential, but it is being used in far too narrow a scope(If you want the real next level shit in gaming, look more toward what Hololens is moving toward rather than just sticking a thing to your face).

Looks interesting, but it also looks like it would require whole new types of games to be developed for it, while a more traditional VR headset seems more compatible with the game type that are already popular.

[OOPMan 1,266]

I'm not that keen on the OR. The HTC Vive sounds like it will be a better piece of hardware, although a little more expensive. Key features of the Vive that make it more interesting for me:

• Front-facing camera to allow Hololens like AR. This is a really big deal if you ask me, as it will allow you to do things like use your keyboard or drink a cup of tea more easily while wearing the rig.
• Split-controller
• SteamVR support structure with Valve should make it easier for devs to produce Vive compatible software

Concerns with Vive:

• You need a pair of IR camera poles in your room for the tracking to work. 

The Hololens also looks like a very interesting route.

[Goldflag 110]

I like how there is so much hype on the news and stuff, but nobody talks about it or gives a shit. It will probably take another 10 years after the Rift comes out before  VR devices can actually compete with the level of gameplay you can achieve while on pc.

Dispite that even, playing a good game on a good PC is extremely immersive. I can see how people can explore worlds with VR devices, buts it's too impractical for most gaming. 

[warrends 108]

I'm glad that a few of you mentioned the Hololens. Been looking at MSFT for a few months now and just bought some this morning. Looking at it for the long haul, not the near term. Everything I read and hear says that the Hololens, though a lot more money than it's 'competitors', is on an entirely different level than OR or Google Glass or any of the other VR-types of hardware. And you can see through it, meaning 1) people who have claustrophobia won't have to worry (and evidently that is a real concern) and 2) it can be used for 3D imaging, so to speak, making holograms like what Tony Stark/Robert Downey Jr. does with JARVIS in his lab, using his hands to generate 3D images and spin them and take parts off and put parts on. Again, down the road but to me it looks like MSFT has something going here.

Sorry to derail the OP's thoughts. But hoping that MSFT finally jumps out if it's 10 year price slump sometime this decade (literally).

[FlorbFnarb 537]

 

I'm glad that a few of you mentioned the Hololens. Been looking at MSFT for a few months now and just bought some this morning. Looking at it for the long haul, not the near term. Everything I read and hear says that the Hololens, though a lot more money than it's 'competitors', is on an entirely different level than OR or Google Glass or any of the other VR-types of hardware. And you can see through it, meaning 1) people who have claustrophobia won't have to worry (and evidently that is a real concern) and 2) it can be used for 3D imaging, so to speak, making holograms like what Tony Stark/Robert Downey Jr. does with JARVIS in his lab, using his hands to generate 3D images and spin them and take parts off and put parts on. Again, down the road but to me it looks like MSFT has something going here.

Sorry to derail the OP's thoughts. But hoping that MSFT finally jumps out if it's 10 year price slump sometime this decade (literally).

That's not a derail IMO.  Different product that does a different thing, but same general topic.  I was paying attention to the Rift because it seems suited for currently-existing games and game types - I really would like to go running around Skyrim using one - but the HoloLens seems suited for entirely new game types, and hopefully they'll be developed.  A lot depends on the price of the device itself, of course.

[monkey10120 217]

Being an original supported of Oculus and using the dev kits, no it will not take off anytime soon. 

 

For single player sims its fine. But multiplayer just puts you at a huge disadvantage and even some games tie the crosshair to the head movement. I am excited to see the new kit though as even my Dev kit 1 looks like shit because its resolution.

[OOPMan 1,266]

 

I like how there is so much hype on the news and stuff, but nobody talks about it or gives a shit. It will probably take another 10 years after the Rift comes out before  VR devices can actually compete with the level of gameplay you can achieve while on pc.

Dispite that even, playing a good game on a good PC is extremely immersive. I can see how people can explore worlds with VR devices, buts it's too impractical for most gaming. 

Eh, I don't know about that. I can see a VR headset as having more uses that just gaming. For example, watching 3D pr0n movies ;-0

 

Sorry to derail the OP's thoughts. But hoping that MSFT finally jumps out if it's 10 year price slump sometime this decade (literally).

I wouldn't worry about Microsoft, they're doing great things at the moment. If you told me 15 years ago that Microsoft would do stuff like contribute to open-source and support Linux on their cloud system (After you explain the cloud to me) I would have laughed at you.

They've really gone from being The Evil Corporation to something a lot more palatable. Whereas Apple seems to have gone the other way...

[Archaic_One 1,853]

 

I remember that good ol' Descent had the ability to work with some VR goggles that existed back then, but I have never seen anything else built expressly for compatibility with VR goggles since then. 

OMG, I had completely forgotten about all of the nights I spent fighting off nausea and the loss of study hours trying to beat Decent in college. 

[FlorbFnarb 537]

 

OMG, I had completely forgotten about all of the nights I spent fighting off nausea and the loss of study hours trying to beat Decent in college. 

It was a great game for sure.  It stole a lot of gameplay tropes from Doom and Wolfenstein - color-coded keys, etc. - but it was absolutely unique even still.

[Folterknecht 2,257]

Both price and hardware that are often cited for 90FPS on 2x 1920x1080 is total nonsense, if you don't want to play on console like graphics (*shudder). You don't invest 1500+$ too only have console graphics.

 

And what will really kill the imersion or even lead to motion sickness with VR are the low min FPS and frame times. If those arn't high and consistent enough it becomes nothing but a puking contest.

 

The min requirements are a joke (GTX970 / R9 390) - everyone who can read benchmarks and do some basic maths will come to the conclusion. Just look at current games and what a 970 or R9 390 is capable to pull off at 2560x1440 which are 3686400 pixels vs 4147200 with 2x 1920x1080.

The only cards remotly capable currently to power that are 980Ti and FuryX with sufficiant min FPS/fram times and graphic settings.

 

Nothing but marketing BS, but I 'll let the morons finance the RnD in the first round(s) and laugh at them puking their guts out. Serves them right.

And introducing an other layer of complexity via SLI/CF profiles and micro stutters won't help at all.

[Solono 5,518]

I've always been of the opinion that SLI/CF is a big waste of money anyway since you pay twice as much for variable performance and do not get anywhere near yours money's worth in terms of efficiency. 

[FlorbFnarb 537]

 

I've always been of the opinion that SLI/CF is a big waste of money anyway since you pay twice as much for variable performance and do not get anywhere near yours money's worth in terms of efficiency. 

From what people were saying in my other thread, it sounds like dual-GPU setups are generally only worthwhile if you have an older GPU and adding a second one of the same type is cheaper than just replacing it with a single newer GPU.

 

Both price and hardware that are often cited for 90FPS on 2x 1920x1080 is total nonsense, if you don't want to play on console like graphics (*shudder). You don't invest 1500+$ too only have console graphics.

 

And what will really kill the imersion or even lead to motion sickness with VR are the low min FPS and frame times. If those arn't high and consistent enough it becomes nothing but a puking contest.

 

The min requirements are a joke (GTX970 / R9 390) - everyone who can read benchmarks and do some basic maths will come to the conclusion. Just look at current games and what a 970 or R9 390 is capable to pull off at 2560x1440 which are 3686400 pixels vs 4147200 with 2x 1920x1080.

The only cards remotly capable currently to power that are 980Ti and FuryX with sufficiant min FPS/fram times and graphic settings.

 

Nothing but marketing BS, but I 'll let the morons finance the RnD in the first round(s) and laugh at them puking their guts out. Serves them right.

And introducing an other layer of complexity via SLI/CF profiles and micro stutters won't help at all.

You figure Oculus's minimum specs are full of shit, then?

[Zinn 1,333]

Honestly, things like OR are a gimmick and will never take off properly under current designs. You're asking people to invest in a questionable piece of tech that doesn't actually bring all that much to the table when you get beyond the initial wow-factor. Is the OR even remotely practical, general tech issues aside? Is it a good experience with goggles + headphones + skype/TS3/whatever? How easy is it to use a keyboard while in-game? Can you somehow see the keyboard or do you have to memorize all keys while "blind"? And excuse me while I laugh it up at the 599 dollar price tag, which is as expensive as a brand new launch day gaming console + an extra game.

If you want a peripheral to succeed, it needs to be something everyone has a use for and at a price point where people can afford it. It's not like Nvidia makes most of its money from Titan X sales, for instance, that's a tool for enthusiasts with more money than economical sense. Important for further development perhaps, but not the primary source of income. That is essentially why these gimmick items rarely succeed: The company has everything riding on it and it typically isn't something the primary market actually asked for.

I'm generally positive about gadgets and such but this reminds me too much of the return of "3D" TV and movies. A forced gimmick most people don't really want or ask for and the industry in general doesn't really care about. Of course, while the TV and cinema market has billions of potential customers and thus CAN make money off the gimmick, the OR market at its current price range is infinitely smaller, maybe a few million once you sort out people who'd rather buy TEN 60 dollar PC games, a gaming console + games, don't care about it all etc. If this thing somehow succeeds it will be due to a marketing genius, not the device itself.

[monkey10120 217]

 

I've always been of the opinion that SLI/CF is a big waste of money anyway since you pay twice as much for variable performance and do not get anywhere near yours money's worth in terms of efficiency. 

SLI/CF is not worth it period. Not because your moneys worth but stability. If you intend on buying two gpus just save a little and buy one powerful one. Most games barely support it anyway.

[Folterknecht 2,257]

 

Just marketing at work to catch the morons that can't do simple maths and read/interpret benchmarks.

 

• to drive that you need a 900+$ PC in pure hardware (just the box) according to the min specs for VR. Add the costs for the 1. gen VR and you re looking at 1500+$ currently
• now go look up benchmarks for a 970/390 at 1440p - which are done mostly at high to near highest settings.
• 2x 1080p has ~10% more pixels than 1440p
• now "imagine" how far you have to lower the seetings to get the min FPS - because that what really counts with VR - near the 90FPS mark. Opposed to a regular TFT where a few drops here and there to 60-70 FPS wouldn't play are role while with VR it has really negative consequences.

 

It's doable with a 970/390, it will just look like shit in many cases. Now go and spend 1500$ on some first gen tech with spotty support which offers poor graphics. With ~2000$ in hardware incl. a 980Ti you ll probably see some drastic graphic quality improvements, but it still won't be high-ultra at 90 min FPS across all games.

 

Doesn't need at rocket scientist to figure that out.