1. Years of research and usage that shows long-time VR usage is safe for nervous system.
2. Gear is VERY light and comfortable and by light I do mean light. Like 100 grams or something. Use very light composite materials or something.
3. Is affordable.
4. Resolution and framerate are both very high. Think 2-4 k per eye at at least 100 FPS. Those who don't know - resolutiion and consistant framerate is much more important for VR than for normal monitor/tv.
So I guess not anytime soon.
1. well said actually. Most default to concerns of neck strain which is silly for multiple reasons but we dont know about nervous system and how the brain will react long term.
2. from what I have been told the CV version 'feels' lighter than a baseball cap. So there is that.
3. Given that its 1/4 the cost of a good TV, about the price of a high end video card, cheaper than a cell phone and cheaper adjusted for inflation than the WalkMan was in 1979 I think they have cost pretty well taken care of.
4. The visual technical needs of VR are very different than monitors so its not fair to do a direct comparion. case in point. PPI is more important than resolution on VR, so is latency and so is frame rate.
2. I havent followed recent versions, so no idea what CV is, but version I saw was only around 400 grams (which sound very little) I was told, but after a while on the head it felt VERY heavy.
3. I mean price of complete package - an device much more advanced than current OR and other deviced (lighter, better resolution/ PPI, etc) and an hardware to fuel it. Price of PC capable of fueling AAA graphics to two screens with 10 megapixel resolutuon each at 100 FPS per second. Will 15 000 USD atm be enough?
Sure fueling i.e. Doom 3 or even some indie toy-games like this rollercoaster thing to current OR resoltuons and lower framerate will require much cheaper PC, but I am not interested in that at all. I had VR set on my head in my life and I do know how badly it need very high PPI to look good.
4. Considering that it seems most VR solutions have more or less similar amount of inches per 'screen', by bigger resolution I've meant PPI. What I mean that considering size of screen in i.e OR it's resolution (and thus PPI) is way way too low.
1. Years of research and usage that shows long-time VR usage is safe for nervous system.
2. Gear is VERY light and comfortable and by light I do mean light. Like 100 grams or something. Use very light composite materials or something.
3. Is affordable.
4. Resolution and framerate are both very high. Think 2-4 k per eye at at least 100 FPS. Those who don't know - resolutiion and consistant framerate is much more important for VR than for normal monitor/tv.
So I guess not anytime soon.
1. well said actually. Most default to concerns of neck strain which is silly for multiple reasons but we dont know about nervous system and how the brain will react long term.
2. from what I have been told the CV version 'feels' lighter than a baseball cap. So there is that.
3. Given that its 1/4 the cost of a good TV, about the price of a high end video card, cheaper than a cell phone and cheaper adjusted for inflation than the WalkMan was in 1979 I think they have cost pretty well taken care of.
4. The visual technical needs of VR are very different than monitors so its not fair to do a direct comparion. case in point. PPI is more important than resolution on VR, so is latency and so is frame rate.
2. I havent followed recent versions, so no idea what CV is, but version I saw was only around 400 grams (which sound very little) I was told, but after a while on the head it felt VERY heavy.
3. I mean price of complete package - an device much more advanced than current OR and other deviced (lighter, better resolution/ PPI, etc) and an hardware to fuel it. Price of PC capable of fueling AAA graphics to two screens with 10 megapixel resolutuon each at 100 FPS per second. Will 15 000 USD atm be enough?
4. Considering that it seems most VR solutions have more or less similar amount of inches per 'screen', by bigger resolution I've meant PPI. What I mean that considering size of screen in i.e OR it's resolution (and thus PPI) is way way too low.
1. CV1 meaning 'commercial version 1' which is due to be out in first quarter (3 months) of 2016 and it has been described as 'considerably lighter' than what is publicly available which is at best DK2 (developer kit 2). Having said that I have played Elite Dangerous for hours with DK2 just fine.That all being said, Its fairly common for me to ride my motorcycle for 4 hours with a helmet on and not notice the weight.
3. If (and to be fair it is an if) if you are a typical PC gamer there is a high chance the next computer you buy would be perfectly Oculus Capable. If this is your 'true cost' then wouldnt next generation games cost to much? think about that.
4. to be clear the reason PPI is more important in VR than it is in monitors or TV is because your face is one inch from the screen. so the distance between each pixel is critical. In fact, PPI in OLED screens is EXACTLY why VR is happening now instead of just taking a 2k monitor and moving your face close. The distance of the pixels because MUCH more important that close
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
1. Years of research and usage that shows long-time VR usage is safe for nervous system.
2. Gear is VERY light and comfortable and by light I do mean light. Like 100 grams or something. Use very light composite materials or something.
3. Is affordable.
4. Resolution and framerate are both very high. Think 2-4 k per eye at at least 100 FPS. Those who don't know - resolutiion and consistant framerate is much more important for VR than for normal monitor/tv.
So I guess not anytime soon.
1. well said actually. Most default to concerns of neck strain which is silly for multiple reasons but we dont know about nervous system and how the brain will react long term.
2. from what I have been told the CV version 'feels' lighter than a baseball cap. So there is that.
3. Given that its 1/4 the cost of a good TV, about the price of a high end video card, cheaper than a cell phone and cheaper adjusted for inflation than the WalkMan was in 1979 I think they have cost pretty well taken care of.
4. The visual technical needs of VR are very different than monitors so its not fair to do a direct comparion. case in point. PPI is more important than resolution on VR, so is latency and so is frame rate.
2. I havent followed recent versions, so no idea what CV is, but version I saw was only around 400 grams (which sound very little) I was told, but after a while on the head it felt VERY heavy.
3. I mean price of complete package - an device much more advanced than current OR and other deviced (lighter, better resolution/ PPI, etc) and an hardware to fuel it. Price of PC capable of fueling AAA graphics to two screens with 10 megapixel resolutuon each at 100 FPS per second. Will 15 000 USD atm be enough?
4. Considering that it seems most VR solutions have more or less similar amount of inches per 'screen', by bigger resolution I've meant PPI. What I mean that considering size of screen in i.e OR it's resolution (and thus PPI) is way way too low.
3. If (and to be fair it is an if) if you are a typical PC gamer there is a high chance the next computer you buy would be perfectly Oculus Capable. If this is your 'true cost' then wouldnt next generation games cost to much? think about that.
3. My current PC is actually preety low-spec, but anyway - Until I see VR set that matches my requirements, which won't happen for at least several years at minimum it is hard to speculate at cost at that time. Current occulus does not meet my requirements so...and theoretical Occulus and PC that would meet my requirements (taking aside nervous system safety from long-term usage for discussion sake) would cost in five digit at least if even technically possible at all atm.
It's ignorance to say that a 4K display is better than a VR headset. It's actually comparing apples and oranges. Not to mention that under at least 40", 4K is really completely useless.
Most people have a 4K TV so they can look so cool and pro, yet at the distance they are watching it, the eye is incapable of seeing the difference.
Well who owns a main gaming TV (not computer monitor) that's under 40" anyways? Plus your graph states the "ideal distance".
I bought my 4k TV because I needed a new TV and it was a great deal...it had nothing to do being "cool or pro".
Personally I would say someone who buys a VR system right now is the one who wants to be "cool or pro". I tried it out it was a neat product but id prefer to sit on my couch with the surround sound and watch a movie or play a game on my 70" "cool and pro" 4K tv. Just my opinion though...
I believe calling those headsets VR is an bit misleading. What about audio? Other senses? Body motion capture?
Yep.
It's just a 3D display - the industry is trying to sell it as "Virtual Reality" - when in fact it ignores all the other senses except for vision.
To me VR = The Matrix
That kind of True Virtual Reality propably won't happen until someone research a way to bypass our eyes, skin, etc and plug external computers directly in our brains/CNS. Which will propably take a while, I haven't even heard of some serious funds being allocated into such research at all. Current medicine dealing directly with our Central Nervous System is very very shy for any real results and in means of cyberization we're at testing kindergarten grade external cyberskeletons and very basic replacements for lost limbs.
Progress is happening but when you put into perspective how far we're from true VR then sadly unless there a series of fast breakthrough followed by flood of money we might not see stuff like true VR in our lifetimes
3. My current PC is actually preety low-spec, but anyway - Until I see VR set that matches my requirements, which won't happen for at least several years at minimum it is hard to speculate at cost at that time. Current occulus does not meet my requirements so...and theoretical Occulus and PC that would meet my requirements (taking aside nervous system safety from long-term usage for discussion sake) would cost in five digit at least if even technically possible at all atm.
the thing about your forumla is that its EXACTLY the same issue with latest gen games and its the EXACT forumula that has existed in PC gaming for 30 years.
Time passes, something comes out that your current PC cant handle, you upgrade. Its been true pretty much every 3 years for the past 30 years. This would be no different
SIDE NOTE: oh and as a side not PPI is display hardware specific. so the PPI problem is already taken care of in the head display regardless of what PC you run it on.
ADDED:...keep in mind the majority of the floor space at last years GDC was dedicated to VR technologies. Its likely to rise. if you sit on the side lines that is fine but you are missing out.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
You're making my point actually... you have a 70" 4K TV, so you can sit at up to 9'4" and your eyes still see the difference compared to a 1080p TV. That's a good investment, and not a placebo to impress friends. You have the gear required to really enjoy 4K. So do I... mine is only 40", but I sit at less than 1,5 meter from it since it's my main computer display as well as my movie TV. See rig in the signature.
Their "ideal distances" are the distances at which the eye can see the difference of quality with lower resolutions. Sitting on a couch at 3 meters of a 40" or less 4K TV is a waste of money... since the human eye doesn't have enough resolution at that distance to see the difference with a 1080p TV.
Then comes the problem of 3D, which a 4K display handles way better than a 1080p one... but that's another topic.
and the CV version of Oculus has two monitors. There isnt much reason to think the next generation of Oculus will have 2 4k monitors because there is already talks of 4k phones.
But yeah distance maters. Its why the movie looks tons better on my 24" monitor when I am sitting at my desk instead of sitting on my couch
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
"It's pretty simple, really. If your only intention in posting about a particular game or topic is to be negative, then yes, you should probably move on. Voicing a negative opinion is fine, continually doing so on the same game is basically just trolling." - Michael Bitton Community Manager, MMORPG.com
"As an online discussion about Star Citizen grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Derek Smart approaches 1" - MrSnuffles's law
"I am jumping in here a bit without knowing exactly what you all or talking about." - SEANMCAD
You're making my point actually... you have a 70" 4K TV, so you can sit at up to 9'4" and your eyes still see the difference compared to a 1080p TV. That's a good investment, and not a placebo to impress friends. You have the gear required to really enjoy 4K. So do I... mine is only 40", but I sit at less than 1,5 meter from it since it's my main computer display as well as my movie TV. See rig in the signature.
Their "ideal distances" are the distances at which the eye can see the difference of quality with lower resolutions. Sitting on a couch at 3 meters of a 40" or less 4K TV is a waste of money... since the human eye doesn't have enough resolution at that distance to see the difference with a 1080p TV.
Then comes the problem of 3D, which a 4K display handles way better than a 1080p one... but that's another topic.
Oh I took your point as those who buy a 4K tv think they are "cool and pro" which wasn't my case at all.
Like I said I thought the VR was near when I tried it but not something I would spend money on plus the wife standing in front of my to get my attention wouldn't work anymore lol maybe that is a reason to buy it!
You're making my point actually... you have a 70" 4K TV, so you can sit at up to 9'4" and your eyes still see the difference compared to a 1080p TV. That's a good investment, and not a placebo to impress friends. You have the gear required to really enjoy 4K. So do I... mine is only 40", but I sit at less than 1,5 meter from it since it's my main computer display as well as my movie TV. See rig in the signature.
Their "ideal distances" are the distances at which the eye can see the difference of quality with lower resolutions. Sitting on a couch at 3 meters of a 40" or less 4K TV is a waste of money... since the human eye doesn't have enough resolution at that distance to see the difference with a 1080p TV.
Then comes the problem of 3D, which a 4K display handles way better than a 1080p one... but that's another topic.
Oh I took your point as those who buy a 4K tv think they are "cool and pro" which wasn't my case at all.
Like I said I thought the VR was near when I tried it but not something I would spend money on plus the wife standing in front of my to get my attention wouldn't work anymore lol maybe that is a reason to buy it!
on the second part basically there is a switch that turns the front camera on and then BAM you see outside the Rift.
That is how Gear VR works anywy
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
My original comment was referring to the fact that so many people seem to think they know exactly what it's like using one of these sets, even though they've never been within 100 miles of one...
When you automatically assume something "cannot work" without even trying it, that speaks of some very strong prejudice...
Whoa, climb down off your high horse there buddy.
You're missing the point entirely. Many of us have these amazing things called Mark I Eyeballs. Most of us even have two of them. Those amazing little devices have been processing visuals for us in three dimensions since soon after we were born.
So yeah, I've never experienced 3D before in my life.
Many of us, myself included, have seen this whole 3D fad come and go several times over. We're cautiously keeping our money in our wallets and waiting to see if this one blows over, or goes big. If it goes big, then at some point, these huge clunky shit-buckets, that people are strapping to their heads and actually believing it's the first time they've seen something in 3D, will get a lot smaller.
They'll get a lot more refined. At some point, they may be the size of a pair of eyeglasses with the ability to turn the screens off at the touch of a switch and see through them. Somewhere in between strapping a 55 gallon drum to my face with no quick way to check my actual surroundings and the lightweight eyeglasses, I will buy into the technology.
But I sure as shit aint diving off the high dive until I know whether or not the pool is full of water or liquid nitrogen. Call me cautious.
My original comment was referring to the fact that so many people seem to think they know exactly what it's like using one of these sets, even though they've never been within 100 miles of one...
When you automatically assume something "cannot work" without even trying it, that speaks of some very strong prejudice...
Whoa, climb down off your high horse there buddy.
You're missing the point entirely. Many of us have these amazing things called Mark I Eyeballs. Most of us even have two of them. Those amazing little devices have been processing visuals for us in three dimensions since soon after we were born.
So yeah, I've never experienced 3D before in my life.
Many of us, myself included, have seen this whole 3D fad come and go several times over. We're cautiously keeping our money in our wallets and waiting to see if this one blows over, or goes big. If it goes big, then at some point, these huge clunky shit-buckets, that people are strapping to their heads and actually believing it's the first time they've seen something in 3D, will get a lot smaller.
They'll get a lot more refined. At some point, they may be the size of a pair of eyeglasses with the ability to turn the screens off at the touch of a switch and see through them. Somewhere in between strapping a 55 gallon drum to my face with no quick way to check my actual surroundings and the lightweight eyeglasses, I will buy into the technology.
But I sure as shit aint diving off the high dive until I know whether or not the pool is full of water or liquid nitrogen. Call me cautious.
the problem with your eye balls is this
1. its clear that you dont understand VR because trying to compare it to 3D technology is silly for more than one reason. A. 3d you dont have head tracking B. In 3d you still have your peripheral set in reality (which by the way I think critics of VR ALWAYS forget about peripheral vision leading me to think that maybe they do have something wrong with their eyeballs) C. The point of view is fixed (this leads into the head tracking thing)
Did you know in VR I can look under a table by moving my head under the table in VR. You cant do that in 3D.
2. If your eyeballs where working correctly you would know that sitting at your desk close to a nice monitor makes a movie seem more immersive then if you watch the same movie from 5 feet away on the same monitor. Not knowing that is a defect in your eyeballs
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I believe calling those headsets VR is an bit misleading. What about audio? Other senses? Body motion capture?
Yep.
It's just a 3D display - the industry is trying to sell it as "Virtual Reality" - when in fact it ignores all the other senses except for vision.
To me VR = The Matrix
Good in theory but do I really want to smell and taste my games set in medieval settings? I have my doubts
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
This thread is a perfect example of how out of touch many of the users of this site are either 1) really out of touch with reality, 2) do not know the first thing about what VR is, 3) are really good trolls.
Short and simple: Like it or not, VR will get a good foothold starting in 2016, and will only grow from there.
Personally, I want to experience Nektulos Castle (From the EQ/EQ2 series) in VR. In third person it was terrifying... I can only imagine as a VR world.....
This thread is a perfect example of how out of touch many of the users of this site are either 1) really out of touch with reality, 2) do not know the first thing about what VR is, 3) are really good trolls.
Short and simple: Like it or not, VR will get a good foothold starting in 2016, and will only grow from there.
Personally, I want to experience Nektulos Castle (From the EQ/EQ2 series) in VR. In third person it was terrifying... I can only imagine as a VR world.....
case in point the evidence of a strong start is clear.
1. Gear VR innovator edition sold more copies then Samsung Expected 2. Gear VR CV version sold more copies then Samsung Expected 3. Gear VR CV sold out on all retailers within a month. 4. Oculus DK2 is going for 3 times the orginal cost on ebay because of demand 5. Billions of dollars being invested in VR from pretty much every major player in technology out there. 6. Movie industry investing in VR 7. Majority of floor space at last years GDC was dedicated to VR.
I dont think 3D TVs can claim that.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
This thread is a perfect example of how out of touch many of the users of this site are either 1) really out of touch with reality, 2) do not know the first thing about what VR is, 3) are really good trolls.
Short and simple: Like it or not, VR will get a good foothold starting in 2016, and will only grow from there.
Personally, I want to experience Nektulos Castle (From the EQ/EQ2 series) in VR. In third person it was terrifying... I can only imagine as a VR world.....
case in point the evidence of a strong start is clear.
1. Gear VR innovator edition sold more copies then Samsung Expected 2. Gear VR CV version sold more copies then Samsung Expected 3. Gear VR CV sold out on all retailers within a month. 4. Oculus DK2 is going for 3 times the orginal cost on ebay because of demand 5. Billions of dollars being invested in VR from pretty much every major player in technology out there. 6. Movie industry investing in VR 7. Majority of floor space at last years GDC was dedicated to VR.
I dont think 3D TVs can claim that.
I know a lot of Fortune 500 companies that invest in emerging technologies only to later abandon it without ever having released a thing utilizing it. They invest because it could take off and they don't want to be caught with their pants down, however, investing and actually doing something with it are two entirely different things. Time will tell if this lasts... 3D TVs didn't even when they were selling for 5 times as much as a non-3D TV. Just because someone is willing to spend a lot of money on something, doesn't mean everyone is.
Your evidence isn't evidence at all... as many a product has followed the same path and evaporated into thin air as fast as it came onto the scene. YOU want it to succeed... you have to be able to convince Scrooge that it's a worthy investment knowing that he is blind and can't hear. That makes it a success... not getting the fanboys to buy into it.... they'd buy anything with the word VR associated with it.
This thread is a perfect example of how out of touch many of the users of this site are either 1) really out of touch with reality, 2) do not know the first thing about what VR is, 3) are really good trolls.
Short and simple: Like it or not, VR will get a good foothold starting in 2016, and will only grow from there.
Personally, I want to experience Nektulos Castle (From the EQ/EQ2 series) in VR. In third person it was terrifying... I can only imagine as a VR world.....
case in point the evidence of a strong start is clear.
1. Gear VR innovator edition sold more copies then Samsung Expected 2. Gear VR CV version sold more copies then Samsung Expected 3. Gear VR CV sold out on all retailers within a month. 4. Oculus DK2 is going for 3 times the orginal cost on ebay because of demand 5. Billions of dollars being invested in VR from pretty much every major player in technology out there. 6. Movie industry investing in VR 7. Majority of floor space at last years GDC was dedicated to VR.
I dont think 3D TVs can claim that.
I know a lot of Fortune 500 companies that invest in emerging technologies only to later abandon it without ever having released a thing utilizing it. They invest because it could take off and they don't want to be caught with their pants down, however, investing and actually doing something with it are two entirely different things. Time will tell if this lasts... 3D TVs didn't even when they were selling for 5 times as much as a non-3D TV. Just because someone is willing to spend a lot of money on something, doesn't mean everyone is.
Your evidence isn't evidence at all... as many a product has followed the same path and evaporated into thin air as fast as it came onto the scene. YOU want it to succeed... you have to be able to convince Scrooge that it's a worthy investment knowing that he is blind and can't hear. That makes it a success... not getting the fanboys to buy into it.... they'd buy anything with the word VR associated with it
so you addressed item 5, 6, 7 and completely ignored the rest.
what about sales?
and the point in my post is of all the information we DO have currently..literally not a single datapoint is bad. which make me wonder why one would take a side that has zero evidence to support it.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I'm definitely going for the Oculus Rift. I've been planning my build around it for the past year or so just for it. Purchased the GTX 970 G1 Gaming Edition earlier this year, which I'm already selling to put towards a GTX 980 Ti instead cause I want to play with DSR and still rendering at a decent framerate.
In a month or two I'm going to do the motherboard, CPU, memory upgrade as my setup is 5 years old now. Going from a Core i7 860 2.8 GHz overclocked to 3.36 GHz and 16 Gigs of Ram to a z170 board, core i7 6700K, and 32 Gigs of Ram.
It just so happened that I'm in my 5 year upgrade cycle for my PC anyway, and actually approaching 6 years now so I got lucky in that Rift took until now to come out.
I do seem to see so many naysayers and skeptics, which seem to be the same people who always complain about how MMOs are boring now, which does have some truth to it.
Really, I will be fine with simply having Oculus Support in ESO and all will be golden and so immersive. Also, looking forward to EVE: Valkyrie/Elite: Dangerous for my Battlestar Galactica kick. Oh can't forget FFXIV and the VR experiments they are doing. I just hope they don't only offer it for Playstation VR. I think they are going to start with that but once things are ironed out they will offer Oculus functionality because of the multitude of PC players on that game.
So honestly I feel there is a ton of development going on from game companies for the Rift. I am also willing to bet that they will sell out their first and second round of CV1 release. Anyone willing to take me on in that bet?
3. My current PC is actually preety low-spec, but anyway - Until I see VR set that matches my requirements, which won't happen for at least several years at minimum it is hard to speculate at cost at that time. Current occulus does not meet my requirements so...and theoretical Occulus and PC that would meet my requirements (taking aside nervous system safety from long-term usage for discussion sake) would cost in five digit at least if even technically possible at all atm.
the thing about your forumla is that its EXACTLY the same issue with latest gen games and its the EXACT forumula that has existed in PC gaming for 30 years.
Time passes, something comes out that your current PC cant handle, you upgrade. Its been true pretty much every 3 years for the past 30 years. This would be no different
SIDE NOTE: oh and as a side not PPI is display hardware specific. so the PPI problem is already taken care of in the head display regardless of what PC you run it on.
Yeah, that why I am saying that VR is expensive because to be able to fuel VR at high resolution & framerate you will need very expensive PC.
PPI - do you mean Pixel per Inch? If yes then 10 Megapixel display on 5 Inch screen will have higher PPI than 5 Megapixel on 5 Inch. So imho VR need higher resolutuon and thus higher PPI than PPI of current OR. Unless you speak about something diffrent.
3. My current PC is actually preety low-spec, but anyway - Until I see VR set that matches my requirements, which won't happen for at least several years at minimum it is hard to speculate at cost at that time. Current occulus does not meet my requirements so...and theoretical Occulus and PC that would meet my requirements (taking aside nervous system safety from long-term usage for discussion sake) would cost in five digit at least if even technically possible at all atm.
the thing about your forumla is that its EXACTLY the same issue with latest gen games and its the EXACT forumula that has existed in PC gaming for 30 years.
Time passes, something comes out that your current PC cant handle, you upgrade. Its been true pretty much every 3 years for the past 30 years. This would be no different
SIDE NOTE: oh and as a side not PPI is display hardware specific. so the PPI problem is already taken care of in the head display regardless of what PC you run it on.
Yeah, that why I am saying that VR is expensive because to be able to fuel VR at high resolution & framerate you will need very expensive PC.
PPI - do you mean Pixel per Inch? If yes then 10 Megapixel display on 5 Inch screen will have higher PPI than 5 Megapixel on 5 Inch. So imho VR need higher resolutuon and thus higher PPI than PPI of current OR. Unless you speak about something diffrent.
PPI and resolution are not directly related.
Let me explain in more detail (PPI: Pixels Per Inch)
a 20" 1080p monitor vs a 5" 1080p both have the exact same resolution. Thus..the distance between each pixel on a 20" is larger than it is on a 5" screen.
If you take a 1080p monitor and start moving closer and close and closer to the screen it doesnt take long before you start to see the gaps and its starts to look 'sqaurey'
It isbest for you to physically do it so that you get a direct experience of what I am talking about. Then do the exact same thing to a phone of same resolution. Because the distance between the pixels is smaller you can get much closer to a phone screen without getting this effect.
NOW....PPI is not software, its the physical distance between each pixel on a screen thus its independent on of your computer needs.
This huge advancement in PPI is related to OELD screen technololgy (I think that is the source)
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Comments
3. I mean price of complete package - an device much more advanced than current OR and other deviced (lighter, better resolution/ PPI, etc) and an hardware to fuel it. Price of PC capable of fueling AAA graphics to two screens with 10 megapixel resolutuon each at 100 FPS per second. Will 15 000 USD atm be enough?
Sure fueling i.e. Doom 3 or even some indie toy-games like this rollercoaster thing to current OR resoltuons and lower framerate will require much cheaper PC, but I am not interested in that at all. I had VR set on my head in my life and I do know how badly it need very high PPI to look good.
4. Considering that it seems most VR solutions have more or less similar amount of inches per 'screen', by bigger resolution I've meant PPI. What I mean that considering size of screen in i.e OR it's resolution (and thus PPI) is way way too low.
3. If (and to be fair it is an if) if you are a typical PC gamer there is a high chance the next computer you buy would be perfectly Oculus Capable. If this is your 'true cost' then wouldnt next generation games cost to much? think about that.
4. to be clear the reason PPI is more important in VR than it is in monitors or TV is because your face is one inch from the screen. so the distance between each pixel is critical. In fact, PPI in OLED screens is EXACTLY why VR is happening now instead of just taking a 2k monitor and moving your face close. The distance of the pixels because MUCH more important that close
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Monster Hunter since '04!
Currently playing: MHW & MHGU
I bought my 4k TV because I needed a new TV and it was a great deal...it had nothing to do being "cool or pro".
Personally I would say someone who buys a VR system right now is the one who wants to be "cool or pro". I tried it out it was a neat product but id prefer to sit on my couch with the surround sound and watch a movie or play a game on my 70" "cool and pro" 4K tv. Just my opinion though...
Progress is happening but when you put into perspective how far we're from true VR then sadly unless there a series of fast breakthrough followed by flood of money we might not see stuff like true VR in our lifetimes
Time passes, something comes out that your current PC cant handle, you upgrade. Its been true pretty much every 3 years for the past 30 years. This would be no different
SIDE NOTE: oh and as a side not PPI is display hardware specific. so the PPI problem is already taken care of in the head display regardless of what PC you run it on.
ADDED:...keep in mind the majority of the floor space at last years GDC was dedicated to VR technologies. Its likely to rise. if you sit on the side lines that is fine but you are missing out.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
But yeah distance maters. Its why the movie looks tons better on my 24" monitor when I am sitting at my desk instead of sitting on my couch
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
"It's pretty simple, really. If your only intention in posting about a particular game or topic is to be negative, then yes, you should probably move on. Voicing a negative opinion is fine, continually doing so on the same game is basically just trolling."
- Michael Bitton
Community Manager, MMORPG.com
"As an online discussion about Star Citizen grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Derek Smart approaches 1" - MrSnuffles's law
"I am jumping in here a bit without knowing exactly what you all or talking about."
- SEANMCAD
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
I guess you have just never flown a ship in Elite Dangerous with another ship flying up next to you with you DK2 on.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Like I said I thought the VR was near when I tried it but not something I would spend money on plus the wife standing in front of my to get my attention wouldn't work anymore lol maybe that is a reason to buy it!
That is how Gear VR works anywy
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
You're missing the point entirely. Many of us have these amazing things called Mark I Eyeballs. Most of us even have two of them. Those amazing little devices have been processing visuals for us in three dimensions since soon after we were born.
So yeah, I've never experienced 3D before in my life.
Many of us, myself included, have seen this whole 3D fad come and go several times over. We're cautiously keeping our money in our wallets and waiting to see if this one blows over, or goes big. If it goes big, then at some point, these huge clunky shit-buckets, that people are strapping to their heads and actually believing it's the first time they've seen something in 3D, will get a lot smaller.
They'll get a lot more refined. At some point, they may be the size of a pair of eyeglasses with the ability to turn the screens off at the touch of a switch and see through them. Somewhere in between strapping a 55 gallon drum to my face with no quick way to check my actual surroundings and the lightweight eyeglasses, I will buy into the technology.
But I sure as shit aint diving off the high dive until I know whether or not the pool is full of water or liquid nitrogen. Call me cautious.
1. its clear that you dont understand VR because trying to compare it to 3D technology is silly for more than one reason.
A. 3d you dont have head tracking
B. In 3d you still have your peripheral set in reality (which by the way I think critics of VR ALWAYS forget about peripheral vision leading me to think that maybe they do have something wrong with their eyeballs)
C. The point of view is fixed (this leads into the head tracking thing)
Did you know in VR I can look under a table by moving my head under the table in VR. You cant do that in 3D.
2. If your eyeballs where working correctly you would know that sitting at your desk close to a nice monitor makes a movie seem more immersive then if you watch the same movie from 5 feet away on the same monitor. Not knowing that is a defect in your eyeballs
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Short and simple: Like it or not, VR will get a good foothold starting in 2016, and will only grow from there.
Personally, I want to experience Nektulos Castle (From the EQ/EQ2 series) in VR. In third person it was terrifying... I can only imagine as a VR world.....
1. Gear VR innovator edition sold more copies then Samsung Expected
2. Gear VR CV version sold more copies then Samsung Expected
3. Gear VR CV sold out on all retailers within a month.
4. Oculus DK2 is going for 3 times the orginal cost on ebay because of demand
5. Billions of dollars being invested in VR from pretty much every major player in technology out there.
6. Movie industry investing in VR
7. Majority of floor space at last years GDC was dedicated to VR.
I dont think 3D TVs can claim that.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Your evidence isn't evidence at all... as many a product has followed the same path and evaporated into thin air as fast as it came onto the scene. YOU want it to succeed... you have to be able to convince Scrooge that it's a worthy investment knowing that he is blind and can't hear. That makes it a success... not getting the fanboys to buy into it.... they'd buy anything with the word VR associated with it.
With a VR headset, you are the camera...
and the point in my post is of all the information we DO have currently..literally not a single datapoint is bad. which make me wonder why one would take a side that has zero evidence to support it.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
In a month or two I'm going to do the motherboard, CPU, memory upgrade as my setup is 5 years old now. Going from a Core i7 860 2.8 GHz overclocked to 3.36 GHz and 16 Gigs of Ram to a z170 board, core i7 6700K, and 32 Gigs of Ram.
It just so happened that I'm in my 5 year upgrade cycle for my PC anyway, and actually approaching 6 years now so I got lucky in that Rift took until now to come out.
I do seem to see so many naysayers and skeptics, which seem to be the same people who always complain about how MMOs are boring now, which does have some truth to it.
Really, I will be fine with simply having Oculus Support in ESO and all will be golden and so immersive. Also, looking forward to EVE: Valkyrie/Elite: Dangerous for my Battlestar Galactica kick. Oh can't forget FFXIV and the VR experiments they are doing. I just hope they don't only offer it for Playstation VR. I think they are going to start with that but once things are ironed out they will offer Oculus functionality because of the multitude of PC players on that game.
So honestly I feel there is a ton of development going on from game companies for the Rift. I am also willing to bet that they will sell out their first and second round of CV1 release. Anyone willing to take me on in that bet?
/poke to all you skeptics
All in good fun of course.
PPI - do you mean Pixel per Inch? If yes then 10 Megapixel display on 5 Inch screen will have higher PPI than 5 Megapixel on 5 Inch. So imho VR need higher resolutuon and thus higher PPI than PPI of current OR. Unless you speak about something diffrent.
Let me explain in more detail (PPI: Pixels Per Inch)
a 20" 1080p monitor vs a 5" 1080p both have the exact same resolution.
Thus..the distance between each pixel on a 20" is larger than it is on a 5" screen.
If you take a 1080p monitor and start moving closer and close and closer to the screen it doesnt take long before you start to see the gaps and its starts to look 'sqaurey'
It isbest for you to physically do it so that you get a direct experience of what I am talking about. Then do the exact same thing to a phone of same resolution. Because the distance between the pixels is smaller you can get much closer to a phone screen without getting this effect.
NOW....PPI is not software, its the physical distance between each pixel on a screen thus its independent on of your computer needs.
This huge advancement in PPI is related to OELD screen technololgy (I think that is the source)
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me