Will 8k VR be the salvation?

Destroy

Destroy

Well-known member
Watching some videos, it seems to be what everyone wanted in the first place.

But they are talking needing one 1080 minimum for each screen?! Yikes!
 
If anyone was expecting 8k VR ( i bet is really 4k for each eye) on a medium range current GPU then they don't know anything about how computers and resolutions work.
Today's even high end GPU's from both vendors have problems rendering 4k at constant 90 fps in the most modern demanding games, imagine needing to render 4k for each eye at the same time, at constant 90fps!

And IMO VR enthusiasts will lose with more expensive VR kits, because the less kits sold, the less game developers will want to make games for them, and the fewer games, less kits are sold, chicken and egg problem, the one that has stopped VR from growing for years now.
 
Argoon1981 said:
If anyone was expecting 8k VR ( i bet is really 4k for each eye) on a medium range current GPU then they don't know anything about how computers and resolutions work.
Today's even high end GPU's from both vendors have problems rendering 4k at constant 90 fps in the most modern demanding games, imagine needing to render 4k for each eye at the same time, at constant 90fps!

And IMO VR enthusiasts will lose with more expensive VR kits, because the less kits sold, the less game developers will want to make games for them, and the fewer games, less kits are sold, chicken and egg problem, the one that has stopped VR from growing for years now.
Click to expand...
Wasn't foveated rendering supposed to save the day? What happened to it?
 
Current mainstream headsets are only 1080x1200 per an eye. Good enough for a fun experience, but higher would be a definite improvement.

I think about 4k per an eye would be ideal.

Some things that should help reduce the workload.
1) The lenses make it so the effective PPI you actually see is non-uniform (see image below). This means that the GPU can render some areas of the image at lower than the native resolution while presenting an effectively uniform resolution to the user looking through the lenses. Nvidia already has tech in their GPU to do this.
2) The headsets don't actually use the full area of the display, so the GPU isn't actually rendering a full 1080x1200 per an eye (see image below).
3) Oculus and Vive can warp images to keep the environment moving when the GPU misses a frame. It isn't perfect, but it is good enough to prevent obvious stuttering and motion sickness.
4) The renderings for the two eyes can share some of the same work. This is what Nvidia's simultaneous multi-projection does (BTW, both Unreal and Unity support SMP, so there are at least a few games out their using this feature)
5) Games can use trade other rendering quality improvements for resolution.
6) The rendering can be done at a lower resolution and upscaled, which would still help reduce the screen door effect.

BTW, most VR games currently run alright on a GTX 1060. The 1080 Ti has well over twice the pixel pushing power and many VR users with high end GPU already use as high as 2x super sampling (which amounts to rendering 2160x2400 per an eye.)

I expect that in a couple more years, 4k per an eye will be doable with the top tier GPU. I am less certain about

2ZlbqrK.png


P.S. I am not sure why VR needs salvation. It seems like the state of VR is pretty healthy and getting better all the time.
 
Last edited:
As for the health of VR, It looks like after a bit of a flat period, there has been an uptick in VR headset use, according to the Steam Hardware survey.

For a point of comparison, the 0.72% is about half the adoption rate of 4k; but only includes people that have their headsets plugged in during the survey, and many people don't keep them plugged in when not in use.

(data sourced from the Internet Archive: Wayback Machine)
IGGhUGT.png


Edit: adding link for top selling VR games of 2018. There are some pretty fantastic games on this list, which doesn't even include Oculus exclusives.
https://store.steampowered.com/sale/2018_so_far_top_vr_titles/
 
Last edited:
Resolution isn't my largest gripe by a long shot. If anything the lenses are the weak link on my rift. The godrays and fog are far, far more of an issue than sde. And to be honest annoy me more than stereoscopic 3d crosstalk ever did. Nevermind wires and needing a **** ton of dedicated space. I don't want this much hassle to play a damn video game. Every gripe about stereoscopic 3d is far worse with the occulus rift imo. I have never been able to relax and just enjoy the the thing for any somewhat extended period of time after the initial shock value wore off. I got more use and enjoyment out of Nvidia 3d vision.

This **** is so far off from mainstream adoption that it isn't even funny. If the enthusiast hardware is this lackluster I can't even imagine what options the mainstream headsets and software are leaving people with.

I'm sorry. I just get annoyed seeing people gripe about what I consider to be the least of my concerns with VR and no one mentioning the immersion breaking, frustrating issues. I don't want to empty out a large room to set up for VR so I can trip over cords while looking at a screen that's fogged up and has halos around anything on a dark background.

Like 3d vision the more that you use it the more obvious the flaws. Sadly they're far more consistent than I ever dealt with in 3d vision and there is far fewer software to enjoy.
 
Last edited:
BababooeyHTJ said:
Resolution isn't my largest gripe by a long shot. If anything the lenses are the weak link on my rift. The godrays and fog are far, far more of an issue than sde. And to be honest annoy me more than stereoscopic 3d crosstalk ever did. Nevermind wires and needing a **** ton of dedicated space. I don't want this much hassle to play a damn video game. Every gripe about stereoscopic 3d is far worse with the occulus rift imo. I have never been able to relax and just enjoy the the thing for any somewhat extended period of time after the initial shock value wore off. I got more use and enjoyment out of Nvidia 3d vision.

This **** is so far off from mainstream adoption that it isn't even funny. If the enthusiast hardware is this lackluster I can't even imagine what options the mainstream headsets and software are leaving people with.

I'm sorry. I just get annoyed seeing people gripe about what I consider to be the least of my concerns with VR and no one mentioning the immersion breaking, frustrating issues. I don't want to empty out a large room to set up for VR so I can trip over cords while looking at a screen that's fogged up and has halos around anything on a dark background.

Like 3d vision the more that you use it the more obvious the flaws. Sadly they're far more consistent than I ever dealt with in 3d vision and there is far fewer software to enjoy.
Click to expand...

I've spent hours and hours in VR at my friends houses and have no idea what you're talking about. God rays and fogging? I never noticed any of that on the Windows MR unit I was using. The only issue I had was the resolution. The screen door effect is so bad I won't even consider buying one until that's gone or not noticeable.
 
OverclockN' said:
I've spent hours and hours in VR at my friends houses and have no idea what you're talking about. God rays and fogging? I never noticed any of that on the Windows MR unit I was using. The only issue I had was the resolution. The screen door effect is so bad I won't even consider buying one until that's gone or not noticeable.
Click to expand...

I know what he is talking about, though I don't normally have problems with fogging.

I think the fogging issue is highly dependent on the biology of the user, the relative humidity level in the room, the temperature of the room, and how hard the user is working.

I don't typically notice the god rays in most normal game play, though it can be noticeable with a very bright object or text on a black background.

For me, neither of these issues are at the top of my list. Wires might be the top thing for me, followed by the need to sweep the play space for stray lego bricks.
 
aviphysics said:
P.S. I am not sure why VR needs salvation. It seems like the state of VR is pretty healthy and getting better all the time.
Click to expand...

It's some weird modern thing. If something doesn't revolutionize the whole world in less than half a decade it's a "failure" or a "gimmick". VR was always going to be a slow burn.

For me I've only had issues with fogging when the headset is cold and I'm hot. For example if I workout and then strap the headset on immediately. Kind of the same reason your car windshield fogs up, a mismatch in temperatures on each side of the glass.

God rays and all that other stuff is annoying, but for the most part doesn't bother me. I do think the SDE is one of the worst aspects, even on a Vive Pro. But VR's biggest problem is the cost, and actually the price of Nvidia's new graphics cards bodes worst for VR than anything else. We really need the price of VR hardware to go down, not go up or stay the same.
 
I really think that horror games work amazingly well in VR. Sadly those games tend to be God Ray city. Occulus actually even published a black and white game. They're awful in Wilson's heart. Robo recall obviously didn't have God Ray issues. But even the dark areas in serious Sam have these artifacts. They're pretty common in my experience on the rift.
 
This seems to be a very thorough review.

Yay, distortion ( at 8:30) is worse now, 8k version is a fake, its scaled up since max input res is 1440p...
[yt]t8iFOhC2j6I[/yt]
 
[yt]bcZ0CXP0qgU[/yt]

Over 2.5 hours of pimax doings from unboxing to comparisons to benches.

Watching this one now.
 
It sounds like Pimax actually managed to pull off something good. I have to be honest I am surprised. I wish they were using OLED panels though. The LCD panels on WMR headsets are much worse at colors and blacks than the OLEDs in the Rift/Vive/Pro.

I'm probably going to put the Pimax 5K+ on my radar screen. The problem is I also really don't want to go back to being wired. I hope they have a wireless adapter coming out for it, but based on the resolution I don't know if that will be possible. Once you get used to not having the wire it's hard to go back.

Also, FWIW, I was using my Vive yesterday and I took time to consider the FOV and didn't honestly feel like it was that bad. I feel like some of the descriptions of the FOV ("looking through a pair of binoculars") are a little bit exaggerated. Of course, more FOV is obviously better, but if there are other trade-offs in panel quality and wired vs wireless I no longer feel like it's a clear decision which is better.
 
The general thinking at this point seems to be the 5k+ is the better way to go. The overall image clarity is better, but it has more SDE.

I guess two full 4k panels can't be run from a single DP. But at this point I'm wondering whether the better choice might be to get a Pimax 8KX and then subsample, rather than running at lower res and upsampling. It's hard to know though without trying. It's too bad SLI support is so lackluster for VR because that seems like one way to run a super high res panel. Even a 2080 Ti is going to be woefully insufficient for that.

I'm going to keep my eye on the Pimax 5K+, however it sounds like it's not going to be available for non-backers until December or January and I may be going out of the country for several months around that time, so no point for me to really buy it until around the middle of next year. Maybe that gives them time to get a wireless adapter out for it! :D
 
I think the real problem is that you pretty much need a full Vive kit, in addition to the Pimax. That makes the total cost North of $1000, unless you already have a Vive.
 
Argoon1981 said:
If anyone was expecting 8k VR ( i bet is really 4k for each eye) on a medium range current GPU then they don't know anything about how computers and resolutions work.
Today's even high end GPU's from both vendors have problems rendering 4k at constant 90 fps in the most modern demanding games, imagine needing to render 4k for each eye at the same time, at constant 90fps!

And IMO VR enthusiasts will lose with more expensive VR kits, because the less kits sold, the less game developers will want to make games for them, and the fewer games, less kits are sold, chicken and egg problem, the one that has stopped VR from growing for years now.
Click to expand...

The want for 8K by current VR community is based around the hardware, NOT the game resolution

E.g. the game renders 2x 1080p then is displayed on 2x 4k screens, screen door gone, current flat gaming texture resolutions - this in it's own is a big ask on a GPU, RAM and CPU, not mention hardrive speed.
VR currently is one the few times when fast RAM speeds matter.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top