Rage3D Discussion Area

Rage3D Discussion Area (http://www.rage3d.com/board/index.php)
-   Other Graphics Cards and 3D Technologies (http://www.rage3d.com/board/forumdisplay.php?f=65)
-   -   Official VR Headset discussion (http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=34008998)

aviphysics Mar 22, 2014 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jolle (Post 1337469554)
Well, either way it´s just a question of definitions, it doesnt matter.. it is what it is.

:yep:

The only reason I even brought it up is because of Daj complaining that they need to release the product to a broader audience. My point in equating it to an early release Beta, is to point out that unlike what many often think of as a Devkit, these devices are broadly available to pretty much anyone who wants one and there is software an ordinary consumer can enjoy them with.

shadow001 Mar 23, 2014 06:31 PM

I like the concept and have ordered 1 even though they only ship in july, but the main thing is that it's a GPU upgrade killer on the spot since the resolution the glasses support is a joke for a high end modern GPU in any game, never mind if they get it working with crossfire or SLI.


Since upgrades are in large part not only based on games getting more demanding, but also playing them at ever higher resolutions with AA enabled, and with 4K eventually becoming more affordable in the next couple of years, I really think both AMD and Nvidia don't want this to be a commercial success.

Mangler Mar 23, 2014 06:37 PM

It's more demanding than you think.

shadow001 Mar 23, 2014 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mangler (Post 1337470906)
It's more demanding than you think.


Compared to 3 1440p screens in eyefinity or a single 4k 3840*2160 monitor?


I'll find out either way, but i'd be surprised if it were.

Mangler Mar 23, 2014 06:54 PM

All I said that it is more demanding than you think, you still have to be able to to hit 120fps at 1080p.

And guess what, that is not a joke for a high end modern gpu in any game.

shadow001 Mar 23, 2014 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mangler (Post 1337470919)
All I said that it is more demanding than you think, you still have to be able to to hit 120fps at 1080p.

And guess what, that is not a joke for a high end modern gpu in any game.


Don't you mean 60 FPS on each screen?....Odd frames to one screen and even frames to the other?

Mangler Mar 23, 2014 07:06 PM

No I meant 120fps, but I was going by the shutter glass requirements for 3d at 60fps, seems like the OR is a little bit different.

shadow001 Mar 23, 2014 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mangler (Post 1337470923)
No I meant 120fps, but I was going by the shutter glass requirements for 3d at 60fps, seems like the OR is a little bit different.

Was thinking it goes by the same principle as polarised glasses that you use when watching a movie in 3D where the film isn't running at 120 Fps, but the rift adds the extra of head position and tracking, so i'll find out how much more demanding it can be.

jolle Mar 23, 2014 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mangler (Post 1337470919)
All I said that it is more demanding than you think, you still have to be able to to hit 120fps at 1080p.

And guess what, that is not a joke for a high end modern gpu in any game.

Ideally for the DK2 I suppose 75fps, since they refresh at 75hz.
Goal for consumer version is 90hz and "higher then 1080p" resolution though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mangler (Post 1337470923)
No I meant 120fps, but I was going by the shutter glass requirements for 3d at 60fps, seems like the OR is a little bit different.

It´s one screen though, split in half for each eye.
Stereoscopic shutters need 120hz to get 60 per eye because they alternate the image on the monitor every frame (left/right), VR glasses dont do that, they just draw the screen as normal.

Still you´re rendering with 2 cameras so there´s bound to be some overhead there I imagine
You´re not rendering 2x "fullscreen" res as with shutters though, since you render to 2 halves of the same display, so 2x 960x1080p for the DK2 set.
The sensor data probably wont account for much, it all goes into moving the camera setup I would imagine, and any load they add would likely be CPU.

EDIT:
so additionally to shadow001s comments, sustaining 95fps at 1440p or whatever they end up with on the consumer version needs a bit of hardware to do.
And then there is the fact that we´re just starting to move out of the previous console generation, where system reqs might make a bit of a jump with titles developed for the new consoles.
Such titles would probably have significantly higher content density, compared to "made for last gen, released on current gen" games.

But sure, affordable 4k screens might warrant beefier GPUs, but then again sustainable high framerate becomes more vital with VR glasses.
And not all games are well suited for VR (atleast I suspect this is the case), so Rift consumers are likely going to overlap pretty well with 4k screen consumers, IE people who dont mind spending a lot of money on gaming rigs.

shadow001 Mar 23, 2014 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jolle (Post 1337470952)
Id

EDIT:
so additionally to shadow001s comments, sustaining 95fps at 1440p or whatever they end up with on the consumer version needs a bit of hardware to do.
And then there is the fact that we´re just starting to move out of the previous console generation, where system reqs might make a bit of a jump with titles developed for the new consoles.
Such titles would probably have significantly higher content density, compared to "made for last gen, released on current gen" games.

But sure, affordable 4k screens might warrant beefier GPUs, but then again sustainable high framerate becomes more vital with VR glasses.
And not all games are well suited for VR (atleast I suspect this is the case), so Rift consumers are likely going to overlap pretty well with 4k screen consumers, IE people who dont mind spending a lot of money on gaming rigs.


Let's assume they'll end up with 1440p for each screen on the retail version of the rift...The total fill rate, even assuming a 90Hz refresh rate comes to 7.3 megapixels per frame, so my triple 1440p setup needs nearly 11 megapixels per frame rendered and I won't settle with anything under 60 FPS for smooth gameplay, but it's generally quite a bit higher most of the time.


Things really get nasty with a single 4K monitor(8.3 megapixels), or flat out impossible to run if the user goes for 3 of these in eyefinity or Nvidia's surround view, as it's 25 megapixels per frame to render in that case.


So with the DK2 version being what it is at 1080p at 75 Hz, it's actually quite a bit easier at 4.1 megapixels per frame rendered.

demo Mar 23, 2014 10:01 PM

I'm lost. What does 1440p eyefinity or 4k eyefinity have to do with OR?

shadow001 Mar 23, 2014 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by demo (Post 1337471021)
I'm lost. What does 1440p eyefinity or 4k eyefinity have to do with OR?


The amount of work that the GPU(s) need to output when comparing different options in terms of displays...More fill rate basically means more memory bandwith, higher memory use, more pixel shading effects and so on.


If I can already challenge my setup with the kind of workloads described in my last post, it shouldn't be too hard with the DK2 version sporting a pair of 1080p screens( one for each eye).


To be honest, i'm not sure i'd want them to go even higher resolution given the small size of the screens, since it might make it a royal pain in the ass to make any sort of text in game readable....It's simply too small text.

demo Mar 23, 2014 10:12 PM

What?

Exposed Mar 23, 2014 10:34 PM

.
Quote:

Originally Posted by shadow001 (Post 1337471027)
The amount of work that the GPU(s) need to output when comparing different options in terms of displays...More fill rate basically means more memory bandwith, higher memory use, more pixel shading effects and so on.


If I can already challenge my setup with the kind of workloads described in my last post, it shouldn't be too hard with the DK2 version sporting a pair of 1080p screens( one for each eye).


To be honest, i'm not sure i'd want them to go even higher resolution given the small size of the screens, since it might make it a royal pain in the ass to make any sort of text in game readable....It's simply too small text.

Why does every thread you participate in somehow need to derail to what setup YOU have? Who really gives a ****?

jolle Mar 24, 2014 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shadow001 (Post 1337471007)
Let's assume they'll end up with 1440p for each screen on the retail version of the rift...

It´s just one screen, one half per eye. (960x1080 per eye on DK2).
Quote:

Originally Posted by shadow001 (Post 1337471007)
Things really get nasty with a single 4K monitor(8.3 megapixels), or flat out impossible to run if the user goes for 3 of these in eyefinity or Nvidia's surround view, as it's 25 megapixels per frame to render in that case

Well, at the end of the day there is a fairly big price discrepancy between 3x 4k screens and one pair of VR glasses.
I dont think AMD or Nivida is loosing any sleep over that, the consumer segment that buy graphics hardware for 3x screens is probably vanishingly small in the large scheme of things.

On the flip side, a whole bunch of people with single 1080p monitors might get VR glasses and become a lot pickier with framerates, where they were playing games varying from 30-60 fps without losing any sleep, maintaining a 60+ will become more important with a pair of VR glasses, even to those people.
That´s a market segment with significantly more meat on it I assume.
So more importantly a much larger "mainstream" segment of market might look into higher end GPUs instead.

And "made for VR" games might potentially target higher hardware specs then most games, as it´s a consumer group that likely spends more on their gaming rigs.
Or atleast that´s an assumption I would make.

EDIT:
Quote:

Originally Posted by shadow001 (Post 1337471027)
To be honest, i'm not sure i'd want them to go even higher resolution given the small size of the screens, since it might make it a royal pain in the ass to make any sort of text in game readable....It's simply too small text.

This might be true under the assumption that VR support is added without ever acctually testing it with the VR set.
"text" isnt a fixed size and the resolution and perceived screen size are both known factors when developing for it.
This is also a problem that needs to be, and is being tackled everywhere as displays are getting increasingly higher DPI.
For example a 1080p phone doesnt use the same font size as a old low res phone, because that would be ridiculous.

Omega53 Mar 24, 2014 09:52 AM

If you feel someone is derailing a thread, report it and pay it no mind. You guys are the dumb ones for quoting and responding to people who you feel are trying to derail a thread. Pay it no attention and it will go away. (Please do no report this post as it has nothing to do with the thread :bleh:)

YellowBeard Mar 24, 2014 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jolle (Post 1337471246)
On the flip side, a whole bunch of people with single 1080p monitors might get VR glasses and become a lot pickier with framerates, where they were playing games varying from 30-60 fps without losing any sleep, maintaining a 60+ will become more important with a pair of VR glasses, even to those people.
That´s a market segment with significantly more meat on it I assume.
So more importantly a much larger "mainstream" segment of market might look into higher end GPUs instead.

That's me! I'm that segment!

Usually I run a mid to high level card. My monitor's max is 1080 and I don't plan on changing that anytime soon. I <3 it. So my next build will probably be based around frames at 1080 especially so once July rolls around.

Oh man I am way too excited for this. Too bad no one sells Razer Hydras anymore and the "replacement" is pre-ordering for 250. Ugh.

shadow001 Mar 24, 2014 01:17 PM

Been reading thru the specs of the DK2 and it seems it'll be easier to run than I though, as it uses a single 5 inch 1920*1080 display, where the software than runs the device splits that right in the middle at 960*1080 per eye, so it comes to only 2 megapixels per frame rendered and the same as running your average single 1080p screen.


It will be more demanding in the sense that 60 FPS needs to be pretty much the minimum FPS value to keep things running smoothly, so the occasional dips below that when gaming are to be avoided at all cost.


Tracking wise, it'll be a specialised LCD camera that is pointed at the headset itself where reflectors are embedded into it, to notice it's movement as the user swings it in every direction but is limited to tracking just the position of the head itself, not the rest of the body so the users arms, legs or torso won't really move, and the video feed is an HDMI connection from the PC which can also send audio too.


Star citizen has already added support for it in the last patch, so it should work great in a space combat environment.

_TiTaNiuM Mar 24, 2014 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by demo (Post 1337471021)
I'm lost. What does 1440p eyefinity or 4k eyefinity have to do with OR?

absolutely nothing. He doesn't have a ****ing clue what he's talking about obviously

Even at 1440p, if they maintain the same aspect ratio, that's still a single 2560x1440 display, split in two. At 90hz. IDK why everyone seems to think you need a 16:9 display per eye. The human eye is round. Without having odd shaped screens the closest approximation to the human eye is a square. 1:1. at most we will have is 3.6 megapixels of image rendered per frame, that's a lot but nowhere near the amount of pixels being pushed in a 4k or 1440p eyefinity setup, two viewpoints or not.

shadow001 Mar 24, 2014 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _TiTaNiuM (Post 1337471484)
absolutely nothing. He doesn't have a ****ing clue what he's talking about obviously

Even at 1440p, if they maintain the same aspect ratio, that's still a single 2560x1440 display, split in two. At 90hz. IDK why everyone seems to think you need a 16:9 display per eye. The human eye is round. Without having odd shaped screens the closest approximation to the human eye is a square. 1:1. at most we will have is 3.6 megapixels of image rendered per frame, that's a lot but nowhere near the amount of pixels being pushed in a 4k or 1440p eyefinity setup, two viewpoints or not.

You're not getting it either, but jolle did.


More pixels equals more work for the entire GPU architecture to handle and more importantly, maintain a high frame rate as memory needs are higher, memory bandwith is higher, pixel shading effects are more numerous, particle effects too....The list goes on and on, especially considering that the work is triple buffered, never mind those that like high AA usage, especially super sampling, which will hammer the GPU even harder still.

_TiTaNiuM Mar 24, 2014 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shadow001 (Post 1337471563)
You're not getting it either, but jolle did.


More pixels equals more work for the entire GPU architecture to handle and more importantly, maintain a high frame rate as memory needs are higher, memory bandwith is higher, pixel shading effects are more numerous, particle effects too....The list goes on and on, especially considering that the work is triple buffered, never mind those that like high AA usage, especially super sampling, which will hammer the GPU even harder still.

news flash: 2560x1440 is less than 7680x1440. it's also less than 4096x2160

Dave Mar 24, 2014 05:49 PM

Shadow take your pick








shadow001 Mar 24, 2014 06:14 PM

Seriously, sometimes it feels like having to connect all the dots for some to understand as they seem to take everything for granted...:rolleyes:

BababooeyHTJ Mar 24, 2014 07:51 PM

Why do the mods constantly allow this guy to drag threads off topic?

shadow001 Mar 24, 2014 07:53 PM

I bought one of these just so you know....:nag:

demo Mar 24, 2014 07:53 PM

Thank you for explaining 1440p Eyefinity is more demanding than a single 1080p screen shadow, well done.

shadow001 Mar 24, 2014 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by demo (Post 1337471713)
Thank you for explaining 1440p Eyefinity is more demanding than a single 1080p screen shadow, well done.


Not just that if you read my posts, but that the glasses aren't any more demanding than 1080p period.


So if you can run anything at that resolution at well over 60 FPS( the glasses refresh at 75hz anyhow), it shouldn't be any different with the glasses too.

demo Mar 24, 2014 08:12 PM

Well done little fella *pats head*

jolle Mar 24, 2014 08:54 PM

I believe shadows original point was how AMD and Nvidia might feel about VR glasses, if they´re less demanding then say 4K screens (pushing fewer pixels atleast), it might be worse off for them and their business of selling GPUs if everyone went and chased after that instead of 4k screens and multiple graphics cards to drive them.

To which I offered some countering factors, and then everything ended up being a long back and forth about resolutions and whatnot, without that context.

They´re not really full replacements for a monitor though, there will be games you either cant, or dont want to play on a VR kit I suppose.

But the entire point of 3x screen setups is to do, in a much inferior way, what VR glasses does, to get as much screenspace as possible in your field of view for that additional peripheral vision, without the additional VR boon of having a infinite virtual screen to look around at, in sterescopic 3d.
Then again, the market segment of consumers that buy hardware to drive 3x high res monitors is probably a vast minority.

So they might loose a very small part of the cookie, and again, gain a much larger portion of it at the midrange where people sitting on 1080p screens might want to get a better graphics card to maintain 60+ fps (90fps ideally with the consumer versions 90hz goal I suppose) with 1440p VR glasses.
There is probably also some overhead on rendering to 2 separate viewports from 2 separate cameras, even if they are half the resolution of the entire screen, but I have no idea.

shadow001 Mar 24, 2014 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jolle (Post 1337471743)
I believe shadows original point was how AMD and Nvidia might feel about VR glasses, if they´re less demanding then say 4K screens (pushing fewer pixels atleast), it might be worse off for them and their business of selling GPUs if everyone went and chased after that instead of 4k screens and multiple graphics cards to drive them.

To which I offered some countering factors, and then everything ended up being a long back and forth about resolutions and whatnot, without that context.

They´re not really full replacements for a monitor though, there will be games you either cant, or dont want to play on a VR kit I suppose.

But the entire point of 3x screen setups is to do, in a much inferior way, what VR glasses does, to get as much screenspace as possible in your field of view for that additional peripheral vision, without the additional VR boon of having a infinite virtual screen to look around at, in sterescopic 3d.
Then again, the market segment of consumers that buy hardware to drive 3x high res monitors is probably a vast minority.

So they might loose a very small part of the cookie, and again, gain a much larger portion of it at the midrange where people sitting on 1080p screens might want to get a better graphics card to maintain 60+ fps (90fps ideally with the consumer versions 90hz goal I suppose) with 1440p VR glasses.
There is probably also some overhead on rendering to 2 separate viewports from 2 separate cameras, even if they are half the resolution of the entire screen, but I have no idea.


Absolutely right on the money on all counts, but I figure it's not much of a risk since the DK2 kit sells for 350$, and the aim for the final retail version is under 300$, which is pretty low considering the amount of money blown on high end video cards or triple displays or upcoming 4k monitors.

Only downside is that it's basically a pre-order and the units will only ship in july, as the company is gauging the publics interest and how many get ordered to organise the production scheme for the volume.

Edit: Now that I think about it, it's also way cheaper than a 120Hz monitor and the 3D glasses sold by Nvidia, which still force you to look directly at the screen with the glasses to have the 3D effect....The rift allows the user to look anywhere in a game, be it up, down, left or right.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:48 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All trademarks used are properties of their respective owners. Copyright ©1998-2011 Rage3D.com