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)

Cream Oct 5, 2015 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by logical (Post 1337775075)
I could have sworn I posted this about in this thread but I guess not. I dont see Oculus getting super popular or anything more than a niche just because the barrier of entry to use one properly is too high. 300-400 bucks for the OcRift kit itself self and then another probably at least 500-600 dollar computer system at the very least to get it running. Then you actually need to buy the games that are actually supported by it. Thats 1k just to get into the door.



Why? Do you not own a P.C.?

$300-$400 for the OcRift. It not what you would call aimed at the casual P.C. user. It's for hard core gamers. Going off the price of graphics cards, we will pay just about anything to get out latest fix. Personally thought it was a bargain at that price range. IF the experience is convincing.

logical Oct 5, 2015 12:27 PM

I obviously own a PC and a fairly high end one at that. But the point is high end gaming PCs are niche and not many people have them. OcRifts cost of entry is too high if you dont have a mid to high end PC sitting around. At the very least if you have a capable PC sitting around youre going to have to pick up a 970(still a 300 dollar card) to get this thing off the ground.

People are expecting this to be the second coming of gaming when it will not even get close to that. It has to be widely popular and successful to be positioned where they want it. Sure they will sell thousands of them but I dont see them breaking into the millions of units sold. Hopefully they release sales numbers their first year so we can see where it landed in terms of mainstream.

badboy Oct 5, 2015 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by logical (Post 1337775909)
It is a gimmick and this is the 2nd go around for VR.


and this is the first attempt at TV 1929:



fricking gimmick! :bleh:

OzzieBloke Oct 5, 2015 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by logical (Post 1337775956)
I obviously own a PC and a fairly high end one at that. But the point is high end gaming PCs are niche and not many people have them. OcRifts cost of entry is too high if you dont have a mid to high end PC sitting around. At the very least if you have a capable PC sitting around youre going to have to pick up a 970(still a 300 dollar card) to get this thing off the ground.

People are expecting this to be the second coming of gaming when it will not even get close to that. It has to be widely popular and successful to be positioned where they want it. Sure they will sell thousands of them but I dont see them breaking into the millions of units sold. Hopefully they release sales numbers their first year so we can see where it landed in terms of mainstream.

I agree somewhat with this... but it won't take long for a PC powerful enough to run OcRift appropriately to come down in price to make it more accessible. If OcRift can get the hardcore people first (several thousand units), that will give them time to let PC hardware to come down in price to where the rest of folks may decide to join in.

But there's also choices, with Vive, etc, so we just have to watch and see how it all plays out.

Nagorak Oct 6, 2015 03:50 PM

I think the Virtuix Omni has already had several thousand pre-orders and there isn't even a finished product, nor a finished headset to use it with. There's a lot of interest in VR.

Making the distinction that the headsets won't sell millions of copies is ridiculous. It's obviously true, but hardly important for VR to start to get established.

In the end it still all comes back to games. Mainstream titles need to offer support for VR headsets or it's probably not going to catch on. The market for full VR games is going to be too small to support true AAA titles. Games will need to be designed to work with VR but also run on a normal monitor/television. This is why I favor the Vive, because they are partnered with Valve, which suggests they'll at least have access to a few solid games. Being able to play L4D in VR, I'd say would be well worth the price alone.

In any case, we'll see soon enough. Maybe the whole thing ends up being a bust, but I am cautiously optimistic.

noko Oct 6, 2015 10:54 PM

2016 will be a very interesting year but 2017 will have some significant hardware capable of running VR at a rather low cost. I am thinking of Zen APU's with dedicated HBM2 ram, bandwidth more capable then todays fastest GPU memory speed Furry X2 plus fastest CPU setup 5960x with fastest quad channel memory installed. Probably 2017 will be the first year where APU's are considered gaming solutions.

The other advantage of a super fast APU is how fast the CPU/GPU can communicate to each other, which for VR can only help. Maybe a long time to wait but the stew is heating up.

OzzieBloke Oct 7, 2015 05:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noko (Post 1337776494)
Maybe a long time to wait but the stew is heating up.

And we all know stew and spaghetti sauce always tastes better the following day :drool:

Kain Oct 24, 2015 11:07 AM

How do VR headsets work for people who wear glasses?

OzzieBloke Oct 24, 2015 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kain (Post 1337782593)
How do VR headsets work for people who wear glasses?

Slightly reduced field of view, apparently, for the few videos I've watching.

Personally, I've gotten back into wearing contacts to overcome this problems. Contact lens tech has come a long way, hell of a lot more comfortable than when I first tried them 15 years ago. I just use daily disposables on the weekend, and will pop them in when I want to VR.

SirBaron Oct 25, 2015 11:28 AM

I've always been confused and also too lazy to look this up.

I have perfect short range vision, and only wear glasses for far distance i.e. Driving etc, or if I want to be able to focus on objects more than 10meters without losing detail :p.

Seeing as the screen will be like 10cm from my eyes will I even need to wear glasses?

Surely not as 3D doesn't automatically make me go blind when I play with 3D vision.

Nagorak Oct 25, 2015 05:09 PM

I think you're right about that. Regardless of the illusion of distant vision that VR is providing, the screen itself is very close to our eyes. Since what our eyes are actually focusing on is right up close, those of us who are nearsighted shouldn't have a problem. In fact, being nearsighted may actually be an advantage in terms of eye fatigue. The people who you'd expect to have difficulty are those who are farsighted.

OzzieBloke Oct 25, 2015 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nagorak (Post 1337782907)
I think you're right about that. Regardless of the illusion of distant vision that VR is providing, the screen itself is very close to our eyes. Since what our eyes are actually focusing on is right up close, those of us who are nearsighted shouldn't have a problem. In fact, being nearsighted may actually be an advantage in terms of eye fatigue. The people who you'd expect to have difficulty are those who are farsighted.

Pretty sure you're wrong there. The optics are designed to put the focal point about half a meter to a meter ahead of you, despite the screen being only 10cm from your eyes. Unless you have adjustable optics on the device (which so far OC doesn't), short-sighted people are worse off in VR than long-sighted people.

YellowBeard Oct 25, 2015 08:29 PM

If you need glasses to see distant stuff you still need them with the Rift. They said that one of the lenses would help alleviate that, but I didn't notice it. I still have to wear a pair of glasses while using the Rift and it's cumbersome. Especially needing to have frames that will fit in the thing. Probably the major reason I don't use it as much as I could. Hopefully it'll be something they address by the time the consumer version comes out. (Not meaning that having a set of lens in there being a fix all, but making the thing more comfortable to wear while wearing glasses.)

Nagorak Oct 25, 2015 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OzzieBloke (Post 1337782947)
Pretty sure you're wrong there. The optics are designed to put the focal point about half a meter to a meter ahead of you, despite the screen being only 10cm from your eyes. Unless you have adjustable optics on the device (which so far OC doesn't), short-sighted people are worse off in VR than long-sighted people.

I guess I don't understand how the device works then. Does it have some sort of lenses built into it? If so, then that makes sense that it could still have a focal point out front of you. Come to think of it, it's probably hard to actually focus on something that close at all, so it would make sense if there is some sort of lens added in to help.

Either way, it makes little difference to me as once I started wearing contacts I never went back. ;)

Seriously, anyone who wears glasses and hasn't tried contacts, I strongly recommend giving it a shot. In my experience, it's not actually as hard as you may think. I had trouble putting them in for maybe the first month or so, and after that it was no problem. I never have noticed them once they are in. I know some people have trouble with them irritating their eyes, but you can't know that will be you until you try, or whether you'll be like me and not even feel them.

OzzieBloke Oct 26, 2015 02:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nagorak (Post 1337782987)
I guess I don't understand how the device works then. Does it have some sort of lenses built into it? If so, then that makes sense that it could still have a focal point out front of you. Come to think of it, it's probably hard to actually focus on something that close at all, so it would make sense if there is some sort of lens added in to help.

Either way, it makes little difference to me as once I started wearing contacts I never went back. ;)

Seriously, anyone who wears glasses and hasn't tried contacts, I strongly recommend giving it a shot. In my experience, it's not actually as hard as you may think. I had trouble putting them in for maybe the first month or so, and after that it was no problem. I never have noticed them once they are in. I know some people have trouble with them irritating their eyes, but you can't know that will be you until you try, or whether you'll be like me and not even feel them.

I second the contacts. Tried them 15 years ago, and they sucked. But the ones I tried a month ago are fantastic, took me perhaps three or four goes to get used to getting them in and out, are super-light and comfortable, and work just as well as my glasses do. :up:

SirBaron Oct 26, 2015 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OzzieBloke (Post 1337782947)
Pretty sure you're wrong there. The optics are designed to put the focal point about half a meter to a meter ahead of you, despite the screen being only 10cm from your eyes. Unless you have adjustable optics on the device (which so far OC doesn't), short-sighted people are worse off in VR than long-sighted people.

Well I should be ok then my eyes are not that bad that I can't see 1 meter infront of me :lol:.

Also last time I tried to get contacts got told I can't because my eyes don't get enough oxygen or some crap.

badboy Oct 26, 2015 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirBaron (Post 1337783043)
Well I should be ok then my eyes are not that bad that I can't see 1 meter infront of me :lol:.

Also last time I tried to get contacts got told I can't because my eyes don't get enough oxygen or some crap.

You should be able to wear the new kinds of contacts that get much more oxygen to your eyes. Likes these http://coopervision.com/contact-lens...inity-contacts

YellowBeard Oct 26, 2015 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nagorak (Post 1337782987)
I guess I don't understand how the device works then. Does it have some sort of lenses built into it? If so, then that makes sense that it could still have a focal point out front of you. Come to think of it, it's probably hard to actually focus on something that close at all, so it would make sense if there is some sort of lens added in to help.

Either way, it makes little difference to me as once I started wearing contacts I never went back. ;)

Seriously, anyone who wears glasses and hasn't tried contacts, I strongly recommend giving it a shot. In my experience, it's not actually as hard as you may think. I had trouble putting them in for maybe the first month or so, and after that it was no problem. I never have noticed them once they are in. I know some people have trouble with them irritating their eyes, but you can't know that will be you until you try, or whether you'll be like me and not even feel them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OzzieBloke (Post 1337783016)
I second the contacts. Tried them 15 years ago, and they sucked. But the ones I tried a month ago are fantastic, took me perhaps three or four goes to get used to getting them in and out, are super-light and comfortable, and work just as well as my glasses do. :up:

I really should try again. Tried them about 10+ years back and I just couldn't get with the "touching the eyeball" thing. Might have to give them another go once my insurance wants to pay out again. I'd feel weird not having frames though. Been wearing them for way too many years.

Exposed Oct 27, 2015 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OzzieBloke (Post 1337782947)
Pretty sure you're wrong there. The optics are designed to put the focal point about half a meter to a meter ahead of you, despite the screen being only 10cm from your eyes. Unless you have adjustable optics on the device (which so far OC doesn't), short-sighted people are worse off in VR than long-sighted people.

I'm pretty sure you're wrong here also. The focal point is an illusion, the light being emitted and image picked up by your eye is still just a few centimeters away (actual focus), not a few feet away (apparent focus). The difference is called decoupling and each person is sensitive to how much degree of decoupling they can handle. This should not affect near sighted people at all.

Occulus rift and other VR is no different than the old style 3D viewers, which didn't affect near sighted people at all. Did you think near sighted people saw only fuzzy images when viewing "Thriller" in this? I'm nearsighted (-1.75, not sure if that's good or bad) and never had a problem with viewmasters growing up, though I haven't personally tried the occulus rift yet.



:lol:

OzzieBloke Oct 27, 2015 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exposed (Post 1337783800)
I'm pretty sure you're wrong here also. The focal point is an illusion, the light being emitted and image picked up by your eye is still just a few centimeters away (actual focus), not a few feet away (apparent focus). The difference is called decoupling and each person is sensitive to how much degree of decoupling they can handle. This should not affect near sighted people at all.

Occulus rift and other VR is no different than the old style 3D viewers, which didn't affect near sighted people at all. Did you think near sighted people saw only fuzzy images when viewing "Thriller" in this? I'm nearsighted (-1.75, not sure if that's good or bad) and never had a problem with viewmasters growing up, though I haven't personally tried the occulus rift yet.



:lol:

I don't think you quite grasp what the effect of the optics are when it comes to system: The apparent focal distance is the only one that matters because that's the one the optics emulate; the actual focal distance is meaningless when optics change it.

-1.75 is probably within your ability to adapt somewhat to a focal distance only half a meter away from you, which the old Viewmasters had their apparent focal distance at. I'm a -4.0. Anything beyond 15cm from my eyes is blurred. My friend Dave is even worse at -7.5. Images in a Viewmaster for me are blurry without my glasses. It'd be the same with the Rift.

jolle Oct 28, 2015 05:24 AM

I know the DK2 came with 2 pairs of lenses, A for normal and B for near sighted.
So presumably the consumer version will have options to tackle that stuff aswell.

DarkFoss Nov 2, 2015 02:17 PM

I'm curious if anyone that have used any of the vr devices experienced any of the balance issues touched on by this article?
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/...-older-gamers/

logical Nov 6, 2015 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkFoss (Post 1337785798)
I'm curious if anyone that have used any of the vr devices experienced any of the balance issues touched on by this article?
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/...-older-gamers/

Ive used PS VR, OR, and Samsung Gear and havent experienced any of that stuff. I think it just varies from person to person.

OzzieBloke Nov 6, 2015 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by logical (Post 1337787354)
Ive used PS VR, OR, and Samsung Gear and havent experienced any of that stuff. I think it just varies from person to person.

I did a really rough test using my tablet (which has horrible 1/2 second lag when I move around) and I got dizzy and nauseous really quickly because what I saw was not correlating with what a felt.

As long as latency is low enough on the visuals, it shouldn't be a problem.

Kain Nov 10, 2015 03:33 PM

Do you guys think VR could "lessen the need" for good gaming monitors if it takes off well and more games support it? If VR is a success, any point in getting fancy 21:9 monitors for gaming?

BababooeyHTJ Nov 10, 2015 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kain (Post 1337788942)
Do you guys think VR could "lessen the need" for good gaming monitors if it takes off well and more games support it? If VR is a success, any point in getting fancy 21:9 monitors for gaming?

I don't think that vr is going to take the place of monitors.

I had a 3d vision display. I know that we're going to have to rely on developer support. That's going to be touch and go. Quality is also going to vary.

No way is it going to be the go to for the competitive crowd.

There are also quite a few types of games that may not be ideal for vr imo

noko Nov 10, 2015 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kain (Post 1337788942)
Do you guys think VR could "lessen the need" for good gaming monitors if it takes off well and more games support it? If VR is a success, any point in getting fancy 21:9 monitors for gaming?

I think that depends on the person, games available as well as controls that work well with being blinded by the visor on your head.

I do believe for this to really take off there is going to have to be some very serious investment on behalf of the makers of VR equipment. As an example Microsoft lost literally billions of dollars on the Xbox and Xbox 360 before it turned around for them to get into the console business.

VR I do not expect to take off overnight - it will be years before either it dies or starts to really take off. How serious are the players, how deep their pockets and how good is the experience all comes into play. As a note, anything new you will have naysayers to no end - that too has to be overcome before a general negative consensus takes hold.

So for gaming monitors - I say yes a very good need for them yet, as for 21:9 monitor :drool: .

OzzieBloke Nov 11, 2015 01:32 AM

Yep, monitors will not be so easily replaced. Especially with the problems with needing to see hands for typing and so-forth, even with tech present that puts your hands in the virtual world.

Cream Nov 11, 2015 04:14 AM

Looks amazing


Sub 400 and I'll be getting one immediately.

noko Nov 12, 2015 12:11 AM

For VR that has to be the most optimized type situation for DK2; Race car and flight simulators. For the race car the VR headset is similar to a helmet. Looks impressive indeed.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:53 PM.

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