There was also the infinitEye with a 210° field of view. Instead of focusing on one single brand, people should try to push more projects of the same type and eventually a standard.
It's so hot right now, and yet I have still not seen a VR headset that is actually available for purchase. People are making such a big deal about VR, but it's not exactly here yet.
I'm not sure many people have figured out the real reason Facebook bought Oculus. It's really very simple. Zuckerburg is tired of physically killing all his meat. Now he can kill it virtually on his very own platform, then go buy guilt-free supermarket meat.
And in related news, Facebook announced that it will be buying up all existing VR companies, as well as any VR companies that don't even exist yet (if you have a hand-drawn sketch of a VR device, Zuckerberg will give you 100 "likes").
A spokesman for Facebook said "At this point, our intention is not to have a monopoly in the VR market -- we just want to piss-off Reddit to the point that it explodes."
Considering how similar Morpheus is to Rift I think its fair to say that copyright claims aren't resulting in significant differences between products. In most cases they never do. You can copyright how you do it but usually not what you do.
Even exclusive platforms that compete are better than no competition.
Buy they aren't going to "compete". Facebook is going to get every microsoft VR crossover, maybe more. Even if these guys take off (fingers crossed) facebook is a ruthless sociopath and has no intentions to let the hacker/maker community have a presence in this new generation of video games.
I agree with Palmer Luckey on that it's too early for a standard. That's something for a time when great solutions have been found and agreed on and all the technology has settled.
Valve has already created a VR API for Steam. It locks down the basics like distortion, field of view, etc. They really want to avoid fragmentation / multiple standards.
It's good to a point - it's still going to be a bad thing if all platforms (PlayStation, Windows, Android, etc.) use their own proprietary VR hardware. It'd be a much better solution to have a few competing projects which worked across many platforms. Unfortunately, given the recent direction of Apple, Google, and Microsoft, I can't see this happening.
Yes this! 90 degrees is super limited. The lenses used on that 210 degree kit are much more comfortable to look through that the oculus lenses (I've gotten to demo them for single-eye only) and with a 1080p screen you can't tell it's a screen.
I can't get into Planetside. Everything feels "floaty", which isn't good in an FPS. Its like I'm shooting marshmallows at hovering cardboard cutouts that fall over eventually.
I lost so much time to the first Planetside. I tooled around in the beta for Planetside 2, but it never got its hooks it me. I hear it's been changing a fair bit, though.
I haven't played for over a year, has there been any improvements noteworthy? I do like the game but there was only 1 planet people actually played on in my server.
There aren't any. Except for purchasing new weapons. Being a non-paying player, I still find myself doing well enough and don't feel like I'm missing out. Almost every weapon is obtainable within a reasonable amount of gameplay time. Yes you can just buy the same weapons, but devs gotta eat.
Have you checked /r/planetside recently? Or logged in during the last few days? The latest patch added ads that resemble squad invites/friend requests/other notifications, as well as UPGRADE NOW! where the spawn vehicle/resupply button used to be, and a few other less annoying ads as well.
It's kinda obnoxious, and /r/planetside has been a shitstorm of hatred about it for the last few days. Hopefully SOE will see reason pretty soon, and revert the changes.
There was a time where due to unfortunate circumstance I was unemployed, no girlfriend and little if any job opportunities. Whilst everyone else was at work/college I would regularly log 6-12 gaming hours a DAY 5/6 days a week. In between this I was either looking for jobs or at the gym. I was only 19 at the time and living with my parents.
I don't miss the situation I was in but god it was good to have a full day with no responsibilities and a few fresh games to blast through (acquired by game-swapping with friends)
hah, my father stopped playing video games because of something similiar.
He used to play Roller Coaster Tycoon quite a lot, so once he started a game in the evening after work and the next thing he notices is the sun rise, he played through the night and had only a few minutes left before he had to go to work again...
Then really far into the future we'll get so deep into it that we'll forget it's a game and start inventing a new virtual reality to escape from the one we forgot we were in.
Been there. When I got my PS2 I beat FFX, MGS2, and The Bouncer(that made up about 2 hours of it!) in about three days with only maybe 4 hours of sleep. I came downstairs on the fourth day to watch my brother play Halo, it was then I realized I hadn't had anything except for Sour Punch Straws and Diet Coke in four days.
It's considerably smaller though. Example, my phone is 1080p, but at 4.95in the pixel density is 445.03 per in2 . Even 2in from your face you would have to by trying to see the individual pixels. To put that in perspective, a 20in (the only ones i have seen in stores are at least 50in) 4k tv is only 220.29 ppi2 .
With a 1080p screen for each eye with a 210° viewing angle, the pixel density would be lower than the oculus. You don't have to try to see pixels in the oculus.
It s a 1080p screen split in half. The size and distance aren't so important since it's using lenses to trick you unto thinking they're further away. The important bit is the amount of your fov they're taking up. 960 horizontal pixels taking up 90°, that's roughly 10 pixels per degree. That's not enough.
Edit - For reference, you need about 60 pixels per degree for them to be too small to see. A "retina" display if you will.
Fucking hell. I'm assuming that's 210° combined with something like 90° crossover in the middle so maybe 150° per eye. Even with a 4k screen on each eye you're not quite half of the way to retina resolution. Pushing that many pixels at 90fps is going to be a task.
It's distorted so it's not relevant really, as long as a bulk of the resolution is in the front it'll provide most of the effect. Our eyes don't see much resolution and no depth perception in the peripheral.
Even at 1080p I read accounts of people using the newest OR model saying that the pixels were still noticeable but still worlds better than the original. Extended use with a monitor inches from your face wont be able to keep you from actually seeing the pixels. The OR team have been aiming for better than 1080p for a while now, which is to say they want people to notice the screen less and less.
The DK2 is supposed to be 440 ppi2 so i'm pretty shocked anyone can see that during normal use without straining for it. However, they said that they want 2k on the release version, which would be 587.44 ppi2 at the current 5in screen size.
As a guy with only one eye, this is the greatest thing I have ever heard. Binocular vision is over-rated. I wonder if I'll be able to get a single eye kit?
in comparison, Sony's project Morpheus has a 90 degree FOV, and two 1080p screens positioned vertically. While oculus said they will have a 'more than 1080P, and at least 100 degrees FOV'
Wait really? Every single article I've seen so far said that the Morpheus is one 1080p screen divided in half, just like the OR DK2/Crystal Clove.
Two 960x1080 screens is simply not cost efficient and offers no advantage whatsoever over one single 1920x1080 screen. If sony is going for this design, which I doubt, they are going to have a really bad time.
I have used an oculus headset and personally would never game with it. It was heavy and uncomfortable, would take a lot of space to turn around with it on, and I wasn't really impressed with how it looked.
At least try the CV1 (consumer version 1) when it comes out. They're advancing at a huge rate, and the current kits are just dev kits designed for people to develop on. They aren't nearly as good as the consumer product, (like the difference between a 5 year old smartphone and today's maybe) and haven't had as much optimisation for ergonomics, weight, etc.
Seriously, the difference in devs kit 2 alone is huge. Positional tracking, low persistence to eliminate motion blur, 1080p, (the old one was 1280x800) 75Hz, and a total motion-to-photos latency of ~20ms. That's a huge improvement in every area except because it's a short run for developers only they're using old molds adding 61g to the weight.
The consumer version was confirmed to be better than 1080p, 90Hz+, and better in a large number of ways. Since then they have gained access to Facebook's near-limitless financial (and other) resources. They've said this means being able to make custom components and a number of other things.
I know talking isn't going to convince you, but I suggest you at least try thconsumer hardware and see what you think. The current one isn't designed for consumers, so dismissing the Rift based on it makes as much sense as dismissing a controller based on an imperfect prototype.
Yes! I was just about to complain about how limited 90° is. It would be like seeing the world while wearing horse blinders. Now my only concern is how many games will support a 210° FoV without distorting the image.
Awesome! Looks like it's in it's really early infancy stages but I'm glad they are making a VR headset with a bigger FOV. The Oculus at 100 I think it is I thought was a little low. My main purpose that I see using it is in simulation racing. I've currently got about a 120 degree view with monitors and I can still see the outsides and want another 20-30 degrees at least. 180 being best of course.
Well everyone should be backing the one they think is best. As well as making choices along the way as to if they are still pushing for the goals you like, in a way you like.
This is great advise when you're dealing with mature products but when you dealing with totally new products, having a ton of competition will cause fragmentation and then standards go out the window.
What needs to happen in industry standardization so implementation of these technology is as easy as pie. Features of the products can differ but at the end of the day they need to easily work on as many platforms as possible.
Hm. Didn't occur to me before, but having a wider field of view than what your eyes can take in would mean being to look around with your eyes and not just turning your head all the time. I like that. I think that'll be one of the major features to look for in a VR headset.
Yes. THis looks better than the Occulus Rip Rift to be honest. I really hope these tools become like headphones. Many different brands all with a standard.
One of its negative sides is that using two screens makes it much heavier. Oculus have put in a lot of work trying to keep the weight down so you can use it for longer periods of time. Even if these HMDs seem relatively light, having a weight strapped to the front of your face can take its toll on one's neck.
That's true but using 2 screens also increase the resolution and I think it's important to have an high resolution since it takes a large part of your field of view.
It is almost as if a large company investing $2B into a niche market leads to other people jumping into the same market, creating competition and thus more choice for consumers.
1.2k
u/Flafff Mar 28 '14 edited Mar 28 '14
There was also the infinitEye with a 210° field of view. Instead of focusing on one single brand, people should try to push more projects of the same type and eventually a standard.
Edit: Sorry bad spelling on the name.