For the single requirement of 'deciding whether you like Paris', looking at a surround image in VR perhaps isn't the greatest use of the technology. You can 'decide whether you like Paris' from looking at a postcard. But why are we talking about this one application?A similar experience could be achieved by watching a 360 degrees webcam on your monitor or TV screen, you can look around, hear the sounds etc. but you don't have to strap a screen to your face. Sure it's less immersive, however you still receive all the same information. Also other people can watch with you, you can look at that house with your SO or family and discuss it, you can decide whether you both like Paris together instead of taking turns.
I'm not saying it isn't cool, it's not revolutionary though.
The best VR experience will be on PC, but you shouldn't invest in an upgrade yet (unless you're buying a DK2). If you are on a very tight budget, you may not be able to afford the hardware required to run CV1, so PS4 + Morpheus may be the better option. Too early to say really.A new graphics card, maybe a better next gen investment for me then either of the 2 consoles? Its certainly a very tough choice for gamers on a limited budget who want the best option.
90fps is likely, and yes, you'll need quite a powerful PC. But the costs involved will naturally decrease over time. By the time CV1 launches, there should be several mid-to-high end graphics cards that will meet the requirements.Isn't the problem with the rift that you need a pretty crazy high end setup to have every game run at 120+fps?
I never said it was solely about specs. It being tethered to PC gaming is just never going to allow it hitting that mainstream regardless.
The average household is losing interest in big bulky desktop PC's at an insane rate over the last few years, at least, that is my experience.
It is a technological leap perhaps bigger than the advent of color television and cinema. By having a separate image for each eye, we're simulating another facet of our vision as it appears to us, which would be depth perception. Is it perhaps this fundamental difference that you're missing?
For the single requirement of 'deciding whether you like Paris', looking at a surround image in VR perhaps isn't the greatest use of the technology. You can 'decide whether you like Paris' from looking at a postcard. But why are we talking about this one application?
The best VR experience will be on PC, but you shouldn't invest in an upgrade yet (unless you're buying a DK2). If you are on a very tight budget, you may not be able to afford the hardware required to run CV1, so PS4 + Morpheus may be the better option. Too early to say really.
90fps is likely, and yes, you'll need quite a powerful PC. But the costs involved will naturally decrease over time. By the time CV1 launches, there should be several mid-to-high end graphics cards that will meet the requirements.
It is not the same. Not by a mile.
It is very hard to describe just how incredible and 'new' it is to see something in VR. We are obviously not doing a good enough job explaining it to you, but all I can say is that you can see something a thousand times on a flat display and then when you see it in VR, it will almost be like seeing it for the first time. It demonstrates just how limited and poor 2D displays are for getting across that same information. It seems adequate when that's all you know and what you're used to, but VR changes this.
It is a technological leap perhaps bigger than the advent of color television and cinema. By having a separate image for each eye, we're simulating another facet of our vision as it appears to us, which would be depth perception. Is it perhaps this fundamental difference that you're missing?
For the single requirement of 'deciding whether you like Paris', looking at a surround image in VR perhaps isn't the greatest use of the technology. You can 'decide whether you like Paris' from looking at a postcard. But why are we talking about this one application?
Would you agree that your vision is basically just the same image from two different angles? And that all the information that your brain can tell you about scale, depth etc. it conclude from these two images? If we can essentially replace these two images transparently with something else, we can then basically present the brain with any vision imaginable. Even your highly regarded holographic projection. How is this not revolutionary?It's not technologically revolutionary just because it is what you said it is, a device displaying an image for each eye.
Until there is viable holographic projection, there won't really be 'VR', just expensive View-Masters.
You cannot compare VR to 3D cinema, 3D TVs or View-Masters. In the case of VR, your entire visual perception of the world is replaced by whatever else you wish. It displays a separate image for each eye making it appear 3D the same way your eyes give you a three dimensional sensation "in real life". It's the closest you can get without hooking up electrodes to your brain and blasting it with electrical impulses to trick it into seeing something else.What? I completely disagree with this. Colour TV is a vastly greater leap than depth perception. We've had depth perception in the form of 3D for years.
For the DK2 (1080, 75Hz), it would be alright. The CV1 (estimated at least 1440, 90Hz) is quite a step up. You might be able to get away with a GPU upgrade nearer the time, but that CPU will be holding it back.Well I've got a i7 920
If I got something like a gtx780 wouldent that be good enough for a decent occulus experience?
90fps is likely, and yes, you'll need quite a powerful PC. But the costs involved will naturally decrease over time. By the time CV1 launches, there should be several mid-to-high end graphics cards that will meet the requirements.
Maybe it's a USA thing, but here no one knows Oculus outside the typical stand on a VG congress
Would you agree that your vision is basically just the same image from two different angles? And that all the information that your brain can tell you about scale, depth etc. it conclude from these two images? If we can essentially replace these two images transparently with something else, we can then basically present the brain with any vision imaginable. Even your highly regarded holographic projection. How is this not revolutionary?
Several things to address here:Smartphones and tablets are relatively cheap. VR isn't. Smartphones and tablets don't require you to wear a cumbersome headset that makes you blind to all else. Smartphones and tablets are used in every moment of your life, and that's very unlikely to apply to VR as well.
So I'm sorry, but the comparison really doesn't even get close to fit.
You forgot the very simple fact that a VR headset does absolutely nothing, zero, nada, by itself.
Smartphones and tablets are relatively cheap. VR isn't.
Smartphones and tablets don't require you to wear a cumbersome headset that makes you blind to all else.
Smartphones and tablets are used in every moment of your life, and that's very unlikely to apply to VR as well.
The most successful early VR games are likely to be the ones most well-optimised to run at high framerates. I'd also argue that turning stuff down to achieve 90fps is still a lot better than leaving stuff turned up and being below the refresh, and would still give you a great experience - after all, an untextured room with basic geometry looks incredible in VR if everything else is working well. By the time CV1 arrives, the 970 should be more affordable, and probably the bare minimum in terms of requirements. But I wasn't really thinking of the 970 - I'm expecting more cards from Nvidia and AMD by the end of the year, or at least by early 2016.I've got a 970 and I'm pretty sure I won't be able to run most games in 1440p at 90+fps that easily. At least not without turning down graphics which kinda ruins the whole VR immersion.
The most successful early VR games are likely to be the ones most well-optimised to run at high framerates. I'd also argue that turning stuff down to achieve 90fps is still a lot better than leaving stuff turned up and being below the refresh, and would still give you a great experience - after all, an untextured room with basic geometry looks incredible in VR if everything else is working well. By the time CV1 arrives, the 970 should be more affordable, and probably the bare minimum in terms of requirements. But I wasn't really thinking of the 970 - I'm expecting more cards from Nvidia and AMD by the end of the year, or at least by early 2016.
segways were going go change the world too, but we had to change too much to use them.
This is very true, Desktop sales are falling so fast there is pretty much no real market. With business going Tablet/Laptop or Hybrid and then thin Client for users and Virtualization being pretty much all of any new Server/Infrastructure now.
I never said it was solely about specs. It being tethered to PC gaming is just never going to allow it hitting that mainstream regardless.
The average household is losing interest in big bulky desktop PC's at an insane rate over the last few years, at least, that is my experience.
Desktop sales for VR capable machines are at an all-time high looking at Nvidia and AMDs financial reports as well as other independent studies, those are the users that are going to drive VR. And OEM PCs are also on the rise again, but those aren't as relevant to that market. We're talking about 300m machines a year here.
For me, in a year when Zelda U, MGSV:TPP and P5 are being released, a helmet by facebook is the least interesting story. But that's for me again.
I have tried Oculus V1 at a Las Vegas conference, I played a game where I was an elephant and I had to destroy all kinds of things in a psychedelic environment. Since then I bought a Google cardboard and an Hamido gear.
VR is the future, what it adds beyond tbe obvious immersion is a sense of verticality, a plane simply doesn't translate well on a mere screen. Its potential is amazing.
"Virtual reality? But dude are you forgetting Zelda 9 and metal gear 7???"
Yes, I do.
Do you have a personal stake in VR taking off
Well I hope it works out for your sake then. But to dismiss the fact that VR might not take off as you envision is a bit myopic.
I don't know if it has been said yet but isn't the biggest problem of the Oculus is that to have a decent image in the consumer version that doesn't look like ass with screendoor effects and horrible ability to read small text is that it's going to require a beast of a system to run it?
What average consumer device will be put in place, or is the general public happy to accept shitty fps where it actually really matters when you take into account head tracking. Because have you felt how awful anything around or near 30fps(hz..) is when using head motion? Ugh.
For enthusiast like myself sure, I spend tons of hardware but your average joe wouldn't even spend the cost of the device itself on a piece of hardware to run it. Maybe it'll make them, maybe the market is indeed big enough, I don't actually know!
I don't know if it has been said yet but isn't the biggest problem of the Oculus is that to have a decent image in the consumer version that doesn't look like ass with screendoor effects and horrible ability to read small text is that it's going to require a beast of a system to run it?
What average consumer device will be put in place, or is the general public happy to accept shitty fps where it actually really matters when you take into account head tracking. Because have you felt how awful anything around or near 30fps(hz..) is when using head motion? Ugh.
For enthusiast like myself sure, I spend tons of hardware but your average joe wouldn't even spend the cost of the device itself on a piece of hardware to run it. Maybe it'll make them, maybe the market is indeed big enough, I don't actually know!
You might attack anybody that doesn't agree with you but the reality is this forum is insignificant in any meaningful way.Yes, I do.
Do you have a personal stake in VR taking off? I get being excited over the technology but in several threads RE: VR you've been exceptionally hostile toward skeptics.
Well I hope it works out for your sake then. But to dismiss the fact that VR might not take off as you envision is a bit myopic.
The display of ignorance towards VR is depressing. And I'm not just talking about this thread.
Even specialized media often misunderstands what the tech is (and can do).
I don't have any personal stake in it, but I do think most "skeptics" make bad arguments from uninformed positions. If you read the same inane non-argument for the 50th time it can get aggravating.Do you have a personal stake in VR taking off? I get being excited over the technology but in several threads RE: VR you've been exceptionally hostile toward skeptics.
Yeah, people act like gaming PC sales are declining when that is clearly not the case.Desktop sales for VR capable machines are at an all-time high looking at Nvidia and AMDs financial reports as well as other independent studies, those are the users that are going to drive VR. And OEM PCs are also on the rise again, but those aren't as relevant to that market. We're talking about 300m machines a year here.
because, of course, it is
You might attack anybody that doesn't agree with you but the reality is this forum is insignificant in any meaningful way.
When you say, "VR is just another way of looking at a screen", you are showing an inherently misguided understanding of what viewing stuff in VR is like. It is not like looking at a screen at all. The world is put to scale in front of your eyes. qI'm not saying it's the same experience, and neither am I saying that VR won't be an amazing experience. I just don't think it's going to revolutionize how we interact with our media in such a profound way. I don't think it will become something that almost every household has like a TV or smartphone.
Traditional 3D is an improved sense of depth perception compared to a 2D display, but it is still not even close to what the '3D' in VR is like. It is a whole different ballgame. And yes, I think it is just as big as the leap to color, if not greater.What? I completely disagree with this. Colour TV is a vastly greater leap than depth perception. We've had depth perception in the form of 3D for years.
For enthusiast like myself sure, I spend tons of hardware but your average joe wouldn't even spend the cost of the device itself on a piece of hardware to run it. Maybe it'll make them, maybe the market is indeed big enough, I don't actually know!
I second Seanspeed's points. It only looks a bit like looking at a screen at the moment because we've learnt to recognise pixels and artifacts like aliasing as something related to screen technology. Once the resolution is high enough and SDE is eliminated, it shouldn't look like a screen at all.When you say, "VR is just another way of looking at a screen", you are showing an inherently misguided understanding of what viewing stuff in VR is like. It is not like looking at a screen at all. The world is put to scale in front of your eyes. q
Traditional 3D is an improved sense of depth perception compared to a 2D display, but it is still not even close to what the '3D' in VR is like. It is a whole different ballgame. And yes, I think it is just as big as the leap to color, if not greater.
Because it's the principle of faking 3D for decades now, as i said, an expensive View-Master.
I second Seanspeed's points. It only looks a bit like looking at a screen at the moment because we've learnt to recognise pixels and artifacts like aliasing as something related to screen technology. Once the resolution is high enough and SDE is eliminated, it shouldn't look like a screen at all.
I also agree than it is bigger than the move to colour - you can still have a totally compelling black and white VR experience and believe you are there - no amount of colour technology applied to a traditional screen is going to do that.
This is deeply profound.I still dont think the tech is ready for VR