wanderingprostheyltite
Member
Heh the desk demo was the thing I demoed to my dad, he said afterwards he was thinking of trying to set the headset on the desk. Crazy how easily our minds are fooled with visual stimuli in 3d/tracking.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Limitations of VR - a virtual reality check
- Thread starter viveks86
- Start date
Heh the desk demo was the thing I demoed to my dad, he said afterwards he was thinking of trying to set the headset on the desk. Crazy how easily our minds are fooled with visual stimuli in 3d/tracking.
I dont believe so, no. Neither does michael abrash or john carmack. To achieve the matrix, we would need more than killer vr, we would need a much more comprehensive understanding of how our brains work. After working with our neurologist and eeg technology, I am shocked at how little we understand our own brains.
Huge Succeeded
Banned
Hey Leko04 just because you can't envision or achieve presence in a virtual environment doesn't mean that someone smarter/better skilled can't lolol
Buggy Loop
Member
I think i spent a good 30 mins just in the train station, bumping into guards for their violent reaction, throwing cans at them, looking at NPCs from head to toe, etc. Thats the thing, you feel that there's a person in front of you because of scale, even if graphically its nothing impressive, sense of scale changes everything.
Then, further down the game, i got motion sickness from all the crate building up/jumping and the camera controls on the 360 pad. Moving the camera with the analog stick and not getting motion sickness is VR's biggest challenge. Thats where alternatives to pads will come in, but its implementation in the game will be very critical.
This is again why (and Oculus has said this also), the prime VR experience will be chair experiences, as in planes, space ships, cars, etc.
InaudibleWhispa
Member
It's not really a marketing term. It's a literal description of exactly what good VR should induce, and it's been used by people talking about VR for years.
I'm not sure that games will be the leader in VR, and that's OK. The ways we are consuming media are changing, and it's likely that VR will synergize well with lots of media types, including movies, and potentially other media we've never thought of. Are you someone that loves haunted houses? VR might be a great experience for you.
Another example, imagine getting to sit with your dad or brother and watch Mad Max in the same theater, even though you're across the country from one another. That'd be a pretty slick experience, yeah?
Or imagine you're walking around Paris, and you've got a VR 360 degree camera - why not invite grandma for a few minutes to join your adventures?
I think there are going to be a lot of amazing media experiences that VR facilitates, some gaming related, and some not. And I'm not saying it's going to be any time soon, but don't think that games are the only way that VR can succeed.
And above all, don't judge the entire future of the technology based on its first generation. Look at the potential.
Another example, imagine getting to sit with your dad or brother and watch Mad Max in the same theater, even though you're across the country from one another. That'd be a pretty slick experience, yeah?
Or imagine you're walking around Paris, and you've got a VR 360 degree camera - why not invite grandma for a few minutes to join your adventures?
I think there are going to be a lot of amazing media experiences that VR facilitates, some gaming related, and some not. And I'm not saying it's going to be any time soon, but don't think that games are the only way that VR can succeed.
And above all, don't judge the entire future of the technology based on its first generation. Look at the potential.
piratepwnsninja
Member
They have, but the thing is, you are going to get experiences that are developed solely for VR, and most of the time their entire purpose is to create a sense of presence, so the priority of how that experience is made is entirely different than a game that is not designed with VR as a priority. So while Fallout 4 may work with a Vive, it will not look as good as something that is designed to make you feel like you're on the surface of Mars, because they are concerned with different things.
Nose Master
Member
E3 is going to be a clusterfuck of not-ready VR demos akin to the motion control fiasco that dominated E3 in... 11 or whenever that was.
Since you mentioned GTA 5, let's use that as an example. What kind of hardware is it going to take to run a game like that in VR for, say, Vive's specifications? Is Ultra or even High presets feasible with exisiting tech for high end PCs? Medium? Low? Will it work at all? What I'm learning today is that the practical overhead is more than a magnitude. Ultimately the experience is going to be revolutionary regardless, but it might be useful to know what to expect so that it doesn't come as a shock after one invests tons of money in hardware.
I'd offer a counter point here - majority of current tech-demos that were built for public-showings are indeed highly-tuned/tweaked for specific, mostly restricted experience, but they were also built in short-deadlines with tech-stacks that are woefully inadequate to run VR apps, all of which is only 'just' starting to catch-up.
Ie. they are IMO far from "best" results you can get in VR on a particular hw-target.
My personal perspective has been working with higher-end targets, and yes there was plenty of cutting corners, but end results still look in-line with what people expect from modern gaming.
Ie. they are IMO far from "best" results you can get in VR on a particular hw-target.
My personal perspective has been working with higher-end targets, and yes there was plenty of cutting corners, but end results still look in-line with what people expect from modern gaming.
Some degree of supersampling is needed, but you also get to cull pixels that fall outside of the usable range, which tends to even things out. There will definitely be some pixel-overhead compared to 2d - but drastically less than the above.Seanspeed said:
Aaronrules380
Member
I'm skeptical of VR because I'm not convinced it will add much long run. It's all about presence and spectacle, but those fade after an initial period once you get used to them. If VR can't support a wide enough range of game design after the initial novelty wears off, it'll be completely worthless. I hear a lot of people saying they got sold on VR after using it once or something like that, but that's missing the point, because you got sold on spectacle, and when you repeat that enough it inevitably loses it's luster.
VR and game engines will have lots of limitations but they can get optimized like Epic's UE4 Morpheus 'Showdown' demo that runs on 60fps on the PS4: http://www.roadtovr.com/epics-showd...-on-morpheus-after-ue4-optimizations-for-ps4/
The Unity engine seems like it's going to be left in the dust when it comes to VR but time will tell
The Unity engine seems like it's going to be left in the dust when it comes to VR but time will tell
Nice read. I will proceed to wait til there's a bunch of games available before buying a VR headset. As usual, Sony MY will screw up the price of Morpheus, just like PS4 price at day one.
This is kinda what i reckon.
What does VR add to a game? As in, does it allow for unique game mechanics or something?
I think i have good imagination but here i'm drawing a blank, i just can't figure out anything that cannot achieved already (perhaps with help of head-tracking).
EDIT Immersion/presence is not a game mechanic in my opinion. It is something that enhances a game but nothing more. And it is about so many small things i'm doubtful VR is a big deal for this.
Cry more. lol. Marketing is funny. News at 23. We really are shitposting together.
If I recall correctly, the devs teased a picture of them at work at their studio with a Morpheus headset off to the side. People put two and two together to come up with that claim.
Anyways, VR games definitely need a different approach to creating them, but I think developers can handle it. It's a lot more flexible than developing a game with the wiimote in mind.
ChronotriggerJM
Member
Don't forget about this:
Essentially, just because Morpheus has a 1920x1080 display doesn't mean it wont actually need to render at something like 2560x1440 internally.
Do we have a resolution target from those slides at GDC for the Morpheus? I remember they were telling devs to target 60hz, but I don't remember if they had a res target. We know what people should be rendering at to accommodate the PC HMD's, but I have no idea what Sony's screens, pixel size, or arrangement look like. We know they're using 1 screen, and that's about it :/
See I'm actually in the opposite opinion. I think once Presence becomes common place, I believe it'll lose it's shine, and become expected, making previous games seem like shit in comparison. VR to me is the new medium, and the only one I seem to care about these days lol.
But can't it just be the way to play games (for some) from now on?
"Analog sticks are cool, but eh I'm ok going back to the nes controller"
Regardless of the spectacle, it could be a permanent thing.
wanderingprostheyltite
Member
I dunno if GTA 5 would be super demanding, probably not gonna be able to do ultra. I was able to run Dying Light using the console enabled dk2 support the devs had in there which was averaging around 60-70 maxed on a single 970. Then again, lower resolution than Vive/Oculus CV1, plus a not consistent framerate. It will definitely be a challenge, but I expect things like DX12, Liquid VR, whatever Nvidia is calling their VR latency pipeline to help out. I'm optimistic.
Fushichou187
Member
Things like Colosse should be what those tier devs look towards rather than trying to half-ass photo-realism:
I'm with you on that. Hell, I'd probably get ridiculously lost in something akin to Proteus if it were made for VR. The ability to look around in the environment and not have that break between the TV/Screen and the real world is huge for immersion, regardless of the polygon count.
NullPointer
Member
It'll take a while but I figure that ? will be replaced with:
Some smart earbuds to go along with that and voila. I spend a lot of imagination time in seemingly impractical futures tho.
People shrugging at VR's "immersion" are doing themselves a disservice. It's not like a switch from third person to first or a jump from an NES to SNES. VR done properly actually fools your subconscious brain into thinking what it's seeing is real even though it obviously isn't. I've personally had feelings of vertigo in the most ridiculous, low resolution, poorly textured areas just because the sense of motion and perspective was done correctly. There's nothing else like it.
Op should have quoted this as well:
Huge Succeeded
Banned
fair enough, hahaha
presence is less of a buzzword and more the entire design goal of vr, though. it's been the goal since day one, and while i don't believe it will be achieved to the degree that marketing might imply from day one, it's definitely something to consider as a potential reality of the tech moving forward. i def think it's kind of dismissive to just laugh it off like it's not achievable.
You can really say the same about HD. Does it introduce game mechanics? No, but it is here to stay. Presence is not a mechanic no, but it is a way to experience video games.
nogoodnamesleft
Banned
ive been saying this since morpheus was announced. but everyone just said "NUH UH, I REFOOZ TO BELIEE"
the ps4 does not have near enough power for even medium fidelity visuals in VR. it will be a nice stepping stone for the next next gen maybe, and will still have some solid software, for sure. but visually impressive (technically) it wont be.
the ps4 does not have near enough power for even medium fidelity visuals in VR. it will be a nice stepping stone for the next next gen maybe, and will still have some solid software, for sure. but visually impressive (technically) it wont be.
Yeah, I have lost sense of my own presence with drugs. It's not fun I'll say.
My senses can be fooled no problem. It is just that when I know, I know.
I have found the way vr has been pushed very funny. But I'm not here to shit on parade (too much). Have fun all
Also, if we want to talk buzz words, I chuckle every time I hear palmer luckey say "temporal anti-aliasing." Not because it's noy a real thing, but rather because they are turning a flaw in the display hardware into a feature by giving it a nice name, lol.
It reminds me of when people would use stipple dithering on crt sd displays because they knew color bleed would blur the adjacent colors into halfstep shades.
It reminds me of when people would use stipple dithering on crt sd displays because they knew color bleed would blur the adjacent colors into halfstep shades.
Added. Thanks!
What is the problem? I played rather dumb and bad looking demos from Oculus share which blew me away. The possibilites are endless and it's the beginning of a new era. Not just for games. But VR, AR and ultimately MR is the ultimate medium, the one to bind them all. Sure, classic gaming will still always be there as will be normal TV, for obvious reasons, but virtual reality technologies will ignite a new form of media the coming years. It'll be as disruptive just as the online-shops were to normal shopping malls.
Interesting. And for comparison, how does it perform without VR on a 970, everything else remaining the same?
Immersion is about so many things, to me anyway. For example, there are strategy games i find far more immersive than some first person shooters.
Probably should use the term "presence", as in feeling present in the game world or something.
Though i will claim the same example still.
EDIT I see your edit. It seems our thoughts are along the same lines, but i'm thinking that the output method (VR-HMD or a standard display) doesn't necessarily matter so much.
Annoyingly VR is once again one of those things that must be experienced before one can really know it, i guess, but experiencing it without getting a device is borderline impossible...
Does nothing to me, and i'm quite often willing to trade it away for something else (like framerate, which does have direct effect on gameplay, in some games at least).
pinkurocket
Member
Limited power didn't stop developers from creating some of the most creative games of the generation on Wii.
And I'm not talking about the waggle, but the dated tech that still managed to deliver games holding their own when HD had taken over everywhere else.
And I'm not talking about the waggle, but the dated tech that still managed to deliver games holding their own when HD had taken over everywhere else.
Nvidia maybe...will AMD even be around in a decade?
Vr has plenty of beneficial features beyond spectacle. Head tracking gives you parallax cues to help you discern depth beyond stereoscopy, and scale translates. This means, as an example, that locking onto objects in real world with your head is massively beneficial. Players in elite dangerous who play with vr headsets are overwhelmingly better players than those without. The difference is comparable to the difference between keyboard and mouse and a gamepad.
chromatic9
Member
Yes at 60hz. The res and frame rate bump is quite a challenge but then, what you needed for those games, we actually have double the hardware with 970 onwards.
Can't help but feel the dev post is too much on GearVR and mentions extrapolating to higher hardware. There's also some ways to ease pixels rendered,
I also used the DK2 on a 580 which is close to PS4 GPU and you can get the full experience in most of the software available. Considering I think PS4 VR is 60hz with frame rate reprojection to 120hz I don't see much reason to be alarmed for Sony VR and Valve HTC/Oculus.
You won't get modern looking games but the res and magnification kind of neutralizes that anyway. It's more about the experience. Don't go in expecting a sharp or seamless look to the image like a monitor on a desk in front of you, that would need around 8k.
I guess the only thing is maybe 75hz would be best for now and go 90hz later but they know best hopefully and its games built for VR that's key, so that fluid presence is vital for them. I'd opt for a 60-75hz and just have the stuff out already and come out a bit raw like we thought would happen. VR is a can of worms though and its like, when do you stop.
I have a question about engine usage in general
We always talk about how the game world needs to be at 60fps to make people not motion sick, and this can be incredibly difficult to achieve on a modern system today, letalone a vr system, but is there any chance we could see animations that arent head tracking in less the 60 fps and keeping head tracking at 60 fps
IE in an FPS lets say that you can move around at 60 fps, but your gun and the enemies all move at 30 fps. Would this be a possible work around with some type of technology to help smooth those low fps animations?
Or would this give a negligible benefit to the VR
Honestly, if this works I could see it working really well for Horror games, it would give off a really weird vibes to the character models amd animations
We always talk about how the game world needs to be at 60fps to make people not motion sick, and this can be incredibly difficult to achieve on a modern system today, letalone a vr system, but is there any chance we could see animations that arent head tracking in less the 60 fps and keeping head tracking at 60 fps
IE in an FPS lets say that you can move around at 60 fps, but your gun and the enemies all move at 30 fps. Would this be a possible work around with some type of technology to help smooth those low fps animations?
Or would this give a negligible benefit to the VR
Honestly, if this works I could see it working really well for Horror games, it would give off a really weird vibes to the character models amd animations
ChronotriggerJM
Member
Yeah I don't think the graphics are the real problem at hand here, it's the marketplace that Sony should be creating/collaborating on. The PS4 will be an amazing platform to push VR content on, and I feel it's going to be shackled to games only, which would undersell VR's huge potential. Sony needs to find a way to make sure it can access the huge span of content that's inevitable.
I gotta imagine next year these devices will hit Best Buy and Walmart so normal people can actually try them. Then you'll start hearing people talking about them.
Orakio Rob
Member
You may say I'm a dreamer, but... I love the comparison to retrogaming. Technical limitations gave us amazing games during the 8-bit and 16-bit eras. VR limitations might usher in a new era of innovation in game design (instead of VR Skyrim, VR Assassins Creed and stuff like that).
Buggy Loop
Member
Its not a game mechanic but you have no idea how much it makes a difference. You have to experience it to understand.
Just as an example that i believe will move VR units faster than games will, you can have a IMAX sized screen in the comfort of your house, which your brain WILL believe is there, and watch movies on it for a small sum of money (compared to building an IMAX theater at home..) And there there's porn..
A humanoid npc in a game is tall, as in you believe he's there because your brain believes he's 5.9' tall. When you fly a space ship in a hangar and you go from *oh, there's an UI that tells me which dock to use by showing the number on the screen" to "HOLY SHIT, its not a UI, its a 100' tall projection!", then games as you knew them, will forever change.
wanderingprostheyltite
Member
Oddly my performance was no bueno without VR and I have no idea why, lots of stuttering and frame drops. Could've been a multi monitor issue? Ran much smoother on the dk2, hadn't experienced that with a game before.
I'm just gonna say wut
I don't mean to poke fun when you are asking a real question but wut
inpHilltr8r
Member
...and remarkably familiar to any console dev of a certain age.
There will be great games made within these limitations. Sure they're not going to look like the things that currently bring modern consoles to their 30fps knees, but that should not have been a surprise. Remember how much worse the stereo 3D games looked last gen? That, and run at 3x the framerate.
They're probably going to need custom engines too. I will be stunned if Unity or Unreal can get their fixed overheads down.
boutrosinit
Street Fighter IV World Champion
Presence is a real thing. Not marketing horse-shit. It simply means that there's a psychological effect where your subconscious part buys into the fake reality.
Example - You stand on a pillar in the middle of 3D space with a hole around you. The environment is textured at PSOne quality.
You know it's not real. Your brain does not want you to leave that pillar. Your first experience of this will be a genuinely happy surprise when it happens.
Presence is this experience. I know I'm not here intellectually, but due to some of the technical accomplishments, my subconscious has bought into this as being partly real. It's truly amazing.
I believe the fact i have to experience it before i can really know it. But that doesn't stop me from being skeptical.
Your IMAX comparison falls flat on me because i haven't ever even seen an IMAX theater (we got none here in Finland, AFAIK). Sorry.
I will note again that HD does nothing to me, seeing a film on big screen or normal TV doesn't change anything for me either.
Exactly.