jediyoshi
Member
..then don't engage in content that offers that? The ability to get up and move around is an additive feature, your ability to sit in a chair isn't magically diminished.
-
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.
HTC Vive and SteamVR hands-on impressions
- Thread starter ashecitism
- Start date
..then don't engage in content that offers that? The ability to get up and move around is an additive feature, your ability to sit in a chair isn't magically diminished.
Bl@de
Member
Sure as long as it's an extra I'm okay with it. Go nuts. I'm just saying that if it's mandatory to have that space it's dead for me (and probably a lot of consumers).
Edit: sorry I jumped to conclusions. Still early here^^
Zeyphersan
Banned
I always try to watch webm's before remembering that Safari can't handle the glory
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Sure that's what you meant?
Wow, that looks awesome. Doesn't sound like the most interative game but I'm wondering if this is our first real glance at Source 2. Materials and lighting look more advanced than I've seen out of Source 1. Hope they include that demo with the headset when I buy it, even if it's short and not replayable.
Can't wait to put on my belt, plug in and never unplug.
Rock Howard
Member
Is there any information about the FOV of this device...read somewhere that it is much wider than Oculus because of the use of two screens.
ashecitism
Member
Interesting they post the off-screen rendering figures. That's the killer right there in VR.
Some people read something like 1080p and think 'how hard can it be?'. Then somebody says something about you have to render it in 3D, which adds like a 1.2-1.3x multiplier to power demands. What gets very rarely spoken of is the additional 1.4x factor that comes with rendering at a much higher solution than it displays at. And of course all at a consistent and locked 90fps. lol
So worth it, though.
Also, 10 degree FoV improvement isn't much, but its very welcome.
Some people read something like 1080p and think 'how hard can it be?'. Then somebody says something about you have to render it in 3D, which adds like a 1.2-1.3x multiplier to power demands. What gets very rarely spoken of is the additional 1.4x factor that comes with rendering at a much higher solution than it displays at. And of course all at a consistent and locked 90fps. lol
So worth it, though.
Also, 10 degree FoV improvement isn't much, but its very welcome.
Have people in here been following VR Union? The specs for their next headset (22M) sound pretty insane for a target $400-$600 range. Are they legit?
http://vrunion.com
http://vrunion.com
Bomber Bob
Banned
lol safari, get a real browser brah
Interesting they post the off-screen rendering figures. That's the killer right there in VR.
Some people read something like 1080p and think 'how hard can it be?'. Then somebody says something about you have to render it in 3D, which adds like a 1.2-1.3x multiplier to power demands. What gets very rarely spoken of is the additional 1.4x factor that comes with rendering at a much higher solution than it displays at. And of course all at a consistent and locked 90fps. lol
So worth it, though.
Also, 10 degree FoV improvement isn't much, but its very welcome.
Why are they rendering more - is that for the timewarp stuff so they can shift the viewpoint at the last moment if necessary?
Picture quality since most of the pixels are actually stretched (optics) and become bigger towards your peripheral view. 'Super sampling' these helps a lot. Oculus recommends 1.3x I believe.
Acheteedo
Member
So uhhh, what happens to the wire when you turn 360 degrees a couple of times? Also you're limited to small flat spaces in games, any kind of hill or stairs will break the illusion. This is very cool as a demo or short lived gimmick but it's not a solution for serious gaming, you're better off in a chair with an Oculus Rift, which will no doubt implement their own motion controllers for your hands in due time.
You're right on the limitations(cabling would require an overhead solution, not completely unfeasible, but not convenient).
In terms of being better off with a Rift, that's not necessarily true. Just because you *can* do this stuff with the Vive doesn't mean that's all it can do. It will be equally capable of seated experiences like with the Rift. And will have some advantages there as well, particularly with 360 degree motion control tracking.
But yes, I personally think that these limitations means Oculus should still be considered an option. I'm going to wait before throwing in any bets with either one just yet.
fascinating video, thanks.
good point. I think Valve's solution is ready for wireless, but that is probably a couple of years away. And by then - with Valve offering lighthouse as free tech, it may be that Oculus absorb that as their positional solution too.
It would certainly be simpler if we could install a couple of discreet boxes in the corners of our rooms and they would work with any valve partner VR headset or Oculus rift.
Cheeseman Battitude
Member
Indeed. Walking around a lush forest in Far Cry 5 would be great until you rip off a bollock on the edge of your desk!
ScepticMatt
Member
one GPU for each eye simultaneously, instead of alternate frame rendering.
Before:
GPU 1 left left left
GPU 2 ...... right right
Output ...... ........ 1.....
After:
GPU 1 left left left
GPU 2 right right right
Output ...... 1..... 2.....
As you can see, alternate frame rendering introduces unacceptable levels of additional latency.
I wonder if Vive can't read those too, as the IR spots are projected everywhere around?
Edit: And anyhow, it should work also seated, in the same way as Rift.
ashecitism
Member
Was waiting for that, thanks! Updated OP.
Graphics Horse
Member
About the two screen thing, maybe someone knowledgeable can answer this for me.
I don't know about everyone, but if I close one eye and use the other to look towards the opposite side, the bridge of my nose only lets me see about 45 degrees to that side, meaning anything wider than that on the inside would be pointless to render. Sooo is there an advantage in drawing further to the outside side for each eye instead of both eyes being done exactly the same aside from the interocular offset?
I think this could either be done with either different camera angles per eye or a 'cropped perspective' style where you aim straight ahead drawing to a wider frame but fast cull everything on the inside edge region.
Or I might just have a big nose.
Actually the same applies for up vs down, When I look straight ahead I can see a lot further down than I can up, but again I might be a Neanderthal.
I don't know about everyone, but if I close one eye and use the other to look towards the opposite side, the bridge of my nose only lets me see about 45 degrees to that side, meaning anything wider than that on the inside would be pointless to render. Sooo is there an advantage in drawing further to the outside side for each eye instead of both eyes being done exactly the same aside from the interocular offset?
I think this could either be done with either different camera angles per eye or a 'cropped perspective' style where you aim straight ahead drawing to a wider frame but fast cull everything on the inside edge region.
Or I might just have a big nose.
Actually the same applies for up vs down, When I look straight ahead I can see a lot further down than I can up, but again I might be a Neanderthal.
Yep, this is what I was waiting for
asker
Member
I've been really hyped for VR ever since first reading about Oculus, and even moreso after trying the DK2. My only fear with Valve's venture into VR is that they seem to want to integrate additional tech into the experience from the get-go. I see multiple problems with this, some come down to personal preference:
First off, I have no interest in standing up and moving about when I'm inside VR. I see limited potential in this technology and ultimately I think I will choose the convenience of sitting down to experience media once the novelty wears off. Also, I believe in the principle of keeping things simple and perfecting core functionality before going bat shit crazy with new features.
Secondly, all this extra technology will ultimately result in a more expensive consumer product. I read something about two controllers and two lighthouses included in the package. This will surely add up.
Thirdly, I'm fearful that this will lead (trick?) developers onto a path of forcefully including elements of this in their games. See the advent of motion controls, where simple button presses were instead mapped to a waggle-motion just for the sake of it. And I don't want this! I'm lazy, and I wanna sit in my chair with a controller, HOTAS or M/KB.
I wish they'd stuck to a more simple route: Focus on making the head mounted-display part of VR as good as possible, let it mature for a couple of years and then see if we need additional ways of controlling our in-game avatars, be it by special controllers or other tech.
First off, I have no interest in standing up and moving about when I'm inside VR. I see limited potential in this technology and ultimately I think I will choose the convenience of sitting down to experience media once the novelty wears off. Also, I believe in the principle of keeping things simple and perfecting core functionality before going bat shit crazy with new features.
Secondly, all this extra technology will ultimately result in a more expensive consumer product. I read something about two controllers and two lighthouses included in the package. This will surely add up.
Thirdly, I'm fearful that this will lead (trick?) developers onto a path of forcefully including elements of this in their games. See the advent of motion controls, where simple button presses were instead mapped to a waggle-motion just for the sake of it. And I don't want this! I'm lazy, and I wanna sit in my chair with a controller, HOTAS or M/KB.
I wish they'd stuck to a more simple route: Focus on making the head mounted-display part of VR as good as possible, let it mature for a couple of years and then see if we need additional ways of controlling our in-game avatars, be it by special controllers or other tech.
Tommy Refenes (Super Meat Boy), teased he saw great things and something life changing - it was Valve's new stuff and VR
VR isnt a gimmick anymore - http://tommyrefenes.tumblr.com/post/112739516902/vr-isnt-a-gimmick-anymore
VR isnt a gimmick anymore - http://tommyrefenes.tumblr.com/post/112739516902/vr-isnt-a-gimmick-anymore
So far, the Vive seems nice but it sounds like it suffers the same problem a hypothetical Kinect in my house would have, lack of space.
Vive seems to be all about movement and I don't have space for that in my room at all. I think in the end the Oculus just seem more designed for the average computer player and Vive for people with their computer in the livingroom, or just rich people with their own rooms that big.
Vive seems to be all about movement and I don't have space for that in my room at all. I think in the end the Oculus just seem more designed for the average computer player and Vive for people with their computer in the livingroom, or just rich people with their own rooms that big.
Competition = win for the consumers. I'll probably be going for HTC/Valve Vive first if it isn't too expensive, but I'll definitely grab an Oculus for comparison's sake if the reviews are good.
I've even started to keep a list of games I want to experience for the first time in VR. Alien: Isolation and Amnesia being at the very top.
Here's hoping that Dreamworks and Pixar gets involved and make movies with optional VR-support, but that might take a while...even a limited fov to just look around would be awesome though.
I've even started to keep a list of games I want to experience for the first time in VR. Alien: Isolation and Amnesia being at the very top.
Here's hoping that Dreamworks and Pixar gets involved and make movies with optional VR-support, but that might take a while...even a limited fov to just look around would be awesome though.
I am not the biggest VR fan but you are kidding right?
This is what I'm most curious about. I love the idea of having the ability to walk around, but the limitation is inherent and I haven't the slightest sense of how to work around it. I can see it as having specific and fantastic implementations, but I can't see it as anything other than stifling if you wanted a more robust gaming experience. Even if you had a game consisted of just connected rooms, I struggle to see how that would even work logistically. It's a cool way to differentiate the product, but I have a hard time envisioning VR in the near future to be anything other than a primarily seated experience.
jediyoshi
Member
Then sit down? The issues you're referring to would reflect designed experiences, not limitations of the hardware. The tracking system doesn't literally need four flat walls and a floor with empty space.
Jzero
Member
Virtual Real Porn already has stuff up for viewing in almost 4k resolution.
You have to pay though.
Betta Lines
Member
People who still think they want horror games like P.T. in VR should read this.
Lord Phol
Member
I was a bit sceptical when I first heard about Valve and HTC teaming up, but after all the impressions and information I'm really glad that we got another batch of talented people involved in the VR business.
The Vive sounds pretty great overall, but it also seems to be focused on having you standing up/walking around. I hope it will work good as a seated experience as well. I'm also uncertain about the tracking pads on the controllers. The input devices does seem like a big part of the whole VR experience though so I'm glad they are working on that and not just the headgear.
The Vive sounds pretty great overall, but it also seems to be focused on having you standing up/walking around. I hope it will work good as a seated experience as well. I'm also uncertain about the tracking pads on the controllers. The input devices does seem like a big part of the whole VR experience though so I'm glad they are working on that and not just the headgear.
nobody is forcing anyone to stand up and walk around the room, or build a dedicated VR room. First, not many people would have the space. Second, where do all the wires go?
Valve are just using that as a way to demo the positional tracking and how it works better than other systems. You'll be able to use it sitting down just fine.
Zeyphersan
Banned
On a Macbook, Safari is actually the best
Shit, that's huge. And would totally get me to buy a second card if my next build wasn't mITX
Aha, I thought that was the whole point of it, to move around and also that the laser boxes needed the space to work.
Then I guess it comes down to who makes the price worthiest hardware/has best support (hopefully it will be easy to make things compatible for both).
Obviously I'm kidding about putting my Vita in a box but since I've never demoed VR, no, I'm not. I don't get what's special or different yet.
Alx
Member
That underwater demo sounds great. Deep diving is clearly one of the scenarios that would be fascinating with VR. I'm just picturing the whale brushing past me and I've got chills already.
When you move your head the scene will change accordingly, so you can't look away from the game, you are in it whatever you do.