Weltall Zero
Member
As someone who tried early VR at a gaming fair during the early 90's, and have seen it drop out of the face of the Earth for decades until now, a delay of a few years is entirely irrelevant.
-
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
Neuromancer
Member
I just had a brief talk about this thread with a friend who works on VR games and his short term outlook was far sunnier than Krejlooc's. I'm not concerned.
Tal Shiar Agent
Member
What I see VR as, especially on the PS4 is just another, higher quality display. There are plenty of games that don't need extra crap to be great when played on a VR display. Fallout is the biggest that comes to mind.
If the Morpheus can display any game like it would to a normal display it'll be reason enough for me to buy, as long as the screen being that close doesn't cause motion sickness.
I'm not sure I really understand what kind of games people think, the guy quoted in the OP especially, would be developed solely for VR.
If the Morpheus can display any game like it would to a normal display it'll be reason enough for me to buy, as long as the screen being that close doesn't cause motion sickness.
I'm not sure I really understand what kind of games people think, the guy quoted in the OP especially, would be developed solely for VR.
Even if the PS4 could handle it (And it wont, we can be happy if FO4 will run at 30fps on regular displays if bethesday keeps being bethesda) I wouldn't want to play through a game like Fallout 4 on VR in it's current state.
Even at 75fps, with the dk2 it still gives you major motion sickness after extended play sessions with VR Demos. If you are playing something like a fps with a controller, like an hour is my absolute peak. And it's already really exhausting just walking around, quick action scenes for a prolonged time are a no go right now. Morpheus will get to 60fps for the vast majority of it's games. If the framerate drops just a bit, you'll feel nauseated after only a couple of minutes.
I usually don't have trouble with roller coasters and stuff, but after my first day with the dk2 (to be fair I pretty much used the set for 6 hours) I was feeling a little drowsy the whole next day.
Right now, you want contained, short experiences, preferably where you are seated within the simulation. Those work best and give you the best sense of presence.
I barely touch my set right now (maybe once every 2 weeks for an hour) since there is nothing I really want to "play" on it.
Don't get me wrong, I'm still super excited for VR. But these sets are no replacement for a TV for the vast majority of games right now and I think a lot of people think otherwise. There is a reason why Sony hasn't shown a real game yet, but only demos.
Fallout-NL
Member
It's possible on PC, but not on PS4. On PS4 they would have to be specifically developed because a proper VR experience requires a more consistent framerate. Which is something those consoles are already struggling (and failing) to do.
Just enabling something for VR would be a recipe for disaster and I think it's highly unlikely this will happen.
The screen that close will make the resolution appear very low if just used as a normal display.
That's not how VR works anyways. There's optics in there that distort things and the image is wrapped around your vision. It is wildly different than you're thinking. In a good way.
Tal Shiar Agent
Member
I have no experience with VR at all. I assumed that the Morpheus would just be a 1080p display, or two displays half that are particularly close to your eyes to simulate the field of view of normal vision.
I can imagine bad framerates causing motion sickness like that, but couldn't a game like Call of duty just he enabled for VR since it runs at naive 1080p and is always a solid 60fps?
It's a fair bit more complicated than that.
For one, if you have a 1080p display of some sort, go stick your face right up close to it. You'll notice that the image stops being very nice looking and the pixels start becoming majorly noticeable. For that reason alone, you wouldn't want to use a VR headset just as another display. At least not til we get *very* high resolution screens in there.
Two, again, there are optics in the headset. Pieces of glass(or plastic) that distort the image and essentially wrap it around your vision. Imagine taking the rectangle shape of a display and kind of wrapping the corners forward halfway around your head. Then there is software that corrects things and makes them appear like they really exist in your vision, with proper size and scale. Your eyes don't focus on the display, the optics allow them to focus beyond it, so it's not like you're straining to focus on this close up screen, your eyes can relax and look around in what turns into a *proper* 3D space. It basically swaps out reality and inserts a.....virtual reality! It's very cool stuff and I think you'll be highly impressed when you try it and understand how you were thinking about it all wrong.
RoadHazard
Gold Member
No, because it also needs to be 3D. The two "screens" (which are actually just two halves of one screen) need to show the scene from two slightly different angles in order to provide the illusion of depth. That's how your eyes see depth. They each just see a flat 2D image from slightly different angles, and then your brain combines the two images into a single 3D image with depth. Anyway, rendering a scene from two virtual cameras at once takes more processing power, so you can't just "enable VR" just because the game already runs at 1080p60. Then there's also extra processing for the motion tracking, etc.
Powdered Toastman
Member
Hmm I believe the field of view in most FPS games (like CoD) is quite low (60-90 or so?) compared to your own FoV (120+). A higher FoV (needed for convincing VR) means a larger viewport on the gameworld, so more to render, and so requires more powerfull hardware.
Not accidents - art is defined by limitations of its medium.AniHawk said:
Which isn't to say unbounded CG would not be conductive to art, but it will be a very different form of it than what we currently have.
They shouldn't - but it's often easier to do so in short-term, and modern game-dev is all too often just following the path of least resistance.thunder_snail said:
But yea - I've worked on 60fps games in the past where only the renderer was 60fps (most other systems were 30fps) - and noone could tell the difference from "true" 60fps games. As well as reverse, where most simulation stuff was locked at 60 or above and just the rendering was variable.
Worth noting that many aspects of rendering are viable to decouple with modern hardware as well - including shading itself, and that would still play nicely with VR as long as you maintain geometric-updates at the 90hz+ rate.
This video might help you understand why you don't simply use two halves of a screen or two screens simply up close, and what the lenses are doing and how you compensate for that - barrel distortion, which also means rendering internally higher than the panel(s) resolution - https://youtu.be/B7qrgrrHry0?t=2m47s
Huw_Dawson
Member
Riven is a 2D slideshow game, using ancient 3D rendering, blotchy FMVs and a 4:3 480P resolution.
Is it still incredibly immersive (to me, at least)? Yup.
You don't need huge piles of polys to deliver immersive gameplay. Developers will find ways.
Is it still incredibly immersive (to me, at least)? Yup.
You don't need huge piles of polys to deliver immersive gameplay. Developers will find ways.
Tal Shiar Agent
Member
Wouldn't a higher pixel density help solve that, or is 4k really the best way to go about VR?
Well, I hope that I get the chance to try out VR, but it doesn't sound like something that'll be big on the PS4.
The Hermit
Member
Yeah, I think The same too.
Nintendo made me stop being a graphic whore, so I am ready for VR.
Yea, you really need to try it man. It's quite different than you're thinking.
BMX Bandit
Member
We have quotes from months ago from industry veterans on this very subject yet a rambling rant disillusioned you?
When people talk about VR being immersive, they're not talking about getting wrapped up in a good game. They're talking about the way your brain is actually fooled into thinking what it's seeing is real. That doesn't happen with any other form of media.
I feel like I can be both a graphics whore, but still appreciate that graphics aren't everything. Maybe that means I'm not a graphics whore, but I definitely consider myself a graphics enthusiast at least. I really enjoy the latest and greatest in graphics and top notch IQ and everything, but I stop short of placing the importance of these things higher than they should be. I'm loving my 3DS at the moment. The 3D is fantastic and it's a treat to look at, despite the low resolution, even on my XL. Then I jump over to my PC and enjoy my downsampled-from-4K playthrough of Dishonored just the same.
Yea. Immersion takes on a whole new meaning in VR. It is something you can never ever get on a flat screen.
The word 'presence' is total PR crap. It's just immersion. VR can achieve immersion on an unprecedented scale. It's so immersive your brain literally thinks its in a different place.
That. Spot-on.
Yeah, this, definitely. I can imagine in 15-20 years VR gaming being so commonplace that people see non-VR gaming as a totally different, less affecting, thing. Imagine kids who can't believe people used to game on 2D, disparate screens.
This is important. If you haven't tried VR and you're skeptical... Well it's the same of saying you haven't taken heroin but you're skeptical. It's a literal, psychological result. It's not some "oh, there's some subjective effect, it's all opinion" deal.
VR gives a genuine effect which is literally impossible on external 2D screens. It's true immersion. Your brain believes you are in a place, rather than just looking at a window a couple of feet away which shows a place.
I was keen to try out the Rift, and when I got to at a convention, I experienced unbelievable vertigo in the game Dream. You walk up staircases and end up horizontal on walls, walk upside-down on walkways, etc, it's like an Escher painting made real.
I've never been good with heights or depths, and I was literally sweating. Sweat was pouring off my forehead in buckets and my palms were super clammy and moist. My heart was racing. My entire nervous system, up and down my spine, was tingling - no, sparkling - with constant shock at the vertigo I was experiencing. Every time I turned my head slighly, while standing on a wall, and looked down hundreds of feet of drop into a distant courtyard, my whole body was screaming at my mind. It actually helped me get over vertigo! Now, in real life, I'm experiencing vertigo at a much reduced level to what I used to. I can climb tall ladders and such with no fear.
And yet, playing Mirror's Edge, Thief, Dying Light etc – traditional 2D games with very high heights – I felt nothing? Unless you've tried VR, you can't compare.
It's not about mechanics. It's about your brain fully engaging with a virtual place as if it's just as real as the world around you.
That. Spot-on.
Yeah, this, definitely. I can imagine in 15-20 years VR gaming being so commonplace that people see non-VR gaming as a totally different, less affecting, thing. Imagine kids who can't believe people used to game on 2D, disparate screens.
This is important. If you haven't tried VR and you're skeptical... Well it's the same of saying you haven't taken heroin but you're skeptical. It's a literal, psychological result. It's not some "oh, there's some subjective effect, it's all opinion" deal.
VR gives a genuine effect which is literally impossible on external 2D screens. It's true immersion. Your brain believes you are in a place, rather than just looking at a window a couple of feet away which shows a place.
I was keen to try out the Rift, and when I got to at a convention, I experienced unbelievable vertigo in the game Dream. You walk up staircases and end up horizontal on walls, walk upside-down on walkways, etc, it's like an Escher painting made real.
I've never been good with heights or depths, and I was literally sweating. Sweat was pouring off my forehead in buckets and my palms were super clammy and moist. My heart was racing. My entire nervous system, up and down my spine, was tingling - no, sparkling - with constant shock at the vertigo I was experiencing. Every time I turned my head slighly, while standing on a wall, and looked down hundreds of feet of drop into a distant courtyard, my whole body was screaming at my mind. It actually helped me get over vertigo! Now, in real life, I'm experiencing vertigo at a much reduced level to what I used to. I can climb tall ladders and such with no fear.
And yet, playing Mirror's Edge, Thief, Dying Light etc – traditional 2D games with very high heights – I felt nothing? Unless you've tried VR, you can't compare.
It's not about mechanics. It's about your brain fully engaging with a virtual place as if it's just as real as the world around you.
CyclopsRock
Member
I basically agree with what you're saying based on my experience, but these two things don't seem to go together - if what VR offers is a totally different experience than what's available on flat screens (and I'm inclined to agree that it will), then "prescence" - or, at least, some other word - seems entirely appropriate. It may well also be PR guff but that doesn't mean it's not also accurate and true.
You are wrong.
It is currently the accepted nomenclature in many fields for the phenomenon of behaving and feeling as if we are in the virtual world created by computer displays. The acceptance of the term has been around for years, since the 90s. MIT has the first journal dedicated to it all kinds of relevant research for from varying disciplines looking at VR and human-machine interfaces and alike called "Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments"
However, I would accept that the term is going to become an exploited marketing term soon enough, but it's origins are based on an actual phenomenon
Fallout-NL
Member
And ^
Yup, it's definitely appropriate. For once they aren't overselling the possibilities, in my opinion at least.
Yup, it's definitely appropriate. For once they aren't overselling the possibilities, in my opinion at least.
Yes.... it's such a big difference in level of immersion that it might be handy to have a term to describe that difference... perhaps 'presence'.
Mushroomer25
Member
It's not the people who watch E3 I'm even concerned about (Though considering all of the people here who see NMS as Sony's Morpheus ace in the hole, perhaps I should.). No, the worrying factor here is the mass audience who will see this product, form unreasonable expectations, and then feel ripped off when it can't deliver.
I don't know if it's been asked already in the last 7 pages but I'll go ahead and ask.
What about VR cuts down the usable power into 10ths and prevents use of normal lighting models and particle effects?
The initial post is a bit confusing to me as apparently without VR the dev gets 500k poly's and 400 draw calls. However putting it into VR reduces that to 128x128 size textures, 20k polygons and only 40 draw calls. (I'm assuming this is at the same resolution and frame rate?) is accurate positional tracking just so intensive that it uses 9/10 of the available GPU power?
What about VR cuts down the usable power into 10ths and prevents use of normal lighting models and particle effects?
The initial post is a bit confusing to me as apparently without VR the dev gets 500k poly's and 400 draw calls. However putting it into VR reduces that to 128x128 size textures, 20k polygons and only 40 draw calls. (I'm assuming this is at the same resolution and frame rate?) is accurate positional tracking just so intensive that it uses 9/10 of the available GPU power?
After the initial honeymoon, no it doesn't. Minimalistic stylized graphics are great in VR where it fits, but not in others. Especially in realistic experiences like flight sims and racing games detailed graphics and IQ is exactly as compelling in VR as it is on conventional displays.
Based on what I've played with DK2, this is all correct. This really isn't a subjective thing. I experienced genuine vertigo.
It's the difference between mono and surround sound: surround sounds more real than mono and it's not subjective.
I think the point is that while awesome graphics are still awesome in VR, not having them isn't going to stop the technology from being extremely impressive.
But yea, VR is a bit of a reset switch in terms of graphics. Doesn't mean we don't need or wont want to push graphical boundaries again, just that we have to take something of a step back and work back up to it, particularly with resolution/IQ.
Even with the Rift, the GTX970 will probably only be 'sufficient' for modern, graphics-heavy games on PC. Those with even nicer cards, like the latest 980Ti or whatever will enjoy higher settings or higher levels of anti-aliasing, which is quite important in VR. If you're used to sitting 5-6ft away from your average size TV, the aliasing isn't exactly the most noticeable thing in the world, but when you've got a 110 degree FoV and objects that look like they are in front of you are shimmering, it looks a lot worse. Which is why a company like Valve strongly recommend using at least 4xMSAA to battle this. The more the merrier, though. You'll also be able to get *really* close up to objects, so ideally you want the best textures and shaders you can afford. Shadows look great in VR but are particularly expensive in this medium. Lighting can make a world of a difference, so an expensive lighting system can be something of a luxury. Particle effects are *glorious* in VR(seriously), and aren't cheap.
So yea, plenty of room for growth, yet I agree with those saying that not having all these things isn't going to ruin your ability to enjoy and appreciate a VR experience.
AstroNut325
Member
I would seriously take that Dev statement with a grain of salt. Comparing sacrifices needed for mobile VR to console and PC VR seems quite disingenuous. The told and infrastructure for VR are still in their infancy. Not saying it isn't valid but going to hold off doom and gloom until more Devs chime in.
It's not just a display. What you're talking about isn't viable for this type of device.
If you want that then something like the Sony HMZ series of headsets is what you are looking for. I have one of those too and it's basically just a head mounted OLED screen that supports 3D. It looks like a large, floating screen in front of your face - which is completely different from what the VR headsets are trying to present.
EventHorizon
Member
The mass audience will see Morpeus through the eyes of the people who have used it and through there own eyes at in-store demos.
On the first point, the impresssions of the enthusiasts who follow E3 closely will get spread. Just look at how the bad reaction of Microsoft's horrible E3 performance 2 years ago impacted sales of the XB1. People tried to say that bad reaction was only contained with the few who follow gaming news closely, but what they failed to realize is that word of mourh is a powerful thing and the enthusiasts have many non-enthusiast friends.
As to the second point, I have no doubt that there will be plenty of in-store demos if for no other reason than stores will want them because the demoes themselves will bring in foot traffic. I can just see it now with people looking at customers screaming and squirming because they think they are stuck on a high ledge or runaway rollercoaster.
On top of this I think Sony's Morpheus has the very real possibility of catching on like the original Kinect, or even the Wii. Remember that the Kinect broke sales records as the fastest selling consumer device. I think this will happen becuase Morpeus will appeal beyond the traditional gaming audience. You'll have morning and late night talk shows showing VR movies and tourist locations like the Grand Canyon or Venice with the hosts being absolutely awed by the experience. The people this will appeal to will have no expectations of what a video game should look like since they don't play video games.
Mihos
Gold Member
Literally thinking you are in another place is a feeling of presence. In fact, one of the downsides of VR porn is that feeling of being there triggers guilt like you are actually cheating.
EventHorizon
Member
I've been womdering this myself. My best guess is that to render a VR image properly you have to do it in a higher resolution than is actually displayed. That's because when you warp the image to counteract the effect of the lenes it shrinks the image. However a lot of that is wasted because in VR the edges of the screen are displayed in a lower resolution than the center. Also due to the distortion of the lenses there are parts of the display that are rendered but never seen.
I've read about techniques that can be used to regain some of that wasted processing power. The edges of the display can be rendered at a lower resolution than the center, and the parts that can't be seen can be not drawn at all.
Another thing that reduces the amount of draw calls and polygons rendered is the fact that VR absolutly must maintain a fast refresh rate. So there is simply less time to do the work. Then there is also the fact that time needs to be set aside to do the distortion nessasary for the lenses although I don't think this requires much. Finally you are drawing a much wider field of view than normal so the complexity of the image will be greater simply because there are more things that can be seen and thus must be drawn. Although this shouldn't affect the actual number of draw call that can be done, only the fact that you need to do more of them.
Oh...I just though of the big one which is that everything that is drawn actually has to be done twice. Once for each eye so in effect that alone could halve the number of effective draw calls that can be done. However thankfully there are optimisation that can be done here too to make this more efficient since each eye sees images that are very similar to each other so some processing can be done once and used for both images.
I wonder how difficult it would be for Sony to give Morpheus removable lenes that would allow it to transform into a standard 3D HMD. The only other option, which I'm sure Sony will do, is to make a virtual theater in VR to show the traditional content. Unfortunately that screen would have a lower resolution that the more traditional 3D HMD, but hey you'll get to look around the virtual theater. I for one would love to watch a sci-fi movie from a moon of Jupiter.
I'm with you guys as well. This is like the 16-bit pre-gen jump into polygonal 3D all over again. Games we got in the following generation were still very rudimentary compared to today's 3D games, but they were way more experimental, diverse, and creative... even if they appear rough now.
Early VR of the next few years will feel the same way in 20 years time - rough but diverse and creative.
Care to share those quotes here?
Astral Dog
Member
So we are going to return to the beginning,(of 3D graphics) Morpheus will replace the traditional model as we transition again to a simpler era, driven by more limitations, a new era of gaming sounds good to me ;-)
autoduelist
Member
VR is more about immersion than graphics. If they can pull that off, I'd be okay returning to vector graphics if I had to. Then again, I grew up in the early arcades and with Zork and Wastland and such.
I don't expect ps3 graphics. Just immersion.
I don't expect ps3 graphics. Just immersion.
DHC-Shannow
Member
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-the-challenge-of-remastering-uncharted
Digital foundry discussion on remastering Uncharted for PS4 - not Morpheus of course but quite enlightening on the difficulty of getting an advanced PS3 engine game (The last of us) to run at 60fps. Essentially they had to merge the previous frames GPU instructions with the current frames CPU code to efficiently use the available power. This in effect gives a single frame of additional lag before its drawn to screen however would doing this on a VR game cause problems?
Digital foundry discussion on remastering Uncharted for PS4 - not Morpheus of course but quite enlightening on the difficulty of getting an advanced PS3 engine game (The last of us) to run at 60fps. Essentially they had to merge the previous frames GPU instructions with the current frames CPU code to efficiently use the available power. This in effect gives a single frame of additional lag before its drawn to screen however would doing this on a VR game cause problems?
exmachina64
Banned
Some people were (and still are) living in a reality distortion field.
RoadHazard
Gold Member
That's what Sony is saying we should AT LEAST be getting though. Their official recommendation to Morpheus devs is that they start out with PS3-level visuals at 1080p60, and then improve on that if viable. VR is more demanding than 2D or "regular" 3D, yes, but we aren't about to plunge right back to PS1 graphics from 20 years ago like some seem to believe.
RoadHazard
Gold Member
The difficulty in porting the ND engine to PS4 mostly had to do with the extremely efficient way in which it utilized the unconventional PS3 CPU to make up for its weak GPU. The PS4 has a very different architecture, with a more conventional CPU and much more powerful GPU, so just bringing the code over didn't produce very good results. Interesting for sure, but not very relevant to the specific challenges of VR.
If you are a dev, then I can totally see that. It's the wild west after all. Exactly the kind of place problem solvers like to be in
Unity is an horrible reference to take when speaking about graphic performance. I love this engine, but optimized is not a way to describe it.
I've played a good bunch of VR demos on DK2 that looked pretty great on a single 7950. So I'm not worried. Of course you wouldn't expect Witcher 3 levels of details at 90fps+, but there is still plenty of room to make great looking stuff. It wont be a comeback down to PS1 like some people are led to think.
I've played a good bunch of VR demos on DK2 that looked pretty great on a single 7950. So I'm not worried. Of course you wouldn't expect Witcher 3 levels of details at 90fps+, but there is still plenty of room to make great looking stuff. It wont be a comeback down to PS1 like some people are led to think.