I've been following VR since DK1 kickstarter and have spent countless hours getting any snippet of information I can. Based on all the information so far from people that have actually tried the vive and rift there is no clear winner yet. Both seem to have better and worse things. It is my belief though that the rift will be superior in terms of the experience and quality of screen / lenses. The vive will be superior in terms of room scale movement. When both consumer versions are released then we can have a fair fight but until then the current itterations of the vive and rift are out of sync in terms of their development path and cycle and so not truly comparable just yet.
HTC Vive - VR headset form HTC and Valve - what do you think Scawen?
(328 posts, started )
Wise words. Agree.
How can you say that Rift will be "Lowest Price" when there's not been a price released for the HTC Vive? You're speaking purely on conjecture.
As for VR, I'm sure LFS is amazing with nearly any VR product, given Scawen has implemented it quite well, but the Rift is substantially less advanced than what the Vive can do.
The Rift isn't much more advanced than the classic TrackIR system with a IR webcam and some head mounted IR LEDs. Just with the addition of a head mounted display. You're still fairly restricted to a pretty stationary position for motion tracking. Just because the FOV of the camera is larger, doesn't mean it does more advanced tracking, it's still a pretty unimpressive implementation that is functional, but not "revolutionary". Given that the "official" Oculus input method is a Xbox One controller at this point, and they did show off handheld controls, but those are still limited in that you have to be facing the sensor/IR emitters, which prevents full 360° freedom of motion like the Vive can do.
As for the controls, they're definitely developer hardware given Valve has been talking about how they've been shipping IR blasters that would normally fail consumer QA, but for developers some manufacturing faults are permissible to get the hardware out there. Compare some of the early Steam Controller previews to the actual fully released product and you will see that Valve does iterate on things quite rapidly, even in their games.
At this point, the Rift might as well be dead TBH. It's at least 2x the originally stated "goal" price, and it's even more expensive than buying the DK2, which provides a reasonably usable experience. Plus Oculus is a scumbag company, placing artificial software restrictions on newer versions of their SDK, which excludes a large portion of their developer community who still operate with a DX9 toolkit (like LFS now does).
Valve is a much more customer and developer friendly company, who actually attempts to do the right thing for everyone, and when they do make mistakes, they've shown time and time again that they will rectify those mistakes.
You don't need to quote the whole posts and sub-quotes you know...
I'd still would prefer 144 Hz + 3D Nvidia Vision 2 I am afraid. Sadly specifically the monitor is a large investment but this whole VR thing sounds for simracing purposes overrated. Especially the motion sickness part. With 3D glasses you can do 10+ hours without a problem (reference; https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/796127/is-nvidia-3d-vision-better-than-the-oculus-rift-at-this-time/ ) and you don't seal yourself off from the outside world.
This motion sickness thing is a big issue I think and not easily being fixed by keep hammering the brain with weird information. With first person walk around games it's less of a problem but driving.. Hmm I don't see a big future for this unless you also have a motion simulator. And... Something can be done about the road surface of LFS I suppose.. It's like a snooker table now, no feeling.
This motion sickness thing is a big issue I think and not easily being fixed by keep hammering the brain with weird information. With first person walk around games it's less of a problem but driving.. Hmm I don't see a big future for this unless you also have a motion simulator. And... Something can be done about the road surface of LFS I suppose.. It's like a snooker table now, no feeling.
Big problem in racing sims is the limited view from one monitor. A 3D monitor does not change that, it only makes the picture "more in your face." That is not comperable with VR headset where you can look out of side windows or towards apex of turn.
Headtracking has existed before, but this VR stuff is more well done because with normal headtracking you can not turn your head too far because otherwise you do not see your screen anymore. Or you have to put rotation-multiplication but then it is less natural.
But there is reasons for slow adaption, for some it might not be as nessecary.
For example tripple-screen support in LFS is quite nice and gives good view.. personally I am happy enough with that. Also some people have external "real world" dashboards or use phone for instruments or LEDs on wheel etc.
And in other areas VR will be even more popular I think. Example in flightcombat sims because you can track an enemy plane who is above you while you do a looping and so on. That is something very important in air dogfight but no really good natural solution existed.
Headtracking has existed before, but this VR stuff is more well done because with normal headtracking you can not turn your head too far because otherwise you do not see your screen anymore. Or you have to put rotation-multiplication but then it is less natural.
But there is reasons for slow adaption, for some it might not be as nessecary.
For example tripple-screen support in LFS is quite nice and gives good view.. personally I am happy enough with that. Also some people have external "real world" dashboards or use phone for instruments or LEDs on wheel etc.
And in other areas VR will be even more popular I think. Example in flightcombat sims because you can track an enemy plane who is above you while you do a looping and so on. That is something very important in air dogfight but no really good natural solution existed.
It's actually scary how much misinformation and lies you can find on the net about VR.
To start with... I've had 2 versions of TrackIR so I know exactly what it is and how well it works. It was great in its day but it's no match for VR in any way shape or form. Oculus DK2 allows me almost 360 head rotation. I can turn my head full deflection and swivel around on my seat so I'm looking ALMOST directly behind me. I would say it's about 160 degrees. If I go 180 degrees it loses tracking. Oculus CV1 has full 360 tracking since it also has tracking LEDs behind it.
"A scumbag company"?? Really? Without Palmer you wouldn't even be spouting nonsense about VR because your only option would be sony HMZ or Vuzix. Palmer has kept his promises and his release targets and achieved a lot in a short time.
"plus Oculus is a scumbag company, placing artificial software restrictions on newer versions of their SDK, which excludes a large portion of their developer community who still operate with a DX9 toolkit (like LFS now does). " << Excuse me? Artificial restrictions? DX9? Has anyone told you we're on DX12 now? DX11 has been a thing for many years. So you want to hold back VR because of an obsolete API? One that doesn't support Direct Mode. The reason Oculus doesn't support DX9 is because it doesn't support Direct mode. Extended mode is hated and detested so there are few people with reasons to bitch about it. In fact the reverse is true.. Many people can be seen getting on the backs at developers on steam who fail to upgrade their games and sims to the latest Oculus runtime.
Seriously... ditch DX9 and put it where it belongs.
You haven't tried Half moon so your comparisons and bitching about Oculus in general just read like childish personal hate towards something you clearly have no knowledge of. I'm not anti Vive... I like Valve, like Gabe, I own a HTC M8 phone, I'm sure Vive will be amazing. All of the information thus far suggests Vive will be more expensive than Oculus. Oculus DK1 and DK2 were the most advanced and cheapest consumer VR systems ever. Vive isn't officially launched yet except to very few. If Vive is priced below CV1 that will be great but it seems unlikely.
Elite Dangerous is pretty amazing with VR but Live for speed has been a surprise for me. It's perfectly smooth with no latency issues. Scaling is correct... everything life size. Makes me wish I hadn't sold my Fanatec last year.
A percentage of people are susceptible but it's actually overrated and blown out of proportion by VR haters. Largely people who are hostile to new tech that falls outside of their comfort or price range.
I've never ever had motion sickness from any Oculus game or demo. Elite Dangerous has a VR sub-forum and many Oculus + Vive players there.
"With 3D glasses you can do 10+ hours without a problem" << I just sold my 2 pairs of 3d Vision 2's and I do many hours without issue on Oculus.
I have a friend who can only play games that run at 120hz. He had to get a refund on GTA V. He's ok with CS GO and Metro last light. Guess what... He's never touched a VR HMD in his life. He's never played with 3d glasses either. So there is a percentage who will spew at the slightest provocation even just walking towards them with HMD in hand.
I also know some who have some degree of susceptibility but love the experience of VR so much that they train themselves. A little more each day.
I can use VR for any length of time without issue. Actually your FPS statement is backwards. Sickness would be more of an issue with FPS than for driving. For driving you're seated anyway. No jumping around.
Have you actually tried VR with FPS and driving?
Whats with the sexual stuff? Does it make you feel better when you say this every minute? I sometimes wonder this when I watch video's of retarded people
Ik hou van jou.
It is an artificial limitation. DX9 is perfectly supported by OpenVR (which, amusingly will support Oculus as well), which is Valve's VR library. If a third party is able to build a better VR library than Oculus can for their own hardware, doesn't that indicate that there are decisions that Oculus are making that are not user driven, and instead business driven?
DX9 is still a perfectly good graphics API, especially for the things that games like LFS use. Lots of people spread misinformation, such as how you can only do tesselation or instanced geometry with DX10/11/12, but they're wrong. DX9 is capable of that. Sure there's some edge case graphical niceties that higher levels of DX can provide, but unless you're blind, I'm sure you have noticed LFS hasn't come close to exhausting what DX9 can do, never mind DX12. Furthermore, upgrading to higher levels of DX ostracizes users who run LFS through Wine on either Linux, OS X or even BSD.
And you're right, I haven't tried any VR demos in person because Vive isn't for sale yet, so there's no VR platforms worth purchasing.
While you're declaring no VR worth purchasing until Vive comes... Entirely subjective as is your right to choose. I find this idea that one company is the enemy and produces only trash while the other represents the pinnacle of technological developer - facile.
I was using IO-Systems PC3d many years ago and the experience i get with DK2 is incredible compared to that very expensive low res, non-head tracking HMD. It hasn't taken long for an idiotic war to erupt as to which VR system to buy. Words like "vastly superior" are used to brainwash those with no experience of the tech dismiss one in favour of the other. Actually it was Bohemia Interactive who stated that DX9 is the problem with runtimes 7 and beyond.
"Furthermore, upgrading to higher levels of DX ostracizes users who run LFS through Wine on either Linux, OS X or even BSD." <<< So users who quite reasonably upgrade their GPU's to recommended spec for VR (ie. GTX 980 for Elite Dangerous) should really avoid the latest API so as not to ostracize DX9 players?
How about giving API choice in game as quite a few seem to do? I have quite a few games that allow me to switch between DX11 and DX9. DX12 brings welcome performance improvements so I certainly don't intend to stay on lower API's forever. But I do think it would be good for players to have the option to switch to DX9 in game.
It's really simple.
LFS is a 3 person team. Only 1 of which is responsible for game engine development. Scawen has worked hard to make the improvements recently to support DX9 better, along with reworking the shader system as well. It's an impossible task for him to implement a triple engine mode (as to support Linux/OS X/BSD, you'd need OpenGL as well).
Many of us do have modern GPUs that can run even new games at a level required for VR. Even my GTX970 gets nearly 500 FPS playing LFS (which is still CPU bound, not GPU bound).
LFS is a well aged project at this point. I've played or otherwise been around the LFS community for half of my life. Scawen also is pretty unique in terms of his attitude towards customers, in that most of his decisions are nearly always driven around what is best for the existing user base. The existing user base consists of a lot of users from countries where acquiring a DX12 compatible GPU is impossible.
Heck, Scawen appeared to weigh quite heavily when deciding to move to DX9, because of the increase in GPU requirements, but the level of detail added to Westhill required the ability to optimize the graphics engine.
Yes this approach may inhibit adapting to the latest and greatest graphical technologies, but it's a lot more respectable on Scawen's behalf to have built a game that will perform well on nearly any computer, versus falling prey to the problem that most modern developers fall into, where they add reflections of reflections of bloomed reflections, which makes even top end GPUs stutter down to 10 FPS, which also makes them impossible to use for VR.
There's still plenty of room for LFS to grow inside its current DX9 driven engine, both physically along with graphically. Hell, LFS is still a single threaded application! Even multi-threading will open up possibilities to improve graphics without blocking physics calculations.
LFS is a 3 person team. Only 1 of which is responsible for game engine development. Scawen has worked hard to make the improvements recently to support DX9 better, along with reworking the shader system as well. It's an impossible task for him to implement a triple engine mode (as to support Linux/OS X/BSD, you'd need OpenGL as well).
Many of us do have modern GPUs that can run even new games at a level required for VR. Even my GTX970 gets nearly 500 FPS playing LFS (which is still CPU bound, not GPU bound).
LFS is a well aged project at this point. I've played or otherwise been around the LFS community for half of my life. Scawen also is pretty unique in terms of his attitude towards customers, in that most of his decisions are nearly always driven around what is best for the existing user base. The existing user base consists of a lot of users from countries where acquiring a DX12 compatible GPU is impossible.
Heck, Scawen appeared to weigh quite heavily when deciding to move to DX9, because of the increase in GPU requirements, but the level of detail added to Westhill required the ability to optimize the graphics engine.
Yes this approach may inhibit adapting to the latest and greatest graphical technologies, but it's a lot more respectable on Scawen's behalf to have built a game that will perform well on nearly any computer, versus falling prey to the problem that most modern developers fall into, where they add reflections of reflections of bloomed reflections, which makes even top end GPUs stutter down to 10 FPS, which also makes them impossible to use for VR.
There's still plenty of room for LFS to grow inside its current DX9 driven engine, both physically along with graphically. Hell, LFS is still a single threaded application! Even multi-threading will open up possibilities to improve graphics without blocking physics calculations.
Dude, please...
What exactly makes you believe that Lighthouse is more accurate than IR cameras? How did you mesure that? Just becasue it uses lasers it's more accurate? What are you five?
Track IR was over 10 years ago, technology moves forward quickly. 10 years ago I had a 2mpx camera in my phone that could record at 176x144 resolution and now it's 16mpx and it can record at 3840 × 2160. Same goes for IR cameras. Those are much higher resolution these days and allow much higher precision over a higher field of view.
Lighthouse can track an area of 15x15 feet aka 4.5x4.5 meters using two base stations. That's nothing ground braking that goes way beyond IR tracking capabilities, really.
At this time we have absolutely no information about what would the tracking volume would be with 2 Rift CV1 cameras, so it's impossible to tell if it's better or worse than Vive in regard to tracking volume.
There is a video of Crescent Bay prototype (1 year old tech) tracking whole room with two cameras placed besides each other (not optimal setup for roomscale tracking):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXrJu-zOzm4
Rift can do roomscale VR, but they don't market it as such because they don't want to be "that company" known to general public mostly from news stories about people getting hurt while walking around the house in a blindfold wired to their PC.
Please provide some links to where they stated the goal price and where they announce that CV1 is 2x that. Please.
Just kidding, I know you won't.
Oh so you are the real VR expert who knows what is important in a VR headset.
Well put. As far as I'm concerned the graphics in LFS are good enough for the required task. I tried Project Cars on Oculus recently and even though I have a heavily overclocked CPU and GPU... It couldn't cope with that sim even when the graphics were reduced. The fact is that LFS works very well with Oculus as far as I'm concerned. Frame rate and low latency are more important than ultra pretty graphics. Some of my friends are Oculus users as well and into racing sims so I recommend the sim to them.
Speaking generally about games/sims I think backward compatibility is important or else we end up with a console-esque situation.
It's nice to have new API's for the latest games but option for lower API should always be there. Sadly some AAA developers forced players to use DX11 only.
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/oculus-vr-wants-headset-to-be-free-eventually/1100-6411471/
They were targeting the $300 price point as their originally stated goal.
Now it's "at least $300", which means it'll be closer to $500.
For $500 USD (which is nearly $700 CAD) I could buy 2 144hz displays, which would enhance the majority of games I play far far more than VR ever could. Or even a 4k display, which would also produce a notable enhancement in graphical quality of the games I play, along with my day to day usability of an OS.
It's really simple. They missed the mark completely by making it too expensive. Below or around $300 is within the realm of making it an impulsive purchase without justifying to my wife as to why I want it. $700 is just out of reach of any consumer, as the applications for VR are nowhere near diverse enough for most consumers to actually spend that much.
They were targeting the $300 price point as their originally stated goal.
Now it's "at least $300", which means it'll be closer to $500.
For $500 USD (which is nearly $700 CAD) I could buy 2 144hz displays, which would enhance the majority of games I play far far more than VR ever could. Or even a 4k display, which would also produce a notable enhancement in graphical quality of the games I play, along with my day to day usability of an OS.
It's really simple. They missed the mark completely by making it too expensive. Below or around $300 is within the realm of making it an impulsive purchase without justifying to my wife as to why I want it. $700 is just out of reach of any consumer, as the applications for VR are nowhere near diverse enough for most consumers to actually spend that much.
You're actually clueless about Oculus development. You're complaining because the CV1 is going to be more expensive than DEVELOPER kit. So what? Where did you get the $500 from? Palmer wants the CV1 to be as affordable as possible so he will do whatever he can to ensure it's lower rather than higher. He's not stupid. Also he's made it clear that the first consumer Oculus will appeal to a smaller audience because it's a new technology and prices are always higher to begin with. Oculus CV1 isn't going to be the device that everyone buys for gaming or movies. It's going to be aimed at people who understand VR and want that experience for gaming/simulation/education. You're complaining about price like a little child who's been let down because he can't get that christmas gift he wanted.
Some of the stuff that's been written here about Oculus ("scam company") is laughable. Do you know where VR was before Palmer came along with his first duct-tape prototype? It was in the hands of Sony who thought they'd keep it priced at the very extreme niche market with their HMZ (£1300+). HMZ wasn't ground-breaking in any way apart from a couple of Oleds. And yet here you are bitching because CV1 will be priced above their INSANELY low-priced developer kit. Do you have any idea how much Microsoft want for Hololens dev kits? You're one of those entitled little kiddies who rants bitterly because he thinks he's been let down. The only thing that's let you down is your ignorance about a company and their intentions. Palmer is as sincere as it gets and with him Oculus isn't a niche gimmick he wants priced at £1300 for rich kids.
He's passionate about VR and his passion is reflected in the people around him. Some of the best tech minds in the industry.
"For $500 USD (which is nearly $700 CAD) I could buy 2 144hz displays, which would enhance the majority of games I play far far more than VR ever could. " <<< Rates among the top 10 dumbest statements this year.
You think two tiny displays can match 360 degree life-size stereoscopic 3d? Someone else over at Frontier forum posted a similar comedic statement like yours in the VR section. The response was unanimous: laughter.
With conventional displays you're staring at a very small fixed window. You're on the outside looking in.
With VR you're in the simulation and everything is LIFE-SIZE. HMD VR is what Imax would like to be.
When I'm in Elite Dangerous and in combat I can look up and track that ship with natural head movements. I can track off to the sides and behind. I've owned two TRackIR and they do not compare in any way. 3d Vision is cute but it was rendered obsolete by the HMD I use. I sold both my 3d vision 2 a week after I got Oculus.
Bust your nut buying that multi monitor setup in the belief you're getting a "better experience".
The majority of games that I play don't support VR, therefore a 144hz display would enhance my gaming experience substantially more than a VR headset.
The target market for VR is small. It's been hyped a lot to make it seem like everyone and their dog will buy a VR headset, but they won't. The demand for such a device has been so overhyped, that even Oculus bought into that when remarking that they would be able to charge so little for it. It's only now that the reality of the situation has sunk in that they've had to change what they said.
So you mean if I went and posted in the Xbox subreddit that PS4 was better, I wouldn't get flamed? That's an absolutely insane example. You step into a place where everyone has become infatuated about something and say something about something they dislike, of course that's the response. If you tell someone that his wife is a **** idiot, you're likely to get punched in the face as well. That's the most framed argument I've ever seen.
The target market for VR is small. It's been hyped a lot to make it seem like everyone and their dog will buy a VR headset, but they won't. The demand for such a device has been so overhyped, that even Oculus bought into that when remarking that they would be able to charge so little for it. It's only now that the reality of the situation has sunk in that they've had to change what they said.
So you mean if I went and posted in the Xbox subreddit that PS4 was better, I wouldn't get flamed? That's an absolutely insane example. You step into a place where everyone has become infatuated about something and say something about something they dislike, of course that's the response. If you tell someone that his wife is a **** idiot, you're likely to get punched in the face as well. That's the most framed argument I've ever seen.
It has nothing to do with "over-hyped". You can't over-hype a natural evolution in display technology. Just the same as new types of motion sensors are developed, new types of tactile feedback. Those with a bitter hatred of anything but a bog standard gaming setup of course will have nothing good to say. VR will have its place alongside conventional systems. People will still want conventional displays and conventional input devices. But this new technology will certainly infiltrate and change entertainment including movies and gaming. No one with a brain expects the first generation of consumer VR to dominate anything. Right now the target market for consumer VR is small. However the growth rate is rapid. People like you who are entirely hostile to new tech will find yourselves struggling over the next three years to convince others that VR is a niche market and a gimmick. You maybe have two years more to enjoy of convincing friends and family that VR isn't a thing.
Oculus haven't changed anything... It's just the brainless who misquote and misinterpret everything. CV1 never had a price stated anymore than Vive has one. It won't be too far from DK2 in price and Palmer knows it must remain affordable. If I sold my DK2 this week it would pay outright for the CV1. So yes, although you're acting like a child because the price will be higher than DK2, the price is still very affordable in terms of VR given the development of this tech.
And you can't over-hype something that pretty much speaks for itself. Being in the game/simulation instead of watching through a tiny window. And yes, that 4k 30 inch monitor is a tiny window.
So going from "We're targeting the $300 price point right now" to "I can’t tell you that it’s going to be $350" isn't changing anything?
Wow. I wish I could be as blind as you, because then I wouldn't even need a VR headset because I'd be legally 100% blind.
Wow. I wish I could be as blind as you, because then I wouldn't even need a VR headset because I'd be legally 100% blind.
Point you're missing is that many of those Elite Dangerous players who use Oculus or Vive - upgraded from multi-monitor setups and Track-IR. The fact that they had multi-monitor setups or track-ir meant they were into simulation. Guess what... Simulation is the prime market for DK2, CV1 and Vive. PC based HMD VR appeals more to serious gamers/sim fans than casual gamers. That's partly due to it being an emerging technology at a higher price-point and because simulation fans generally want whatever it takes to increase realism. This is why the Fanatec racing wheel and pedals costs more than a CV1. That's why a serious racing sim setup will cost more than a CV1. You're complaining about a technology that most benefits serious sim fans!
So.. that guy who posted on Frontier forum VR section that triple monitor was the ultimate setup... Well those VR users already had multi-monitor setups. Just like TrackIR... it was the best technology available at the time. Things change. Technology moves on. Multi-monitor setups will remain an option for those who want them but unfortunately for you... Such setups will see a decline along with TrackIR over the coming years.
"At least $300" means "at least $300" not "closer to $500. We don't know yet how much will it cost.
If you think Vive will be cheaper than the Rift then you are setting yourself up for a big disappointment. Those fancy base stations won't do any good for the price.
I was hoping that HTC will announce something today at that Nvidia VR event, but they just shown some demos and that was it.
They were supposted to release the consumer version by the end of 2015, but it almost middle of December and we still know nothing about the consumer version - how different will it be from the devkits, price, release date - absolutely nothing. It's not looking promising.
Well one of my VR friends just informed me: HTC Vive consumer release in April.
7000 developer kits 2 in January.
It's not that I'm missing the point, it's that there is no point. I couldn't care less about what some players in a VR forum said about VR. It's like going to a Republican National Convention and asking their opinions on abortion.
Simulation fans is already easily the smallest niche out of any market. White people who play untranslated Japanese dating games is a larger market pool than simulations.
So you're creating a niche product for an already small niche. To go out and say "yeah, we're gonna make it pretty cheap" was a completely disingenuous statement. Of course now Oculus has realized this, but they've already failed. They already created impossible expectations that they cannot meet. As a consumer, I was interested when they said they were aiming for $300 as a price point (and this was pre-Facebook money). But now they have Facebook money and they're unable to hit that price point? How is that even possible.
The concept that Oculus and Microsoft have that everyone will have a VR headset or a HMD is absolutely ridiculous, which is why they're both going to end up as expensive flops.
HTC Vive - VR headset form HTC and Valve - what do you think Scawen?
(328 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG