Hey everyone,

Im completely new to the gaming scene and want to buy a set up to allow me to run live for speed on the oculus. I have looked online and found some bundles ready to go but i'm not sure whether there is a better or cheaper alternative. I know nothing about gaming pcs so would really appreciate your help. the links are below:

https://www.oculus.com/oculus-ready-pcs/#pc-offers

https://www.walmart.com/ip/Oculus-Rift-ASUS-Oculus-Ready-G11CD-WS51-Desktop-PC-Bundle/109306660?wmlspartner=wlpa&selectedSellerId=360&adid=22222222227041298590&wl0=&wl1=g&wl2=c&wl3=106025647637&wl4=aud-310687322322:pla-291436927277&wl5=9014255&wl6=&wl7=&wl8=&wl9=pla&wl10=111839986&wl11=online&wl12=109306660&wl13=&veh=sem

Pretty much any decent PC can run LFS even in VR.

The question is if you want to run other things aswell, if you don't then that PC is overkill, if you do then this is the minimum requirement.

You say you are not into PC's, if you feel up to the challenge of building your own you would get much better components for the same price or less.

Example: (first google result didn't thoroughly check it but looks ok at a glance) http://pcgamehaven.com/best-900-dollar-gaming-pc-build/ 900$ + 400$ for rift and touch = same price, faster CPU, faster GPU, faster RAM + SSD.

The PC bundle you linked is also about 2 years old, you can probably get this used for a much better price.

A computer that is well below their minimum spec will also run an Oculus without any problems. For instance, my DK2 ran perfectly on my i5-4590 with a GTX660 2G GPU (Fatal1ty H97 mobo, 16G DDR3 ram - built for NZ$900 (US$750) in 2014).

Once you get started in VR though, you'll definitely be playing other stuff, in which case I'd recommend getting a more powerful GPU, as the CV1 resolution and refresh rate is a bit higher than the DK2's. But don't buy a "package" - they charge premium prices for low-quality components in order to make as much profit as possible.

I have oculus CV1, Ryzen 5 1400, GTX 1060 3GB, 16GB ram, 512GB NVMe SSD and it runs LFS perfectly. In assetto corsa it has some troubles to keep 90fps, but with some gfx details lowering (about medium to high) it's fine.

On the other hand, I do regret buying this oculus. I wasted a lot of money (it was about 600eur few years ago) on something that I do not even use, it gives me motion sickness within 10min. It gets quite unconfortable for longer than 20min. The lens gets fogy quite quickly if you sweat a lot. The screen resolution is bad - not for a racing sim, you only see ok near, while in distance everything is blured and pixelated. Comparison is as if you run 1280x720 on a full HD screen. The lenses are ok but still bad. It gives great 3D immersion and ability to walk out of the car and lie next to it is awesome, but it gets old quickly. If you really want to race then low field of view, chromatic and other lens aberrations are a killer for me. There are probably already much better VR headsets with 2x4k screens, I guess that would be ok, but you need a monster PC for it. This tech is still in its infancy, there is still a long long way to go. I will note that VR implementation in LFS is so far the best one I have ever seen in any game, you really do have a feeling that you are there in the car.

All in all, you are much better off with some good monitor/s, like the one from above, but that's just me.

Honestly... The Quest 2 is a decent step up, although the Facebook requirement is less than desirable. The resolution more or less removes the "screen door" effect. The FOV is still lower than ideal, but it also means that you don't need a monster PC to handle it. The slight reduction in FPS (82 by default, but supports up to 120) helps negate the increase in resolution.

I race exclusively in VR, and have for the last 3 years (mostly iRacing), and I started with a CV1 and moved to a Quest 2 about 4 months ago. Nice part about Quest 2 is that the requirements are still fairly reasonable, with my 1660Ti handling AC, LFS and iRacing with ease. Upgrading my CPU from a Intel 4770k to Ryzen 5600x was the difference in iRacing between "usually 90fps with some dips" to "always 90fps"

With some of the higher tier headsets (Valve Index, Reverb G2, PiMax), you're basically required to have a 30 series nVidia GPU which are hard to come by (I'm checking my local retailer daily). These headsets have better graphical fidelity and have the benefit of being unencumbered by Facebook.

Personally I find VR to be the main reason why I got back into sim racing as everything feels natural. A single monitor is too constraining, especially at some tracks like COTA where having the freedom to look towards the apex is vital.

As for VR implementation, I agree that LFS is the best as things like mirrors feel the most natural. iRacing does a pretty good job, but constrains the player to a fairly tight .5 metre cube and will instead shift the viewport entirely rather than allow you to escape that cube, which is fine while racing.

The iRacing mirrors leave a bit to be desired as I don't think they're properly rendered from both eyes, and instead share a single rendering, but for the most part that's fine and only is a real issue with cars where the mirror is close to your face (MX5). iRacing does support some good technology like SPS to improve frame rates on compatible GPUs (20 series GPUs which includes the 1660Ti).