How does this thing actually look? Yesterday I tried one of those phone setups and while the screen is quite good, the actual picture quality was very underwhelming. The resolution is 2560 x 1440 with 577ppi, which is actually more than what the Vive or Rift will have I think, so I'm curious how these devices compare to what I saw. There was still slight screen door going on. The actual headset probably wasn't that great either, it was some Chinese set with like 90 degree fov but I don't know how much that would affect the image quality
>>321390442
>>321389798
I think 1440p is what the consumer Rift is aiming for. The Vive is supposed to be two screens, each with a resolution of 1080x1440 I think, giving a total of 2160x1440.
The screendoor effect however, doesn't really come from the resolution, but from the space between the pixels. Good displays will have less space between the pixels, giving less of a screendoor effect. Since the panels are from HTC and Samsung respectively I wouldn't worry about the screendoor effect on the consumer models.
I doubt we can give you a fair comparison to the phone setup one you tried, since barely anyone has tried the latest models of Valve and Oculus. The Vive was only sent to select developers and the available Rift is still DK2 (which was only 1080p).
>>321389798
HTC says they have reached a breaktrough with the vive, perhaps it is in pixel density,
>>321389798
You should wait for gen 2 or 3. The rift's screen door isn't that noticeable, but you're still dealing with pixels that are too big
palmer has been doing damage control on twitter for couple of days now, apparently rift is going to be a lot more expensive than what they been saying for years now
I'm so fucking excited for this.
Once I hear "Yes it's decent" I'ma buy it immediately.
I don't even know what I'd play with it. I just want that sweet virtual reality.
Fuck I wish Pax didn't have 2 hour lines for the oculus
>>321390647
I think they realized that with the Vive selling for 600 to 800 Dollars, they would be able to jack the price up. Though the tweet I have seen wasn't saying that the Rift would be more expensive, he said that people can't expect to buy a VR heatset and then use a cheap low-power PC to play it.
>>321390652
>girls are going to give you disgusted looks in VR
so real
>>321390743
just today he that if they didn't have facebooks backing they would have to ask around $1000 for it.
>>321389798
Rift would have a lower resolution of around 2160x1200, 1080x1200 per eye.
Not sure about the Vive apparently they use similar display resolution.
The reason they are a lower resolution is because of the higher frame rate required and because GPUs are not up to snuff, you would need an extreme multiGPU setup to run at 1440p in VR.
The reason being a lot of the tradition optimization techniques get thrown out the window so the hardware has to brute force most of the process. This will change in due time.
Currently the image sent to display is rendered at higher framerate than display resolution then distorted and down sampled to better fit the display and optics. It has to do this whilst maintaining a stable framerate of 90Hz so you don't get motion sick.
You will still notice a screen door effect if you look hard for it, but apparently it is much better than DK2. Still has a long way to go, it seems GPUs are the biggest hinderance at the moment
>>321390919
But that's a "would have" meaning it won't most likely. I thought that was the whole point of the facebook deal anyway.
>>321391086
of course, but if it would be that expensive without backing, no way even facebook billions can push it to 350-400 that people were expecting.
it's probably gonna cost around 600-700 if not more.
>>321389798
I'll get a VR headset once they hit 4k per eye, which should be affordable in the next few years. 1440 is still too low 4 me.
>>321391869
4K HMDs in a few years will be possible, only a matter of time until they can achieve high enough refresh rate.
The problem is getting a single GPU that can run at that kind of resolution at 90Hz or higher. I doubt GPUs will be able to achieve that anytime soon, perhaps in 5 years time.
>>321392034
closer to 10
>>321392034
>5 years
Even if moore's law was still valid it'd be way more than that
>>321392094
>>321392186
Nvidia and amd are holding out. Bet they have good tech but are slowly giving 10% performance each year
>>321391868
My pain threshold is $500, because at that price I can get a budget 28" 4K@60Hz TN panel monitor which is a safer investment because I can 100% guarantee it will not end up picking dust due to lack of content.
I am hoping it doesn't exceed $550~600 with touch included. under $500 without touch is as much as I am willing to stake.
>>321392034
Foveated rendering, friend. The future is grand. We can save ridiculous rendering power by tracking users eyes. Second gen VR headsets are going to use less than 1/3 the rendering power on the same level of quality by dynamically scaling resolution based on where your eyes are focusing. We could pull 4k today if the eyetracking was up for it.
>>321392034
the main reason why I'd get get a 4k HMD is for the VR cinema which i can watch when I'm lying in bed.
>>321392415
What the fuck are you even talking about
The actual manufacturers are reaching physical barriers of manufacturing precision, you just can't fit more stuff on a single board
>>321392513
who knows, SONY might make one of those visors they discontinued at 4k resolution.
Shouldn't be anywhere near as demanding as VR if it is just for watching movies without headtracking.
>>321391868
>it's probably gonna cost around 600-700 if not more.
Got a source on that though?
>>321393574
there was yesterday a thread on reddit where someone with "insider sources" claimed that rift is going to go for $649. everyone thought he was a troll until palmer started doing damage control on twitter.
palmer even came to one of the thread where people were discussing that price and didn't deny it.
>>321394212
650, Christ it costs more than a ps3
>>321389798
http://vr.mkeblx.net/oculus-sim/
With low persistence enabled, this is actually quite accurate from my experience with a DK1 and DK2.
>>321394212
That doesn't seem like a legit source though, and the twitter comments weren't specifically saying the Rift will be expensive, bit instead that VR will be expensive. As said before, Palmer referred specifically to people thinking they can get a headset and don't need to fork out for a powerful PC.
>>321396147
well, yeah. these are nothing but rumours and we won't know anything for sure until preorders roll out Q1.
but thing is, he was in the thread. don't you think he would have said something if these were wildly off course?
Rift being 600 dollars kills my interest. 400 was my sweet spot. 500 I could begrudgingly justify, but be unhappy about. 600+? Nah. I'll wait for the buyer's regret ebay listings.
>>321397207
He can't get into talks about prices since it would just lead to more questions and speculations. Common business strategy at that point is to just ignore rumors. We'll know very soon what the real price is.
People that buy right at the start are dumb anyway. Better wait till both the Vive and the Rift are available and reviews are in, then choose the better option.
>>321397764
Seems legit. Like some guy months ago claiming he worked with the Vive and it'll cost 2k.
