120hz or 1080p ++?

I think A higher resolution, would be by far, the nicest improvement on what it so far blown my socks off. It is annoying that the realism breaks down when one get up close to objects in the world and the details doesn't hold up on close object and the object can disappear at long range.

High frame rates are only a boon to 3D interlacing (Which the Rift has elegantly side stepped) and maybe for the latency improvement this would have for gamers.

But to be able to see the world in sharp focus right up close could allow the creation of virtual art galleries and museums and host of other opportunities.

For the consumer Rift, I'd have to say the order of importance is:

1080p
6DOF headtracking
120hz (and lower latency)

But most importantly, resolution higher than 1080p must come later.

I say this not because I think 1080p is a great plenty (it is not!), but because mainstream gaming machines won't be able to provide a very good experience at a higher resolution. Heck, a lot of people will have to upgrade their systems to have an optimal experience with the consumer rift as it is!

I want 1KHz 8K displays (and a backtop computer to drive them)... :o

Dont forget its a normal single 1080p for both eyes.
Its different than most 3D game where two 1080p are calculated (one for each eye)

What is 6DOF headtracking ?
Is it positional head tracking ?

Does it need hardware modification ? Or can we have it only by software ?


I'm trying to get "head - positional - tracking" with the rift, whitout modifying it. Just by software.
Is it possible ?

"Tgaud" wrote:
I'm trying to get "head - positional - tracking" with the rift, without modifying it. Just by software.
Is it possible ?

Didn't we "discuss" this before? I am convinced it is possible within certain constrained limits (useful for gaming, but not for free roaming). I have enough working little "proof of concept" experimental code pieces to prove (to myself) that I can do it sufficiently well to be useful for VR gaming, with no additional hardware.

My game is growing slowly, while time-slicing between development on the many sub-components of the game. Basically, I am developing my own custom VR gaming engine, based on multiple ideas claimed by others to be impossible. That takes time, but it is coming together fast enough to give me great personal satisfaction.

The positional head tracking of which you ask will be part of my game engine. I never allow known limits of possibility to stand in my way. Such limits are subject to change...
:D

Well I would be VERY interested to test a technical demo of it.

Even if its nothing (like the demo room of the occulus where there is only a red caracter, a door, and a car)

I just want to know what it feel to "be in the matrix".

Its so frustrating actually to move my head forward, and not being able to see the things from closer.
Or to look behind an object by bending myself, and not being able to move my "inside" head.

Even if your demo works only when we sit down on a chair, its ok for me.

And yeah, i'm convince it can work as long as your have multiples accelerometers.
You just have to assume the person doesn't move his feets in the reality/stay sit in a chair.

And the only awckward behavior should happen only if the player actually move his feets and move inside the (real) room.

a higher res screen. i havent noticed any real "ghosting" issues people have stated, i havent noticed them at all more or less. the high res screen is a must.

I saw a video from CES in January demoing a 6.1" Sharp WQXGA 2560x1600 smartphone screen, and immediately thought of this. The size is right, resolution is off the charts, PPI is over 500, and sounds like the perfect fit for Oculus. No clue if its PenTile or not, and the only thing that I could see causing issues is that it is 16:10, versus the 16:9 of the FHD Oculus at E3. I could so see this being the consumer Oculus screen.

Both. Obviously.

While 120Hz is indeed crucial, a higher resolution will help fight nausea more in the short term (higher PPD). Assuming the average computer will struggle running current games at 60fps, more resolution is the way to go for now. There's almost zero point in prefering 120Hz equipment if 99% of the high end computers can't render the heaviest games at that fps. Also reducing the latency and making the rift wireless is more crucial than anything else.

2Khz panel with 14mpixels per eye ftw :P

"huntinator7" wrote:
I saw a video from CES in January demoing a 6.1" Sharp WQXGA 2560x1600 smartphone screen, and immediately thought of this. The size is right, resolution is off the charts, PPI is over 500, and sounds like the perfect fit for Oculus. No clue if its PenTile or not, and the only thing that I could see causing issues is that it is 16:10, versus the 16:9 of the FHD Oculus at E3. I could so see this being the consumer Oculus screen.

2560x1600 is the way to go for the commercial verion :)