Forum Discussion
CV1 Refresh rate
hi, I wanted to ask a question a little specific.
in the final version of oculus rift, you can set the screen frequency? for example between 75hz and 90hz.
in this way, at least at first, you can do the opportunity to test their product even in dk2, and be sure it will work at 75hz.
I ask this because having received no response, and not having a CV1 to test 90hz on my product, I can not be sure that the early indie products works properly.
Thank you for your work and sorry for bad English
in the final version of oculus rift, you can set the screen frequency? for example between 75hz and 90hz.
in this way, at least at first, you can do the opportunity to test their product even in dk2, and be sure it will work at 75hz.
I ask this because having received no response, and not having a CV1 to test 90hz on my product, I can not be sure that the early indie products works properly.
Thank you for your work and sorry for bad English
4 Replies
- No, I believe the CV1 is just 90Hz. If you need to test your app on a DK2 and want to test for performance on CV1, set your eye buffer scaling to 1.25 and check if frame times are 11ms or less.
"cybereality" wrote:
No, I believe the CV1 is just 90Hz. If you need to test your app on a DK2 and want to test for performance on CV1, set your eye buffer scaling to 1.25 and check if frame times are 11ms or less.
I really hope it is a hardware limitation, because, if 75hz is less good than 90hz, it is an easy lever for performance. And i believe a very good steady 75hz experience is better than a shitty 90hz one. Oculus should just let the user decide and scale to his hardware, in the case it is only a software bridle !
Off topic, cybereality, are you just a forum moderator or an employee, because, all your post are evasive, "i believe", "i don't think". And it adds to the frustration of the void in technical answer oCulus put themselves.- @galopin: It was a decision to target only 90Hz as it seemed to provide the best experience in terms of comfort. So developers need to optimize their games to hit performance. However, asynchronous timewarp does wonders to smooth out infrequent frame drops (but won't completely save you if you are consistently missing perf).
I am both a forum moderator, and an employee. Been here for like 3 years now. I try not to give definitive answers unless I know 100% for sure what the correct answer is. Many times, there can be some internal debate about what features we are or are not supporting, and these can sometimes change day to day. So I don't like to confirm things if it's possible they can change or if I'm not positive myself. - Ok, but in that case, it is definitely not a good way to communicate i believe, if something is not certain, you should stick to a no comment rule, because evasive answers only build expectation and frustration. The problem is that we are 3 weeks from launch, any non definitive answer get even scarier. Any answer you give now should be certain, or "let me ask" before providing the answer from someone you knows.
For the refresh rate, it depends on how the hardware react, 60Hz is not enough, but the 75hz of the dk2 was quite acceptable, of course 90hz and 120hz are better ( i experiment with them on playstation vr ), but i still believe that if it is not a hardware limitation, it should an option to the user.
Also, i really dislike async timewarp, it make the ghosting of dynamic objects super disturbing to me, and just like any temporal "fixes" for temporal techniques ( like antialiaising ) it is an endless fight to solves everything, and it will not happen, as the warp is a black box and only a full integration in a render frame, capable of every tricks, with motion vectors, previous frames poses, and every piece of knowledge can achieve a good job, and it is never bullet proof at 100%.
