120hz or 1080p ++?

"Godselite2" wrote:
There is a company who says they have created a 210 degree FOV.http://www.roadtovr.com/2013/08/14/infiniteye-210-degree-hmd-prototype-contest-vote-7508

If these guys can do it, I wonder if the Oculus Team is working on a larger FOV. That would be an area of improvement.
1. HD
2. Higher FOV
3. Better Latency

its a two screen technology.

"KBK" wrote:

"geekmaster" wrote:

I mean, 1080p smartphones will be 'so last year' in about 6 months.

I hope you are right... Apple doesn't seem to be interested in a higher resolution iPhone (which by the way, as good as it is, i can STILL see the pixels from time to time, but only during motion)

But at least we know manufacturers outside of apple are interested in 1080p at small sizes, and we know that sharp has a 2560x1600 prototype that is supposed to hit the market next year.

To me the question is not if this is technically possible. We know they can probably go much further now that they seem to be on the moore's law bandwagon; at least for pixel density.
The question to me is if these screens will have enough demand. A lower resolution screen would need less power, and at those sizes a lot of phone vendors might not see a reason to have more pixels if they think people won't notice the difference. (take the new moto X for instance, it's "only" 720p, but they argue it benefits battery life)

But lets say, for the sake of argument that 2560x1600 becomes the standard for high end phones next year. What would come after that?
I don't think manufacturers will see an incentive to make a 5-6" 4k panel for smartphones. So we better hope VR becomes a big enough hit that they make them because holodeck.*

*meme

Higher resolution is more important to producing finished games of the quality gamers expect. Currently, in order to make HUD elements readable, they have to be gigantic. For example, my game has a minimap in the top right of the HUD, which to be readable would get in the way of the player's aim. So right now you play with a spotter to read your HUD to you lol.

There are a lot of possibilities in enhancing the current Rift hw configuration.
My hope is they will produce two models of the Rift: a consumer/lite one, and a pro one.
The first model could fit the 300$ or much less with a 1080p display and nothing else.
The pro model could have all the expensive features we want:

- higher field of view like the infiniteye (this is a great feature to have, to be fully immersed and not having a binocular effect). Could be done with two monitors or a large flexible one and a different set of lenses.
- 120 hz display
- a good display with black that is black
- 2560 horizontal resolution with no grid effect
- head positional tracking

THAT could be expensive :D

Here is why why sould have 1080p+ :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=VtLuStcTRXQ#at=80


just get this raytracing engine to use the exact resolution of the rift and nothing more, to gain some FPS, and it would be the most amazing VR. possible.

"Tgaud" wrote:
Here is why why sould have 1080p+ :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=VtLuStcTRXQ#at=80


just get this raytracing engine to use the exact resolution of the rift and nothing more, to gain some FPS, and it would be the most amazing VR. possible.

Whoa, what a small world... i just "discovered" this tech demo myself today. (by the way, this is called path tracing)

Anyway, it's obvious that's the future of real time rendering, it's so simple... And so computing intensive.
This is the future of both lightning and physics... Just get atoms to do everything, it scales PERFECTLY with multiple cores, so there's no need to worry about squeezing every little bit of single threaded performance.
A similar technique has been employed for physics, and it's also a lot simpler than the way they do physics today, but also much more compute intensive.

This is eventually how everything will be rendered, but as you can see from the demo, we're not quite there yet, we need at least 3-5 performance doublings to happen before we see this used in some games.
If there was ever an excuse to build a 32 core CPU and get multiple videocards this is it... this would scale perfectly the more hardware you throw at it.

But yeah, this isn't coming to VR anytime soon. Maybe in 10 years? Remember, for VR we're aiming for 120hz. i tried running a demo that's available for download using this engine, and it works... but to make it go smooth the noise becomes unbearable.

I see this being the perfect application for something like cloud gaming, where having the whole farm for a single player would yield photo-realistic results... (of course they'd have to charge like 10 dollars for about 10 minutes of gameplay... but they could make a very interesting 10 minute experience that takes your breath away)

Its depend. If you decrease the resolution (less ray to be calculated) you can have a much better framerate.
Having this technology with the rift resolution, we could be nearly 60FPS on good computers.
And this would be amazing.


120FPS is only usefull with a fast head movment producing a massive travelling.
If we're cool and just move slowly, relax, we can enjoy a perfect VR at 60hz.

"Tgaud" wrote:
Its depend. If you decrease the resolution (less ray to be calculated) you can have a much better framerate.
Having this technology with the rift resolution, we could be nearly 60FPS on good computers.
And this would be amazing.


120FPS is only usefull with a fast head movment producing a massive travelling.
If we're cool and just move slowly, relax, we can enjoy a perfect VR at 60hz.

Yeah... I'm not convinced i want super-realistic graphics at the resolution of the dev kit. The dev kit's resolution is simply not acceptable at a 90 degree (or higher) field of view.

Of course not !
I wasnt speaking of a devkit resolution.
but a 1080p one (in total), why not !

I seriously doubt even a high end setup could do path tracing with an acceptable level of noise and quality at 120 FPS. But in just a few generations more it should be possible.