120hz or 1080p ++?

I would honestly like them to have at least 1080p and very low latency for the first version of the rift.

I will easily run all of my games at over 120 fps on 1080p, so adding the 120hz display would be amazing.
Even if the price is raised to 500 - 600 dollars, it is still a great bargain.

They could always release a 60hz version and a 120hz version. Not everyone will have pcs that can fully utilize the 120hz.

"uwontprevail" wrote:
I would honestly like them to have at least 1080p and very low latency for the first version of the rift.

I will easily run all of my games at over 120 fps on 1080p, so adding the 120hz display would be amazing.
Even if the price is raised to 500 - 600 dollars, it is still a great bargain.

They could always release a 60hz version and a 120hz version. Not everyone will have pcs that can fully utilize the 120hz.

Why would they release a 120hz version and a 60hz version? that makes no sense at all. The user could simply choose the refresh rate they wish to play their game on if they feel their computer won't be able to sustain a higher framerate.

Also, at 500-600 dollars it might be a "bargain" compared to other HMD's before the rift came along. But it would kill any chance VR has at becoming a mainstream product, which is what the team at Oculus is (wisely) aiming for.

But anyway, don't get your hopes up about a 120hz panel.
A 120Hz screen would mean that they either found a 1080p or higher resolution panel that is TN (that as far as i know doesn't exist on those sizes) or that they convinced Samsung to sell them their OLED panels, which is even more unlikely.

I think the Chinese display manufacturer "AUO" actually has a 1080p RGB AMOLED, but i think it's just a prototype. Which means that they either don't have the way to mass produce them, or they need a big, fat client for them to mass produce it so they can justify the cost. (and i don't think Oculus VR fits the big, fat client description. At least for now)

No matter what improved panel resolution or refresh rate they pump out, it's still going to be a significant challenge for developers to get their games and simulations running to match the hardware. In fact, it's already difficult to get games to run on the Rift DK and stay above 60FPS even on high-end hardware.

At Quakecon in August, Carmack talked about quite a bit in his keynote, I went back through some of it this morning and marked a few of the more relevant bits I remembered. In particular listen to the Valve prototype, or just skip straight to the Game FPS bit.

Latency and resolution - 46m57s
HMD resolution - 50m15s
Refresh rates - 51m1s
Valve Prototype and persistence - 54m13s
Game FPS and Time Warping - 1h30s

A couple days later was the announcement that he was now an official member of the team and they're opening an office in Dallas for him. My hope is that the time warping research he was talking about is one of the things they're working hard towards. The possibilities certainly excite.

"tlopes" wrote:
No matter what improved panel resolution or refresh rate they pump out, it's still going to be a significant challenge for developers to get their games and simulations running to match the hardware. In fact, it's already difficult to get games to run on the Rift DK and stay above 60FPS even on high-end hardware.

It change nothing

on a 1080p screen, a normal game run at 120hz (starcraft 2 for example, old of severals years now...)

In the rift its the same.
When you consider the total number of pixel to calculate it will never be more than a basic 1080p image.. at 120hz.. like starcraft does.. (to take a very famous and common game, running good on almost all computers)

Nothing unachievable, its only basic stuff right now.