Beyond 1080p screens - Path to 4K uncertain for Oculus?

"MrAdun" wrote:
...of games from 2013.

My computer can run HL2 at all settings on high in 4K, easy. Or spread across 3 displays, easy. But that game is 9 years old. Sure, GPU power increases exponentially, but so do game engines to take advantage of all that power--advanced shaders, light calculation, AI offloading, physics calculations, etc.

And you can't really compare PS3 hardware. It never changes, which means developers can learn how to take advantage of it over time. The PC market is constantly changing and you have thousands of different potential configurations. That level of optimization is unrealistic.

I'm pretty sure the Oculus VR team knows about foveated imaging, but eye tracking isn't exactly easy, especially in a set of darkened eye goggles! :P I agree with you 100%, that's probably the next step to hit the 100+ FPS mark to eliminate flickering in low-persistence displays. Cramming eye tracking into that mask is going to be a challenge though!

you are mixing up 2011 games with sth like Crysis 3 which is a next gen game.
And you forgot that those 2011 games that i could play with 4times the res were already cranked up graphicalwise.(veryhigh much better than PS3 style)
And so will i be able to do in another 5 years at 4k. (don't forget mantle here)
Believe it, PCs are evolving faster than we can think. We are not meant to think exponentially. But sometimes we have to remind ourselves of that.

@raidho36

i really hope you're right. :D

I'd think 60 fps to be safe. I wouldn't feel comfortable with waiting ~30ms to update, from a programming standpoint, anyway.

@cerebral: What kind of computer do you have, dude?
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-7790-bonaire-performance,3462-4.html

Midrange. We're talking about consumer equipment, people who buy $1000 in video cards don't count, that market is way too niche. And 5 years from now, a midrange card will probably be able to destroy Crysis 3, but will it the games of 2019? That's what I'm saying. The average consumer is not going to want to play a 7 year old game with their brand new VR headset. They want to play modern games, and average consumers are not going to be able to do that at high resolutions.

EDIT:
Actually this is a better link http://www.anandtech.com/show/7503/the-amd-radeon-r9-270x-270-review-feat-asus-his/10

Modern cards, 5 year old game, finally hits 60 fps

1000$ cards stand in no reasonable price/performance ratio to cards for 300$.
They cost 3 times more but are only 20% faster. So that's not a good comparision.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/battlefield_4_vga_graphics_performance_benchmark,8.html

A r9 280x costs now 250$ and gets without mantle update 50 FPS. Look at the Titan. Notice anything?

Yeah, I noticed the $500 290x card is barely scraping 60fps at 1440. Hardware and game from the same point in time. Translate that 5 years from now. 60 fps average is not acceptable, that's a minimum for VR.

I think eye tracking would be awesome to mitigate this since GPU hardware is not going to be sufficient to drive higher density displays.

yeah , but this is a next gen game. Does the PS3 offer those graphical features, of course not.

"raidho36" wrote:
Actually the eye moves really slow. What to you appear as an instantanous eye twitch, appear as a smoothed out slow movement to an external observer. This is due to cassadic masking. So provided optical tracking can do at least 30 fps scanning, that wouldn't be an issue.

I'm not too sure about that. I'm pretty sure it would take alot more FPS to track eye movements. Probably somewhere near 120+ FPS is what I think seems like a more appropriate number

"MrAdun" wrote:
The average consumer is not going to want to play a 7 year old game with their brand new VR headset.

Speak for yourself

"Jossos" wrote:

"MrAdun" wrote:
The average consumer is not going to want to play a 7 year old game with their brand new VR headset.

Speak for yourself

You're on a forum dedicated to a piece of computer hardware that's not released yet; you're not the average consumer.

The problem with the average consumer and 4K+ isn't that they don't want to play old games, but they have a GPU that isn't capable of delivering 60fps+ onto a 4K+ screen. That's still a long way down the road.

For those of you comparing performance to even more recent games, please consider we will be driving 1080p stereoscopically ! Rendering a scene from different perspective for each eye. So trying to judge future performance based on a previous flat screen games performance is like comparing apples to oranges :)

At the moment no one (i am aware of) has finished a AA quality game with all the mechanics (AI, pathfinding, dynamic lighting, soundtracks, FX, particles, interactions, shader effects and other GPU/CPU hitters) and gameplay to a standard that we would expect from a current flat-screen game on the DK1 hardware. So we cant even be sure what the minimum PC specs will be now, let alone at higher res.

Till then it's just;
build, profile, optimise, test, hope :)
then repeat.

Oh and if anyone would like to buy me a pair of SLI'd Geforce Titans I promise to share the test results :lol:

I