Idea of improvment.

"spire8989" wrote:

"geekmaster" wrote:

P.S. I always had perfect scores in my university advanced math classes, so unless I made an accidental typographical error in my post, arguing with me may remain pointless and futile.

Relating scores in school to knowledge, cute. ^_^

Yeah, a high IQ is mostly good for taking IQ tests. But every now and then I have an idea that is practically useful. :D

Actually, I still remember how to add and subtract, and even do percentages, so some of those abilities have been retained. But without physics (string theory) and math (knot theory), how would be know how to tie our shoes?
:lol:

"scsioverdrive" wrote:
Given enough mirrors, wouldn't rotating the current screen halves 90 degrees be technically possible? Obviously the HMD would be HUGE. :)

Meh, I think coherent fiber optics are a better solution than a mirror or prism conglomeration.

"geekmaster" wrote:

"Tgaud" wrote:
_As we need More horizontal field of view, than vertical one.
_As the screen have to be splitted in two for each eyes.

Why not having the screen disposed vertically ?

So we would have
1080p*960 per eyes instead of 960*1080

That would be 10% more horizontal pixel, with the same screen.

Another math wizard, I see...

Rotating a 1080p screen and then splitting it vertically will give 540x1920 per eye instead of the current 960x1080, giving even LESS horizontal FoV, not more as you claim.

And 90-degree rotation while using the same division it has now, but surgically repositioning your eyes to your nose and forehead positions to work with that configuration, would leave the perceived resolution unchanged, but would also play havoc on your depth perception when you remove your HMD, and may have social acceptance implications as well.

P.S. I always had perfect scores in my university advanced math classes, so unless I made an accidental typographical error in my post, arguing with me may remain pointless and futile.

Don't be cocky pls.
You all misunderstood me.

I was speaking of still splitting the screen the way it is today, (to divide the long side in two)
So after rotating 90°, having an horizontal separation instead of a vertical one.
The left eye looking the "upper side", while the right eye look the "bottom side"

with all the work left to the optics lens, to make it normal.)
(Maybe its too complicated to have such optical design, i dont know much on this. I just know its possible, as it is possible in the reflex picture device).

so yes, it would be 1080(from left to right) *960(top to middle of the vertical screen) per eyes instead of 960*1080

No need to rotate anything, the software would just calculate two 1080*960 images and show it already rotated and placed on the screen on the right place.

so the only optical work would be to make the left eye look the upperside of the screen.

"Tgaud" wrote:
...
No need to rotate anything, the software would just calculate two 1080*960 images and show it already rotated and placed on the screen on the right place.

so the only optical work would be to make the left eye look the upperside of the screen.

Re: cocky, I cannot begin to compete with your reputation at other websites in that department. :o At least I provide valuable and useful information to go with my attitude, so perhaps it is justified. I trust my own judgement.

Regarding your proposal, WHY? Really, why? What is wrong with the current SIMPLE configuration, that could possibly be improved by your complicated method? Mirrors increase the distance between eye and screen, complicating other optics as well. The big thing the Rift has going for it over other designs IS its simplicity. Why complicate that? What benefit can there be from rotating the Rift so it is tall and narrow, perhaps covering your mouth and forehead? How do you keep your breath from condensing on the screen? Did you think this through?
:?:
If you like thinking that far outside the box, then why not put the screen behind your head and use mirrors to route the image to your eyes?

Don't get me wrong. I LIKE unusual ideas. I just recommend thinking them through a bit before proposing them, and being less argumentative when others suggest improvements.

You have never answered any of my question asking for more details in other threads either though, but chose to instead call my questions "personal attacks", so I do not really expect a useful reply from you here either. Just more of the same. I am still annoyed that you called my posts "lies" and "B.S." though. You have not called ALL of us idiots here yet though as at other websites, so perhaps there is still hope...

will you seriously intervene on all my topics to troll me ?
The forum is big enough, just ignore me plz.
You never accept to be wrong, and I don't want to talk with you.

"Tgaud" wrote:
will you seriously intervene on all my topics to troll me ?
The forum is big enough, just ignore me plz.
You never accept to be wrong, and I don't want to talk with you.

You had no problem with derailing my discussions in other threads, calling my informative (and referenced) posts "lies" and "B.S." (with no supporting evidence of your own). Plenty of your threads have no interest for me, so I did not even read them. But this one was peculiar and drew my attention to your absurd proposal. Oh well, it no longer interests me. I will ignore you again until you attack me again elsewhere, or make more absurd proposals.

And like I said above, my VALID questions (like all those others before in other threads) remain unanswered. And like before, you call my questions "trolling" and "personal attacks". Why not answer my questions? They regard the IDEA, not your unruly behavior across a bunch of forums at other websites.

yeah thanks :)

"Tgaud" wrote:
yeah thanks :)

That answers no questions... Like usual... But nice to see the "smiley" icon. :)

But still, I really do want to know the answer to these two unanswered questions:

What benefit can there be from rotating the Rift so it is tall and narrow, perhaps covering your mouth and forehead? How do you keep your breath from condensing on the screen?

Otherwise, what is the purpose of this thread?

While I agree with everyone here that I came to the same conslusion as them at first what I think the op has in mind is this:

(Current setup on the left, his suggestion on the right)


Green is what the left eye sees, red is the right eye.

With this setup there would be no need to rotate anything, just some fancy optics to align the image of the top of the screen to the left eye and the image from the bottom of the screen to the right.

I agree that any way you interpret it though that it overcomplicates what is currently a very simple system.

"RoyMi6" wrote:
...
With this setup there would be no need to rotate anything, just some fancy optics to align the image of the top of the screen to the left eye and the image from the bottom of the screen to the right.

I agree that any way you interpret it though that it overcomplicates what is currently a very simple system.

Hmm... The OP said this:

"Tgaud" wrote:
Why not having the screen disposed vertically ?

The definition of "disposed" is

"