2160×1200 Everyone is fine with that?

[sarfios]

Hey folks,

Is everyone fine with the final resolution of 2160x1200? I've heard a lot of blahblah, how resolution is not everything in VR, but as owning DK2 right now and having 1920x1080

These 90 hz are the biggest improvement? worth to even consider getting it?

I know a lot of people will start saying how shallow I should be for care for that only but... really not even 1440p? We've waited 3 years for almost for that?

It's clear that in order to adopt the VR from the masses and become a thing in the future it should be more accessible and stuff... but ffs we had 1440p from a mobile PHONE VR back in 2014, but in 2016 we will get less than 1440p for DESKTOP?

WAW

I guess VR won't be ready in the next 2-3 years, when 10/14nm CPU/GPU start popping up and having 4/5k phone displays available.

[RonsonPL]

mrmonkeybat

It was almost morning when I wrote the post above, and sure enough, I forgot to write "in the near future". It should be:

Until some company states that it plans to produce something in the near future, that doesn't rely on LCD technology and is capable of 120+fps without any motion blur
For now:
Wiki:

At present, they are used only to filter light from LEDs to backlight LCDs, rather than as actual displays.

I've read your link, but just the possibility is not good enough. There's a possibility to produce SEDs/FEDs and better OLEDs and it's just being ignored because manufacturers think noone wants the quality and the investment would bring loss of money, since all that matters nowadays is mass-market, where price is 10000x more important than quality and high quality is less desired than some stupid gimmicks (LED, smart features in LCD TVs for example).

Level 1: "we can do this" = I'm 1% interested.
Level 2: "we will do this within next few years" = 50% interested
Level 3: "we surely will do this and sell it with prices achievable by individuals, not just TV studios and army, which are able to pay 20 000$ for one display" = 100% interested

I'm sorry to be so sceptical, but I've got burned painfully by SED/FED news. So much hope for so many years... and nothing.
Anyone remembers this site:
http://www.sed-tv-reviews.com/
?

[Chivas]

"RonsonPL" wrote:
@mrmonkeybat

I'll take 2000p display over 8000p with motion blur.
Until some company states that it plans to produce something that doesn't rely on LCD technology and is capable of 120+fps without any motion blur, I'm not interested in any of the display's good sides. That's why I play 2D games on my TN monitor instead of VA or IPS. TN still image quality is awful compared to the CRTs. And yet overall, in gaming, it's much better than IPS/VA monitors. In VR motion quality is even more important.
Besides, this technology seems to add a lot to the cost of end-user price.
Just remember that OLED was supposed to be 'very cheap, cheaper even than LCDs". Those were the words I've read about 10 years ago and... Well... In 2015 still I don't have OLED monitor/TV in my house, for some reason. 😉



@Chivas

Well, something tells me you guys would defend any decission, as long as it's the decission of the beloved Oculus. 😉
I wouldn't call that a perfectly good reason. Far from it, actually. 😉


@snowdog
Yeah, and in 2200 VR will be even better, but I'll be dead then, so it's kind of not so much interesting to me. 😉
Likewise, I will dead as a gamer in 2025. I've waited 13 years for truly surround sound (first 4.1 5.1 and 6.1 speaker setups with proper game and hardware support), and then a few years later I was banned from enjoying it by hearing problems. That's infuriating. Knowing this feeling, I really wouldn't want to get 8K 180°FOV VR when my vision is already capped at 480p. Not everybody is lucky Palmer Luckey to be young and have 30-40 years of gaming future.

No, Oculus bases their decisions on actual facts, not what you think the facts are. So would I give more credence to the developer than some guy on the internet, of course I would. Its very easy to sit back, and ridicule a decision when you have no idea what all the factors were that went into that decision. Do I agree with everything Oculus does, of course not, but the simple fact that Vive and Oculus have based their first consumer version on the same type and resolution display should tell you something. That said there is far more to a VR display than type and res, so if I were you I would wait until those custom specs are released before ridiculing their display decisions. People don't seem to understand there are always compromises that have to be made especially in early development of new tech.

[Chivas]

I'm sure there will be more than a few people waiting for next generation HMD's with better resolution/specs. I'm also sure that if Oculus has built hundreds of input prototypes, to find a setup that works best, they've also experimented with every display type/pixel setup available to find out what works best within the restraints of todays computers capabilities, custom lenses, and optics software.

[RonsonPL]

Chances for much better res/FOV in CV2 are getting smaller IMHO:

Palmer Luckey's recent tweet:
https://twitter.com/PalmerLuckey/status ... 2265283584

1st gen headsets are tasked with convincing the world that it wants VR. Many people will wait a gen or two to adopt, and that is okay.

DISCLAIMER: It could be about two things, not exactly about what I think it is. But it's another thing that hints at the same scenario, so I think my interpretation has high chance to be valid:
Look at this:
"or two"
Another hint that for people who wait for all 3 major flaws* of CV1 to disappear, it will be 3-5 year long wait, because CV2 won't be the VR we desire so much. Probably 2019, if CV1= end of 2015 (slipped), CV2=2017, CV3=2019 (just my prediction based on the fortune teller's crystal ball visions 😉 )
* 3 major flaws being: 1. resolution 2. FOV 3. content core gamers expect (that's also related to the input)

[crim3]

"Chivas" wrote:
I'm sure there will be more than a few people waiting for next generation HMD's with better resolution/specs. I'm also sure that if Oculus has built hundreds of input prototypes, to find a setup that works best, they've also experimented with every display type/pixel setup available to find out what works best within the restraints of todays computers capabilities, custom lenses, and optics software.

And that is only the technical side of things. Add to this being the ones that have resurrected VR (consumer VR), knowing that your decisions will influence in a big manner the success or failure of VR in the upcoming years, the responsability of the trust (in the form of money) that several inverstor has put in what you are doing.
This isn't people at their homes having inconsequential discussions about what should be or not. They are doing things on the real world with real money and creating actual physical products. As an engineer and as a person I can put myself in their skins and realize that whatever decision they are making is a consequence of current world circumstances in a very broad way.
I mean, we didn't have consumer VR at the year 2000 because social, economical, technological, whatever circumstances were not favorable fot that to happen then. We are not going to have 2x4K resolution with 270º FOV consumer VR at 2016 because circumstances are not favorable for that to happen then.

Another thing that people forget is that you can have VR with almost any spec you may think you need right now. And it has been like that for decades now. All you need is throwing like $50,000 to $100,000 and you have it. But now, thanks to Palmer, we are going to have great VR at our homes for like $500, because he is a guy that makes more that talking and creates actual things beyond the endless blah blah blah most of us do in our pity lifes.

[jyoun]

It's like when N64 came out and Nintendo held back true photorealistic graphics... THOSE BASTARDS!!!! :roll:

[soxfan335]

ah yes, the power of marketing

[cybereality]

Wow! What a blast from the past.

[gonk]

I think it is going to be a very long wait until I can permanently ditch my monitors for HMD. Nvidia's Pascal then Volta will help, but we also require Screen improvements (until lasers direct to the retina become safe/viable.) and better Data Delivery technology (faster ports then and then eventually wireless) albeit Eye tracking should elevate some of the work load along the way. So there are a number of technologies that must align for this to work. Don't get caught in the "I'll just wait for the better model " trap.

It feels like I am waiting for my first 3d video card again... my trusty Voodoo... 😄

[RonsonPL]

"gonk" wrote:
I think it is going to be a very long wait until I can permanently ditch my monitors for HMD. Nvidia's Pascal then Volta will help, but we also require Screen improvements (until lasers direct to the retina become safe/viable.) and better Data Delivery technology (faster ports then and then eventually wireless) albeit Eye tracking should elevate some of the work load along the way. So there are a number of technologies that must align for this to work. Don't get caught in the "I'll just wait for the better model " trap.

It feels like I am waiting for my first 3d video card again... my trusty Voodoo... 😄

My calculations:
- we need a better display cable standards than HDMI 2.0 for first "100% wow!" VR HMDs, a VR version of VooDoo 4MB. We also need something that's better than DP 1.3 (1.4 brings no improvements in bandwidth). But it doesn't need to be that great from the start. So we can have something that's uncomparable to CV1 while still not being what is should be to make it similar to montor quality (7000x2400 in total or 3500x2400 per eye @180Hz with 60% wider FOV than CV1).
- we need affordable HBM2/HCM graphic cards to be available at the launch of CVx. Games with no realistic lighting and heavy shader usage, working on GPUs designed 100% for VR, might be possible at that specs in 2019.
- we need at least one serious big game (a "system seller" like Ridge Racer or Tekken for PSX or Gran Turismo 3 for PS2) , designed for VR from the start

That means waiting for the CV2 might be a stupid idea indeed, but 2019 and CV3 might tick all the boxes. So if by "I'll wait until VR goes from S3 Virge to 3dfx VooDoo" someone means "4 years" then it's a good idea.
PS. I don't know whether CV2 will be S3 Virge or Matrox Mistique. Probably the latter, and I really, really wanted that Mistique back then. 😉
(And I also bought that dredded S3 Virge. D'oh...)