cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

CV1 Focus adjustment? Why is no one raging?

Anonymous
Not applicable
I don't know for certain what Oculus has decided on for dealing with those of us that wear glasses, but I've heard rumors and seen interviews that suggest they will just force us to wear our prescription, rather than allow for adjustment on the HMD.

This is an absolutely horrible decision, regardless of reason, if true. Someone should really clarify whether or not they have a proper focus adjustment. I was leaning back towards Oculus after seeing Touch, and Palmer's usual quirky charisma, but I would consider abandoning ship if I were forced to wear my glasses inside the CV1.

Gear VR, DK1, and DK2 all have focus adjustment of some sort, so why ruin the CV1 for those of us that have heavy prescriptions? There are quite a few of us, and none of us have a desire to lower our FOV, and most of us don't want to wear contacts I'm sure.
24 REPLIES 24

IbegU2Rift
Protege
I have seen a lot of complain about glasses support.
Is contact lenses a problem in vr ?

Anonymous
Not applicable
"IbegU2Rift" wrote:
I have seen a lot of complain about glasses support.
Is contact lenses a problem in vr ?


Contacts are not really a problem in VR, it's just that for many they are uncomfortable. I am one of those people.
I wouldn't really be complaining so much, it's just that there is a pretty big sacrifice of FOV for those of us who have to wear glasses in the Rift. I don't even care about eye strain of potential over focus, I just want to be able to see without my glasses in the Rift CV1.

PS: I can't even get contacts onto my eyes. My eye lids are extremely elastic, I can't hold them open very well. Besides that, I have this uncontrollable fear of touching my eyes. My reflexes do not allow me to even come close most of the time.

Chivas
Expert Protege
The simple answer is that its almost impossible or too expensive to make a physical focal adjustment as good as a pair of subscription lenses. People will complain about the quality of the display, when its actually their eyesight that's the problem. The headset can be easily adjusted for eyeglasses, but unfortunately it could make the FOV smaller. There are many trade-offs in early VR and this is just one of many. Get Lasik, get contacts, or get over it. 😄

Litespeed
Heroic Explorer
Proper seamless focus adjustment would require precision mechanics and probably more than just 1 lens per eye.
That would add a lot of cost and weight.

As someone with -6 dpt on one eye and -3 dpt on the other I really prefer to have a lightweight system that fits comfortably over my prescription glasses over a system with exchangable lenses that are never a perfect fit.

StevieCQ
Honored Guest
Here are some specialty glasses frames that are made to be used under goggles or masks so you can have your exact prescription from your doctor

http://www.rochesteroptical.com/product ... itary/eab/

RonsonPL
Heroic Explorer
You don't spend much time around here if you think no one was raging about this. 😉

We did. If contacts are not an option, it's a really bad thing to see in CV1.
There were so many alternatives to the worst thing they could do, which they did.
Less than 100° FOV when using glasses could serve as a DLC to Carmack's "Rage" game. 😉
There's nothing we can do now though.
I would prefer to get a straight answer to the question about this, that I posted a year ago. If Oculus didn't ingore this then, we could have a constructive discussion about it, maybe we could voice our opinions, maybe even it would show there are more people unhappy from this solution than FB/Oculus thought. Now it's too late. Only thing we can do is to accept the reality or wait for CV2. Or 3. Or 4. I don't think Oculus will change their minds quickly, and if they didn't find it obvious to just allow people to choose a different model of the Rift, then FB bosses probably don't even want to hear about making the Rift a typical PC accessory. You know - the ones that are often customizable, and available in different variants.
If they were afraid about the cost, then why not just allow people to buy a separate version, a little more expensive, but glasses-friendly?
I would even back a Kickstarter if they said "sorry, FB said it would cost money and they won't pay for it" and needed the money. I think it's an important matter, and many would prefer this over being left with unacceptable sub-100° FOV, after so many years of waiting and statements from Palmer they know where the FOV line is, and they know many of their clients will be people with glasses.
Everyone thought it's going to be OK, and then they drop this on us, happily saying it's the result of "great focus" on the issue. If NASA was using this logic, they would solve the problem with landing by just installing the auto-destruction button, so there's no need for any landings. 😉
Not an Oculus hater, but not a fan anymore. Still lots of respect for the team-Carmack, Abrash. Oculus is driven by big corporation principles now. That brings painful effects already, more to come in the future. This is not the Oculus I once cheered for.

andrewtek
Expert Protege
To answer the OP, I think some people are raging, but most people (including me) are not because:
1. They do not wear glasses.
2. They do wear glasses, but can use contacts when rifting.
3. They do wear glasses, are compatible with Lasik and now have an additional reason to get it.
4. They wear glasses, and do not have a problem with the idea of wearing their glasses in the Rift.
5. They are disappointed they will have to wear glasses in the Rift, but understand that Oculus has accommodated their needs with interchangeable inserts.
6. They are disappointed they will have to wear glasses in the Rift, but fully expect that with 3 out of 4 Americans using some form of corrective lenses; at some point this will either be addressed by Oculus or a 3rd party will create an aftermarket MOD kit.

There may be other reasons people aren't raging - but those are the simplest reasons I could think of.

I think that Oculus rightly made ergonomics, weight and comfort a priority for the first consumer version of the Rift. If the Rift is to eventually replace the computer monitor, that level of comfort is an important first step. I think in subsequent versions they will be able to add more features into the product to deal with things like vision correction.

Who knows, there might even be a line of Rifts that have vision correction built-in; or special order Rifts where the lenses are customized to your needs. Perhaps a partnership with one of the big prescription lens companies like Lens Craters? This is done with sunglasses currently, so I could see it working for VR.

jojon
Honored Guest
Just wondering in ignorance...

Could there be something about the custom hybrid (EDIT: ...or should that be "compound"?) lens and assembly design, that means you can't simply change focus by adjusting lens-to-screen distance, without throwing the optic path "out of tune", and introduce whole new classes of aberrations, that are rather more complex to compensate for, than we've seen before?

Anonymous
Not applicable
"jojon" wrote:
Just wondering in ignorance...

Could there be something about the custom hybrid (EDIT: ...or should that be "compound"?) lens and assembly design, that means you can't simply change focus by adjusting lens-to-screen distance, without throwing the optic path "out of tune", and introduce whole new classes of aberrations, that are rather more complex to compensate for, than we've seen before?


I could understand, if the trade-off literally allowed them to make the screen look as good as it now does. If the screen can simply be moved forward or backward without it causing problems with the lenses, I will be extremely disappointed in Oculus.

clone
Explorer
"jojon" wrote:
Just wondering in ignorance...

Could there be something about the custom hybrid (EDIT: ...or should that be "compound"?) lens and assembly design, that means you can't simply change focus by adjusting lens-to-screen distance, without throwing the optic path "out of tune", and introduce whole new classes of aberrations, that are rather more complex to compensate for, than we've seen before?


good point mate! :idea:
...why so serious?