CV1 to have even wider field of view than DK1?

[sdplayer]

Anyone else read the following review of the Oculus Consumer Beta (ECV7)? If its genuine it claims that CV1 will have a significantly wider field of view than DK2 due to 'clipping' the upper field of view.

https://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comment ... d_here_is/


Apologies if this has already been discussed or if it is fake.

[Darcanis]

What I wanna know is how does Elite Dangerous look in the new model? Text, ships and objects at a distance, etc... 🙂

Please release soon before Canadian dollar gets even lower!!! :shock:

[EarlGrey]

"Chivas" wrote:
A larger FOV is a major selling point for VR hardware. I believe one of the main reasons Oculus and Vive have been reluctant lately to declare a FOV is because there appears to be no set guideline to determine the hardware's actual FOV. If one company states their estimated FOV, another company can report a larger FOV using different guidelines. The average public will just assume one companies FOV is larger than the other when it could actually be smaller.

Oculus can create its own guidelines, and tell us how all their headsets (dk1, dk2, gearvr, cv1) match up to those guidelines.

[AlexiGVS]

I have some questions.. Who is this guy? Can we trust him? How he measured FOV? This is slightly suspicious to me..
I hope it's all true, about SDE and FOV.. but I remember all the hype and overrated reviews about DK2. And in reality, we had strong pentile SDE, narrow FOV, black smearing, endless tracking issues and other soft problems.
I want to believe, but after tons of overrated reviews about DK2 and Crescent bay, it is very hard.

[Untitled]

I hope the glasses won't reduce the field of view 😞

[gabr1eL44]

"Untitled" wrote:
I hope the glasses won't reduce the field of view 😞

It was already pointed out that they will. How should they not reduce FOV? Bigger distance for glasses from eye to Rift lenses means lower FOV (simple physics). Iy you really want higher FOV use it without (if that's acceptable), uses contacts or get laser surgery.

[ejz6837]

So looking at his DK2 estimate, it's almost 1.5x as tall as it is wide, this is not accurate because that would give a 130° vertical FOV assuming a horizontal of 90°or even higher with a horizontal of 95. Using DK2 it's obvious that it is much more square than that. More accurate would be 95x105 giving the 100° average that DK2 is meant to have.

He also has the CV1 beta appearing 1.5x as wide as DK2 horizontally which again would give over 130°. If it is in fact 120 or higher horizontal I think Oculus would be shouting it from the rooftops! It was mentioned that there may be some kind of semi reflective coating on the edges which might give the illusion of a wider FOV.

Whatever the case, it's encouraging to see reports of big improvements over DK2. I could never quite believe that CV1 would be basically equivalent to DK2, given the amount of time and HMD revisions, and using custom panels and optics.

[gabr1eL44]

"ejz6837" wrote:
So looking at his DK2 estimate, it's almost 1.5x as tall as it is wide, this is not accurate because that would give a 130° vertical FOV assuming a horizontal of 90°or even higher with a horizontal of 95. Using DK2 it's obvious that it is much more square than that. More accurate would be 95x105 giving the 100° average that DK2 is meant to have.

What are we talking about? The FOV of one eye or the FOV of both eyes? Vertical FOV for one eye is identical to FOV for two eyes but FOV for two eyes should be slightly higher for obvious reasons (IPD).

I'd guess he was talking about "one eyed" FOV.

[Anonymous]

They did say/state (I'll have to double check on this info, forgot where I heard it) that it wouldn't be better than the DK1 and that gives us something like 110-120 right off. +- because of the added semi reflective coating on the edges it could be very well a fake 110-135 range. A lot of us already said that adding something to the side to help curve the FOV would go a long long way into faking/feeling a bit more open in the DK units.

I also think sdplayer is right as well as it looks like the screen is more squared pushing more pixels to the side of the edges.

"AlexWake" wrote:
I have some questions.. Who is this guy? Can we trust him? How he measured FOV? This is slightly suspicious to me..
I hope it's all true, about SDE and FOV.. but I remember all the hype and overrated reviews about DK2. And in reality, we had strong pentile SDE, narrow FOV, black smearing, endless tracking issues and other soft problems.
I want to believe, but after tons of overrated reviews about DK2 and Crescent bay, it is very hard.

You have to discount software bugs when it comes to beta anything. I don't care what you think ~ be very worry if a programmer/tech tells you its in beta. Be ready for a ton of down time.

That aside, the DK2 hype was a bit over blown, yes, any reports we get from people will have to be taken with a bit of salt just like with anything else lol. You can't discount his report though and if he says that there isn't or slight SDE, then on your end, be ready to still see the SDE, but just a bit more faded than before. At least that's how I look at things xD because at the end of the day... that person isn't you, but they do at least have some insight in how it might look.

[Anonymous]

"sdplayer" wrote:
Anyone else read the following review of the Oculus Consumer Beta (ECV7)? If its genuine it claims that CV1 will have a significantly wider field of view than DK2 due to 'clipping' the upper field of view.

https://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comment ... d_here_is/


Apologies if this has already been discussed or if it is fake.

By the way this is the same guy who said SDE was pretty much gone on the DK2 too, so don't get your hopes up. SDE was there plain as day.

[matskatsaba]

Regarding the SDE, probably he tried a DK2 that already had matte screen protector on the display, and that makes a huge difference.