So dk2 is out, which has pretty impressive specs. and apparently since consumer version will be a step above that, what are the odds for a 1440p display? I'm sure people are willing to drop the graphic settings for clearer vision. I got a 780 so it doesn't bother me. also whats the max hz for a 1440 screen? I hear it's like 83.33 or something. I use a dvi coord so idk if that makes a difference.
I'm perfectly happy with my GPU at the moment but naturally look at what's on the market and future possibilities. For now it looks like SLi / Crossfire dont work well with HMDs.
My current GPU pulls whatever 'carriage' it's asked to at the highest available settings so I'm satisfied.
That said I'm only running a 1080p 144hz screen, not a high res high hz screen.
It's good for me and that's all I care about 🙂
DK1 | DK2 "The question isn't who is going to let me but rather who is going to stop me"
But if it couldn't actually munch some arbitrayr game's "ultra" then it's suddenly not good enough? Do you even realize how stupid it is?
Go check Doom II. Borderless render viewport is it's "highest". Now go check some mental ray package - it's "highest" takes literally days to render a single frame on highest end machines.
Given modern acheivments in computer generated imagery, lowest and highest look very similarry to begin with, unless you adjust texture and model size difference is very subtle, the biggest difference you could actually see is shadows quality. So in reality, there's no "low" and "high", there's only "fast" and "slow". And if you choose to run "slow" just because it's label says "highest" despite lack of hardware power then there's problem in your brain, not in hardware or software.
You seem really upset about something, im not quite sure what it is 😕 Sorry if I upset you somehow.
You do realise my philisophy is mine, not something I judge other people for right? If I'm facing a decision and I have an option to get something great or something just good then 99% of the time I pick the great option. That's all.
If people need or want to run at any setting that suits them personally and they're happy then that's great, that's all that matters.
DK1 | DK2 "The question isn't who is going to let me but rather who is going to stop me"
I'm upset because you and people like you spread ugly misconception that the resolution for the Rift could be "too high", showing this kind of idiotic argumentation like "game X wouldn't run it on Ultra in this resolution". It can never be too high, and right now we desperately need as much as we can get.
well 4k is too high as the coords can't tranfer data fast enough, so you would need 2 coords, powering 2 screens pretending to be one, and then you have all kinds of problems. 1440 seems to be the sweetspot
Who says you need to get it full potential day one? If you do, them in less than a year it would be outdated, its better to give a lot of potential, if it shipped with 4k for example, what would be the problem? just run a it at whatever resolution you can, and maybe in 2 years you can run it at maximum settings, i dont see the problem, its like asking to limit the maximum speed of a car for everyone because you cant run at those speeds yet.
Was thinking about this recently after seeing the round OLED on the new Moto 360 watch...
If they now have the resources to create truly custom hardware, then I wonder if they could ever create an OLED screen that has a non-uniform pixel density? Basically bake the distortion pattern directly into the layout of the pixels, instead of using a post-process distortion shader that adds blur and reduces performance. The pixels around the edge of the screen would be smaller, and the ones in the center would be larger, so there would be a 1:1 correspondence between what the GPU renders and what you see.
I'm honestly not sure how feasible that would be, but as far as I've been able to find out, OLEDs pixels are laid out by shining light through a pattern. So why does the pattern have to be a regular grid?
If it could be done, it would solve a lot of the blurriness problems without requiring a higher resolution or a more powerful GPU.
If that was possible, it would be a wonderful idea! It would be possible to show an undistorted image without the need to warp it (with all the blurriness it carries). But maybe, at that point, they might dispose the OLEDs directly over the lens (thus having much more compact design), and provide a second adjustable lens in front of it to match user's eye prescription. But that's CV2 or CV3 fantasy at least, and God knows what will be available in reality by then!
There's no way it would be 4k for CV1, unless CV1 is massively delayed. That really would be pointless. (no one could run it, and it would increase the price).
Upscaling? A 4K screen even if not all the pixels are different would lower the screendoor effect.
"raidho36" wrote: I'm upset because you and people like you spread ugly misconception that the resolution for the Rift could be "too high", showing this kind of idiotic argumentation like "game X wouldn't run it on Ultra in this resolution". It can never be too high, and right now we desperately need as much as we can get.
Dude, calm down...I'm with you, but there's no need to get nasty. In the end, it doesn't matter what you, him or me think as Oculus will make the decision on what they think they should/can do, not us.
Good thing is, it looks like they are going to go with the highest spec they can at the low price point they have in mind, regardless of whether people do not like turning down graphical settings. And with the FB acquisition, that means no comprises. We'll get the best we can really get. And that looks likely to be 1440p.
