The IPD adjustment and the price of the Rift

[crim3]

A night of sleeplessness and heartburn... lot of time to thing about silly things like VR and the Rift...

I did a list of the improvements of the CV1 with respect to the DK2 in another thread and realized that I missed the IPD adjustment. What a prominent absence, as it may be the main reason for the high cost of the Rift.

Before it was revealed that Oculus was using dual screens in their prototypes I was sure that the consumer version would be a single screen design. It couldn't be any other way. The key point on Palmer's design was that single screen design that set it apart from all the other expensive VR solutions available at the time. I was so wrong... 😕

What if they would have kept the single screen design and avoided all that extra complexity of the IPD adjustment mechanisms and the high precision electronics needed to send an accurate measure of the adjustment to the computer? They may have created a set of versions of the lenses holder piece to account for a set of IPD ranges and sell the Rift in several "sizes".
So, a single screen, none of the extra complexities of the IPD adjustment, and the only drawback of having to manufacture a single piece in several sizes, what sounds relatively trivial to me in comparison. May it have kept the price of the CV1 where we all expected it to be while still delivering a high quality VR experience?

You know, it turned out to be not somewhat more expensive than expected, but more than double. That's a lot...

[christopherbarn]

"crim3" wrote:

it turned out to be not somewhat more expensive than expected, but more than double. That's a lot...

Assuming "in the ballpark" of $350, is exactly $350, then it's STILL not "more than double"
Since, apparently, you can't do simple math let me help you out.
2 x 350 = 700.

[Dreamwriter]

You should watch the making-of video which explains everything that went into the final design, there's a lot more contributing to the price. Like the custom-manufactured fabric that covers it, or the face "plate" that automatically adjusts itself to the user, or the custom optics. Plus those two custom screens are vastly more expensive, even if they didn't have IPD adjustment.

http://youtu.be/wml-yZqnQ8U
Shipping Hardware: The Evolution of the Rift (skip 13:30 minutes in to the actual meat of the presentation)

[TwoHedWlf]

I always thought "$350?" Bullshit. I don't know why anyone even thought that was beleivable. $599 sounds about right.

[crim3]

"christopherbarnhouse" wrote:
Assuming "in the ballpark" of $350, is exactly $350, then it's STILL not "more than double"
Since, apparently, you can't do simple math let me help you out.
2 x 350 = 700.

Ballpark algebra, brilliant!
For the most part of this adventure we were told it would be about 300.
Human memory is short and only the lasts months account, I know.

"Dreamwriter" wrote:
You should watch the making-of video which explains everything that went into the final design, there's a lot more contributing to the price. Like the custom-manufactured fabric that covers it, or the face "plate" that automatically adjusts itself to the user, or the custom optics. Plus those two custom screens are vastly more expensive, even if they didn't have IPD adjustment.

http://youtu.be/wml-yZqnQ8U
Shipping Hardware: The Evolution of the Rift (skip 13:30 minutes in to the actual meat of the presentation)

I saw that video again this last Sunday. But this time, the emphasis put in explaining how complicated it was to achieve the final IPD adjustment design and how complex actually it is, is what left me thinking about if it was worth all that extra complexity and the shift from single display to dual display design to just place two lenses at the right distance.

EDIT: I think I may add, to avoid further acid remarks, that I'm happy to finally being able to pre-order the Rift and eager to see my account charged and receive a notification mail with the tracking number. I just thought this was a nice discussion topic.
It's morning again and the mental haze of a sleepless night is gone. I may not have shared something like this in normal circumstances, but now... there it is.

[Cheesekeeper]

"crim3" wrote:
But this time, the emphasis put in explaining how complicated it was to achieve the final IPD adjustment design and how complex actually it is, is what left me thinking about if it was worth all that extra complexity and the shift from single display to dual display design to just place two lenses at the right distance.

I wouldn't underestimate the importance of this particular feature. My IPD is 70mm, and even though this is supposed to be within the tolerances for the dev kits, I wasn't able to get a really decent experience out of the DK1 until I installed IPD adjusters. On the DK2, even with IPD adjusters it never really looked up to scratch. GearVR is borderline too. An IPD of 70mm isn't uncommon (and if I remember correctly Plamer's IPD is roughly the same as mine), and I wouldn't have even considered getting a CV1 if this hadn't been addressed, so as far as I'm concerned it will be the most important improvement going from DK2 to CV1.

As stated above, it's not the only improvement that has contributed to the higher price of the CV1, but well worth it in my opinion. However I can also see how it wouldn't seem very important to anyone whose IPD was closer to the default level - the difference in the DK1 with/without the adapter was night and day.

[Robertba]

"Cheesekeeper" wrote:

"crim3" wrote:
But this time, the emphasis put in explaining how complicated it was to achieve the final IPD adjustment design and how complex actually it is, is what left me thinking about if it was worth all that extra complexity and the shift from single display to dual display design to just place two lenses at the right distance.

I wouldn't underestimate the importance of this particular feature. My IPD is 70mm, and even though this is supposed to be within the tolerances for the dev kits, I wasn't able to get a really decent experience out of the DK1 until I installed IPD adjusters. On the DK2, even with IPD adjusters it never really looked up to scratch. GearVR is borderline too. An IPD of 70mm isn't uncommon (and if I remember correctly Plamer's IPD is roughly the same as mine), and I wouldn't have even considered getting a CV1 if this hadn't been addressed, so as far as I'm concerned it will be the most important improvement going from DK2 to CV1.

As stated above, it's not the only improvement that has contributed to the higher price of the CV1, but well worth it in my opinion. However I can also see how it wouldn't seem very important to anyone whose IPD was closer to the default level - the difference in the DK1 with/without the adapter was night and day.

True! My IPD is 74 and I own the DK1 and DK2. I would have even preordered the CV1 if the adjustable IPD was the only change over DK2.

[crim3]

But what do you think about using different sizes, like shoes? You would only need to change a single piece of plastic for each size.
But then my Rift would be tied to a narrow portion of the population within a certain IPD range... hmmm... Trade offs, always trade offs to be done. I guess they've gone through all this already at Oculus.

[weasel47]

"crim3" wrote:
But what do you think about using different sizes, like shoes? You would only need to change a single piece of plastic for each size.
But then my Rift would be tied to a narrow portion of the population within a certain IPD range... hmmm... Trade offs, always trade offs to be done. I guess they've gone through all this already at Oculus.

Making a bunch of different sizes could also increase the manufacturing costs.

Plus it introduces all kinds of other problems. What if you don't know what size you like until you try them all? What if you end up with the wrong size? How do they know how many to make of each size?

Plus it makes it harder for people to share their shiny new VR headsets with their friends, which is important for helping VR take off.

[Percy1983]

I think the 2 screens won't have a massive price increase over a single screen.

As manufacture would be the same pixel density etc but of course having a lower pixel count means less risk of dead pixels or other problems which then means less screens will fail testing.

I think my IPD is rather average so could get away without it but I don't begrudge it costing a little more to implement.