The NDA: What Oculus doesn't want you to know! (?)

[PassiveVR]

Added "?" to the title as obviously this can't be taken as FACT until Oculus delete/respond or they are out in the world.

From

https://www.reddit.com/r/Vive/comments/ ... us_doesnt/

Note this is NOT my post on reddit, I have no idea who they are but I read some very interesting things here that if true could explain a lot of Oculus's lack of info and other tom foolery. Kneejerk reaction is to vote it down and call people fanboys, but I think potential buyers of Rift should at least read up on the info we do have available, esp as I see so much uninformed opinion about Rift being better than Vive (screen wise). If the FOV "cheat" as detailed in the reddit thread is true then no wonder, but personally I'm all about FOV (real FOV not tricks) in VR, shame on oculus if this is why they haven't come clean on FOV specs (and the rest)

Obviously this is going to be a controversial topic, but here are the facts: Everything I will point out in this thread is the result of extensive research over the past few months and independently confirmed by multiple sources. It's based on Oculus CV1 engineering samples, so nothing is 100% final, but don't expect major changes.

FOV (Field of View) This is one of the most important specs of a VR headset, yet Oculus refuses to disclose the actual number. Yes, you can measure the exact FOV, yes, it is an exact science. I can only speculate why Oculus suggests otherwise. For the CV1, Oculus decided to go with a smaller FOV than the DK2. It's roughly 80 degrees horizontal and 90 degrees vertical.

* My note: apparently they have used reflective sides to make the periphery seem ok, for the FOV to seem larger than it is (but still less than Vive) by using this trick, as a trade off for a higher pixel density. The problem is it's not perfect and gives rift a "window like" view on the world, Vive feels more natural (Read the thread for these details)

It is about the same as the FOV of the GearVR (a bit less horizontally, depending on the used phone). Keep in mind that this isn't just a negative, in return the Rift has more pixels per degree than the Vive, because the same amount of pixels (same resolution) is stretched accross a smaller space, improving image quality. But it does hurt immersion and it makes it more like looking through a window.

Screen Brightness The Oculus Rift is surprisingly dim. For comparison: The Vive Pre is more than 2.5 times brighter than the Rift DK2, the Rift CV1 is actually a few percent darker than the DK2. (They all were measured with a light meter.)

No additional ports There are no audio or USB ports on the headset. If you want to use your own headphones instead of the built-in speakers, you have to deal with a second cable going from the headset to the PC, which is especially problematic for standing Rift experiences.

Lenses Both the Vive and the Rift use fresnel lenses. The main difference is, that the Rift lenses have smaller but more segments when compared to the Vive. This results in circular blurry artifacts on the Rift that are at least as bad as the more flare-like effects on the Vive.

Software Until quite recently the software was nowhere near ready. At some point not long ago you actually had to use 3 applications in tandem to operate the Rift. That's also likely the reason why they still haven't shown 1.0 in public. They did add a lot of polish in the last couple of weeks, but compared to SteamVR it's still less functional at the moment and you still have to take off the headset multiple times when setting up the Rift.

Headset design The Rift is actually quite fragile and the cloth material is prone to get really dirty. And there is a chance that the consumer version might actually be heavier than the 470g we all saw in the GIF a few weeks ago. They might have to add additional shielding to pass FCC regulations.

Touch Touch was never supposed to be released this early, probably not even for CV1 at all. After the Vive announcement they focused everything on getting the controller ready for the presentation in May. This resulted in a delay of the Rift, which actually was on track on getting shipped at the end of 2015. Touch controllers are still very early prototypes, a release in H1 2016 was always a fantasy.

Tracking cameras The rumored FOV for the cameras, which was provided by a member of this community a few weeks ago, is actually correct. (100 degrees horizontal, 70 degrees vertical) The tracking distance however, is not. It's somwhere around 3.5m, after that it starts to become jittery or positional tracking shuts off completely. The cables for the cameras are also quite short and regular (passive) USB extensions won't work.

Why this thread? I believe customers have a right to know what thy are actually buying. Restricting access for the press and banning developers to talk about the hardware is just wrong. You wouldn't buy a monitor without knowing the size of the screen, yet tens of thousands of people are going to get charged for the Rift in the coming weeks without them knowing the FOV.

That said, there are still many reasons why someone would want to buy a Rift and that's perfectly fine with me, but you should be allowed to make an informed decision.

[danknugz]

PassiveAgressive

[PassiveVR]

"danknugz" wrote:
PassiveAgressive

Just passing on Info, if you'd rather not know what you're getting for your money that's fine, some of us would prefer to know (Even though I am already on the list for Vive I was thinking of maybe picking up rift too in time). If Palmer can actually deny this then we're golden yes? if not, if the thread gets deleted, then I guess we have our answer.

It's worth a shot, and you have to admit oculus have been ridiculously cagey about touch, fov and tracking.

[Lemming1970]

I follow VR spies on youtube, UKrifter who has used the CV1(pre-release version) and has said the fov is wider than the DK2,

Cyber, the mod on this forum has already stated that USB cables can be extended.

Going off the fact those two points are BS I'm going to guess the whole article is just a tactic to try get information. Information that I'm sure will come to light soon enough.

Or someone trying to justify there pre-order.

[ClassicGamerNL]

In my experience the Rift had a slightly bigger FOV than the DK2 and the Vive. Both were great by the way and they are both a big upgrade compared to the DK2. 8-)

[PassiveVR]

"Lemming1970" wrote:
I follow VR spies on youtube, UKrifter who has used the CV1(pre-release version) and has said the fov is wider than the DK2,

Cyber, the mod on this forum has already stated that USB cables can be extended.

Going off the fact those two points are BS I'm going to guess the whole article is just a tactic to try get information. Information that I'm sure will come to light soon enough.

Or someone trying to justify there pre-order.

Re USB cables, the guy is talking about the CAMERAS not the HMD. The cams use USB 3 the HMD uses USB 2 no? I guess that's what he's on about.

When people say "fov is wider than DK" that could be exactly what the reflective side panels want you to believe, as in the original post I'm guessing someone actually tore a CV1 down and looked inside + measured it accurately rather than just going on 'feel'. If it feels good then that's what counts I know, but even so it's still cheap trick to sacrifice real FOV that could be essential to feeling more natural (we know how DK2 could annoy us with that at times) to get an apparent SDE benefit. I'm sure Oculus made the trade off with good intentions, given current tech, but it still ignores the fact that the real FOV (if true) sucks.

[EliteSPA]

Time will tell, but both HMD are designed for diferent kind of gamers, both HMD are good.

Im happy with my rift, and it was the first HMD released, so in my opinion they have more experience then HTC and Steam in VR.

[Anonymous]

This is the problem with NDAs.

More often than not, an NDA is to prevent a poor product being rated before the punters have got their hands on it. I really see no need for Oculus to have a NDA present this close to launch. What are other companies going to do? Create their own copies inside a fortnight? Come off it.

I'd imagine there are elements of truth in this. How much truth, only time will tell...

[sitm]

The following is new to me - this is no good.

"No additional ports There are no audio or USB ports on the headset. If you want to use your own headphones instead of the built-in speakers, you have to deal with a second cable going from the headset to the PC, which is especially problematic for standing Rift experiences."

With the wish to use room-scale (in case really possible - might be) sometime at the end of this year when Touch is available it gets even worse.
Not amused...

[Anonymous]

Keep in mind that, since the display resolution is the same, the lesser the FOV the better the visual acuity (less aliasing).
If what is written above is correct, with the Rift you can read smaller print than with the Vive.
Also racing games will benefit of this.