cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

The slow development of hardware makes sense.

inovator
Consultant
If you think about it, gaming systems from the beginning were very ancient and it took many many years for the tech to bring  us the visual quality we have today. There were also many ups and downs in game usage during that time. Vr is going to work the same way. It's going to be a,long ride to the top.
20 REPLIES 20

Zenbane
MVP
MVP

inovator said:

It's not a power play. Room scale works for a very small percentage of people.


Agreed. Quest is "anywhere-scale" which goes beyond room-scale.

bigmike20vt
Visionary

Zenbane said:


inovator said:

It's not a power play. Room scale works for a very small percentage of people.


Agreed. Quest is "anywhere-scale" which goes beyond room-scale.


IF quest (and therefore potentially rift 2) tracks every bit as good as a 3 camera constellation setup i would be more than happy to accept constellation as an evolutionary dead end as it were......  progress should not be held back just because we have bought an extra camera and what not.
Also i suppose there is nothing to suggest that a new inside out tracking rift could not have cameras all over it and be able to do just that... My fear however is that so far the only inside out devices shown so far have been windows ones which have 2 front mounted cameras, and we know for a fact have trouble with certain titles that require high resolution tracking of controllers behind (ie sportsbar VR is the one i have experience in)

and we have also seen that whilst quest has more cameras, they are still front mounted.   hopefully quest is superior tracking to windows MR... but presumably  it is still beholden to the laws of physics so i dont see that being great at tracking a pool cue which is held behind the player either.

time will tell on the [new] rift.  hell i have money aside for a new rift, and so long as it is a few steps forward in optics/resolution and the tracking is at least on a par, i will buy as soon as i can......... BUT i gotta admit constellation is a known entity, i trust it warts and all, however if oculus do decide to change i think i will be waited for trusted reviews from people like tested and also folk on here, or better yet demo one before i buy.

all of that said... I am not sure oculus would have been all that invested in the new VR link had they been planning on ditching constellation, so imo either this is some last minute change of direction (possible what with recent news events and staff changes) OR it is all BS and constellation is going no where.
Fiat Coupe, gone. 350Z gone. Dirty nappies, no sleep & practical transport incoming. Thank goodness for VR 🙂

shadowfrogger
Heroic Explorer
The goal with inside out tracking would be to make it cheap, robust and seemless.  Even if quest isn't as good as constellation, it will be after one round of refinement and cheaper.  You can also put a single camera on each controller so you never lose hand tracking. I can't see constellation making it to Rift Gen 2.

While Gen 1 is done(disregarding rift S rumors).  The gap between Gen 2 devices seems to be a fair amount of time.  I wonder if they will be working on sleek haptic gloves as a add on for any Gen 2 devices.
Visit my amateur homegrown indie game company website! http://www.gaming-disorder.com/

inovator
Consultant
Inside out tracking. To make it comparable to the constellation they can put cameras behind the headset as well. Now the headset sees controllers behind you.

Anonymous
Not applicable
The only other problem with slow progression is the fact that Oculus is trying to hit a million users. I'm sure Quest will bring in a lot of users for gaming stuff - but with shortcomings on gen 1 still and limited use of VR right now limited to mostly gaming and entertainment of that type - what reason will people have to keep using VR?

VR still has many jumps it needs in advamanents before a large number of people will want to keep using it every day with some of these including resolution, easy in and out access, comfort and dizziness. I can't see why they would want to do small jump vs large jumps (even if they include tricks) so they appear more appealing to the public to use it more. Outside of that - you need to make sure the HMD has other uses that will keep people using your product. With out huge leaps in technology - VR in this case will just have to play the slow game instead.

If VR could advance enough in the screen department to allow focal point clarity and high enough resolution they could start seeing big gains in the number of people that uses a headset as a monitor instead. Why have a big clingy monitor and a large desk when you could go smaller and only need a headset? Make it easy in and out (flip viser up and down or pull off the  HMD without moving my glasses) and not have to set up cameras you will see people pick one up and have the privately of their eyes only. 

I also like to point out - what made gaming systems soo great in the public view is the fact they actually did have large leaps in graphics compare to PC gaming for the price point. Back when the PS1 came out - it would've cost almost grand to even play Tomb Raider. For a few hundred dollars and less overall hassle to using vs a computer (building, setting up the right settings for the hardware, and etc) it was worth every penny.

PS2 also saw big gains in graphics and was much cheaper than other options - PS3 on the other hand didn't see as much of a gain though and people started looking at the PC again. PS4 on the other hand had some people wondering why get a gaming console when they could get a PC for a few more 100 dollars as the cards inside cost as much as getting one now. PS5 now even before lunch is getting some flack their new cards won't be as powerful as what they can buy off the shelf/next release from AMD next year or from Nvidia as it'll cost the same or less to build the computer instead of a console.

My point is that - as we continue moving forward - simple slow progression isn't enough - VR still needs to try and work out ways to be more than just for gaming. The more it can do - the more people will see the value in it. The more they can use it - the more value it has to them. Once that value has meet or become greater - then price really has no meaning and the amount of people will continue to grow. Literally I only got the ps3 because it could do netflix and blue ray. Games were just added value.

ShocksVR
Superstar
The race for highend VR is dependent on reliable eye tracking; which no company has. Yes, eye tracking exists, but near 100% eye tracking that conforms to a vast array of eye shapes/face shapes does not exist yet. 

The first company to crack the code on near 100% eye tracking, can then use that tech to enable proprietary foveated rendering.  My bet is still on Oculus that they'll be the first to have a fully fledged out system with reliable eye tracking and foveated rendering done at system side (unlike STarVR One XT that requires devs to implement fov-rendering into their games).

I'm sure Valve/HTC/etc... are working on Eye Tracking tech and Foveated Rendering (real fov-rend, not static). but their lack of public updates/demos makes me seriously think they're no where near the progress that Oculus has done.  While ppl like to crap on Oculus for not releasing the "Highest of ends VR headset", what they need to realize is Oculus is probably the largest VR company is the world (Oculus is a larger company than the entirety of Valve - which only a small segment of Valve is VR focused).  Oculus knows what they're doing, and it seems they're going all in on a Rift 2 having Eye Tracking.
i7-7700k, Zotac RTX 3080 AMP Holo (10G), QuestPro, Quest 2
Previous: Oculus GO, Oculus RIFT - 3 sensor Room-scale, Oculus Rift S

Anonymous
Not applicable


The race for highend VR is dependent on reliable eye tracking; which no company has. Yes, eye tracking exists, but near 100% eye tracking that conforms to a vast array of eye shapes/face shapes does not exist yet.  


Yes and no - its not eye tracking it self - but the ability to show higher resolution at or near the same it cost to run today games on the same hardware. If you could fake a higher resolution at the same cost it runs 1080p - you basically have a winning VR product that will blow out anyone else. Figure that out - let me know I will even pay you a million dollars xD

ShocksVR
Superstar
But why make a crutch when real Foveated Rendering would replace that tech anyways.
i7-7700k, Zotac RTX 3080 AMP Holo (10G), QuestPro, Quest 2
Previous: Oculus GO, Oculus RIFT - 3 sensor Room-scale, Oculus Rift S

inovator
Consultant


inovator said:

Inside out tracking. To make it comparable to the constellation they can put cameras behind the headset as well. Now the headset sees controllers behind you.



Mradr said:

The only other problem with slow progression is the fact that Oculus is trying to hit a million users. I'm sure Quest will bring in a lot of users for gaming stuff - but with shortcomings on gen 1 still and limited use of VR right now limited to mostly gaming and entertainment of that type - what reason will people have to keep using VR?

VR still has many jumps it needs in advamanents before a large number of people will want to keep using it every day with some of these including resolution, easy in and out access, comfort and dizziness. I can't see why they would want to do small jump vs large jumps (even if they include tricks) so they appear more appealing to the public to use it more. Outside of that - you need to make sure the HMD has other uses that will keep people using your product. With out huge leaps in technology - VR in this case will just have to play the slow game instead.

If VR could advance enough in the screen department to allow focal point clarity and high enough resolution they could start seeing big gains in the number of people that uses a headset as a monitor instead. Why have a big clingy monitor and a large desk when you could go smaller and only need a headset? Make it easy in and out (flip viser up and down or pull off the  HMD without moving my glasses) and not have to set up cameras you will see people pick one up and have the privately of their eyes only. 

I also like to point out - what made gaming systems soo great in the public view is the fact they actually did have large leaps in graphics compare to PC gaming for the price point. Back when the PS1 came out - it would've cost almost grand to even play Tomb Raider. For a few hundred dollars and less overall hassle to using vs a computer (building, setting up the right settings for the hardware, and etc) it was worth every penny.

PS2 also saw big gains in graphics and was much cheaper than other options - PS3 on the other hand didn't see as much of a gain though and people started looking at the PC again. PS4 on the other hand had some people wondering why get a gaming console when they could get a PC for a few more 100 dollars as the cards inside cost as much as getting one now. PS5 now even before lunch is getting some flack their new cards won't be as powerful as what they can buy off the shelf/next release from AMD next year or from Nvidia as it'll cost the same or less to build the computer instead of a console.

My point is that - as we continue moving forward - simple slow progression isn't enough - VR still needs to try and work out ways to be more than just for gaming. The more it can do - the more people will see the value in it. The more they can use it - the more value it has to them. Once that value has meet or become greater - then price really has no meaning and the amount of people will continue to grow. Literally I only got the ps3 because it could do netflix and blue ray. Games were just added value.


If you get better visuals etc. You still have a bulky headset and wires and high end cost. Quest is part of the answer and slow progression is the only way. Mainstream will happen but it will be like a turtle walking the mile.

Anonymous
Not applicable

inovator said:

If you get better visuals etc. You still have a bulky headset and wires and high end cost. Quest is part of the answer and slow progression is the only way. Mainstream will happen but it will be like a turtle walking the mile.
I really dont think cost alone is what is slowing down VR progression in sales number. IF it was - then GO should be already main stream and taking over in large numbers. The headsets might be bulky - but I never once heard that being an issue with anyone that tried VR. Yes it is part of the answer - but not from a "slow" progression stand point - it's a leap forward in terms of getting mobile hardware to take place of what a computer is costing someone and keeping it an easy setup.

On the other hand - if you look at threads and other posting - you will find people don't understand the point in VR, that current units are collecting dust, and many more asking for the next thing vs wanting more of the same thing. At the end of day - it really sounds like there is value problem in terms of what is buying into vr giving back to the customer. What more value can VR have to continue using VR into the future.



But why make a crutch when real Foveated Rendering would replace that tech anyways.
FOVR is just a tool to help the underlying issue. The ability to show higher resolution at or near the same it cost to run today games on the same hardware. This isn't a problem just for VR - but all devices really. There really isn't a single answer to this question - but tool sets we can use to help improve the issue. If you do find the single one answer - my deal is up to anyone:) Just for example, you could use FOVR and it will help about 40% of the load for running 4k by 4k. You could then double up on that with DLSS getting another 20% back. You can then even add another 1k by 1k resolution on top of that switching to RGBW keeping full spread. You can even then 4x up on that using upscales allowing you to hit 20k screens. So your base would be 4k render with 50% half the load while the OLED screens would be running at 16k by 16k resolution.

base 2x 2k performance render (4k output) -> 2x 16k target screen

Granted we don't have screens that high yet o.o; but could be possible in the future just for an example how tool sets can double up on each other. If I am wrong - let me know where I was wrong. Granted - DLSS and FOVR could very a little in terms of performance kickbacks against resolution.