in6seconds's silly thread

[in6seconds]

oculus doesn't care if you get the vive instead, its your loss, the vive is probably the same as the dk2
steam bought the dk1 and adjusted it to create the vive 😛

honestly people think just by saying "CANCELLING MY ORDER IM GETTING THE VIV INSTEED"
will make oculus lower their prices? no.

[Anonymous]

We know the least about the PSVR, so I'm not discounting it.

With that said, if the pricetag is really in the Rift ballpark (or more as rumored), I could see it struggling.

If the cost of a PS4+VR is over $1000, I'm not sure how well it will do as a big part of why console gamers are console gamers is because they can't or don't want to get into the costs associated with PC gaming (both time and money costs).

In fact, if the latest rumors are true for PSVR and Vive price (which is a big if), Oculus is going to come out looking like the golden child for this generation of VR

[in6seconds]

playstation vr will have very little sales if it doesn't come as the playstation 5 or a playstation 5 $100 accessory.

[chtan]

"vizionvr" wrote:

"in6seconds" wrote:
the vive is probably the same as the dk2 steam bought the dk1 and adjusted it to create the vive

Exactly this. DK2 had full-scale room tracking, tracked motion controllers and on board pass-through video. Oculus chose not to advertise these features and HTC took full advantage of that. :lol:

Have you ever wonder why they didn't? My guess is they either facing with huge technical issue in performance or the cost will ballooned out of proportion if they did it.
Just image with touch controller, you need 1 additional camera. So you might need another additional device or camera in order to do the room size VR. Also, they have to sort out the camera fidelity issue with room size distant. Also, software have to be told to take additional device or camera in to calculation. With any additional device, the software has to be modify. Its crazy.

[Percy1983]

I think PSVR has a good chance if the price is right. But it does seem a lot of processing has been moved into a separate box which can't be cheap.

With that we already know it won't have the power behind it which our rifts will have but I don't see that as a problem.

We have pumped up gaming machines because we don't like to compromise on visuals, and now we are getting a VR headset to match.

PS4 owners are clearly happy with sub par resolutions and frame rates so will quite likely to accept a sub par VR experience, or in many cases they just don't know any better.

As for room size, you know there is a video of a reasonable size room with 2 cameras working perfectly.

[Zoomie]

chtan

We understand. You're very excited about room scale and believe that the Vive is the only one that can do it correctly.
Since Oculus released their pre-orders and price you've done nothing but praise the Vive and put down the Rift. While I'm all for measured debate about relative merits, you've shown very strong support for Vive technology without really addressing many of the salient points brought up by other users. Hard data is hard to come-by at this stage, but I think you've consistently presented opinion and hyperbole as fact.

I'll post this again in hopes that you'll see and read it in one of these threads:
Oculus Touch is going to come bundled with a second station. It's on the main Oculus page. PM me if you need a link.
I've done VR about 6-8 feet away from a single DK2 camera without any problems. The cord was my limiting factor, not resolution or number of cameras.
By all accounts the CV1 camera is superior to the DK2 version, which AFAIK was a webcam with an IR filter
Processing of positional data in the Oculus is done by software, tracking IR LED's on the headset or peripherals. Processing of the positional data for Lighthouse is done on-board the units being tracked. (please correct me if I'm wrong). I don't follow the logic that Vive accessories will therefore be cheaper than Oculus ones. I can't see Lighthouse processing being cheaper than IR LEDs.

Lighthouse uses 2 stations for a 15'x15' area. Oculus should be able to do a similar area with only two stations. What application do you have in-mind that will require more than 2 base stations? You keep praising the scalability of the Lighthouse system and I won't debate that it would be easier to add 3 or 4 or even 5 stations. But to what end? If two cameras are sufficient for a large domestic room, why do we need to add more?

Oculus has developed common software for all applications to use the cameras to track objects - just like the Vive Lighthouse system. They're flip-sides of the same coin from what I've read. This means that developers don't need to program anything special to use 2 cameras. The Rift software will calculate position and send it to the client software, just like the Vive will do.

You asked why Oculus hasn't done room scale and I think it's a valid question. My personal opinion is that Wifi will be the big emancipator of VR. Neither Oculus nor HTC nor Sony have a solution to that yet.

[in6seconds]

personally I feel as if the oculus with the touch is better than the vive

[Anonymous]

Maybe wrong ~ and don't ask my sources ~ but I find that the Vive tracking system would be a bit better in terms of accuracy over the Oculus tracking just because you can make a finer net of tracking with the lasers than you can with light (for example, light blooms a bit). Now as for cost ~ I think the Oculus has the better tech for this. Lights are cheaper than seniors and don't require that the object to send it's information back to the computer to be process unlike what the Vive has you do. Now witch one is better? That's hard to say because, aka, they are just a flip coin of themselves when it comes to tracking. One will be better over some situation while the other will be better for others.

It's one of them silly jokes I make when I talk with people. Yea I'm getting the Oculus for the image quality so I can see what I need to hit - and the Vive tracking system for the fights and weapons:P

As for the topic ~ Yea xD cost and availability will NOT be on your side for the Vive. They will cost too much for the avg. Joe, but they wont have enough time to make them either. That might be why they are charging just a bit more because of the supply and demand for them.

Other wise, yea... people need to like loosen up about "If Oculus doesn't xxx, I am going to Vive" threats. They are annoying to the community more than they are to Oculus atm. One tip instead of saying "I am going to vive if you don't do this" say "YO, BITC#SH, WE NEED WINDOW CAMES ON FRONT SIDE SO I CAN SEE WHEN MY BROS WANNA F WIT ME!" XD

[Ashles]

"Tim74UK" wrote:

"Ashles" wrote:

"Tim74UK" wrote:
interpolated frame rendering means it may seem smooth, but the simple truth is the PS4 simply doesn't have enough power to push any VR experiences more than very rudimentary single scenario demo like games.

Sony have announce over 100 games planned for PSVR and some of those titles are clearly more complex than 'single scenario demo' games so this is simply not correct.

PS4 doesn't have the power of a machine running a Rift or Vive but what it does have is a very fixed set of specs allowing developers to optimise everything as far as possible for a single machine architecture.

Why not actually wait and see what they come up with before making sweeping statements based solely on guesswork?

My reasoning is that the PS4 can't even render current games at 1080p at 60fps....

Even with interpolation which creates an intermediate frame to push 60hz refresh to 120hz, the system itself still has to render 60fps stable... Which without reducing seriously the scope of the game there is no chance the PS4 can achieve.

But reviewers who have actually tried PSVR are giving surprisingly positive feedback. It's not CV1 but it's a significant step up from Gear VR.
Arguments based solely on assumptions about hardware and tech specs are likely to be flawed as you have no idea what optimisations are being carried out, or what processing power is on the additional box. Also technical aspects are not the overriding factor for a great game experience - a well designed game is, and Sony has strong access to AAA studios.
I think (based on early reviews) PSVR is going to be better than expected for console VR and real competition for Rift and Vive in terms of customer uptake and market penetrative. And that the quality will exceed expectations - filling a comfortable niche between Gear VR and Rift.

[Anonymous]

"Ashles" wrote:
And that the quality will exceed expectations - filling a comfortable niche between Gear VR and Rift.

My understanding is that it might be a good middle ground between the small phones and the big PC, but it'll actually cost something on the big PC still. At around 600$ as well it is going to be pretty hard for a lot of people to pay for that niche along with the games. It might exceed expectations, but I worry that it wont be able to really fill in a full on niche market without turning a lot people away back to the either the PC or worst away from VR as a whole.

[obzen]

"in6seconds" wrote:
the vive is probably the same as the dk2
steam bought the dk1 and adjusted it to create the vive 😛

I don't believe they did. Valve had their own headset research (when Abrash was still working for Valve), probably even before DK1. The Vive seems to be an iteration of their previous designs, when they had QR codes for and stuff positional tracking, and dual displays. Same with their VR controllers.

DK1 spurred them on, that's for sure.