Discussion
First batch is on it's way to distribution centres now, but only 10k units.
So if you got your order in within the first 24 hours of it being available to pre-order (they had 12.5k orders in the first 36 hours) you should get it by the end of the month. If not, it'll be August to October (maybe).
MattyB_ said:
First batch is on it's way to distribution centres now, but only 10k units.
So if you got your order in within the first 24 hours of it being available to pre-order (they had 12.5k orders in the first 36 hours) you should get it by the end of the month. If not, it'll be August to October (maybe).
This is the 1080p DK2? Or retail?So if you got your order in within the first 24 hours of it being available to pre-order (they had 12.5k orders in the first 36 hours) you should get it by the end of the month. If not, it'll be August to October (maybe).
Yep, DK2.
CV1 ("Consumer version 1") is expected in about 18 months time, but even then they're claiming it won't be until CV2 in 2016/17 that it'll really be hitting it's stride. Still very early days.
Still not convinced it'll ever be anything more than a nerd/simulator peripheral, but time will tell.
MattyB_ said:
Yep, DK2.
CV1 ("Consumer version 1") is expected in about 18 months time, but even then they're claiming it won't be until CV2 in 2016/17 that it'll really be hitting it's stride. Still very early days.
Still not convinced it'll ever be anything more than a nerd/simulator peripheral, but time will tell.
But there is still a huge market in nerds/simulation to make it a pretty big thing still.CV1 ("Consumer version 1") is expected in about 18 months time, but even then they're claiming it won't be until CV2 in 2016/17 that it'll really be hitting it's stride. Still very early days.
Still not convinced it'll ever be anything more than a nerd/simulator peripheral, but time will tell.
Whether that justifies the amounts invested in the company thus far though is another thing.
But the time-line does seem really very long. 18 months till a consumer version. It's been years since they announced the tech and maybe 24 months since DK1 was available.
That is fine, but by then there will be plenty of other competition and I think they might just end up being the 'Facebook VR' that no one wants, for whatever reason (plenty of those flying around these days as everyone out-flaws their devices so they are only useful if you buy into the full gamut of products from that one provider)
Dave
Mr Whippy said:
But the time-line does seem really very long. 18 months till a consumer version. It's been years since they announced the tech and maybe 24 months since DK1 was available.
That is fine, but by then there will be plenty of other competition and I think they might just end up being the 'Facebook VR' that no one wants, for whatever reason (plenty of those flying around these days as everyone out-flaws their devices so they are only useful if you buy into the full gamut of products from that one provider)
Dave
Yeah, it's almost like they're stuck in a development loop, in that they keep revising the spec all the time to try and keep up with new tech, or the competition.That is fine, but by then there will be plenty of other competition and I think they might just end up being the 'Facebook VR' that no one wants, for whatever reason (plenty of those flying around these days as everyone out-flaws their devices so they are only useful if you buy into the full gamut of products from that one provider)
Dave
They say that the DK2 is pretty much feature complete - but 1080P won't be enough in 2 years time; it's largely agreed that you need 4K res to totally remove any screen-door; we've got phones with 4k already, surely that's what they need to be aiming for?
I think the limit there will be the power of the device driving it.
1080p, no problem (it's 960x91080 per eye) 4k needs to render 4x more pixels, power is probably exponentially higher. I quick google seems to indicate a rig with something like dual titans to get 4k with all the shinys.
1080p, no problem (it's 960x91080 per eye) 4k needs to render 4x more pixels, power is probably exponentially higher. I quick google seems to indicate a rig with something like dual titans to get 4k with all the shinys.
There are resolutions between 1080p and 2160p though... like 1200p and 1440p, or whatever you like I suppose.
1080p is probably still on the lower end of pixel density vs world space angle that it covers, but I really don't care.
The immersion with wide FOV, the 3D capability, and the 360deg moving POV are all what are enticing me. They are things you can't just measure and say X is better than Y. They are fundamental improvements to entire game-play feeling and mechanics.
If people buy a VR on the resolution specs they're missing the point of VR to start with.
If they can get the fundamentals right on 1080p I'll have one asap. If 1440p arrives a year later, great, I'll get that then if it feels better. 4k another few years later, same again if I feel I need it.
Oculus, it doesn't NEED to be perfect now. Finish it and let me enjoy it before I go buy one from a competitor and forget you ever existed!
Dave
1080p is probably still on the lower end of pixel density vs world space angle that it covers, but I really don't care.
The immersion with wide FOV, the 3D capability, and the 360deg moving POV are all what are enticing me. They are things you can't just measure and say X is better than Y. They are fundamental improvements to entire game-play feeling and mechanics.
If people buy a VR on the resolution specs they're missing the point of VR to start with.
If they can get the fundamentals right on 1080p I'll have one asap. If 1440p arrives a year later, great, I'll get that then if it feels better. 4k another few years later, same again if I feel I need it.
Oculus, it doesn't NEED to be perfect now. Finish it and let me enjoy it before I go buy one from a competitor and forget you ever existed!
Dave
I'd argue that if the game is well made with lots of details, and these headsets are in 1080p with a more purpose built screen, then you just won't notice these issues unless you look for them specifically.
Just like every piece of technology since I've been into PC gaming (nearly 20 years), there are always people picking away at 'issues' that generally are not really problems at all if you just play the game, rather than spend your time looking for faults.
Make the issue go away, make it 4k, and if you look at ANY game, even next gen demos, you can see boat loads of problems if you go looking for them.
I'm not having a go specifically at you by the way. It's just a bit of a rant generally that people just pick stuff apart based on odd metrics these days. If it's not screen door effect it'll be something else that people will whinge about, even though if you just use the device to play games, not look for the faults, it'll be awesome!
For sure these issues exist, but do they really hurt the overall experience?
I'd argue that in a horror game or something that s
ts you up like the original AVP, despite looking old and blocky today, you'd be more likely to st your pants in horror with a DK1 Oculus on your head, than you would playing it on a 4k screen 
All I want is to be able to just go buy one for say £200-£250, and play games with it. I don't NEED it to be perfect because even as it stands it's 100x better than sitting staring at a 24" rectangle in 2D with about 25deg of actual FOV hehe.
Dave
Just like every piece of technology since I've been into PC gaming (nearly 20 years), there are always people picking away at 'issues' that generally are not really problems at all if you just play the game, rather than spend your time looking for faults.
Make the issue go away, make it 4k, and if you look at ANY game, even next gen demos, you can see boat loads of problems if you go looking for them.
I'm not having a go specifically at you by the way. It's just a bit of a rant generally that people just pick stuff apart based on odd metrics these days. If it's not screen door effect it'll be something else that people will whinge about, even though if you just use the device to play games, not look for the faults, it'll be awesome!
For sure these issues exist, but do they really hurt the overall experience?
I'd argue that in a horror game or something that s
ts you up like the original AVP, despite looking old and blocky today, you'd be more likely to st your pants in horror with a DK1 Oculus on your head, than you would playing it on a 4k screen All I want is to be able to just go buy one for say £200-£250, and play games with it. I don't NEED it to be perfect because even as it stands it's 100x better than sitting staring at a 24" rectangle in 2D with about 25deg of actual FOV hehe.
Dave
No one knows what the consumer res will be. 4k will be a tall order over the next couple of years. 4k + 3d will require a bit of a monster setup which will reduce its consumer base.
I suspect it will be less than 4k but I guess it depends on when it is released. I doubt even the next gen cards (800 NVidia series) will be able to cope with 4k res on the cutting edge games without going sli/xfire.
I know that Star Citizen is available at 4k, is a next gen game and even running 2x Titans doesn't make it run necessarily smooth enough. Although this game is still in development, so has some optimization to come.
I suspect it will be less than 4k but I guess it depends on when it is released. I doubt even the next gen cards (800 NVidia series) will be able to cope with 4k res on the cutting edge games without going sli/xfire.
I know that Star Citizen is available at 4k, is a next gen game and even running 2x Titans doesn't make it run necessarily smooth enough. Although this game is still in development, so has some optimization to come.
There are 3D overheads though for rendering from two POV. You can overcome a lot of them but there are still some, so it's not just doing some extra filling as if it were higher res.
Wasn't DK1 really low res though, this new one is double the res I think.
I'd probably still say that the first release will be a lower res, with a higher res one for those who want it.
Yes Titan, GTX780 etc, but who really has £750+ to sink on a GPU for playing games? OK on the forums all those who have them parade them because they spent £££ on them, but most people have something a bit more moderate.
Throw in the ROI Facebook will need with Oculus. They won't target this device at a small demographic with money to burn 20 somethings who still live with their parents and can justify half a months salary on a small brick of electronics to make games a bit fancier.
It'll be focussed on the top middle demographic, and that is going to be strongly defined for the next half a decade by the PS/Eggs box, and that means 1080p will be made to look good.
I have to make the observation again, but most games these days, even the very best PC ones in full settings, are just stretched out details at anything over 1200p in my experience.
Once I start to actually miss out on texture details or geometry details due to a lack of resolution I'll upgrade, but that will be a long time away yet I think... there is no doubt that a photo on screen at 1200p can look 'real'... so there is nothing stopping any game looking 'real' at 1200p either.
I'd much prefer to see Oculus running 1080p with content developers just filling those 1080p with genuinely photo-realistic detail-packed renderings, than just stretching assets out over 4k worth of pixels so the edges look a bit better if you decide you want to just play a game to look at what the edges look like
Dave
Wasn't DK1 really low res though, this new one is double the res I think.
I'd probably still say that the first release will be a lower res, with a higher res one for those who want it.
Yes Titan, GTX780 etc, but who really has £750+ to sink on a GPU for playing games? OK on the forums all those who have them parade them because they spent £££ on them, but most people have something a bit more moderate.
Throw in the ROI Facebook will need with Oculus. They won't target this device at a small demographic with money to burn 20 somethings who still live with their parents and can justify half a months salary on a small brick of electronics to make games a bit fancier.
It'll be focussed on the top middle demographic, and that is going to be strongly defined for the next half a decade by the PS/Eggs box, and that means 1080p will be made to look good.
I have to make the observation again, but most games these days, even the very best PC ones in full settings, are just stretched out details at anything over 1200p in my experience.
Once I start to actually miss out on texture details or geometry details due to a lack of resolution I'll upgrade, but that will be a long time away yet I think... there is no doubt that a photo on screen at 1200p can look 'real'... so there is nothing stopping any game looking 'real' at 1200p either.
I'd much prefer to see Oculus running 1080p with content developers just filling those 1080p with genuinely photo-realistic detail-packed renderings, than just stretching assets out over 4k worth of pixels so the edges look a bit better if you decide you want to just play a game to look at what the edges look like
Dave
This isn't quite the blog entry I was trying to find but it will do. Check the rest of his blog for details.
My understanding is that the main issue is not resolution per se...but latency and refresh rates.
The post below covers latency and the fact that you have to do an awful lot of measuring and processing before you can draw a frame.
There is another excellent blog post that talks about the physics of eye movements and saccades... Essentially the eye can move bloody quickly and you may need refresh rates of 120hz or more to keep up with it.
http://www.altdev.co/2013/02/22/latency-mitigation...
My understanding is that the main issue is not resolution per se...but latency and refresh rates.
The post below covers latency and the fact that you have to do an awful lot of measuring and processing before you can draw a frame.
There is another excellent blog post that talks about the physics of eye movements and saccades... Essentially the eye can move bloody quickly and you may need refresh rates of 120hz or more to keep up with it.
http://www.altdev.co/2013/02/22/latency-mitigation...
Irrotational said:
My understanding is that the main issue is not resolution per se...but latency and refresh rates.
Those are the next big issues for sure, but that post is based on the assumption that the resolution issue has been fixed. All being well that should be the case, but until we know the specs of cv1 we can't tell for sure.
If you haven't tried a dk1 it's easy to think people are talking about getting a bit more detail in the picture and hence wondering what the big deal is, but as an example in euro truck simulator with dk1, you cannot read any of the instruments, you cannot read any roadsigns, you can't even see which way the road goes until you are on top of the corner.
Don't get me wrong, dk1 is incredibly impressive and i'll be first in the queue for cv1
I've just uploaded some footage of the resolution. Most videos I've seen don't really show this, I'd say it's actually worse when using it.
This is a DK1 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngl8hjdu3yk&fe...
This is a DK1 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngl8hjdu3yk&fe...
Gassing Station | Video Games | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff