Discussion
While the head\eye tracking certainly needs development and support in order to fully fulfil its potential I don't even care about that for this first iteration, they can sort that stuff out later. Right now I'd be happy with just a HD 3D screen in glasses form allowing me to game in a large screen format (virtual screen size for the Rift is 110" I believe) anywhere I like and without physically having to have a large TV.
Durzel said:
In games where the thing you're holding doesn't move - e.g. racing games - holding a steering wheel, flight sims, etc - the looking around part of it I'm sure works brilliantly.
Where I imagine it falls down in terms of current game support is disconnecting where the gun is pointing from where the camera (eyes) are pointing. In first person shooters for example the gun doesn't move as such, the camera moves and the gun is effectively welded to it. Proper Oculus Rift support would entail the gun being able to be moved and pointed independently of the camera which at best would result in people being much less accurate and at worst be pretty game-breaking - e.g. allowing you to point the gun at your own head, seeing parts of the gun you wouldn't normally, etc.
As I understand it the tech also requires you to keep your eyes looking forwards at all times, moving your head to control movement. Humans obviously look around without moving their head.
Still, it's a very impressive leap forward - it surely won't be too long before it's enclosed within glasses that are only slightly bigger than regular glasses, especially with flexible OLED developments.
When you move your eyes without moving your head, the picture in front of you doesn't move. Having never used Or I assume moving your eyes would just mean you, yourself refocusing on the edge of the screen. If you want to look further, you move your head... So basically exactly as in real life.Where I imagine it falls down in terms of current game support is disconnecting where the gun is pointing from where the camera (eyes) are pointing. In first person shooters for example the gun doesn't move as such, the camera moves and the gun is effectively welded to it. Proper Oculus Rift support would entail the gun being able to be moved and pointed independently of the camera which at best would result in people being much less accurate and at worst be pretty game-breaking - e.g. allowing you to point the gun at your own head, seeing parts of the gun you wouldn't normally, etc.
As I understand it the tech also requires you to keep your eyes looking forwards at all times, moving your head to control movement. Humans obviously look around without moving their head.
Still, it's a very impressive leap forward - it surely won't be too long before it's enclosed within glasses that are only slightly bigger than regular glasses, especially with flexible OLED developments.
I managed to get some laps on iRacing last night with the Rift and it's really good. If you can get the calibration locked, the view doesn't drift at all but it's not entirely foolproof.
The first time I turned my head and saw another passing me, I nearly jumped - even though I knew he was there. It's quite amazing, as a demo of what's to come it just confirms for me that this is the best chance for a real wave of affordable in-home VR.
Using iRacing with the Oculus IPD settings, I had no headache or eyestrain at all. That correct calibration is crucial.
The first time I turned my head and saw another passing me, I nearly jumped - even though I knew he was there. It's quite amazing, as a demo of what's to come it just confirms for me that this is the best chance for a real wave of affordable in-home VR.
Using iRacing with the Oculus IPD settings, I had no headache or eyestrain at all. That correct calibration is crucial.
Bit of a thread revival but this list and in particular the top spot makes me very excited!
HL2 is my favourite game ever.
Can't wait to get one of these!
http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/pc/2013/12/31/best-...
HL2 is my favourite game ever.
Can't wait to get one of these!
http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/pc/2013/12/31/best-...
Unfortunately for me, I never got the head tracking to work when I tried it and got really bad motion sickness 
Mr Whippy said:
I can't wait to get one, but they really are taking their time over a release.
We'll have invented and live within the Matrix before they finally finish one for consumers to buy
Indeed. Since they can't churn out the DK anymore, I was hoping they'd push the 2nd DK out sooner (which I'd be forced to pick up) but I've not heard anything yet.We'll have invented and live within the Matrix before they finally finish one for consumers to buy
This is still my no.1 gaming 'want' of the year, although it seems it'll be more like 2015...
So does anyone know what the latest build of this is like? I remember not being too impressed with the specs on the Dev Kit and judging by comments on this thread from people who have tried it, I was right. However the potential for this technology is absolutely huge IMO, just wish they'd hurry up and get the proper consumer version out the door.
At minimum I reckon it would need 1080p at 30fps in 3D and pretty accurate head tracking but surely that should be doable with today's technology even now? Not sure what they are waiting for at this point, I know they are pretty ambitious about what they want it to do but as a first iteration I reckon the above specs would be more than adequate and they really need to get something out the door sharpish as other people are now also on the chase.
At minimum I reckon it would need 1080p at 30fps in 3D and pretty accurate head tracking but surely that should be doable with today's technology even now? Not sure what they are waiting for at this point, I know they are pretty ambitious about what they want it to do but as a first iteration I reckon the above specs would be more than adequate and they really need to get something out the door sharpish as other people are now also on the chase.
I have a feeling they are just faffing, which isn't good news.
In the end they are throwing a lot of eggs into this basket which means they need a bigger income, which means widespread support from day one and it being in loads of games and all that jazz.
I just hope they haven't bitten off more than they can chew for a first release.
Dave
In the end they are throwing a lot of eggs into this basket which means they need a bigger income, which means widespread support from day one and it being in loads of games and all that jazz.
I just hope they haven't bitten off more than they can chew for a first release.
Dave
Guvernator said:
This might have been mentioned before but does a game need to be specifically designed to work with the OR or does it have software to go with it that can OR enable any game, much like the software that comes with 3D glasses can?
It needs to be designed with it in mind.There might be some systems where it can fudge some effect but I doubt they would be very convincing or efficient on the GPU.
Ie, things like shadow maps might be rendered per frame, same with reflection maps and so on. Ideally you'd design your renderer to render two points of view using the same assets for the pair of frames needed, rather than render the left view then the right view as if they were actually two separate frames.
Then there are other tricks where you might have calculated pixels for things at infinity (sky) so you might not waste time clearing that from memory and re-use it in a deferred rendering system.
Also lots of modern engines use imposters and they might work fine from both cameras too...
But then other renderers might be forward rendering based so some optimisations may not work, while others might work better.
In the end though it's probably not too hard to do, especially once the knowledge gets out there on how to do it efficiently.
The main things for me will be letting users choose how it works for them so they can choose systems that fit comfortably with them. The last thing you want is to find the implementation your favourite game uses is one that makes you feel sicker than another for example.
Dave
Ta, makes sense but surely some of these issues will be the same issues that are faced when you go to 3D, doesn't that render two separate images, one for each eye too? I know a game designed to work in 3D can be a bit better but I've seen the effect of software that can make a game 3d compatible, even if it's not designed for 3D and the effect is more than passable and not too far off the dedicated 3d games, not sure how this effects performance though.
I suspect given time it would be possible for a OR renderer to be designed and I think this will be an important part of getting this technology to a point where it's widespread enough to achieve critical mass. I doubt very many game designers will bother to OR their games if it doesn't have a large enough market but without enough games designed for OR, that market will never grow to sufficient size, it's a bit of a chicken and egg scenario.
I suspect given time it would be possible for a OR renderer to be designed and I think this will be an important part of getting this technology to a point where it's widespread enough to achieve critical mass. I doubt very many game designers will bother to OR their games if it doesn't have a large enough market but without enough games designed for OR, that market will never grow to sufficient size, it's a bit of a chicken and egg scenario.
Yes there is obviously dealing with the 'head' in 3D space vs whatever that interacts with (the body of a character, which might be in a car or aeroplane, or whatever else)... that is tough and where flexibility will be key I think.
Then there are distortion and projection concerns which I think where some games got it wrong and that can cause headaches/sickness.
Then there are rendering concerns... you are right that any stereo viewpoint game will have the necessary tweaks there to work more quickly with the Oculus.
But there are lots of concerns generally. Ie, you might make a car sim and not do much detail on the cockpit where you won't normally see. But with the Oculus you might look around more within even the normal FOV which is a lot wider, so you might want more details if you support the wider FOV these VR things will offer... AND you'll likely look around more often too because you can
So content, renderings, projections, how the head interacts with the environment.
Lots to cover but it's not a monumental amount in the end.
Dave
Then there are distortion and projection concerns which I think where some games got it wrong and that can cause headaches/sickness.
Then there are rendering concerns... you are right that any stereo viewpoint game will have the necessary tweaks there to work more quickly with the Oculus.
But there are lots of concerns generally. Ie, you might make a car sim and not do much detail on the cockpit where you won't normally see. But with the Oculus you might look around more within even the normal FOV which is a lot wider, so you might want more details if you support the wider FOV these VR things will offer... AND you'll likely look around more often too because you can
So content, renderings, projections, how the head interacts with the environment.
Lots to cover but it's not a monumental amount in the end.
Dave
Most modern simulator games do allow you to look around these days but I agree that the inclusion of OR would add quite a bit of extra complexity to that process. Also interesting that a lot of people are complaining about the motion sickness effect, I've only had this happen to me in one or two games previously but it appears it becomes much more of a problem with OR.
Still I hope they hurry up and sort out all the issues, IMO gaming has stagnated in terms of new technology for far too long, sure we get prettier graphics every year and there have been developments with motion sensing controllers\camera's etc but none have really pushed gaming too far beyond the original concept, I really do think VR technology is the next evolution for gaming.
I still also find it very weird that we are so far behind the curve with VR tech, an interview with the designer of the OR goes into detail about how he had to go back to a time before the internet to research VR, it seemed to be all the rage in the 80's and early 90's and then for some mysterious reason, just died a death. Imagine where we'd be with it if we'd continued to develop the technology rather than just forget about it for 20 odd years, very bizarre.
Still I hope they hurry up and sort out all the issues, IMO gaming has stagnated in terms of new technology for far too long, sure we get prettier graphics every year and there have been developments with motion sensing controllers\camera's etc but none have really pushed gaming too far beyond the original concept, I really do think VR technology is the next evolution for gaming.
I still also find it very weird that we are so far behind the curve with VR tech, an interview with the designer of the OR goes into detail about how he had to go back to a time before the internet to research VR, it seemed to be all the rage in the 80's and early 90's and then for some mysterious reason, just died a death. Imagine where we'd be with it if we'd continued to develop the technology rather than just forget about it for 20 odd years, very bizarre.
I remember there being a VR arcade in Nottingham. It died back then because ultimately it was pretty crap (but good for the time). As such it only appealed to hardcore geeks. It needs to be mainstream and cheap to pick up critical mass.
I don't think this will go critical mass. Control methods let us down still for the general public it needs to be intuitive. Although £2-300 is relatively cheap for such clever tech it's expensive overall (how much is a 42" tv these days).
I love it but I'm the target audience.
I don't think this will go critical mass. Control methods let us down still for the general public it needs to be intuitive. Although £2-300 is relatively cheap for such clever tech it's expensive overall (how much is a 42" tv these days).
I love it but I'm the target audience.
This is the thing though, they don't need to shoot for the moon on the first go, if they make it good enough, their are millions of gamers in the world with that kind of disposable income to spend on their hobby, PC players spend more than that on yearly upgrades. If it sells enough to create a buzz in the games community, pretty soon it will get into the mainstream media and then it can really take off. This should then give them enough money to develop it further.
Also I don't mean this as a disservice to the OR guys but I hope they get bought out at some point by a bigger company, much as we like to moan about the Microsoft's and Apple's of the world, they have the resources to really push this tech to the next level.
Also I don't mean this as a disservice to the OR guys but I hope they get bought out at some point by a bigger company, much as we like to moan about the Microsoft's and Apple's of the world, they have the resources to really push this tech to the next level.
Yes but surely at some point VR will have to emerge? We've been watching them use this kind of stuff in movies for a looong time, it's well ingrained into our psyche now which is why you are seeing so much of a "when the hell is this coming out" reaction, Hollywood has created the demand and we've been waiting for something like this for years.
Upon further research I am seeing some big players are now moving into this space, Sony and Google to name just two so I'd be willing to bet this IS going to happen at some point in the next few years. OR need to release something sharpish (if they can) or they will be overtaken.
Upon further research I am seeing some big players are now moving into this space, Sony and Google to name just two so I'd be willing to bet this IS going to happen at some point in the next few years. OR need to release something sharpish (if they can) or they will be overtaken.
Gassing Station | Video Games | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff