While the likes of Oculus Rift or Project Morpheus work by tracking a user's head movements while requiring an input device for movement, Vive doesn't.
Using technology prototyped in the Crystal Cove Oculus headset that Valve helped develop, the HTC Vive seems to be able to track the whole environment. This means that it can track where someone is in a room and when they change location, they move in the game world too.
According to HTC's Jeff Gattis, the HTC Vive will offer a fast 90Hz refresh rate with 360-degree views - although we're a little sceptical as to how that's possible.
According to a press release from HTC, the Vive promises a "full room-scale" experience for virtual reality, "letting you get up, walk around and explore your virtual space, inspect objects from every angle and truly interact with your surroundings".
jdreyer wrote on Mar 2, 2015, 07:29:Slick wrote on Mar 2, 2015, 06:56:jdreyer wrote on Mar 2, 2015, 01:27:
Update: Samsung's Galaxy S6 will use a 1440P screen, specifically with VR in mind. I suspect this will be the screen we see in the OR.
THIS is good news. 1440p seems to be a reasonable line-in-the-sand as a minimum for text legibility. I upsample my DK2 to 1440p in E:D and it makes the UI usable, barely. 1080p native is unusable for the font sizes used IMO.
However, this would still pale in comparison with 2x 1080 screens. a 16:9 screen splits to an 8:9 ratio square for each eye. however if you close one eye you can tell that your eye's natural monocular vision is very "portrait" by nature. 2x 16:9 screens would seem to make that "wrap around" effect much more pronounced.
You probably missed my post at the start of the thread. The 1440P screen will be superior to the two 1080P screens:The two screens are 1200px by 1080px each, so not that different from the OR DK2 resolution of 960 by 1080 per eye. Oculus claims their consumer version will be better than 1080P so if we assume they will use a single 1440P screen, that would be 1280 by 1440 per eye at 90Hz, which would be superior.
HorrorScope wrote on Mar 2, 2015, 10:55:Slick wrote on Mar 2, 2015, 07:04:
AR to me is VR that also tracks your place in a physical space, it's one more dimension to a seated VR experience. I don't assume that "AR" means google glass, where I only see a HUD of my reality.
Interesting I would think AR is google glass, you see reality as-is and you augment it with a hud or perhaps something else, but like an overlay to reality.
VR is everything you see is fictitious and computer generated. Walking around and that being taken into account in the headesets visual to me doesn't move over to AR and it is just a UI device for VR. As a controller can do the same thing, just your bodies actions are different.
Slick wrote on Mar 2, 2015, 05:00:Yes, it's very prestigious. It's the Silicon Valley version of those pageants for 4 year olds which seems so popular in redneck land.Wraith wrote on Mar 2, 2015, 03:50:
Christ, I loathe having to explain elementary business to morons, but here goes.
They have a business class at your elementary school?
Seriously though, you win the "angry guy on internet" award for this thread. In such a short time in this thread you've proven yourself to be a fuckwit of legendary proportions, and considering some of your competition in the last year on BN <3, that's really saying something. kudos.Tragic. I'm not popular with a couple of nerdboy virgins on the internet. Boo hoo. I'll write out my will immediately.
Every sentence you write is dumber than the last. Every time I come up with a great comeback, I read your next line, have a mild brain aneurysm, and forget what i'm doing.No, I suspect trying to think gives you cancer. You have all the hallmarks of a fanboy with a terrifying Cheetos habit and a non-existent social circle. What do you do for an encore? Break out into hives at the thought of talking to a girl?
I think your post just gave me cancer, is what i'm trying to say.
HorrorScope wrote on Mar 2, 2015, 13:24:jdreyer wrote on Mar 2, 2015, 12:48:
You must have missed my post right below yours:The two screens are 1200px by 1080px each, so not that different from the OR DK2 resolution of 960 by 1080 per eye. Oculus claims their consumer version will be better than 1080P so if we assume they will use a single 1440P screen, that would be 1280 by 1440 per eye at 90Hz, which would be superior.The screens are not 1080 x 1920
Got it, so the pixels are:
vs 1440P 30% less
vs 1080P 20% more
So decent hardware today will run it.
Thx
jdreyer wrote on Mar 2, 2015, 12:48:
You must have missed my post right below yours:The two screens are 1200px by 1080px each, so not that different from the OR DK2 resolution of 960 by 1080 per eye. Oculus claims their consumer version will be better than 1080P so if we assume they will use a single 1440P screen, that would be 1280 by 1440 per eye at 90Hz, which would be superior.The screens are not 1080 x 1920
Slick wrote on Mar 2, 2015, 06:46:
nothing about Wraith is "right". but i suppose if anyone here would agree with him, it's you. You see you've made an impression on me. When i come across a post by someone named "Julio", I've come to expect a certain level of quality.
HorrorScope wrote on Mar 2, 2015, 10:49:
Yep 2 1080's is very nice and above a single 1440P. It is 12% more pixels than 1440P. And 1440P is 44% more pixels than single 1080P.
That said, is it two true panels that need the power of the PC to move all those pixels individually? Or is there something built into the hardware that takes one 1080P screen from the PC and manipulates it for the 3d affect to each eye/each panel? So the question is will my PC need to be powerful enough to move 1080P at 90fps or be powerful enough to move twin 1080P at 90?
Instead of the bigger boat, I'll need a bigger pc.
The two screens are 1200px by 1080px each, so not that different from the OR DK2 resolution of 960 by 1080 per eye. Oculus claims their consumer version will be better than 1080P so if we assume they will use a single 1440P screen, that would be 1280 by 1440 per eye at 90Hz, which would be superior.The screens are not 1080 x 1920
Slick wrote on Mar 2, 2015, 07:04:
AR to me is VR that also tracks your place in a physical space, it's one more dimension to a seated VR experience. I don't assume that "AR" means google glass, where I only see a HUD of my reality.
Slick wrote on Mar 2, 2015, 06:56:jdreyer wrote on Mar 2, 2015, 01:27:
Update: Samsung's Galaxy S6 will use a 1440P screen, specifically with VR in mind. I suspect this will be the screen we see in the OR.
THIS is good news. 1440p seems to be a reasonable line-in-the-sand as a minimum for text legibility. I upsample my DK2 to 1440p in E:D and it makes the UI usable, barely. 1080p native is unusable for the font sizes used IMO.
However, this would still pale in comparison with 2x 1080 screens. a 16:9 screen splits to an 8:9 ratio square for each eye. however if you close one eye you can tell that your eye's natural monocular vision is very "portrait" by nature. 2x 16:9 screens would seem to make that "wrap around" effect much more pronounced.
Slick wrote on Mar 2, 2015, 06:56:jdreyer wrote on Mar 2, 2015, 01:27:
Update: Samsung's Galaxy S6 will use a 1440P screen, specifically with VR in mind. I suspect this will be the screen we see in the OR.
THIS is good news. 1440p seems to be a reasonable line-in-the-sand as a minimum for text legibility. I upsample my DK2 to 1440p in E:D and it makes the UI usable, barely. 1080p native is unusable for the font sizes used IMO.
However, this would still pale in comparison with 2x 1080 screens. a 16:9 screen splits to an 8:9 ratio square for each eye. however if you close one eye you can tell that your eye's natural monocular vision is very "portrait" by nature. 2x 16:9 screens would seem to make that "wrap around" effect much more pronounced.
The two screens are 1200px by 1080px each, so not that different from the OR DK2 resolution of 960 by 1080 per eye. Oculus claims their consumer version will be better than 1080P so if we assume they will use a single 1440P screen, that would be 1280 by 1440 per eye at 90Hz, which would be superior.
NKD wrote on Mar 2, 2015, 05:13:He was pretty negative in a different thread today, so probably just having a bad weekend.Slick wrote on Mar 2, 2015, 05:00:I thought I was a crotchety fuck lately, then I saw that guys posts.
I think your post just gave me cancer, is what i'm trying to say.
NKD wrote on Mar 2, 2015, 05:18:Slick wrote on Mar 2, 2015, 05:13:
last thing:
all this VR/AR shit is great, but it really needs developers to make things happen. I own a DK2 and there isn't much to do with it IMO, demos sure, but nothing that's just sucked me in, like i know it's capable of doing.
and that when it comes down to the install base. you want devs hungry to develop for a platform? give them numbers.
developers for the DK2 have an install base of 100,000. over several years. on the other hand the new iPhone sold 110,000,000 units in it's first few months. Mobile is the future. if anything will bring development to VR/AR, it's mobile. sad but true.
<--- that guy
Eh I dunno. Mobile and VR are pretty opposite ends of the spectrum. You're pretty immobile for VR, by necessity. You're supposed to be immersed in a virtual world, not the real one. I see AR and VR diverging greatly in that way. What you want from the technology for each application is very different. AR is very much about pattern recognition and unobtrusiveness, where VR is obviously about complete immersion. Something you're not going to find a lot of call for in the multitasking heavy mobile user base.
jdreyer wrote on Mar 2, 2015, 01:27:
Update: Samsung's Galaxy S6 will use a 1440P screen, specifically with VR in mind. I suspect this will be the screen we see in the OR.
Esoteric wrote on Mar 2, 2015, 06:35:
Or Valve/Steam with its 125 million user base?
Julio wrote on Mar 2, 2015, 05:40:Wraith wrote on Mar 2, 2015, 03:50:
At least that wasn't financed by fucking people over and jumping in bed with the cancer of the internet.
Wraith has this one right. I'm sure we'll see adware/spyware somehow integrated into the Oculus Rift. Time will tell.
Wraith wrote on Mar 2, 2015, 03:50:
At least that wasn't financed by fucking people over and jumping in bed with the cancer of the internet.
Slick wrote on Mar 2, 2015, 05:13:
last thing:
all this VR/AR shit is great, but it really needs developers to make things happen. I own a DK2 and there isn't much to do with it IMO, demos sure, but nothing that's just sucked me in, like i know it's capable of doing.
and that when it comes down to the install base. you want devs hungry to develop for a platform? give them numbers.
developers for the DK2 have an install base of 100,000. over several years. on the other hand the new iPhone sold 110,000,000 units in it's first few months. Mobile is the future. if anything will bring development to VR/AR, it's mobile. sad but true.
<--- that guy