OS: Windows 7/8/10 64 bit
Processor: Intel Core i7-3770K Quad Core CPU or better / AMD FX 4350 Quad Core CPU or better
Memory: 16 GB RAM
Graphics: Nvidia GTX 980 with 4GB or better
Network: Broadband Internet Connection
Hard Drive: 8 GB available space
Tom wrote on Dec 6, 2015, 12:46:
I'm talking about Elite being firmly in the "Notable Exceptions" section of this list. Having to use an obsolete runtime and extended mode is a poor experience by itself. Then there are issues like this where Frontier is clearly not testing/playing the game with VR themselves. It gives me the impression they're just in it for the money, they don't really have a clue about VR, and yet they have the hubris to characterize their work as "only the best VR experience out there"? Come on. Seriously?
BIGtrouble77 wrote on Dec 6, 2015, 14:40:
I'm assuming the specs reflect the higher resolution consumer units that will be coming out. Anyone who is using the rift dev kit is running at 1/2 resolution, hence why it will run on lower specs. I feel like these VR units are just waiting for hardware to catch up. In 2 years anyone will be able to use a a VR kit with a $150 card.
CJ_Parker wrote on Dec 5, 2015, 17:06:Slick wrote on Dec 5, 2015, 14:49:
couple things:
Going from 28nm to 14nm isn't going to mean an 80-90% jump in performance in 2016. The process is only responsible for thermals.
Not really. Straight from TSMC:
TSMC's 16FF+ (FinFET Plus) technology can provide above 65 percent higher speed, around 2 times the density, or 70 percent less power than its 28HPM technology.28nm lasted 4 years, I don't see why 14nm would be any shorter.
Ummm... au contraire, mon ami. No one else but you sees why the 28nm phenomenon should repeat. You do realize that 28nm was a very unique thing, right?
TSMC was ready to switch to 20nm in 2013 but then it turned out (as expected by other parties like IBM) that a 20nm bulk process on planar silicon was not economically viable for a high powered node.
They needed to go FinFET+ but FinFET+ was not going to be available until the shrink to 16nm. That's why they were forced to hang on to 28nm for so long.
Four years. This basically has no precedence. There is absolutely no reason (except TSMC fucking up again) why this should ever repeat again and 10nm is actually already on the horizon for volume production in 2018. nVidia Pascal will be 16nm in 2016 and nVidia Volta might very well be a 10nm part in 2018.
Going forward, things will go back to "normal" where we will be getting new nodes in two to three years intervals. Another four year stagnation is extremely unlikely now that we have made the switch from planar silicon bulk crap to FinFET+.We're getting close to the end of the shrinkage race. I think Intel figures they can pull off 7nm by 2018-2019, but that's far from certain.
CPUs don't equal GPUs, Intel does not equal TSMC and the numbers attached to the process nodes at all of the chip makers actually have very little to do with the real nanometers or the real size of the structures on the chips. Process naming is and has been for quite a while a reference to the shrink factor of the new node compared to its predecessor.
TSMC like Intel is confident they can pull off 7nm and I'm sure they will keep trucking as new material enter the fray (i.e. graphene most likely).
Ventura wrote on Dec 5, 2015, 20:40:
I don't really know how to respond to this, because you're writing as if you know what you're talking about, but all I can say is that, for my part (and that of many others whom I've had contact with), it's grossly inaccurate.
Every experience is subjective anyway, so maybe it just wasn't your cup of tea (I'm going to assume you've tried most), but Elite is considered one of the best VR experiences there is. I spent more time in Euro Truck Simulator 2 and Assetto Corsa way back when, but more recently I've gotten back into Elite again, and the immersion is astonishing. I wouldn't lie and pretend I'd still be playing if VR support was dropped, but isn't that just another compliment?
But if, as you say, it's hardly the best, or that it's just "moderately good" (or even poor), then please, feel free to elaborate on what you feel is so much better.
Tom wrote on Dec 5, 2015, 12:44:
Elite "only the best VR experience out there"??!! Ha! Ridiculous. It was one of the first, but hardly the best. I'd say it's varied wildly throughout its lifetime from completely unusable to moderately good on the DK2, with the last several months being stuck firmly at poor.
"Both the “left” and the “right” pretend they have the answer, but they are mere flippers on the same thalidomide baby, and the truth is that neither side has a clue."
- Jim Goad
Prez wrote on Dec 5, 2015, 17:48:
I almost bought Elite during the sale but I held off because I haven't heard much about how it is when played exclusively solo, which is how I would play it.
Aero wrote on Dec 5, 2015, 17:22:
I have a 970 and when I get around to buying a VR headset, probably the Rift consumer release, I was figuring I could just buy another 970. Splitting it up with one GPU driving each eye seems like logical approach, but I haven't been really paying attention to this stuff much, is such a setup feasible/practical?
CJ_Parker wrote on Dec 5, 2015, 17:06:Slick wrote on Dec 5, 2015, 14:49:
couple things:
Going from 28nm to 14nm isn't going to mean an 80-90% jump in performance in 2016. The process is only responsible for thermals.
Not really. Straight from TSMC:
TSMC's 16FF+ (FinFET Plus) technology can provide above 65 percent higher speed, around 2 times the density, or 70 percent less power than its 28HPM technology.28nm lasted 4 years, I don't see why 14nm would be any shorter.
Ummm... au contraire, mon ami. No one else but you sees why the 28nm phenomenon should repeat. You do realize that 28nm was a very unique thing, right?
TSMC was ready to switch to 20nm in 2013 but then it turned out (as expected by other parties like IBM) that a 20nm bulk process on planar silicon was not economically viable for a high powered node.
They needed to go FinFET+ but FinFET+ was not going to be available until the shrink to 16nm. That's why they were forced to hang on to 28nm for so long.
Four years. This basically has no precedence. There is absolutely no reason (except TSMC fucking up again) why this should ever repeat again and 10nm is actually already on the horizon for volume production in 2018. nVidia Pascal will be 16nm in 2016 and nVidia Volta might very well be a 10nm part in 2018.
Going forward, things will go back to "normal" where we will be getting new nodes in two to three years intervals. Another four year stagnation is extremely unlikely now that we have made the switch from planar silicon bulk crap to FinFET+.We're getting close to the end of the shrinkage race. I think Intel figures they can pull off 7nm by 2018-2019, but that's far from certain.
CPUs don't equal GPUs, Intel does not equal TSMC and the numbers attached to the process nodes at all of the chip makers actually have very little to do with the real nanometers or the real size of the structures on the chips. Process naming is and has been for quite a while a reference to the shrink factor of the new node compared to its predecessor.
TSMC like Intel is confident they can pull off 7nm and I'm sure they will keep trucking as new material enter the fray (i.e. graphene most likely).
Slick wrote on Dec 5, 2015, 14:49:
couple things:
Going from 28nm to 14nm isn't going to mean an 80-90% jump in performance in 2016. The process is only responsible for thermals.
28nm lasted 4 years, I don't see why 14nm would be any shorter.
We're getting close to the end of the shrinkage race. I think Intel figures they can pull off 7nm by 2018-2019, but that's far from certain.
SteamVR uses a pair of 1200x1080 pixel displays to offer a wide field of view. The displays refresh at 90 Hz, which is fast enough to do away with most of the motion sickness issues found in earlier, lower refresh VR headsets.
Dagnamit wrote on Dec 5, 2015, 14:28:
It really wouldn't have been a problem if not for the lagging performance of GPU's being stuck on 28nm process for what, 4 years now? checks wikipedia...... yup 4 years. We're probably looking at 80-90% improvements on the high end parts by the end of 2016. So no, the tech is not quite there for VR, but it will be by next xmas!