 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 04.03.2015 um 11:07 schrieb Stephen:
> On 04/03/2015 09:54, scott wrote:
>> This technology has taken a huge step forward, hopefully enough people
>> will buy them to give them enough funding to develop the 2nd gen models.
>
> With different companies developing their own systems. My concern is
> that we will have a rerun of the Betamax-VHS war.
That's the one thing that worries me, too.
At the moment I would guess that the Oculus Rift will set the initial
standard for the API, as the early availability of the dev kits has
giving them a head start already, and the official integration into the
Unity engine will help, too.
But once the baseline is settled, there's no telling which company will
take over the leadership in the field.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 04.03.2015 um 22:11 schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
> On 03/03/2015 12:59 AM, clipka wrote:
>> It's pretty clear by now that VR isn't just a hype this time, but
>> actually going to take off and fly.
>
> Didn't they say that about 3D TV about five years ago?
Not exactly. They didn't say anything about "this time", because it's
the first time 3D TV is around in the first place (aside from a few
individual one-time experiments with cardboard glasses solutions).
> When was the last time you saw a 3D TV that wasn't in a shop window?
>
> Exactly.
Ask Stephen. Not that I've actually seen it, but anyway.
But that a prophecy has been repeated over and over again and proven
wrong each time doesn't mean it will be wrong forever. We've had several
waves of 3D cinema hypes every few decades, but AFAIK this time it's the
first time we've been getting blockbusters in 3D on a steady basis for
half a decade and without an end in sight.
And yes, we've already had a VR hype some two and a half decades ago or
so, but back then you could only get your hands on them at arcades
because they were too expensive, and besides no consumer game would have
supported them anyway. Now everybody and their uncle is gearing up to
sell VR goggles for the masses, and VR support is already an established
standard for some game types (most notably flight sims).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 04 Mar 2015 21:11:46 +0000, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 03/03/2015 12:59 AM, clipka wrote:
>> It's pretty clear by now that VR isn't just a hype this time, but
>> actually going to take off and fly.
>
> Didn't they say that about 3D TV about five years ago?
>
> When was the last time you saw a 3D TV that wasn't in a shop window?
Last week.
> Exactly.
I don't understand the point in the context of having seen one last
week. ;)
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Having 120hz refresh is a good improvement over the Rift prototypes, but
>> it should really have a variable refresh rate to match with the graphics
>> output (like the nvidia gsync system) to minimise lag when the GPU can't
>> keep up with exactly 120fps.
>
> Bad, bad idea. That'll make your image appear to jitter when framerate
> drops. Headaches guaranteed.
Strange, apparently it signficantly reduces the jitter and lag when the
GPU can't quite render at the monitor refresh rate. AIUI the way it
works is if your monitor is capable of 144 Hz (as most gsync monitors
are) and you're in a busy bit of a game and the GPU can only render at
(say) 100 Hz, then instead of jumping between 72 and 144 Hz continuously
the monitor will refresh at a steady 100 Hz to exactly match the GPU. I
believe in VR lag is one of the main things that gives you headaches, so
the fact that the display is exactly in sync with the GPU should improve
things?
> Better have the GPU render to an interim image buffer (possibly at low
> framerate), and have a separate thingumajig do high-speed fixed-rate
> mapping of that interim image buffer to the VR display, taking into
> account the extrapolated direction you'll be facing the very moment the
> image will actually appear.
I think I remember reading thet top nVidia cards do that already, they
just use the actual previous framebuffer at full resolution and shift it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> When was the last time you saw a 3D TV that wasn't in a shop window?
This morning? :-)
TBH if you want a decent specced TV you'll be hard pressed to find many
without 3D. I didn't particularly want 3D but in order to get other
things (like >2 HDMI inputs, >60Hz refresh, iPlayer/YouTube etc) you
pretty much have to get 3D too.
I tried the 3D once with a PS3 game and thought it was pretty rubbish -
using the tinted glasses was better, never used it since.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/03/2015 08:29, scott wrote:
>> When was the last time you saw a 3D TV that wasn't in a shop window?
>
> This morning? :-)
>
Me too. :-)
> TBH if you want a decent specced TV you'll be hard pressed to find many
> without 3D. I didn't particularly want 3D but in order to get other
> things (like >2 HDMI inputs, >60Hz refresh, iPlayer/YouTube etc) you
> pretty much have to get 3D too.
>
> I tried the 3D once with a PS3 game and thought it was pretty rubbish -
> using the tinted glasses was better, never used it since.
>
Thanks Scott. You prompted me to try Elite in 3D, again.
When I first tried it. The screen looked like one of those old arcade
games. 2D -> 3D with different distinct layers. It has improved so much
that you don't notice it is 3D. :-D
That is not going to stop me buying an Oculus Rift when the commercial
version is available, though.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 04/03/2015 11:05, scott wrote:
>> With different companies developing their own systems. My concern is
>> that we will have a rerun of the Betamax-VHS war.
>
> Yes, and it'll be just your luck that your two favourite games won't
> support a common system. Still I wouldn't be surprised if DirectX starts
> to provide a common interface to these type of input devices if they get
> popular.
>
How true and as Congreve said: it's "The way of the world".
Although I will have to find another game I would play. ;-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Thanks Scott. You prompted me to try Elite in 3D, again.
> When I first tried it. The screen looked like one of those old arcade
> games. 2D -> 3D with different distinct layers. It has improved so much
> that you don't notice it is 3D. :-D
I'm not sure whether it was the game (Gran Turismo) or my TV that made
the 3D bad. My TV is a long way from my PC and both are difficult to
move so I'm pretty limited to using my PS3 for testing out the 3D. What
I found was there was very little 3D effect (compared to the
glasses-free 3D on the 3DS and phones or the tinted glasses) and that
there was a distractingly large amount of cross-talk between the left
and right images. It was pretty horrible.
> That is not going to stop me buying an Oculus Rift when the commercial
> version is available, though.
Definitely, although for the game I am most interested in there is a
huge debate in the forums about whether triple monitors or the rift is
better. I would be worried I bought the rift, tried to get used to it
and eventually discovered that trips were still better.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 05.03.2015 um 09:25 schrieb scott:
>> Better have the GPU render to an interim image buffer (possibly at low
>> framerate), and have a separate thingumajig do high-speed fixed-rate
>> mapping of that interim image buffer to the VR display, taking into
>> account the extrapolated direction you'll be facing the very moment the
>> image will actually appear.
>
> I think I remember reading thet top nVidia cards do that already, they
> just use the actual previous framebuffer at full resolution and shift it.
To all my knowledge that's not a video card specific thing, but a
general part of the Oculus API. (The application/game must be written to
support it though.)
For this to work best though, the framerate (and hence the lag, which
still exists) needs to be known so that the head movement can be
extrapolated into the future.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/03/2015 13:00, scott wrote:
>> Thanks Scott. You prompted me to try Elite in 3D, again.
>> When I first tried it. The screen looked like one of those old arcade
>> games. 2D -> 3D with different distinct layers. It has improved so much
>> that you don't notice it is 3D. :-D
>
> I'm not sure whether it was the game (Gran Turismo) or my TV that made
> the 3D bad. My TV is a long way from my PC and both are difficult to
> move so I'm pretty limited to using my PS3 for testing out the 3D. What
> I found was there was very little 3D effect (compared to the
> glasses-free 3D on the 3DS and phones or the tinted glasses) and that
> there was a distractingly large amount of cross-talk between the left
> and right images. It was pretty horrible.
>
Could that be the convergence setting?
Something I found when googling. (Corrected for proper spelling.)
Its function is something all racers already use in a round about way.
Convergence changes how far ahead of your car the precise focal point is.
We are taught to focus 'down the road' when racing, this setting matches
the 3D focal point with the one you use as a driver.
Ideally everyone uses a little bit different focal point, this allows it
to be made comfortable/less eye strain.
If these settings are what is causing your doubling, here is how.
With convergence set wayyyy down field and parallax set high, the point
where the image is perfect will be stuff in the distance near centre screen.
The cost is, anything up close will be doubled to a degree, made more
noticeable in cockpit view with wheel/hands/gauges/door pillars all very
close.
In Elite the cockpit is close and it shows up in 3D very well, now. The
other objects are generally miles away so should have little
stereoscopic effect.
I've just thought of an exception that I did not check. Being in a
planets ring system. Must do that sometime soon.
>> That is not going to stop me buying an Oculus Rift when the commercial
>> version is available, though.
>
> Definitely, although for the game I am most interested in there is a
> huge debate in the forums about whether triple monitors or the rift is
> better. I would be worried I bought the rift, tried to get used to it
> and eventually discovered that trips were still better.
>
Compared to the cost of 3 monitors the rift is cheap and you could
always sell it on, in ebay if it did not suit.
Question: Would the monitors need to be matched?
In the Elite forums. Most of the people who have bought the DK1/2 rave
about it. And say that they would not go back to using a flat screen
even though the resolution is noway near as good.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
