 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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?
Exactly.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 04.03.2015 um 10:54 schrieb scott:
> 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.
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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
