POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.off-topic : Rift! Server Time
23 Dec 2024 22:04:48 EST (-0500)
  Rift! (Message 1 to 10 of 21)  
Goto Latest 10 Messages Next 10 Messages >>>
From: scott
Subject: Rift!
Date: 3 Sep 2015 09:39:57
Message: <55e84dad@news.povray.org>
I got an Oculus Rift DK2 yesterday :-)

https://www.oculus.com/en-us/dk2/

First impressions are WOW! Even with the poorly textured demo scene it 
immediately fools your brain that you're actually there. I didn't 
realise but even when you think you're sitting still your head is moving 
slightly, and I think it's the image moving in perfect synchronisation 
that fools your brain your most. You start to move your hands, and your 
brain is expecting to see them move, but of course they don't appear in 
the scene - it is a very strange feeling.

However I next fired up a car racing game (Live for Speed). In this game 
there is a 3D model of driver and hands on the steering wheel. They move 
in perfect sync with your own hands moving the physical wheel. It 
completely fools your brain that it's your own arms and hands you're 
looking at (even though they are low resolution polygon models with 
obvious straight edges). When you take your hand off the wheel in real 
life, and the hand in the game is still on the wheel, again it is a very 
weird feeling like something has gone wrong in your eyes or head.

I took a while to just look around the detailing of the 3D model inside 
the car, I'd never seen that before. You can even stick your head out 
the side window and look down at the road - it's a pretty crazy feeling.

But there are two big downsides IMHO. First and most importantly the 
image resolution is absolutely atrocious. I'm only used to 1680x1050 
monitors at home, but this is like going back to 320x240 days. I know 
they're using a 1920x1080 panel under the hood, but this is shared 
between two eyes and it's not used all the way to the edges. I think the 
optics also means the pixels appear bigger in the centre of the display 
than towards the edges.

The only way I can describe it is to imagine you're sat right in the 
front row in front of a huge cinema screen. Now imagine the film on the 
screen was done at a resolution of 800x600. And you're only interested 
in the action in a small spot directly ahead, so the important bit is 
probably only using 250x250 resolution or something. Your brain starts 
to filter out the pixel jaggies after a while, but the lack of detail 
(especially objects in the distance) is very bad.

The other downside is the display certainly doesn't cover your entire 
field of view. It's like wearing a full-face helmet, your peripheral 
vision is black at the edges. The focus also goes off towards the edges, 
so if you want to look at something near the edge of the screen (say the 
side-mirror of the car) you can't just move your eyes to look that way, 
you need to rotate your head round to bring that bit of the image 
towards the centre of the screen.

I'd say they need to use at least 4x the pixels (4Kx2K panel) before 
it's even matching a low-end PC monitor, let alone what people are used 
to with "retina" displays nowadays. You'd probably need 8Kx4K for that. 
Along with 16 GPUs to power it :-) That day will come though, this is 
surely just the beginning!


Post a reply to this message

From: Samuel Benge
Subject: Re: Rift!
Date: 5 Sep 2015 14:55:00
Message: <web.55eb3982668413b7b426f96a0@news.povray.org>
scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> But there are two big downsides IMHO. First and most importantly the
> image resolution is absolutely atrocious. I'm only used to 1680x1050
> monitors at home, but this is like going back to 320x240 days.

Wait a minute... are the graphics all red, and does the headset look like this?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Virtual-Boy-wController.jpg

XD


Post a reply to this message

From: scott
Subject: Re: Rift!
Date: 7 Sep 2015 02:41:48
Message: <55ed31ac$1@news.povray.org>
>> But there are two big downsides IMHO. First and most importantly the
>> image resolution is absolutely atrocious. I'm only used to 1680x1050
>> monitors at home, but this is like going back to 320x240 days.
>
> Wait a minute... are the graphics all red, and does the headset look like this?
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Virtual-Boy-wController.jpg

Damn I've been had - I thought I had a loose connection on the green and 
blue signals! But seriously the resolution in your central field of view 
is likely similar in that device...

I think I remember reading that you need something along the lines of a 
500 Mpixel display (about 30000x15000 pixels) per eye in order to allow 
you to look in any direction and not see any pixellation. Of course you 
could use advanced techniques to track your pupil and only render in 
high detail the bit you are looking at, but you'd still need a display 
that physically has that much resolution. Mmmmm 2x500MP@90Hz :-)


Post a reply to this message

From: Samuel Benge
Subject: Re: Rift!
Date: 7 Sep 2015 21:25:05
Message: <web.55ee386d668413b7b426f96a0@news.povray.org>
scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> >> But there are two big downsides IMHO. First and most importantly the
> >> image resolution is absolutely atrocious. I'm only used to 1680x1050
> >> monitors at home, but this is like going back to 320x240 days.
> >
> > Wait a minute... are the graphics all red, and does the headset look like this?
> > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Virtual-Boy-wController.jpg
>
> Damn I've been had - I thought I had a loose connection on the green and
> blue signals! But seriously the resolution in your central field of view
> is likely similar in that device...
>
> I think I remember reading that you need something along the lines of a
> 500 Mpixel display (about 30000x15000 pixels) per eye in order to allow
> you to look in any direction and not see any pixellation. Of course you
> could use advanced techniques to track your pupil and only render in
> high detail the bit you are looking at, but you'd still need a display
> that physically has that much resolution. Mmmmm 2x500MP@90Hz :-)

I'm not up-to-date on the latest technology, but somehow I don't think that'll
be happening for a while.

At least what you have now is a step up from crossing your eyes at the monitor
:)


Post a reply to this message

From: Stephen
Subject: Re: Rift!
Date: 9 Sep 2015 08:10:44
Message: <55f021c4@news.povray.org>
On 9/3/2015 2:39 PM, scott wrote:
> I got an Oculus Rift DK2 yesterday :-)

I am holding off until the consumer version is released. The resolution 
being the main consideration. I bought a fifteen quid Google cardboard 
just to try out VR. My Galaxy S2 has a 480 x 800 resolution and gave me 
a screen door effect but it was usable in the demos I downloaded. And 
gave me the confidence to want to use it for real.
I am really champing at the bit to use it with Elite.
Are you using any voice control to access your unseen keyboard?
I've set up Voice Attack even though I get the Scottish Lift effect. It 
is workable. Enhanced by using a voice pack from Brian Blessed.




-- 

Regards
     Stephen


Post a reply to this message


Attachments:
Download 'good, show the buggers what for.wav.dat' (298 KB)

From: scott
Subject: Re: Rift!
Date: 9 Sep 2015 09:55:26
Message: <55f03a4e$1@news.povray.org>
> I am holding off until the consumer version is released. The resolution
> being the main consideration.

The consumer version is going to be 2160x1200, compared to the DK2 which 
is 1920x1080. I don't think there will be that much difference. 
Definitely try before you buy.

> I bought a fifteen quid Google cardboard
> just to try out VR. My Galaxy S2 has a 480 x 800 resolution and gave me
> a screen door effect but it was usable in the demos I downloaded. And
> gave me the confidence to want to use it for real.
> I am really champing at the bit to use it with Elite.

I guess it depends on the game you are playing, is it important if you 
miss some finer details? I found in iRacing that I couldn't read the 
text at all on the distance markers to the corners, kind of important if 
you rely on them to decide where to brake. And when the curb you are 
aiming for in the middle-distance is only 2 pixels wide it's difficult 
to be very precise with your line.

> Are you using any voice control to access your unseen keyboard?
> I've set up Voice Attack even though I get the Scottish Lift effect. It
> is workable. Enhanced by using a voice pack from Brian Blessed.

I don't use the keyboard whilst racing, I've got all the buttons on the 
wheel mapped to do whatever I need during a race, and they're fine to 
use by feel alone.


Post a reply to this message

From: clipka
Subject: Re: Rift!
Date: 9 Sep 2015 11:06:43
Message: <55f04b03@news.povray.org>
Am 09.09.2015 um 15:55 schrieb scott:
>> I am holding off until the consumer version is released. The resolution
>> being the main consideration.
> 
> The consumer version is going to be 2160x1200, compared to the DK2 which
> is 1920x1080. I don't think there will be that much difference.
> Definitely try before you buy.

Just read a review of some newer prototype, saying that they've
significantly reduced the "flyscreen" effect compared to DK2.


Post a reply to this message

From: Warp
Subject: Re: Rift!
Date: 9 Sep 2015 12:09:24
Message: <55f059b4@news.povray.org>
scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> But there are two big downsides IMHO. First and most importantly the 
> image resolution is absolutely atrocious. I'm only used to 1680x1050 
> monitors at home, but this is like going back to 320x240 days. I know 
> they're using a 1920x1080 panel under the hood, but this is shared 
> between two eyes and it's not used all the way to the edges.

I don't really understand how 1920x1080 (or even 960x1080) can look
like 320x240. That would be like 20% of the vertical resolution.

-- 
                                                          - Warp


Post a reply to this message

From: Stephen
Subject: Re: Rift!
Date: 9 Sep 2015 13:43:02
Message: <55f06fa6$1@news.povray.org>
On 9/9/2015 2:55 PM, scott wrote:
>> I am holding off until the consumer version is released. The resolution
>> being the main consideration.
>
> The consumer version is going to be 2160x1200, compared to the DK2 which
> is 1920x1080. I don't think there will be that much difference.
> Definitely try before you buy.
>

If that is possible then I certainly would.


>
> I guess it depends on the game you are playing, is it important if you
> miss some finer details? I found in iRacing that I couldn't read the
> text at all on the distance markers to the corners, kind of important if
> you rely on them to decide where to brake. And when the curb you are
> aiming for in the middle-distance is only 2 pixels wide it's difficult
> to be very precise with your line.
>

I can understand that might be a problem.

There were complaints in Elite that text was hard to read but by 
changing the colour scheme it was much improved. Also using a reshader 
like SweetFx helps.

>
> I don't use the keyboard whilst racing, I've got all the buttons on the
> wheel mapped to do whatever I need during a race, and they're fine to
> use by feel alone.
>

That is good. I thought that in racing cars there would be levers to 
pull, fuel levels and suspension to balance etc.
In Elite I have almost all the keys bound to commands.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen


Post a reply to this message

From: clipka
Subject: Re: Rift!
Date: 9 Sep 2015 17:55:11
Message: <55f0aabf$1@news.povray.org>
Am 09.09.2015 um 18:09 schrieb Warp:
> scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
>> But there are two big downsides IMHO. First and most importantly the 
>> image resolution is absolutely atrocious. I'm only used to 1680x1050 
>> monitors at home, but this is like going back to 320x240 days. I know 
>> they're using a 1920x1080 panel under the hood, but this is shared 
>> between two eyes and it's not used all the way to the edges.
> 
> I don't really understand how 1920x1080 (or even 960x1080) can look
> like 320x240. That would be like 20% of the vertical resolution.

You /are/ aware that the Oculus Rift DK2 has roundabout 90 degrees
vertical field of view, for a virtual height-to-central-distance ratio
of 2:1, while your average desktop display might sit there at some 1:2
or even 1:2.5?


Post a reply to this message

Goto Latest 10 Messages Next 10 Messages >>>

Copyright 2003-2023 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.