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

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

>> 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

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

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)

> 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

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

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

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

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

>> 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.

Yes I read something similar, that it might appear better than the 
slight increase in resolution would otherwise indicate.

Post a reply to this message

>> 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.

Depends on the car. The sort of basic cars I drive don't have any in-car 
settings for the driver to fiddle with. However you can adjust things 
like how much fuel is put in and whether to replace tyres etc at the 
next pit-stop.

FWIW this is the wheel I've got:

https://secure.img-shopto.net/ShopToMedia/images/media/boxart/PS4AC178/Large.png

There's enough flexibility there to scroll through the menus in-car, 
although depending on the track you may only have a few seconds to 
fiddle with that stuff each lap, so it might take 3 or 4 laps to finally 
change something!

Post a reply to this message

>> 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.

Imagine taking a 960x1080 half of your monitor, then scaling it up (in X 
and Y) so that it stretches 3 metres tall and 3 metres wide. Now sit 
about a metre from it. That is exactly what it feels like in the Rift. 
If you then imagine a "monitor sized" section in the centre of your 
field of view (that you'll spend 99% of the time looking at) the 
resolution is a fraction of the total, and yes the pixels do probably 
appear 5x bigger than what you're used to on a monitor.

Post a reply to this message

On 9/10/2015 7:59 AM, scott wrote:
>>> 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.
>
> Depends on the car. The sort of basic cars I drive don't have any in-car
> settings for the driver to fiddle with. However you can adjust things
> like how much fuel is put in and whether to replace tyres etc at the
> next pit-stop.
>
> FWIW this is the wheel I've got:
>
> https://secure.img-shopto.net/ShopToMedia/images/media/boxart/PS4AC178/Large.png
>
>
> There's enough flexibility there to scroll through the menus in-car,
> although depending on the track you may only have a few seconds to
> fiddle with that stuff each lap, so it might take 3 or 4 laps to finally
> change something!
>

That's changed my understanding of motor racing games. The last time I 
tried one was in nineteen canteen. ;-)
IIRC it was more a simulator in the flight simulator mode. More settings 
and controls than you could shake a stick at.

To me your wheel implies that it is more FUN to play or drive than what 
I thought it would be.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

> That's changed my understanding of motor racing games.

Sim, not game please!

> IIRC it was more a simulator in the flight simulator mode. More settings
> and controls than you could shake a stick at.

One of the reasons I run the car/series I do is that there is very 
limited car setup changes possible (tyre pressure and brake balance are 
the main ones). Other more advanced cars have many more settings which 
is maybe what you're referring to. The Formula 1 car for example has 
pages and pages of settings. I don't have the time or experience to deal 
with all that in addition to actually driving the car and learning tracks.

The other reason I run that particular car is that it is very popular, 
there are races every hour and always at least one "split" (if there are 
more people wanting to race than slots on the grid then it will split 
into multiple races based on the speed of the drivers, so you always get 
around a few people who are a very similar speed to you). Some of the 
more advanced cars only get a decent grid size a few times a week.

Post a reply to this message

On 9/10/2015 9:20 AM, scott wrote:
>> That's changed my understanding of motor racing games.
>
> Sim, not game please!
>

Of course, I don't play PovRay either. :-)

>> IIRC it was more a simulator in the flight simulator mode. More settings
>> and controls than you could shake a stick at.
>
> One of the reasons I run the car/series I do is that there is very
> limited car setup changes possible (tyre pressure and brake balance are
> the main ones). Other more advanced cars have many more settings which
> is maybe what you're referring to. The Formula 1 car for example has
> pages and pages of settings. I don't have the time or experience to deal
> with all that in addition to actually driving the car and learning tracks.
>
> The other reason I run that particular car is that it is very popular,
> there are races every hour and always at least one "split" (if there are
> more people wanting to race than slots on the grid then it will split
> into multiple races based on the speed of the drivers, so you always get
> around a few people who are a very similar speed to you). Some of the
> more advanced cars only get a decent grid size a few times a week.
>

That sounds like a good set up. More fun than real life.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

> That sounds like a good set up. More fun than real life.

Certainly more fun per £. I imagine it's the same for your space 
invaders game too :-)

Post a reply to this message

On 9/11/2015 7:56 AM, scott wrote:
>> That sounds like a good set up. More fun than real life.
>
> Certainly more fun per £. I imagine it's the same for your space
> invaders game too :-)
>
>

I don't know about Fun/£, I've spent a small fortune on upgrading my 
machine.
Space Invader's game is a good description. Initially I thought it would 
be a sim but since they use a WWI flight model for the spaceships and no 
real integration of Newtonian physics or gravity wells etc. It is a 
game. Very enjoyable and the graphics are stunning. I'm looking forward 
to using VR with it.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 03/09/2015 02:39 PM, scott wrote:
> I got an Oculus Rift DK2 yesterday :-)

Oculus Rift? Isn't that the one that everybody was really excited about, 
and then Microsoft bought it and infected it with Kinect?

(I don't really follow these things closely...)

Isn't that rather heavy to have on your head for more than fifteen seconds?

Post a reply to this message

Am 18.09.2015 um 19:30 schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
> On 03/09/2015 02:39 PM, scott wrote:
>> I got an Oculus Rift DK2 yesterday :-)
> 
> Oculus Rift? Isn't that the one that everybody was really excited about,
> and then Microsoft bought it and infected it with Kinect?

Uh... no, not really. It's the one Facebook bought, and infected it with
nothing much.

> (I don't really follow these things closely...)

That's a pretty obvious fact ;)

> Isn't that rather heavy to have on your head for more than fifteen seconds?

No, actually not - welcome to the 21st century (2nd decade already, in
case you didn't notice) ;)

Post a reply to this message

> Isn't that rather heavy to have on your head for more than fifteen seconds?

It's pretty much the same feeling as wearing a pair of ski goggles.

Post a reply to this message