Not impressed at all with the CV1 resolution (I haven't got one, going on the specs)

drkaii

drkaii
I said this back when it was announced, but I never demonstrated: http://vr.mkeblx.net/oculus-sim/

Go to that simulator and click the CV1 and turn on low persistence. Then remember that the actual CV1 has a lower resolution than that, much closer to the 1080 resolution option...

And some people are saying it's like the leap of DK1 to DK2????


It must be the pixels or lenses or over-enthusiasm or something :)

---

EDIT to emphasise the intended theme of this thread:

Slopey said:
VR isn't really about *specifications*, it's about the *experience*

Discounting a CV1 on specs alone, is inappropriate - ED is perfectly playable on a DK2, and the experience is pretty mindblowing as you're aware.

The problem is that the CV1 is the only game in town currently, and the Vive is several months away, and may be no better...
Click to expand...

drkaii said:
Yes, again you are right. I guess the theme of my post sounds like it is a direct attack on Oculus or something. I totally get where they are coming from and why it is the way it is. The reason I made this post is I guess to justify not pre-ordering it so enthusiastically. See post #3
Click to expand...

Opinion changed, thanks to discussion :) Ordered one long time ago as a result!
 

[VR] Mad Mike

[VR] Mad Mike
drkaii said:
I said this back when it was announced, but I never demonstrated: http://vr.mkeblx.net/oculus-sim/

Go to that simulator and click the CV1 and turn on low persistence. Then remember that the actual CV1 emulator announced has a lower resolution than that, much closer to the 1080 resolution option...

And some people are saying it's like the leap of DK1 to DK2????


It must be the pixels or lenses or over-enthusiasm or something :)
Click to expand...

Imo it is what it is. Gen 1 vr is more about the experience than the pure eyecandy imo. I guess it is a bit like the PlayStation 1 the 1st games console to mass market to bring proper 3d gaming to the living room. Go back now and it is all a bit ugly however.

Imo I expect progress to happen quickly over the next 5 years (my money is in cv2 launch for Xmas 2017 and cv3 Xmas 2019)

Perhaps gen 2 or gen 3 vr will be more what you are looking for.... Me .... I just want to get back in my space ship again. 4k be damned :)
 
Last edited:

drkaii

drkaii
You are, of course, completely correct. I'm just disappointed for three reasons:

1) they clearly designed this for the 9xx gen GPUs, which wouldn't even come close to handling anything more than 2160 x 1200. Shame because Pascal is also pegged for first half 2016...if only they had waited
2) I use the rift mainly for Elite and other space sims. They have stars. Stars need clarity to look like stars. Fuzzy dots are not stars and it really brings down the experience.
3) whenever I take off the rift, I realise just how stunningly gorgeous the game looks. In the rift it really does look, like you say, a Playstation 1 game (with better lighting). The only problem there is resolution. I can't stand the idea that Horizons is now out and looks amazing and I can't really see any of that.


I complain yes, but I am still so happy and grateful to be living in this golden age of VR and gaming :)
 

Slopey

Volunteer Moderator
Slopey
VR isn't really about *specifications*, it's about the *experience*

Discounting a CV1 on specs alone, is inappropriate - ED is perfectly playable on a DK2, and the experience is pretty mindblowing as you're aware.

The problem is that the CV1 is the only game in town currently, and the Vive is several months away, and may be no better...
 
Last edited:

drkaii

drkaii
Yes, again you are right. I guess the theme of my post sounds like it is a direct attack on Oculus or something. I totally get where they are coming from and why it is the way it is. The reason I made this post is I guess to justify not pre-ordering it so enthusiastically. See post #3
 

drkaii

drkaii
Yes I said that a long time ago:

drkaii said:
"I don't like the idea of the low resolution"

It doesn't matter. In the words of literally EVERYONE who has ED and the OR: the positives of the rift far far far FAR outweigh not having optimal resolution. It's like saying "I don't like the weightiness of gold, so I'll stick to lightweight copper". Sure it's lighter but man, what you can do with that gold! Go read anyone's heart-felt reviews in this sub-forum. Everyone is just blown away.

And anyway, the resolution isn't THAT bad. You can still see everything. There are plenty of methods of getting it up to scratch (see my sig). Park over a planet up close and you can still make out all the fine fine details. But now you are actually OVER the HUGE planet. It compensates and then-some. Your brain is tricked into thinking you're there. The low resolution doesn't spoil that at all.

Also, all the other effects shine through. The lighting, the effects, the sounds. It's just one aspect that's so-so.

Lastly, the CV1 isn't looking that much better at resolution. DK2 runs at 960x1080 per eye. The CV1 is going to be 1200 x 1080 per eye. I don't even think we will notice the difference to be honest. It remains to be seen! Either way, not a reason to wait 6 months, that's for sure. I will only concede waiting if you literally have one opportunity in life to get the money together, and if you get the DK2 now you will NEVER be able to afford the CV1. Get the DK2, enjoy it even after the CV1 comes out and when you can afford the CV1, even second hand, then you can upgrade.

If the purest experience could be measured out of 100, having 4k res on 3 screens is 20. Having the rift is 85. I challenge anyone to disagree.
Click to expand...

VR is just such an amazing thing that the low resolution is almost unnoticed
 

Sir.Tj

The Moderator who shall not be Blamed....
Volunteer Moderator
Sir.Tj
I've been mulling this over for a little while now.

As much as I'd love a CV1 I really can't afford one (ohhh the joys of being a single parent,) however I scraped enough together for the DK2 and was (and still is) In love with the VR experience. Oh how I wished I'd backed the KS campaign and was looking forward to getting a free CV1, well deserved to those who did back it those guys put their money up and should be rewarded for their faith.

As mentioned above VR for me is about the feeling of "being there" and as it is a developer unit the compromise with the DK2 has been the resolution, but you soon get used to it and as drkaii it's not that bad and the pros far outweigh the cons.

I'm sure the technology will continue to improve at a fast pace and VR will only get better and better especially with new players entering the market.

I haven't played ED on the screen since I first received my DK2 and I really couldn't go back to playing the game without it. As long as my DK2 is working and ED is playable on it I'll hang back and see which system emerges as the best VR experience over the next 12 months.
 

callezetter

C
Do you want to play a spacegame or do you want to fly a spaceship? Thats how i compare old school screen vs VR at this point.
Resolution is just ONE metric of VR. Its not even the most important one at this point. Comfort, lenses, colors, latency, screen refresh all rank equally high for the
experience. I dont use my DK2 because i want to play a game. I use it because with it I can FLY a fracking spaceship. For me that is everything.

Ive tried to go back to screen and turn up all settings to max. Wow, nice..it looks good..but..yawn. Its just a game, that ive seen so many times before. Maybe I
should go watch a movie instead...
 
Last edited:

Porina

Porina
drkaii said:
1) they clearly designed this for the 9xx gen GPUs, which wouldn't even come close to handling anything more than 2160 x 1200. Shame because Pascal is also pegged for first half 2016...if only they had waited
Click to expand...

I'm not sure waiting for Pascal would have made that much difference. Depending on who you listen to, we're looking at 2-10x the performance over Maxwell, and I'm going to assume it will be at the lower end of that for most practical cases. At best you might get that for the same price as the same position 900 series now, but bottom line is you'd still need to splash the cash to get high end performance. And limiting it to Pascal would make the already small potential userbase even smaller.

I haven't used any VR device yet, but I do want to see what the fuss is about. I'm 99% going to order one as soon as someone says it is 100% compatible with Elite. I don't want to be worried about configs and whatever.
 

drkaii

drkaii
Porina said:
we're looking at 2-10x the performance over Maxwell
...
And limiting it to Pascal would make the already small potential userbase even smaller.
Click to expand...

For the first part, dang, I never knew the range was 2-10x, I thought it was more like 10x or maybe a bit less.

And for the second part, true! I did think of that but only briefly and you've reminded me that that's a very important point
 

Porina

Porina
Well, details are rather lacking at the moment as to exactly what Pascal will do. The 10x figure I suspect would only be seen in some very specific scenarios. For more varied workloads I see the number 2x thrown around, but it is still guessing by anyone without Maxwell in their hands already.

Also there have been some recent hints about AMD Polaris too, but again lacking in any detail. At the end of the day it is a waiting game. Let's see if they can do this before I get to the far side of the galaxy and back.
 

Bakkster

B
Think back to when the Crystal Cove prototype was first demoed, before they announced the specifications. Here's a short list of reviews that thought it looked so good it must have been a 1440p panel inside:
http://www.roadtovr.com/hands-on-oculus-rift-crescent-bay-prototype/
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/...ark/?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=pulsenews
http://www.blurbusters.com/oculus-2560x1440-strobed-oled-prototype/
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2686...-a-vr-alien-waved-at-me-and-i-waved-back.html
http://www.maximumpc.com/oculus-confirms-crescent-bay-prototype-isnt-sale-2014/

Short answer is, it looks better than the spec. We also know it's the exact same resolution as the Vive which people also said looked incredibly sharp. We know some of this is due to being 90Hz (Luckey refers to it as 'temporal anti-aliasing'). We know part of it is due to moving away from Pentile panels (the pixel count only increased by 25%, but the sub-pixel count increased by 87.5%).

In other words, I think it's pointless to be disappointed purely by the spec. Not that you need to be excited to pre-order (I'm not, until Elite or iRacing confirm v1.0 support), but let's not act like you can tell anything from the spec without trying it out first-hand.
 

drkaii

drkaii
Bakkster said:
Think back to when the Crystal Cove prototype was first demoed, before they announced the specifications. Here's a short list of reviews that thought it looked so good it must have been a 1440p panel inside:
http://www.roadtovr.com/hands-on-oculus-rift-crescent-bay-prototype/
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/...ark/?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=pulsenews
http://www.blurbusters.com/oculus-2560x1440-strobed-oled-prototype/
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2686...-a-vr-alien-waved-at-me-and-i-waved-back.html
http://www.maximumpc.com/oculus-confirms-crescent-bay-prototype-isnt-sale-2014/

Short answer is, it looks better than the spec. We also know it's the exact same resolution as the Vive which people also said looked incredibly sharp. We know some of this is due to being 90Hz (Luckey refers to it as 'temporal anti-aliasing'). We know part of it is due to moving away from Pentile panels (the pixel count only increased by 25%, but the sub-pixel count increased by 87.5%).

In other words, I think it's pointless to be disappointed purely by the spec. Not that you need to be excited to pre-order (I'm not, until Elite or iRacing confirm v1.0 support), but let's not act like you can tell anything from the spec without trying it out first-hand.
Click to expand...

I was hoping this was a thing. Thanks for the optimism increase!
 

bewl

B
That site is a little disingenuous as it is showing all resolutions in a "subpixel" matrix display. The CV1, as well as the DK2, are using the pentile matrix display which is more of a crosshatch of pixels instead of a grid. Coupled with the 1080x1200 resolution of each eye, it severely reduces the screen door effect almost to the point of it not even being noticeable anymore (and this is also according to most CV1 reviews I have read)
 

Cmdr_Prussian

C
I wore the last DK on gamescom and it wasnt as pixely as the CV1 is shown in the sim. While it wasn't supersharp overall, I didn't notice it not being sharp without specifically looking out for it and I was totally content with how it was.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom