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

[Erogenous Zones]

I think Aesop may have been thinking about VR when he wrote the fox and the grapes:

One hot summer's day a Fox was strolling through an orchard till he came to a bunch of Grapes just ripening on a vine which had been trained over a lofty branch. "Just the thing to quench my thirst," quoth he. Drawing back a few paces, he took a run and a jump, and just missed the bunch. Turning round again with a One, Two, Three, he jumped up, but with no greater success. Again and again he tried after the tempting morsel, but at last had to give it up, and walked away with his nose in the air, saying: "I am sure they are sour."

 

[Bakkster]

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)

Yup, the reason that we all suggest green HUDs is that the Pentile display is half resolution for red and blue. Here's a good example showing the limitation. Same resolution, but the Pentile on the left looks worse

 

[callezetter]

Both next gen GPU architectures, Nvidia Pascal and AMD Polaris, will be FAR from any 10x in real life performance. Those theoretical numbers come from a very narrow usercase (compute calculations with mixed precision) and have a slight chance to even get close. The general idea is however that the performance/consumerdollars invested will jump by 2x compared to the current generation of GPUs. Which in itself is a HUGE boost, and not one we see that often anymore. Basicly you will have 970 performance for half the price in 6 months. Which is great if you are into VR.

 

[Alric]

Agree with the OP - I think the CV1 will be a nice improvement, but given the time, money and expertise that has been thrown at it, it's not impressive.
DK2 was a huge step forward, CV1 has taken a long time to come and does not seem all that.

I'll have to judge for myself as I find reviews of VR to be extremely unreliable. One or more of people having very little time with the device, being incredible hyped/on the bandwagon, or essentially reviewing VR as a thing rather than the specific device in question always seems to get in the way. I remember with DK2 people raved about how the screen door effect was practically eliminated, as was motion sickness - neither of which was remotely true - while the real news was extremely good head tracking, and low persistence.

One of the first things I thought when I saw ED in the DK2 is this needs to be 4k. I never expected CV1 to be at that resolution but I still think that's where we need to get, as a minimum, to really do justice to the depth, scale and detail VR can convey.

 

[Frank]

I feel like I've somehow gotten into a game of high-stakes poker with bunch of wheeler dealers. I'd "anted up" by buying a DK2, and I'd stayed in the game by "buying" a card. But now the money I need to stump up to stay in the game is getting a little too rich for my blood.

At least I have the option to pull away from the table and I'll still get to play with the cards I got. I really hope that support for the DK2 isn't dropped once Frontier get the CV1 working.

 

[grammatonfeather]

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:

Pixel resolution isn't the most important qualify for VR... I was told that by a scientist who specializes in very advanced VR systems.

 

[SeeZaa]

Pixel resolution isn't the most important qualify for VR... I was told that by a scientist who specializes in very advanced VR systems.

it isn't.. until you have everything else working.. and then humans being humans, and always looking for improvement, it becomes the only thing that is important

 

[ghcannon]

To be completely honest - we sure could have gone for a 4K screen on the CV1 :/
All my hopes now are that we see CV2 less than two years after CV1 ..

 

[Distance]

To be completely honest - we sure could have gone for a 4K screen on the CV1 :/
All my hopes now are that we see CV2 less than two years after CV1 ..

Current top end pcs struggle to run games above 30 fps in 4k let alone 90 fps.

I agree that 4k is where vr should go but that's a few years down the line at least.

 

[ghcannon]

My point was that they could have put a 4K version alongside the regular one. And they haven't done that because they'd need to work out and calibrate new optics for that display. They need also a cheaper process to make them.

 

[Slopey]

Do you want to play a spacegame or do you want to fly a spaceship?

With apologies to Disney's Frozen....

Do you wanna fly a space ship?
Log on lets go and play!
I never see you any more,
except in solo mode,
it's like you've gone away!
We used to be our wingmen,
but now we're not,
I wish you would tell me why?
Do you wanna fly a space ship,
It doesn't have to be a Vulture,
Ok, bye....

Do you wanna to fly a space ship?
Or use a monitor that's small?
I thought the Rift was overdue,
but now it's coming true,
It's going to rule them all.
(Hang in there, Palmer!)
It gets a little pricey,
in the order queue,
just watching the dates tick by....
(tick -tock, tick-tock, tick-tock, tick-tock)

Do you wanna fly a space ship?

 

[Distance]

My point was that they could have put a 4K version alongside the regular one. And they haven't done that because they'd need to work out and calibrate new optics for that display. They need also a cheaper process to make them.

That's the problem though, no single gfx card would be able to output vr at 90fps in 4k. Sli for vr isn't there yet and most existing games rarely have vr support either.

 

[ghcannon]

sli for VR is done, both in AMD and Nvidia. It's just that the devs haven't implemented their paths against it since there aren't any HMDs in the market yet.

VR Nvidia SLI through Gameworks worked great in Elite, according to a bunch of topics not goo long ago

 

[Distance]

sli for VR is done, both in AMD and Nvidia. It's just that the devs haven't implemented their paths against it since there aren't any HMDs in the market yet.

VR Nvidia SLI through Gameworks worked great in Elite, according to a bunch of topics not goo long ago

Exactly my point, sli support is weak for most games. It would be pretty silly for Oculus to release a 4k hmd for the tiny portion of players with sli 980tis that would probably only work well on a couple of games at launch.

 

[Bakkster]

My point was that they could have put a 4K version alongside the regular one. And they haven't done that because they'd need to work out and calibrate new optics for that display. They need also a cheaper process to make them.

They could have, aside from the reasons why they couldn't? That makes no sense.

It would be obscenely expensive (they'd be ordering two custom screens instead of one), few (no?) people would be able to run it, and it might not even look any better if they can't keep the fill rate high enough. There's no reason to put out a 4K version now. It will come, in time.

I expect with the second or third generation we will see Oculus start to have two product lines. One that's high end, and one that's a budget version of the previous generation.

 

[grammatonfeather]

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

Some people can't accept the resolution drop even though it brings life-size 3d graphics. It's generally the people who don't really understand the history of VR who can't get past it. There is only one game/simulation with a problem that makes VR an issue and that's DCS world aircraft HUD symbology. Elite is amazing with DK2 and will be even better with CV1. Looking at a "simulator" for VR is pointless. Basing your verdict on CV1 based on someone's simulation is just dumb.

 

[Khaldur]

It's simply a fact that VR puts much higher load on graphics cards and CPU than a simple monitor display. Thus it will always lag behind monitors regarding resolution.
By the time wel'll have (affordable) 4k displays in VR headsets and the graphics card to drive them the development on monitors will have progressed beyond 4k and 4k will be considered outdated.
So people will always complain about inferior resolution of VR vs. monitors.

 

[Garvik]

There is only one game/simulation with a problem that makes VR an issue and that's DCS world aircraft HUD symbology.

It's not only the readability of the instrument labeling in DCS World - situational awareness takes a huge hit as well due to the decreased spotting range and harder friend/foe identification thanks to the low resolution. Elite thankfully kind of circumvents these problems by having scanners on the ships and (at least for me) the downsides of the low resolution screen don't outweigh the added immersion I'm getting when playing with a DK2.

 

[jabokai]

It's simply a fact that VR puts much higher load on graphics cards and CPU than a simple monitor display. Thus it will always lag behind monitors regarding resolution.

Don't know if it'll happen in our lifetime but thankfully there is a finite end to that due to the limitation of human eyes! As soon as we get to human eye resolution, and the PCs that can power that resolution, that little issue will be over at least.

 

[grammatonfeather]

It's not only the readability of the instrument labeling in DCS World - situational awareness takes a huge hit as well due to the decreased spotting range and harder friend/foe identification thanks to the low resolution. Elite thankfully kind of circumvents these problems by having scanners on the ships and (at least for me) the downsides of the low resolution screen don't outweigh the added immersion I'm getting when playing with a DK2.

I have no issues with situational awareness using VR. Visual range isn't an issue in Elite because combat is close range. DCS would be more of an issue but still it's very playable because although there is a drop in resolution.... the image is much bigger with depth. When you're using a conventional monitor you're seeing a miniature flat representation and that can also cause problems.