My (non-ED) Rift experience

[bend_r]

Greetings fellow Commanders,

I'v always wanted a rift or vive for ED because Elite is still my go-to game (after ~1000h logged already).

I just had the opportunity to try the Rift at a store opening, and it hasn't really helped in making a decision, do I get one or not.

First thing I tried was some futuristic 'racing' thing where you fly/drive on the outside of a tube and steer with your head movement. I got sick after around 5 seconds, and it was neither fun nor impressive.

Second thing I tried was a racing simulator, with full setup of wheel and pedals, and that was a lot better (no additional sickness) and a lot of fun.

But, and here is what I'm curious about,

a) is it really that pixelated, or was their setup bad? Is this better/different in ED?

b) for me there was no real 'wow, this is great' moment. I've seen youtube videos with people trying the Vive for the first time, and that always seemed like a totally awesome experience.

On top of the above, I have always leaned more towards the Vive (integrated camera + no XBOX-Controller), but from what I read in the forums support for ED seems to be sup-par at the moment.

I would be glad to hear your opinions on this.

thanks and see you all out there,
Commander Benderson

 

[Full_Ninja]

Room scale Vive is incredible. If you can find a place you should try it for yourself. Vive for Elite is pretty frustrating at the moment.

 

[Gortron]

I've only had it a few days but it is very pixilated and no less so in ED than the few other things I've tried so far. If you have a HOTAS then I think you will be impressed. Your brain adopts your in game body when you look down at it and particularly in a sidewinder to me it really feels like I'm inside the ship as you see your in game arms doing the same thing as your real arms. When the in-game hand stretches itself it feels really weird as your brain sort of goes....eh what's my hand doing. The sense of scale is brilliant and I am much better at combat because I'm inside the three dimensional space.

The only other thing I've really experienced is the dream deck demos and while I find them really impressive I can see why people rave about room scale in the Vive now, even though I haven't tried it. You often instinctively want to reach out and interact with things but you reach out and noting happens, your aren't represented in the game which I suppose it what makes Vive room scale so amazing for people.

I'm a bit of a noob to it all but I'd say if you have the space and plan to play lots of other things get a Vive. If you really only plan to use ED mostly go for the rift. It's lighter, cheaper and most people say ED is better in to at the mo.

 

[bend_r]

Thanks for your input so far, greatly appreciated.

 

[CMDR Minion Blob]

I don't know what the Best Buy demo gear was, how optimized the hardware/firmware was for the titles they showed, etc. In terms of the pixels, both 1st gen platforms have them, although currently ED VR is by far better experienced in the Rift. If you have top-drawer computer with at least a GTX 1080 or higher you can use SuperSampling to further increase the resolution with only a minor performance hit in FPS during more taxing moments.

After an hour or two, however, you will forget about the pixels and take in the scale and begin the immersion. In a few days you will find it difficult to even think about playing any game on a monitor, regardless of resolution. It just doesn't compare.

I had both the Vive and the Rift CV1. Returned the Vive after experiencing the superior performance--due to software limitations of some kind--affecting the Vive performance in ED VR. I do not have room for room scale anyway but ED doesn't require that so the Rift was just a much better choice for me but I also liked the Vive if I could have used it to its full potential.

You will need a HOTAS setup since keyboard/mouse goes out the window once you put your VR gear on; you're blind to the outside world. VoiceAttack is also your friend.

Do not skimp on Graphics cards, a fast SSD for OS and Elite game files, and a fast CPU. In return you will be able to run the game in Ultra settings and experience minimal to no judder (slowdown in framerate). The main reason why the panels in these HMDs are relatively low-res is to maintain a 90fps framerate.

 

[bend_r]

Hey CMDR Minion Blob,

thank you for taking the time

I already have a HOTAS setup (with ship launched fighters however I guess I'll need more buttons ) and a GTX 1070 with a matching (4GHz i7) CPU.

The demo was at a Media Markt (a german/european consumer electronics warehouse) and it was a Rift (PC specs unknown)

Currently I feel like Vive vs Rift is too much of a tradeoff. ED is sub-par on Vive, but the Rift lacks room-scale and what's the holdup with the Occulus touch anyway...

I guess it will have to wait a few more weeks now

see you all out there,
Commander Benderson

 

[[HJ]-RedRaven]

Someone has to say it -

When Oculus release the Touch controllers (which come with an additional camera/sensor), you'll have room scale in pretty much the same way as the Vive.
If you are focused on ED/driving, aren't horribly fussed now about roomscale VR, then the Rift is a better option now, with the option to add controllers when they are released around Christmas. The Rift enjoys better performance in ED and is arguably the better design. Mileage varies of course.

HTC/Valve took some risk launching the Vive with controllers, and at a higher price than the Rift without controllers. Big gamble, but it worked; the consumers' general perception is that it is the better product.
For some, it is;
If you want roomscale VR now, have the space for it and don't mind ED being a bit slow/red tinted/snow in the periphery (did I miss anything), then the Vive is your best purchase.
Incidentally I don't think the Vive suffers from those problems in other applications. Frontier's support for the Vive doesn't appear to be as good as the Rift, but hopefully that will change in the future.

Yes, both the Vive and the Rift are 'pixelly' - it can be improved if you have a good 3D card (read nVidia 980Ti or 10-series 3D card or equivalent AMD/Radeon) via supersampling which improves the image. The resolution and frame rate are fixed, but better video cards let you run better supersampling, higher detail and suffer less judder. You will not have the same fine detail in VR as you do on a 1080p or 4K monitor, but you will see the depth and be able to look around naturally, and that's a big plus.

Kudos to you for trying it out - a lot of us early adopters had to take a bit of a plunge and see when the box arrived on the doorstep!
But I wouldn't give it away for anything now. My Rift is firmly entrenched on my head.

 

[Gortron]

I have an i5 4670K 8gb and an MSI 970GTX; You don't need a super computer but you will wish you had one once you get the right experience. I just did the Apollo 11 VR experience..... I'm not rich but the Headset justified its cost on that alone.

 

[jmp470]

I can chime in on this. I built a computer this week with: i7 6700k (not over clocked), 1080, 16 GB ram and a SSD. I was trying to decide on what VR and monitor. The other day, I bought a Samsung curved monitor and returned it today for a Samsung 4K monitor and the rift. I did a few things with both today. The 4K is much nicer looking, however, the rift shows you things that won't know in 2D. For instance, my floor in the cutter is elevated! As is the floor in a cobra!!! Who knew (minus those with VR already). In VR many things are significantly easier, and better to look at. But, the resolution is not there compared to 4K.

I have 14 days to mess around with them both. Then, I have to decide what to do. I might return the oculus for the Vive and try that out for 14 days too.

 

[Frank]

Was the racing game "Project CARS"?

The headset is pixel-ly that's for sure, but I think there's an age thing going on here. The resolution of these headsets is much better than Quake. Also I'm sure there's some sort of "learning" going on as you use the headset. The distance between the pixels would be considered high if it were a normal monitor, but this isn't a normal monitor, it's one that's strapped to your face and tracks your head movements at 90 frames per second. Just moving your head slightly causes a massive increase in the graphical information hitting your eyeballs. So this means that people who don't think about the pixelation, move their heads naturally (or maybe unnaturally as they've learned to from using VR) and they don't even notice the pixels.

VR is very expensive. It isn't just the cost of the headsets. It makes you hunger for more and more expensive hardware to feed your eyeballs with the fastest and richest possible images. It's great that shops are now demoing the headsets to see if people are getting enough of a "wow" to justify the cost.

As for the choice. Once the touch controllers come out there's not going to be much to choose between them. The VIVE will still have the edge on roomscale because they're the ones who've been doing it longest. John Carmack's involvement with the software for the Rift, such as Asynchronous Time Warping, means that the CV1 has the edge for slightly slower computers.

My own choice was for the CV1. It's just a shame that the headset is now tainted by its associations with Mark Zuckerberg and Donald Trump. The only way Gabe Newell could muck up the reputation of the VIVE would be if he was to do something as daft as allowing people to run online gambling casinos for underage players.

 

[Mike Kangaroo]

For VR in general, Room scale sells it. You can freely interact with your environment and you wont get sick from it. My wife loves the Vive, being able to stand up and do stuff. She bought Vanishing Realms and was standing toe to toe with a skeleton swordsman waving the controller around (which in game showed her holding a sword) and dodging incoming blows like the dude was really there. (and the first time you do this, its actually a little intimidating )