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

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.

Many triple crippled, flat screeners will probably never adopt VR for other reasons too.

Some of the anti VR stuff I've read has been truly vitriolic in nature. I just pray that these Luddite attitudes die out, because they are like poison to a new technology such as VR.
 
Last edited:
Many triple crippled, flat screeners will probably never adopt VR for other reasons too.

Some of the anti VR stuff I've read has been truly vitriolic in nature. I just pray that these Luddite attitudes die out, because they are like poison to a new technology such as VR.

Well it was the same with 3d TV. They complained and then most who had never tried it jumped in and said it was awful and they would never buy it. It worked. They managed to kill it but they will be disappointed this time round. They won't kill VR.

Gamespot.com readers used to be completely ignorant and hostile towards VR. I spent a lot of time "correcting" them with help from a few other better informed readers. There has been a slow shift in thinking more positively but you are right... there will remain a percentage who are hostile towards it.

There's a percentage who do want VR but just want to see the resolution increase first.

I used to own IO-Systems PC3d many years ago and a low cost Vuzix HMD until last year so for me Oculus DK2 resolution is a massive step up. I don't compare the image to my 1080 monitor screen. I think that's the difference in attitude. If you've never owned pre-oculus era VR then your only reference point is a desktop monitor.

So here's what we know about CV1 versus Vive Pre now:

CV1 has better image quality than Vive Pre.
Vive Pre has better tracking for the HMD and the hand controllers.
Vive Pre has greater field of view.
Vive Pre has more noticeable screen door.
Vive Pre suffers from considerable screen light reflections due to its fresnel lenses.
CV1 has a bigger range of titles at launch thanks to DK2.
 
Well it was the same with 3d TV. They complained and then most who had never tried it jumped in and said it was awful and they would never buy it. It worked. They managed to kill it but they will be disappointed this time round. They won't kill VR.

Gamespot.com readers used to be completely ignorant and hostile towards VR. I spent a lot of time "correcting" them with help from a few other better informed readers.

Here's another cretin:

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/pc-mac-linux-society-1000004/oculus-rift-is-599-32892061/?page=1

SaintSatan like most VR haters, seems to be either a bit stupid or an idiot troll.
 
Here's another cretin:

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/pc-mac-linux-society-1000004/oculus-rift-is-599-32892061/?page=1

SaintSatan like most VR haters, seems to be either a bit stupid or an idiot troll.

I couldn't help but add a reply!

"This is an interesting thread and as someone who owns a DK2 I thought I'd register specifically to log my thoughts.

Firstly, for those who have yet to try VR I'll try and explain why it's different from 3D TV/ Imax 3D. When you watch a 3D film things look like they're on a series of "planes". You watch the film and if something pops out of the screen you think "that's neat" but it doesn't affect you physically. When you are in a good VR experience, the difference is that your brain is physiologically fooled into thinking it is in that location. This happens at a subconscious level and cannot be understood without experiencing it yourself. The best way I can describe it is that feeling you get when you wake up from a dream and you don't know whether you're still dreaming or not.

It's this that makes the technology different from some of the other things discussed in the thread.

Secondly, with the right game, with a good enough set up, you don't just play it for an hour and get bored/ fatigued. I've personally played 100's of hours of Elite Dangerous in VR (some sessions of 8+ hrs) and I cannot play it any other way. Yes the resolution is not perfect but you actually feel (and I mean FEEL) like you are piloting your own craft in space. The feeling of scale is indescribable. To understand how it is different from traditional 3D if you see an object in your cockpit you know exactly the distance it is from you. Your brain knows exactly how far you need to reach to touch that object (to the mm). So if you have your HOTAS setup in the same place in the real world you just reach out and it's there. I've spent minutes stationary staring in awe at a star system in the blackness of space. It's not like looking at a 4K/ IMAX screen. You are there. For the person that worried about being cut off from the world, you are right that is a concern. On some of my longer sessions I've been completely "Lost In Space" (sorry for that one..!) and when I've come out it's the real world that feels like VR. That's a concern but it's also one of the wonders of this generation of VR.

I also completed Alien Isolation in VR and had to go downstairs and hug my wife afterwards as the experience was so visceral!

Now VR for gaming will not replace your monitor for everything (not until you can look at a VR "monitor" with the same resolution as the real world one) as some games just can't work very well in that medium. Fast paced FPS' for example. I have had some fun in TF2 VR but it does hit you physically (like spending the day riding roller coasters).

Outside of gaming, VR will offer experiences you won't be able to get anywhere else. I've spent quite a few hours touring the world in VR via Google Streetview. And the way the world is going I can see this being the only way to safely experience some of the major world sites in the future. This you will be doing socially with other VR travellers.

One industry tends to drive the uptake of technology. It was fundamental to supporting the uptake of VCRs, it counts for a massive percentage of the internet. Pornography. The :):):):) industry is investing massively in VR. Again, you will not understand how big an impact this will have unless you've experienced good VR. Recently, I visited Tussaud's waxworks in London, they have many wax figures of famous people that you can actually interact with. One of these figure was of the Actor Helen Mirren. The wax figure was so lifelike that no one in my family could go up close to it, never mind touch it. It was so real we felt like we were invading a real persons space. In VR with a lifelike model you actual feel the same. You feel like you are in the same space as that person. Couple this with :):):):) and you have a real moral dilemma on your hands. I would not want my kids to experience that. But as a grown adult...

So in summary, for all the discussion on price, etc, I think this generations VR is the real thing. I can only encourage the people that aren't convinced to try and get a demo (make sure it's a properly set up one though as a bad set up can kill VR for someone for a long time). I'm not saying it's for everyone and I'm not saying it's fully mature yet. I am saying it's bloody brilliant.

I'd also like to encourage those of you out there that seem intent on attacking VR to step back a bit. It may not be right for you at the moment but anyone that's interested in technology should not want to see it killed off before it's had a chance.

I honestly believe that if the negative people don't kill it at birth we could all end up with our own holodecks within 10 years. Who doesn't want that?!"

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Interesting that this forum censors the word P 0 R N 0 G R A P H Y...
 
I honestly believe that if the negative people don't kill it at birth we could all end up with our own holodecks within 10 years. Who doesn't want that?!"

I actually find it laughable that people think it will die, that it's some kind of fad. They won't kill it, their "predictions" will just look silly when it takes off. ;)
 
Yup, very common to read stuff like that especially at gamespot.

I'd expect rubbish (ill informed opinion) like that at somewhere like gamespotty, but more worrying is what I encountered on other forums that were specifically for FPV simulations such as iRacing. VR got a very cool reception from the iRacing community, most of whom seemed much more interested in staying with what they had in terms of strange looking* 'dadrig'** triples and Trackir. I really did expect the sim racing community to jump at the chance of bucket load of reality, but in stead there was a lot of thumb sucking and tantrums over the whole idea of wearing something similar to a racing helmet.

*example of 'functional' looking simrig:
DSC_4806_zps8750202f.jpg


**dadrig, noun, definition: large item of computer gaming equipment such that might be used for sim racing or other FPV simulations, usually made up of very expensive components that no young person could afford or would even be seen dead in by their mates.

I won't quote any of the anti VR statements I collected over on iRacing because they make my eyes bleed just reading them.
 
I'd expect rubbish (ill informed opinion) like that at somewhere like gamespotty, but more worrying is what I encountered on other forums that were specifically for FPV simulations such as iRacing. VR got a very cool reception from the iRacing community, most of whom seemed much more interested in staying with what they had in terms of strange looking* 'dadrig'** triples and Trackir. I really did expect the sim racing community to jump at the chance of bucket load of reality, but in stead there was a lot of thumb sucking and tantrums over the whole idea of wearing something similar to a racing helmet.

*example of 'functional' looking simrig:


**dadrig, noun, definition: large item of computer gaming equipment such that might be used for sim racing or other FPV simulations, usually made up of very expensive components that no young person could afford or would even be seen dead in by their mates.

I won't quote any of the anti VR statements I collected over on iRacing because they make my eyes bleed just reading them.

Lol. That's hilarious. Stick some wheels on it and it can be used on shopping trips.

Yes I know what you mean about the dadrig attitude. I signed up on Live for speed (presumably not MDMA) some weeks ago and there was one particular big mouth there who hated VR and let everyone know about it (he's since been banned). Some liked it but I guess most couldn't move beyond triple monitor. I never liked multi-monitor gaming. Never ever thought it was a good idea. It's a bodge. Ugly looking and not at all immersive.

I thought it hilarious when I saw "world's biggest TV" announced on a tech website last year. Turns out it was just a bunch of TV displays arranged in a grid with ugly black bezel gaps. World's largest display should be one single screen.

Live for speed by the way is the absolute smoothest DK2 VR experience I have ever had. The sim looks impressive with VR. Wish I still had fanatec wheel and piddles.
 
Last edited:
TLDR

OP...common man. Do the actual math.

Follow your link, select "1080- 1920x1080" then shrink your browser to about 2 inches by 2 inches . Then compare that to the 4k version. They are almost identical. Just make sure you realize that the pixels stretch to the browser window.

As you know the Rift is 1080x1200 per...2 inches - it's almost square - so 2 square inches. That's insane pixel density. Just like 1080p with a 60 inch screen looks poor up close and 1080p on 24 inch screen looks great. 1080x1200 on a tiny screen is also going to look super sharp.

And with any and every resolution you get jagged edges to some degree without AA. You can probably still downsample and use AA with VR (why couldn't you?) but EVEN IF YOU COULDN'T - it's still incredible pixel density.

And you can't "simulate" global refresh and 90fps on a non-globaly refreshing 60hz screen -
AND it's 3D
AND it's your full field of vision

But if it's all about pixels and "it's less than 1440p" - go find me a 1400p OLED monitor that is 2 inches by 2 inches and then compare them. Not gonna happen.
 
TLDR

OP...common man. Do the actual math.

Follow your link, select "1080- 1920x1080" then shrink your browser to about 2 inches by 2 inches . Then compare that to the 4k version. They are almost identical. Just make sure you realize that the pixels stretch to the browser window.

As you know the Rift is 1080x1200 per...2 inches - it's almost square - so 2 square inches. That's insane pixel density. Just like 1080p with a 60 inch screen looks poor up close and 1080p on 24 inch screen looks great. 1080x1200 on a tiny screen is also going to look super sharp.

And with any and every resolution you get jagged edges to some degree without AA. You can probably still downsample and use AA with VR (why couldn't you?) but EVEN IF YOU COULDN'T - it's still incredible pixel density.

And you can't "simulate" global refresh and 90fps on a non-globaly refreshing 60hz screen -
AND it's 3D
AND it's your full field of vision

But if it's all about pixels and "it's less than 1440p" - go find me a 1400p OLED monitor that is 2 inches by 2 inches and then compare them. Not gonna happen.

I agrees don't I.
 
As you know the Rift is 1080x1200 per...2 inches - it's almost square - so 2 square inches. That's insane pixel density. Just like 1080p with a 60 inch screen looks poor up close and 1080p on 24 inch screen looks great. 1080x1200 on a tiny screen is also going to look super sharp.

That's not how it works with a VR headset.

The screen is magnified by the optics so it fills most your field of vision, it's actually more akin to sitting in front of a monitor the size of a cinema screen due to the optics. So the pixel density, once magnified to that level, is actually very low.

But that's kind of missing the point. The big improvement of the release version of the Rift is that apparently the screen door effect is hugely diminished compared to the DK2. I can deal quite happily with the resolution of the DK2 - after about 15 minutes using it, you don't really care that it's not a 4K display any more because it gives you such an amazing sense of volume that no flat screen can ever replicate. The quality improvement of the release Oculus Rift will not be due to a massive increase in resolution, but a massive decrease in screen door effect, better optics, and a better max refresh rate.

Despite the very obvious screen door effect and apparent low resolution, I would not trade my DK2 for a 4K display or even three 4K displays because the game will just seem flat. The DK2 gives such a massive sense of volume and scale no flat screen can ever give. The release version will be much better even if the resolution isn't that much higher.
 
Vive Pre has greater field of view.

Are we sure? Did the Vive Pre increase FOV? I've seen one comparison that has CV1 with a wider (but shorter) FOV than the Vive (with a blurred/reflective edge so it's not as noticeable)

2d3660f0c2.png

I won't quote any of the anti VR statements I collected over on iRacing because they make my eyes bleed just reading them.

I haven't been too bothered by most of them over there. At the end of the day, I think of it like this. There are two types of people in video gaming: those who want to see, and those who want to look.

The people who want to look at their games are chasing the highest resolution, framerate, and static FOV they can to make it look as impressive as possible.
The people who want to see the game they're playing the best are excited for head tracking that let them look around corners, over their shoulder, and have stereoscopic view so things like targeting reticules and nearby objects can be viewed accurately.

We don't need to be (and shouldn't be) rivals. It's two different sets of preferences for two different sets of people. Just as many people have disassembled their triples as have decided they'll keep them in favor of their high resolution. That's totally OK, why should we antagonize them as "triple cripples"?

But that's kind of missing the point. The big improvement of the release version of the Rift is that apparently the screen door effect is hugely diminished compared to the DK2. I can deal quite happily with the resolution of the DK2 - after about 15 minutes using it, you don't really care that it's not a 4K display any more because it gives you such an amazing sense of volume that no flat screen can ever replicate. The quality improvement of the release Oculus Rift will not be due to a massive increase in resolution, but a massive decrease in screen door effect, better optics, and a better max refresh rate.

Exactly, which is why the hand wringing about the specs of the hardware instead of 'I tried it and didn't like it' is misplaced. It's all about the optics, sub pixels, and how you display the image (low-persistence, scan lines vs global update, refresh rate, etc).

On a related note, Palmer Luckey in his latest AMA confirmed the CV1 is Pentile, but says that the limitation is sub-pixels and putting the same number of sub-pixels in RGB stripe would result in a worse display for VR.

https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterra...luckey_founder_of_oculus_and_designer/cytizz9
 
Last edited:
We don't need to be (and shouldn't be) rivals. It's two different sets of preferences for two different sets of people. Just as many people have disassembled their triples as have decided they'll keep them in favor of their high resolution. That's totally OK, why should we antagonize them as "triple cripples"?

They had to pay something for their smug arrogance and dismissive attitude. And pay some of them did, as they had tantrums over 'triple crippled' banter over and over again.


image posting
 
Last edited:
That sounds like smug arrogance and a dismissive attitude to me ;)

I was perfectly happy to exchange opinions with the open minded, but when the closed minded turned up...Well, there was no point them telling me VR was 'unusable' or 'undriveable', when I had it all working very nicely.
 

Slopey

Volunteer Moderator
I find it quite hilarious that many posters on various websites are saying the Rift is dead on arrival, costs 2x too much, is months behind, and that VR is terribad, but in the same post saying "I'm definately getting the Vive!". I can't understand how they think that the Vive will be substantially cheaper, will ship before April, or that the VR experience will be any better than the Rift given we know that SDE is worse on the Vive (not to mention the freznels). If VR is dead, surely they should bemoan any VR device, rather than berating one and committing to the other (of which there's no information on at all unless you've been to CES).

Even if they're one of these strange people who thinks that as soon as you put on a Rift, Zuckerberg is going to personally suck your soul out through your eyeballs, there's no rationale behind it.

Odd.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom