Oculus vs. Vive 'head 2 head' in elite

[maxpare79]

I have been without a working soundcard for a while now and have just recently invested in a replacement in the form of the hyperx cloud II headset. I have to say that the sound in E is awesome, and made that much more awesome by my mid range / moderately expensive headphones. One aspect of the oculus that simply makes me groan out loud is those stuck on open headphones. I mean, I would rather choose my audio solution than have it bolted on.

I wish people would read the spec before commenting... THE INTEGRATED HEARPHONES CAN BE TAKEN OUT. You can use your own. But if a game is made for the Rift from the start I would advise against it since the Dev will probably have used the audio sdk of the rift

 

[SnugglySocks]

I wish people would read the spec before commenting... THE INTEGRATED HEARPHONES CAN BE TAKEN OUT. You can use your own. But if a game is made for the Rift from the start I would advise against it since the Dev will probably have used the audio sdk of the rift

yeah, I read the spec before the post. I know you can snap them off (probably would end up doing so even if you couldn't ). My point is that they should be an optional extra, not shoved in with the base headset kit.

I'd like to do a poll after launch to see how many people keep them attached.

 

[grammatonfeather]

It would seem Oculus and Vive both open-source than, i.e. softward to drive them available for free.

But it will all down to support. I would expect any software developer to make sure they support all VR kit.

I just do not think that Oculus has done enough to keep it's market. And Vive backed by steam/valve known software developer with a track record.
Time will tell as Oculus and Vive not the only ones due to release this year. Personally I like the look of VR system with cam built in to overlay graphics on real world (Something nintendo 3ds already does).

Valve isn't really a software developer anymore; they're a content delivery system. Sub $1000 gaming VR wouldn't be a thing without Palmer/Oculus.

"I just do not think that Oculus has done enough to keep it's market" - This is what happens when someone gets a random thought in their head and then presents it in a way that sounds factual.

Palmer has done nothing but build and promote VR and EDUCATE the world about the technology. Engaged an amazing team of scientists and engineers. Hasn't done enough to keep the market? He's driving the market! Sony is only working on Morpheus because they're riding on Palmer's trail. Valve has no experience of VR and HTC is on a downward spiral with HMD technology being their last hope. There are worrying rumors regarding Vive Pre problems and the potential for mechanical product failures when they ship.

People get swept along in fantasy and all jumped on the "vive is better" wave. Since CES 2016 we learn that actually CV1 has better image quality and lower weight and perhaps lower price. People go demented because Vive has lasers and room-tracking and yet we know now that Oculus has good reason to stay with camera based tracking systems. Room scale tracking without wireless is pretty useless at this time until we get the wireless 3rd party module.

Palmer couldn't have done any more really and VR isn't an exclusive technology; It's open to anyone to produce.

 

[SnugglySocks]

actually CV1 has better image quality

could you cite your sources please. There are a number of links earlier in this thread suggesting the opposite of this statement. My own posts highlight that both headsets use the same screen panel, so any manufacturing issues would also affect both sets.

 

[Deleted member 110140]

could you cite your sources please. There are a number of links earlier in this thread suggesting the opposite of this statement. My own posts highlight that both headsets use the same screen panel, so any manufacturing issues would also affect both sets.

Screen panel being the same does not guarantee the same image quality. It's been said, in the Pcgamer comparison, Oculus's FOV is smaller. Other things being equal, this suggests higher pixel density. That is, higher perceived image resolution. It's a trade off, of course. Some people may prefer larger FOV, some may prefer extra pixels. I'd prefer extra pixels, if the FOV is close to DK2 range.

 

[SnugglySocks]

The wider fov is a product of the panels being mounted in portrait orientation (many references available) in the oculus vs landscape in the vive so pixel density would be the same in both. I agree that actual pixel density differences would result in perceived quality difference but so far the number of people saying one is better quality than the other is roughly equal from the various sources here and on the web. This is one of the main reasons for wanting to hear about the same game, namely ED, being run on both displays. So that a direct comparison can be made rather than some people looking at whales and then looking at bullet train and judging quality on the vastly different content. Otherwise it just becomes a contest of who has the loudest fanboys. Which it is already very close to being.
The guy in that video review that was linked most recently, whilst some found him annoying, seemed very objective, which was nice.

 

[Deleted member 110140]

You're right, we need comparison of both (retail) products running with ED. And not just for fifteen minutes. Everything else is speculation based on too little actual information. I didn't know about portrait/landscape thing, it's interesting. I wonder what are the benefits of portrait. At a first guess landscape seems a better choice.

 

[SnugglySocks]

I wonder what are the benefits of portrait. At a first guess landscape seems a better choice.

the fov numbers we are given seem to be diagonal measures. As has been proven to me on many occasions when buying a new tv, diagonal size alone is a bad way to judge the 'size' of the screen. I guess someone thought it was more important to be able to see further up and down rather than side to side. But, in all the articles I have read, no one has ever mentioned being able to see more of the screen vertically when using the oculus. Which leads me to suspect that the vertical fov benefits of portrait screen are insignificant when compared to the horizontal fov benefit of landscape ones.
I can only find third party references to the actual horiozontal FOV (like this one) which mention the actual horizontal fov being 90 degrees (110 diagonal). Given that the official fov of the vive is also 110 degrees (which I have to assume is also diagonal) this only further highlights the pointlessness of this as a measure.

 

[Bakkster]

yeah, I read the spec before the post. I know you can snap them off (probably would end up doing so even if you couldn't ). My point is that they should be an optional extra, not shoved in with the base headset kit.

I'd like to do a poll after launch to see how many people keep them attached.

Honestly, having them as an optional extra might cost as much for the increased logistics to support it as you'd save pulling the hardware out. Not to mention the people for whom price is the primary factor in their purchasing decisions are the ones who most need the integrated audio.

There's a lot of cool stuff that can be done with built-in headphones. Palmer has mentioned that since they know exactly what drivers you have they can not only get good frequency response through DSP, but also the developer can say 'play this sound at 80dB SPL' and everyone will hear it at exactly that volume. Or, perhaps more usefully, they can play a whisper at whisper volume no matter how loud everything else is.

The wider fov is a product of the panels being mounted in portrait orientation (many references available) in the oculus vs landscape in the vive so pixel density would be the same in both.

I thought it was the Oculus that appeared to be wider horizontally, with Vive taller vertically. All the more reason to watch the final specs and look for release reviews, I suppose.

I wonder what are the benefits of portrait. At a first guess landscape seems a better choice.

It's going to depend what you're playing. Something like a racing game you want as wide a landscape as possible. Other games might have greater presence being able to see a taller view of the world.

 

[jabokai]

yeah, I read the spec before the post. I know you can snap them off (probably would end up doing so even if you couldn't ). My point is that they should be an optional extra, not shoved in with the base headset kit.

I'd like to do a poll after launch to see how many people keep them attached.

I for one plan on using them all the time, even if they're not as good as more expensive cans. Why? Because I'm lazy and want to put the Rift on and take it off. I don't want to put the Rift on, put cans on, take cans off, take the Rift off - it will just be annoying. So I actually think they're a pretty good idea.

Optional? Well, same argument for the Vive's second lighthouse, the hand controllers and the camera as I would definitely not use two of those (extra lighthouse and camera) as I have no intention of using the "walking around" experience - I don't have a spare servant to handle the wires, they're all busy already. The controllers? I think I'd use them for some things but they should surely also be optional, using your logic that they may not be used?

 

[grammatonfeather]

CV1 supposedly comes with positional audio. The company responsible had 3d sound demos on their website some years ago and there was nothing positional about it. I have never heard positional audio on any surround headphones. It's a myth.

Problem is that people are easily deceived especially when it comes to audio. They believe a wide spacial effect is "positional audio". I told Palmer that if CV1 sound really is positional then I will eat my hat.

I think the quality of CV1 audio will be good.

 

[jabokai]

I have never heard positional audio on any surround headphones. It's a myth.

From reading this article it seems that for truly positional audio it needs to be customised to each individual's ears. So you're probably partly right, and partly wrong.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

CV1 supposedly comes with positional audio. The company responsible had 3d sound demos on their website some years ago and there was nothing positional about it. I have never heard positional audio on any surround headphones. It's a myth.

Problem is that people are easily deceived especially when it comes to audio. They believe a wide spacial effect is "positional audio". I told Palmer that if CV1 sound really is positional then I will eat my hat.

I think the quality of CV1 audio will be good.

there is a dk2 demo (i think it is a starwars millenium falcon demo) and it has a positional audio test in it. a bright asterix flies around you, and the whole thing is simple incredible. there is positional audio, it exists, and i have experienced it.... hell you can to as you do not need a dk2 to load the demo.

you can close your eyes and know exactly where the sound is coming from.

for the record i have sharkoon xtatic 5.1 true surround headset. i do not think that is why it worked, but i am not 100% certain.
(it has multiple speakers in each ear)

(unless positional audio is not what i think it is)

 

[SnugglySocks]

Optional? Well, same argument for the Vive's second lighthouse, the hand controllers and the camera

yep, those too. Not the camera though (I'll be groping for beer while sitting at ED).

 

[Alec Turner]

https://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/49ku1u/detailed_experience_a_lot_of_hours_with_both/

 

[megadonkeyx]

Just from my 1920x1080 deepoon e2 experience i think a lot of the people getting a rift or vive will be initially elated (yay finally arrived) and then a little disappointed especially 4k gamers as it will all look so blocky and lacking in detail, a bunch of people will sell them as it just wont live up to the long awaited and built up expectations but most will not be able to play certain games outside of vr again.

Elite is a weird game for vr as its all about small objects in very large space so it pulls all them small pixels out at you and shows up the low res of current vr. I only really play cqc elite now in vr as for fast action play you dont need the squint at the text thingy so much but i have to play in low res to get the 75fps and vr feeling.

Some games ive tried in vr especially the demos dont have the same effect and seem to hide the resolution problems by using very large more simply shaded objects. i think that will be key initially as it will keep framerates up and loss of detail down.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

do you think? I dunno, time will tell, but even after 18months using DK2, it still never failed to put a smile on my face.

4k on a monitor tho, i just think, meh! looks nice but its just flat.

to each their own.. I do agree however some expectation management is needed,

 

[shadragon]

It does not matter which gear you buy as long as it A) enhances your game play and immersion B) you are happy with the performance.

There is no right and wrong VR gear. Everyone has different needs, budgets and standards. Buy what you feel will serve your needs and pocketbook best.

This 'Vive is better than Oculus' and 'Oculus is better than the Vive' back and forth, accomplishes nothing except polarize the community as a whole. We should all be working together to insist on Open VR Standards regardless of manufacturer across the board so we can all experience the same content equally no matter what we have plugged into our systems.

(Pious rant ends)

 

[Gully Foyle]

Well said. Not a rant in my opinion, just the voice of reason. Repped.

You'll go blind if you do it too much VR

 

[vic]

Just from my 1920x1080 deepoon e2 experience i think a lot of the people getting a rift or vive will be initially elated (yay finally arrived) and then a little disappointed especially 4k gamers as it will all look so blocky and lacking in detail, a bunch of people will sell them as it just wont live up to the long awaited and built up expectations but most will not be able to play certain games outside of vr again.

Elite is a weird game for vr as its all about small objects in very large space so it pulls all them small pixels out at you and shows up the low res of current vr. I only really play cqc elite now in vr as for fast action play you dont need the squint at the text thingy so much but i have to play in low res to get the 75fps and vr feeling.

Some games ive tried in vr especially the demos dont have the same effect and seem to hide the resolution problems by using very large more simply shaded objects. i think that will be key initially as it will keep framerates up and loss of detail down.

No offence but personally don't agree with your opinion. Maybe you say that becuase your using cheapo imititation, but I LOVE my DK2. Not perfect but rarely a day goes by with me not using it in the last 8 months. I find playin on flat monitor a joke now, even with the present (and temporary) short-comings of the DK2!
My opinion comes from playing elite of course(and war thunder). Using GTX970 with graphics setting med-high (no shadows) and using re-shade. 75FPS most of the time(exception in open CG's).