Would You Rather - Consumer VR Gen II

[Cliché]

Given only two choices, would you rather Consumer VR Gen II have 2k resolution or a 150 degree wide FOV?

I must admit, I'm pretty happy with the resolution, although it can always be better. But what really bugs me is the scuba mask effect. Sometimes the image in VR just looks super sharp and clear - really stunning. But I'm always noticing the sides of the display and how constricting it is. IMO, you should at least be able to take in the whole HUD w/o having to move your head around.

Of course, they also need to fix the problems with black levels and color banding, which have gotten worse, so that should be doable. There is also the GodRays, which I barely notice anymore. And focus is another biggie, especially with a wider FOV, but also with increased resolution - it would be nice if was all in focus. I think another problem that needs work is software optimizations that allow higher frame rates. But I think these are second or third tier problems compared to the first two.

 

[Hell Razor5543]

You might want to check this out;

http://www.starvr.com/#top

 

[CMDR Minion Blob]

What's funny to me that a lot of people even on this forum seem to think 2nd Gen VR is "just around the corner." While that definition leaves a lot of room for interpretation it's also hurting a developing industry that is still in its infancy.

To take the Oculus as an example, it's astounding how much more the CV1 has improved on the two major DK models in a relatively short timeframe. Even with its shortcomings and limitations, including FOV and not-so stellar resolution when compared to UHD resolutions it's nothing sort of amazing they were able to accomplish, IMO. Refresh rate more than resolution is a primary requirement and obviously the higher you rase the FOV to mimic the nearly 180 degree view of the human eyes the higher the data-rates and exponentially higher data processing requirements must be satisfied. Yet affordability is also key and in that regard is where most of the grief comes from the potential early adopters.

The FOV limitation alone in ED--despite the latest tweaks in 2.2--caused me to stop recording YouTube videos since it became evident that the technology is not yet there--at least in terms of software support--to enable Hi-Res 2D rendering of the entire visual field at an acceptable quality. This is annoying to be sure but I still prefer to experience ED in its less-than-perfect 1st Gen VR form than going back to the uninvolving monitor-based gameplay.

HMD SuperSampling (HMD Quality setting) seems to have increased overall sharpness for me to the point where I don't notice any type of scuba effect beyond the natural optical artifacts presented by Freshnel lenses (again a necessary evil at this point). Godrays really only bothersome when the ED logo loads in the very beginning, not so much after that.

Software always lags behind hardware and in that you are perfectly correct; but in order to cater to the next generation HMDs, a whole lot of other technologies--even faster graphics accelerators, faster datatransfer (USB 3.1 or better), probably faster CPUs will be needed to drive that level of realism--but it's entirely within reach in a few years at a reasonable cost if the adoption continues and the economies of scale grow even further.

 

[RobLocksley]

I want higher rez so 2k for me.

There is also the issue of lenses; from what I've heard it is hard to make the FOV that many degrees wider.

Best thing is ofcourse if we could have both interchangable; that is switch out the lenses (if wide FOV lenses could be made for VR) to get either the one or the other.

I don't mind the 110 as it is. 120 would be more than enough for me...

 

[vic]

For me it's absolutely wider FOV more important than res.

 

[[HJ]-RedRaven]

I'm comfortable with the CV1 - its amazing that the Rift and the Vive came so far in such a short time. Very rapid turnaround time for hardware.

Current CV1 -
- Resolution is low (I only use a 1920x1200 monitor, and I can only imagine how the res drop in VR must feel to 4K monitor users). Still amazing though.
- FOV is okay - I see the edges but don't feel 'blinkered', but as a long time glasses wearer, I'm used to it.
- Colour banding is an issue for the Rift in dark scenes, and its not as vibrant as the Vive. Recently made worse by ASW, but latest Rift software patch has fixed it.
- God rays not an issue for me, although I know some others find it a problem (again glasses often suffer similar problems so I may be de-sensitised to glare/god rays)

For CV2/Vive2 -
- Biggest improvement will be increased resolution to 2K+ per eye (I think anything like 4K will be a ways off, but willing to be surprised ) for increased detail in all VR apps
- Eye tracking and software support for foveated rendering (offers increased detail but will also reduce overhead to mid-low range VR PCs.
- Improved lenses, improved panel matching and colour levelling (reduce god-rays, panel 'mist' and reduce panel-matching failures)

 

[Darkfyre99]

Can't we have both?

In all seriousness, though, I'd prefer Gen II VR to include both higher resolution AND eye tracking technology. A wider field of view would be nice, but I wear glasses anyways, so I'm used to having a narrower field of view.

edit: And while where on the subject of "VR Wish Lists," let's throw in next gen hand tracking technology too. Been watching that carefully, but I don't feel like it's useful yet.

 

[ArachAu]

It'll have both, but it won't be soon. The hardware to support 90fps 4K doesn't really exist yet, well at least not for Elite at what I would find and acceptable visual quality. Unless foveated rendering becomes a real thing. So you'll see cost reduction both in the cost to manufacture and the consumer cost for the headsets more or less as they are with slight refinements over the next couple of years.

 

[Hell Razor5543]

Erm, did anybody follow that link I posted? 210 degrees FOV (more than 75% of normal vision) and 5120 x 1440 total resolution.

 

[Cliché]

I was referring to the Rift & Vive consumer versions. I was figuring 2-3 years for more than minor improvements.

I expect faster processing power & data transfer is coming, regardless of VR. I also guestimated that both 2k resolution and a wider FOV would both require about the same big increase in performance. So you can have both, but at twice the performance hit, so I think that will take some time.

Eye tracking would be nice, really nice, but it would require where you look to be in focus, so we'd need much better lenses. Also, if you are looking around with your eyes, keeping your head still, then you will really need a wider FOV to go with that. I'm thinking that to get a wider FOV you will need bigger displays located farther away, but I was wondering why they haven't tried putting the displays on top of your head and use mirrors - rather than hanging off your face?

And I do wear reading glasses, and even the lenses have a much wider FOV than the Rift, but I can also still "see" out to the sides. Even if the extreme edges are not if focus, it would be really nice to have more than black there.

As for foveated rendering, I'd like to see it. Phase 1 focusing on the center of the display (head tracking) and phase 2 focusing on where your eyes are looking on the display. Phase 1 should be easy on current VR, as only the center 1/3 of the display is in focus anyway. I think lowering the resolution around the periphery will would hardly be noticed. Phase 2 would need those better lenses and wider FOV to be useful.

As someone who started playing computer games on printers, I think the graphics of the Rift are amazing as they are.

- - - Updated - - -

Erm, did anybody follow that link I posted? 210 degrees FOV (more than 75% of normal vision) and 5120 x 1440 total resolution.

Yeah, I'd seen that before. There are other posts on the forum about it. I don't have the processing power for that now (for Elite). That's why I'm waiting for 2nd generation consumer versions that will be supported and affordable.

 

[ghcannon]

I'd take the better resolution certainly.

I think a realistic date for CV2 is H2 2018, when the successor to Nvidia's Volta chip comes to market.
Expecting a 10-15 degrees of FOV improvement and 2k per eye res. Eye tracking ... if we're lucky.

 

[Darkfyre99]

Erm, did anybody follow that link I posted? 210 degrees FOV (more than 75% of normal vision) and 5120 x 1440 total resolution.

I've seen it before as well. I doubt the graphics cards to support that will be available anytime soon. Which is why I'm hoping for eye tracking technology to mature first. If the graphics card only has to render what your looking at, as opposed to your entire field of view, then resolution and field of view can be improved without sacrificing frame rates, your VR experience will be better, plus more accurate and user friendly "activate at a glance" features can be added to games.

 

[shadragon]

What's funny to me that a lot of people even on this forum seem to think 2nd Gen VR is "just around the corner."

It is. The GPU's to drive them are not.

 

[Major Klutz]

Will your graphics care be able to maintain 90FPS with a 2K resolution? Doubtful.
The resolution limit isn't just because of the display panels but because of performance issues as well.

At the rate things are going, we'll have 4K resolution available in the headsets long before graphics cards can catch up.
Even if they had 2K or 4K headsets available next year, it's unlikely many users would be able to take advantage of that resolution. Even with a Titan X
90FPS times two at 4K is not gonna be easy to do for a few years probably.

A wider FOV is also problematic. That requires a higher resolution OR it requires the current resolution to be stretched out making the pixels larger and effectively reducing the resolution.

 

[Deleted member 110222]

This thread gives me food for thought. Thanks all BTW.

It does get me thinking that maybe I could push my 960's lifespan even further, possibly. If I just stick to a 1080p monitor for a while longer. Perhaps replace the 960 with a 1060 in a year as a mid-life upgrade, but keep most of my savings for a VR PC in 3-4 years time. I'm all very excited still after seeing VR first-hand on Sunday, so my head is all over the place. Thinking calmly though, it might be worth waiting for technology to develop a bit more to run VR at higher res, which is what I want to see in the future.

And of course, assuming nothing horribly wrong happens, the longer I save, the better rig I can get when I think it's time. 3-4 years would be enough time for me to save for a top-tier card, maybe even Titan level.

 

[Hell Razor5543]

Un1k0rn, if you can stretch the finances slightly, get a 1070 card, as it will have SLi support, which the 1060 does not have (I have just checked, and neither the 3GB or 6GB versions have SLi). That way you leave open an option for upgrading the PC further.

 

[Deleted member 110222]

Un1k0rn, if you can stretch the finances slightly, get a 1070 card, as it will have SLi support, which the 1060 does not have (I have just checked, and neither the 3GB or 6GB versions have SLi). That way you leave open an option for upgrading the PC further.

The 1060 would only represent a mid life upgrade for my current rig, which I'm only planning on running as a 1080p monitor machine.

Forgive me if I wasn't clear.

I'm fairly comfortable with what I can save. It's just a question of how I use my funds. The thought of second-gen VR intrigues me, and I'm now thinking, would I be better off waiting for that, or just diving into first-gen. That I yet need to decide.

 

[Hell Razor5543]

Well, I know of a simple lowish cost way to reduce a bottleneck, and help cut down on the PC slowing down. Simply put, fit a drive dedicated to the Swap File (this has several names).

Windows ALWAYS creates a Swap File when it is installed. If the Swap File comes into play while accessing files on the same drive you end up with 'drive thrashing'. I have, since late Windows 95 days, been fitting a drive that I then let Windows have full control over, specifically for the Swap File. It should be at least twice the capacity of the maximum RAM capacity of the motherboard. Fit the drive, get it set up in the BIOS/CMOS systems, and then let Windows start up. Once you can, fire up Computer Management, and get into the section where you can work with the drives. I always do 2 things here. First, I name the drive "Swap File", so that I know what it is for and do not personally use it (OK, the PC is, but I am not directly using it). Second, I allocate it the letter Z: (so that if I fit other drives I don't have to worry about upsetting Windows when the Swap File changes letter!).

Now the drive is ready and working in Windows, call up Device Manager, and select Advanced Options. Locate the option that manages Virtual Memory (one of the multitude of names the Swap File is known by). The default option is to use drive C:. Tell Windows that there is not a Swap File on drive C: (it will complain about this), and then select drive Z:. Allow Windows full control over this drive for the Swap File. All being well (and Windows has not thrown a hissy fit!) there should now be a Swap File on drive Z:, and none elsewhere.

Please note that this does NOT make the PC go any faster, but it does mean it should slow down less.

There is also a way to increase the speed of the PC, and is very cost effective. Max out the memory (my PC has a full 32GB). The memory is the workspace for the CPU, and the more memory it has, the larger the workspace, the more it can have in there (rather than swapping things in and out of the HDD), and the faster the CPU can work.

 

[shreddog]

Better resolution all the way! And lighter headsets, easy to take off and on in a snap. THIS IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN I FIRST THOUGHT! Biggest drawback of the Vive is the fiddly straps and the very fiddly earphone plugs that makes it a real chore every time you need to do something outside the virtual world.

For next gen, 4k res per eye is a minimum. And it must include eyetracking to support foveated rendering, or else no gfx card can handle it at 90 fps.

 

[PetroVitallini]

I would go for resolution. What often increase immersion for me is when I get a sense of extra clarity. For example some star ports looks better far of and that also creates more depth and better sense of scale for me. That said I sometimes feel like I'm loosing my mind with the rift. One day I feel like wooha this feels like a much clearer image than I remembered it to be and some days it just feels like it is worse. And that is without me changing any settings what so ever. Btw wouldn't it be possible to run the rendering at 2k on a 4K panel? Or is the data amount the same? I thought the main problem as far as clarity or long distance detail was mainly because of to big pixels and to much space between them?