cheapchips
Veteran
I felt GearVR was really grainy too. Depended on the demo though. Wonder if the next iteration will opt for fresnel hybrid lenses like the Rift.
Rift, Vive, and Virtual Reality
- Thread starter idsn6
- Start date
Surely it just depends on what phone you put in there? My biggest takeaway so far is that outside video content, there is a huuuuuuuuge difference between PC and console VR and mobile VR. The lack of processing power and being able to get high frame rates with low latency is making mobile almost irrelevant in that space.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
In my case, video vr is the worst experience due to the huge amount of pixelation and blur.
Realtime rendered stuff is the best experience even in cardboard.
Realtime rendered stuff is the best experience even in cardboard.
Yes, a lot of normally unnoticed video compression artifacts are much more noticeable when in VR mode. They need to be encoded with much higher bandwidth (and maybe resolution) than normal video.
It seems like Oculus chnaged their stance on the hardware-based DRM checking: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/06/oculus-reverses-course-dumps-its-vr-headset-checking-drm/
... snippets ...
What a difference an Internet uproar can make.
The Oculus team has reversed course on one of its most unpopular decisions since launching the Rift VR headset in April: headset-specific DRM. After weeks of playing cat-and-mouse to block the "Revive" workaround that translated the VR calls of Oculus games to work smoothly and seamlessly inside of the rival HTC Vive, Oculus quietly updated its hardware-specific runtime on Friday and removed all traces of that controversial DRM.
What's more, Oculus didn't mention the change in its runtime update notes, which are curiously future-dated one day forward on Saturday, June 25. The news instead broke when Revive's head developer posted a note on the project's Github download page. "I've only just tested this and I'm still in disbelief," the unnamed LibreVR developer wrote. Accordingly, the Revive team has since removed the patch's DRM-disabling feature, which had later been implemented as an extreme measure to make Oculus games play on the HTC Vive.
... snippets ...
What a difference an Internet uproar can make.
The Oculus team has reversed course on one of its most unpopular decisions since launching the Rift VR headset in April: headset-specific DRM. After weeks of playing cat-and-mouse to block the "Revive" workaround that translated the VR calls of Oculus games to work smoothly and seamlessly inside of the rival HTC Vive, Oculus quietly updated its hardware-specific runtime on Friday and removed all traces of that controversial DRM.
What's more, Oculus didn't mention the change in its runtime update notes, which are curiously future-dated one day forward on Saturday, June 25. The news instead broke when Revive's head developer posted a note on the project's Github download page. "I've only just tested this and I'm still in disbelief," the unnamed LibreVR developer wrote. Accordingly, the Revive team has since removed the patch's DRM-disabling feature, which had later been implemented as an extreme measure to make Oculus games play on the HTC Vive.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
I think it was less to do with the internet uproar than developer uproar that the DRM was being completely disabled in order to enable operation on Vive headsets. IE - making it relatively easy to pirate games in the OR store. I'm sure all the developers weren't happy about that.
Not to say the internet uproar didn't have some hand in it, but I think the piracy concerns were higher up on the list. Of course, now the cat's out of the bag, I'm sure some other group or individual will pick up with DRM removal using the Revive code (reverse engineered if required).
Regards,
SB
Not to say the internet uproar didn't have some hand in it, but I think the piracy concerns were higher up on the list. Of course, now the cat's out of the bag, I'm sure some other group or individual will pick up with DRM removal using the Revive code (reverse engineered if required).
Regards,
SB
Great thing oculus decided to do the right thing. Though I still don't trust them enough to buy anything from oculus store. Steam rocks and hopefully keeps working no matter what headset one has.
The existence of DRM and the desire to focus their services to a select group of users makes a lot of sense from a business, engineering and support standpoint for a simultaneous hardware+software launch, but everything about the way they've reacted to this DRM issue makes it feel like they were caught off guard somehow.
I wish they'd release some sort of road map to give some idea of what's going on in their company, what their priorities are for the functionality of their store, when they expect to have certain basic features ready, etc. Not knowing what their direction is and what they're tackling month to month only makes them look incompetent and unprepared when they happen to stumble in a public way. You can't ask your customers for a vote of confidence to dump hundreds of dollars on content purchases when you're unwilling to share anything about what your goals and vision are for that store.
I wish they'd release some sort of road map to give some idea of what's going on in their company, what their priorities are for the functionality of their store, when they expect to have certain basic features ready, etc. Not knowing what their direction is and what they're tackling month to month only makes them look incompetent and unprepared when they happen to stumble in a public way. You can't ask your customers for a vote of confidence to dump hundreds of dollars on content purchases when you're unwilling to share anything about what your goals and vision are for that store.
I think it is a bad idea - more focus needs to be on making VR a success at this stage. Locking people into specific platforms this early will have adverse effects, precisely for that same reason: consumers already unsure about VR are now also unsure about what platform to choose, when even the hardware choice itself is difficult enough. Oculus shouldn't be so worried about Vive at this point. It is far too difficult and too expensive to setup for regular consumers.
If Vive is outselling the Rift several times over as many seem to guess then I could see it being a concern for Oculus's store front if a non-trivial percentage of their services are being used in an out-of-scope manner. Oculus Home has upwards of 60GB of free first party content that is/was completely DRM free, such that anyone with an e-mail address can create an Oculus account, download and use it without any apparent limitation. Beyond that you have the issue of unsupported users being able to actively buy content, which could represent a billing and customer support headache down the road given that Oculus have no automated system for handling refunds, and especially when you're talking about a Vive community of many thousands whom are actively waging a protest by whatever means the internet allows. Furthermore, Oculus Home currently has zero community/social features at all (no messaging between users, no user reviews or game discussion boards) - presumably at some point Oculus is going to roll that out and I would like for the reddit millennial cesspool of PC master racers to not spill over onto those services.
...And all this gnashing of teeth about exclusivity is going to be far worse as soon as Touch is launched with dozens of timed exclusives and people discover that the Touch controllers are different enough that compatibility with the Vive will no longer just be a matter of translating API calls. Right now there's pretty well nothing worth bending over backwards to buy/play on Oculus Home if you own a Vive and have gotten accustomed to using motion controllers, so I can imagine it getting much uglier when people are angry not merely by the principle of exclusivity but also by not being able to play the better looking VR content on their pricey hardware.
...And all this gnashing of teeth about exclusivity is going to be far worse as soon as Touch is launched with dozens of timed exclusives and people discover that the Touch controllers are different enough that compatibility with the Vive will no longer just be a matter of translating API calls. Right now there's pretty well nothing worth bending over backwards to buy/play on Oculus Home if you own a Vive and have gotten accustomed to using motion controllers, so I can imagine it getting much uglier when people are angry not merely by the principle of exclusivity but also by not being able to play the better looking VR content on their pricey hardware.
I'm told on reddit they are very good at giving keys to other stores if u buy it on a different one. So I might buy it on steam using best buy steam cards to get another 20% off !
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Yes, both Sony and Oculus should be fostering the ability for all VR games and applications to run on all hardware similar to HTC/Valve.
However, the reality is that anything Sony funds is prohibited from appearing on another platform and it isn't possible to hack those games to run on a competing set (as with the Rift and Vive situation).
And Oculus attempted to do something similar with games they helped to fund. Except instead of full exclusivity as Sony are doing, they imposed limited exclusivity. And even that wasn't successful as the DRM was circumvented.
In many ways PSVR has both the largest chance to succeed, and the largest chance to sink VR due to the exclusionary stance they've taken.
Regards,
SB
The expectation of supporting every VR platform seems like a lost cause to me at this point when literally every year the book is getting rewritten with a new entry to the market or a hardware feature added that changes the definition of what "VR" is. While SteamVR supports the Oculus SDK right now, the actual content that's on Steam still has to be designed to support each specific VR hardware platform by the developer. Content that's designed in a way that closely marries itself to the features and strengths of a particular platform is not going to play well on other platforms. It's easy to look at Rift and Vive right now and get the false impression that compatibility is simple because right now the Vive happens to be a full superset of the current Rift functionality, but it's not going to always be that way as these manufacturers continue to leapfrog each other in different ways. Worrying about exclusivity right now seems like it's putting the cart before the horse when the family of hardware isn't mature and the market is maybe 1/10th the size of any notable gaming platform failure of the past few decades.
Well, personally I am inclined to compare that to consoles and PC. Sure there are plenty of differences, but most games can still be made for most platforms. And while some limitations may exist, it is also not impossible to take in extra features for a specific platform at times (say, motion control steering). All the VR platforms have the same head tracking VR and all of them will have controllers that allow your hands to be tracked in 3D space. The similarities span a far larger area of gameplay scope than the difference and so multi platform games are a given.
isnt generally the featureset between vive psvr and rift is the same?
the only different thing are 360 degree action and room scale (and crawling scale) for Vive.
Room scale still can be scaled into standing / leaning scale on psvr and rift.
360 degree action can be scaled down in front-facing action.
sure the experience will be different. But the basic gameplay will still work.
the only thing that cant work in PSVR and rift is "crawling scale" tracking. But maybe can be adapted into crouching scale tracking?
the only different thing are 360 degree action and room scale (and crawling scale) for Vive.
Room scale still can be scaled into standing / leaning scale on psvr and rift.
360 degree action can be scaled down in front-facing action.
sure the experience will be different. But the basic gameplay will still work.
the only thing that cant work in PSVR and rift is "crawling scale" tracking. But maybe can be adapted into crouching scale tracking?
Okay... i just tried Cardboard VR with supersampling
in bright "neon" objects, the pixel gap is easily noticable when my head stay still. But on the character itself, i cannot see any pixels.
now i just need to know how to overdrive the LCD to 90hz...
then to know how to add post-AA.
compared to a few days ago when i tried amsung gear VR, 1080p RGB LCD panel give much better visual quality despite it have more blur.
- 4k to 1080p RGB display = holy molly! the character looks so smooth! too bad my phone runs it like in 15 fps or something (even the Apex launcher runs with huge stutter).
- 3k to 1080p RGB display = still look smooth and its like running in 30fps, sometimes feels like 60fps.
- 2k to 1080p RGB display = ugh the same jaggies as 1080p native also feels the same fps as 1080p (feels up and down 30-60fps, mosty 60fps if i put a fan right in front of my face)
in bright "neon" objects, the pixel gap is easily noticable when my head stay still. But on the character itself, i cannot see any pixels.
now i just need to know how to overdrive the LCD to 90hz...
then to know how to add post-AA.
compared to a few days ago when i tried amsung gear VR, 1080p RGB LCD panel give much better visual quality despite it have more blur.
Have you tried a Galaxy phone with your cardboard? Or your phone through GearVR optics? I suspect the FOV provided by the lenses are contributing a lot to the apparent density. I will say one thing about GearVR though - after having gotten used to 90Hz VR in the last couple months, the biggest eye sore for me is the 60Hz low persistence flicker.
Things can always be scaled, tweaked and stripped to the point where they function on the lowest common denominator of all platforms, the question is whether that's something you want when we're only just beginning to figure out what interactive VR is. I'd rather have game design be free to explore VR to the full limits of what the hardware will do for each platform so that future iterations of hardware can have useful insight and guide posts to know what is important and what isn't. This generation of VR is worth far more as R&D for the coming few decades of computing than it is as a 2016 gaming device that allows a few million enthusiasts to play immersive cross-platform shovelware and mods of existing traditional content.
The fact that all platforms have HMDs isn't that important to content design. The HMD is a camera so you can see what you're doing in virtual space, that's all. Tracking volume size, shape, the direction-dependent nature of PSVR and Touch's setups, and the differing button and ergonomic arrangements are the defining attributes of what VR is right now. If a particular platform doesn't allow you to turn your body, then the best solution isn't to map yaw control to an analog stick, but rather design the content from the ground up such that you have no need to turn your body. If a platform doesn't allow you to walk, then the best solution isn't to have you teleport every time you want to take a step, but rather design content that focuses on activities other than moving and walking. If content doesn't get designed around the strengths and weaknesses of these different platforms then we're never going to know which design decisions have merit and are worth chasing in future iterations of hardware.
Nintendo could have designed Super Mario Bros as a cross-platform title. With a little adjustment here and there they could have had a functionally similar action platformer that was suitable for any of the consoles of that period. You could remove side-scrolling as a defining characteristic to better accommodate the weaker systems, make the movement slower and less timing dependent so that joysticks are usable, make the game shorter for the smaller cartridge capacities, etc. Would the game have still had the je ne sais quoi that made it a killer app for the NES and the industry? Maybe? I don't know.
Right now VR has nothing analogous to the NES, gamepad or side-scrolling platformer genre that gave the video game industry the footing it was missing. What we have right now is hardware and software design lacking any rule book just as we had with Atari, Intellivision, Coleco, etc in the late 70s and early 80s. Is 360 roomscale VR important enough to chase as a future specification for Sony and Oculus? Is hand and finger articulation and hand presence with Touch valuable enough to warrant sacrificing easy compatibility with Move and Vive's wand controllers? What about full body skeletal tracking, haptic gloves, or other forms of input that we might have in ~5 years? We'll only know by having content built exclusively for them.
Things can always be scaled, tweaked and stripped to the point where they function on the lowest common denominator of all platforms, the question is whether that's something you want when we're only just beginning to figure out what interactive VR is. I'd rather have game design be free to explore VR to the full limits of what the hardware will do for each platform so that future iterations of hardware can have useful insight and guide posts to know what is important and what isn't. This generation of VR is worth far more as R&D for the coming few decades of computing than it is as a 2016 gaming device that allows a few million enthusiasts to play immersive cross-platform shovelware and mods of existing traditional content.
The fact that all platforms have HMDs isn't that important to content design. The HMD is a camera so you can see what you're doing in virtual space, that's all. Tracking volume size, shape, the direction-dependent nature of PSVR and Touch's setups, and the differing button and ergonomic arrangements are the defining attributes of what VR is right now. If a particular platform doesn't allow you to turn your body, then the best solution isn't to map yaw control to an analog stick, but rather design the content from the ground up such that you have no need to turn your body. If a platform doesn't allow you to walk, then the best solution isn't to have you teleport every time you want to take a step, but rather design content that focuses on activities other than moving and walking. If content doesn't get designed around the strengths and weaknesses of these different platforms then we're never going to know which design decisions have merit and are worth chasing in future iterations of hardware.
Nintendo could have designed Super Mario Bros as a cross-platform title. With a little adjustment here and there they could have had a functionally similar action platformer that was suitable for any of the consoles of that period. You could remove side-scrolling as a defining characteristic to better accommodate the weaker systems, make the movement slower and less timing dependent so that joysticks are usable, make the game shorter for the smaller cartridge capacities, etc. Would the game have still had the je ne sais quoi that made it a killer app for the NES and the industry? Maybe? I don't know.
Right now VR has nothing analogous to the NES, gamepad or side-scrolling platformer genre that gave the video game industry the footing it was missing. What we have right now is hardware and software design lacking any rule book just as we had with Atari, Intellivision, Coleco, etc in the late 70s and early 80s. Is 360 roomscale VR important enough to chase as a future specification for Sony and Oculus? Is hand and finger articulation and hand presence with Touch valuable enough to warrant sacrificing easy compatibility with Move and Vive's wand controllers? What about full body skeletal tracking, haptic gloves, or other forms of input that we might have in ~5 years? We'll only know by having content built exclusively for them.
thats why i think vive can do all of the stuff that PSVR and Rift can do.
on the other hand, Vive games that get scaled to PSVR or rift will have different experience (you cant walk there, you teleport there) despite the basic gameplay (other than locomotion) will probably rather same.
unless there's a game that really did 100% of Vive room tracking capabilities, then it will be a totally different gameplay in PSVR/Rift. Something like that game where you crawls...really use 360 room scale tracking including floor area. not just sitting and standing. i think it was "unseen diplomacy"? and one game that looks like VR left4dead i forgot the title.
but a game for PSVR and rift that cant work on vive? i cannot imagine any. Sure, the way the hand-controller handled (vive and psvr is like a baton that you "grab". while Rift is like hanging on your hands) may need a bit of change on the game itself, but should be nothing major.
on the other hand, Vive games that get scaled to PSVR or rift will have different experience (you cant walk there, you teleport there) despite the basic gameplay (other than locomotion) will probably rather same.
unless there's a game that really did 100% of Vive room tracking capabilities, then it will be a totally different gameplay in PSVR/Rift. Something like that game where you crawls...really use 360 room scale tracking including floor area. not just sitting and standing. i think it was "unseen diplomacy"? and one game that looks like VR left4dead i forgot the title.
but a game for PSVR and rift that cant work on vive? i cannot imagine any. Sure, the way the hand-controller handled (vive and psvr is like a baton that you "grab". while Rift is like hanging on your hands) may need a bit of change on the game itself, but should be nothing major.
