Same here. Unfortunately we didn't see any software abstraction layers introduced with the PS5, so I am doubtful they would provide one with the PSVR2. It doesnt seem to be their MO.
Sony PlayStation VR2 (PSVR2)
- Thread starter snc
- Start date
Same here. Unfortunately we didn't see any software abstraction layers introduced with the PS5, so I am doubtful they would provide one with the PSVR2. It doesnt seem to be their MO.
No, but we have numerous reviews from people who tried it stating the same? It doesn't take much to be a huge jump anyway, considering that PSVR was using shoe horned aging Move hardware plus a single 1080p screen. It was the least advanced from all it's contemporary competition with more space to improve from.
I ment in graphical leap as snc said bigger leap than ps4 to ps5, which i certainly wouldnt think is the case at all.
In any case if thats silly then so is his opinion that the leap is larger than ps4>ps5. Both havent had hands-on and can only go after the graphics on display, where i dont think the leap is bigger then what conventional ps5 games do.
@ nesh, i ment in graphics. PSVR2 is still driven by the 10TF ps5, conventional games are going to be able to deliver more juice as the requirements are lower.
snc
Veteran
Going further should be easier, now bc is problematic as tracking system and controllers are completly different (tough possible in future vr system some new tracking tech will be used).
snc
Veteran
Re8 on vr2 looks same as ps5 flat versions on first glance, re 7 on psvr1 was blurry as hell comparing to flat version (tough still impressive), its big jump, like from psx to ps2 era
Even in graphics. PS4 had a measly 1.8 TF to drive VR. PS4 Pro increased that to 4.2 TF but barely any VR game took advantage of it. Not only the graphics will be way better, but it will make possible to port games from PCVR that otherwise were a non-starter! Something you can't really say about non-VR games can you? Tell me one PC game that was released during the PS4 lifespan that it couldn't run! Maybe Cyberpunk 2077 shouldn't have been released for PS4 at all, but in VR it is even more important to maintain good frame rates or you get sick. So yes, it's silly to say that PSVR to PSVR2 is not a bigger increase than PS4 to PS5.
Non-VR games still should (and apparently do) have the advantage over VR games on the PS5, from what we can see so far. Again, you havent had hands on neither have i, these conclusions are based on whats being shown in pure fidelity, and not the 'VR experience'.
PS4 versions of games usually had lower fidelity, resolution and/or framerates, the non-VR games then, compared to the pc versions maxed. I wouldnt see how that'd be different this time around. I can imagine that a 6800XT/3080 setup would bring more fidelity and performance to the table then a 6600XT class machine even in VR.
Even 2077 does run on PS4, basically anything can run on any hardware with some decent scaling and/or recessions. I cant really see that as a measure-point regarding ports.
The notion that its silly to have an opinion that PSVR2 doesnt offer a larger leap than PS4 to PS5 is silly in itself. How is that even possible since the PS5 remains having the same hardware running VR or not? How can it offer a bigger leap in graphical fidelity, be it performance or settings if PSVR2 is dependent on the main-system itself?
Either there is a miss communication going on here or something else.
because you're just damn focused on just the graphics you don't and that not what's more important for VR.
Most important are resolution FOV and tracking, and these are huge leaps in PSVR 2 over 1. That's also why i prefer gaming on Quest 2 than PSVR 1 even if graphics complexity is below PSVR, everything else is superior.
Most important are resolution FOV and tracking, and these are huge leaps in PSVR 2 over 1. That's also why i prefer gaming on Quest 2 than PSVR 1 even if graphics complexity is below PSVR, everything else is superior.
To be fair, quest 2 runs them at higher refresh rate and resolution
There is a world of difference between having lower fidelity and simply not running at all! VR is way more demanding than non VR.
PSVR2 also brings eye tracking together with Foveated Rendering, which allows saving rendering resources (through lower resolution for instance) in peripheral vision, concentrating them in central vision for higher fidelity. That is a technique that you obviously cannot use in non VR right there, which brings more efficiency.
You seem to believe VR is just a screen glued to your face! It's way more than that and more than just a Flops game.
Btw how the eye tracking gonna bring more performance boost with foveated rendering compared to more conventional foveated rendering in current psvr 1?
Not many games used Foveated Rendering on PSVR and most only used it on base PS4. When I upgraded to PS4 Pro all of the Foveated Rendering was disabled, as far as I could see. However, the graphics quality itself didn't change at all, it was merely used as a way to boost performance. What I'm talking about here is that performance is not such a big issue now, so the savings can and will probably be used to increase fidelity in view "center".
Two reasons. 1) The display. It's equivalent to upgrading from an SDTV to an HDTV. PS4 > PS5 has no inherent display upgrade and it's the same as whatever TV you run. If you do upgrade your TV from PS4 to PS5, it's the difference from 1080p > 4K as opposed to SDTV > 1080p, which is a smaller jump. PSVR was frickin' blurry!
2) Foveated rendering. PS5 on TV has 8 TF across the full display. Foveated rendering allows 50% of that processing to be directed to 10% of the screen. Well, whatever the numbers are. Where PSVR was limited to drawing the whole screen at the maximum quality it could, PSVR2 can focus on just the area that matters. If PSVR 2 was running on PS4, it'd be the difference between 0.25 TF of graphics drawing the bit you are looking at, and 1.55 TF drawing the rest of the scene in your peripheral vision, versus 1.25 TF of graphics drawing the bit you are looking which is optimised around the 5% high fidelity vision.
PS1 was first gen 3D tech. PS2 second gen. PS3 third gen. Each gen is a huge leap, until you close on tech limits and get diminishing returns, one of those huge advances being game resolution and detail in game. PSVR1 was first gen (okay, we can argue second) VR tech. The second gen is going to be as much an improvement on that as classic generational leaps are if it can leverage the full progress made in those first years of mainstream VR. Moving forwards there'll be diminishing returns, but PSVR 2 sits at that real joy-spot that PS2 occupied taking something that was awesome but janky and making it awesomer in every way.
I was scratching my head over this as PSVR doesn't have eye tracing, but then I vaguely remembered some tech about three different zones of fidelity? Is that what you mean?
The human eye's actual area of high fidelity vision is about 31.5 arc seconds, half a degree. In a 90 degree FOV display, almost all of that cannot be perceived in any detail, only a tiny portion at the centre of your gaze. Ergo, you should be able to render to that tiny portion of the screen, a few hundred pixels square, and the rest can be rendered at super low res without the brain being able to notice, concentrating 90% of your GPU power to just the portion of the screen looked at instead of the whole screen. Without eye-tracking the best you can do is render parts of the display in different resolutions but if you limit yourself too much, the player can't move their gaze and would have to maintain a completely fixed forwards look for the whole of the game.
Best case comparison, PSVR fidelity zones might concentrate 75-85% of rendering power on 50% of the screen for a 1.5x improvement in graphics per viewed pixel as opposed to rendering uniformly across the TV. Foveated rendering can bring 90% GPU power to 1% of the display for a 90x improvement in graphics in the area viewed versus the same distributed over a full TV. Yes, 90x better! Depending on the quality of the tech at play that's an obtainable target in efficiency.
Why isn't that visible in the videos? Why aren't we seeing something akin to two generations' advance in graphics over PS5 in these PSVR2 clips? Several reasons. 1) No-one is writing games for this yet. 2) Some tech won't scale. eg. RT lighting BVH construction will maintain the same full-scene overhead and only the sampling will be faster as you are sampling a smaller area. At 120 fps target, you haven't much time to use RT so lighting will remain old-school. 3) Cost! Imagine a game made to target a conventional 50 TF of rendering power, squeezing the life out the SSD to get as much data in to make that look amazing. It's plain cost prohibitive. Content in VR games will be priced for the market which is pretty small. VR games at the moment are largely an enthusiast niche solution from indie devs at a lower price.
The tech is awesome, the efficiency gains spectacular, the potential staggering, but what we'll actually get is an unknown. However, putting the tech in the hands of the mainstream is a necessary move to get things going.
there were PSVR games that used foveated rendering, but it was fixed, so if you turned your eyes on the side you would notice the lower res and thus devs could not be as agressive with it as they can with eye tracking or it would have been too jarring.
As i had already said, if they could achieve PS4 games quality in VR for PSVR2 i would be more than happy and that's what it's looking at the very least, judging by REVIII and horizon call of the moutain.
As i had already said, if they could achieve PS4 games quality in VR for PSVR2 i would be more than happy and that's what it's looking at the very least, judging by REVIII and horizon call of the moutain.
What game? Why the different angle?
And why compare to the Quest when theres clearly better out there. DF placed the Rift S slightly below psvr2, i can imagine Index being a tad above.
Similar threads
- Locked
