Here is a list from GAF, but it gets updated slowly because OP is away [recently announced games such as VEV: Viva Ex Vivo or Final Approach are not yet in]
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1044658
Last edited:
Sony VR Headset/Project Morpheus/PlayStation VR
Here is a list from GAF, but it gets updated slowly because OP is away [recently announced games such as VEV: Viva Ex Vivo or Final Approach are not yet in]
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1044658
There's really no need for this kind of tone. You can make your point without sounding like an ass.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...event-expected-reveal-release-date-price.html
VR media event on the 15th (this is the same day as oculus)
Offical launch of the ps vr
Rumors put the price of around $800
Don't really believe the price unless its a bundle with the ps4
VR media event on the 15th (this is the same day as oculus)
Offical launch of the ps vr
Rumors put the price of around $800
Don't really believe the price unless its a bundle with the ps4
D
Deleted member 86764
Guest
I smiled everytime my national newspaper took daily mail as their source.
Btw the title in the daily miles Psvr article is already wring.
Sony's PlayStation VR set to officially launch next week: Invite-only event expected to reveal release date and price
Should be
Sony's PlayStation VR set to officially announced next week: Invite-only event expected to reveal release date and price
I'm pretty sure that, in this country at least, we use 'launch' instead of 'announce' and 'release' instead of 'launch'. Crazy Brits, huh?
It's also an old and stupid rumor that was officially discredited.
Current rumors, leaks, analysts prediction, and store placeholders prices, are between 300 and 600.
D
Deleted member 86764
Guest
I would've thought it difficult to be socially inept on a forum, but you've really given a perfect example of twatish behaviour applied to text.
It's funny because some of your information is quite interesting, only your delivery could really be worked on. It is kinda like winning a desktop computer but having it delivered as a suppository.
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
A bike game would probably be fantastic. I still get a kick of grabbing a fast bike in GTA V and hammering around the city at max speed in first person.
$600 - 700 USD including the PS4 console, and they're probably good. $250-350 for the headset woudl probably work. You go above $400 and you're in niche territory, but who knows. Maybe people will really freak out and pay. But you get into $500, and then I think you're in crazy territory.
Sorry I've been lurking this thread for ages, but something that a "dev" YantraVR said some months back has now, because of a discussion on NeoGaf, come to possibly mean something else. And I'd appreciate any insight you may have.
It comes from this thread on reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/3vnce8/51_titles_announced_for_playstation_vr_for_now/
So YantraVR says:
PSVR = ~100 million (1920x1080x60 - ~20%*)
*The ~20% is accounting for some additional (classified) techniques that further reduce the render target size.
Which I took to be Hidden Area Mesh Rendering (HAMR), I've seen that referenced in other Dev threads.
But then he says:
You are also not accounting for the (confidential) features that are being implemented to further cut down the overall render target size. If you take this into account it effectively compensates for the recommended oversized target they call for and in the end, the playstation is still around 1/4th the required pixels.
Which I had also took to be HAMR, but re-reading, and also seanspeed's (SS) comments then I'm not so sure anymore.
SS tackles him directly on this:
Unless Sony have magically found a way to do distortion without supersampling, then this is a false comparison. The 1512x1680 target for the Vive is because of barrel distortion, something the PSVR headset will have to contend with as well. You can forego it, or go with a lesser supersample, but it will cost heavily in terms of image quality.
But then they forget about it and argue around breakout-box and reprojection
Finally we get this from AsciiFace:
I am actually aware of these (confidential) features, and I understand the pain of not being able to defend yourself or PSVR because of their secrecy.
So now it sounds like Sony are also using a technique to handle the barrel distortion without using the large render target?
There is a bit of discussion on this on another Reddit thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/4221e1/how_is_it_even_possible_for_the_ps4_to_run_vr/
Where we get these comments:
[–]kevynwight 3 points 1 month ago:
Yah, I don't think it's nonsense. I've heard from a few different spots that there's basically no over-render necessary on PSVR.
Anyway, if true, and considering the DK2-level 1080p total pixel count and 60 fps requirement, it only has to push 27% of the pixels a Vive/Rift PC has to push.
[–]FredzL 3 points 1 month ago:
These requirements are necessary when shooting for the best image quality, which seems to be the goal for Oculus : By default, the SDK generates configuration values that optimize for rendering quality.
But it's a matter of compromise between image quality and performance. With a render target resolution equal to the display resolution the quality would not be acceptable, but there are probably ways to get a better image quality than this without requiring a x1.7 render target resolution.
The link I posted for example talks about using relatively cheap bi-cubic interpolation instead of bi-linear filtering, which improves image quality a little bit.
There is also the fact that the PSVR display is RGB, so this optimization could maybe be used :
"The Oculus DK1 can support higher resolution in X by computing filtering weights separate for {red,green,blue}. Not sure what to do yet with the display of the DK2."
Also this one from the same link :
"If forward rendering, especially if on NVIDIA hardware, instead of rendering higher resolution, render with MSAA and some amount of super-sampling on. In OpenGL this can be done using the glMinSampleShadingARB() extension. This can enable for instance 4xMSAA shading at 2 samples per pixel, or 8xMSAA shading at 2 or 4 samples per pixel. The end result of this is a better sample pattern distribution for the resolve filter. Also it enables a reduction in shading rate compared to regular grid super-sampling."
Again any insight would be much appreciated, thanks.
It comes from this thread on reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/3vnce8/51_titles_announced_for_playstation_vr_for_now/
So YantraVR says:
PSVR = ~100 million (1920x1080x60 - ~20%*)
*The ~20% is accounting for some additional (classified) techniques that further reduce the render target size.
Which I took to be Hidden Area Mesh Rendering (HAMR), I've seen that referenced in other Dev threads.
But then he says:
You are also not accounting for the (confidential) features that are being implemented to further cut down the overall render target size. If you take this into account it effectively compensates for the recommended oversized target they call for and in the end, the playstation is still around 1/4th the required pixels.
Which I had also took to be HAMR, but re-reading, and also seanspeed's (SS) comments then I'm not so sure anymore.
SS tackles him directly on this:
Unless Sony have magically found a way to do distortion without supersampling, then this is a false comparison. The 1512x1680 target for the Vive is because of barrel distortion, something the PSVR headset will have to contend with as well. You can forego it, or go with a lesser supersample, but it will cost heavily in terms of image quality.
But then they forget about it and argue around breakout-box and reprojection
Finally we get this from AsciiFace:
I am actually aware of these (confidential) features, and I understand the pain of not being able to defend yourself or PSVR because of their secrecy.
So now it sounds like Sony are also using a technique to handle the barrel distortion without using the large render target?
There is a bit of discussion on this on another Reddit thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/4221e1/how_is_it_even_possible_for_the_ps4_to_run_vr/
Where we get these comments:
[–]kevynwight 3 points 1 month ago:
Yah, I don't think it's nonsense. I've heard from a few different spots that there's basically no over-render necessary on PSVR.
Anyway, if true, and considering the DK2-level 1080p total pixel count and 60 fps requirement, it only has to push 27% of the pixels a Vive/Rift PC has to push.
[–]FredzL 3 points 1 month ago:
These requirements are necessary when shooting for the best image quality, which seems to be the goal for Oculus : By default, the SDK generates configuration values that optimize for rendering quality.
But it's a matter of compromise between image quality and performance. With a render target resolution equal to the display resolution the quality would not be acceptable, but there are probably ways to get a better image quality than this without requiring a x1.7 render target resolution.
The link I posted for example talks about using relatively cheap bi-cubic interpolation instead of bi-linear filtering, which improves image quality a little bit.
There is also the fact that the PSVR display is RGB, so this optimization could maybe be used :
"The Oculus DK1 can support higher resolution in X by computing filtering weights separate for {red,green,blue}. Not sure what to do yet with the display of the DK2."
Also this one from the same link :
"If forward rendering, especially if on NVIDIA hardware, instead of rendering higher resolution, render with MSAA and some amount of super-sampling on. In OpenGL this can be done using the glMinSampleShadingARB() extension. This can enable for instance 4xMSAA shading at 2 samples per pixel, or 8xMSAA shading at 2 or 4 samples per pixel. The end result of this is a better sample pattern distribution for the resolve filter. Also it enables a reduction in shading rate compared to regular grid super-sampling."
Again any insight would be much appreciated, thanks.
Spherical rendering (can't think of the proper term. Non planar?)?? If you can render predistorted, you'll get native res when unwrapped by the lens.
If Sony used cheap optics and needed to correct for chromatic aberration in software, then yes, super sampling would help with the correction accuracy. However, should Sony choose not to go for cheap optics and instead have the CA correction in the lens, then barrel distortion would not require the bigger render targets.
I don't think expensive optics are an option. You'd need too many elements and too much glass and the result would be too expensive. I even think Sony said they correct for RGB CA(??).
Similar threads
