This was already discussed here back when this was all posted on reddit.Sorry I've been lurking this thread for ages, but something that a "dev" YantraVR said some months back has now
This was already discussed here back when this was all posted on reddit.
In the end, we cannot say for sure what are true rendering requirements PSVR. We must wait.
I'm so tired of waiting, I can't remember a product that was teased with hands-on at trade shows for so long without a price or a date.We must wait.
When I discovered this thread I went back and read every page, but I don't recall reading the YantraVR stuff as being around the barrel distortion render target size, having said that at the time I hadn't taken that side of what was being discussed on board.
A comment just through on the NeoGaf thread also seems to shoot the whole YantraVR reduced render target argument down in flames anyway:
ServerSurfer:
but I've actually been in touch with a PSVR dev who kinda shot down my theory anyway. lol
They confirmed that just like PCVR, Sony are recommending a rendering target 1.4x on both axes. I was told you could render at 1x if you want, but that results in a softer image. The visuals in their particular game aren't super complex, so they actually use a scaling factor of 1.7x(!) on both PCVR and PSVR, despite targeting 120 fps native on the latter. They may even as so high as 2x.
So yeah, it sounds like Sony don't really have anything special going on here, or if they do, this (3rd-party) dev doesn't know about it.
Wouldn't this have been raised when Sony was talking about rendering requirements to the devs? It'd be a major oversight to state the need for 90/120 Hz and talk about the rendering requirements increase from a TV game, but not mention an additional 2x rendering cost for oversampling.The 1.4x seems likely as its what the Vive and Rift are using
I would wager sony is also doing this.
? Where's this coming from. AFAIK the SDK is very good swith excellent tools.but sony is well-known for ass SDK right?
but sony is well-known for ass SDK right? are we sure they have all of those bleeding edge tricks?
or sony do have changed with PS4 and its SDK is super nice and at the bleeding edge of tech.
btw
Fw 3.50 beta have PSVR health and safety
PSN got overhauled
then march 15th...
maybe not only PSVR, but they will also announce something else that also big? OS overhaul like xbox has done for years? Special OS GUI for VR and its apps to consume non-VR stuff... like wrapping game, videos, youtube, etc
or, even more stability!
Wouldn't this have been raised when Sony was talking about rendering requirements to the devs? It'd be a major oversight to state the need for 90/120 Hz and talk about the rendering requirements increase from a TV game, but not mention an additional 2x rendering cost for oversampling.
Not saying it's not true, but it'd mean their dev talks were lax.
Some magical transform ability would also go some way to explaining the claimed increased efficiencies and why a PS4 can supposedly perform as well in VR as other headsets on more powerful PC rigs.
? Where's this coming from. AFAIK the SDK is very good swith excellent tools.
Anyone worried about optics, at least on Sony's device, probably hasn't used any of their cameras with electronic viewfinders. Those are OLED screens with 2.3M pixels (if memory serves me right), but tiny, tiny screens. And the viewfinders are just gorgeous, little to no screen door effect, great magnification and no 'side effects'.
I'm pretty sure that working out the optics for those little things is much, much harder and more expensive than slapping a couple of lenses in front of a nice 5" screen.
This VR build also renders at a native resolution below 1920x1080 per eye. It's a reasonable cutback though, given at a full 1080p per eye this would precisely double the pixel count of the regular game. The good news is, we're told by producer Paul Rustchynsky that the overall combined pixel count for both eyes adds up to a number much higher than regular 1080p. It's fair to say the curtailing in resolution here leaves Driveclub looking softer than we'd like, especially with each display planted so close to our line of sight. On a more positive slant, performance is quite rightly the priority here, and the game itself can be explored in an unprecedented way.
That's actually subpixel count.Anyone worried about optics, at least on Sony's device, probably hasn't used any of their cameras with electronic viewfinders. Those are OLED screens with 2.3M pixels
No, it's angular FOV! PPI is irrelevant as that value doesn't figure in viewing distance. The angular FOV of the viewfinder is much smaller than a VR headset, so the pixel density is a lot higher. The topics for those tiny screens are likely easier to manage as they aren't so wide and prone to artefacts.it depends on the ppi doesn't it. If its a 1.5 inch view finder with 2.3m pixels that would be a seriously high ppi.
it depends on the ppi doesn't it. If its a 1.5 inch view finder with 2.3m pixels that would be a seriously high ppi.
I'm so tired of waiting, I can't remember a product that was teased with hands-on at trade shows for so long without a price or a date.
Can you imagine the internet meltdown that would happen if we don't learn anything new on March 15?
No, they are good with it. PS3 maybe had some issues early on, but with Vita and PS4 they did stellar job with SDK and support. And also, they don't advertise when they enable better things like MS currently does. We had to dig trough middleware logs just to find that Sony has already activated 7th CPU core on PS4 [BTW it is confirmed that all devs now have access to 7th CPU core, indie dev that works on Kholat talked how he utilized it].but sony is well-known for ass SDK right?
And we will definitely learn SOMETHING new on March 15.