Sony VR Headset/Project Morpheus/PlayStation VR

DK2 is primitive. It has a 1080p pentile, and the optics are just a small plano-convex lens, causing problems positioning them perfectly, and lots of aberrations that cannot be corrected in software.

Morpheus seems significantly better on all aspects according to someone who tried all of them.
http://www.reddit.com/r/oculus/comments/2yad4l/the_big_3_a_comparison_of_htc_valve_vive_oculus/
Tracking:

Oculus Crescent Bay: 9
HTC Valve Vive: 8.5 (9.5 without glitches)
Sony Morpheus: 8
Oculus DK2: 7

Field of view:

HTC Valve Vive: 8
Sony Morpheus: 8
Oculus Crescent Bay: 7.5
Oculus DK2: 7.5

Image quality:

Oculus Crescent Bay: 9
Sony Morpheus: 8.5
HTC Valve Vive: 8
Oculus DK2: 6

Comfort:

Oculus Crescent Bay: 9
Sony Morpheus: 9
HTC Valve Vive: 7
Oculus DK2: 7
 
Just tried Oculus Rift Dev Kit 2, and I have to say, the image quality is pretty terrible. 1080p is not enough. Not even close. It took me a while to figure out what I was looking at, but you can see the individual pixels of the screen. It's like pressing your face against an old sdtv and seeing the gaps between the pixels. Maybe Morpheus has comfort figured out. Oculus DK2 does not. It's really uncomfortable, and awkward to adjust. It never felt comfortable to wear. If the thing isn't sitting perfectly so your eye is in line with the centre of the lens, it distorts the image. Nothing ever really seemed very sharp to me. I did the eye adjustment thing in the config tool just as it said to, but if text went too far to the edge of the screen it would blur. It's like having things blur before it normally would in your peripheral vision. It really does give you the impression that you're in that place, but the image quality just isn't good enough to make it really feel like you're there. That and the head mapping has to get a lot better. When you turn your head and the camera doesn't move as much as you feel like it should, it really throws you off. I've gone from being very excited about the tech to being a big time skeptic. There is an absolutely huge way to go. Maybe Morpheus will do it, but I think we'll need much much more powerful computers with higher resolution displays to get it right.

Edit: Also, chromatic abberation is a huge issue. These lenses make the edges of anything white turn into a rainbow. I have another three or four days with it to figure out the nitty gritty.

Resolution matters but Oculus is pentile... And optics ate not good.
 
Just tried Oculus Rift Dev Kit 2, and I have to say, the image quality is pretty terrible. 1080p is not enough. Not even close. It took me a while to figure out what I was looking at, but you can see the individual pixels of the screen. It's like pressing your face against an old sdtv and seeing the gaps between the pixels. Maybe Morpheus has comfort figured out. Oculus DK2 does not. It's really uncomfortable, and awkward to adjust. It never felt comfortable to wear. If the thing isn't sitting perfectly so your eye is in line with the centre of the lens, it distorts the image. Nothing ever really seemed very sharp to me. I did the eye adjustment thing in the config tool just as it said to, but if text went too far to the edge of the screen it would blur. It's like having things blur before it normally would in your peripheral vision. It really does give you the impression that you're in that place, but the image quality just isn't good enough to make it really feel like you're there. That and the head mapping has to get a lot better. When you turn your head and the camera doesn't move as much as you feel like it should, it really throws you off. I've gone from being very excited about the tech to being a big time skeptic. There is an absolutely huge way to go. Maybe Morpheus will do it, but I think we'll need much much more powerful computers with higher resolution displays to get it right.

Edit: Also, chromatic abberation is a huge issue. These lenses make the edges of anything white turn into a rainbow. I have another three or four days with it to figure out the nitty gritty.

DK2 probably isn't the best way to judge VR as a whole, or Oculus Rift specifically. Most accounts seem to conclude that the latest iteration of crescent bay is miles ahead of it - especially in image quality. And the consumer release will no doubt be better still. Assuming they stick with the 2560x1440 @ 90 fps, the upcoming generation of GPU's (which should be affordable by the time OR releases) should be enough for the latest games at reasonable (probably not max) settings. I've no idea how the PS4 is going to cope.
 
I've no idea how the PS4 is going to cope.
The PS4 seems quite capable of powering Morpheus now. All of the demos to date, as played by journalists and convention attendees alike, have been powered by the PS4 and the experience is only going to get better as the SDKs improve and, as a general point, developers get more familiar with PS4 and learn to optimise better.
 
It won't be pretty for PC ports of open world games, but dedicated stuff will be ok I reckon.
 
It won't be pretty for PC ports of open world games, but dedicated stuff will be ok I reckon.
For PC gamers the experience is generally reflective of what you are willing to pay for their hardware and VR won't change this. Looking the Steam hardware survey, VR is going to be very niche on PC at least at the kind of performance folks in here are talking about: 90Hz (or higher) dual-1080p (or higher).
 
The PS4 seems quite capable of powering Morpheus now. All of the demos to date, as played by journalists and convention attendees alike, have been powered by the PS4 and the experience is only going to get better as the SDKs improve and, as a general point, developers get more familiar with PS4 and learn to optimise better.

Outside a few games like driving games at 60 fps, or adventure games with smow movement at 60 fps. VR will be dedicated software on PS4 side.
 
If the newer HMDs fix the display issues, that's great. The field of view is a big issue to me. DK2 is supposed to be 100 degrees, but it still feels like you're looking through a window. Somehow the scale of everything looks off, like you're looking through a window into a doll house. Things don't seem quite that small, but they don't feel quite right either. Maybe it's more like being in a Hobbit house in the Lord of the Rings. And hopefully the new optics don't require perfect alignment like DK2.
 
There used to be a kind of rule of thumb that console optimization have a 2x advantage versus PC for similar hardware. I'm curious if this is still the case, and if VR's absolute requirement for latency and frame rate stability gives another edge to consoles because of the fixed hardware and low-level optimizations possible. The Vive demos were on a single 980 which is a pretty high end card, and a CPU probably a lot more powerful than the PS4. So far journalists didn't find the demo quality generally better than Morpheus on PS4. Could it be simply a surprise that it holds it's own better than the rumors of PS2 level of graphics? Or is this a console optimization advantage?

If morpheus comes out in 2016, there's maybe another 3 or 4 years before the PS5 comes out with 10 times better specs, and a new headset (unless VR flops). I think the window where a mid-range PC would look significantly better for VR isn't that big, it's only at the end of the generation.
 
There used to be a kind of rule of thumb that console optimization have a 2x advantage versus PC for similar hardware. I'm curious if this is still the case,

I'm not sure that was ever the case overall. Perhaps on the CPU side with inefficient old DX9 then sure. But with DX12/Vulkan on the horizon I expect those days to soon be a distant memory. Even without DX12 though you only have to look at the benchmarks of just about any cross platform game to see that the PS4 is usually performing around the level of a 270 (non-x) which is right in line with it's GPU specs. It's certainly not performing anywhere near 290 (non-x) levels which would be roughly 2x it's performance in theory. The same probably can't be said with regards to CPU performance at the moment though (until DX12).

If morpheus comes out in 2016, there's maybe another 3 or 4 years before the PS5 comes out with 10 times better specs, and a new headset (unless VR flops). I think the window where a mid-range PC would look significantly better for VR isn't that big, it's only at the end of the generation.

By (mid) 2016 a modern modern mid range GPU will be something from the Radeon 460 range or GeForce 1060 range. In todays performance terms that should be around 290/970 performance. Or more than enough to give a significantly better VR experience, i.e. higher resolution at higher framerate with higher image quality settings - all elements which may be of arguable value on a little TV screen but are game changing in VR.
 
I'm not sure that was ever the case overall. Perhaps on the CPU side with inefficient old DX9 then sure. But with DX12/Vulkan on the horizon I expect those days to soon be a distant memory. Even without DX12 though you only have to look at the benchmarks of just about any cross platform game to see that the PS4 is usually performing around the level of a 270 (non-x) which is right in line with it's GPU specs. It's certainly not performing anywhere near 290 (non-x) levels which would be roughly 2x it's performance in theory. The same probably can't be said with regards to CPU performance at the moment though (until DX12).



By (mid) 2016 a modern modern mid range GPU will be something from the Radeon 460 range or GeForce 1060 range. In todays performance terms that should be around 290/970 performance. Or more than enough to give a significantly better VR experience, i.e. higher resolution at higher framerate with higher image quality settings - all elements which may be of arguable value on a little TV screen but are game changing in VR.
More to the point when the ps4 came out you could already buy a radeon 290x which if by going by flops alone was more than twice the power of what was in the ps4. 1.89tflops vs 5tflops.

So who is to say that when the ps5 comes out it wont just use a mid range level gpu in it ?
 
I'm not sure that was ever the case overall. Perhaps on the CPU side with inefficient old DX9 then sure. But with DX12/Vulkan on the horizon I expect those days to soon be a distant memory. Even without DX12 though you only have to look at the benchmarks of just about any cross platform game to see that the PS4 is usually performing around the level of a 270 (non-x) which is right in line with it's GPU specs. It's certainly not performing anywhere near 290 (non-x) levels which would be roughly 2x it's performance in theory. The same probably can't be said with regards to CPU performance at the moment though (until DX12).
Because the GPU, even programming at it a low level, is still new to everybody. As Sebbbi has said on multiple occasions optimisations and the advances that result from these come with experience of shipping games. It's almost impossible to create without learning and you can see examples of this even in team venerated for their technical accomplishments.

Compare Crash Bandicoot to Crash Bandicoot Warped on PlayStation. Compare Jak & Daxter to Jak 3 on PlayStation 2. Uncharted to The Last of Us on PlayStation 3. Like every generation before, the games we'll see later on PlayStation 4 (and Xbox One) will be head and shoulders above what we're playing now - on a technical level.
 
It's certainly not performing anywhere near 290 (non-x) levels which would be roughly 2x it's performance in theory.
Early days. At the end of the console's cycle, will it be running '2x efficiency' versus it's PC counterpart? I doubt it'll be that big an advantage, but we can't make that call yet.

The main advantage Morpheus has is targeting. Fixed hardware means the devs can aim squarely for a visual level that provides rock-solid 60 Hz. PC will be able to trump that, but with a variable target, getting robust performance and efficiency will be tricky, and devs will likely just leave it for the gamer to buy a suitably extra powerful GPU to provide the experience they want. So for a given standard of graphics an experience, I expect PS4 + Morpheus to be a fair bit cheaper, with the top end VR experience going to PC. Basically with VR recreating the purpose for consoles in the first place. ;)
 
Because the GPU, even programming at it a low level, is still new to everybody. As Sebbbi has said on multiple occasions optimisations and the advances that result from these come with experience of shipping games. It's almost impossible to create without learning and you can see examples of this even in team venerated for their technical accomplishments.

Compare Crash Bandicoot to Crash Bandicoot Warped on PlayStation. Compare Jak & Daxter to Jak 3 on PlayStation 2. Uncharted to The Last of Us on PlayStation 3. Like every generation before, the games we'll see later on PlayStation 4 (and Xbox One) will be head and shoulders above what we're playing now - on a technical level.

True, but those same games will also be making better use of the GCN architecture (and DX11 capabilities in general) on the PC. I'd still expect a 270 level PC to play them at a similar level to the PS4.
 
True, but those same games will also be making better use of the GCN architecture (and DX11 capabilities in general) on the PC. I'd still expect a 270 level PC to play them at a similar level to the PS4.
I also would now, but perhaps not in the future. The consoles are still relatively new and the games we've seen (or are waiting to see) have been in development a long time and Sony (and Microsoft) are still optimising the OS and SDKs. They're never optimum out of the gate. This is an advantage consoles bring over time, they get optimised to a degree that doesn't happening on Windows.
 
I agree that there will likely be some relative progression in performance over the life of the consoles (there always is) but I don't think it's going to get to 2x levels, especially given the similarity of the architectures this generation and the low level capabilities DX12 are going to bring to the PC. I expect we may see the PS4 outperfoming the 270X towards the end of it's life though, but I'd still expect a "comparable" experience from that GPU (and the slower 270).
 
I really want to see a game that looks like TLoU, and runs at a stable frame rate, on a 256mb ram PC with a gimped 128bits nvidia 7800.

My interest here is that journalists didn't see a significant difference between vive on a recent $1500+ PC, compared to a $400 PS4 from 2013 with morpheus. 2 to 3 times more power is quite a step. Before morpheus came out eveyone was claiming consoles were not powerful enough for VR, and it looks like Sony had an ace up their sleeve. I just try to speculate was made them acheive this, against previous speculations that it would look like PS2.
 
I think VR is in it infacy and AAA games on PS4 will be rare experience. Only games at 60 fps and with forward rendering and you need MSAA and sacrifice elsewhere...

Many post processing not working in VR you need to do your renderer for VR.
 
Back
Top