ESR technical review when it's launched pls

Obviously every site on the interwebz will do shitty overviews and give it a 9/10 due to being expensive.

They are rolling in money right now

Probably going to wait for v2, which I expect will have a higher resolution than the current version:

Resolution: 1280x800 (640x800 per eye)

display is 8" or some, more pixels than that gives brain damage

what

Just another derpy Palatka post, nothing to see here, move along.

The consumer version is going to have higher then 640x800 already. The prototype is to get into the hands of developers.

If they have all those multi million dollar companies supporting it with a video, why do they need a paltry million dollars from the jow blow via KS?

Was thinking about it too. I don't know but maybe because it's more like a side project? Like not supported by ID or any bigger company? I mean, at least not supported for now.

Well they were only looking for 250.000$, but seeing those names:

John Carmack, id Software
Cliff Bleszinski, Design Director Epic Games
David Helgason, CEO Unity
Michael Abrash, Valve
Gabe Newell, President and Owner Valve

makes you wonder why they took the KS way.

Whoop-dee-fucking-doo, I dropped half a million dollars, cba picking that shit up.
Signed,
any of the names above

a clever marketing dude just bought our souls. it's all indie now. please don't destroy me.

I hope it is less expensive than a triple-3D-monitor setup with powerful graphics cards.

I want this not only for shooters, but also for sim racing, flight sims, etc.

Are those 300$ official?

300 is the cost on kickstarter, arrives dec 2012, I am sure if this ever becomes mass market like a kinnect, they will have to keep costs around this figure.

I also thought about simracing when watching the keynote. It's even better than for fps games because "simracers" are some of the very few gamers that spend thousands of dollars on improving their experience (most of the rest simply don't care).
Actually the current nvidia 3d thing (the v2) is aimed at them, even when it's such a nich, but there's so much more.

Field of view could be a major issue though.

carmack approved? is it long, boring and streamed in 15fps?

VR-PORN approved :D

RELAX it's YT so NO naked nipples :D

Will Porn Be Virtual Reality's Killer App?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GBs7udjKhU

I'm no longer a VR Porn Virgin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ef2wckwV54

Not just any VR porn, bro.

:D
The Virtual Reality Virgin
https://www.youtube.com/user/BBC/search?query...ity+Virgin

I got to play around with DK2 for couple months last year. Most of the things were underwhelming: the monitor resolution and the view angle made it look like you're wearing a gas mask with a bee-suit on top of it.

But even then I would get one just for porn. VR-porn will be huge.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/facebook-oculus...015-6?r=US

Did they contradict that later on?

"Of course, this only applies to apps available through Oculus’ official app store. There will likely be unofficial app stores where users will be able to download whatever they want."

The pornsites already have their own apps to watch their movies with. There were also 3rd party apps that could also play the movies, although back then it needed little tinkering with the options to make the movies look as intended.

It's amusing to see facebook giving up on all that money to save its public image.
(I assume they're taking a cut in their store, right?)

speaking about VR Porn.... have you seen the new controller from the HTC Vive?

somebody tell me what went through the mind of the people who designed this :D

I don't get it. First this thing got a multi-million dollar crowdfund, right? And the people behind it are practically billionaires, right? And they were bought by facebook, right? It's like: At what point does the product speak for itself and they stop wanting people to buy into an "idea", or a "prototype" or a "vision"? Why "pre-order"? VR has been so premature and marketed as an idea rather than a reality.

I don't know about you, but slapping two screens on my head doesn't sound all too "VR" to me. It's so crude. A gimmick, still. And then that price point... Do they say somewhere where that value even comes from? "R&D", I reckon?

they said that it's sold at production cost.
Which tbh could be true considering that the thing has 2 very high res screens (slightly above full HD) in there which are running on 90 hz each while being a bit smaller than a general phone screen.

The main thing that bothers me is that they say that the gforce 970 is a 'requirement'... Which is another 350 euro or smth on top of it.
I do hope that they would skew that down to 'fair use' on a gforce 860 or something.

In all fairness I would predict that the main VR step is due to the GearVR which is developed by Samsung + Oculus using the S6 phone. (A phone that although expensive, is used by quite a lot of people already)

Even the 980 is hopeless to run most AAA games at 90HZ in 1920x1080p, so how would a 970 do such thing when there are even more pixels and a lot more calcualtions because of the separate POV overhead?
I have the 980 since it came out, I know that card in and out, and it mostly fails to do VERY HIGH/ULTRA at 90Hz in 1080p (and I even run it with a quite heavy OC)... so yea... a 970 will be definitely enough with "medium"/"sub-high" details at the very best, but probably mostly only "medium".

So, imho, allow people to set it to "low" and play on a 860.
Or let them set it to uber crap (reduced resolution etc) and let them play on a 650.

I don't see why you would force everyone to buy new hardware if you want to introduce VR to the mainstream.

You can just as well say that some games won't run on max settings when you don't have an overclocked 980 on a core i7 Extreme.... but that on a 'regular gaming machine' it will run games on lower than extreme settings fine.

(btw the "a lot more calculation" is limited to at most 2ce as many.... Because if I can draw you a scene from scratch once... I can do it 2ce as well if you allow me for 2ce as many actions.
As for the technical aspect it's much more likely that it's actually closer to 1.2x.... Because loading textures takes freaking forever in videocard world ;P)

The problem is that if you don't want headaches and the necessity of eyebleach, you gonna have to run it at 60Hz at least, but preferably 90HZ (as it's the default refresh rate of the device). 2x(1080×1200)@60HZ or 90Hz gonna take a toll on whatever you have, even on low details, and the barrel disortion also adds another 10-15% extra overhead. so, no "imho" it's really not "1.2x", especially not with modern engines using deferred rendering and heavy screen space effects combined.
You also have to take into account that two images are a lot of bandwidth and synchronization is a real pain too.

The real opportunity here is to use caching the most efficient way both with the memory and with the GPU's cache itself, and also perhaps use less detail on the edges of the "view" (not sure if that's possible tho).
You can use lower resolutions, but that will look a lot more pixelated compared to a monitor.
Games like Quake Live won't be a problem for the 860m ofc, but modern games might be, even on medium.

I think you are overestimating how much detail and processing power is needed to create an immersive game/experience.

I have played around with a DK2 a bit recently... And even using a geforce240 several demos actually worked quite well.
And that's like.... 40 times slower than a 970 (maybe even more... they really don't compare :D )
I also played with the same DK2 on a 960 and everything on there which was decent worked like a charm. (Some demos are just really really poorly made... like stuff where you can look around + move around using a keyboard.... That stuff can really be made horribly if the character moves slower / faster than you expect)

Also you yourself linked to the porn running on a GearVR.... which is a device that pales in graphics compared to any videocard that is still being sold.

No I do not "overestimating" at all, one of the good games I played in the last few years was "Thomas was Alone", so no, AAA graphics is not something I consider a "must have" thing... but I was talking about AAA titles, as I replied to your

"I do hope that they would skew that down to 'fair use' on a gforce 860 or something."

comment, implying that one shouldn't even expect more from the 970, let alone the 860.
Yes I also played with a dk2 a little bit, and while it was good and fine with lowered details or with older games (Quake2 and Half Life for example), the 980 was definitely not enough in AAA games for a 90Hz high detail flawless experience:(

Maybe that's where we are misunderstanding each other a bit.
I think that it's retarded to force everyone to buy a 970 or higher who wants to have a good VR experience.
And this is because I mainly care about the experience, which is fine for non-AAA titles.
Actually I think several of the smaller studios might have some nicer concepts for real 3D immersive worlds which are awesome on lower details.

So in my eyes everyone that does want to play AAA titles with everything on ultra etc. Should get an awesome videocard. However you don't need to have an awesome videocard to get enjoyment of a VR headset.
As a result of that view I would say put the requirement lower... (Besides, there are no real technical differences between the 970 and the 650. So there should be no problem to use a 650 for the lower end of graphical games anyways...)

I'll wait til they are 4k or 8k. When the screen door effect is no longer there.

CES 2016: NVIDIA talks SHIELD Updates and VR-Ready Systems
CES 2016: NVIDIA VR and SHIELD Updates*Video

Reading VR makes me wet, but tbh id trade it for textures that dont look blocky when seen from close distance and other stuff that i tought were going to be standard in 2016.

you mean megatexturing?
Carmack already did that ;)

He did, but unfortunately it also introduced texture-streaming, which is horrible

Heh provided you have the IO speed to back it off it's fine. The major problem IMO would be the large size and the need to compress it, resulting in low details in the end.

not really, id are just to poor to use quad layer blu-ray discs for retail packaging

if you can afford 150mbs fibre you can download 150gbs for a game

the bigger the game is, the more people will buy the retail version, get it next day delivery from amazon, or wait 4 days with a non stop 20mbs download

looks shit, i`ll stick to going to a house club night and buying a gal a vodka and lemonade if i want a rough bitch

just having headphones on can get on your nerves after 30 minutes

I'm more hyped about the real time ray tracing GPU's that are being developed than the whole VR shebang. I've had a VX-1 for years and thought its resolution and tracking are shit, the experience is very similar to newer stuff like Google Cardboard and others. I haven't tried the Oculus Rift yet, but unless the screens give you a 180° FOV, it will always feel like you're looking though some kind of peep hole.

VR/AR is the final platform. Abrash said so.

I'm carefully hyped for this, as it will be a brilliant upgrade for the simracing I do. But the costs and the fact that its brand new tech give me doubts if I should be an early adopter.

It also doesnt help I'm somewhat prone to motion sickness =[

Let me know when someone invents a holodeck.

SnapMap was YESTERDAY :)

Building in VR is Unreal
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXXWpfBiw4Q
from
Building VR in VR with Unreal Engine 4 - Early Preview
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKO9fEjNiio