Jump to content
LizLemon

Oculus support looking iffy

Recommended Posts

I agree there. I can live without VR goggles. Can't get along without realistic and engaging sims though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, OR just decided to solve my dilemmas for me, I'd stick to building a cockpit I can sit in...
 

As cool as VR sounds, I have a hard time imagining how a complex flight sim is going to be pushed in 3D at 8K res at 100fps. Maybe someday...

I'd prefer 3 times more planes in mission, or sqrt(3) times bigger map, rather than jump from 33 fps to 100 fps for sake of it.
 

[...] 

There are other things I'd like to work on before we worry about OR support again.

 

[...]

 

Jason

 

That's what I'm looking forward to!
(Fingers still crossed for more immersive campaign mode)

Edited by Trupobaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, disappointing news indeed! I hope the devs can find the resources to upgrade BoS engine to DX 10 and beyond. I think this is unavoidable and will have to happen sooner or later. The reality is that porting DX 9 to DX 10/11/12 would make BoS engine less CPU bottlenecked and would benefit the sim not just with compatibility for Oculus Rift, but with more CPU freed for AI or FM stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shouldn't have been a surprise by now that the sim market is small, demanding and extremely critical - that's why there aren't 100 flight sims already and you have the market almost to yourself. That said, This game is all "potential" to me right now, with the arcade progression on top of top quality mechanics. Also, I'm with OR on this one: " Our customers also do not want to necessarily see a human body in our cockpits as they demanded" - this customer does!

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OR was the one thing I was really looking forward to and excited about, I bet Jason and the team are very annoyed as OR could have really helped show-off and sell IL2....

 

We will just have to wait and see what happens...

 

Thanks for explaining things Jason.

 

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

 

Simon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've looked into this as deeply as I could, including some patent submissions, and here's what it is generally:

 

- completely new way of rendering images. Speculations are that a rotating optical fiber strand will be used to project the image directly onto the users retina. So - instead of a "phone in a box with some lenses added" it's a radically new technology. Rendering unit will sit in a box on the users belt, goggles in the latest patent submissions look like small ski goggles.

 

- it can be used for both AR and VR. Stuff I see in patent submissions is mostly AR, but VR is also an option. The company likes to call this "cinematic reality". So far some people outside of the company have seen it in action and apparently it's pretty amazing, though the units used to demo it were fairly huge in size. 

 

So, in conclusion - the thing will probably use whatever video output it gets from wherever, but will not be rendering frames, therefore the question of DX or no DX might be irrelevant. This is my speculation - nobody knows really, they're quite secretive. Simulators etc. would fall under the VR capabilities (full scene occlusion). The patents also go into gesture control, eye position tracking is a part of the technology (for the purposes of knowing where the iris is), head tracking wouldn't be hard to add... In my view this is probably the tech that will bring AR and VR to the masses. Much more elegant than OR, in several aspects. I guess they're pretty silent due to all patents they have pending, once they're all registered and granted we will probably see more... There are some very rich companies backing this (like, say, Google) and some very smart people on board, looks very promising.

 

Thanks for following through, Tygr. 

 

Sounds interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, I'm with OR on this one: " Our customers also do not want to necessarily see a human body in our cockpits as they demanded" - this customer does!

 

So do I.. I made a poll on pilot body, make sure to cast your votes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is so disappointing.


What really upsets me is that flight simulators are without any doubt THE killer application for VR. There are no single other game types that fits to it so well.


There are two kind of games where all is about immersion: simulation and FPS. FPS do not work well with VR (you get sick and controls are crap), and now it seems that none of the major flight simulations support the first viable VR device. Such a shame.


Edited by haltux

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... and now it seems that none of the major flight simulations support the first viable VR device. Such a shame.

 

 

I'm not so certain when it comes to viability part. I've spent some time with SDK1 and 2 and frankly the resolution is poor, and vertigo, though not fully disabling, is near incapacitating for me. A friend who's a game dev and has spent more time with both SDKs says that you can learn to live with it, but frankly, I'd rather not. With the HW OR is using - essentially a phone screen and some proprietary optical and electronic components on top - they're at the mercy of high-res LCD makers. To emulate realistic scene with their tech you need 8K res on 5 inch screen. That's beyond what's available now, and will probably be beyond what'll be available in the foreseeable future in the general market. Not to mention how would your PC drive 8k to the screen... Why would phone makers deploy 5in screens with 8k res? That means - no more piggybacking on Samsung's phone screen development. What then? FB has no screen development expertise, or patents, so someone else would need to do it, but who would, and for how much? Then comes the question of price of such a unit...

 

Furthermore - fully occluded scene with no visibility of external controls is not an ideal situation. You'd need something that can occlude as much of the scene as needed, and let you "see through the scene" as required. For OR that would be a very tall order, even in the future, if they don't fundamentally change their design concept. 

 

As many others, I want to believe that OR will overcome these issues, but if you look at it realistically they have chosen a path that, though fairly easy at the moment, will become very steep further ahead. 

Edited by 312_Tygr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Becoming less and less interested in OR now.  Thanks for the write-up, Jason.

 

Maybe I'll spend that money on a ButtKicker instead!

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Maybe even calaculate the cost/effort for the needed engineupgrade, pack it in an addonpack and let us preorder it. I would pay gladly for it.   EDIT: What about crowdfunding it? It could work and wouldnt hurt anyone if it didnt. Worth a try IMHO

 

+1 ... Great Idea 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

but basically they tried to tell us how we should make our game and unless we made it how they wanted it, they wouldn't work with us.

 

Maybe they were advising you knowing their own hardware and giving a game life span with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Furthermore - fully occluded scene with no visibility of external controls is not an ideal situation. You'd need something that can occlude as much of the scene as needed, and let you "see through the scene" as required. For OR that would be a very tall order, even in the future, if they don't fundamentally change their design concept. 

 

Based on what Jason said, the games OR aims at don't require you to see control devices :).

 

gm_xboxc_blk_large.jpg

 

Bam! Problem solved. Why would peole want to write games that need more complex controls, anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so Oculus-Samsung DK8 cristal Cove 4 after Japanese Olimpic Games DX12 in Il2 Bos Me 262 b2a vs La 7R ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure BOS will do just fine on a nice curved monitor, which in hindsight, I wish I had bought instead of the DK2.  The DK2 prototype simply isn't good enough yet, and the main reason the DK2 was sold as a prototype and not the consumer version.   My IPD was just too wide for a comfortable VR experience.

 

To suggest that Facebook is a problem is ridiculous.   The problem is the requirements of good VR make it very hard for complex combat flight sims to attain.  Of course OR is going to suggest "best practices" to attain the requirements of presence and avoid motion sickness.  I highly doubt that not having a pilot in the cockpit is a major issue, although I'm sure it was part of the "best practices" to help enable presence.

 

I have no problem with the OR dropping DX9 support.  Its going to be a struggle to make good VR, and will require the latest advances in software to make "early" consumer versions of VR viable.

 

It will be interesting to see how DCS World manages to implement VR support into their very complex game engine.   Apparently the OR team is still working with them and their new DX11 EDGE game engine.  It will be awesome if they can pull it off, but there are no guarantees.  It may take a few generations of VR and PC hardware/software updates to be perfect.

Edited by JG27_Chivas
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the explanation Jason. Pretty much on par with what I was thinking was happening. As an aside, after seeing what Google cardboard can do for Rise of Flight, i ordered one immediately. Hopefully this tech can be used in BOS as well. I'll let you know. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to carefully re-read Jason's statement before making an ill-informed comment like that.

 

 

I did read and re-read Jason's statement, as well as a number of preposterous statements from people who don't seem to know what they talk about at all (the Oculus Rift is for arcade games? Really, why is DCS often referred to a showcase for the Rift then?), and I really don't feel that I am the one misinformed here, thank you. But it is clear that choices (mistakes in my humble opinion) have been made, so I feel that there is no point for me to lose any more of my time here. I used to be a very ardent supporter of 777 studios you know, but sadly not anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There goes my reason to buy a Rift. Felt uneasy about giving money to Facebook anyway.

 

Hopefully Oculus will fail soon and more open standards for VR headsets will emerge so the VR market isn't forever tied to the whims of a company like Facebook.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But then a few things happened - 1. They got bought by Facebook and they no longer cared to talk to us about technical issues.

I just knew Facebook buying them out would not be a good thing.. Sometimes I wish I was wrong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the Facebook deal a bad thing?  hardly.  It gave Oculus the monies to hire hundreds of the best talented people required to create all the new tech required to make VR a decent experience.   BOS could only dream of having that kind of monies and talent to create BOS.   VR is well suited for the sitting experience like Driving and Flight sims, especially when we already have available all the input requirements like HOTA's systems. 

 

Was VR only going to be used for sims before Facebook got involved? Of course not.  Nobody knows what the killer app will be, just that games/sims were the likely just the beginning.  Creating great VR hardware that can be used in all kinds of industries, doesn't suddenly make that VR hardware bad for sims.  They all will require very good displays with low persistence, and latencies.

 

The BOS development has stated they want to keep creating content for their new IL-2 series for many years.  If that's still the case, an upgraded game engine may be required at some point.  If they don't most of their market will have moved on.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gah...there goes the rift support.

 

i guess i will consider my 94 bucks as a donation now. and not a purchase. While i purchased the sim becuz of the purported oculus support, and i certainly feel jilted. I guess changing plans are a part of life. sigh. didnt realize things like that happen.

 

Reading through this thread feels like an us vs them debate, which is the absolute wrong way to deal with this issue. Its like the tungsten wire bulb manufacturers arguing with LED light manufacturers, or vacuum tube guys arguing with the transistor guys. Oculus rift and similar tech is the future and to remain relevant you have to embrace it, and any problems that arise, you have to deal with them, or you will become a niche's niche like the xplane guys. Microsoft is considered an evil company to deal with as well, but that doesnt stop big corporations and small indies to develop for them. They do it, not for the love of M$ but for the love of  $'s. So painting FB as the big bad wolf, shouldnt take away from the fact that you need to future proof ur tech and hence ur business. oculus being owned by the big bad wolf like FB infact gives oculus an even higher probability of success.

 

And the excuses seem hollow especially if hardcore sim guys like Eagle Dynamics are doing it with DCS. In DCS some planes have a pilot and some dont, both options work fine and do not detract from the experience of flight and being up in the sky among the clouds.

 

I guess the IL2bos devs must be satisfied with the number of people who've already purchased this sim. and dont care for more sales. It would have been a lot harder initially to chose a more upgradeable architecture than build a dx9 specific engine, which the devs already have experience in, and that choice has forced them into a corner now that new tech is abandoning the older dx9. And now even if the devs really want to support rift, they;ll have to go back to the drawing board and start all over again from scratch, which such a small outfit probably cannot afford to do. A catch 22 situation with no light at the end of the tunnel.

 

after all, its much harder to say Mea Culpa than to blame the big bad wolf.

Edited by Shalimar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its like the tungsten wire bulb manufacturers arguing with LED light manufacturers, or vacuum tube guys arguing with the transistor guys. Oculus rift and similar tech is the future and to remain relevant you have to embrace it, and any problems that arise, you have to deal with them, or you will become a niche's niche like the xplane guys.

 

Nobody is arguing that VR is going to be viable in near future. However, OR itself has a bunch of obstacles, and IMHO a couple of them are very probably showstoppers. It's funny to see a number of people here thinking OR will pull it off with nothing but hype to support that thinking - as a consumer, I sure hope they will succeed, as a tech industry veteran, I don't see how they'll pull it off. With regards to BoS - I don't see how could they justify supporting OR with current limitations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OR support was the main reason I bought this game. Is there a way to get a refund?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Furthermore - fully occluded scene with no visibility of external controls is not an ideal situation. You'd need something that can occlude as much of the scene as needed, and let you "see through the scene" as required. For OR that would be a very tall order, even in the future, if they don't fundamentally change their design concept. 

 

 

 

Well, if you see your keyboard, this is not VR anymore... That being said, you raise a relevant issue.

 

I think anyway that IL2, BoS, RoF and FSX have never even tried to make something better than requiring people to remember hundreds of keyboard shortcuts. In BoS, I can't believe that I have to learn insane shortcuts like Alt-F4 or Shift-T for relatively basic and important commands. A cleverly designed contextual menu would make the game much more accessible to beginners and non-hardcore users (without making it less realistic), and could somehow solve the keyboard visibility problem in VR.

 

You would just have 3 or 4 keys on your joystick to manipulate the menu and access to command but axis and fire buttons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

With regards to BoS - I don't see how could they justify supporting OR with current limitations.

 

Then their marketing should have said 'We are currently evaluating whether to add rift support' and NOT 'we are going to add rift support in december'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if you see your keyboard, this is not VR anymore... That being said, you raise a relevant issue.

 

I think anyway that IL2, BoS, RoF and FSX have never even tried to make something better than requiring people to remember hundreds of keyboard shortcuts. In BoS, I can't believe that I have to learn insane shortcuts like Alt-F4 or Shift-T for relatively basic and important commands. A cleverly designed contextual menu would make the game much more accessible to beginners and non-hardcore users (without making it less realistic), and could somehow solve the keyboard visibility problem in VR.

 

You would just have 3 or 4 keys on your joystick to manipulate the menu and access to command but axis and fire buttons.

 

for the key shorcuts issue i bought this, and i tell you works like a charm

now i have no need to remember the radio comms combinations, just

talk to the flight, you also can bind any other command.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1+1+1+1+1+1

gah...there goes the rift support.

 

i guess i will consider my 94 bucks as a donation now. and not a purchase. While i purchased the sim becuz of the purported oculus support, and i certainly feel jilted. I guess changing plans are a part of life. sigh. didnt realize things like that happen.

 

Reading through this thread feels like an us vs them debate, which is the absolute wrong way to deal with this issue. Its like the tungsten wire bulb manufacturers arguing with LED light manufacturers, or vacuum tube guys arguing with the transistor guys. Oculus rift and similar tech is the future and to remain relevant you have to embrace it, and any problems that arise, you have to deal with them, or you will become a niche's niche like the xplane guys. Microsoft is considered an evil company to deal with as well, but that doesnt stop big corporations and small indies to develop for them. They do it, not for the love of M$ but for the love of  $'s. So painting FB as the big bad wolf, shouldnt take away from the fact that you need to future proof ur tech and hence ur business. oculus being owned by the big bad wolf like FB infact gives oculus an even higher probability of success.

 

And the excuses seem hollow especially if hardcore sim guys like Eagle Dynamics are doing it with DCS. In DCS some planes have a pilot and some dont, both options work fine and do not detract from the experience of flight and being up in the sky among the clouds.

 

I guess the IL2bos devs must be satisfied with the number of people who've already purchased this sim. and dont care for more sales. It would have been a lot harder initially to chose a more upgradeable architecture than build a dx9 specific engine, which the devs already have experience in, and that choice has forced them into a corner now that new tech is abandoning the older dx9. And now even if the devs really want to support rift, they;ll have to go back to the drawing board and start all over again from scratch, which such a small outfit probably cannot afford to do. A catch 22 situation with no light at the end of the tunnel.

 

after all, its much harder to say Mea Culpa than to blame the big bad wolf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I am hopeful something can change in the future where we have enough money to build new support for Oculus and make whatever changes necessary to get there. That of course requires more sales.

 

Many thanks Jason for taking the time to write down this detailed clarifiaction. It was really needed after all these months of wait.

 

Now it is clear. A shame, but at least a clear shame!

 

So, looking now into the future(1-2 years), you know how good is VR for flight sims and you know that something will need to be done not only to survive, but to be the number one flight sim for WWWI/II and have good profits.

 

The options will be:

 

- Rewrite the code to use DX11

 

- Use a commercial graphic engine supported by Oculus

 

- to wait and see what other non-Oculus hardware can do.

 

 

Please, let us know how we can give/donate you our money to make the first two options happen.  From Oct-2013 I am really interested in using this game in VR.

 

In the other hand, I also hate to tell you that I will start to investigate the DCS world and spend the time needed to learn it. Time will tell me where I prefer to use my scarce free time: BOS in 4k monitor or DCS with DK2/CV1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I came over just to point out one simple thing:

 

Dev team is blaming Oculus for BoS not hitting required framerate. 

 

Among other things that are dev team's fault as well. Oculus does its best to deploy VR support in as many games as it possible, but when people refuse to do anything meaningful, there's nothing you can do about it other than stop caring.

 

High framerate is a must in VR, so you are, unsurprisingly, supposed to go great lengths to ensure it works well at said requirements. Nobody cares how hard it is, only result is what matters. If you couldn't do it - well, too bad, but putting off the blame onto third party is ridiculous. You should be really ashamed of yourselves for even posting such preposterously arrogant reasons behind dropping VR support.

 

Cheers.

Edited by raidho36
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Dev team is blaming Oculus for BoS not hitting required framerate. 

 

 

Actually dev team is blaming Oculus for requiring a given frame rate. This is different.

 

High framerate might be a must in VM, but it is understandably upsetting for 777 to see OR stick their nose in their game and tell them how to do their job.

 

If BoS does not reach required framerate and the user experience is not optimal, it is 777 problem, not OR. There is no reason a hardware manufacturer should control the gaming industry. The job of OR is to provide good hardware, good SDK and reasonable support to game developpers, not make sure that games are as they want them to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's OR's sales that are on the line, so who gets to showcase their hardware is their prerogative. If that forces a developer to optimize their game better, that's a good thing IMO. Regardless, consoles seem the better fit given the ease of their peripherals; not to mention that's where huge sums of cash are. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is extremely confusing and very disappointing.
 

The position of the dev team on this subject unfortunately borders on ineptitude. I appreciate the difficulty, but the majority of OR supported games were realised independently from Oculus, using very little (or, in some cases, no) input from the Oculus team. There are very few SDK-wide bugs that would affect a custom engine dramatically. And Oculus does not have the power to permit certain games to use OR support. only to endorse them as official OR support. This (unofficial support) can be acheived so long as a small set of rules are followed, none of which include pilot body immersion or framerates.  

 

Examples of unofficial games include; PCars (soon to be official once the performance increases and the game becomes stable), Assetto Corsa, Elite: Dangerous etc. Note that I've only selected larger titles here, and most of these games are in the process of working towards official support. Both E:D and PCars are working with official and documented consultation, AC is not or at least has not released that they are.  

 

OR Support released with a WIP/BETA proviso is 100% allowed in any AAA/High Budget game, any and all games are allowed to use the SDK for support, or to create their own support method a la Alien Isolation (Not only unofficial, but a completely novel method). 

As I said, very confusing. As this was one of the main reasons I purchased Il2:BOS, I still have hope that the devs will get back on track.

 

To be honest the reasoning given does not make sense, and unfortunately anybody in the VR developers community will see this and think very, very poorly on the dev team.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a ton of misinformation in this thread about OR in general. You don't need 8K resolution for the experience to be enjoyable and you can't expect everything to be perfect. I guess a lot of you don't remember back in the voodoo1 days but we had to sacrifice resolution to run in hardware accelerated mode vs. software. This is not a problem whatsoever. I can sympathize with some of original post as to the frustration and reasons for dropping support, but I have a hard time seeing some of the replies here with huge, sweeping comments about VR in general. No one knows if this will take off or not, not one single person has the ability to just predict what is going to happen. I see someone complaining about IPD distance and I had the same problem with my DK2. There are solutions to fix this that work wonderfully, can't fault the device for your own physical issues. It is strange that DX9 support was dropped, but there probably is a logical explanation for it. These grandiose ideas about 'oh Facebook is so bad' blah blah blah blah, is just that; nonsense. The thing I have the problem with most is how the original poster described Oculus telling them how to make the game or what is right or not right. They can make suggestions all they want, but they do NOT decide what is right and not right. That is the type of thing that could really ruin VR in general. We want to have difference experiences, and the devs are the ones that will be finding and creating those. They don't need someone breathing down their back and watching over their shoulder telling them what to do, they SHOULD be there and be more supportive because content is the only thing that can keep VR alive and well. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oculus has never "demanded" anything.  They released current "best practices" information, so that the developers would have a good idea what's required for a decent VR experience.   VR hardware/software is still in the creation phase so you can guarantee these requirements will changes.  Its not Oculus's problem that a development can't deliver for technical/financial reasons, nor is it BOS's fault that DX9 etc isn't  a good fit for decent VR.   I'm sure BOS tried to implement VR to the best of their abilities,  within the significant restraints of budget, and engine capabilities.   There are no bad guys here, just developers trying to solve huge technical issues. 

 

In time computer advancements, and/or VR enhancements could drive complex flight sim software at the required frame rate for a decent experience.  Developers will also have to optimize their game engines for that experience, but as suggested for sometime, the best experiences will be from game engines specifically built for VR.  It will be interesting to see if DCS new DX11 EDGE graphic engine has enough optimizations to drive DCS at atleast 90fps.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm very glad I did not buy an OR-DK2. I get my work bonus next week and I was going to pull the trigger and play BoS with it. I wish these big companies would stop swooping in and completely f---king up everything. Samsung is a prime example. They make a VR device that is ONLY FOR PHONES! - and only one specific phone at that. SWTF! Like I'm not going be walking around town like a big douche bag with a VR visor on, LOL! I like my 'HTC One' but I don't need VR to work it.

Edited by SPEKTRE76

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oculus has never "demanded" anything.  They released current "best practices" information, so that the developers would have a good idea what's required for a decent VR experience.   VR hardware/software is still in the creation phase so you can guarantee these requirements will changes.  Its not Oculus's problem that a development can't deliver for technical/financial reasons, nor is it BOS's fault that DX9 etc isn't  a good fit for decent VR.   I'm sure BOS tried to implement VR to the best of their abilities,  within the significant restraints of budget, and engine capabilities.   There are no bad guys here, just developers trying to solve huge technical issues. 

 

In time computer advancements, and/or VR enhancements could drive complex flight sim software at the required frame rate for a decent experience.  Developers will also have to optimize their game engines for that experience, but as suggested for sometime, the best experiences will be from game engines specifically built for VR.  It will be interesting to see if DCS new DX11 EDGE graphic engine has enough optimizations to drive DCS at atleast 90fps.

 

Just a note, Oculus does officially endorse products that stick to the best practices guide, and will provide consulting if a title is attempting to reach those targets.  

 

The game needs to run at 1920*1080 in 3D, not 8k (seriously?). Technically each render only has to be 948*1080, though rendering at higher resolutions is far nicer on the eyes. There is a lot of misinformation on this thread as you say. It's not some unacheivable goal to have this running on the Rift. Yes, even with a custom engine.  

 

Currently looking into how depth buffer information is saved during AA, if the devs do change the way the ap handles loading screens then I'll be ready to hook in my attempt at support and apply non-geometry (single render) 3D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a note, Oculus does officially endorse products that stick to the best practices guide, and will provide consulting if a title is attempting to reach those targets.  

 

The game needs to run at 1920*1080 in 3D, not 8k (seriously?). Technically each render only has to be 948*1080, though rendering at higher resolutions is far nicer on the eyes. There is a lot of misinformation on this thread as you say. It's not some unacheivable goal to have this running on the Rift. Yes, even with a custom engine.  

 

Currently looking into how depth buffer information is saved during AA, if the devs do change the way the ap handles loading screens then I'll be ready to hook in my attempt at support and apply non-geometry (single render) 3D.

 

 

Yes the Oculus Rift team does support, and even fund many third party projects.   Detractor do constantly try to suggest that the OR will require 8K, although I'm sure a consumer version will eventually have it.  The Rift will have to be at a very high resolution before Desktop viewing would be comfortable.   The OR will have to be used in conjunction with a monitor for a few generations of consumer versions, considering the first consumer version will be likely around 1440, which should be fine for most games, and something a decent cpu/gpu could drive.  It should be interesting to see how well we spot dots (distant aircraft) at that res.  

 

Personally one feature that VR hardware will have to have before I buy is a physical IPD adjustment.  Although the Cresent Bay prototype appears to have oblong lenses as apposed to the round lenses of the DK2, which could allow a much wider range of IPD's.  They've been quite secretive on the specs of the Cresent Bay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a note, Oculus does officially endorse products that stick to the best practices guide, and will provide consulting if a title is attempting to reach those targets.  

 

The game needs to run at 1920*1080 in 3D, not 8k (seriously?). Technically each render only has to be 948*1080, though rendering at higher resolutions is far nicer on the eyes. There is a lot of misinformation on this thread as you say. It's not some unacheivable goal to have this running on the Rift. Yes, even with a custom engine.  

 

 

 

Rendering twice 960x1080 is much more demanding than once 1920x1080. Geometry has to be recomputed for each eye. 

 

So even if resolution stays at 1080p (which we don't know), reaching 60fps (not talking about 90fps) on existing games with existing engine will either require to drastically reduce the level of details, or to completely rethink the engine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...