3 ms·

>and an Oculus Rift. Well, its a telepresence robot, which means it will be at arbitrary locations doing its job. How many places have the type of reliable low

>and an Oculus Rift. Well, its a telepresence robot, which means it will be at arbitrary locations doing its job. How many places have the type of reliable low-latency, high-bandwidth, low packet loss, etc wifi network to give a reliable Rift experience? I mean, we can barely do this with the powerhouse of high-end video cards via hdmi. How can we transmit a high quality 1440p per eye at 60fps over the common internet? Maybe 25mbps per eye with a lot of compression, so a good 55mbps with overhead? Note, this is live video so no buffering past a few dozen milliseconds. We can't without some really dedicated connections and a wifi client>AP relationship with little to no interference. You're not getting this in your average office or other common telepresence locales. You sure as hell aren't getting it over 3G/4G. I don't think people appreciate how exotic HMD's like the rift are. We can't just plug them in anywhere. For the 3D effect to "work" you need high resolutions and high framerates. If you can't get that, then a normal screen should be used because its a waste of resources and a waste of time strapping that thing to your face.

vectorjohn 11y ago
High framerate video isn't necessary. The reason for the 60fps capable video card where the rift is connected is that when you move your head, you need the video to update quickly. If you had a 360 degree camera like the parent suggested, you don't need the source to be 60fps, just that when you move your head, you need the view on the rift to change at 60fps. Think of a panoramic photo. It's not even 1fps, it's 1 frame ever and it still gives you a great 3D effect. I think you'd be fine with a much lower framerate source. And that would make a wifi and a not-that-impressive internet connection fine. Edit to add: of course, with a 360 video you have much larger frames, not 1440. You could probably do with less than 360 though, since you can assume a person isn't going to be looking behind them or at the floor.

vectorjohn 11y ago

High framerate video isn't necessary. The reason for the 60fps capable video card where the rift is connected is that when you move your head, you need the video to update quickly. If you had a 360 degree camera like the parent suggested, you don't need the source to be 60fps, just that when you move your head, you need the view on the rift to change at 60fps. Think of a panoramic photo. It's not even 1fps, it's 1 frame ever and it still gives you a great 3D effect. I think you'd be fine with a much lower framerate source. And that would make a wifi and a not-that-impressive internet connection fine. Edit to add: of course, with a 360 video you have much larger frames, not 1440. You could probably do with less than 360 though, since you can assume a person isn't going to be looking behind them or at the floor.