5 ms·

I actually was completely convinced when I tried my friend's Rift. That being said, I bought a Vive for my house and I do agree that it is another step beyond t

I actually was completely convinced when I tried my friend's Rift. That being said, I bought a Vive for my house and I do agree that it is another step beyond the Rift.

nomel 10y ago
> it is another step beyond the Rift. Literally. I can't imagine how they're still justifying the Rift at this point. Is the room scale tracking somehow inferior when you sit in a chair?
- wolrah 10y ago
  > Is the room scale tracking somehow inferior when you sit in a chair? Nope. The Rift is definitely more comfortable for most people and looks more like a finished product, but that's about all the good I can say about it. I used a Rift demo station about a week before my Vive arrived and it immediately made me happy about my choices. Roomscale is huge and while Oculus technically can be used that way the official support is still largely based around forward facing.
  - ehsanu1 10y ago
    Things will change when Oculus Touch comes out. I don't understand why people are already dismissing the Rift as if it's the final revision, especially in such an immature market such as VR. Oculus is still more focused on non-roomscale experiences for now, but they're already starting to change how they talk about it, no doubt in preparation for Touch. The tech is there, the games are there (from Vive-land), the only thing really missing right now are the controllers.
    - moron4hire 10y ago
      Oculus' tech is excellent. That is not disputed. But their management is hot garbage. And if anything can kill an excellent product, it's poor management. HTC and Valve have been much better stewards of the Vive than Facebook and Oculus have been of the Rift. Oculus has burnt a lot of good will in the developer and consumer communities, with the delays, the shady exclusivity deals, the walled garden app store, the broken promises on open source and Linux and OS X support, etc.
      - efnx 10y ago
        Yup, I got my dk2 and then they dropped Mac and Linux support in the next version - what a waste.
        kolinko 10y ago
        Well, as a Mac fan, it unfortunately made sense. Aside from the top of the line Macs PRO, Apple doesn't sell machines good enough to support VR. I have money, and I love mac, but I won't be buying Mac Pro for $3k just to play with the tech.
        lbradstreet 10y ago
        Even the top of the line Mac Pro is not good enough. I've used it with the DK2 in Windows, and judder was still a huge problem.
        moron4hire 10y ago
        No, that computer is good enough. It's the devs making the app you played that are not. Oculus is playing a game with their specs. On one hand, it makes their peripheral look like really cutting edge technology if it can only run on the latest and greatest hardware. And on the other, it keeps them from having to try to fulfill even more orders over what they have already proven they cannot handle. Simple graphics + room scale VR is an amazing experience. AAA games need whizbang graphics features to be able to compete with each other because they haven't had any new gameplay features to show off in nearly 15 years. But a lot of this effects are unnecessary in VR--sometimes even a bad idea! Normal mapping, for example, is has been reliably shown to cause motion sickness in people with a relatively high ratio of estrogen to testosterone (not just women, but men with hormonal imbalances. Women with high testosterone seem to do fine). I think Valve and Oculus understand that AAA game studios don't have a lot to offer to VR. You're not going to really adapt Call of Duty to the Vive. So they are banking on the huge cadre of indie developers to rapidly make the first content for them. And that is going to mostly be fairly new devs using Unity, not really understanding what they are doing other than following tutorials. Optimisation is not exactly a strong point.
    - lawnchair_larry 10y ago
      I think a lot of people want the Oculus to fail, because it's Valve vs Facebook. Valve is generally loved, Facebook is generally disliked. Had Palmer not sold to FB, I think they would have much stronger support and it would be a very different story. People were behind team Palmer+Carmack until they used the kickstarter dollars to "sell out." Oculus definitely didn't help their standing in the community once they started trying to buy exclusives and add DRM. Kind of reminds me of the Makerbot fiasco. Like Makerbot, Oculus has lost much of the early adopter community, but if they can hang on long enough, they can capture the mainstream adoption wave and it might not matter.
      - heathkit 10y ago
        Had Oculus not sold to FB, they would have kept working with Valve and there wouldn't be a Vive. https://www.engadget.com/2016/03/18/htc-vive-an-oral-history/ https://www.engadget.com/2016/03/18/htc-vive-an-oral-history...
        koffiezet 10y ago
        Good. More competition = better.
        jonny_eh 10y ago
        The relevant bits: "Valve's work up to 2013 had made real-time tracking in VR a viable proposition. But although it had worked out the fundamentals, it wasn't about to build its own headset. And why would it? The public had already voted with its wallet, funding Oculus to the tune of $2.4 million. In Jan. 2014 Valve announced that it would collaborate with Oculus on tracking to "drive PC VR forward." It also said it had no plans to release its own VR hardware, although it noted that "this could change" in the future. It's clear that at some point Oculus and Valve's cooperative spirit fell apart. It could be that Oculus and Valve disagreed on what VR should be: The Rift and Vive certainly offer different experiences. But it's also been suggested that communication from Oculus ground to a halt in the months after the Facebook acquisition, which forced Valve to explore other paths. It's unlikely that anyone will go on the record to confirm that for years. All we know is that in early January, Luckey was reportedly calling Valve's tech "the best virtual reality demo in the world," and by late spring, HTC and Valve were meeting to hammer out a deal."
    - chrischen 10y ago
      Because objectively, the Rift, in its current form, is vastly inferior to the Vive with Lighthouse touch controllers. Even if the Rift's touch controllers are released later and are superior, they'd be hard pressed to be much more superior.
      - ehsanu1 10y ago
        Hey Chris, long time no see! Yeah I basically agree with you, I just don't see it as a much of problem for Oculus in the long term given how early all this is.
- empath75 10y ago
  It does room scale just fine with the touch, by all accounts. I've used the vive and own a rift. I'm pretty happy with it. The display in the rift is better and it's more comfortable.
  - droopyEyelids 10y ago
    Thats a pretty good way to put it. It's like the difference between a slightly better display and being in another world
  - mattdotc 10y ago
    I own DK1, DK2, Vive and tried Rift CV1 at a Best Buy. Was not impressed by the tracking on the Rift CV1. Perhaps it was the demo or demo environment, but it didn't feel as smooth. It definitely 'cut out' a few times, albeit very briefly. Have you experienced that at home?
  - wuliwong 10y ago
    As someone who wears glasses, I actually have the opposite experience. The Vive accommodates the glasses pretty easily. I've wondered about the display difference though. I've had a lot more time in a Vive and am going to get to compare to a Rift again soon but my recollection is that the Oculus had a better display. I also might not have "dialed in" my Vive well. The Oculus was setup for me by a friend who is an Oculus engineer, so I suspect he set it up correctly. I'm going to read up on tuning the Vive display right now. :)
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

I actually was completely convinced when I tried my friend's Rift. That being said, I bought a Vive for my house and I do agree that it is another step beyond the Rift.

nomel 10y ago

> it is another step beyond the Rift. Literally. I can't imagine how they're still justifying the Rift at this point. Is the room scale tracking somehow inferior when you sit in a chair?

wolrah 10y ago
> Is the room scale tracking somehow inferior when you sit in a chair? Nope. The Rift is definitely more comfortable for most people and looks more like a finished product, but that's about all the good I can say about it. I used a Rift demo station about a week before my Vive arrived and it immediately made me happy about my choices. Roomscale is huge and while Oculus technically can be used that way the official support is still largely based around forward facing.
- ehsanu1 10y ago
  Things will change when Oculus Touch comes out. I don't understand why people are already dismissing the Rift as if it's the final revision, especially in such an immature market such as VR. Oculus is still more focused on non-roomscale experiences for now, but they're already starting to change how they talk about it, no doubt in preparation for Touch. The tech is there, the games are there (from Vive-land), the only thing really missing right now are the controllers.
  - moron4hire 10y ago
    Oculus' tech is excellent. That is not disputed. But their management is hot garbage. And if anything can kill an excellent product, it's poor management. HTC and Valve have been much better stewards of the Vive than Facebook and Oculus have been of the Rift. Oculus has burnt a lot of good will in the developer and consumer communities, with the delays, the shady exclusivity deals, the walled garden app store, the broken promises on open source and Linux and OS X support, etc.
    - efnx 10y ago
      Yup, I got my dk2 and then they dropped Mac and Linux support in the next version - what a waste.
      - kolinko 10y ago
        Well, as a Mac fan, it unfortunately made sense. Aside from the top of the line Macs PRO, Apple doesn't sell machines good enough to support VR. I have money, and I love mac, but I won't be buying Mac Pro for $3k just to play with the tech.
        lbradstreet 10y ago
        Even the top of the line Mac Pro is not good enough. I've used it with the DK2 in Windows, and judder was still a huge problem.
        moron4hire 10y ago
        No, that computer is good enough. It's the devs making the app you played that are not. Oculus is playing a game with their specs. On one hand, it makes their peripheral look like really cutting edge technology if it can only run on the latest and greatest hardware. And on the other, it keeps them from having to try to fulfill even more orders over what they have already proven they cannot handle. Simple graphics + room scale VR is an amazing experience. AAA games need whizbang graphics features to be able to compete with each other because they haven't had any new gameplay features to show off in nearly 15 years. But a lot of this effects are unnecessary in VR--sometimes even a bad idea! Normal mapping, for example, is has been reliably shown to cause motion sickness in people with a relatively high ratio of estrogen to testosterone (not just women, but men with hormonal imbalances. Women with high testosterone seem to do fine). I think Valve and Oculus understand that AAA game studios don't have a lot to offer to VR. You're not going to really adapt Call of Duty to the Vive. So they are banking on the huge cadre of indie developers to rapidly make the first content for them. And that is going to mostly be fairly new devs using Unity, not really understanding what they are doing other than following tutorials. Optimisation is not exactly a strong point.
  - lawnchair_larry 10y ago
    I think a lot of people want the Oculus to fail, because it's Valve vs Facebook. Valve is generally loved, Facebook is generally disliked. Had Palmer not sold to FB, I think they would have much stronger support and it would be a very different story. People were behind team Palmer+Carmack until they used the kickstarter dollars to "sell out." Oculus definitely didn't help their standing in the community once they started trying to buy exclusives and add DRM. Kind of reminds me of the Makerbot fiasco. Like Makerbot, Oculus has lost much of the early adopter community, but if they can hang on long enough, they can capture the mainstream adoption wave and it might not matter.
    - heathkit 10y ago
      Had Oculus not sold to FB, they would have kept working with Valve and there wouldn't be a Vive. https://www.engadget.com/2016/03/18/htc-vive-an-oral-history/ https://www.engadget.com/2016/03/18/htc-vive-an-oral-history...
      - koffiezet 10y ago
        Good. More competition = better.
      - jonny_eh 10y ago
        The relevant bits: "Valve's work up to 2013 had made real-time tracking in VR a viable proposition. But although it had worked out the fundamentals, it wasn't about to build its own headset. And why would it? The public had already voted with its wallet, funding Oculus to the tune of $2.4 million. In Jan. 2014 Valve announced that it would collaborate with Oculus on tracking to "drive PC VR forward." It also said it had no plans to release its own VR hardware, although it noted that "this could change" in the future. It's clear that at some point Oculus and Valve's cooperative spirit fell apart. It could be that Oculus and Valve disagreed on what VR should be: The Rift and Vive certainly offer different experiences. But it's also been suggested that communication from Oculus ground to a halt in the months after the Facebook acquisition, which forced Valve to explore other paths. It's unlikely that anyone will go on the record to confirm that for years. All we know is that in early January, Luckey was reportedly calling Valve's tech "the best virtual reality demo in the world," and by late spring, HTC and Valve were meeting to hammer out a deal."
  - chrischen 10y ago
    Because objectively, the Rift, in its current form, is vastly inferior to the Vive with Lighthouse touch controllers. Even if the Rift's touch controllers are released later and are superior, they'd be hard pressed to be much more superior.
    - ehsanu1 10y ago
      Hey Chris, long time no see! Yeah I basically agree with you, I just don't see it as a much of problem for Oculus in the long term given how early all this is.
empath75 10y ago
It does room scale just fine with the touch, by all accounts. I've used the vive and own a rift. I'm pretty happy with it. The display in the rift is better and it's more comfortable.
- droopyEyelids 10y ago
  Thats a pretty good way to put it. It's like the difference between a slightly better display and being in another world
- mattdotc 10y ago
  I own DK1, DK2, Vive and tried Rift CV1 at a Best Buy. Was not impressed by the tracking on the Rift CV1. Perhaps it was the demo or demo environment, but it didn't feel as smooth. It definitely 'cut out' a few times, albeit very briefly. Have you experienced that at home?
- wuliwong 10y ago
  As someone who wears glasses, I actually have the opposite experience. The Vive accommodates the glasses pretty easily. I've wondered about the display difference though. I've had a lot more time in a Vive and am going to get to compare to a Rift again soon but my recollection is that the Oculus had a better display. I also might not have "dialed in" my Vive well. The Oculus was setup for me by a friend who is an Oculus engineer, so I suspect he set it up correctly. I'm going to read up on tuning the Vive display right now. :)
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]