4 ms·

I think his first three points are the main problem. Image quality, latency and systems requirements. They are all linked. VR hardware is great step-up from th

by nom 10y ago

I think his first three points are the main problem. Image quality, latency and systems requirements. They are all linked. VR hardware is great step-up from the common gaming setups, where you only have to render a single scene @ 30-60 FPS and display it on a monitor @ >1080p. VR is much more involved than that. Not only do you need to render the scene twice, but you have to do it at a resolution >4k per eye (which probably isn't even enough to satisfy all users), and on top of you should do it in <20ms or something in that order, to be sure nobody gets sick. _including_ position tracking. The rest of your points can be solved, once we can mass-produce hardware that meets the specs.

loup-vaillant 10y ago
> you should do it in <20ms I've heard perfection needs less than 7ms latency. That's over 140 FPS, possibly higher if you have any kind of double buffering.
majewsky 10y ago
> you have to do it at a resolution >4k per eye I'm sure there's someone working on a headset that tracks eye movements and adjusts the rendered resolution of the image on the fly. The human eye has something like 4-5 megapixels worth of photo receptors, but the absolute majority of them are located in a relatively tiny area of your FOV where your eyes focus on.