3 ms·

Did they improve the resolution at all? As far as I remember, I was still able to see pixels and that spoils the immersion for me.

GuB-42 9y ago
If anything, it will be worse. The point of Oculus Go and Santa Cruz is to be untethered, and, if possible, cheaper than the Rift. While it is undoubtedly a worthy goal, as anyone who tried a VR headset can tell you, it also means that you are letting go of the hundreds of watts computing power that a compatible PC represents. And without that power, it will be much more difficult to get the required latency, framerate and resolution. EDIT : The Oculus Go is actually a little better than the rift : 2560x1440 vs 2160x1200, same FOV and supposedly better optics, so in term of not seeing the pixels, that should be better. The tradeoff is probably less details, maybe with upscaling.
- polskibus 9y ago
  That sucks. I wish they focused on best immersion quality first and optimize next.
  - spicyj 9y ago
    It sounds like they claim making it untethered makes a big improvement to immersion.
    - polskibus 9y ago
      I tried hololens, while I know it's AR not VR, the graphics sucked and it made the immersion much much worse than being on cable would. They should first achieve something that hooks people in ways not done before even if it requires a 1080ti in sli + cable. Lowering the specs and/or quality of the final image is the wrong way to do it.
      - agar 9y ago
        The market says otherwise. In order from lowest to highest cost VR: GearVR, PSVR, Rift, Vive In order from highest to lowest market share: GearVR, PSVR, Vive, Rift Note that when Oculus lowered the Rift's price, sales dramatically increased. It is very clear that cost remains one of the primary barriers to VR adoption. Oculus is approaching the market with a tiered strategy of low (Go), medium (Santa Cruz), and high (Rift) models at price points that maintain an addressable market large enough to create a viable software ecosystem. Based on their sales figures and market research, they believe high price and insufficient content are the top two barriers to VR adoption. This is why they fund 3rd parties to develop quality content (since the market isn't large enough to recoup the development investment), and why they released Go. An HMD requiring $1400 in graphics hardware alone (2x1080ti) might make a good prototype - a "concept car" or "super car" if you will - but not a good commercial product. Few would buy it, and it would be very hard to leverage its power to the fullest.
        polskibus 9y ago
        Of course market is susceptible to pricing. Of course $1400 is too much for wide adoption. More people buy vr at lower adoption and spec because they are curious. Worldwide sales have been reported to be very underwhelming, regardless of the price point. There is no killer use and feature for it, that's why. When there are features (immersion) the apps will come even if they make the first one themselves.

GuB-42 9y ago

If anything, it will be worse. The point of Oculus Go and Santa Cruz is to be untethered, and, if possible, cheaper than the Rift. While it is undoubtedly a worthy goal, as anyone who tried a VR headset can tell you, it also means that you are letting go of the hundreds of watts computing power that a compatible PC represents. And without that power, it will be much more difficult to get the required latency, framerate and resolution. EDIT : The Oculus Go is actually a little better than the rift : 2560x1440 vs 2160x1200, same FOV and supposedly better optics, so in term of not seeing the pixels, that should be better. The tradeoff is probably less details, maybe with upscaling.

polskibus 9y ago
That sucks. I wish they focused on best immersion quality first and optimize next.
- spicyj 9y ago
  It sounds like they claim making it untethered makes a big improvement to immersion.
  - polskibus 9y ago
    I tried hololens, while I know it's AR not VR, the graphics sucked and it made the immersion much much worse than being on cable would. They should first achieve something that hooks people in ways not done before even if it requires a 1080ti in sli + cable. Lowering the specs and/or quality of the final image is the wrong way to do it.
    - agar 9y ago
      The market says otherwise. In order from lowest to highest cost VR: GearVR, PSVR, Rift, Vive In order from highest to lowest market share: GearVR, PSVR, Vive, Rift Note that when Oculus lowered the Rift's price, sales dramatically increased. It is very clear that cost remains one of the primary barriers to VR adoption. Oculus is approaching the market with a tiered strategy of low (Go), medium (Santa Cruz), and high (Rift) models at price points that maintain an addressable market large enough to create a viable software ecosystem. Based on their sales figures and market research, they believe high price and insufficient content are the top two barriers to VR adoption. This is why they fund 3rd parties to develop quality content (since the market isn't large enough to recoup the development investment), and why they released Go. An HMD requiring $1400 in graphics hardware alone (2x1080ti) might make a good prototype - a "concept car" or "super car" if you will - but not a good commercial product. Few would buy it, and it would be very hard to leverage its power to the fullest.
      - polskibus 9y ago
        Of course market is susceptible to pricing. Of course $1400 is too much for wide adoption. More people buy vr at lower adoption and spec because they are curious. Worldwide sales have been reported to be very underwhelming, regardless of the price point. There is no killer use and feature for it, that's why. When there are features (immersion) the apps will come even if they make the first one themselves.