3 ms·

I disagree. I think the screen resolution isn't that big of a deal for many applications (mostly games and stuff like it), and it's not like it's impossible ri

I disagree. I think the screen resolution isn't that big of a deal for many applications (mostly games and stuff like it), and it's not like it's impossible right now, just expensive. The bigger hurdle from where I'm sitting is getting framerates and latency in a good position. Everyone I've seen use a current gen VR headset gets horribly motion sick in a lot of cases. That NEEDS to be fixed, and I think that comes down to crazy high refresh rates, and super low latency, both of which really crank up the processing power needed.

jobigoud 8y ago
People don't get motion sick from the fps, latency and fov of current gen (PC) VR (90 fps, ~0ms, ~100°). They get motion sick from vection and maybe from vergence accomodation conflict.
- Klathmon 8y ago
  Interesting! I've got some reading to do! But regardless, I don't think resolution is going to be what makes or breaks VR/AR. We worked with computers just fine when they were ~500 "pixels" tall, and it's not like screen resolution technology has hit a wall that it can't get past yet, things are still improving.
- Impossible 8y ago
  People do get motion sick from FPS because a lot of popular games and applications are not optimized, or have degenerate cases that cause hitches. ASW\ATW help with this (run at half fps and interpolate basically), but don't fix really bad fps or hitches. It doesn't help that often people are running PC VR with under powered (minspec or lower) or "misconfigured" (bad drivers, software, etc.) setups.