6 ms·

$400, no need for a computer, no need for all of the external tracking cameras that the Rift uses. I'm pretty interested in this, especially with the upward tre

$400, no need for a computer, no need for all of the external tracking cameras that the Rift uses. I'm pretty interested in this, especially with the upward trend in GPU prices. RTX makes for some very pretty games yes, but it's another incremental step in ever increasing graphics. The stuff happening in VR feels like a more interesting direction, and can probably extend across a broad market because the hand controls are more approachable than console game controllers. I haven't actually used a headset newer than a DK1 though. Fingers crossed these get demo setups at Best Buy or something.

Ajedi32 8y ago
AFAIK the DK1 didn't even have positional tracking. Going from that to a Quest would be a huge step up in basically every conceivable metric. Positional tracking and hand presence make a massive difference.
- westoncb 8y ago
  I didn't see anything specifically on this, but I think it would be fair to assume the screen will be significantly higher than the DK1. Even the resolution of the Oculus Go is far better.
  - Ajedi32 8y ago
    Resolution is _way_ better than the DK1. The DK1 was 640 x 800 per eye. The Quest is 1,600 x 1,440 per eye. More than quadruple the pixel count.
  - wlesieutre 8y ago
    Absolutely! I don’t have the numbers handy but I ran them earlier and it’s about 1.7x the pixel count of the CV1, which was already better than the DK1.
- wlesieutre 8y ago
  Yeah, the DK1 I tried was leftover from some research project and ended up at the local maker space for a while. I assume the tracking quality on that is about on par with Google Cardboard. I don’t have a space for a real “room scale” setup with Rift cameras or Vive beacons, so I’ve been waiting on Santa Cruz’s inside-out tracking to look at VR more seriously. Pleasantly surprised by price. They’ve confirmed it’s based on a Snapdragon 835, which isn’t a top end SoC, and I think that’s a smart move to get it down to this range. At $500 they’d have a much harder sell, and this is where PS4 and Xbox One started (once they dropped Kinekt, anyway).
  - listic 8y ago
    By the way, do you have an idea why Microsoft has dropped Kinect?
    - wlesieutre 8y ago
      I couldn't say for sure, but I'd bet that it's because they priced the Xbox One at $500 against the PS4's $400 and between the two options a lot of people would just buy the cheaper one (especuially Santa). Dropping the included Kinekt was a way to get the cost competitive.
- kbenson 8y ago
  Well, except maybe for actual system performance. No need for a computer is great, but shoehorning in enough CPU and GPU power for this in a $400 budget that also includes all the hardware, combined with the promo videos all being third person views and the items held all being shown as wire frame and single color means there's quite a bit unknown about what it will actually be like (unless there is more info I'm missing). It kind of reminds me of Virtual Boy...
  - Ajedi32 8y ago
    Fair point, but it's kinda hard to make full use of PC's graphical capabilities when the hardware caps you to a resolution of 640 x 800 per eye and 60 fps. If the Oculus Go is anything to go by, I suspect most games built for the Quest will match up fairly well graphically against experiences originally built for the DK1.
    - wlesieutre 8y ago
      Oculus Go runs a Snapdragon 821, Oculus Quest has a Snapdragon 835 [1]. Android Central calls it 27% faster at 40% less energy [2]. GPU in the 835 goes from an Adreno 530 to Adreno 540, which looks like a good step up but nothing monumental. In terms of large scenes with high res textures and detailed models, probably not going to do much better than the Go. It's really all about the resolution increase and 6dof tracking, more than trying to get anywhere near the Rift's visuals. [1] https://gizmodo.com/the-big-thing-facebook-didnt-say-about-oculus-quest-1829340830 https://gizmodo.com/the-big-thing-facebook-didnt-say-about-o... [2] https://www.androidcentral.com/snapdragon-835-vs-snapdragon-821 https://www.androidcentral.com/snapdragon-835-vs-snapdragon-...
  - shafyy 8y ago
    I'm at Oculus Connect 5 right now and you can try it out. It's a finished product, not a concept or prototype. It's one of the coolest things. EVER!
    - wlesieutre 8y ago
      I've read the screen's refresh rate is 72 Hz, lower than the 90 Hz that Oculus/Valve have been pushing as a minimum for immersive VR. Did this seem like a problem, or does it feel good enough? I know the Go already runs at 72 or 60 Hz, but without positional tracking it was never going to be particularly immersive no matter what framerate it had.
mattnewport 8y ago
Things that real time ray tracing enables like good dynamic ambient occlusion for contact shadows and more accurate shadowing and lighting are actually more important for VR than for non VR. They make VR a better and more immersive experience rather than just being eye candy. For me the most exciting applications of real time ray tracing are for VR.
- thfuran 8y ago
  I guess it's nice for VR but foveated rendering and eye tracking are what I think we really need for VR.
- andybak 8y ago
  These are all fantastic things but there's multiple workarounds - from entirely baked lighting to clever realtime shortcuts in the hands of a good artist. I think great art direction is more important for VR than GPU advances.
  - mattnewport 8y ago
    Some effects can be faked well with pre-computation but important cues for dynamic object interaction like high quality dynamic ambient occlusion are not easy to fake. Other tricks designed for 2D displays don't hold up as well in VR. I see a lot of object interaction difficulties with novice VR users that I think can be helped by better rendering, although there are issues that will also need better display technologies to resolve.
    - andybak 8y ago
      Don't get me wrong. I'm not diminishing the benefits of a powerful GPU. However - I think great artistry trumps great hardware. Some of the most compelling VR experiences I've seen have been more about the art direction than about the rendering power.
ex3ndr 8y ago
You can try Oculus Go, it is basically the same without advanced tracking.
- andybak 8y ago
  > without advanced tracking. And thus a completely different experience. The biggest game changers in VR (in order) are: 1. High refresh rate (DK1 had this. So does the Go). The world feels "solid and out there"... 2. 6DOF head tracking (a huge difference - to the extent that I tend to use the term "real VR" and "sort of VR" to distinguish the two). The world continues to feel solid when your head moves even by small amounts... 3. 6DOF controllers (depends on the experience. 3DOF controllers suck but there's plenty of incredibly immersive experiences that get round this - basically by not using the controllers much. Trickier for games but for narrative and artsy things - it's totally doable)
  - coffeeaddicted 8y ago
    4. Weight. It's still very noticable with Oculus GO.

Ajedi32 8y ago

AFAIK the DK1 didn't even have positional tracking. Going from that to a Quest would be a huge step up in basically every conceivable metric. Positional tracking and hand presence make a massive difference.

westoncb 8y ago
I didn't see anything specifically on this, but I think it would be fair to assume the screen will be significantly higher than the DK1. Even the resolution of the Oculus Go is far better.
- Ajedi32 8y ago
  Resolution is _way_ better than the DK1. The DK1 was 640 x 800 per eye. The Quest is 1,600 x 1,440 per eye. More than quadruple the pixel count.
- wlesieutre 8y ago
  Absolutely! I don’t have the numbers handy but I ran them earlier and it’s about 1.7x the pixel count of the CV1, which was already better than the DK1.
wlesieutre 8y ago
Yeah, the DK1 I tried was leftover from some research project and ended up at the local maker space for a while. I assume the tracking quality on that is about on par with Google Cardboard. I don’t have a space for a real “room scale” setup with Rift cameras or Vive beacons, so I’ve been waiting on Santa Cruz’s inside-out tracking to look at VR more seriously. Pleasantly surprised by price. They’ve confirmed it’s based on a Snapdragon 835, which isn’t a top end SoC, and I think that’s a smart move to get it down to this range. At $500 they’d have a much harder sell, and this is where PS4 and Xbox One started (once they dropped Kinekt, anyway).
- listic 8y ago
  By the way, do you have an idea why Microsoft has dropped Kinect?
  - wlesieutre 8y ago
    I couldn't say for sure, but I'd bet that it's because they priced the Xbox One at $500 against the PS4's $400 and between the two options a lot of people would just buy the cheaper one (especuially Santa). Dropping the included Kinekt was a way to get the cost competitive.
kbenson 8y ago
Well, except maybe for actual system performance. No need for a computer is great, but shoehorning in enough CPU and GPU power for this in a $400 budget that also includes all the hardware, combined with the promo videos all being third person views and the items held all being shown as wire frame and single color means there's quite a bit unknown about what it will actually be like (unless there is more info I'm missing). It kind of reminds me of Virtual Boy...
- Ajedi32 8y ago
  Fair point, but it's kinda hard to make full use of PC's graphical capabilities when the hardware caps you to a resolution of 640 x 800 per eye and 60 fps. If the Oculus Go is anything to go by, I suspect most games built for the Quest will match up fairly well graphically against experiences originally built for the DK1.
  - wlesieutre 8y ago
    Oculus Go runs a Snapdragon 821, Oculus Quest has a Snapdragon 835 [1]. Android Central calls it 27% faster at 40% less energy [2]. GPU in the 835 goes from an Adreno 530 to Adreno 540, which looks like a good step up but nothing monumental. In terms of large scenes with high res textures and detailed models, probably not going to do much better than the Go. It's really all about the resolution increase and 6dof tracking, more than trying to get anywhere near the Rift's visuals. [1] https://gizmodo.com/the-big-thing-facebook-didnt-say-about-oculus-quest-1829340830 https://gizmodo.com/the-big-thing-facebook-didnt-say-about-o... [2] https://www.androidcentral.com/snapdragon-835-vs-snapdragon-821 https://www.androidcentral.com/snapdragon-835-vs-snapdragon-...
- shafyy 8y ago
  I'm at Oculus Connect 5 right now and you can try it out. It's a finished product, not a concept or prototype. It's one of the coolest things. EVER!
  - wlesieutre 8y ago
    I've read the screen's refresh rate is 72 Hz, lower than the 90 Hz that Oculus/Valve have been pushing as a minimum for immersive VR. Did this seem like a problem, or does it feel good enough? I know the Go already runs at 72 or 60 Hz, but without positional tracking it was never going to be particularly immersive no matter what framerate it had.

mattnewport 8y ago

Things that real time ray tracing enables like good dynamic ambient occlusion for contact shadows and more accurate shadowing and lighting are actually more important for VR than for non VR. They make VR a better and more immersive experience rather than just being eye candy. For me the most exciting applications of real time ray tracing are for VR.

thfuran 8y ago
I guess it's nice for VR but foveated rendering and eye tracking are what I think we really need for VR.
andybak 8y ago
These are all fantastic things but there's multiple workarounds - from entirely baked lighting to clever realtime shortcuts in the hands of a good artist. I think great art direction is more important for VR than GPU advances.
- mattnewport 8y ago
  Some effects can be faked well with pre-computation but important cues for dynamic object interaction like high quality dynamic ambient occlusion are not easy to fake. Other tricks designed for 2D displays don't hold up as well in VR. I see a lot of object interaction difficulties with novice VR users that I think can be helped by better rendering, although there are issues that will also need better display technologies to resolve.
  - andybak 8y ago
    Don't get me wrong. I'm not diminishing the benefits of a powerful GPU. However - I think great artistry trumps great hardware. Some of the most compelling VR experiences I've seen have been more about the art direction than about the rendering power.

ex3ndr 8y ago

You can try Oculus Go, it is basically the same without advanced tracking.

andybak 8y ago
> without advanced tracking. And thus a completely different experience. The biggest game changers in VR (in order) are: 1. High refresh rate (DK1 had this. So does the Go). The world feels "solid and out there"... 2. 6DOF head tracking (a huge difference - to the extent that I tend to use the term "real VR" and "sort of VR" to distinguish the two). The world continues to feel solid when your head moves even by small amounts... 3. 6DOF controllers (depends on the experience. 3DOF controllers suck but there's plenty of incredibly immersive experiences that get round this - basically by not using the controllers much. Trickier for games but for narrative and artsy things - it's totally doable)
- coffeeaddicted 8y ago
  4. Weight. It's still very noticable with Oculus GO.