6 ms·

Higher resolution and built in tracking and only 400. Probably going to buy. Someone convince me not to

by notus 8y ago

electrichead 8y ago
Facebook :)
jorjordandan 8y ago
Well there's no mechanical IPD adjustment, so if you have very wide or narrow set eyes, it will not work well for you. The LCD screen don't have the deeper blacks of the OLED screens of the rift. Frame rate is less. Other than that, I think it looks good.
- saurik 8y ago
  Ugh... that (no mechanical IPD adjustment) made the Oculus Go entirely worthless for me :/.
stetrain 8y ago
Samsung Odyssey+ has higher resolution (1600 vertical) and mechanical IPD adjustment, and is often on sale for $300-400. The Samsung (like other Windows MR headsets) only has two cameras, so the Rift will probably do a better job of tracking the controllers when they're behind your head. The Samsung also has some comfort issues for some people, the Rift may be better there. Overall the Rift will probably hold up well here as a more well rounded package despite the slight drop in resolution, I'll be interested to try one if they get in-store demos. Also depends on whether you want to buy a VR headset from Facebook.
prophesi 8y ago
There's no timeline for when it'll be out, but personally, the Oculus Quest is my reason to hold off.
veryworried 8y ago
Wait for Valve's headset coming out later this year. Direct competitor to the Rift S, with higher resolution, 135 degree vision, and knuckles controllers that let you open and close your hand naturally. You'll be glad you did.
- legitster 8y ago
  At this point, I do not have much faith in Valve's ability to ship products. Anyone excited about VR likely shouldn't hold their breath.
  - fossuser 8y ago
    I wanted to like the Rift given their more comfortable hardware, but the Vive was so much better (I had both briefly). - Full scale walk around the room support - Touch controls (at the time the oculus was still using xbox, though I've heard their new controllers are better) - Oculus headset intentionally leaks light through the nose - Vive had an external facing camera (not a huge feature, but nice to have) Has the oculus improved at all? This wasn't even considering the Vive Pro.
    - legitster 8y ago
      I went with the Rift because it was cheaper and (imho) way less ugly. - Rift room scale support is actually very good with extra trackers (a bit of a pain, but luckily extensions work well). - The Rift controllers are very, very good. Overall, I just liked the Rift as a polished product better. And they have had a great track record of improving the product and dumping money into quality content.
    - Ajedi32 8y ago
      The Rift S has all that out of the box. The OG Rift has also been able to do most of that since the Touch controllers released two years ago (full scale tracking with controllers that are arguably better than the Vive wands). You can also fix the light leakage problem (if you consider it a problem) by buying a third-party faceplate (the Widemo ones have a much smaller nose gap).
saurik 8y ago
> Someone convince me not to OK, I'll take a shot (using the simplest argument I have access to, without trying to sell you on something fundamentally different): the Oculus Quest, which uses the same controllers but isn't tethered to a PC and is coming out in the same "Spring 2019" timeframe, seems to be even higher resolution and also costs only $400 ;P... (edit) oh, and AFAIK the Quest will have mechanical IPD adjustment, a feature the Rift S apparently lacks (?!?), which is frankly an absolute requirement if you have a head that isn't exactly the average-sized head (I find the experience using the Oculus Go, which also lacks this feature, entirely unusable for even a couple minutes due to the distortion and blur, whereas I happily will spend hours inside of a Vive).
- philwelch 8y ago
  > isn't tethered to a PC Can I tether it to a PC if I want to? My primary use case is PC gaming.
  - Brozilean 8y ago
    You should probably just get a Rift with the bases. I got mine for around 350.
    - philwelch 8y ago
      I have one; I just find the tracking pretty fragile. I often need to set it up again on a weekly basis.
      - phs2501 8y ago
        This really makes me happy I went for a Vive. I stuck the lighthouses up near the ceiling, calibrated once, and it still works perfectly eight months later. And no USB cables. Hopefully they perfect inside-out tracking eventually but in the meantime the lighthouse system just works for me.
        philwelch 8y ago
smacktoward 8y ago
Is there actually any software compelling enough to make the hardware worth the expense? After the wave of interest that followed the release of the original Rift petered out, most developers seem to have dropped VR like a hot rock...
- Ajedi32 8y ago
  Depends on what you like. For traditional shooters there's Onward and Pavlov, with a new AAA title from Respawn Entertainment coming later this year. For sports there's Rec Room, Echo Arena, Racket NX, Eleven: Table Tennis, etc. For single player experiences Lone Echo, Budget Cuts, Robo Recall, and coming later this year Defector, Stormlands, Lone Echo 2, Boneworks... honestly there's a lot.
- nyolfen 8y ago
  vrchat
- agar 8y ago
  Yes, the software library is very good, continues to improve, and 2019 will see significant new releases approaching AAA quality (according the the vendors, of course). Naturally, it depends on your interests. But my issue is lack of time to work through my library, not lack of compelling software.
- Sohcahtoa82 8y ago
  If you like playing Poker, PokerStars VR is a blast. It's free (There's not even an option to pay money, and you only play with fake money) I've spent over 100 hours in it. Having the player interaction makes it so fun. Desktop online poker just feels like playing with bots.
- w1nst0nsm1th 8y ago
  Microsoft Office VR
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
  Short answer: no. There's some stuff that convinces me of the potential (SuperHot VR), but the whole thing is still too much of an expensive pain in the ass to be worth the trouble.
Sohcahtoa82 8y ago
A lot of people are bringing up the fact that some headsets like the Oculus Quest aren't tethered to a PC. I'm here to say that being tethered to a PC is a feature, not a bug. The advantage to being tethered to a PC is processing power. Any standalone headset is going to be running purely off of batteries. That means there are MASSIVE trade-offs in processing power, especially for the graphics. The GPU in a standalone headset like the Oculus Quest is going to be about as powerful as your phone's GPU or a Nintendo Switch, meaning it won't hold a candle to the power of a mid-grade desktop GPU. Yeah, sure, games are going to be made with that in mind, but it will definitely limit the graphical quality. You might think "Well I don't care much about graphics", but you'll find many game devs unwilling to make a lower quality port of their game in order to support lesser hardware. In other words, there just simply won't be as many games made for the Quest as their will be for desktop. Every PC will have the power to run a Quest game, but Quest will not have the power to run every PC game.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- throwaway34241 8y ago
  The 'tether' part is a big deal though in addition to the cost. Having tried both, I would prefer less realistic graphics vs having to keep the cable position in the back of my mind (I don't think I quite realized how much it subtracts from immersion until it went away). If you can assume the system is wireless, I think that actually frees up game design quite a bit to involve more rapid movements around the play-space that might be impractical or dangerous with a cable. I think the future of PC headsets is wireless streaming to standalone VR devices (I'd much rather have one $400 device that can do both than pay for separate PC and mobile ones). I think Oculus said they were actually investigating wireless PC streaming for the Quest, but obviously that wasn't a design requirement up front so who knows if they will get it working. If they do get it working, it seems like that could basically kill sales for the Rift so I can see why they might not want to put too many resources into it.

Higher resolution and built in tracking and only 400. Probably going to buy. Someone convince me not to

by notus 8y ago

Higher resolution and built in tracking and only 400. Probably going to buy. Someone convince me not to

electrichead 8y ago

Facebook :)

jorjordandan 8y ago

Well there's no mechanical IPD adjustment, so if you have very wide or narrow set eyes, it will not work well for you. The LCD screen don't have the deeper blacks of the OLED screens of the rift. Frame rate is less. Other than that, I think it looks good.

saurik 8y ago
Ugh... that (no mechanical IPD adjustment) made the Oculus Go entirely worthless for me :/.

stetrain 8y ago

Samsung Odyssey+ has higher resolution (1600 vertical) and mechanical IPD adjustment, and is often on sale for $300-400. The Samsung (like other Windows MR headsets) only has two cameras, so the Rift will probably do a better job of tracking the controllers when they're behind your head. The Samsung also has some comfort issues for some people, the Rift may be better there. Overall the Rift will probably hold up well here as a more well rounded package despite the slight drop in resolution, I'll be interested to try one if they get in-store demos. Also depends on whether you want to buy a VR headset from Facebook.

prophesi 8y ago

There's no timeline for when it'll be out, but personally, the Oculus Quest is my reason to hold off.

veryworried 8y ago

Wait for Valve's headset coming out later this year. Direct competitor to the Rift S, with higher resolution, 135 degree vision, and knuckles controllers that let you open and close your hand naturally. You'll be glad you did.

legitster 8y ago
At this point, I do not have much faith in Valve's ability to ship products. Anyone excited about VR likely shouldn't hold their breath.
- fossuser 8y ago
  I wanted to like the Rift given their more comfortable hardware, but the Vive was so much better (I had both briefly). - Full scale walk around the room support - Touch controls (at the time the oculus was still using xbox, though I've heard their new controllers are better) - Oculus headset intentionally leaks light through the nose - Vive had an external facing camera (not a huge feature, but nice to have) Has the oculus improved at all? This wasn't even considering the Vive Pro.
  - legitster 8y ago
    I went with the Rift because it was cheaper and (imho) way less ugly. - Rift room scale support is actually very good with extra trackers (a bit of a pain, but luckily extensions work well). - The Rift controllers are very, very good. Overall, I just liked the Rift as a polished product better. And they have had a great track record of improving the product and dumping money into quality content.
  - Ajedi32 8y ago
    The Rift S has all that out of the box. The OG Rift has also been able to do most of that since the Touch controllers released two years ago (full scale tracking with controllers that are arguably better than the Vive wands). You can also fix the light leakage problem (if you consider it a problem) by buying a third-party faceplate (the Widemo ones have a much smaller nose gap).

saurik 8y ago

> Someone convince me not to OK, I'll take a shot (using the simplest argument I have access to, without trying to sell you on something fundamentally different): the Oculus Quest, which uses the same controllers but isn't tethered to a PC and is coming out in the same "Spring 2019" timeframe, seems to be even higher resolution and also costs only $400 ;P... (edit) oh, and AFAIK the Quest will have mechanical IPD adjustment, a feature the Rift S apparently lacks (?!?), which is frankly an absolute requirement if you have a head that isn't exactly the average-sized head (I find the experience using the Oculus Go, which also lacks this feature, entirely unusable for even a couple minutes due to the distortion and blur, whereas I happily will spend hours inside of a Vive).

philwelch 8y ago
> isn't tethered to a PC Can I tether it to a PC if I want to? My primary use case is PC gaming.
- Brozilean 8y ago
  You should probably just get a Rift with the bases. I got mine for around 350.
  - philwelch 8y ago
    I have one; I just find the tracking pretty fragile. I often need to set it up again on a weekly basis.
    - phs2501 8y ago
      This really makes me happy I went for a Vive. I stuck the lighthouses up near the ceiling, calibrated once, and it still works perfectly eight months later. And no USB cables. Hopefully they perfect inside-out tracking eventually but in the meantime the lighthouse system just works for me.
      - philwelch 8y ago

smacktoward 8y ago

Is there actually any software compelling enough to make the hardware worth the expense? After the wave of interest that followed the release of the original Rift petered out, most developers seem to have dropped VR like a hot rock...

Ajedi32 8y ago
Depends on what you like. For traditional shooters there's Onward and Pavlov, with a new AAA title from Respawn Entertainment coming later this year. For sports there's Rec Room, Echo Arena, Racket NX, Eleven: Table Tennis, etc. For single player experiences Lone Echo, Budget Cuts, Robo Recall, and coming later this year Defector, Stormlands, Lone Echo 2, Boneworks... honestly there's a lot.
nyolfen 8y ago
vrchat
agar 8y ago
Yes, the software library is very good, continues to improve, and 2019 will see significant new releases approaching AAA quality (according the the vendors, of course). Naturally, it depends on your interests. But my issue is lack of time to work through my library, not lack of compelling software.
Sohcahtoa82 8y ago
If you like playing Poker, PokerStars VR is a blast. It's free (There's not even an option to pay money, and you only play with fake money) I've spent over 100 hours in it. Having the player interaction makes it so fun. Desktop online poker just feels like playing with bots.
w1nst0nsm1th 8y ago
Microsoft Office VR
AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
Short answer: no. There's some stuff that convinces me of the potential (SuperHot VR), but the whole thing is still too much of an expensive pain in the ass to be worth the trouble.

Sohcahtoa82 8y ago

A lot of people are bringing up the fact that some headsets like the Oculus Quest aren't tethered to a PC. I'm here to say that being tethered to a PC is a feature, not a bug. The advantage to being tethered to a PC is processing power. Any standalone headset is going to be running purely off of batteries. That means there are MASSIVE trade-offs in processing power, especially for the graphics. The GPU in a standalone headset like the Oculus Quest is going to be about as powerful as your phone's GPU or a Nintendo Switch, meaning it won't hold a candle to the power of a mid-grade desktop GPU. Yeah, sure, games are going to be made with that in mind, but it will definitely limit the graphical quality. You might think "Well I don't care much about graphics", but you'll find many game devs unwilling to make a lower quality port of their game in order to support lesser hardware. In other words, there just simply won't be as many games made for the Quest as their will be for desktop. Every PC will have the power to run a Quest game, but Quest will not have the power to run every PC game.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
throwaway34241 8y ago
The 'tether' part is a big deal though in addition to the cost. Having tried both, I would prefer less realistic graphics vs having to keep the cable position in the back of my mind (I don't think I quite realized how much it subtracts from immersion until it went away). If you can assume the system is wireless, I think that actually frees up game design quite a bit to involve more rapid movements around the play-space that might be impractical or dangerous with a cable. I think the future of PC headsets is wireless streaming to standalone VR devices (I'd much rather have one $400 device that can do both than pay for separate PC and mobile ones). I think Oculus said they were actually investigating wireless PC streaming for the Quest, but obviously that wasn't a design requirement up front so who knows if they will get it working. If they do get it working, it seems like that could basically kill sales for the Rift so I can see why they might not want to put too many resources into it.