8 ms·

Daily reminder: 2K doesn't really exist. Yes by definition anything with around 2000 pixels vertical would be 2K but that would mean FHD is 2K because it almost

by noxer 6y ago

Daily reminder: 2K doesn't really exist. Yes by definition anything with around 2000 pixels vertical would be 2K but that would mean FHD is 2K because it almost 2000 pixels wide. The display in question here is 1440x1440 That is not 2K. Sure there are two next to each other that would mean 2880 pixels horizontal but the image you see cant have this resolution. Also that would be 3K not 2K. So pls everyone stop the nonsense with the Ks unless used properly like if you actually mean DCI 4K then its appropriate to say so. Everything else is marketing nonsense. /endrant

anilakar 6y ago
Having 1440p screens would have been great two years ago. The baseline currently is Index with 1700ish vertical pixels, and competitors such as HP and Pimax have pushed past the "4K" (2160+) pixel mark. Disclaimer: I'm a sim game enthusiast and don't play any titles where the game designer can just change the gameplay mechanics and UI to work on screens with a low PPD.
- folli 6y ago
  Any sim game recommendations that fit your criteria?
  - anilakar 6y ago
    Digital Combat Simulator (DCS World) has some really tiny text on the cockpit dials and screens, and distant targets are often only a few pixels in size. Those 2000+ vertical pixel HMDs I mentioned don't have any issues with cockpit details whereas my older Samsung Odyssey+ required constant use of the zoom button. Furthermore, the performance hit when upgrading to higher resolutions is negligible. Smaller pixel densities require heavy supersampling to look good whereas higher density displays can be run at or near their native resolution.
    - quit32 6y ago
      DCS is so cool. I feel like I need to quit my job / be single again in order to learn it though. I got the rift in order to play it only to realize that learning DCS from the ground up requires a lot of keyboard input / referencing cheat sheets so need to be pretty proficient with it before you can't see your hands and as you mentioned the resolution is not quite good enough in rift to really see things with much detail though it is still a fun experience to try out. Looking forward to playing it on a future headset.
- farias0 6y ago
  It's an open source project, you can modify it however you want
- TulliusCicero 6y ago
  The website makes it clear you can swap out for other panels.
- taneq 6y ago
  Exactly. The original Rift and Vive were 1440x1440 (iirc) and the Vive Pro, Valve Index and most WMR headsets are 1440x1600.
- metalliqaz 6y ago
  > Disclaimer: I'm a sim game enthusiast and don't play any titles where the game designer can just change the gameplay mechanics and UI to work on screens with a low PPD. I'm sorry but that sounds like pure snobbery. With the same PC running the game, and only changing the display, any game can be adapted to anything by changing gameplay mechanics and UI.
  - anilakar 6y ago
    Then it's no longer a systems-level simulation but an arcade game with a sim-like physics. However, you are correct in the sense that most racing and flight sim folks tend to be entitled snobs who have spare money to throw around. Many have spent money on a RTX2080 Ti card when the non-titan edition could not run games in VR at high enough frame rates. Most are going to be upgrading to a 3080 as soon as it comes out this fall.
    - nebulous1 6y ago
      > Then it's no longer a systems-level simulation but an arcade game with a sim-like physics. How are you defining a "systems-level simulation" in a way that it would no longer be one if run at a different PPD? I feel like there's something I'm missing here.
    - Sohcahtoa82 6y ago
      > Most are going to be upgrading to a 3080 as soon as it comes out this fall. You mean in a week? Looking forward to replacing my GTX 1070. Such an underpowered card to sit next to my i9-9900K and 32 GB of RAM.
83457 6y ago
You missed diagonal. I believe that is how VR displays are often measured.
GodofGrunts 6y ago
Can we just go back to calling resolutions by their height?
- noxer 6y ago
  That was never a thing so we can't go back to it. A resolution is 2 dimensional height + aspect ratio works. But for all the popular resolutions we have a standardized short form like FHD/QHD/XGA/VGA but these obviously cant cover every existing resolution. Like for example the one from the article 1440p 1:1 there is no standardized name for it.
  - psadauskas 6y ago
    When widescreen LCDs were starting to replace 4:3 LCDs and CRTs, the screens were described as 720p, 1080i, etc. It wasn't until 4k was a thing that screens were described by their width instead of height.
    - frou_dh 6y ago
      The "p" is kinda interesting because it used to convey useful extra information (presence of Progressive Scan), but now that's simply a given in almost every context. So the "p" has sort of degraded into nothing more than a signifier that someone is writing about resolution. "c" could mean Colour. Bob uses a c2160p monitor!
    - noxer 6y ago
      i stands for "interlaced" that has nothing to do with display resolution. p stands for "progressive scan" technically also not related to resolution but it makes clear that the number before describes the vertical resolution.
  - MrGilbert 6y ago
    At least for me, the short forms are hilarious and obnoxious. I can get an understanding of what 3840x2400 could mean in terms of aspect ratio and pixel density. But WQUXGA? I have to look that up.
gorkish 6y ago
2K was/is a real specification that defined and used in digital cinema well before consumer TV's got near to these resolutions. DCI specifies a few 2k resolutions based on aspect ratio: 2048x1080/24 full Frame, 2048x858/24 for Scope, and 1998x1080 for Flat. Basically any crop of the full frame image with either the maximum width or height is still 2K. There's probably not a lot of value in beating that dead horse anyway; I have a sneaking suspicion this is all just a typo. Most devices containing a display like this are usually digital cameras or imaging instruments which almost always market the raw pixel count ahead of screen resolution. This is probably generally advertised and specified as a 2MP display not a 2K display.
kybernetikos 6y ago
I think it can be difficult to compare VR Headsets by stats, since the fields of views are different and stereo overlap is different. I think the metrics people are looking for are something that proxies for space, clarity and responsiveness. Ideally we'd have figures for these that can be compared across different headsets. Although lots of different things can affect these numbers (e.g. size, shape and technology of the pixels) probably the best proxies would be diagonal fov, pixel per degree and refresh rate. It'd be great to see everyone just standardise on reporting something simple, meaningful and comparable.

by noxer 6y ago

anilakar 6y ago

Having 1440p screens would have been great two years ago. The baseline currently is Index with 1700ish vertical pixels, and competitors such as HP and Pimax have pushed past the "4K" (2160+) pixel mark. Disclaimer: I'm a sim game enthusiast and don't play any titles where the game designer can just change the gameplay mechanics and UI to work on screens with a low PPD.

folli 6y ago
Any sim game recommendations that fit your criteria?
- anilakar 6y ago
  Digital Combat Simulator (DCS World) has some really tiny text on the cockpit dials and screens, and distant targets are often only a few pixels in size. Those 2000+ vertical pixel HMDs I mentioned don't have any issues with cockpit details whereas my older Samsung Odyssey+ required constant use of the zoom button. Furthermore, the performance hit when upgrading to higher resolutions is negligible. Smaller pixel densities require heavy supersampling to look good whereas higher density displays can be run at or near their native resolution.
  - quit32 6y ago
    DCS is so cool. I feel like I need to quit my job / be single again in order to learn it though. I got the rift in order to play it only to realize that learning DCS from the ground up requires a lot of keyboard input / referencing cheat sheets so need to be pretty proficient with it before you can't see your hands and as you mentioned the resolution is not quite good enough in rift to really see things with much detail though it is still a fun experience to try out. Looking forward to playing it on a future headset.
farias0 6y ago
It's an open source project, you can modify it however you want
TulliusCicero 6y ago
The website makes it clear you can swap out for other panels.
taneq 6y ago
Exactly. The original Rift and Vive were 1440x1440 (iirc) and the Vive Pro, Valve Index and most WMR headsets are 1440x1600.
metalliqaz 6y ago
> Disclaimer: I'm a sim game enthusiast and don't play any titles where the game designer can just change the gameplay mechanics and UI to work on screens with a low PPD. I'm sorry but that sounds like pure snobbery. With the same PC running the game, and only changing the display, any game can be adapted to anything by changing gameplay mechanics and UI.
- anilakar 6y ago
  Then it's no longer a systems-level simulation but an arcade game with a sim-like physics. However, you are correct in the sense that most racing and flight sim folks tend to be entitled snobs who have spare money to throw around. Many have spent money on a RTX2080 Ti card when the non-titan edition could not run games in VR at high enough frame rates. Most are going to be upgrading to a 3080 as soon as it comes out this fall.
  - nebulous1 6y ago
    > Then it's no longer a systems-level simulation but an arcade game with a sim-like physics. How are you defining a "systems-level simulation" in a way that it would no longer be one if run at a different PPD? I feel like there's something I'm missing here.
  - Sohcahtoa82 6y ago
    > Most are going to be upgrading to a 3080 as soon as it comes out this fall. You mean in a week? Looking forward to replacing my GTX 1070. Such an underpowered card to sit next to my i9-9900K and 32 GB of RAM.

83457 6y ago

You missed diagonal. I believe that is how VR displays are often measured.

GodofGrunts 6y ago

Can we just go back to calling resolutions by their height?

noxer 6y ago
That was never a thing so we can't go back to it. A resolution is 2 dimensional height + aspect ratio works. But for all the popular resolutions we have a standardized short form like FHD/QHD/XGA/VGA but these obviously cant cover every existing resolution. Like for example the one from the article 1440p 1:1 there is no standardized name for it.
- psadauskas 6y ago
  When widescreen LCDs were starting to replace 4:3 LCDs and CRTs, the screens were described as 720p, 1080i, etc. It wasn't until 4k was a thing that screens were described by their width instead of height.
  - frou_dh 6y ago
    The "p" is kinda interesting because it used to convey useful extra information (presence of Progressive Scan), but now that's simply a given in almost every context. So the "p" has sort of degraded into nothing more than a signifier that someone is writing about resolution. "c" could mean Colour. Bob uses a c2160p monitor!
  - noxer 6y ago
    i stands for "interlaced" that has nothing to do with display resolution. p stands for "progressive scan" technically also not related to resolution but it makes clear that the number before describes the vertical resolution.
- MrGilbert 6y ago
  At least for me, the short forms are hilarious and obnoxious. I can get an understanding of what 3840x2400 could mean in terms of aspect ratio and pixel density. But WQUXGA? I have to look that up.

gorkish 6y ago

2K was/is a real specification that defined and used in digital cinema well before consumer TV's got near to these resolutions. DCI specifies a few 2k resolutions based on aspect ratio: 2048x1080/24 full Frame, 2048x858/24 for Scope, and 1998x1080 for Flat. Basically any crop of the full frame image with either the maximum width or height is still 2K. There's probably not a lot of value in beating that dead horse anyway; I have a sneaking suspicion this is all just a typo. Most devices containing a display like this are usually digital cameras or imaging instruments which almost always market the raw pixel count ahead of screen resolution. This is probably generally advertised and specified as a 2MP display not a 2K display.

kybernetikos 6y ago

I think it can be difficult to compare VR Headsets by stats, since the fields of views are different and stereo overlap is different. I think the metrics people are looking for are something that proxies for space, clarity and responsiveness. Ideally we'd have figures for these that can be compared across different headsets. Although lots of different things can affect these numbers (e.g. size, shape and technology of the pixels) probably the best proxies would be diagonal fov, pixel per degree and refresh rate. It'd be great to see everyone just standardise on reporting something simple, meaningful and comparable.