3 ms·
In Carmack's talk this year he said fovisted rendering was basically a mistake. A lot of it was due to hardware implementation details, but it didn't save much
by JonathanFly 6y ago
In Carmack's talk this year he said fovisted rendering was basically a mistake. A lot of it was due to hardware implementation details, but it didn't save much GPU resources for the quality hit you took.
One nice benefit of the Quest 2 is that it can run Quest 2 games without be it.
It's still a feature in the Oculus runtime but they only recommend it in specific situations now, and they try and manage the quality outside of the game because way too many developers just cranked it to Max and it made their games look terrible.
- taneq 6y agoI don't remember him saying it was a mistake, just that it wasn't the magic panacea that people were expecting to catapult us to full retina-resolution VR. It was still a significant improvement (and combined with eye tracking, didn't constitute a quality hit) iirc.
- jayd16 6y agoHe was saying fixed foveated is not a significant improvement if you set it to a level that isn't perceptible. You can easily tell when games have it cranked up and the quality drop off at the edge is very severe. Perf improvements are only moderate.
- taneq 6y agoOh, I missed that part then. Yeah, fixed foveated rendering is a quick and dirty hack, and only really useful on cheap headsets with terrible optics which waste a lot of pixels due to distortion. The proper solution is to improve the optics (a la Valve Index), not use FFR. Eye tracking foveated rendering is much more useful but a bit of a pipe dream right now and still only gives a max improvement factor of 2-5x or something like that.
- chrisweekly 6y ago"without be it"?
- JonathanFly 6y agoReplying from a phone, lying in bed, using voice to text, too sleepy to proof.
- chrisweekly 6y agono problem -- I wasn't criticizing, just asking what you meant bc I don't understand what you meant to type.