3 ms·
I think back in the 90s the tech just wasn't there yet. Reducing latency, increasing framerate, and increasing resolution makes a huge difference to the VR expe
by viklove 6y ago
I think back in the 90s the tech just wasn't there yet. Reducing latency, increasing framerate, and increasing resolution makes a huge difference to the VR experience. The difference between 256x256 and QHD+ is huge.
Valve has a lot of data on user comfort while in VR, you should look it up if you're interested. Their figures put it around 20% of the population being uncomfortable with VR (at first), and continued usage can make things better for them. Definitely not just "locked out" of using VR entirely, as you suggest.
- ericbarrett 6y agoDisagree—we had the input-to-view-update latency down to 16ms; in other words, a 60 FPS frame reflected the position and orientation of the user on the immediately previous frame. This is lower latency than achievable nowadays with consumer hardware. Subject mis-performance and discomfort was still trending downward at this very low level, and several people still reported discomfort and nausea, albeit at a slightly lower rate than, say, 100ms.
- viklove 6y agoRegardless, it's disingenuous to say that the experience offered by HL Alyx on a Valve Index is comparable to what you're describing. Valve was pretty firm on their requirement for 90 FPS, for example, because they insisted that anything lower left users feeling nauseous. Not to mention the rendering of virtual words is far better than what you could have offered in the 90s. Speaking from experience, even 90fps is too low. I get a lot more with my current setup, so consumer electronics are better than you think. VR has come a long way, and has a long way to go. These problems will be overcome as the tech gets better.