5 ms·
Would you care to explain what you mean by "the bandwidth just isn't there"? VR is more than just mobile devices; all currently available VR headsets can also d
by acka 1y ago
Would you care to explain what you mean by "the bandwidth just isn't there"? VR is more than just mobile devices; all currently available VR headsets can also do PC VR, whether via a wired DisplayPort link or a wired or wireless network connection.
As I see it, the only absolute upper limit for VR is the resolution and frame rate of the VR headset displays, as well as the quality of the optical stack. Rendering of the graphics can be done by anything from a single high-end GPU in a PC up to a beefy server in the cloud—although in that case, of course, network latency and video compression will impact the experience.
- dijit 1y agorealistically speaking; wired VR is much too much faff. unless it’s a niche thing (simulation, high end gaming), the future is undoubtedly free headsets like the Quest 3 and Apple Vision- for convenience in handling and setup, conformity and freedom of use.
- skeezyjefferson 1y ago> Would you care to explain what you mean by "the bandwidth just isn't there" VR needs to at least match the bleeding edge in graphics, which is desktop GPUs. Those desktop GPUs have large wattage and cooling demands. Therefore wireless VR headsets must use the mobile or laptop versions of those GPUs, which perform worse than the desktop equivalent. On top of this VR needs to draw the same scene twice (one for each eyeball). I cannot see how VR will ever overcome this with current hardware. They need to be able to put a desktop GPU in the wireless headset without needing to power it from AC, and thats just for starters because didnt Carmack say we need something like 240hz and 4k+ (for each eyeball) for indiscernible photo realism? Id say were maybe 10-20 years away from just having the GPU power to do this, let alone making software for it