25 ms·

Seems like a giddy puff piece. 2.5K is scarcely higher resolution than 1080 (1.9K) and they have far poor latency than Oculus and borrowed optics. Wireless is g

• tluyben2 13y ago
  Is the latency that bad? Because you wouldn't want to go below the Oculus there; the Oculus is great because of it's low latency. More latency will just make people vomit and definitely not sell units.
  • DiabloD3 13y ago
    Latency in general is bad. This is why theres a big rush to get DisplayPort 1.3 variable framerate monitors onto the market (should be out late 2014, early 2015)
• bryanlarsen 13y ago
  80% more pixels is a lot.
  • Tloewald 13y ago
    It's 34% more linear resolution. It's hardly going to be noticeable, especially when they haven't designed their optics for it. And if the refresh rate and latency are even slightly worse than Oculus's 2nd generation device (and they're only claiming parity with the 1st gen device) it will be pretty poor. As good as Oculus is, it's really not good enough. And the idea that 2.5k (i.e. 1440p) is the key thing vs. 1080p and far lower latency is ridiculous. Bear in mind, Oculus uses the best displays they can get in the quantities they need, these guys are simply showing off in-house prototypes.
• skriticos2 13y ago
  This was bothering me too. The article goes on and on about resolution and no mention of latency or motion tracking at all. Those are the hard problems.