6 ms·

It kind of saddens me that the mobile initiative seems to have completely hijacked the Oculus development. I'm starting to think that must have been part of Zuc

It kind of saddens me that the mobile initiative seems to have completely hijacked the Oculus development. I'm starting to think that must have been part of Zuckerberg's deal when he acquired them. On one hand it certainly makes sense from a mass adoption perspective, if you can make it work on a mobile you immediately have the biggest computing audience in the world. However I have to assume that there is a ton of time spent on things that just would not be issues if it were hooked up to a full fledged PC. Work in reducing power consumption, increasing framerates, etc, are all efforts that could instead be spent on the actual VR experience instead.

mrfusion 12y ago
I honestly think they just couldn't make the pc fast enough to be able To handle VR. I bought a top of the line pc and video card for my dk2 and I still can't play half of the games because of judder. (Most dk2'rs will pretend this issue doesn't exist.) There's probably just too much legacy technology on the pc to make it work plus all the latency of driving the display. A self contained mobile solution that can be qa'd at the factory may be the only way to go.
- 31reasons 12y ago
  I would just install VR-Linux OS specially built for VR on PCs. Its fully real-time, that means zero frame-drops and no judder! Only problem is that it doesn't exist yet :(
- badsock 12y ago
  That sounds very plausible to me. Makes me wonder what it would take to graft the positional tracking from the DK2 onto something like Samsung Gear.
- ctdonath 12y ago
  The problem with using a PC is the wire running from a desktop brick to your blinded head. One immersive "jump" motion you're painfully reminded that reality still exists. We've reached the amazing time when a serious VR-capable computer is, screen included, a half-inch thick and wide enough to cover your field of view. Just strap it and some thin optics to your face, and you don't have to worry about yanking your computer off your desk. Yeah, been there done that. Having to constantly remember the wire does detract from the experience.
- james4k 12y ago
  In most cases the blame can probably go to the games and not the platform.
- TwoBit 12y ago
  The Oculus software and hardware will improve this situation in the upcoming months. Source: I work at Oculus.
- Qwertious 12y ago
  What are the specs of your PC?
  - mrfusion 12y ago
    It's a Dell Precision T3500 Workstation Xeon Quad Core processor 2.66GHz 64 Bit; Intel Xeon Quad Core (x5550) 2.66GHz; 12GB Memory with Windows 7. I got a GTX 970 for graphics. (Which is so big it won't let me close the case BTW)
- wlll 12y ago
  Well, I bought a top of the line PC and GPU (GTX 980 and an Intel i7) and I don't get any judder at all. I'm not imagining it. How do you have you yours set up?
  - mrfusion 12y ago
    See my other reply, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8839174 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8839174 I wonder if the 980 would make that much of a difference, or if the i7 is that different. You'd think CPU wouldn't matter so much, and I did get high speed memory.
ekanes 12y ago
I'd guess they're aiming for a future intersection where mobile computing power meets ubiquity.
djloche 12y ago
If you watched his presentation earlier this year, you would understand that the partnership and gaining credibility with samsung is crucial in getting them to allow Oculus code/customizations on standard hardware. This is a good faith business partnership - Oculus spends time to make the Samsung Gear VR, Samsung opens up and helps them get to 1.0 consumer edition on the Rift.
- cookiecaper 12y ago
  Wasn't the point of the Facebook acquisition that they wouldn't need these types of tit-for-tat partnerships anymore? They're supposed to have unlimited bank now and be able to buy and produce the necessary hardware without having to kowtow to Samsung or other hardware partners. I understand that this type of partnership may make things cheaper even if they're owned by Facebook, but is it really worthwhile to take your eye off the ball if you don't have to?
  - munchbunny 12y ago
    Facebook doesn't have credibility in the space Oculus wants to play in. Samsung has a ton of it.
  - adventured 12y ago
    They were never supposed to have an unlimited bank. Spending $500 million on manufacturing is still a very, very big deal for a company the size of Oculus. There are very few companies on earth that can make the displays Oculus needs, and make them affordable. Manufacturing their own, or paying someone else to get up to speed on doing so, would cost an incredibly painful sum. $500 million still doesn't get you the displays they need without a company like Samsung behind it. If you want the displays to be $100 or $150 of the total cost of the hardware, there are only two or three companies that can do it.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
  - djloche 12y ago
Kenji 12y ago
Exactly my thoughts. As someone who has worked on Android 3D games, I can confirm that trivial things on a PC are a headache on mobile sometimes. Who are they kidding, nobody is going to walk around with VR Gear on their head in the near future. This is for home use.
forrestthewoods 12y ago
What? Mobile hasn't hijacked Oculus development. They are still working on more "normal" headsets. The DK2 is now widely available and the CV1 is still the first big target. The demos they've been showing to wow and awe show beefy demos on beefy PC hardware. I think I know why you're confused. Carmack has personally been focused 100% on mobile. So all the interviews with him are mobile mobile mobile. But they have a lot of people working on a lot of things. Mobile is one of several pieces to the puzzle.
- sillysaurus3 12y ago
  Until Facebook commits to launching a non-mobile consumer version, then the DK2 and CV1 don't matter, except as dev milestones. I'm not convinced that Facebook is willing to settle for developing a "mere" gaming machine, which is what DK2/CV1 are. They seem to want to make it something more. And that could backfire badly, unless they deliver some very compelling experience.
  - forrestthewoods 12y ago
    Huh? Your post makes no sense. CV1 literally means "consumer version 1".
    - sillysaurus3 12y ago
      Has Facebook said their first shipping product will be a gaming machine? If not, then we should probably take that name with a grain of salt.
      - forrestthewoods 12y ago
        Again, huh? DK2/CV1 is not "a gaming machine". It's just a VR headset you plug into your desktop or laptop. It can then be used for games and non-games as they user pleases. It will not, and has never intended to, be used solely for games. Games are a great use case but so are panoramic images and movies.
imron 12y ago
It kind of excites me. If you've ever had a headset ripped off your head by the cord while spinning or moving you'll know what I mean. Mobile gives mobility - even if you're just sitting in your chair. When they can get to the point where they have an all-in-one headset with computer it will be amazing. I don't think this mobile focus is anything to do with the Facebook deal, rather it's Oculus thinking - wow, this is cool, we should head in this direction.
ZenoArrow 12y ago
I'd suspect the current mobile focus is less to do with the Facebook deal, and more to do with the Samsung deal. Samsung are due to be making the screens for the flagship Oculus model. The mobile VR headsets were potentially part of the deal to encourage closer collaboration. I'm glad the Gear VR exists even if it just gives Samsung a fuller understanding of the performance goals of the screens of the desktop device.

mrfusion 12y ago

I honestly think they just couldn't make the pc fast enough to be able To handle VR. I bought a top of the line pc and video card for my dk2 and I still can't play half of the games because of judder. (Most dk2'rs will pretend this issue doesn't exist.) There's probably just too much legacy technology on the pc to make it work plus all the latency of driving the display. A self contained mobile solution that can be qa'd at the factory may be the only way to go.

31reasons 12y ago
I would just install VR-Linux OS specially built for VR on PCs. Its fully real-time, that means zero frame-drops and no judder! Only problem is that it doesn't exist yet :(
badsock 12y ago
That sounds very plausible to me. Makes me wonder what it would take to graft the positional tracking from the DK2 onto something like Samsung Gear.
ctdonath 12y ago
The problem with using a PC is the wire running from a desktop brick to your blinded head. One immersive "jump" motion you're painfully reminded that reality still exists. We've reached the amazing time when a serious VR-capable computer is, screen included, a half-inch thick and wide enough to cover your field of view. Just strap it and some thin optics to your face, and you don't have to worry about yanking your computer off your desk. Yeah, been there done that. Having to constantly remember the wire does detract from the experience.
james4k 12y ago
In most cases the blame can probably go to the games and not the platform.
TwoBit 12y ago
The Oculus software and hardware will improve this situation in the upcoming months. Source: I work at Oculus.
Qwertious 12y ago
What are the specs of your PC?
- mrfusion 12y ago
  It's a Dell Precision T3500 Workstation Xeon Quad Core processor 2.66GHz 64 Bit; Intel Xeon Quad Core (x5550) 2.66GHz; 12GB Memory with Windows 7. I got a GTX 970 for graphics. (Which is so big it won't let me close the case BTW)
wlll 12y ago
Well, I bought a top of the line PC and GPU (GTX 980 and an Intel i7) and I don't get any judder at all. I'm not imagining it. How do you have you yours set up?
- mrfusion 12y ago
  See my other reply, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8839174 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8839174 I wonder if the 980 would make that much of a difference, or if the i7 is that different. You'd think CPU wouldn't matter so much, and I did get high speed memory.

ekanes 12y ago

I'd guess they're aiming for a future intersection where mobile computing power meets ubiquity.

djloche 12y ago

If you watched his presentation earlier this year, you would understand that the partnership and gaining credibility with samsung is crucial in getting them to allow Oculus code/customizations on standard hardware. This is a good faith business partnership - Oculus spends time to make the Samsung Gear VR, Samsung opens up and helps them get to 1.0 consumer edition on the Rift.

cookiecaper 12y ago
Wasn't the point of the Facebook acquisition that they wouldn't need these types of tit-for-tat partnerships anymore? They're supposed to have unlimited bank now and be able to buy and produce the necessary hardware without having to kowtow to Samsung or other hardware partners. I understand that this type of partnership may make things cheaper even if they're owned by Facebook, but is it really worthwhile to take your eye off the ball if you don't have to?
- munchbunny 12y ago
  Facebook doesn't have credibility in the space Oculus wants to play in. Samsung has a ton of it.
- adventured 12y ago
  They were never supposed to have an unlimited bank. Spending $500 million on manufacturing is still a very, very big deal for a company the size of Oculus. There are very few companies on earth that can make the displays Oculus needs, and make them affordable. Manufacturing their own, or paying someone else to get up to speed on doing so, would cost an incredibly painful sum. $500 million still doesn't get you the displays they need without a company like Samsung behind it. If you want the displays to be $100 or $150 of the total cost of the hardware, there are only two or three companies that can do it.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- djloche 12y ago

Kenji 12y ago

Exactly my thoughts. As someone who has worked on Android 3D games, I can confirm that trivial things on a PC are a headache on mobile sometimes. Who are they kidding, nobody is going to walk around with VR Gear on their head in the near future. This is for home use.

forrestthewoods 12y ago

What? Mobile hasn't hijacked Oculus development. They are still working on more "normal" headsets. The DK2 is now widely available and the CV1 is still the first big target. The demos they've been showing to wow and awe show beefy demos on beefy PC hardware. I think I know why you're confused. Carmack has personally been focused 100% on mobile. So all the interviews with him are mobile mobile mobile. But they have a lot of people working on a lot of things. Mobile is one of several pieces to the puzzle.

sillysaurus3 12y ago
Until Facebook commits to launching a non-mobile consumer version, then the DK2 and CV1 don't matter, except as dev milestones. I'm not convinced that Facebook is willing to settle for developing a "mere" gaming machine, which is what DK2/CV1 are. They seem to want to make it something more. And that could backfire badly, unless they deliver some very compelling experience.
- forrestthewoods 12y ago
  Huh? Your post makes no sense. CV1 literally means "consumer version 1".
  - sillysaurus3 12y ago
    Has Facebook said their first shipping product will be a gaming machine? If not, then we should probably take that name with a grain of salt.
    - forrestthewoods 12y ago
      Again, huh? DK2/CV1 is not "a gaming machine". It's just a VR headset you plug into your desktop or laptop. It can then be used for games and non-games as they user pleases. It will not, and has never intended to, be used solely for games. Games are a great use case but so are panoramic images and movies.

imron 12y ago

It kind of excites me. If you've ever had a headset ripped off your head by the cord while spinning or moving you'll know what I mean. Mobile gives mobility - even if you're just sitting in your chair. When they can get to the point where they have an all-in-one headset with computer it will be amazing. I don't think this mobile focus is anything to do with the Facebook deal, rather it's Oculus thinking - wow, this is cool, we should head in this direction.

ZenoArrow 12y ago

I'd suspect the current mobile focus is less to do with the Facebook deal, and more to do with the Samsung deal. Samsung are due to be making the screens for the flagship Oculus model. The mobile VR headsets were potentially part of the deal to encourage closer collaboration. I'm glad the Gear VR exists even if it just gives Samsung a fuller understanding of the performance goals of the screens of the desktop device.