|
I think any M.2 SSD is good enough for OS + Core games. The difference between top of the line and entry is like one-second on your BIOS boot time. Regular SSDs though, I'd go ask the PC building thread.
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 14:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 15:21 |
|
|
Nalin posted:The power supply is fine. The only thing I'm worried about is the SSD. I would ask in the SSD megathread if Sandisk SSDs are okay or not. I personally would use a Samsung 850 EVO. I think TechReport or someone did a SSD Endurance Test a while back, and while they only tested 6 makes of drives, all of them (except Intel, which has loving read/write DRM coded into their chips) far outlasted their predicted shelf life. It took 18 months of constant writing and overwriting to kill them all, and they all lasted more than their lifespan except Intel, which turned off like a light switch when the wear indicator coded into the processor said its lifespan was up. The average user probably puts a couple terabytes per year through their SSD, unless they're using it for large media files storage, but even then, even Sandforce-powered drives (used to be notoriously lovely) last more than 700TB. Samsung's 256GB 840 Pro lasted the longest, at 2.5 Petabytes endurance before it mysteriously failed. http://techreport.com/review/24841/introducing-the-ssd-endurance-experiment http://techreport.com/review/26523/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-casualties-on-the-way-to-a-petabyte http://techreport.com/review/27062/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-only-two-remain-after-1-5pb http://techreport.com/review/27436/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-two-freaking-petabytes http://techreport.com/review/27909/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-theyre-all-dead orange juche fucked around with this message at 19:35 on Aug 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
So after about 3 hours of playing I feel like I can Damaged Core is pretty fun. A few caveats, it's hard. It throws you right into the action and doesn't give you a lot of time to get used to the learning curve, but once you get the hang of teleporting between the different robots and safe cams it really comes together, and after dying a bunch of times I was zipping around blowing poo poo up all over and it was a blast. Second caveat is that it uses head aiming which I've never been a fan of, but it actually works in this game. You couldn't really use Touch or motion controllers in general because you can teleport into flying ships and vehicle turrets where having hands would be kind of weird. It's also teleportation based, again something I'm generally not a fan of, but the game is built around it since you play as a virus that infects different robots and vehicles, you don't have your own body or anything. I was still occasionally trying to move and strafe around with the thumbstick even after 2 hours, but that's just out of habit. It's more or less a highly polished wave shooter with teleportation and being able to travel throughout the level. Someone earlier said they were waiting to buy any games until Touch came out and I was the same way but the hype over this game got to me and in the end I'm glad I bought it. It's priced right at $30, and as a bonus if you buy it before Sept 6th you get into the beta of that Dragon Front card game in the future , which is a nice bonus.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
Mordaedil posted:The tons of media is part of the fun part of owning a pc. But most of it is possibly mods for games. There's no reason to have that on an SSD tho. I have that on a 5TB magnetic. Mods are also generally huge especially Bethesda games where modders have a hardon for gigantic textures with no compression. My old Skyrim directory was like 20+ gb.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
Oh god, does anyone know of free software to repackage an .mkv file so Oculus Video can play it & play the audio? I had one before but I can't remember what it was, and there's a lot of poo poo out there. Just need video passthrough, audio convert to AAC, repackage into .mp4 container.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
FuzzySlippers posted:There's no reason to have that on an SSD tho. I have that on a 5TB magnetic. Mods are also generally huge especially Bethesda games where modders have a hardon for gigantic textures with no compression. My old Skyrim directory was like 20+ gb. Someone who can afford a VR system but forgets the SSD makes zero sense to me. That's like ordering a red convertible sports car with the sport package, but then opting for the Eco 2.0L 4 cylinder engine. SSD is cheap these days, you can get a name brand 960GB SSD for ~$225 shipped on Amazon these days. All my digital photos, digital movies etc still live on redundant rotational drives on a NAS server in the closet though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 02:36
|
|
|
El Grillo posted:Oh god, does anyone know of free software to repackage an .mkv file so Oculus Video can play it & play the audio? I had one before but I can't remember what it was, and there's a lot of poo poo out there. Just need video passthrough, audio convert to AAC, repackage into .mp4 container. Handbrake should be able to do this just fine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
Helter Skelter posted:Handbrake should be able to do this just fine. Also I hadn't seen Onward. Looks like ARMA-light in VR, which has me pretty excited despite how rough it looks at this stage in development: http://store.steampowered.com/app/496240/
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 11:49
|
|
|
A review of StarVR https://www.wareable.com/vr/starvr-headset-review
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 13:56
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 14:09
|
|
|
It kinda seems like it sucks
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 14:38
|
|
|
El Grillo posted:This is really dumb but I can't see how to set it to just passthrough the video. I ended up using XMedia Recode which does the job fine but I'm curious to know what I'm missing in Handbrake.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 14:44
|
|
|
Hadlock posted:Someone who can afford a VR system but forgets the SSD makes zero sense to me. That's like ordering a red convertible sports car with the sport package, but then opting for the Eco 2.0L 4 cylinder engine. Hey Hey HEY!. There is nothing wrong with a fun convertible sports car, with the sport package, with an Eco(Tec) 2.0L Turbo 4 Cyl engine. It just so happens it can smokw the doors off of similar convertible sports cars with big ol V8 engines and hundreds of more pounds to push around. (Man I sound old talking like that, however the magic of Corn Oil and this little 2L Turbo did show me that we are no longer in the torqueless 4Cyl days of old). But I completely agree on the SSD's and am waiting for the day that 2+TB drives stop costing more than they should. I run 2 500G 850 EVO's in Raid 0 for my OS + a few choice games that need to load fast (Star Citizen  ) but run 2 2TB WDBlacks for Steam Games and other stuff, and they are full as well. (with slow internet, it s best to have what you might want to play downloaded and patched up, or else by the time you actually get it downloaded, you may not care or have time to play it then...)Someday we will have 4TB SSD's be like $200 or so... But until then. Stupid Plater Drives will have their place I guess. But for an OS drive, there is no excuse not to at least have a 256G SSD running that, 500G if you want the better long term performance though. Helter Skelter posted:Looking at it again, I was mistaken. Handbrake can copy audio streams, but will only transcode video, it seems. Avidemux is another tool you can use if you want to try something different. You can RipBot the video into some other format, just sucks that all the VR players really suck at playing MKV's with anything but crappy audio. Ugh When will VLC VR become a thing and we can just play whatever the heck we want?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
SwissCM posted:It kinda seems like it sucks What gives in stupid looks, it makes up for with dual 2560x1440@90 screens. It probably has the best looking screen out of all the VR headsets and it uses different lenses than both the Vive and Oculus.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
SlayVus posted:What gives in stupid looks, it makes up for with dual 2560x1440@90 screens. It probably has the best looking screen out of all the VR headsets and it uses different lenses than both the Vive and Oculus. That article says specifically that the Vive has a better picture though. Also what kind of power do you need to push all those pixels because goddamn, current gen VR is already tough. I do want that fov though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
SlayVus posted:What gives in stupid looks, it makes up for with dual 2560x1440@90 screens. It probably has the best looking screen out of all the VR headsets and it uses different lenses than both the Vive and Oculus. yeah but the extra pixels stretched out across the extra FOV actually make the ppi slightly lower than both the rift & vive at least in the horizontal direction. e: starVR - 2560 h. res / 210 dev. fov = ~12.1 pixels per degree of h. fov rift - 2160 h. res / 110 deg. fov = ~19.6 pixels per degree of h. fov they don't mention vertical field of view, so there's no real basis for comparison there but IMO StarVR is gonna suck. FormatAmerica fucked around with this message at 22:34 on Sep 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
KakerMix posted:That article says specifically that the Vive has a better picture though. And they said the lack of picture quality is partially because it seems like the screens are blurry when you look around, which sounds like a low persistence issue. Low persistence is... pretty important
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
While FOV would be nice, the thing keeping my headset on the shelf is the poor pixel density that keeps from, you know, being able to feel like I'm not in a blurry nightmare when trying to read or identify objects. I don't see the point in a tradeoff with worse pixel density outside of few specific applications, e.g., large-vista environmental demos as opposed to games.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
FormatAmerica posted:yeah but the extra pixels stretched out across the extra FOV actually make the ppi slightly lower than both the rift & vive at least in the horizontal direction. The vertical on the StarVR is 100°, it says it in the review. They said during the demos that they switch between 210 and 110 horizontal FOV. The thing that makes the StarVR interesting to me though are the lenses. They're rounded lenses, but they're smooth unlike both the Vive and oculus.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
Breakfast All Day posted:While FOV would be nice, the thing keeping my headset on the shelf is the poor pixel density that keeps from, you know, being able to feel like I'm not in a blurry nightmare when trying to read or identify objects. I don't see the point in a tradeoff with worse pixel density outside of few specific applications, e.g., large-vista environmental demos as opposed to games. I envy those who get a 1080ti when it's released and can jack up the pixel density. But yeah, they need to get 4K screens in there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
Breakfast All Day posted:While FOV would be nice, the thing keeping my headset on the shelf is the poor pixel density that keeps from, you know, being able to feel like I'm not in a blurry nightmare when trying to read or identify objects. I don't see the point in a tradeoff with worse pixel density outside of few specific applications, e.g., large-vista environmental demos as opposed to games. Which headset do you have? SlayVus posted:The vertical on the StarVR is 100°, it says it in the review. They said during the demos that they switch between 210 and 110 horizontal FOV. The thing that makes the StarVR interesting to me though are the lenses. They're rounded lenses, but they're smooth unlike both the Vive and oculus. The rift doesn't have fresnel lines like the Vive. It just suffers from horrific god rays.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
Breakfast All Day posted:While FOV would be nice, the thing keeping my headset on the shelf is the poor pixel density that keeps from, you know, being able to feel like I'm not in a blurry nightmare when trying to read or identify objects. I don't see the point in a tradeoff with worse pixel density outside of few specific applications, e.g., large-vista environmental demos as opposed to games. This is something that can be fixed,with the Vive at least, in the config ini for SteamVR. Renderoutputresolution is something you can increase to increase the output resolution of the program being rendered. It can actually make text more defined . For example, Chair in a Room suffers from posters being unreadable, but with ROR set to say 1.5 the posters are readable. SlayVus fucked around with this message at 01:26 on Sep 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
Is there a graph for declining return on resolution works for ROR? Like obviously 1.15x is better than 1.0x and 1.5x is even better, but 10.0x is probably not appreciably sharper than 2.5x, I am guessing. Something like this, I am imagining: 
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
Cojawfee posted:Which headset do you have? DK2 at home, Vive at work. Coworker has a CV1 so I've used that quite a bit also.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
Hadlock posted:Is there a graph for declining return on resolution works for ROR? Like obviously 1.15x is better than 1.0x and 1.5x is even better, but 10.0x is probably not appreciably sharper than 2.5x, I am guessing. Right now the major concern is FPS, because at like 1.5 ROR you're running 4536x2520@90hz. That's 3.1m more pixels than 4k, which to run even 4k at 60 you need a Titan XP.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
Hadlock posted:Is there a graph for declining return on resolution works for ROR? Like obviously 1.15x is better than 1.0x and 1.5x is even better, but 10.0x is probably not appreciably sharper than 2.5x, I am guessing. I don't believe so, because even if you take VR out of the equation it's not clear what you would measure. The logic that goes into graphs like that one is pretty dubious in the first place; they're measuring the distance at which the eye can no longer distinguish pixels, which is reasonable for movies but it's not the whole story for video games. Games would technically need to be running supersampled at an enormous resolution to achieve the same visual acuity as film at the same distance. You're right that there are going to be diminishing returns on perceived quality as supersampling increases, but since there's no way to accurately measure perceived quality there's no way to draw a graph of it. Intuitively we know that it's approximately a logarithmic curve with small peaks around the integer multipliers (1x, 2x, 3x etc), but that's about the limit of what can be said.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
BBC radio 4 this afternoon had critics talking about Bjorks vr thing in London. They thought the Rift looked like it came from the 90s, was heavy and blurry and left them headachy and sick. Just in case you needed confirmation this gen isnt going to take off outside of rich nerds Edit: not that r4 is at all mainstream Surprise Giraffe fucked around with this message at 03:42 on Sep 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 03:40
|
|
|
I'm just impressed they're saying the Star VR is 390 grams. That's a chunk lighter than the other two. Given Acer designed this version though, that probably translates to flimsy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 04:12
|
|
|
Google's new Daydream VR-ready phones are dropping the Nexus brand, probably to be named Pixel, Pixel XL. They're also going to be made by HTC, supposedly. They're likely due out (or at least announced at an event) on Oct 4th. Any thoughts on if they will use the same gyroscope sensors etc used in the Vive? Between HTC making both the Vive and new Daydream phones, and Valve open sourcing the lighthouse tech, is there any possibility of seeing lighthouse integration with Daydream phones? Presumably the phones would plug in to third party goggles Gear VR style, and pass through lighthouse tracking info via USB-C. Looks like lighthouse unit pairs are going for $170 on the EU vive site. Gear VR headsets are $99 but don't have any tracking tech that I'm aware of. $350 for the phone + $200 for lighthouse tech and another $100 for the headset puts you in Vive territory, but I suppose at least you don't need to buy the desktop to go with it. Hadlock fucked around with this message at 08:22 on Sep 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 08:17
|
|
|
FormatAmerica posted:yeah but the extra pixels stretched out across the extra FOV actually make the ppi slightly lower than both the rift & vive at least in the horizontal direction. Your math is dodgy there. The StarVR uses two screens at the 2560 horizontal res, whereas the rift uses two screens at 1080 horizontal res.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 09:48
|
|
|
Senor Tron posted:Your math is dodgy there. The StarVR uses two screens at the 2560 horizontal res, whereas the rift uses two screens at 1080 horizontal res. Ah crap you're right. I overlooked "per eye" on the star vr specs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 11:18
|
|
|
Wonder what that reviewer means exactly when he says StarVr isn't as clear and vivid as the vive. That article's a bit vague really, hopefully we get more detailed impressions from other writers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 11:49
|
|
|
Optics is probably the more important part between it and the display, tbh. Lower resolution with better optics will definitely look better.Surprise Giraffe posted:BBC radio 4 this afternoon had critics talking about Bjorks vr thing in London. They thought the Rift looked like it came from the 90s, was heavy and blurry and left them headachy and sick. Just in case you needed confirmation this gen isnt going to take off outside of rich nerds lol
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 11:56
|
|
|
Hadlock posted:Any thoughts on if they will use the same gyroscope sensors etc used in the Vive? Between HTC making both the Vive and new Daydream phones, and Valve open sourcing the lighthouse tech, is there any possibility of seeing lighthouse integration with Daydream phones? Presumably the phones would plug in to third party goggles Gear VR style, and pass through lighthouse tracking info via USB-C. As for lighthouse integration? It's possible, sure, but it seems unlikely. I think it's more likely that if they were going for roomscale (which I don't think they are yet, based off of developer documentation), they'd go with some solution of their own devising. This is a GearVR competitor, they're not going after the PC VR market with this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 12:05
|
|
|
A MPU-9250 (your standard "9 axis" imu) costs $6.62 at low volumes (<$5 if you buy 10k) and gives you: 1kHz gyro, 8kHz accelerometer, and 8Hz magnetometer rates. So yes, you could say it's doable It's probably what vive/rift use, and it (and its predecessor 9150) have been used in various phones/tablets/duino kits for likely time now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 12:25
|
|
|
Going by the iFixit teardowns, Rift uses a BMI055, while the Vive uses a MPU-6500. Both are 6-axis devices as you don't really need a magnetometer for a VR headset.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 13:06
|
|
|
Helter Skelter posted:This is a GearVR competitor, they're not going after the PC VR market with this. Man oh'man I wish Valve and Google would pair up, that would be a force to be reckoned with. That or Magic Leap, but I guess ML decided to be paired with Disney and Lucas Films, they're moving their campus to right outside my apartment in SF.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 14:22
|
|
|
So this is mildly interesting: Qualcomm are demonstrating a reference device for standalone VR that they believe could cost $400-$500. Boasts dual external cameras for inside-out tracking, dual internal cameras for eye-tracking, and 1440p screens. It's running on a snapdragon and the screens are only 70hz, though, so we're definitely talking "better GearVR" rather than desktop VR competitor. My gut feeling is that it won't really go anywhere - the refresh rate is too low for eye-tracked foveated rendering to be effective and standalone VR is always going to be much less attractive to consumers than smartphone VR. Still, as the article notes there's a long history of Chinese manufacturers turning these Qualcomm reference devices into ultra-cheap market products, so we might start to see a lot of devices based on this model in the next year or so. NRVNQSR fucked around with this message at 14:26 on Sep 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 14:23
|
|
|
NRVNQSR posted:So this is mildly interesting: The Snapdragon 820 is the minimum spec for daydream, so that's something. 70hz makes sense, as you're pushing the displays with a cell phone GPU. Google's daydream capable phones use the 821 model, not sure what the difference is though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 15:21 |
|
|
Hadlock posted:The Snapdragon 820 is the minimum spec for daydream, so that's something. 70hz makes sense, as you're pushing the displays with a cell phone GPU. Google's daydream capable phones use the 821 model, not sure what the difference is though. that was recently revealed, it's a bit faster: http://www.anandtech.com/show/10616/qualcomm-details-snapdragon-821-clocks-efficiency-and-ip
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2016 18:05
|
|