|
Vive has a slightly bigger FOV, Rift has a slightly bigger sweet spot. It's not worth arguing over because the FOV and resolution are pretty poor on both.
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 23:46 |
|
|
I'm pretty certain that I have the lenses set closest to the eyes, but I'll double check. I don't notice any ski-google effect, but I've used my headset enough that it's auto-parsed-out by the ol'noodle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
Yeah, in my experience the Vive is slightly wider FOV, while the overall picture is clearer in the Rift. Although interestingly the Rift takes a little more positioning to get into the sweet spot. When it comes to comfort and perceived visual quality it just comes down to personal opinion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
Warbird posted:Question for those of you that have tried both headsets. Buddy of mine recently tried the Rift after using my Vive a few times. He mentioned that the Rift had a wider field of view than the Vive and didn't feel the ski-goggle blinder effect on it. This surprised me as I vaguely remember people doing some weird math and concluding that the Vive was slightly wider in terms of FoV. Plus, I'm using aftermarket facepads that are thinner for EVEN MORE FoV. I haven't had the chance to try a Rift yet; what say you? My guess is your friend was noticing that the sweet spot is bigger so he can look wherever in the headset without it getting blurry and confusing that in his head with the FOV being larger. I know when I finally tried a vive that and (what seemed like) slightly more SDE were the only things I really noticed different. If you haven't been following all this silly VR stuff for a while, you're probably not looking for things with the right terminology on your tongue.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 05:36
|
|
|
Oculus better hope their logistics company doesn't gently caress this up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 06:09
|
|
|
I think VR is going to be a bust. Nobody wants this thing except hardcore tech and game nerds. Regular people arent going to go for this. Nobody wants wear a goofy headset or goggles and awkwardly shuffle around in their living room. People are going to keep playing games the old fashioned way, watching TV and movies the old fashioned way. Seriously what problem is this trying to solve? Im not saying that there has to be some purpose for VR to exist, but it still has to fit some kind of niche. Maybe a tiny minority of people will be into this, but most people won't. It might be like Second Life. But most people arent going to give VR a second thought. seriously the technology just seems kind of dumb.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 06:10
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:I think VR is going to be a bust. Nobody wants this thing except hardcore tech and game nerds. Regular people arent going to go for this. Nobody wants wear a goofy headset or goggles and awkwardly shuffle around in their living room. People are going to keep playing games the old fashioned way, watching TV and movies the old fashioned way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 06:11
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:I think VR is going to be a bust. Nobody wants this thing except hardcore tech and game nerds. Regular people arent going to go for this. Nobody wants wear a goofy headset or goggles and awkwardly shuffle around in their living room. People are going to keep playing games the old fashioned way, watching TV and movies the old fashioned way. Replace any of this with electricity, radio, motion pictures, TV, video games, home computers, cell phones, VCRs, video cameras, any other bit of consumer electronics.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 06:16
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:I think VR is going to be a bust. Nobody wants this thing except hardcore tech and game nerds. Regular people arent going to go for this. Nobody wants wear a goofy headset or goggles and awkwardly shuffle around in their living room. People are going to keep playing games the old fashioned way, watching TV and movies the old fashioned way. It fun.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 06:17
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:I think VR is going to be a bust. Nobody wants this thing except hardcore tech and game nerds. Regular people arent going to go for this. Nobody wants wear a goofy headset or goggles and awkwardly shuffle around in their living room. People are going to keep playing games the old fashioned way, watching TV and movies the old fashioned way. Same
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 06:58
|
|
|
I've been playing Audioshield for the past week. It's great fun and a real workout. Had a bunch of friends over this evening (non-geeky ones, just fellow parents of babies in my PEPs group) and they all had a blast too -- this stuff has solid mainstream appeal. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhSsdsu4yIk I know there are lots of reddit threads about the best songs to play in Audioshield but here are my top picks. I like fast intense loud tracks for working out, and of course ones where Audioshield can recognize the beat well. Moi Lolita (Alizee) Hit The Road, Jack (Ray Charles) Survivor (Destiny's Child) Laudate Dominum (Taize) Imperial March (Star Wars) Klendathu Drop (Starship Troopers) Papa Don't Preach (Madona) I've also had lots of fun playing Unseen Diplomacy. This really does roomscale well. (Except: it needs good tracking in every inch of space in your 3m x 4m playing area, including down at floor level, and my room is only just 3m x 4m so the cameras can't track close enough to the floor). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzntLYGwWrM Finally, Vivecraft. I love playing Minecraft this way. It feels extra terrifying when monsters are nearby. I'm frustrated at how flakey it is, though. I'm using HTC Vive, roomscale, 3m x 4m play area.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 07:21
|
|
|
ljw1004 posted:I love playing Minecraft this way. Same. I thought I was kind of past minecraft, hadn't thought about it in years, but ever since the official VR support launched I've been playing an absolutely ton of it. I also really wish every other game with artificial locomotion would take notice, because the control in that game, with head turning disabled is absolutely perfect. I mean I've usually been good about vr sickness, though I can start to feel it a little in most things after a point, but i can play minecraft for hours and not even get a tiny twinge of sickness. Its so great.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 07:27
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:I think VR is going to be a bust. Nobody wants this thing except hardcore tech and game nerds. Regular people arent going to go for this. Nobody wants wear a goofy headset or goggles and awkwardly shuffle around in their living room. People are going to keep playing games the old fashioned way, watching TV and movies the old fashioned way. !!!
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 07:56
|
|
|
VR is still 4-5 years away from being a commercially viable platform for software developers. Tilt brush is more along the line of software that will make VR viable than any of the current generation games (who are mostly at the level of testing the water and appealing to nerds than anything that could be considered commercially viable). Content creation in VR environments is gonna be big in the next decade imo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 09:57
|
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:VR is still 4-5 years away from being a commercially viable platform for software developers. Tilt brush is more along the line of software that will make VR viable than any of the current generation games (who are mostly at the level of testing the water and appealing to nerds than anything that could be considered commercially viable). I'm excited as poo poo to see where content creation goes with VR. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 10:42
|
|
|
The important thing to remember re: VR viability is that by the end of the decade this poo poo will have evolved so far from what we have now, that not only will the current hardware be considered primitive garbage by then, its entirely possible that the words "Rift" or "Vive" will be some long dead anachronism that's only ever said in the same context we talk about things like the iPod. You already got way more Gear VRs out there than these PC HMDs are ever gonna sell, Daydream's about to come out and we'll see how hard Google pushes it, and Apple is clearly working on VR in some capacity but probably won't do anything with it until its more established elsewhere. Its totally conceivable that in 2020 the majority of mid-high tier phones will be VR capable. Like, VR ubiquity is going to happen whether people want it or not.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 11:49
|
|
|
Vr is good for simulation. I can't have a ping pong table but I can play ping pong almost 100% like in vr. That's why vr owns
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 11:54
|
|
|
Abu Dave posted:Vr is good for simulation. I can't have a ping pong table but I can play ping pong almost 100% like in vr. That's why vr owns
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 12:33
|
|
|
Paddle up Yeah. I was playing pong waves also
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 13:50
|
|
|
I think first person is going to be a bust. Nobody wants this thing except hardcore tech and game nerds. Regular people arent going to go for this. Nobody wants to not see their game character or look down the sights of a gun and awkwardly shuffle around on a keyboard. People are going to keep playing games the old fashioned way, watching TV and movies the old fashioned way. Seriously what problem is this trying to solve? Im not saying that there has to be some purpose for first person perspective to exist, but it still has to fit some kind of niche. Maybe a tiny minority of people will be into this, but most people won't. It might be like Ultima Underworld. But most people arent going to give first person shooters a second thought. seriously the technology just seems kind of dumb.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:I think VR is going to be a bust. Nobody wants this thing except hardcore tech and game nerds. Regular people arent going to go for this. Nobody wants wear a goofy headset or goggles and awkwardly shuffle around in their living room. People are going to keep playing games the old fashioned way, watching TV and movies the old fashioned way. Posts like this puzzle me. I have always been under the impression that VR was sort of the end goal for video games.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
Mordaedil posted:I think first person is going to be a bust. Nobody wants this thing except hardcore tech and game nerds. Regular people arent going to go for this. Nobody wants to not see their game character or look down the sights of a gun and awkwardly shuffle around on a keyboard. People are going to keep playing games the old fashioned way, watching TV and movies the old fashioned way. e: you can't drag artistically-inclined people off of drawing/sculpting apps even if they aren't normally what you'd consider gamers, you're talking like fps is the one true game type and yeah it doesn't translate well Bhodi fucked around with this message at 17:12 on Sep 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
I realize this is in the Games forum but I'd love to talk shop with anyone developing/producing VR/AR experiences for the large enterprise space.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
AndrewP posted:Posts like this puzzle me. I have always been under the impression that VR was sort of the end goal for video games. It's just the natural evolution of media. Tell a story/show a world via a play, a book, more recently through moving pictures and then through pictures that you can move in stories you affect. Now, you get to be in the stories.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
AndrewP posted:Posts like this puzzle me. I have always been under the impression that VR was sort of the end goal for video games. jbusbysack posted:I realize this is in the Games forum but I'd love to talk shop with anyone developing/producing VR/AR experiences for the large enterprise space. But seriously, the only obvious internal VR use that I can envision is telecommunication, eg creating those virtual corporate star chambers that cyberpunk fiction always features. Everything else I think it would depend on the scale of public adoption and its use as something beyond novelty - that is, will consumers not think it strange or laborious to move through a virtual grocery isle to make their selections in Freshdirect? Or will it be something like we saw with Second Life, where companies build virtual offices that no one visits? I'd see augmented reality as the clearer / cheaper / more practical alternative in reaching consumers. Basic Chunnel fucked around with this message at 17:45 on Sep 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
If you're disabled, VR is life-changing. In the "real world", that is, discounting liesure time, people are experimenting with VR for home renovations and CAD and surgery and anything where a 3rd dimension and a sense of scale and presence is advantageous. You aren't going to be grocery shopping with it, ever. Bhodi fucked around with this message at 17:46 on Sep 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
Bhodi posted:If you're disabled, VR is life-changing
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
Basic Chunnel posted:But seriously, the only obvious internal VR use that I can envision is telecommunication, eg creating those virtual corporate star chambers that cyberpunk fiction always feature. Everything else I think it would depend on the scale of public adoption and its use as something beyond novelty - that is, will consumers not think it strange or laborious to move through a virtual grocery isle to make their selections in Freshdirect? Or will it be something like we saw with Second Life, where companies build virtual offices that no one visits. I I'd see augmented reality as the clearer / cheaper / more practical alternative in reaching consumers. I've talked to a lot of people looking at using VR in enterprise; primarily for engineering or medical purposes, but some for communications - both social and corporate. I think the handful of developers ITT are all in games, though. e: If you've seen the kind of bizarre technology people already throw at teleconferencing you'll know that VR is pretty tame and sensible by comparison. NRVNQSR fucked around with this message at 17:49 on Sep 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
Basic Chunnel posted:That's a very good point but it's got to go way beyond the disabled. If working in the (rapidly privatizing) transportation sector has taught me anything it's that the free market doesn't consider the disabled to be a userbase that's worth the investment to reach. You don't have to have an all-inclusive market, you just need one that's big enough to sustain growth and innovation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
NRVNQSR posted:I've talked to a lot of people looking at using VR in enterprise; primarily for engineering or medical purposes, but some for communications - both social and corporate. Learning & training of manual skills, conceptual communications/sales, experiential pre-sales all are very strong cases in large enterprise.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
jbusbysack posted:Learning & training of manual skills, conceptual communications/sales, experiential pre-sales all are very strong cases in large enterprise. Yep, that's pretty much what I've been working on in VR terms. Simulations, interactive training materials and technology demonstrations. It might be a niche in gaming, but large enterprises are absolutely mad for it. Training 20+ people at a time to drive a train (as an example) is expensive and time-consuming - you have to build or repurpose a train cab, only one person at a time can use it. Replace that with a bunch of VR-capable PCs and HMDs, and now you can train them all simultaneously, in a conference room, at a fraction of the price.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
The place I used to work had a group that made training simulators for agricultural and construction equipment. It's way cheaper and safer to do initial training when each student isn't tying up (and potentially breaking) a multimillion dollar machine and burning diesel. For ag, it also helps that you don't need a fully grown field to practice on. When I was there a few years ago they were using a couple big monitors wrapped around the fake cabs, but VR would be cheaper and better
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
Wired just did an article about VR music videos: https://www.wired.com/2016/09/future-of-vr-music/ If there's anything along those lines that desperately needs the VR treatment, it's the Pink Floyd Laser Spectacular. Bhodi posted:That's clearly not true since there is a thriving market in products for disabled people. Even expensive gadgets. Look up the price and variety of hearing aids sometime. The market is mostly thriving in products which are either meant for relatively common conditions (such as hearing loss, a common symptom of growing old), or which have some significant use for the rest of us (such as VR). For everything else (especially anything which would have to be custom-made, such as prosthetic limbs), the production volume is often going to be so low that the price ends up grossly disproportionate to the technology inside. Pi Mu Rho posted:Yep, that's pretty much what I've been working on in VR terms. Simulations, interactive training materials and technology demonstrations. It might be a niche in gaming, but large enterprises are absolutely mad for it. Training 20+ people at a time to drive a train (as an example) is expensive and time-consuming - you have to build or repurpose a train cab, only one person at a time can use it. Replace that with a bunch of VR-capable PCs and HMDs, and now you can train them all simultaneously, in a conference room, at a fraction of the price. And now the price has come down within reach of not-so-large enterprises. $600-800 might be expensive for a gaming peripheral, but it's peanuts compared to what a decent headset used to cost back in the early years of VR experiments.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
Jaded VR user post. After a couple months with the Vive and some sessions trying out the Rift, the most lingering disappointment so far has been the low resolution. It's so low that after a certain point distant objects cease to be believable. A mountain in real life on a clear day is overflowing with details the eye can't catch or process, which contributes I think to the sensation of awe. In VR that same mountain now reduced to a small batch of pixels begins to look flat and featureless. When you first try VR the scene might overwhelm you, but as your eyes adjust to the tech you begin searching distant objects with more scrutiny. I honestly find it hard to get too immersed anymore. Especially with Project Cars, when the braking point or car you're trying to catch in the distance is a jumbled flickering mess of about 100 pixels square. The lack of peripheral vision also destroys the sense of speed or motion, since you're forced to move your head to bring useful visual information into that central patch of 1,000 or so pixels.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
I'm hoping the faceplate with thinner padding I'm getting next month will increase the FOV on mine a fair bit. I still end up immersed such thast I don't notice the carboard box effect, but the loss of peripheral does make all sorts of things a litte more awkward
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
eggyolk posted:Jaded VR user post. I'm still pretty amazed by VR. Maybe it's a problem in something like Project Cars where it's in the uncanny valley of something that should look real but doesn't. Stuff like Minecraft and Elite Dangerous still amazes me, there's an immersion there I can't find elsewhere. My main disappointment is how uncomfortable the damned things are still for any length of time. I've done every "proper fitting guide" methodology I've seen for the Rift, and while it isn't bad at first, after a couple hours it's unpleasant on either my brow, my cheeks, or both. It really feels to me like it should have a counterweight on the back or something. I read these accounts by people who are like "I hardly feel it, it's like the slightest angel breath on my face" and those people are either damned liars or they have a magical head like a marble.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 02:40
|
|
|
You'd really hate the vive then. You can rotate the front part of the rift up and down. Have you tried that to remove pressure off whatever part of your face it's on?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
eggyolk posted:Jaded VR user post. Just wait a couple years - If VR doesn't completely flop, we'll be seeing a new generation of the Rift and/or Vive. Plus the StarVR headset offers higher resolution (though it's spread out over a much larger FOV, so the image might not be that much sharper).
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 02:51
|
|
|
StarkRavingMad posted:It really feels to me like it should have a counterweight on the back or something. I read these accounts by people who are like "I hardly feel it, it's like the slightest angel breath on my face" and those people are either damned liars or they have a magical head like a marble. That's one of the things Sony figured out. The PSVR sits a little more comfortably and this is especially noticeable for people who can't get a good rift fit I believe.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 02:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 23:46 |
|
|
Cojawfee posted:You'd really hate the vive then. You can rotate the front part of the rift up and down. Have you tried that to remove pressure off whatever part of your face it's on? Yeah, I can make the choice between eventually crushing my forehead or eventually crushing my cheeks. Maybe I just have a horrible misshapen head.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 03:06
|
|