|
Ars Technica have a decent hands-on with Link and the hand tracking.Ars Technica posted:Quest Link introduces obvious, acceptable compromises, and that means anyone who prefers PC-VR and ponied up for a dedicated computer VR system should chill out on their buyer's remorse. Quest Link is cool in a pinch, not the ultimate PC-VR option. Which makes sense. If someone's sure they will only ever want to use it tethered then the S is a better headset for less money, but for most people the extra options from the Quest make it a more attractive alternative.
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2019 13:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 06:43 |
|
|
chaosapiant posted:So the Quest, when tethered, is not a good thing? Is it still an upgrade from the OG Oculus Rift? Compared to the OG Rift it should generally be a solid upgrade, but much like Rift to Rift S there will be some small trade-offs. The framerate is slightly lower, it sounds like there's some latency if you go looking for it, and some people like the new audio and tracking systems less than the old ones. If you have an OG Rift and don't care about mobile use I'd say Quest Link is in a similar position to Rift S; they're both upgrades but maybe not worth it unless you have money to burn or you can get a good resale price for your OG. Most people are going to care about mobile, though, which makes it an attractive proposition.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2019 16:13
|
|
|
Happy Noodle Boy posted:Is there any reason the Link can’t be like 2 USB-C or even the same setup as the S/Original? Just seems odd to me the limit yourself to one port but I guess if one work well enough then why bother with anything else. Because the Quest already exists and only has one USB-C port. If tethering it to a PC had been their goal from the start then potentially they could have built it with an extra HDMI port and a display controller, but even giving them the benefit of the doubt that they intended to do so that would still have added cost and weight. AndrewP posted:Okay. I'm not a VR snob who demands the latest and greatest in all aspects, but I generally feel like close-to-perfect latency and tracking are of supreme importance just to make VR "work". But I suppose there is a margin of latency that's still okay and hopefully the Link is within it. I think it's just that there are different kinds of latency, and different reviewers will be commenting on different aspects of their 5-minute demo. Head rotation latency is the most important and with the Link it should be as good as it is everywhere else, since it's doing reprojection on the headset. What the Link will definitely add is some amounts of head position latency and controller tracking latency, which are generally much less of an issue for immersion and often won't be noticeable unless you're doing something that requires really fast and precise head or hand movement - like our old friend Beat Saber. Of course for that specific case you can just
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2019 18:44
|
|
|
sigher posted:What? This is like, the biggest thing for me in terms of VR that I want solved. Always having something in your hands sucks and having super fine motor controls is amazing. The barriers to hand tracking aren't really technical; ever since the days of people gaffa-taping LeapMotions to the front of their DK1s we've had the ability to do accurate hand and finger tracking in VR. The problem is it just doesn't feel good. There's no tactile feedback at all, not even the sense of holding something, so most of the actions you actually want to do in games end up feeling floaty and imprecise in spite of the tech. As Stick100 says, remember the lesson of Kinect: Buttons are actually good.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2019 22:06
|
|
|
KakerMix posted:You can't be serious Ostensibly the reason is that they want to make sure games are using their API directly rather than using it through a wrapper layer which might In practice I think it's just pettiness at this point.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2019 23:16
|
|
|
Turin Turambar posted:My $.02: hold your horses people. This isn't the first time a company / product has a 'strong' or draconian ToS, but lots of times it's there just in case, it's another thing to actually enforce it. As I say, lots of companies don't really enforce their own ToS, because it isn't practical, or popular. The maintainer of the main Quest BeatSaber mod has stopped updating it because of this policy, so even if you don't believe Oculus will follow through on bans the policy has still had concrete effects for people. Mostly this just seems like bad news for Beat Games; since they still haven't put in their own song creation tools this is just another opportunity for a free app to come in and snatch their market from under them. Ironically a sideloaded SuperSaber-like that links songs from Youtube rather than downloading them doesn't seem like it would fall foul of Oculus' ToS at all.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2019 14:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 06:43 |
|
|
EbolaIvory posted:I don't know how they would. There has to be a way to push APKs to consumer hardware to test before uploading to oculus for larger scale testing. Since it requires an account and central permissions they could introduce a charge for it, like Apple do for iOS. A fee of $100 a year wouldn't kill personal sideloading but it would discourage it, especially for people who only want it so they can skip paying $30 for Beat Saber.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2019 19:54
|
|