[RUMOUR] Vive 2.0 coming early 2017

[byalexandr]

11 hours ago, Supermangik said:

I'm sorry, but I just don't feel like VR will be the next new gaming experience. It's literally just another Wii, but you're viewing it through goggles.

???

 

How does fucking bowling with some sticks in your hand compare to being a different world?

[cozz]

2 hours ago, Sky Daddy said:

VR is going to need a lot before it becomes mainstream

 

much higher res and FOV, HDR, better tracking, gvs 

Hopefully version 2 accomplishes all this 

[Derangel]

31 minutes ago, cozz said:

Hopefully version 2 accomplishes all this 

I wouldn't count on it. Version 2 will most likely just be a minor update. Screen tech hasn't really advanced much in the last year and HTC/Valve will probably want to try to bring the price down a little bit. So probably lighter, maybe better looking, possibly some tweaks to the internal design, and so on. Version 3 will probably be when we see major changes.

[Sakkura]

7 hours ago, dizmo said:

Sweet! I think they should just call it a Vive S or something though, not a whole new iteration. They're probably just doing smart tweaks to the headset, not putting in new panels or wireless compatibility or anything. I won't buy a Vive until the headsets are wireless and of a higher resolution, I don't see that taking more than a couple of years.

Wireless won't happen soon, it will have to wait until mobile VR takes over (for high quality VR, it's already here at the low end). 

4 hours ago, WereCat said:

After trying Vive I know that I don't want it yet. The experience was great but it is so apparent that they still have a long way to go. Especially when it costs almost €900 here in EU. I will first throw my money on 4k monitor.

Maybe V3.0 or 4.0 will be when I will be buying it. Not now.

What do you mean almost €900, it's a thousand when you include shipping. 

[cozz]

2 minutes ago, Derangel said:

I wouldn't count on it. Version 2 will most likely just be a minor update. Screen tech hasn't really advanced much in the last year and HTC/Valve will probably want to try to bring the price down a little bit. So probably lighter, maybe better looking, possibly some tweaks to the internal design, and so on. Version 3 will probably be when we see major changes.

Yeah I agree with you, I don't think we'll see a 4K 120hz display in a headset anytime soon, but we are getting that tech in monitors this year anyway, with ASUS already preparing a 4K 120hz, and 5K 60hz also on the way, it won't be long before we see these kind of displays coming into VR, like you said, won't be version 2 but most likely version 3 and 4. I'm super excited for the future of VR

[WereCat]

32 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

Wireless won't happen soon, it will have to wait until mobile VR takes over (for high quality VR, it's already here at the low end). 

What do you mean almost €900, it's a thousand when you include shipping. 

I can get it in one of few local e-shops with free or cheap shipping.

[AlTech]

12 hours ago, Sky Daddy said:

VR is going to need a lot before it becomes mainstream

 

much higher res and FOV, HDR, better tracking, gvs 

Higher resolution won't be possible to keep in line the spec of a GTX 970 or better.

 

Higher resolution would mean like GTX 980 or R9 Fury or better.

 

Same for FOV.

[laminutederire]

As everyone stated : their next step is affordability if they want to make it viable.

[Sakkura]

10 hours ago, WereCat said:

I can get it in one of few local e-shops with free or cheap shipping.

Ah, nice.

2 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

Higher resolution won't be possible to keep in line the spec of a GTX 970 or better.

 

Higher resolution would mean like GTX 980 or R9 Fury or better.

 

Same for FOV.

Even a modest bump in resolution, to maybe 1280x1440 per eye (over 1080x1200 per eye), would increase the GPU demand more than a GTX 980 or R9 Fury outperforms a GTX 970. It's 42% more pixels.

 

And let's not even talk about 4K.

[Derangel]

1 hour ago, laminutederire said:

As everyone stated : their next step is affordability if they want to make it viable.

It would be great if they could knock $100 off of the price without sacrificing reliability or anything like that. It's probably not likely, but it would be amazing. Even a $50 drop in price would be good.

 

18 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

Ah, nice.

Even a modest bump in resolution, to maybe 1280x1440 per eye (over 1080x1200 per eye), would increase the GPU demand more than a GTX 980 or R9 Fury outperforms a GTX 970. It's 42% more pixels.

 

And let's not even talk about 4K.

Yeah. At that point you'd be looking at ideally needing, at least, 1070 or even 1080 level performance.

[Humbug]

2 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

Higher resolution won't be possible to keep in line the spec of a GTX 970 or better.

 

Higher resolution would mean like GTX 980 or R9 Fury or better.

 

Same for FOV.

of course but that's expected.

but all it means is that people who want to experience the full benefit of higher res HMDs would need to invest in better GPUs.

gtx 970 or r9 290 or rx480 will continue to be the baseline recommendation for getting into VR.

the oculus rift and htc vive currently have a resolution of 1080x1200 per eye

at some point I see future steamVR HMDs switching to 2160x2400 per eye. Perfect scaling for people who can't drive the full res.

 

btw already all the games are using slight supersampling and rendering internally at higher resolutions than the actual display before downscaling for various reasons such as anti-aliasing purposes. People with adequate GPU horsepower are already messing with steamVR config files to force higher supersampling presets and improve image clarity.

[porina]

2 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

Higher resolution won't be possible to keep in line the spec of a GTX 970 or better.

 

Higher resolution would mean like GTX 980 or R9 Fury or better.

 

Same for FOV.

The 970-level of performance isn't going to be around forever. Sooner or later it will start rising. So call it the Vive Pro or something and have higher specs all round, including the computer related spec to drive it.

[laminutederire]

14 minutes ago, Derangel said:

It would be great if they could knock $100 off of the price without sacrificing reliability or anything like that. It's probably not likely, but it would be amazing. Even a $50 drop in price would be good.

To me it should be under 300$ to become popular enough.

[Derangel]

9 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

To me it should be under 300$ to become popular enough.

 

$300 is a good sweet spot for the tech but it will take several years before we see high quality HMDs at that price. I'd like to see the 2nd generation of the Vive drop $50-$100 though. It would be a nice start in getting the price down to a more mainstream level.

[Humbug]

12 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

To me it should be under 300$ to become popular enough

popular enough for what?

[Humbug]

the future of PC VR is not just gonna be the HTC Vive 2. expect a lot of HMDs to become available and compete in that space, they will be compatible with all the HTC Vive games.

the technology in the lighthouse tracking, the controllers, most of the HMD etc was designed by Valve. It looks like  they intentionally kept their name of the final product and didn't take a cut on hardware sales because they wanted steamVR long-term to become a playground where lots of IHVs could compete and move forward, while valve can keeping benefitting from software sales on steam. HTC was an experienced hardware company and capable of taking that R&D and not only creating a release quality product but also manufacturing in bulk, so HTC is part of the reason they were able to surpass oculus.

 

but going forward I feel there will be many vendors iterating.

[laminutederire]

22 minutes ago, Humbug said:

popular enough for what?

Enough to be adopted in a large scale. Large enough for games to be seriously developed for it.

[manikyath]

15 hours ago, Sky Daddy said:

VR is going to need a lot before it becomes mainstream

 

much higher res and FOV, HDR, better tracking, gvs 

and that's why we need a few more iterations of headsets, and gpu technology to take some more leaps

[manikyath]

2 minutes ago, Arokhantos said:

Hopefully higher res, if tryit oculus already did't try vive yet though, but with oculus i can count the pixels

thats actually harder to implement than it seems, if you happen to have a phone with a 1080p or higher display, rub it onto your face and you'll see pixels

 

i feel like it'll take a new kind of display technology that "solves" the "mesh" between pixels, rather than just stuffing more of them onto your face in order to remove that issue. maybe some kind of hardware-level "anti-aliasing"

[manikyath]

1 minute ago, Arokhantos said:

 

Or just DSR the low res, not sure if DSR works on VR yet though and how much sharper things would get.

you'd still get the "counting pixels mesh" effect

[Humbug]

4 minutes ago, manikyath said:

thats actually harder to implement than it seems, if you happen to have a phone with a 1080p or higher display, rub it onto your face and you'll see pixels

 

i feel like it'll take a new kind of display technology that "solves" the "mesh" between pixels, rather than just stuffing more of them onto your face in order to remove that issue.

nah... 8K per eye ought to do it.

http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/abrash/when-it-comes-to-resolution-its-all-relative/

[manikyath]

3 minutes ago, Humbug said:

nah... 8K per eye ought to do it.

http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/abrash/when-it-comes-to-resolution-its-all-relative/

that's gonna be a nightmare to drive tho

[AlTech]

1 hour ago, Derangel said:

It would be great if they could knock $100 off of the price without sacrificing reliability or anything like that. It's probably not likely, but it would be amazing. Even a $50 drop in price would be good.

 

Yeah. At that point you'd be looking at ideally needing, at least, 1070 or even 1080 level performance.

I'm waiting for like  a $300 drop to consider buying it.

[Humbug]

5 minutes ago, manikyath said:

that's gonna be a nightmare to drive tho

Yep, don't expect that kind of GPU horsepower even on expensive products for another 7 years.

But I think for now 2160x2400 per eye will be a vastly superior experience to current HMDs, and that is doable.

[manikyath]

2 minutes ago, Humbug said:

Yep, don't expect that kind of GPU horsepower even on expensive products for another 7 years.

But I think for now 2160x2400 per eye will be a vastly superior experience to current HMDs, and that is doable.

i wonder if making the image *slightly* blurry may do the trick.

 

i have this ancient (like yoda) 640x480 projector, and it very much has the screen door effect when set sharp, which can be less than pleasurable when gaming, although setting it out of focus just a tad blurs together the edges of the pixels, removing the "screen door" without actually blurring the image.