PlayStation just killed PC VR

[dan3a]

3 minutes ago, themrsbusta said:

Accessory is anything to "enhance" the normal experience, is not required and is not essential, is an accessory.

If it's not an accessory, sold your TV/Monitor and just uses the VR as it's not necessary anything else, right?

You can technically do that.

With a VR headset you're not getting the "normal experience", and it is required and essential to get that experience.

[themrsbusta]

6 minutes ago, dan3a said:

You can technically do that.

With a VR headset you're not getting the "normal experience", and it is required and essential to get that experience.

So you are telling me that a TV/Monitor can't do exactly the same thing as a VR Headset but with the only difference that is the screen is in your face and the image is moving with your head?

 

As exactly the same thing I'm saying: "show the screen image".

[dan3a]

5 minutes ago, themrsbusta said:

So you are telling me that a TV/Monitor can't do exactly the same thing as a VR Headset but with the only difference that is the screen is in your face and the image is moving with your head?

That's already a huge difference, and factor in the fact you have control over your hands. If you've never experienced that, it's truly magical.

[themrsbusta]

2 minutes ago, dan3a said:

That's already a huge difference, and factor in the fact you have control over your hands. I've you've never experiences that, it's truly magical.

lol, you reminds me people talking about 3D movies back in 2009

[dan3a]

4 minutes ago, themrsbusta said:

lol, you reminds me people talking about 3D movies back in 2009

Guess I really can't make up your mind, oh well I tried.

[papajo]

6 hours ago, dan3a said:

while VR gives a whole other experience, and is then not an accessory.

This is the definition of an accessory e.g using a pen/stylus instead of a mouse it is a whole other experience... 

Also as the experience itself goes, what can you do with a VR set except playing games (some games, and 99% of them toilet games)and maybe watch adult videos ? 

It is an accessory for playing games it has no other use case. It is an alternative to a TV set 

[dogwitch]

what interesting with this product.  is they claimed to have hdr. but it seems it was pulled.

  in require by usa fed law spec sheet. no where is in listed for the product.

only spot their is even a req is in a blog post.

[bluehawk]

Curious on also getting a perspective from those of us with borked eyeballs that need glasses. I just couldn't get into VR because it wasn't comfortable for me on top of my glasses.

[papajo]

2 hours ago, dogwitch said:

what interesting with this product.  is they claimed to have hdr. but it seems it was pulled.

  in require by usa fed law spec sheet. no where is in listed for the product.

only spot their is even a req is in a blog post.

and in this video where linus notices it having HDR

[dogwitch]

5 hours ago, papajo said:

and in this video where linus notices it having HDR

that oled and sony fake hdr.

which they also use on ps5.

its also against fed law on testing thing i ref to lie to the gov about..

 

[05032-Mendicant-Bias]

I play lots of single player games that I think would benefit from VR immersiveness (Skyrim, No Man's Sky, Satisfactory, etc...), and I have a PC that is powerful enough to run VR. I always skipped VR for a few reasons:

1) I play long sessions. 
2) I have glasses, and it looks even less comfortable with that. Some VR sets support corrective optics inside the glasses, but that's just an extra point of failure.

3) I really don't want to give money to the metaverse efforts.

 

Once the metaverse buzzword dies, and VR sets get sharp, affordable, and confortable for long sessions, I'll consider trying it. The sooner facebook goes bankrupt, the better.

[Minystreem]

19 hours ago, themrsbusta said:

Sir, you are the exception of the exception...for 99% of the world is too heavy, too big, requires a big empty space, most of the time can't be used sit down, doesn't work with all games and is so expensive that you will look and think: Why should I buy this instead a better graphics card?

I play vr

[Minystreem]

Are you guys aware of air link for the quest, also what do you mean by virtal IPD ajustment, the quest has 3 positions for IPD

[DANK_AS_gay]

13 minutes ago, Minystreem said:

the quest has 3 positions for IPD

There aren't only three IPDs in existence. In order to get it exactly right, you have to have fine adjustment, three positions is not fine.

[tkitch]

18 hours ago, papajo said:

It is easy to determine

The quest 1 has a resolution of 1400*1600 per eye so in total 2800*3200 that's a little bit higher than 4K 

and on top of that you need the GPU to be able to render at least at 75Hz at that resolution (cuz that's about the refreshrate of quest 1) 

So you need to see at game benchmarks and see which GPUs can play 4K at above ~85ish average FPS . 

your math is very very bad here.

 

You're doubling what the actual resolution it renders is.

[Minystreem]

33 minutes ago, DANK_AS_gay said:

There aren't only three IPDs in existence. In order to get it exactly right, you have to have fine adjustment, three positions is not fine.

I agree, but in the video linus says that the psvr has REAL IPD ajustments, also I'm pretty sure you can ajust the ipd halfway between the clicks.

[Cyberspirit]

16 hours ago, bluehawk said:

Curious on also getting a perspective from those of us with borked eyeballs that need glasses. I just couldn't get into VR because it wasn't comfortable for me on top of my glasses.

VR is totally doable with bad eyesight. You just need to use a prescription lens over the VR headset's lenses.

 

Like these: https://vroptician.com

 

You just pop them over the normal lenses and you are good to go. I play VR for 10+ hours sometimes, usual is about 5-6 and I have no issues with it.

[papajo]

3 hours ago, tkitch said:

your math is very very bad here.

 

You're doubling what the actual resolution it renders is.

So my math isnt bad but my lack of understand that the "actual resolution"  it renders is different is your objection, do you have any link about that ? (in game compatibility, performance increasing settings do not count if this is what you mean) 

[papajo]

12 minutes ago, Cyberspirit said:

VR is totally doable with bad eyesight. You just need to use a prescription lens over the VR headset's lenses.

 

Like these: https://vroptician.com

 

You just pop them over the normal lenses and you are good to go. I play VR for 10+ hours sometimes, usual is about 5-6 and I have no issues with it.

Do you remove the fresnel lenses  in order to install the prescription ones? 

[tkitch]

1 hour ago, papajo said:

So my math isnt bad but my lack of understand that the "actual resolution"  it renders is different is your objection, do you have any link about that ? (in game compatibility, performance increasing settings do not count if this is what you mean) 

you may be correct about the resolution of the displays, but with 2 screens you only double ONE number, not both.  Your math was like it's rendering 4 displays, not 2.

So they're roughly a bit over QHD pixel numbers.

 

IE:  2x 1080 displays is not 4K.  It's half of 4K.

 

So using your 1400*1600 resolution (I have no idea if that's accurate, but it doesn't matter for this math.)

1400*1600 = 2.24M Pixels
2 Displays = 4.48M Pixels

QHD = 3.69M Pixels

UHD = 8.29M Pixels

 

So, saying it's rendering the quivilant 4K is very very wrong.

[Vishera]

18 hours ago, bluehawk said:

Curious on also getting a perspective from those of us with borked eyeballs that need glasses. I just couldn't get into VR because it wasn't comfortable for me on top of my glasses.

If you are near-sighted then you can get away with wearing no glasses with VR headsets.

But if you are far-sighted you will have to use glasses in order to see anything with VR headsets

[papajo]

42 minutes ago, tkitch said:

you may be correct about the resolution of the displays, but with 2 screens you only double ONE number, not both.  Your math was like it's rendering 4 displays, not 2.

So they're roughly a bit over QHD pixel numbers.

 

IE:  2x 1080 displays is not 4K.  It's half of 4K.

 

So using your 1400*1600 resolution (I have no idea if that's accurate, but it doesn't matter for this math.)

1400*1600 = 2.24M Pixels
2 Displays = 4.48M Pixels

QHD = 3.69M Pixels

UHD = 8.29M Pixels

 

So, saying it's rendering the quivilant 4K is very very wrong.

That's not how any of this works. 

If you have two screens you add their total resolution.... 

Forget about VR this may confuse you 

look at this 




If these are 4K monitor screens and this guy uses both to play a game at the native resolution of each screen the graphics card is going to render 8K  (4K + 4K) 


What you dont add up but keep "as is" is the refresh rate of the screens.... 


In VR your eyes see  one "picture" but that's not because there is one screen inside the headset.. that's because your brain gets tricked.... but your brain and your GPU are two totally different things. 

[papajo]

< removed by moderation >

 

1 hour ago, papajo said:

That's not how any of this works. 

If you have two screens you add their total resolution.... 

Forget about VR this may confuse you 

look at this 




If these are 4K monitor screens and this guy uses both to play a game at the native resolution of each screen the graphics card is going to render 8K  (4K + 4K) 


What you dont add up but keep "as is" is the refresh rate of the screens.... 


In VR your eyes see  one "picture" but that's not because there is one screen inside the headset.. that's because your brain gets tricked.... but your brain and your GPU are two totally different things. 

here 

is 100% correct

and also what I said in my initial post

I just realized what he meant that I used wrong numbers to calculate the total resolution of the quest  instead of 2* (1600*1400)  I did (2*1600 * 2*1400)

And now it makes sense why he says the math is off but I didnt even thing about the numbers I thought about how it works and he saying taht you use only one resolution got me thinking that he thinks that because you perceive one image when using VR you use a common vertical resolution and just add the horizontal since he said something about "fake resolution" and
 

 

2 hours ago, tkitch said:

but with 2 screens you only double ONE number

which purely arithmetically may have the same result but that's not how it works you add the resolutions of each screen it so happens that from an numerical perspective adding 2 resolutions is the same as multiplying their horizontal and vertical resolution and only doubling one of it... (the same can not be said of course if we were talking about 3 it is just a coincidence that this numerically works for 2)

< removed by moderation >

Edited March 6, 2023 by LogicalDrm

[tkitch]

16 minutes ago, papajo said:

If these are 4K monitor screens and this guy uses both to play a game at the native resolution of each screen the graphics card is going to render 8K  (4K + 4K) 

What you dont add up but keep "as is" is the refresh rate of the screens.... 

Okay I'll throw you a little bone here:

4x FHD (1080) Screens = 1x 4K Screen for pixel count

4x UHD (4K) Screens = 1x 8K Screen for pixel count

I have absolutely no clue where you get your math from, but that's legitimately completely wrong.

[emosun]

i dont get it , its still a stupid thing you have to wear on your face that nobody wants to use or support.

i thought ltt was avoiding VR content like the plague what happened?