[RUMOUR] Vive 2.0 coming early 2017

[dimitriianghelov]

thx for beta testing

[Sakkura]

2 hours ago, Humbug said:

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.

But that would keep VR a tiny niche. That's not what anyone wants, the install base has to increase. Valve in particular will want that as they're focusing on making money through Steam sales. There's just not much money to be made off the like 0.25% of enthusiasts.

2 hours 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. maybe some kind of hardware-level "anti-aliasing"

The screen door effect is minimized already, with high pixel fill displays. The actual resolution just needs to go up.

2 hours 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.

They are doing supersampling already, in more appropriate ways than DSR.

 

DSR is way too overhyped anyway.

[Sky Daddy]

6 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.

You think the 970 was going to be min spec forever?

 

I'd wager that even next gen VR will require 1070/1080 performance at a minimum

 

we are nowhere close to 'good' vr yet

 

1080x1200 per eye @90fps (current vr) is  only 11.6% 2160x3820 @120fps  (and it seems like 8k per eye may not even be enough)

233,280,000 pixels per second             vs                      1,980,288,000 pixels per second

 

8k vr @200fps is ~13 billion pixels per second lol (current vr is only ~1.7% of that)

 

[AlTech]

34 minutes ago, Sky Daddy said:

You think the 970 was going to be min spec forever?

 

I'd wager that even next gen VR will require 1070/1080 performance at a minimum

 

we are nowhere close to 'good' vr yet

 

1080x1200 per eye @90fps (current vr) is  only 11.6% 2160x3820 @120fps  (and it seems like 8k per eye may not even be enough)

233,280,000 pixels per second             vs                      1,980,288,000 pixels per second

 

8k vr @200fps is ~13 billion pixels per second lol (current vr is only ~1.7% of that)

No but I thought it would be the min spec for at least 2 years.

 

How is 2160x2400 not enough per eye? @120fps

[BuckGup]

19 hours ago, edsdrafts said:

Anyone who forked out their cash on Vive or Rift expecting these to last did not think it all through too well and frankly acted out a bit rash. If you spent money to have it now no matter the cost - that's exactly what you will get. For the rest - sorry, this was just a test.

Both headsets no matter how advanced and good at what they do are first release. Hence the high price and availability issues. In fact both devices will "technically" be on the market for over a year by the time 2017 releases rolls out so you kind of get at least a year out of them.

My expectation is similar screen, lighter unit, much lower price. VR has a ton of challenges going ahead and high price of headset itself is not going to get them anywhere. Both HTC and Facebook knows that. They cashed on initial offerings and now it's time to show the real deal. Time will tell. Anywhere over €300 here in Europe and the PC VR business is a bust. At least for us average consumers. Developers won't inject their cash in limited user base. There will be few but far in between and it needs to spread faster.

Want an example of how fast new inexpensive technology can grow - check Pokemon Go. An absurd idea at a glance but everyone has access and it works. Picked up like nothing ever before.

You will always pay for the latest and greatest there is no getting around it. DDR4 used to be hundreds of dollars more now is the same as DDR3, same with SSDs. A 1TB was well over $1000 and now is less then $400. To say it will flop is very close minded. What we need is better GPUs which can run more randomly created things, and higher res with greater FOV so we can trick our brains even better. The scary thing is even how primitive it is you are immersed. When playing the wii you didn't think you had a tennis racket in your hand but people leaning on ledges in VR and falling over in real life is a pretty crazy concept.

[Sky Daddy]

13 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

No but I thought it would be the min spec for at least 2 years.

 

How is 2160x2400 not enough per eye? @120fps

well, this gen may last 2 years but i can't see a new headset this soon because i doubt they've had enough advances in display tech for a new hmd

 

the pixels per degree(ppd) is about 11, a 108p monitor @31 inches is 51ppd (http://phrogz.net/tmp/ScreenDens2In.html) 

 

the resolution in first gen is hilariously low but it's 'good' enough for now, so low that john carmack is working a vr typography for easier reading of text

 

*side note, it's 2160x1200 (2400 is double the vertical pixels because the display is only 1200 tall but it is 2160 wide)

 

I wouldn't mind if next gen vr only advances with only a slight bump in resolution if only for higher fov and HDR, HDR is indefinitely needed for vr imo and only newer consumer gpus support hdr

 

[Sparviero]

Keep the model T for the masses. Just introduce a GT for the crazy .03 % willing to live off dry instant ramen and the LED glow of dual 1080s.  

[apm]

19 hours ago, edsdrafts said:

Anyone who forked out their cash on Vive or Rift expecting these to last did not think it all through too well and frankly acted out a bit rash. If you spent money to have it now no matter the cost - that's exactly what you will get. For the rest - sorry, this was just a test.

Both headsets no matter how advanced and good at what they do are first release. Hence the high price and availability issues. In fact both devices will "technically" be on the market for over a year by the time 2017 releases rolls out so you kind of get at least a year out of them.

My expectation is similar screen, lighter unit, much lower price. VR has a ton of challenges going ahead and high price of headset itself is not going to get them anywhere. Both HTC and Facebook knows that. They cashed on initial offerings and now it's time to show the real deal. Time will tell. Anywhere over €300 here in Europe and the PC VR business is a bust. At least for us average consumers. Developers won't inject their cash in limited user base. There will be few but far in between and it needs to spread faster.

Want an example of how fast new inexpensive technology can grow - check Pokemon Go. An absurd idea at a glance but everyone has access and it works. Picked up like nothing ever before.

maybe one of the dumbest posts i have read about VR..

VR isnt even really a thing yet and its already dead?

just look at other fairly recent techs, like smartphones, noone thought that we would buy a fucking phone for 500+ bucks. then there was the iphone.

it was so shit and people still bought it like nothing else.

 

it always blows my mind how people can think that VR wont be a thing, they probably didnt even try it.

just imagine the possibilities, events like concerts or WWE, watching movies in a giant theater etc.

it goes way beyond just pure gaming...

 

but i do agree that buying into VR atm is kind of a waste, as there very little games and the gear will get much better too.

[unsubscribed]

1 hour ago, SamStrecker said:

You will always pay for the latest and greatest there is no getting around it. DDR4 used to be hundreds of dollars more now is the same as DDR3, same with SSDs. A 1TB was well over $1000 and now is less then $400. To say it will flop is very close minded. What we need is better GPUs which can run more randomly created things, and higher res with greater FOV so we can trick our brains even better. The scary thing is even how primitive it is you are immersed. When playing the wii you didn't think you had a tennis racket in your hand but people leaning on ledges in VR and falling over in real life is a pretty crazy concept.

I fully understand the mechanics and I only mean what I said for next 5 years. Eventually the tech will catch up. What I meant is to make a big splash it needs to drop pricing big time and fast. I used the Vive and know how immersive it is and I agree with you. The wow factor is there, the problem is the adoption price. It's like Ferrari for the masses at the moment, people use it, get exited and forget about it relatively quickly due to shocking entry "fee". This must change.

[AlTech]

44 minutes ago, apm said:

maybe one of the dumbest posts i have read about VR..

VR isnt even really a thing yet and its already dead?

just look at other fairly recent techs, like smartphones, noone thought that we would buy a fucking phone for 500+ bucks. then there was the iphone.

it was so shit and people still bought it like nothing else.

 

it always blows my mind how people can think that VR wont be a thing, they probably didnt even try it.

just imagine the possibilities, events like concerts or WWE, watching movies in a giant theater etc.

it goes way beyond just pure gaming...

 

but i do agree that buying into VR atm is kind of a waste, as there very little games and the gear will get much better too.

As a hobbyist programmer, I would still focus on PC until VR is a replacement for PCs.

 

PC software and game development is way easier than VR game development or software development.

 

All VR does is adds cost and complexity where people were just compaining

[BuckGup]

16 minutes ago, edsdrafts said:

I fully understand the mechanics and I only mean what I said for next 5 years. Eventually the tech will catch up. What I meant is to make a big splash it needs to drop pricing big time and fast. I used the Vive and know how immersive it is and I agree with you. The wow factor is there, the problem is the adoption price. It's like Ferrari for the masses at the moment, people use it, get exited and forget about it relatively quickly due to shocking entry "fee". This must change.

If they sell it for $599 or $499 then they will sell a ton. I agree the price is pretty steep but does include a lot. Maybe the first round will help lower the price of the second

[Sakkura]

3 hours ago, Sky Daddy said:

You think the 970 was going to be min spec forever?

 

I'd wager that even next gen VR will require 1070/1080 performance at a minimum

 

we are nowhere close to 'good' vr yet

 

1080x1200 per eye @90fps (current vr) is  only 11.6% 2160x3820 @120fps  (and it seems like 8k per eye may not even be enough)

233,280,000 pixels per second             vs                      1,980,288,000 pixels per second

 

8k vr @200fps is ~13 billion pixels per second lol (current vr is only ~1.7% of that)

 

They do need to keep the hardware requirements reasonable though. Otherwise it just kills VR by limiting the install base. So it should stay at GTX 970 level for a while - I think increasing it this winter is too soon, even if it'll be nearly a year from launch.

 

I don't see why you're talking about 120FPS. 90 is fine. And since there's so much room for improvement on resolution, it would be a bad idea to spend any performance on higher refresh/frame rate.

1 hour ago, AluminiumTech said:

As a hobbyist programmer, I would still focus on PC until VR is a replacement for PCs.

 

PC software and game development is way easier than VR game development or software development.

 

All VR does is adds cost and complexity where people were just compaining

On the other hand, there's far less competition in the VR software market. So if you can make something useful with a limited investment, you might get a nice business out of it. Probably most applicable to non-gaming software actually; think Virtual Desktop. Or gaming-enabling stuff like VorpX.

[Sky Daddy]

53 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

They do need to keep the hardware requirements reasonable though. Otherwise it just kills VR by limiting the install base. So it should stay at GTX 970 level for a while - I think increasing it this winter is too soon, even if it'll be nearly a year from launch.

 

I don't see why you're talking about 120FPS. 90 is fine. And since there's so much room for improvement on resolution, it would be a bad idea to spend any performance on higher refresh/frame rate.

On the other hand, there's far less competition in the VR software market. So if you can make something useful with a limited investment, you might get a nice business out of it. Probably most applicable to non-gaming software actually; think Virtual Desktop. Or gaming-enabling stuff like VorpX.

970 is for this cycle only, which will probably last ~2 years or more

 

that being said, im sure by the time the next hmd releases you will be able to grab a ~$250 gpu that is required and only 

 

also, like a mentioned before, HDR is going to be necessary for good vr and not many consumer gpus even support that right now (10x0/polaris does)

 

 

[Humbug]

7 hours ago, Sakkura said:

But that would keep VR a tiny niche. That's not what anyone wants, the install base has to increase. Valve in particular will want that as they're focusing on making money through Steam sales. There's just not much money to be made off the like 0.25% of enthusiasts.

There will be multiple models available, not everybody will go for the most expensive high res options.

[Sakkura]

3 hours ago, Sky Daddy said:

970 is for this cycle only, which will probably last ~2 years or more

 

that being said, im sure by the time the next hmd releases you will be able to grab a ~$250 gpu that is required and only 

 

also, like a mentioned before, HDR is going to be necessary for good vr and not many consumer gpus even support that right now (10x0/polaris does)

Right, but we're talking about a hypothetical situation of a cycle lasting less than 1 year. Then moving beyond a 970 performance level is problematic.

28 minutes ago, Humbug said:

There will be multiple models available, not everybody will go for the most expensive high res options.

Fragmentation is not a good thing.

[Humbug]

6 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

Fragmentation is not a good thing.

ok

let's all switch to 1080p 60Hz monitors.

then we can have a fixed GPU spec for all pc gamers.

[LAwLz]

6 hours ago, Sakkura said:

Fragmentation is not a good thing.

Fragmentation does not matter. Wanna know why? Because on PC we have this thing called "graphics options". If your computer can't handle a certain game at certain settings then you can dial them down a bit. Fragmentation has never been an issue on PC, because they are built with flexibility in mind.

[AlTech]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

Fragmentation does not matter. Wanna know why? Because on PC we have this thing called "graphics options". If your computer can't handle a certain game at certain settings then you can dial them down a bit. Fragmentation has never been an issue on PC, because they are built with flexibility in mind.

Graphics options are only there to counter act stupid buying decisions people make.

 

The only reason they exist is to justify buying a worse or better GPU or CPU instead of another.

 

Honestly, most graphics settings except resolution, FOV and AA should be removed because it creates a big divide as to how people experience the game.

 

Keep the best graphics settings as the only graphics settings for existing games and just leave resolution, FOV, AA and full screen on or off as well as power saver. Everything else should be cut so that more people have a similar experience. The point of releasing a game to many people is to have as similar an experience as possible except the fact that not everybody has the same hardware.

 

So instead you can see for example: GPU A runs Game X at 60fps at 1080p but GPU B runs the same game at 24fps.

 

This way FPS is directly tied to your hardware purchase and is more indicative of what you'll get.

 

 

In an ideal world everyone would play the game and get the same graphics quality and fps but perhaps with a different resolution or FOV.

[LAwLz]

14 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

Graphics options are only there to counter act stupid buying decisions people make.

 

The only reason they exist is to justify buying a worse or better GPU or CPU instead of another.

 

Honestly, most graphics settings except resolution, FOV and AA should be removed because it creates a big divide as to how people experience the game.

 

Keep the best graphics settings as the only graphics settings for existing games and just leave resolution, FOV, AA and full screen on or off as well as power saver. Everything else should be cut so that more people have a similar experience. The point of releasing a game to many people is to have as similar an experience as possible except the fact that not everybody has the same hardware.

 

So instead you can see for example: GPU A runs Game X at 60fps at 1080p but GPU B runs the same game at 24fps.

 

This way FPS is directly tied to your hardware purchase and is more indicative of what you'll get.

 

 

In an ideal world everyone would play the game and get the same graphics quality and fps but perhaps with a different resolution or FOV.

I can't tell if you are sarcastic or serious. If you're serious then this is one of the dumbest things I have read all year.

I don't even know how to respond to your post because it is so ludicrous.

[porina]

Back to an earlier question on how early adopters might feel about a refresh, I did have a bit of a think. I'm thinking, most of the VR system will likely be the same, maybe only the headset is upgraded. So maybe they could offer headset-only sales to existing users. Maybe offer a one-off discount if you can prove ownership of the early one. 

[suicidalfranco]

2 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

Graphics options are only there to counter act stupid buying decisions people make.

 

The only reason they exist is to justify buying a worse or better GPU or CPU instead of another.

 

Honestly, most graphics settings except resolution, FOV and AA should be removed because it creates a big divide as to how people experience the game.

 

Keep the best graphics settings as the only graphics settings for existing games and just leave resolution, FOV, AA and full screen on or off as well as power saver. Everything else should be cut so that more people have a similar experience. The point of releasing a game to many people is to have as similar an experience as possible except the fact that not everybody has the same hardware.

 

So instead you can see for example: GPU A runs Game X at 60fps at 1080p but GPU B runs the same game at 24fps.

 

This way FPS is directly tied to your hardware purchase and is more indicative of what you'll get.

 

 

In an ideal world everyone would play the game and get the same graphics quality and fps but perhaps with a different resolution or FOV.

[TheMidnightNarwhal]

On 7/16/2016 at 7:57 AM, 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.

 

What. Looks like you're totally clueless about vr.

[TheMidnightNarwhal]

2 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

Graphics options are only there to counter act stupid buying decisions people make.

 

The only reason they exist is to justify buying a worse or better GPU or CPU instead of another.

 

Honestly, most graphics settings except resolution, FOV and AA should be removed because it creates a big divide as to how people experience the game.

 

Keep the best graphics settings as the only graphics settings for existing games and just leave resolution, FOV, AA and full screen on or off as well as power saver. Everything else should be cut so that more people have a similar experience. The point of releasing a game to many people is to have as similar an experience as possible except the fact that not everybody has the same hardware.

 

So instead you can see for example: GPU A runs Game X at 60fps at 1080p but GPU B runs the same game at 24fps.

 

This way FPS is directly tied to your hardware purchase and is more indicative of what you'll get.

 

 

In an ideal world everyone would play the game and get the same graphics quality and fps but perhaps with a different resolution or FOV.

 

If you want a great experience but whatever the way you like it get a PC. If you want everyone to have the same exact shitty experience get a console.

[Sakkura]

3 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Fragmentation does not matter. Wanna know why? Because on PC we have this thing called "graphics options". If your computer can't handle a certain game at certain settings then you can dial them down a bit. Fragmentation has never been an issue on PC, because they are built with flexibility in mind.

Fragmentation was a problem when games would require EGA and some people only had CGA. We've just outgrown the problem for monitors.

 

It's going to be difficult to design a game to look good across a wide variety of resolutions (and display quality levels more generally), because of the design limitations that are currently imposed.

[Ohlyver]

On 16/07/2016 at 7:53 AM, Master Disaster said:

 there's going to be a shitstorm created by all the people who have just forked out $700 for the current model. Its reasonable to expect at least 12 months out of a brand new piece of hardware before it gets replaced with a shinier new model.

#Apple#Iphone#6months

Fanatics will forget it in a heartbeat