Is it possible to have 120fps VR?

[maxzug2]

Is it possible to have 120fps VR or do you think we will need to wait a bit, if so how long do you think well need to wait?

[Oshino Shinobu]

I'd expect the next generation of VR headsets to come in at 120Hz or higher. Higher Hz and FPS is going to be a necessary step for VR.

[Princess Luna]

yes it is possible you just need a strong graphics card, and perhaps an optimized game? in VR the whole resolution for both eyes usually is much higher than if in a screen thus why the frames drop so much, but if you try to play like half-life 2 using a 1080ti you can get as much frames as your vr set can support in refresh frequency.

[domandric034]

7 minutes ago, maxzug2 said:

Is it possible to have 120fps VR or do you think we will need to wait a bit, if so how long do you think well need to wait?

Yes with 3x 1080 Ti in SLI

[maxzug2]

Should Linus have a go at this?

[domandric034]

Just now, maxzug2 said:

Should Linus have a go at this?

Wait for i9's and he has project.

[DrMikeNZ]

6 minutes ago, maxzug2 said:

Is it possible to have 120fps VR or do you think we will need to wait a bit, if so how long do you think well need to wait?

If a GTX970 can provide 90fps in VR, then a high end GPU won't have issues providing the needed frames to the screens.

The currently available PC VR headsets only have 90hz screens, so you will need to wait for new headsets.

The resolution of the VR headsets is abysmal though and looks absolutely disgusting, imo.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, DrMikeNZ said:

If a GTX970 can provide 90fps in VR, then a high end GPU won't have issues providing the needed frames to the screens.

 

I don't think it works like that as a 1080ti will run the games at a higher graphical setting, so you would need some power to get it to the max settings and then to 120fps, atleast I think.

[mremannn]

maybe depends on the com and the vr device

[DrMikeNZ]

6 hours ago, Abyss Gaming said:

I don't think it works like that as a 1080ti will run the games at a higher graphical setting, so you would need some power to get it to the max settings and then to 120fps, atleast I think.

The 1080 Ti has more than enough headroom to provide excellent VR graphics at 120fps.

VR technologies work by auto adjusting graphics quality to ensure the target frame rate is constantly met. This can mean that a low end GPU will drop graphics quality in complex scenes, and not be powerful enough to run more demanding games. If you move the bar to 120fps, the achievable graphics will be slightly worse by the GPU compared to 90fps, although there is more than enough headroom to have both.

[vanished]

Of course there's no "framerate of the eye", but I've heard that the point where improvements are generally unnoticeable is in the mid 200s, so I'd like to see 240 Hz in VR personally.

 

As for resolution, again our eyes present a conundrum.  The sharpest part in the centre has an incredibly high "ppi" but it's a relatively small area, while comparatively less resolution covers the rest of our field of view.  The trouble this presents game makers and VR headset makers is how to achieve the best possible look efficiently.  I believe that it's been calculated that to cover the human field of view with the ppi of our sharpest point would be hundreds of MP - enough to make 8K look like 800 x 600.  Luckily, as I said, only a small part of the eye sees this well so there's no need to render games at such a high res - they could render a small area in the middle at something like 1080p or 1440p, covering the rest with about as much again (of course at a much lower ppi), and use eye tracking to render the part you're looking at in high detail, skimping on the rest.  The problem is this still leaves the need for a super massively high-res display, even if you don't have to render all of it.

 

For this reason, I think truly life-like VR (at least in terms of hz and res) is mainly held back by manufacturing and cost at this point, since it won't be long until quad 1440p 240 Hz is doable with high end cards (especially at the low detail present in most VR games).

[PlayStation 2]

I think our big concern is not if we have the horsepower to drive 120fps VR, but do we have technology decent enough for the VR headsets to do an equivalent refresh rate.

[Sakkura]

10 hours ago, maxzug2 said:

Is it possible to have 120fps VR or do you think we will need to wait a bit, if so how long do you think well need to wait?

It is already possible today. The Playstation VR is capable of 120FPS already.

 

Just... the PS4 is pretty weak, so only a few very lo-fi games can run in that mode. Most of them run 60FPS with interpolated frames for the 120Hz panels in the headset.

10 hours ago, Oshino Shinobu said:

I'd expect the next generation of VR headsets to come in at 120Hz or higher. Higher Hz and FPS is going to be a necessary step for VR.

I disagree. 120FPS/120Hz is not a necessary or particularly beneficial improvement. 90 is pretty much good enough for now. It's much more important to improve the resolution, instead of wasting performance on a higher framerate.

[DXMember]

http://www.starvr.com/

http://www.osvr.org/

[Sakkura]

2 hours ago, DrMikeNZ said:

VR technologies work by auto adjusting graphics quality to ensure the target frame rate is constantly met.

That is not the norm. Valve was betting on that solution, but it hasn't proven particularly popular with devs so far, as far as I'm aware.

[DXMember]

2 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Of course there's no "framerate of the eye", but I've heard that the point where improvements are generally unnoticeable is in the mid 200s, so I'd like to see 240 Hz in VR personally.

 

As for resolution, again our eyes present a conundrum.  The sharpest part in the centre has an incredibly high "ppi" but it's a relatively small area, while comparatively less resolution covers the rest of our field of view.  The trouble this presents game makers and VR headset makers is how to achieve the best possible look efficiently.  I believe that it's been calculated that to cover the human field of view with the ppi of our sharpest point would be hundreds of MP - enough to make 8K look like 800 x 600.  Luckily, as I said, only a small part of the eye sees this well so there's no need to render games at such a high res - they could render a small area in the middle at something like 1080p or 1440p, covering the rest with about as much again (of course at a much lower ppi), and use eye tracking to render the part you're looking at in high detail, skimping on the rest.  The problem is this still leaves the need for a super massively high-res display, even if you don't have to render all of it.

 

For this reason, I think truly life-like VR (at least in terms of hz and res) is mainly held back by manufacturing and cost at this point, since it won't be long until quad 1440p 240 Hz is doable with high end cards (especially at the low detail present in most VR games).

I believe Raja Koduri set a goal to have 8K per eye, when that's met he's dun with graphics and can retire

I think it was most pronounced at Capsaicin event but mentioned at multiple presentations and interviews before and after

[Oshino Shinobu]

3 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

I disagree. 120FPS/120Hz is not a necessary or particularly beneficial improvement. 90 is pretty much good enough for now. It's much more important to improve the resolution, instead of wasting performance on a higher framerate.

Still think it's going to be a necessary step. Obviously, resolution is also going to need to be improved, but you're not damaging performance by increasing the refresh rate of the headset. High max refresh rates with variable refresh rate "panels" seems like the way to go for me. We already have high Hz 4K+ panels around (or at least in development) so I don't see it as being a matter of one or the other and in that sense, having a higher refresh rate is in no way limiting, even if you're not getting enough FPS to use all of it. 

 

Maybe we'll see tiers of VR headsets, where you have the basic version, a higher res, higher Hz model, extra tracking features and such. Modular ones would be cool so they can be upgraded in parts, but that's no where near close.

[Sakkura]

3 minutes ago, Oshino Shinobu said:

Still think it's going to be a necessary step. Obviously, resolution is also going to need to be improved, but you're not damaging performance by increasing the refresh rate of the headset. High max refresh rates with variable refresh rate "panels" seems like the way to go for me. We already have high Hz 4K+ panels around (or at least in development) so I don't see it as being a matter of one or the other and in that sense, having a higher refresh rate is in no way limiting, even if you're not getting enough FPS to use all of it. 

 

Maybe we'll see tiers of VR headsets, where you have the basic version, a higher res, higher Hz model, extra tracking features and such. Modular ones would be cool so they can be upgraded in parts, but that's no where near close.

The higher refresh rate just isn't really necessary. 90 is good enough. The performance you spend going to 120FPS instead of 90 can be better used driving a higher resolution, or improved graphics settings.