Is it known if the release version will have the positional-tracking infra-red LED's of the Crystal Cove prototype?
Virtual reality gaming-goggles maker Oculus has released a new model of its Rift headset for software developers. The company said its Dev Kit 2 unit does a better job of smoothly rendering scenes when the wearer's head is moving around, an improvement that's key to reducing the motion sickness suffered by some users of early …
It looks to me like they maybe refined it from crystal cove a little bit. (I don't see the dot pattern on the display that CC had)
They certainly got the res up there, but I'm kinda getting worried about these guys constant talk of making it perfect. How soon is a consumer product? I really do love these guys, but the CastAR (a bit different, and not likely not as good for VR, even with the clip-ons) are going to have their consumer product out in September. Sony has a working prototype of a unit too, no release date, but I'd bet they are closer then they are letting on.
I wonder if they are going to be a demonstration of the old proverb "Dit que le mieux est l'ennemi du bien," " the best is the enemy of the good."
@Oninoshiko - "I wonder if they are going to be a demonstration of the old proverb "Dit que le mieux est l'ennemi du bien," " the best is the enemy of the good.""
That is a worry, but aside from getting the technology right, Occulus want to get this thing out at a reasonable price. I get the impression that's half the battle they're trying to win. I can't see Sony's over-designed head-wear marketing at $350 unless it's heavily subsidized.
Yes, it has the IR LEDs, they are under the outer shell which is now made of IR transparent plastic, apparently to protect the LEDs as much as for aesthetic reasons.
The final consumer version of the Rift has also been confirmed by Palmer Luckey (OculusVR founder) as having a higher resolution than 1080 in the following Engadget interview:
Over 1080p is a must, which they hinted at on the forums some time ago.
I think (as do a lot of Rift users) consumer release 1 will be 1440p and a future version at 4k (2160p).
The current 1280x800 version works fine, but really isn't good at anything at a distance (racing games, HL2, etc.).
There's a good approximation of what the resolutions means in terms of screendoor effect here: http://vr.mkeblx.net/oculus-sim/
For me, the next biggest leap will be adding peripheral vision. I love playing on the Rift, but it does feel a bit like viewing a world through a pair of binoculars. The most immersive games are those where the character is intended to be wearing some kind of head-gear (space walks, HL2, etc.), as you feel a part of what they're experiencing.
With a new lens system, this might work, but with the Rift you're essentially looking through a microscope at a screen*, so you only get a limited area of focus. How limited, I haven't checked, but I don't think that full 160o(?) vision is possible with the current design.
I tried the Glyph recently. Their approach to the "screen" was to use a micro-mirror array to project the image on to your retina. It worked really well (crystal clear HD image), but the actual view array was much smaller (well under half the Rift) and looked like it was being seen through a very long tunnel.
I think that this tech, projecting from more than just straight in front, is a good contender for full viewing angle.
* Not trying to be scientifically accurate
But why don't these have a front-mounted camera (or one per eye) or even the option to open the front, so you can a)walk around with them on b)explore the whole augmented reality thing? It would seem to add another string to the thing's bow - opening up research and non-gaming applications as well.
"why don't these have a front-mounted camera"
Cost and complexity. Cameras cost money, take up space, use battery power, use processing power, and so on. It's far from clear just how big a market VR headsets will actually have. Gaming already has a clear market, while augmented reality is very much at the "maybe it will be popular in the future" stage. Increasing cost and compromising performance in their core area would not be a good idea. Ultimately, a specialist device that focusses on one thing will almost always be better at that thing than a device which tries to do everything, so they need to establish that they can do that one thing and that there is actually a market for it before they start worrying about other features.
Plus, look how many issues Google glasses are having, both in terms of fashion and with safety and so on. And those are just clear glasses with a mild distraction attached. A headset that completely blocks your entire view and replaces it with a much lower quality, narrower field of view, plus looks incredibly silly to be walking around with, is not something that's going to take off in a hurry. Such things may take off eventually, but that's really not going to be a good way to introduce the product to market.
> It's far from clear just how big a market VR headsets will actually have
FWIW I would quite happily bet my house on VR headsets becoming huge. If I could buy Oculus VR shares I would pretty much do exactly that -- bet my house. The only time I've ever seen technology with "WIN!" painted on it in such huge fiery letters was the first release of the Geforce cards.
I expect headsets to completely revolutionize gaming. It would surprise me if, in five years, the majority of PC and console games are still played on screens.
> why don't these have a front-mounted camera
I'm sure there will be, perhaps not on the release version but on the version(s) after that. With the flick of a switch you'd be able to jump from the game world to the seeing the desk in front of you, without taking off your goggles, which would obviously be useful.
This would also open for interesting "augmented reality" applications.
Spill alcohol, sacrilege!
* Long straw/tube.
* Beer cap (2 x beer cans with drinking tube) hmm, maybe not, might upset the beer with all the head movement.
* Water Pouch (the sort you fit in a back pack when walking/hiking)
* Gym bottle. So doesn't matter if you knock it over. (Although depending on what you're drinking, could be a little lively on the next swig.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019