Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by bit-tech, 22 Feb 2019.
When I had my HTC Vive I could see the spaces between the pixels - which then made everything (obvs) pixelated. I have no idea if that was just me that had that issue because I’ve never discussed it before. But for me, that was the deal breaker.
Colloquially called the 'Screen Door Effect' (SDE), but more properly Fill Factor: the ratio of parts-of-the-display-that-emit-light to parts-of-the-display-that-remain-dark. It's completely independent of panel's display resolution (despite popular wisdom that More Pixels = More Better), and is something that all HMDs have to differing extents. The more recently manufactured the display panel, the better the Fill Factor (AKA less SDE), as manufacturers start to optimise panels specifically for VR rather than repurpose display technology intended for mobile devices.
Unlike the Rift CV1 and PSVR, the Vive lacks a diffusion layer on top of the LCD panel, so has a more pronounced SDE than either of its contemporaries.
Oh I was confused about SDE, I thought that was something else - like a ghosting effect. Thanks for all that info. I wondered why I seemed to enjoy my friends PSVR more than my Vive.
Nah that's SDE dude. The main reason I never went further than my DK2.
I had enough staring out of screen doors when I was trying to get my cats in lol
And that is why you should get a dog & monitor, unlike with cats and VR the early adopter issues have already been worked out.
Well that is not what I read. I read an article about it and AMD reckoned you would need about 5k per eye to completely eliminate it. Now of course IDK about these pro versions (or whatever they are calling them) because I've never used one (and wouldn't at a grand) but yeah, that is what I read. Which of course got me thinking and at the time Nvidia had only just about mastered 4k (Titan XP) so yeah it didn't fill me with hope.
Sadly like everything else it takes years, and I am in doubt of whether VR can hang on long enough. I hope it does, because I do enjoy it, but I am very sensitive to light and motion ETC so it would literally need to be "reality" for me to get on with it. I did have plenty of fun with my DK2 and it only cost me £130 new. Very promising, but as I say it needs much higher resolutions to the point where it does look real for me to be able to use it for more than about 20 mins.
Just look at all those beautiful VR games sitting in steam waiting for that breakthrough headset ... I have my fingers firmly crossed it comes sooner rather than later - but, the quality titles keep increasing.
And Valve is still developing titles for it ...
Exactly. I tried Dirt Rally and it was so low rent I almost puked. Which is a shame, because it looked incredible apart from the awful fuzzy graphics. FO4 looked OK at the full res of the headset but of course I had no controls (and wouldn't want to play it standing either).
I am certain to a degree that if Bethesda put Xbox controller support into FOVR I would indeed buy a better headset. Problem is what point is there in having it if you don't use it? mine has sat in the box for months. I could try that Vorpx thing but it's £35 or so and a risk.
AMD were either oversimplifying to the point of uselessness, or simply flat out wrong. Panel resolution have no effect on fill-factor: you could have a '5K' panel with pinpoint pixels and that would give an exceptionally poor fill factor. Indeed, there is a slight negative correlation between resolution and fill-factor, as until a panel fabrication process shifts scale packing in more pixels onto a given area of substrate means shrinking the emitting areas but keeping the dark areas a constant size (as the driving transistors are already as small as the process scale allows).
For achieving 'presence' (where your subconscious is convinced that the view you are seeing is reality) panel resolution and fill-factor (and field of view) don't really have much of an effect. Stick on a fencing helmet and put some round cardboard cutouts over your eyes, and you'll have a low field of view high fill-factor view of the world that your subconscious still accepts perfectly well as reality.
The hard parts are maintaining orthostereo (have the view be completely correct for all eyeball positions, something not quite achievable with current lenses without eye-tracking to update the pre-warp in real time) and rendering that satisfies the visual system's expectation of reality. That does not mean photorealistic graphics, but instead means that the world needs to behave as your brain expects it to: for saturation to reduce with distance, for light to bound around in a scene and produce shadows and highlights as you intuitively expect (this is a massive part of depth and scale perception), etc.
The hardware side of presence is has been achieved. CV1 and Vive can both achieve presence, and physiology permitting (due to the fixed lens separation) the DK2 could achieve presence. Software is much more tricky, and where things generally fall over: insufficient performance (or inserted lag like with wireless adapters) to keep motion-photons latencies down, games with forced horizon movement, etc. Conversions of 'flat' games to VR are especially execrable at this.
Separate names with a comma.