Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by bit-tech, 12 Oct 2017.
...yet I'd still rather buy a Vive.
...if I was going to buy a VR setup any time soon, anyway...
I'm in two minds over the Oculus Go. On the one hand, it's a super-cheap entry-level 'toy' device equivalent to a full-up Daydream or GearVR setup but at less than 1/4 the buy-in cost, and potentially better performance (proper heatsinking, fixed optical alignment, no overhead from other mobile device tasks) and better ergonomics (no phone and battery mounted at the furthest possible point from the front of your face).
On the other hand, introducing people to VR through an orientation-only device is potentially rather dangerous for people's perception of VR. Doubly so if it's seen as a platform for '360 video'. If people's first impression of VR is a 360 video rather than actual volume-tracked VR, then that's going to do more to tank VR than anything else possibly could. "I didn't try it, but it's probably a gimmick" is one thing, "I tried it and it is a gimmick" is dramatically worse.
If I dint have a Vive already I'd go with the octopus rift at £399.
I love laser tracking... not a fan of rift cameras but the oculus drivers are more efficient than steamvr currently. ASW works quite well. All adds up to increased performance for non-steam vr games on oculus.
Also can't ignore the fact that oculus are doing a better job pushing new locked-down content.
Depends on what most ordinary muggles want. Us geeks may want the full volume tracking for our l33t immersive VR experience (and are prepared to pay a hefty premium for that) but most people may be happy to just sit in a comfortable chair for some casual VR gaming/experience. It's basically getting the price/performance balance right. Once VR becomes mainstream and catches on, people may be prepared to pay more for extra features --or more likely, as technology gets cheaper those features will come without the price.
It's still a rich boys toy with limited appeal in my eyes.
I can't afford a gpu to run it and I don't have any games id like to play with it.
My mate has flight X but that sounds so boring its ridiculous.
I understand the whole concept but I don't think I own a single game that would benefit.
Strongly suggest to watch Carmack talk about it, really worth it.
Elite Dangerous. 'nuff said.
Even seated in a chair, unless you move your head unnaturally being careful to not translate sideways at all (i.e. don't look behind yourself, only rotate your entire body about your head) and are told and shown how to do this beforehand, the lack of position tracking will result in nausea in most of the population.
Yeah... no. That has less appeal than Oculus - hardly a compelling reason to invest in VR.
Not my experience of Gear VR. It doesn't track you walking around, but it tracks your head movements (up, down, left, right. tilt, turn it all around) without problem. Lateral movement as well, probably, as accelerometers register both rotation and relative movement in space.
Nope, GearVR (and Daydream) are orientation-only, no translation at all (even really good MEMS IMUs have drift rates on the order of m/s^2). They use a predictive head-model to compensate for the fact that your head rotates about your neck rather than about a point in-between your eyeballs, but that works worse and worse as you go father off-axis. e.g. by the time you are looking backwards while seated, your head is significantly translated to the side, leaned over, and tilted downwards.
Separate names with a comma.