yeah ill hold my hand up to that, personally i wont play a game if it cannot be on high (not necessary max) But like i said, people are still going to struggle on medium. If you have a game you want to play in VR, you need to be able to run it at the settings your happy with on your normal 1080/1200p monitor at 180fps. Easy way to test if you can handle VR.
Crazy nuptys are snapping £1k+ to get the march realease ones on ebay Sent from my SM-P905 using Tapatalk
What you are looking at there is nothing but a SLI demo that Nvidia created for developers – you have to sign up as a developer on the site to even get access to it - it doesn't exist in any real world games, and therefore SLI is a very very poor recommendation to make to someone interested in getting into VR in 2015. That may change in the future – especially with DX12 and SLI Per eye –but again, neither of those technologies exist yet in the world of the consumer. There are 100 games coming out as certified for recommended spec for the OR this year. None of the titles you’ve mentioned are even Rift compatible using the Rift SDK – only through pretty poor VR ‘injectors’ like VorpX (with the exception of Elite, which isn’t even Rift certified, and stopped being officially supported by Fronter at 0.6. Hacked support exists for up to SDK 0.8 and we are waiting to hear back about SDK1.0 – the last update was yesterday and essentially said ‘we are working on this with Oculus, give us time’). So yes, if you decide to do things like using VR injectors in pre alpha, unoptimised, not supported games like Star Citizen, you are going to have a bad experience. But to say that about Eve Valkyrie, or any other Oculus certified game is incorrect, and recommending SLI is bad advice to people who might go out and spend £250 on the back of it. It is good enough for all of the 20+ Oculus funded ‘first party’ titles, and any titles that are going to be sold on the Oculus store with this generation of headset. There will be some titles outside of that (I assume you are talking about Elite Dangerous above), that will work with the headset, but aren’t officially supported or certified, that will have higher requirements. Look at the graphics for Luckeys Tale, or Rock band, or Eve – they aren’t the most stunning games out there – and there’s a reason for that. It’s not important though, shiny pixels are nice, but being in the world instead of looking at it through a monitor is a far more mindblowing experience.
You can't get around the quantities of pixels you need to push. But this is, @ £500, a device that is in the realms of affordability for people who have, since the r9 290, elected for one of the top two tiers of AMD or Nvidia's cards. Anything that gives good 2560*1440 performance is surely going to cope. And I can't see that notch going as low as medium for a lot of games. And still, that medium is higher than most console versions, which a lot of people seem abundantly happy with. The people that struggle on medium, are perhaps going to be the people that will have jumped the gun for significant outlay, and will be burnt by their enthusiasm and lack of research, which is a shame but hey, that has PC gaming written all over it. 1080p gaming is still the norm, and after rift launches, it still will be. Oculus Rift, for those people, is going to be like the mythical 4k gamer.
I'm guilty of it too, though even by dropping the details right down I still struggle with 4k. I've bought another Fury X but if that doesn't cure the problem then I'd have wasted even more money. PC tech, eh? I can only imagine OR have listed the 970 for a couple of reasons. 1. Nvidia leaned on them (I strongly doubt this but you never know) 2. They did not want to make the device look bad by stating that you must use a 980ti/Fury X. Everything I am reading so far means sacrifice and that's one thing I don't really want to do as a PC gamer. If I wanted to make sacrifice I would have a PS4. Still, at least by chasing the dragon with 4k I have made my machine more than VR compatible
I was talking about ED yeah. I had one of those moments when I was typing up the post and my brain just did a wet fart and I couldn't remember the name of it for the life of me. Is there a list of supported games anywhere? because the last time I checked Half Life 2 was the only game I would really want to play in VR and I must have completed that fifty times already. Ed. Apols for DP.
Fine lol, SLI isn't going to be good for VR at the moment, or maybe even on release. This only strengthens my argument that people are not going to be able to run VR well. Making it only a titan X that can push it well enough. I really do think you have too much faith in what the marketing people are saying, remember, they are trying to sell you units, there going to say what you want to hear as its vitally important VR does well in 2016 as it will make or break it. Its not the first time and it wont be the last we are been told little porkies from them.
Go fire up HL2 at UHD (3840x2160). With a GTX 70, 9you can easily push 200+ FPS with zero problems. The raw pixel output rate means nothing (apart from output interface clock limits). We are nowhere CLOSE to being ROP-limited for any use-case possible with current interfaces (i.e. we can trivially saturate HDMI 2.0, DP1.3, etc with pixels). Will you be running CODBLOPS2016 ultra-turbo-texture-bling-edition in VR? No. But most of the screen-space shader effects that wail on GPUs will not WORK for VR anyway, because you need to render in world-space. Personally, I can confirm the EVE:V Beta runs solidly below 11ms of rendertime on a GTX 980, and with the trivial performance difference (see: every non-synthetic benchmark and most synthetic benchmarks) wit hthe 970 I see absolutely no issue with using EVE:V with a 970 on CV1. For the near-future, SLI/crossfire is a no-go for VR. Trying to retrofit it (as current SLI/crossfire does) will only increase render latency. It will take time for developers to integrate multi-GPU VR rendering into their games, even more time to optimise job dispatch to actually take advantage of it, and even then there is no guarantee that it will scale well if at all. The PCIe bus is too slow to share many interdependent rendering tasks so a lot of work will still need to be duplicated between GPUs just to avoid the bus latency hit.
No, because the only 3 games officially announced as of today by Oculus are Valkyrie, Luckys Tale and Rock Band. There are lots of others that have promised to be a launch titles (technolust etc) but there's no official list. Half Life 2 is, to most people, a pretty horrible, nauseating experience. I can play about two minutes before getting pukey. It was never designed for VR, the locomotion and turning make you want to spew, and the scale is all off (you are taller than most of the combine which makes them far less intimating than they should be) Honestly though, anyone just getting into VR to play the games they currently play, but in VR is going to be in for a pukey disappointment. In time, developers will find ways to make FPS etc games work, but right now, my best advice is to stick to games with a well thought out and solidly implemented VR experience. EDIT: As a side note, has anyone got their confirmation emails yet?
There's a list of supported titles with version numbers on wiki. The official supported list aka will work with the minimum specs is the games that are in oculus store. Which is around 20 titles not all of which are games, last I checked the only game id even look at is EVE on there list. VR is not just for games and if that's the only reason your buying it your probably going to be disappointed, more so if your only running the minimum specs and cant play the likes of Elite on VR properly.
Pixel count isn't the end of it. I agree. But it is fairly simple to see the effect of increased resolution in nearly every gfx card review. I'm no expert, and as you alluded, surely VR calls for more and more specialist effects, and to certain extent, surely those effects need to be ran twice over the same object for each eye. Potentially doubling up whatever requirement pre-existed. At the moment you have to take pc gaming at face value. Normally you can turn stuff down to get better performance, and still look better than console gaming. This is not a trend I expect to see disappear. A 970 or 290 seems like a reasonable recommend, based on the specs. Along other lines, I don't expect to play the old games in VR. I do hope though that there is the ability to create a virtual monitor and desk space in VR to play games on.
TBH you make it sound like an Atari VCS with Space Invaders and "Bat 'n' ball". I know it's probably much better than that and there are plenty of other things you can do with it that are immensely cool (like Roller Coaster videos I Imagine? and movies) but for a gaming device it sounds awfully primitive. I'm not being sarcastic dude. Right up until yesterday I knew absolutely nothing at all about VR as I just didn't pay it any attention but obviously now with the actual release I am trying quite hard to work it all out. After dumping two grand into 4k only to be disappointed I really don't want to make the same mistake again.
Official launch titles are a strange beast EVE is the one been pushed but no one really can say if EVE in a pvp action skin will make a good game. Yes it looks amazing but that's running on max settings on higher gpus than a 970. I playtested it on oculus last year and was unimpressed by the actual game. Graphically it looked a bit worse than some of the early you tube clips but they were 4K stuff. Best game I've saw was the PSVR gangster fps game it was truly amazing stuff and looked a lot better than EVE but also seemed totally designed for VR.
Its pretty much RIGHT on the cutting edge of gaming - about as far from primitive as you can get - so maybe I'm just not very good at explaining it! Firstly, I'd really recommend you go out and try a Rift or Vive if you can - that is really the only way to truly understand why a lot of people are so excited about the tech. Its kind of like trying to explain the colour blue to someone that has been blind their entire life Secondly, when it comes to purely gaming, VR isn't really about making current games cooler (though that does work well for some genres, racing, space combat), its really about creating incredible new genres of games, which offer unparalleled imersion and interactivity. I've sat into a whole heap of developer lectures etc at VRTGO and elsewhere, and the thing that emerges is that all those explosions, gunfire and speed that are required to drive excitement levels in current games are simply not needed in VR. Just being 'there' is enough.
Well I was OK with passive 3D so hey, you never know miracles may happen. I pretty much understand how it works and how the "effect" works with immersion and so on I'm just a little disappointed at the gaming side. I'm also worried that due to the price it will be held back and won't get the full support it needs (IE games actually coded from the ground up to work with it). And then of course there's PSVR which will highly likely become the go to format for VR, given that a PS4 only costs a couple of hundred quid. So even if the headset is £700 it still works out cheaper than going the PC route and there will probably be loads more games for it... I really only want it for games. I never bothered with movies in 3D I only really used 3D heavily for Left 4 Dead 1 & 2 where it truly worked amazingly well. Throwing a pipe bomb for example and watching the body parts fly toward you was epic. I guess it was sort of OK in Fallout New Vegas too, but that was sorta buggy... Any way yeah, enough rambling about 3D I really need to find somewhere that has one of these so I can take a look.
You're not far off, but a better comparison would be the N64 & PS1, the first generation of consoles where polygonal 3D was the emphasis rather than 2D (or hackey 2.5D) sprites. Entirely new interface paradigms had to be invented, like "what is a 3D platformer?". Whole new control schemes had to be invented and rapidly iterated (the N64's 3-prong design to give designs flexibility to mix and match input devices to try new control schemes, culminating in the massively successful Twin-Stick design of the Dual Shock, etc) The transition to 3D in general even invented whole new genres like the First Person Shooter. A similar paradigm shift will occur for VR. Current design frameworks will need to be scrapped (the FPS may not be viable for years until ODTs or some other vestibular stimulation are available and commonplace), heavily modified (3rd person action/platformers need some serious changes to camera movement and level design to accommodate it), a dramatic resurgence (flight sims, likely God Games, the return of the 'Rail Shooter', e.g. Bullet Train, etc), and whole new designs that have not yet been seen before, and would not work on a flat monitor.
