Needs at least a 4K screen

[Conker]

I'm not rich so i bought a smartphone with a 2560 x 1440p screen and a mid range headset to try out vr on. And it is pretty damn cool, i do think vr is the future having tried it.

Having said that, i mainly got it to try out the VR cinema apps as the only games that looked fun to me are Adr1ft and the Bullet train demo Epic showed. The cinema apps work, it really seems like the screens are massive and you are in the cinema. In a scene where there is a wideshot though where there are a crowd of people, it's just a blur, you can't make it out, the resolution is too low to see people at a distance in a scene.

I know the vive and occulus have tweaked and messed around with the placements of pixels to try and hide the screen door effect and they don't use a phone screen, and i haven't tried either of them, but assuming that works, the crowds will still be blurry as f*ck you just won't be able to see the pixels.

I kinda feel Valve and Occulus messed up here, i would buy a 4k headset from them that only played videos and 360 videos for £300 to £400 that wasn't for gaming,

The reason this is currently so much money is cos you need the 90hz refresh rate for gaming, and the controllers for gaming, and also the boxes for positional tracking while in game. The unit would be half the price if you stripped all that out of it, and could probably still run at 90hz because they aren't games, so there's no ai, and limited graphics needed to run it.

I'm hoping in the near future either these two companies release alternate versions of the vr headsets that are tailored to the experience i outlined, or some 3rd part comes up with a cheaper headset which is only for watching videos but has a much high resolution on it.

I don't see REAL gaming on these things taking off for about 5 years. I looked into it and you can actually get a smartphone by sony with a 4k screen but it's £620 right now which is out of my price range, but i would still rather buy that than the Vive cos the resolution of the screen makes all the difference when watching videos.

What are everyone elses thoughts on this? and also has anyone tried VR using a 4k smartphone screen?

[--ranXerox--]

yes, most likely they will have 2k, 4k, 12k category especially for the ones who can't afford it in this forum. Graphics careds from nvidia will by then be able to do 12k scenes with intense polygon count. So in saying this, i predict people will sell the old gear for new gear and also htc may have different sizes just like how you would buy a pc monitor.

[Tucu]

We just need to wait 4/5 years for GPU technology to catch up so they can drive 4K headsets at 90-120hz. Read this article to get an idea on the performance requirements for VR rendering:
http://media.steampowered.com/apps/valve/2015/Alex_Vlachos_Advanced_VR_Rendering_GDC2015.pdf

[Spyderborg]

Originally posted by --ranXerox--:

yes, most likely they will have 2k, 4k, 12k category especially for the ones who can't afford it in this forum. Graphics cards from nvidia will by then be able to do 12k scenes

Uh, I think that's pushing it. On a 16:9 monitor, 12k is almost 10x harder to run than 4k.

And why do you say only nVidia? -.-

[Conker]

Originally posted by Tucu:

We just need to wait 4/5 years for GPU technology to catch up so they can drive 4K headsets at 90-120hz. Read this article to get an idea on the performance requirements for VR rendering:
http://media.steampowered.com/apps/valve/2015/Alex_Vlachos_Advanced_VR_Rendering_GDC2015.pdf

That's for gaming though, it shouldn't take 4 to 5 years for what i'm asking for.

[shponglefan]

Originally posted by Conker:

Originally posted by Tucu:

We just need to wait 4/5 years for GPU technology to catch up so they can drive 4K headsets at 90-120hz. Read this article to get an idea on the performance requirements for VR rendering:
http://media.steampowered.com/apps/valve/2015/Alex_Vlachos_Advanced_VR_Rendering_GDC2015.pdf

That's for gaming though, it shouldn't take 4 to 5 years for what i'm asking for.

It's all interrelated. Companies aren't going to release a 4k headset with the caveat that people can only use it for videos or other non intensive tasks.

[thunder-man]

And now we have the "GeForce GTX 1080" the best for VR.

[Spyderborg]

Originally posted by thunder-man:

And now we have the "GeForce GTX 1080" the best for VR.

Still not going to run 4k at 90Hz

[Tucu]

Originally posted by I am Pupper:

Originally posted by thunder-man:

And now we have the "GeForce GTX 1080" the best for VR.

Still not going to run 4k at 90Hz

And there is no HDMI spec that can do 4k at 90Hz. Or DisplayPort spec that can do 4k at 90hz with a 5 meter cable at a reasonable cost.

[Spyderborg]

Originally posted by Tucu:

And there is no HDMI spec that can do 4k at 90Hz. Or DisplayPort spec that can do 4k at 90hz with a 5 meter cable at a reasonable cost.

Making capable cabling isn't that much of an issue. We'll have cables that can handle that bandwidth long before we get a single GPU that is capable of driving it on modern games at reasonable settings.

[shponglefan]

Cables will become obsolete anyway. Wireless is the future of VR.

[Spyderborg]

Originally posted by shponglefan:

Cables will become obsolete anyway. Wireless is the future of VR.

That's even further down the road than 4k VR headsets

[floydstimeis]

Originally posted by Conker:

I'm not rich so i bought a smartphone with a 2560 x 1440p screen and a mid range headset to try out vr on. And it is pretty damn cool, i do think vr is the future having tried it.

Having said that, i mainly got it to try out the VR cinema apps as the only games that looked fun to me are Adr1ft and the Bullet train demo Epic showed. The cinema apps work, it really seems like the screens are massive and you are in the cinema. In a scene where there is a wideshot though where there are a crowd of people, it's just a blur, you can't make it out, the resolution is too low to see people at a distance in a scene.

I know the vive and occulus have tweaked and messed around with the placements of pixels to try and hide the screen door effect and they don't use a phone screen, and i haven't tried either of them, but assuming that works, the crowds will still be blurry as f*ck you just won't be able to see the pixels.

I kinda feel Valve and Occulus messed up here, i would buy a 4k headset from them that only played videos and 360 videos for £300 to £400 that wasn't for gaming,

The reason this is currently so much money is cos you need the 90hz refresh rate for gaming, and the controllers for gaming, and also the boxes for positional tracking while in game. The unit would be half the price if you stripped all that out of it, and could probably still run at 90hz because they aren't games, so there's no ai, and limited graphics needed to run it.

I'm hoping in the near future either these two companies release alternate versions of the vr headsets that are tailored to the experience i outlined, or some 3rd part comes up with a cheaper headset which is only for watching videos but has a much high resolution on it.

I don't see REAL gaming on these things taking off for about 5 years. I looked into it and you can actually get a smartphone by sony with a 4k screen but it's £620 right now which is out of my price range, but i would still rather buy that than the Vive cos the resolution of the screen makes all the difference when watching videos.

What are everyone elses thoughts on this? and also has anyone tried VR using a 4k smartphone screen?

↑ Because everyone has a graphics card that can run dual 4K monitors... get real brah!

[Conker]

Originally posted by floydstimeis:

Originally posted by Conker:

I'm not rich so i bought a smartphone with a 2560 x 1440p screen and a mid range headset to try out vr on. And it is pretty damn cool, i do think vr is the future having tried it.

Having said that, i mainly got it to try out the VR cinema apps as the only games that looked fun to me are Adr1ft and the Bullet train demo Epic showed. The cinema apps work, it really seems like the screens are massive and you are in the cinema. In a scene where there is a wideshot though where there are a crowd of people, it's just a blur, you can't make it out, the resolution is too low to see people at a distance in a scene.

I know the vive and occulus have tweaked and messed around with the placements of pixels to try and hide the screen door effect and they don't use a phone screen, and i haven't tried either of them, but assuming that works, the crowds will still be blurry as f*ck you just won't be able to see the pixels.

I kinda feel Valve and Occulus messed up here, i would buy a 4k headset from them that only played videos and 360 videos for £300 to £400 that wasn't for gaming,

The reason this is currently so much money is cos you need the 90hz refresh rate for gaming, and the controllers for gaming, and also the boxes for positional tracking while in game. The unit would be half the price if you stripped all that out of it, and could probably still run at 90hz because they aren't games, so there's no ai, and limited graphics needed to run it.

I'm hoping in the near future either these two companies release alternate versions of the vr headsets that are tailored to the experience i outlined, or some 3rd part comes up with a cheaper headset which is only for watching videos but has a much high resolution on it.

I don't see REAL gaming on these things taking off for about 5 years. I looked into it and you can actually get a smartphone by sony with a 4k screen but it's £620 right now which is out of my price range, but i would still rather buy that than the Vive cos the resolution of the screen makes all the difference when watching videos.

What are everyone elses thoughts on this? and also has anyone tried VR using a 4k smartphone screen?

↑ Because everyone has a graphics card that can run dual 4K monitors... get real brah!

you misread or don't understand, it would be 4k split between two screens, so it would be 2k each eye. dual 4k is 8k

[Spyderborg]

Originally posted by Conker:

you misread or don't understand, it would be 4k split between two screens, so it would be 2k each eye. dual 4k is 8k

Half of 4k isn't 2k. 2k is generally "2560x1440" while 4k is "3840x2160". 4k is 2.25x 2k.

But I know what you mean. You mean a 4k screen split in half for 1920x2160 per eye. That's still way too difficult for 99.9% of people to run at 90Hz though. Multi-GPU would be a must.

[Tucu]

Originally posted by I am Pupper:

Originally posted by Tucu:

And there is no HDMI spec that can do 4k at 90Hz. Or DisplayPort spec that can do 4k at 90hz with a 5 meter cable at a reasonable cost.

Making capable cabling isn't that much of an issue. We'll have cables that can handle that bandwidth long before we get a single GPU that is capable of driving it on modern games at reasonable settings.

This type of specs take years to be developed and released. DisplayPort, HDMI or MHL do not have solution. SuperMHL might be the first one to market in 2017/2018 assuming that they manage to cater for long cable runs.

Originally posted by shponglefan:

Cables will become obsolete anyway. Wireless is the future of VR.

We need 18Gbps of constant low latency bandwidth for 4k@90. Neither 802.11ad or its planned successor 802.11ay can handle this.