Any news on next gen VR with better res?

SomeGuy133

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 12, 2015
Messages
3,447
Any news on next gen VR with better res?

I am waiting for Star VR or waiting for the next version of rift but i haven't seen any news on an updated model.

Anyone hear anything interesting? I know of one PR/interview statement saying they planned to keep it for 2-3 years which seems asinine.
 

noko

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
6,769
2-3 years would give a stable target to hit for. Upping the resolution now would make it even more unavailable then current resolution. The experience is rather good right now as it is. I am hoping for the Microsoft supported headsets to hit this year which may also give what you are looking for.

Once more competition hits, hopefully not splintering even further, that should push for more innovation and better prices.
 

SomeGuy133

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 12, 2015
Messages
3,447
2-3 years would give a stable target to hit for. Upping the resolution now would make it even more unavailable then current resolution. The experience is rather good right now as it is. I am hoping for the Microsoft supported headsets to hit this year which may also give what you are looking for.

Once more competition hits, hopefully not splintering even further, that should push for more innovation and better prices.
screen door affect is horrible (starVR is same DPI but at least gives better FOV) and current gen GPUs like 1080TI do a fine job....displays are the limiting factor.
 

noko

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
6,769
screen door affect is horrible (starVR is same DPI but at least gives better FOV) and current gen GPUs like 1080TI do a fine job....displays are the limiting factor.
I really don't notice or pay attention to it but yes it is there as well.
 

sharknice

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
2,933
Doesn't Star VR use an LCD panel? Does it even do low persistence blur reduction? I've never tried a Star VR but LCD for VR sounds terrible. I would really like a higher resolution OLED headset. I've tried the Rift and the low resolution and screen door effect have me waiting before I get anything.
 

SomeGuy133

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 12, 2015
Messages
3,447
Doesn't Star VR use an LCD panel? Does it even do low persistence blur reduction? I've never tried a Star VR but LCD for VR sounds terrible. I would really like a higher resolution OLED headset. I've tried the Rift and the low resolution and screen door effect have me waiting before I get anything.

The prototypes did. Don't know if final product does.



is this accurate? The lens on the vive suck.
 

LurkerLito

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
2,473
is this accurate? The lens on the vive suck.
I can't speak for the oculus but for the Vive, yes it is pretty accurate but in the shots where it looked really bad with the rings looked way worse than I have ever seen. Now I can see what oculus did, they have a similar ring like system but it's off on the sides rather than the vive that just poorly did it from the center out when making the lens. The oculus way is definitely a better design for picture quality. It's probably why I can't stand to watch bright videos in VR. A strong contrasting white does show the concentric ring pattern much easier even when you play.

Still you can't see the screen door effect in the video for either system. If you want a more accurate look at what you will see look at the images in this article. The middle image is the SDE you will see in the VR headsets.

That said, I still say it's well worth the price I paid. :)
 

SomeGuy133

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 12, 2015
Messages
3,447
I can't speak for the oculus but for the Vive, yes it is pretty accurate but in the shots where it looked really bad with the rings looked way worse than I have ever seen. Now I can see what oculus did, they have a similar ring like system but it's off on the sides rather than the vive that just poorly did it from the center out when making the lens. The oculus way is definitely a better design for picture quality. It's probably why I can't stand to watch bright videos in VR. A strong contrasting white does show the concentric ring pattern much easier even when you play.

Still you can't see the screen door effect in the video for either system. If you want a more accurate look at what you will see look at the images in this article. The middle image is the SDE you will see in the VR headsets.

That said, I still say it's well worth the price I paid. :)
I know on gearVR screen door is terrible but i never noticed a ring. Does it not have the rings which results in worse screen door?

yea middle image is horrific. second image is tolerable.
 

LurkerLito

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
2,473
I know on gearVR screen door is terrible but i never noticed a ring. Does it not have the rings which results in worse screen door?

yea middle image is horrific. second image is tolerable.
I really couldn't tell you. Maybe it reduces the SDE a little but I have never tried the gearVR so I can't make a comparison. The problem with right most image is that it will require a much higher end graphics card to run so I would assume we won't get a next gen VR headset for another 2 years or so.
 

SomeGuy133

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 12, 2015
Messages
3,447
I really couldn't tell you. Maybe it reduces the SDE a little but I have never tried the gearVR so I can't make a comparison. The problem with right most image is that it will require a much higher end graphics card to run so I would assume we won't get a next gen VR headset for another 2 years or so.
most VR games are not hard to run on a 1080TI. Only like 1 game is.

Games are usually 2-3 years beyond GPU tech.
 

Erasmus354

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 12, 2004
Messages
9,450
most VR games are not hard to run on a 1080TI. Only like 1 game is.

Games are usually 2-3 years beyond GPU tech.


Thing is VR can't be designed towards a $700 video card. It needs to have more mainstream $200-300 video card support for it to be commercially viable. Which is why we won't see higher resolution headsets for a few more years.
 

SomeGuy133

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 12, 2015
Messages
3,447
Thing is VR can't be designed towards a $700 video card. It needs to have more mainstream $200-300 video card support for it to be commercially viable. Which is why we won't see higher resolution headsets for a few more years.
thats ridiculous and you know it. So monitors should be built for 200-300 dollar cards? We buy headsets that are not cutting edge and need to be dumps ASAP?

thats idiotic. They can easily make high density and wider FOV and simply allow you to scale the res. lower cards do 100 degre FOV while higher cards get the full 200 degree. No reason to release low end VR screens.

I have no interest in buying something already obsolete the day i buy it. Hence why i dont own VR. They could easily sell two res versions without increasing manufacturing costs by much too.
 

LurkerLito

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
2,473
thats ridiculous and you know it. So monitors should be built for 200-300 dollar cards? We buy headsets that are not cutting edge and need to be dumps ASAP?

thats idiotic. They can easily make high density and wider FOV and simply allow you to scale the res. lower cards do 100 degre FOV while higher cards get the full 200 degree. No reason to release low end VR screens.

I have no interest in buying something already obsolete the day i buy it. Hence why i dont own VR. They could easily sell two res versions without increasing manufacturing costs by much too.
Actually they can't make it yet cause if you look at the date on that article I linked to that was the announcement that they successfully made that 651 PPI 3" screen. In other words prototype. I doubt it is in anyway ready to be purchased in volumes needed to make even small quantities of VR headsets. If they could even buy them right now it would be so expensive you'd be talking $2k-$3k level pricing for the headset alone.

And as far as the mainstream goes, yeah they could do the scale method, but they did that as the default option when I bought Raw Data it was set at 0.7x scaling instead of 1.0 or higher scaling, and it looked so much worse than you would expect especially with onscreen text. It was like looking at a 13" 640x480 fullscreen game image blown up to 60" 4K fullscreen, it was horrific.

I hate to break it to you but VR as it is right now is cutting edge and it will remain as is for 2-3 more years. If they can begin to manufacture in volume those 651ppi screens by the end of this year, you won't see the next headset till late 2018/early 2019 at the earliest. Still given the smaller market of VR compared to something like phone screens if they can't make use of that tech to achieve 651ppi in that market or on the TV market, it will take even longer. The reason that the current VR headsets are using the current screens is because they are using the same manufacturing process that makes phone screens because no one has a facility to make just VR headset screens because it is too small a market to justify making a dedicated one.
 

Rysen

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 10, 2017
Messages
407
Actually they can't make it yet cause if you look at the date on that article I linked to that was the announcement that they successfully made that 651 PPI 3" screen. In other words prototype. I doubt it is in anyway ready to be purchased in volumes needed to make even small quantities of VR headsets. If they could even buy them right now it would be so expensive you'd be talking $2k-$3k level pricing for the headset alone.

And as far as the mainstream goes, yeah they could do the scale method, but they did that as the default option when I bought Raw Data it was set at 0.7x scaling instead of 1.0 or higher scaling, and it looked so much worse than you would expect especially with onscreen text. It was like looking at a 13" 640x480 fullscreen game image blown up to 60" 4K fullscreen, it was horrific.

I hate to break it to you but VR as it is right now is cutting edge and it will remain as is for 2-3 more years. If they can begin to manufacture in volume those 651ppi screens by the end of this year, you won't see the next headset till late 2018/early 2019 at the earliest. Still given the smaller market of VR compared to something like phone screens if they can't make use of that tech to achieve 651ppi in that market or on the TV market, it will take even longer. The reason that the current VR headsets are using the current screens is because they are using the same manufacturing process that makes phone screens because no one has a facility to make just VR headset screens because it is too small a market to justify making a dedicated one.

How do you explain Pimax which already released a 4k headset and now is going to kickstarter a 4k per eye headset.
 

SomeGuy133

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 12, 2015
Messages
3,447
Actually they can't make it yet cause if you look at the date on that article I linked to that was the announcement that they successfully made that 651 PPI 3" screen. In other words prototype. I doubt it is in anyway ready to be purchased in volumes needed to make even small quantities of VR headsets. If they could even buy them right now it would be so expensive you'd be talking $2k-$3k level pricing for the headset alone.

And as far as the mainstream goes, yeah they could do the scale method, but they did that as the default option when I bought Raw Data it was set at 0.7x scaling instead of 1.0 or higher scaling, and it looked so much worse than you would expect especially with onscreen text. It was like looking at a 13" 640x480 fullscreen game image blown up to 60" 4K fullscreen, it was horrific.

I hate to break it to you but VR as it is right now is cutting edge and it will remain as is for 2-3 more years. If they can begin to manufacture in volume those 651ppi screens by the end of this year, you won't see the next headset till late 2018/early 2019 at the earliest. Still given the smaller market of VR compared to something like phone screens if they can't make use of that tech to achieve 651ppi in that market or on the TV market, it will take even longer. The reason that the current VR headsets are using the current screens is because they are using the same manufacturing process that makes phone screens because no one has a facility to make just VR headset screens because it is too small a market to justify making a dedicated one.

How do you explain Pimax which already released a 4k headset and now is going to kickstarter a 4k per eye headset.

Those are LCDs. But still AMOLED isn't hard to make. The PPI exists...they just didn't bother to make it.

They already have 570 PPI screen. Rift is like 460 PPI. and thats an extra 20% PPI and would have made a world of a difference.

I am not talking about scaling in terms of pixels like 720p on 1080p. I am talking about you have a 4K screen with 200 degree view but if you run a 2K image you get 100 degree FOV or whatever. You would simply be using less of the built in screen. There is no reason why you can't use less of the display to limit your FOV in order to lower res.
 
Last edited:

bobzdar

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 6, 2003
Messages
1,948
thats ridiculous and you know it. So monitors should be built for 200-300 dollar cards? We buy headsets that are not cutting edge and need to be dumps ASAP?

thats idiotic. They can easily make high density and wider FOV and simply allow you to scale the res. lower cards do 100 degre FOV while higher cards get the full 200 degree. No reason to release low end VR screens.

I have no interest in buying something already obsolete the day i buy it. Hence why i dont own VR. They could easily sell two res versions without increasing manufacturing costs by much too.

There's nothing available yet so it's either not viable technologically or not viable market wise at the price it would cost.

The current gen headsets have been out for over a year now, so obviously they aren't being dumped ASAP. A 2-3 year lifespan (which is what both Oculus and HTC have intimated) is pretty good in the tech world for a high end product, so either be prepared to wait another year or two or jump in now.

I personally don't notice the screen door unless I look for it, the slightly murky visuals in some games are a bigger concern for me but that honestly falls squarely on the devs as some games do not have the issue at all. A lot of them you can tweak the IQ up by editing ini files or using utilities to up super sampling and it gets rid of the murkiness, but honestly I'm not going to spend much time doing that as that takes away from the limited time I have to actually play the games. That alone is why I don't think 4k headsets are worth it, they aren't maximizing what they have now so it wouldn't do much.

And, I don't care how much screen door there is, even the DK1 had a higher immersion factor than anything in 2d. I have a 135" 1080p projector (so very small inter pixel gap, you can't see it unless you're way too close to the screen) and even given that I don't play anything in 2d anymore as it's flat. It's like going from color back to black and white. It's odd to me that people get jarred by the slight screen door or some crawling due to texture or edge aliasing, but don't get at all jarred by completely losing their depth perception. For example, I'd much rather have slightly blurry vision that made me squint from time to time than lose one eye altogether and have perfect vision in the other.
 

DPI

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
12,193
thats ridiculous and you know it. So monitors should be built for 200-300 dollar cards? We buy headsets that are not cutting edge and need to be dumps ASAP?

thats idiotic. They can easily make high density and wider FOV and simply allow you to scale the res. lower cards do 100 degre FOV while higher cards get the full 200 degree. No reason to release low end VR screens.

I have no interest in buying something already obsolete the day i buy it. Hence why i dont own VR. They could easily sell two res versions without increasing manufacturing costs by much too.

Facepalm.
 

Rysen

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 10, 2017
Messages
407
Those are LCDs. But still AMOLED isn't hard to make. The PPI exists...they just didn't bother to make it.

They already have 570 PPI screen. Rift is like 460 PPI. and thats an extra 20% PPI and would have made a world of a difference.

I am not talking about scaling in terms of pixels like 720p on 1080p. I am talking about you have a 4K screen with 200 degree view but if you run a 2K image you get 100 degree FOV or whatever. You would simply be using less of the built in screen. There is no reason why you can't use less of the display to limit your FOV in order to lower res.

They discussion was about resolution, not screen type. Even if its one is better than the other there can still be more headsets trying higher resolutions. I have a vive at work. I am waiting the LG version to get my own one. Hopefully LG will use Valve's light house and tracking.
 

SomeGuy133

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 12, 2015
Messages
3,447
They discussion was about resolution, not screen type. Even if its one is better than the other there can still be more headsets trying higher resolutions. I have a vive at work. I am waiting the LG version to get my own one. Hopefully LG will use Valve's light house and tracking.

yes...and he said "well the others have higher res". The ones with higher res are LCD and not AMOLED. reread the posts above. I also added there isn't anything keeping AMOLED from being higher res. The companies decided to make and sell VR headsets with far lower res than they needed to for cost reasons and gimping for the masses.

So another classic thread of people that don't own VR ragging on it while the people who do own VR are happy to have it and looking forward to the next gen of HW to make it even better.

not even close. I just wanted higher res headset. Either give me same DPI and better FOV or better density or both.

No reason for me to buy a headset and want to dump it the first chance for updated headsets when they come out. If i bought one today and they released a higher res i would instantly buy the new one just because the current res blows.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Rysen
like this

Dayaks

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
8,964
SDE is rough on the Vive. I'll still use it because... What choice do I have. It's not enough to ruin the immersion in most games.

Only really bright games the SDE drives me nuts, which, most developers seem to avoid.
 

Rysen

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 10, 2017
Messages
407
I really don't care much for the FOV. It's nice but in my opinion the only thing that needs immediate change/improvement on both oculus and vive is the pixel density.
 

dr.stevil

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
9,165
To be perfectly honest, higher pixel density would be really nice but the current display doesn't bother me nearly as much as the lenses. The flare in dark environments from the lenses is super aggravating... and add a little bit of condensation and it's next to unusable.

I would love it if a 3rd party made some high quality lenses that could be swapped out. I'd pay good money for it.
 

SomeGuy133

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 12, 2015
Messages
3,447
I really don't care much for the FOV. It's nice but in my opinion the only thing that needs immediate change/improvement on both oculus and vive is the pixel density.
I would agree 100% with that.

To be perfectly honest, higher pixel density would be really nice but the current display doesn't bother me nearly as much as the lenses. The flare in dark environments from the lenses is super aggravating... and add a little bit of condensation and it's next to unusable.

I would love it if a 3rd party made some high quality lenses that could be swapped out. I'd pay good money for it.

Are not the fresnel lens meant to help reduce SDE? It isn't the lends are cheap...its just how physics works from what i understand.

The oculus seems to do way better, which is why i would go with them if i had to choose.

EDIT:
https://vr-lens-lab.com/lenses-for-virtual-reality-headsets/

Maybe it is a weight and cost thing? Seems fresnel is not a must
 
Last edited:

dr.stevil

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
9,165
Are not the frensel lens meant to help reduce SDE? It isn't the lends are cheap...its just how physics works from what i understand.

The oculus seems to do way better, which is why i would go with them if i had to choose.

I think they're supposed to reduce chromatic aberration? Regardless, I'm sure there are higher quality optics available than what the Vive uses, that would vastly improve the IQ. I'm sure that they'd also come with their own trade-offs though (cost/weight/etc). I've seen people report that the PSVR and GearVR lenses are much better than the Vive and Rift but I haven't had the opportunity to try them myself.
 

SomeGuy133

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 12, 2015
Messages
3,447
I think they're supposed to reduce chromatic aberration? Regardless, I'm sure there are higher quality optics available than what the Vive uses, that would vastly improve the IQ. I'm sure that they'd also come with their own trade-offs though (cost/weight/etc). I've seen people report that the PSVR and GearVR lenses are much better than the Vive and Rift but I haven't had the opportunity to try them myself.
Gear does not use fresnel. It uses full size lenses. I assume they didn't with oculos was to make the headsets smaller.

Look at the video. The gear vr is next to me and the lenses are very large.

http://www.roadtovr.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Gear-VR-teardown-91.jpg


I guess you can replace gearVR with prescription ones lol
 
Joined
Oct 16, 2016
Messages
639
I'd like higher res as much as the next guy, but think about this for a moment: we have upcoming 4K 144 Hz monitors.

Imagine what kind of GPU and video interface you need to push that many pixels with the low frame time consistency that VR demands, and that's what we're looking at for next-gen HMDs until foveated rendering becomes a standard feature. I can't see anything much less than 4K per eye providing a significant improvement over what we've got now, and I also want some FOV improvement to go with that, too. The Rift CV1 feels like I'm wearing goggles or blinders with how much of my peripheral vision is missing, especially at the corners.

For most current VR games, the low res we have now isn't an issue because they're designed around it, but then you throw something like DCS World into the mix, where people who fly multiplayer still do so with conventional monitors since it allows a competitive advantage with visually spotting targets in the distance due to the ability to run much higher resolutions. Of course, a good zoom view in VR would negate this on current HMDs...
 

Dayaks

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
8,964
I'd like higher res as much as the next guy, but think about this for a moment: we have upcoming 4K 144 Hz monitors.

Imagine what kind of GPU and video interface you need to push that many pixels with the low frame time consistency that VR demands, and that's what we're looking at for next-gen HMDs until foveated rendering becomes a standard feature. I can't see anything much less than 4K per eye providing a significant improvement over what we've got now, and I also want some FOV improvement to go with that, too. The Rift CV1 feels like I'm wearing goggles or blinders with how much of my peripheral vision is missing, especially at the corners.

For most current VR games, the low res we have now isn't an issue because they're designed around it, but then you throw something like DCS World into the mix, where people who fly multiplayer still do so with conventional monitors since it allows a competitive advantage with visually spotting targets in the distance due to the ability to run much higher resolutions. Of course, a good zoom view in VR would negate this on current HMDs...

Yeah you'd probably need a display port per an eye which most people likely have. I haven't calculated what I run at for res (and downscale) but it's probably 4k/eye.

I think the previous idea of just having it select a lower rendering res and upscale would be fine for lower end GPUs.

I would gladly pay $1k or a bit more just for the HMD with higher res. Hell I paid $1200 for my regular monitor. I think nVidia has proven the high end market is bigger than people assume.
 

dr.stevil

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
9,165
I'd like higher res as much as the next guy, but think about this for a moment: we have upcoming 4K 144 Hz monitors.

Imagine what kind of GPU and video interface you need to push that many pixels with the low frame time consistency that VR demands,

It actually may not be that bad, we just need better displays and/or rendering methods. Since you're only seeing a very small portion of the pixels in the sweet spot of the lens, the rest all go towards peripheral vision, which is wasted processing power and doesn't need to be rendered nearly as accurately. I imagine that with software, you can render only a portion of the display at a 'native' resolution, while further out from center get rendered progressively less accurate/lower IQ. Alternatively, some sort of special display with variable pixel density (denser in the center of the focal point) could also solve the issue of needing a super highend GPU. So you could possibly have the clarity of 4K display running with the performance benefits of a 2K display.
 

Rysen

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 10, 2017
Messages
407
I'd like higher res as much as the next guy, but think about this for a moment: we have upcoming 4K 144 Hz monitors.

Imagine what kind of GPU and video interface you need to push that many pixels with the low frame time consistency that VR demands, and that's what we're looking at for next-gen HMDs until foveated rendering becomes a standard feature. I can't see anything much less than 4K per eye providing a significant improvement over what we've got now, and I also want some FOV improvement to go with that, too. The Rift CV1 feels like I'm wearing goggles or blinders with how much of my peripheral vision is missing, especially at the corners.

For most current VR games, the low res we have now isn't an issue because they're designed around it, but then you throw something like DCS World into the mix, where people who fly multiplayer still do so with conventional monitors since it allows a competitive advantage with visually spotting targets in the distance due to the ability to run much higher resolutions. Of course, a good zoom view in VR would negate this on current HMDs...

I don't agree. I think simply having 2k per eye at the same refresh rate will make a huge difference. Enough to call it the next generation.This resolution means the difference between being able to read letters on a paper like you would in real life and not being able to do so. It is also the difference between been able to use virtual desktop properly and not being able to do so.
 
Joined
Oct 16, 2016
Messages
639
It actually may not be that bad, we just need better displays and/or rendering methods. Since you're only seeing a very small portion of the pixels in the sweet spot of the lens, the rest all go towards peripheral vision, which is wasted processing power and doesn't need to be rendered nearly as accurately. I imagine that with software, you can render only a portion of the display at a 'native' resolution, while further out from center get rendered progressively less accurate/lower IQ. Alternatively, some sort of special display with variable pixel density (denser in the center of the focal point) could also solve the issue of needing a super highend GPU. So you could possibly have the clarity of 4K display running with the performance benefits of a 2K display.
Actually, NVIDIA already has that implemented since Maxwell; it's called "Multi-Res Shading". Raw Data has it as one of the graphics options.

I don't think variable pixel density on the screen itself is the way to go, though. It would encourage current HMD designs to have the user stare forward, when the next big leap would be to have a wider FOV with eye-tracking built-in and optics that let you focus on more of the screen. Foveated rendering will take care of the multi-res shading part in such a scenario.

I don't agree. I think simply having 2k per eye at the same refresh rate will make a huge difference. Enough to call it the next generation.This resolution means the difference between being able to read letters on a paper like you would in real life and not being able to do so. It is also the difference between been able to use virtual desktop properly and not being able to do so.
It'll be a big boost over 1080x1200 per eye for sure, but mostly at the same FOV. I can't say for sure if it'll hold up with considerably expanded FOV.

All I know is that I have to lean in to read cockpit instruments and virtual desktop screens as things stand right now. I'd prefer not to have to deal with that, but at the same time, I'm not sure even 2K per eye is enough to get me to stop using monitors altogether.
 

nasomi

n00b
Joined
Mar 2, 2017
Messages
11
I have a pimax 4k, and I love it. I play ED with it, and 10 year ago me's dream. There's no SDE, no dizziness, and the quality of the graphics is fantastic. It's normal price is $400, but you can get it cheaper. 4k is 2k per eye, and although it's actually 1440p input upscaled to 4k, you really don't notice it uniless you're running somethin glike a desktop viewer and reading small text.

I can easily play for 3-4hr at a time and enjoy the experience. I thought the headphones would be a waste, but they're extremely nice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Youn
like this
Top