Lower pixel density on 7" (DevKit) versus 5.6" (prototype)

[Diorama]

Ok. Just worried that some people new to the forum might assume that there has been a sudden announcement that the devkit has a lower pixel density, which Oculus had kept secret.

Just found this quote from Nate: "With the seven inch panel we have the SAME RESOLUTION but the pixel density is slightly lower, because you have a wider area." Here he is talking about basic panel pixel density, is this the quote that set people off?

[Okta]

I need to check if I am missing something massive, like MASSIVE.

Because.

Surely, SURELY, the fact that a 7" screen with the same number of pixels as a 5.6" screen will have a lower pixel density is implicit? To the point of being effectively stated?

Imagine I am selling a 'block', and its going to be a 30cm/1foot cube and weigh 1kg, but then I soon change the spec to a larger 1m/1yard cube, but still weighing 1kg.

Months later, an exclusive review says that the density of the new box is lower, and people are like "WHAT?!?!".

Unless they are talking about 'effective visible pixel density' of course, but afaik a lot of people are talking about the display panel itself, which we have known would have a lower pixel density for months.

As you mention, what really matters is the pixel density per degree of view, not the absolute pixel density of the panel. I've posted in several places asking if people know the FoV of the 5.6" and 7" screens. Presumably the 7" screen has a higher FoV, which means the pixel density per degree of view is lower. But so far we don't have hard data.

This. the FOV vs RESOLUTION is what matters here.
The pixel per inch on each screen is irrelevant since they are both the same res and supposedly have the same FOV.

Unless the lenses were changed to ones that stretch the centre pixels more than in the prototype and unless the optics cut off a lot of the new screen resolution, then the apparent ppi will be the same, with less screen door effect because of the relative tighter pixel density of the new screen.

[jaybug]

Good god, I dread the day the thousands of people who had no idea what they were buying gets their dev kit.

And especially those who will blame the new model for the low res.

[Randomoneh]

As you mention, what really matters is the pixel density per degree of view...

"Pixels per degree" is not a good way to express angular pixel density unless density is same across viewer's field of view (not a case with when sitting in front of a flat display). A pixel is lowest entity here, so angular pixel density should be expressed as angular pixel spacing:

Lowest (best) angular pixel spacing: x arcminutes [per pixel]
Highest (worst) angular pixel spacing: x arcminutes [per pixel]

It's harder to talk about angular pixel density when external optics are in the game. Without optics, flat display has the lowest (good) angular pixel spacing in the edges (assuming you're positioned that way), and highest (bad) in the center where you need it most. Rift optics could equalize angular pixel spacing across whole field of view (that would be cool) or they could flip it: lowest at the edges, highest at the center.

Consumers who thought they were buying the Matrix and that Oculus stole their money to release a 'fake devkit' with 'worse graphics’.

They should return it and get a refund -10%. Oculus should then sell those at full price -10% to those who know what they are buying.

[Diorama]

Good god, I dread the day the thousands of people who had no idea what they were buying gets their dev kit.

And especially those who will blame the new model for the low res.

Yeah, MTBS will become a total shitstorm

Consumers who thought they were buying the Matrix and that Oculus stole their money to release a 'fake devkit' with 'worse graphics’.

[twofoe]

The things people were freaking out over were the black areas on the TF2 monitor screen, those same black bars appearing on several Oculus Team demoes, Nate's emphasis on pixel density in recent interviews, and Oculus supposedly "ignoring" the thread where all these things were being speculated on.

Turns out that the dev kit utilizes the full screen (minus a sliver), the edges of the screen can be seen under certain circumstances, the black bars are just an artifact of cloning the display to a monitor, the pixel density is slightly worse because the 7" offers more FoV, and Oculus was just busy and/or sleeping when the speculation began.

In the end, it was a lot of rabbling over an issue that doesn't exist. The screen is actually better, and Oculus has been completely truthful and transparent with the specs of the screen all along. Stop "rabble rabble rabbling."

Links to all of Oculus' replies to this insanity:

http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpBB/viewtopic.p ... 75#p108775
http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpBB/viewtopic.p ... 48#p109148
http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpBB/viewtopic.p ... 88#p109288
http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpBB/viewtopic.p ... 40#p109333
http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpBB/viewtopic.p ... 40#p109347
http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpBB/viewtopic.p ... 55#p109353

[diwata]

Whatever may have changed, the effect is still apparently very good. From the article, "Making my way outside, the game's awkward silence started to sink in and the reality that I was actually in a room full of people began to slip away. Never before has a gameplay experience had such an effect on my psyche."

[Tirregius]

I'm personally very happy they went the route they did for the dev kit. Certainly there is a trade-off with the 7inch display as anyone who looks deeper into the issues would see, as the average male IPD is 2.55". Guys, if you don't see the significance of this proportionality with respect to the horizontal FOV, you are not understanding the issues and are trying to apply what you know of viewing a flat display with your eyes converging upon a single point on the display surface.

"Pixel density" in a VR device where your eyes are focusing well beyond the display plane, while a very important issue is a different optical issue on several levels, than if you are viewing your monitor with both eyes converging upon a single point on the monitor. With VR, there is substantially more visual information available, as geekmaster has so eloquently described, as your head makes subtle movements while your eyes are fixed upon, say, a stationary object within the scene. This is where VERY high-resolution (sub-pixel) head tracking along with high refresh rate contribute to visual fidelity. Poor head tracking with lower-than-optimal refresh rate would not only be uncomfortable in a sensory way, but would also significantly reduce visual resolve, which, I repeat, is not a product of pixel density ALONE anymore. Consider the following example to illustrate my point in a way closer to home.

Imagine a monitor on your desk that would subtlety but substantially translate side-to-side in the plane of the screen surface, while motion tracking kept the image on the screen in an absolute position. The resolution or "pixel density" would not change, but the image would be further resolved, given that the screen is rendered at an adequately high refresh rate and that the screen hardware is capable of refreshing and accurately displaying the new image. This is real information coming across to the viewer and has a cost! The cost is the addl power needed to re render pixels as per the new view at a very high refresh rate.

So, wait and see what you think of the new panel. A panel with faster pixels and tighter matrix that has a slightly less than optimal size (it's not bad, actually and may benefit quite a few folks) is potentially a much better VR experience.

So, in conclusion, in a VR device where image resolve is more than just a function of pixel(s)/arc-second, the significant improvements in the new panel go a long way toward a better experience.

(Edited for clarity and to undo 5am brain fog artifacts )

[NegativeCamber]

What's funny is, if they went back to the old panel, guaranteed the same people moaning would be like "OMGZORZ!! We getting worser motion blurZZ?!"

[German]

What's funny is, if they went back to the old panel, guaranteed the same people moaning would be like "OMGZORZ!! We getting worser motion blurZZ?!"

Probably. The old panels have quite a poor refresh rate and I'm glad that is improved in the devkit. In my current DIY setup, you can easily see the difference in refresh rates between the Rift and the duplicated LCD monitor.

[crespo80]

What's funny is, if they went back to the old panel, guaranteed the same people moaning would be like "OMGZORZ!! We getting worser motion blurZZ?!"

That'd be true only if they continued to miss revealing relevant infos or let compromising ones to leak out (like the monitors with large black borders)
If they want to be safe they have to go the open way and share every info (that's impossible for a business company), so there's zero speculation;
or the Apple way, so total darkness, minimum info leakage, and users' speculation is based on nothing.
They're going the third way, with partial darkness and some unwanted info leakage, so users' speculation is half based on real info and can fly very high and even scary some who end in believing his own speculation, like me

[NegativeCamber]

What's funny is, if they went back to the old panel, guaranteed the same people moaning would be like "OMGZORZ!! We getting worser motion blurZZ?!"

That'd be true only if they continued to miss revealing relevant infos or let compromising ones to leak out (like the monitors with large black borders)
If they want to be safe they have to go the open way and share every info (that's impossible for a business company), so there's zero speculation;
or the Apple way, so total darkness, minimum info leakage, and users' speculation is based on nothing.
They're going the third way, with partial darkness and some unwanted info leakage, so users' speculation is half based on real info and can fly very high and even scary some who end in believing his own speculation, like me

I disagree, I think they've been super open about everything, they stated ages ago about the new panel and its pros and cons.

They have given many many interviews about hardware upgrades, SDK features, release dates, manufacturing processes. In fact, I think this is the most open I've ever seen a company be.

Palmer would have been well within his rights to hide themselves away with all the kickstarter money and not say a word until the dev kit shipped. The fact he actually came on here and personally addressed "issues" (read: spurious gossip) were still not enough for some people. That baffles me. You can't please 100% of people 100% of the time.

If you have the dev kit in your hands and you discover issues then that's different.

[V8Griff]

That'd be true only if they continued to miss revealing relevant infos or let compromising ones to leak out (like the monitors with large black borders) If they want to be safe they have to go the open way and share every info (that's impossible for a business company), so there's zero speculation;
or the Apple way, so total darkness, minimum info leakage, and users' speculation is based on nothing.
They're going the third way, with partial darkness and some unwanted info leakage, so users' speculation is half based on real info and can fly very high and even scary some who end in believing his own speculation, like me

Dead right, and their problem is that they're in transition from one guy in his workshop who was totally open and enthusiastic who wanted to share and involve the community to a business who are starting out in a very public glare and if they had the choice would be doing all of this behind closed doors until they had something ready.

They strike me as being very honest about their actions and despite being mentally busy are struggling with time and the desire to inform while trying to develp the devices. I imagine that there will be less info about the consumer version's growing pains until they're ready to show something.

[Tirregius]

Imagine how busy they are. Think of what their work load must be right now! I doubt anyone @ Oculus is sleeping.....they could spend all day managing the "grape vine."

[Paladia]

It is quite obvious they arent too happy with the 7 inch screen. As they said in the article:

"He's not quite so proud of the new 7-inch screen. Originally, the Rift was scheduled to ship to Kickstarter backers by the holidays, but the original 5.6-inch screen proved impossible to buy in bulk.

Still, bigger is better, right? Not really. The new 7-inch screen improves in some ways, with less motion blur and a higher contrast ratio that makes it appear less washed out, but it also has lower pixel density and weighs 90 grams more than its counterpart.

it's definitely far more noticeable than the featherweight prototype we tried at CES. Oculus is quite upfront about the issue, and says the consumer version will almost certainly have a smaller screen"

[hal10000]

It is quite obvious they arent too happy with the 7 inch screen. As they said in the article:

"He's not quite so proud of the new 7-inch screen. Originally, the Rift was scheduled to ship to Kickstarter backers by the holidays, but the original 5.6-inch screen proved impossible to buy in bulk.

Still, bigger is better, right? Not really. The new 7-inch screen improves in some ways, with less motion blur and a higher contrast ratio that makes it appear less washed out, but it also has lower pixel density and weighs 90 grams more than its counterpart.

it's definitely far more noticeable than the featherweight prototype we tried at CES. Oculus is quite upfront about the issue, and says the consumer version will almost certainly have a smaller screen"

They have stated from the begining they aren't happy with ANY of the screens yet and wont be until they get the consumer 1080p panel so what is your point? People sure are acting entitled all of the sudden. They answered all the questions within 24 hours or something. Other companies keep you waiting months!

[blazespinnaker]

Second reminder, they didn't intentionally use the 7" screen over the 5.6". The original screen was unavailable for mass production, which lead to the redesign, delay, and looking for any screen that fit. There just were benefits because Oculus knows what they're doing when it comes to screens. Also, the resolution is the same. Why'd they choose it? It was the best option in the limited time window to ship as soon as they could with a quality product for developers.

Good point. This seems like another reasonable explanation. Rather than a conscious trade off, they simply had to go with the parts they had ordered (or were available) and were not able to alter the config. Still, I think they could have adjusted the optics to avoid the greater pixelation that Nate warns us about in the video on the thread OP.

It'll be interesting to see how much we can alter the spacing using the adjustment dials at the side to improve pixel density.

[KBK]

I'm personally very happy they went the route they did for the dev kit. Certainly there is a trade-off with the 7inch display as anyone who looks deeper into the issues would see, as the average male IPD is 2.55". Guys, if you don't see the significance of this proportionality with respect to the horizontal FOV, you are not understanding the issues and are trying to apply what you know of viewing a flat display with your eyes converging upon a single point on the display surface.

"Pixel density" in a VR device where your eyes are focusing well beyond the display plane, while a very important issue is a different optical issue on several levels, than if you are viewing your monitor with both eyes converging upon a single point on the monitor. With VR, there is substantially more visual information available, as geekmaster has so eloquently described, as your head makes subtle movements while your eyes are fixed upon, say, a stationary object within the scene. This is where VERY high-resolution (sub-pixel) head tracking along with high refresh rate contribute to visual fidelity. Poor head tracking with lower-than-optimal refresh rate would not only be uncomfortable in a sensory way, but would also significantly reduce visual resolve, which, I repeat, is not a product of pixel density ALONE anymore. Consider the following example to illustrate my point in a way closer to home.

Imagine a monitor on your desk that would subtlety but substantially translate side-to-side in the plane of the screen surface, while motion tracking kept the image on the screen in an absolute position. The resolution or "pixel density" would not change, but the image would be further resolved, given that the screen is rendered at an adequately high refresh rate and that the screen hardware is capable of refreshing and accurately displaying the new image. This is real information coming across to the viewer and has a cost! The cost is the addl power needed to re render pixels as per the new view at a very high refresh rate.

So, wait and see what you think of the new panel. A panel with faster pixels and tighter matrix that has a slightly less than optimal size (it's not bad, actually and may benefit quite a few folks) is potentially a much better VR experience.

So, in conclusion, in a VR device where image resolve is more than just a function of pixel(s)/arc-second, the significant improvements in the new panel go a long way toward a better experience.

(Edited for clarity and to undo 5am brain fog artifacts )

This is confirmed in the use of binoculars over that of a stationary telescope of similar magnification.

2 eyes plus subtle motion, is considered to be approx 2.5-2.7(?-IIRC, might be off a bit) times more optically effective to 'mental reconstruction of the viewed item' over that of a stationary monocular view.

This is why, on the bridge of a large ship, you will find 'large moment of inertia' (heavy) ~15x70 world class binoculars that can be grabbed at a moment's notice. probably two or three pairs. Anything else can get people killed, as with the large binos, object recognition on the horizon can be resolved a good 2x faster.... compared the use of any telescope or monocular device.

[hal10000]

Well, the resolution sucks, we already knew that, but I'm wondering why they had to sacrificie pixel density on the 7" version versus the 5.6" version when they could just adjust the distance to the screen to simulate the same pixel density.

Perhaps they were concerned about lever effects on the neck if the screen was too far from the head.

You cannot simply push the larger display further back.

The reason is it is a single shared screen split into two views. I've added an image to illustrate.

Note how by simply pushing back a larger screen that lies within the combined view frustum of both eyes, the cone of vision of the right eye is now able to see a large portion of the left eye's view. (putting up a blinder inbetween doesn't really help because you would still be cutting off a significant portion of each eye's view).

I'm only trying to engage in discussions about learning and discovery, not continue any "negative waves" heh . The dev kit is going to be awesome and the lower pixel density isn't going to be a big deal. As I've shown with screen shot comparisons, with high quality supersampling you can barely tell the difference between 580p and 640p per eye.

You can if you change the lenses, they just need to have a different focal distance that would match the larger display.

[brantlew]

You guys are missing an extremely relevant point that's spelled out clearly in a lot of these quotes. Weight and Size are very conscious decision points for the hardware. Not everyone is a die-hard VR enthusiast who doesn't mind wearing giant contraptions on their head and body. So form-factor is something that is considered carefully for a broad market product and is one of the strengths of the smaller screen. It's not all about display characteristics.

Why do you think I prefer the 7" display? Because I just want my immersion and I don't care if I look like this:

[blazespinnaker]

You guys are missing an extremely relevant point that's spelled out clearly in a lot of these quotes. Weight and Size are very conscious decision points for the hardware. Not everyone is a die-hard VR enthusiast who doesn't mind wearing giant contraptions on their head and body. So form-factor is something that is considered carefully for a broad market product and is one of the strengths of the smaller screen. It's not all about display characteristics.

Why do you think I prefer the 7" display? Because I just want my immersion and I don't care if I look like this:

I'm not sure we missed this, I mentioned it multiple times on this thread. So you guys didn't push back the screen (to improve pixelation) because you wanted to keep the 'effective' weight down? If so, this makes sense and it's nice to know my mental model is correct.

[KBK]

You guys are missing an extremely relevant point that's spelled out clearly in a lot of these quotes. Weight and Size are very conscious decision points for the hardware. Not everyone is a die-hard VR enthusiast who doesn't mind wearing giant contraptions on their head and body. So form-factor is something that is considered carefully for a broad market product and is one of the strengths of the smaller screen. It's not all about display characteristics.

Why do you think I prefer the 7" display? Because I just want my immersion and I don't care if I look like this:

I knew it!

We're surrounded by assholes!

(space balls was fun)

[Tirregius]

Well, the resolution sucks, we already knew that, but I'm wondering why they had to sacrificie pixel density on the 7" version versus the 5.6" version when they could just adjust the distance to the screen to simulate the same pixel density.

Perhaps they were concerned about lever effects on the neck if the screen was too far from the head.

You cannot simply push the larger display further back.

The reason is it is a single shared screen split into two views. I've added an image to illustrate.

Note how by simply pushing back a larger screen that lies within the combined view frustum of both eyes, the cone of vision of the right eye is now able to see a large portion of the left eye's view. (putting up a blinder inbetween doesn't really help because you would still be cutting off a significant portion of each eye's view).

I'm only trying to engage in discussions about learning and discovery, not continue any "negative waves" heh . The dev kit is going to be awesome and the lower pixel density isn't going to be a big deal. As I've shown with screen shot comparisons, with high quality supersampling you can barely tell the difference between 580p and 640p per eye.

You can if you change the lenses, they just need to have a different focal distance that would match the larger display.

No. The problem is the relative proximity of your eyes (interpuillary distance). you have limited screen real estate between your eyes which limits FOV as a function of the distance from the screen (without more complex optical correction.)

[blazespinnaker]

Well, the resolution sucks, we already knew that, but I'm wondering why they had to sacrificie pixel density on the 7" version versus the 5.6" version when they could just adjust the distance to the screen to simulate the same pixel density.

Perhaps they were concerned about lever effects on the neck if the screen was too far from the head.

You cannot simply push the larger display further back.

The reason is it is a single shared screen split into two views. I've added an image to illustrate.

Note how by simply pushing back a larger screen that lies within the combined view frustum of both eyes, the cone of vision of the right eye is now able to see a large portion of the left eye's view. (putting up a blinder inbetween doesn't really help because you would still be cutting off a significant portion of each eye's view).

I'm only trying to engage in discussions about learning and discovery, not continue any "negative waves" heh . The dev kit is going to be awesome and the lower pixel density isn't going to be a big deal. As I've shown with screen shot comparisons, with high quality supersampling you can barely tell the difference between 580p and 640p per eye.

Great stuff, thanks for adding to the thread in a positive way. This makes sense with the given lenses.

[KBK]

deleted.......(irrelevant, only causes more angst)

[Tirregius]

the only cure for this is curved OLED screens (spherical section) and meniscus lenses.

That is Oculus Rift 4.0, about 4 years out.

KBK, on the money!

[KBK]

the only cure for this is curved OLED screens (spherical section) and meniscus lenses.

That is Oculus Rift 4.0, about 4 years out.

KBK, on the money!

I deleted it, As you can see. for all the right reasons.

we don't even have the dev kit, and people will start brain farting their way to an imaginary thing that isn't even close -yet.

'I can have sex with my real wife 4 years from now. Why bother with my current girlfriend?'

Well, you can wait, or have fun now, and have some later, too.

Life is short, the clock is ticking.

[blazespinnaker]

edit: Hmm, need to think about this. Software might not be able to compensate.

No. The problem is the relative proximity of your eyes (interpuillary distance). you have limited screen real estate between your eyes which limits FOV as a function of the distance from the screen (without more complex optical correction.)

I think I see where you're going with this, but it seems to me that you're assuming a fairly static construction of the device. Assuming once they knew they had 7" they could (theoretically) redesign the entire thing, it seems to me they could get a smaller FOV and higher pixel density. I think Brantlew's comment about height/weight makes the most sense.

[tmek]

You can if you change the lenses, they just need to have a different focal distance that would match the larger display.

I used to think that as well, but focus isn't the issue. It's that as you push the display back from the perspective of each eye, the effective center of each eye's screen get's pushed inward and your inward field of view gets cut off (if there's some kind of dividing blinder, or if not you see the other eye's view in your inward field of view).

Here's a more detailed diagram.



- the green crosshairs show the center of each eye's image. The blue and orange lines represent each eye's look foward vector. The black frame shows what the right eye would see if the larger screen were pushed back.

Again, disclaimer, I enjoy having discussions about the technical aspects, learning and gaining understanding because this is all such interesting stuff. I totally love the Rift and am amazed at what Palmer and the Oculus team have put together. As Gabe Newell said in the kick starter video there are a unique set of challenges to solving consumer VR and Palmer is the man to do it.

-tmek

[blazespinnaker]

What if you adjusted the distance of the eyes to the lenses as well? (Which I think you can do with the Devkit)

[NegativeCamber]

You can if you change the lenses, they just need to have a different focal distance that would match the larger display.

I used to think that as well, but focus isn't the issue. It's that as you push the display back from the perspective of each eye, the effective center of each eye's screen get's pushed inward and your inward field of view gets cut off (if there's some kind of dividing blinder, or if not you see the other eye's view in your inward field of view).

Here's a more detailed diagram.



- the green crosshairs show the center of each eye's image. The blue and orange lines represent each eye's look foward vector. The black frame shows what the right eye would see if the larger screen were pushed back. Note that each eye's field of view is much less than 90 degrees in this diagram, if you were to make it 90 degrees or more the issue becomes even worse.

If you introduce magnification it will compensate no?

[blazespinnaker]

Also, would it be possible to rotate the lenses slightly and compensate in software for the new distortions?

[FR3D]

I cannot really understand whats the problem with the resolution in detail is ?

Please help me !!

The more FOV you will get, the bigger the size of the pixel you will see @ same LCD resolution.

So the new rift with the 7" Screen will show a greater FOV than the old one. But therefore the pixel will become more visible too.

If you don't want to see the pixel, or smaller ones, you have to choose a panel with a higher resolution or you will have to make the FOV smaller ....

Thats it !

I want the FOV as big as i can get .... in the future we will find a panel with higher resolution too - I'm sure ....

FR3D

[KBK]

Also, would it be possible to rotate the lenses slightly and compensate in software for the new distortions?

Sort of. But not really. major issues arise. All those issues have been covered before.

suffice it to say, all of this can be solved, with bigger hammers and more articulated complex hammers, but the geek headgear factor and the costing goes through the roof.

[blazespinnaker]

I cannot really understand whats the problem with the resolution in detail is ?

Please help me !!

The more FOV you will get, the bigger the size of the pixel you will see @ same LCD resolution.

So the new rift with the 7" Screen will show a greater FOV than the old one. But therefore the pixel will become more visible too.

If you don't want to see the pixel, or smaller ones, you have to choose a panel with a higher resolution or you will have to make the FOV smaller ....

Thats it !

I want the FOV as big as i can get .... in the future we will find a panel with higher resolution too - I'm sure ....

FR3D

There's no real problem, and as far as I can see what you say is exactly true. It's just interesting the different tradeoffs (and why) are being made.

[tmek]

If you introduce magnification it will compensate no?

The look-forward vector is going to go through the center of the lens, the magnification will just enlarge things outwardly from there. If you look at the diagram and using the orange line as a magnification center point just imaginge the black frame and it's contents enlarging around it. You will have the same issues.

What if you adjusted the distance of the eyes to the lenses as well? (Which I think you can do with the Devkit)

Similar to the magnification, it just moves the eye forward and backward along the look-forward vector but doesn't solve the need to have look-foward vector pointing at the center of the field of pixels.

Also, would it be possible to rotate the lenses slightly and compensate in software for the new distortions?

There are things you might be able to do with mirrors or prisms or some kind of highly custom optics that bend the forward eye vector and it's view frustum such that it is centered and looking directly at it's half of the lcd but then you have introduced more weight, and much more complexity and cost. That takes you back down the path of the bulky and expensive head-mounts of the past. The consumer and future consumer versions will just continue to get higher and higher resolutions but the key point is that the demo Rifts and the Dev kits even at lower resolution have already crossed the threshold into what is "great VR".

[hal10000]

So has some sort of magic panel size been come up with that would be best of all worlds for this design? Was the 5.6 just right or would a 6" or whatever be the "best" size? Just curious, not trying to start fights!

[Machinima]

I really don't see what the fuss is about, I mean its not like this is the consumer version right? This rift is clearly going to be adequate for developers to create content which is the primary and overriding concern/goal, and for those of us who aren't developers and are just enthusiasts.. well, we knew full well what we were getting into, this version is just a sneak preview of the real deal that will have very limited content.. its just something to keep us amused for a few months whilst we wait for the real thing i.e. the consumer model.

Am I just completely missing the point?

[tmek]

I really don't see what the fuss is about...
Am I just completely missing the point?

Somewhat missing the point, we are all in agreement that the Rift is awesome and we can't wait to start developing for it. There is no (or should not be any further) fuss in this thread. We are only now discussing some technical curiosities for learning/enlightenment purposes.

[Tirregius]

I really don't see what the fuss is about...
Am I just completely missing the point?

Somewhat missing the point, we are all in agreement that the Rift is awesome and we can't wait to start developing for it. There is no (or should not be any further) fuss in this thread. We are only now discussing some technical curiosities for learning/enlightenment purposes.

+1