too bad they called them OculousSiggiG wrote:Congrats to Oculus on this award from NVidia
http://blogs.nvidia.com/2013/03/5-hot-s ... es-summit/
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
too bad they called them OculousSiggiG wrote:Congrats to Oculus on this award from NVidia
http://blogs.nvidia.com/2013/03/5-hot-s ... es-summit/
Awards are nice, $17K is even better, but I'd try asking them for 50 Titan's instead! Surely if Nvidia really want to help you'd think the first thing they'd do is add a Rift output mode to 3Dvision, they could probably fix the aspect ratio issue in an afternoon if they really wanted to...SiggiG wrote:Congrats to Oculus on this award from NVidia
http://blogs.nvidia.com/2013/03/5-hot-s ... es-summit/
I'm sure that they'll be talking to nVidia behind the scenes but they won't be able to talk about that as is typical in the development world. When I worked at a company that did work for the mobile phone industry there were development devices that were 12 or 18 months off production in the office!Nick3DvB wrote:Awards are nice, $17K is even better, but I'd try asking them for 50 Titan's instead! Surely if Nvidia really want to help you'd think the first thing they'd do is add a Rift output mode to 3Dvision, they could probably fix the aspect ratio issue in an afternoon if they really wanted to...
They already do (Vireio, VorpX).Direlight wrote:Lets hope people make some modded drivers[...]
It's just a driver. It doesn't void anything.Direlight wrote:Pretty sure that would void your warranty though.
Of course there is.Direlight wrote:There would be no 3d either if you were using that method.
You can use an emulator on your PC.Direlight wrote:[...]That would be way too cool to hook up a dreamcast or some other device and play in pseudo Rift mode.
That seems to be the critical question. If FoV and pixel count is the same, then each pixel should subtend the same angular distance and, hence, 'pixelation' should be the same on both screens.Zoide wrote:PalmerTech: What's the FoV of the 5.6" prototype, and what's the FoV of the 7" dev kit? Thanks
It's simple - both the 5.6" and 7" screen have the same resolution and the same number of pixels, but the 7" is bigger... so of course the pixels are a bit bigger to fit the space.stokis wrote:One thing is clear - if the resolution and fov is the same for both displays, than pixel size should be the same too. But Mitchell said in engadget dev kit review that the ppi of the 7 inch display is smaller, and that makes pixels seem bigger. I don't understand how pixels can be bigger with the same resolution and fov??? So it really means that FOV for 7 inch dev kit is bigger. I really want that someone of oculus team could explain this. But if the fov is bigger, wouldn't oculus already mentioned it, because everybody would be very happy to hear that?.
They did, I remember thatDycus wrote:We did mention in the display update a few months back that we got a wider FOV from the 7".
How much wider?Dycus wrote:It's simple - both the 5.6" and 7" screen have the same resolution and the same number of pixels, but the 7" is bigger... so of course the pixels are a bit bigger to fit the space.stokis wrote:One thing is clear - if the resolution and fov is the same for both displays, than pixel size should be the same too. But Mitchell said in engadget dev kit review that the ppi of the 7 inch display is smaller, and that makes pixels seem bigger. I don't understand how pixels can be bigger with the same resolution and fov??? So it really means that FOV for 7 inch dev kit is bigger. I really want that someone of oculus team could explain this. But if the fov is bigger, wouldn't oculus already mentioned it, because everybody would be very happy to hear that?.
With the 5.6" prototypes, it is possible to see black bars on the left and right of the screen. The 7" is wider so it fills that space. We did mention in the display update a few months back that we got a wider FOV from the 7".
There are certainly many tradeoffs between FOV, resolution, weight, size, cost, and availability and you will get a different prioritization of those factors from different people. A lot has to be considered when trying to create a mass-consumer product.rwurdig wrote:Hy Dycus,
Im curious, if the 7" gives a higher FOV, isnt better to stay with the 7" inch display (a better one) when the consumer version arrive? I mean i believed i saw some post from Palmer when he was talking about the extra weight of the new display, that he plans to change back to a small panel in the consumer version.
So i get confused, did my memory is playing with me or is really that? Because going to a better panel (lets say 1080p) is better but then u gonna decrease the FOV since its a smaller panel, so isnt this a tradeoff?
Regards.
I meant no 3d for non-3d content, like I mentioned windowed flash games etc. Also, saying the word "emulator" does not expand Rift support to every legacy device, cameras or lots of other oddball devices & programs. Some emulators don't even work that well anyway and they are illegal unless you all ready own the games (new laws were passed, ISPs now spy on you for copyright violations.)Of course there is.
Direlight wrote:
[...]That would be way too cool to hook up a dreamcast or some other device and play in pseudo Rift mode.
You can use an emulator on your PC.
This makes perfect sense and I personally prefer the idea of a wider fov over a slightly higher pixel densityDycus wrote:It's simple - both the 5.6" and 7" screen have the same resolution and the same number of pixels, but the 7" is bigger... so of course the pixels are a bit bigger to fit the space.stokis wrote:One thing is clear - if the resolution and fov is the same for both displays, than pixel size should be the same too. But Mitchell said in engadget dev kit review that the ppi of the 7 inch display is smaller, and that makes pixels seem bigger. I don't understand how pixels can be bigger with the same resolution and fov??? So it really means that FOV for 7 inch dev kit is bigger. I really want that someone of oculus team could explain this. But if the fov is bigger, wouldn't oculus already mentioned it, because everybody would be very happy to hear that?.
With the 5.6" prototypes, it is possible to see black bars on the left and right of the screen. The 7" is wider so it fills that space. We did mention in the display update a few months back that we got a wider FOV from the 7".
Posts numbers per page were raised to 40 for easier browsing.Endothermic wrote:Did something happen... I seem to recall this thread having alot more then 102 page before
Thanks Dycus!! Now it is clear to me. Wider FOV is great!Dycus wrote:It's simple - both the 5.6" and 7" screen have the same resolution and the same number of pixels, but the 7" is bigger... so of course the pixels are a bit bigger to fit the space.stokis wrote:One thing is clear - if the resolution and fov is the same for both displays, than pixel size should be the same too. But Mitchell said in engadget dev kit review that the ppi of the 7 inch display is smaller, and that makes pixels seem bigger. I don't understand how pixels can be bigger with the same resolution and fov??? So it really means that FOV for 7 inch dev kit is bigger. I really want that someone of oculus team could explain this. But if the fov is bigger, wouldn't oculus already mentioned it, because everybody would be very happy to hear that?.
With the 5.6" prototypes, it is possible to see black bars on the left and right of the screen. The 7" is wider so it fills that space. We did mention in the display update a few months back that we got a wider FOV from the 7".
shiped number each weak would be great!! I think it wouldn't take much time to calculate it each weak. Please Palmer, give us the number each weak!Evenios wrote:im glad its doing so well and i regret not being a backer. I wish i can go back in time and have jumped in the second the kickstarter went live or heck had pmd Palmer when he first talked about it and said "Hey ill give you 300 bucks on paypal will you make sure i get in one of the first batches for Dev Kits?" :-p haha oh wellhonestly the downside to being one of the first people to have the rift is that there is not a lot of options out there for you yet. unless your a pro Dev. So honestly waiting a few months to get one will make it so when i do get it i will hopefuly have lots of demos and maybe working games to play with
.
I just hope they provide better commication to us down the road as far as shipping progress and other things a weekly update would be good (we shipped "x" number of units this week here is the projections for next week and here is how many we have left)
Err..what does AMD have to do with the rift? Its not like the rift use any special 3d driverDirelight wrote:So is AMD ignoring this like they did for a long time with 3d?
By see, I guess you mean "see with central (foveal) vision", yes? Because I'm sure you can see the black space with peripheral vision.Dycus wrote:With the 5.6" prototypes, it is possible to see black bars on the left and right of the screen. The 7" is wider so it fills that space. We did mention in the display update a few months back that we got a wider FOV from the 7".
I see no technical reason why the next gen, or even current gen consoles for that matter wouldn't be able to do it to some extent, but that entirely depends on the content. Obviously, you shouldn't expect a game that struggles to run at 30fps in 2D to be able to do magically do stereo rending @60fps without at least significant reduction in image quality.UnityIsPower wrote:Maybe someone could help me out. I was reading some post about why the new consoles will not be powerful enough to handle a good VR experience. Someone made a comment that the consoles might be able to pull off solid 720p3D in some games. That image can then be up-converted to the 1080p consumer version Oculus Rift. He mentioned something about artifacts but said they could be sufficiently managed. It was also stated that when mainstream hardware can push 1080p3D more easily, up-converting from 1080p would provide a better output image then up-converting 720p given it has more information to draw out missing parts of the image. Can someone clarify if what he says is possible/correct and how good of a work around would it be if so?