My Theory: Dev Units Will Be Higher Rez Than 1280x800

[brantlew]

That does seem likely considering that head position tracking is a work-in-progress. The best they might be able to do by December is flesh out the SDK interface and provide some canned tracking data. Maybe some add-on hardware to the dev kit mid-2013 would enable position tracking, or maybe they will just rely on the community to hack-in a bunch of different stand-in solutions.

[3dvison]

Sounds like someone is working on the very first, Red Hot Chili Peppers VR Simulator.

Sadly, that was the first thing I thought as well.

Thanks for backing me up with a reply cyber...LOL
After I posted that, I thought Oh No, if no one else gets this post, I am going to look way too creepy..HaHa

[2EyeGuy]

Sounds like someone is working on the very first, Red Hot Chili Peppers VR Simulator.

Sadly, that was the first thing I thought as well.

Believe it or not, I honestly completely missed that implication. I guess I'm not the one here with the dirty mind after all. I was thinking purely about feet. I wasn't thinking about this:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fljPZ3J8tgI[/youtube]

[cybereality]

I wasn't thinking about this:

At first I didn't know where that video was going, but it got good real quick.

[2EyeGuy]

At first I didn't know where that video was going, but it got good real quick.

That episode of Red Dwarf won an Emmy award.

[Dycus]

I answered "Yes" to the poll. Who can figure out why?

[WiredEarp]

No idea, since PalmerTech said only a few days ago that it would be 1280x800?

Whats the story?

[Dycus]

Nope, that's correct.

Do you think the Dev Units will be higher rez than 1280x720?

Hehehe.

[Bretspot]

Nope, that's correct.

Do you think the Dev Units will be higher rez than 1280x720?

Hehehe.

I think its because I stupidly made the poll say "1280x720" instead of "1280x800" don't get your hopes up.

All it really means is that I don't an as beefy of a video card.

[WiredEarp]

Hahah ok i get it now ;-o I'm happy with 1280x800, at least for this iteration.

[Zhin]

Saying that I don't care about resolution at all isn't true but its certainly not a priority. Latency and horizontal FOV is way more important to me. So I'm more excited about Palmer saying that they might be able to push the horizontal FOV higher than 90.

Dycus, wouldn't that be awesome?

[Dycus]

I guess it would indeed, wouldn't it?

[cybereality]

LOL, Yeah. I voted "Yes" as well since the number 800 is clearly more than the number 720.

[Emax]

It could still be that Dycus and Palmer are fooling us.

1. "Initial" could concern the 100 kits they ship in November for self building.
2. Res could be 1280x800 per panel, and it has two panels (one for each eye )
I really hope so much that they fool us

But seriously, what really makes me wonder is that Palmer said the DIY Kits that people build here are not compatible with the Rift and dedicated games!
If the rift has a different resolution but is still SBS Stereo on a single display, why should not any DIY Kit be compatible. Having 100° FOV instead of 120 will not make it incompatible.
What do you think about that?

[jaybug]

They would be the biggest dicks in the world if they shafted the most devoted supporters, aka the november crowd, like that :p

[Emax]

Slightly better lenses, and different screen. The Rift is going to have an even wider field of view than we have been showing, with better response and colors to boot! These DIY Rifts will probably not work with Oculus Ready games, sorry.

That's what I meant. How would the HMDs that have the same principle as Palmer used for his demos not be compatible with Rift ready games? The FOV can not be the opnly reason, or?
Even higher res at a single panel might bot make the DIY rifts incompatible. So what could he have meant?

That's making me really curious...

[brantlew]

Maybe he just meant "optimally" compatible. Content rendered at a particular resolution and particular FOV will not scale "exactly" to a different panel aspect ratio and lens configuration. So if Doom 3 is rendered at 95 horizontal FOV, but the DIY Rifts are calibrated for 90 degree content then there will be a disparity and a slight distortion.

[PalmerTech]

On top of that, we are using a slightly larger screen in the final dev kit, so the images will be way too far apart to converge with a 5.6" LCD.

On top of that, we ended up using our own tracker, not the Hillcrest, so Oculus Ready games are probably not going to take the effort to support multiple trackers.

[2EyeGuy]

On top of that, we are using a slightly larger screen in the final dev kit, so the images will be way too far apart to converge with a 5.6" LCD.

On top of that, we ended up using our own tracker, not the Hillcrest, so Oculus Ready games are probably not going to take the effort to support multiple trackers.

Does that mean the centre of our eyes won't be in the centre of each half of the screen? I can see how that could be an issue with compatability. But if the game had a convergence setting, then I think that's all that's needed to fix it. Unless the warping is from a different centre point, which could be a problem.

Oculus ready games would have to have some mechanism for supporting an unknown future commercial Oculus Rift though, wouldn't they? So unless the mechamism for that is automatic steam updates, there might be a way of supporting slightly different DIY rifts.

Is there a way of detecting when an Oculus Rift is plugged in? For example, you can detect when a VR920 is plugged in because it identifies itself over EDID and USB. If games are doing that (which would be sensible) they won't work on DIY rifts.

By the way, one of the other people from iD software said Doom 3 will be supporting head mounted displays, with a plural, but he probably just misspoke. I wouldn't get my hopes up too much, but there's a faint hope.

I'm sure the Vireio Perception driver will support a variety of devices though, and we already have other drivers that support DIY rifts.

[Emax]

On top of that, we are using a slightly larger screen in the final dev kit, so the images will be way too far apart to converge with a 5.6" LCD.

Ok, all my hopes for higher res are buried now. Sometimes you don't even want to know the truth

But that is one more reason to have a second HMD at hand that is compatible with standard formats like 3D movies and pre-rift games. The rift is more and more bound to prober software support?

[brantlew]

On top of that, we ended up using our own tracker, not the Hillcrest, so Oculus Ready games are probably not going to take the effort to support multiple trackers.

I'm glad you finally confirmed that even though the writing has been on the wall for a good while.

[2EyeGuy]

On top of that, we ended up using our own tracker, not the Hillcrest, so Oculus Ready games are probably not going to take the effort to support multiple trackers.

I'm glad you finally confirmed that even though the writing has been on the wall for a good while.

I can answer a few of these, hope you don't mind that I am not John.

The Rift will be using a different tracker. One reason that consoles cannot support the Rift is because Sony and Microsoft have an approval process for third party peripherals, and it is not an easy one. Until they allow it, no go. Limited power is another problem.

[gravity360]

I hope they went with the 6.1 inch screen, this should eliminate the need for the tape on the edge of the optics. AND it would mean that their panel size is setup so that when the higher res panels with the 440+ppi come out, that they could just slap the controller board and lcd into place and make a "Pro" version. Granted it may cost an extra 100 bucks but I'd gladly pay it to have a WXQGA res split between both eyes.

As for the M$ Certification, yeah they make it difficult on purpose so that they can control it more. The voltage limitations however is a legit issue.

[2EyeGuy]

As for the M$ Certification, yeah they make it difficult on purpose so that they can control it more. The voltage limitations however is a legit issue.

I was strongly leaning towards assuming he was talking about processing power and not electricity. But now I'm not sure again. I know the Kinect had the voltage problem with older xbox 360s, which is why it comes with a power supply if you buy the stand-alone version. But I think the PC is in the same situation.

[3dvison]

So this is some big news from Palmer, I mean it is nice to hear from the horses mouth, that parts such as the screen & tracker for the RIFT have been decided upon, and I would think by now they know, if they can get them in the numbers they need to fill orders.

So a bigger screen(even though it's at the same Rez.) and a hand picked tracker, sounds like two great things that would improve on the prototype RIFT, that people were using at the trade shows..Those two parts could only make the Dev. Kits better, is that correct ?

Palmer is realy going to pull this off..Too COOL.

[cybereality]

On top of that, we ended up using our own tracker, not the Hillcrest, so Oculus Ready games are probably not going to take the effort to support multiple trackers.

Can you be more specific as to what this means?

For example, will Doom3:BFG be supporting the new tracker or only Hillcrest (or both)? Will the Rift SDK allow support for multiple trackers?

[Emax]

On top of that, we are using a slightly larger screen in the final dev kit, so the images will be way too far apart to converge with a 5.6" LCD.

Hi,
Can anyone sort this out for me? I thought understood in in the first place, but now I am not sure any more about the consequences of Palmer’s statement.
Since our eyes are about 6.5 cm apart and there is not so much we can do about this without getting seriously injured, the best panel would have a width of about 13 cm (so that each eye can be positioned in the middle of each screen-half). Thus, the optimal screen would be 5.8 to 6 inch.
If you taking the optical lens/magnification into account and the fact that you don’t want to see the screen edges, you might want to use a slightly bigger screen, but the eyes cannot be in the center in such case.

That has three further consequences I guess:
1. You need to shift the both stereo images more toward the nose side of each screen to get stereo focus.
2. You lose resolution. The pixels on the outer side of the screen are not used, or used only for peripheral expansion of the FOV. The pixels used for your focus view become less however.
3. All standard games, drivers (DDD, iZ3D) and video players (youtube) that output side by side content cannot be used with the rift. Only dedicated software is usable.

The latter concerns me the most, since good application support in the beginning might be crucial for success (even if only oculus ready content will blow your mind). Sometimes it counts what people see on paper and they make their judgment.

Is there any error in reasoning?

By the way, can someone make a guess about which panel will be used. It should be between 6 and 7 inch and have 1280 to 800 res. There might not be too much that come into consideration.

[PalmerTech]

3. All standard games, drivers (DDD, iZ3D) and video players (youtube) that output side by side content cannot be used with the rift. Only dedicated software is usable.

The latter concerns me the most, since good application support in the beginning might be crucial for success (even if only oculus ready content will blow your mind). Sometimes it counts what people see on paper and they make their judgment.

Side by side works for rough testing of the current Rift, but it is bad for long term use, and we would not encourage people to use it. Wrong aspect ratio, wrong field of view, and mouse emulation has a high chance of making you sick. People are working on 3D drivers and video players already, there should be no shortage of them for the Rift.

[Namielus]

Palmer, could you name a few of the ones working on video players? I would love to see their work, and what platform/engine they are using.

[2EyeGuy]

Palmer, could you name a few of the ones working on video players? I would love to see their work, and what platform/engine they are using.

I think Palmer means you. Although someone got one of the warp drivers to also work on Media Player Classic, if I remember right.

[2EyeGuy]

I don't think the eyes have to be in the centre of the screen, just the centre of the image. Stereoscopic 3D normally uses off-axis projection anyway, so I don't think it's a big issue. We could end up with a non-symmetrical FOV, with slightly more view in your periphery than in the middle, which is probably what people mean when they talk about less than 100% overlap. I don't see anything wrong with that if it gives us more total field of view.

The Rift was always designed from the start to throw away compatibility with existing software, and rely on software specifically designed for it, since it's such a difference in terms of trying to give close to a full FOV in all directions, with low latency head-tracking, and more pixels towards the centre than the outside. Existing games don't really support those things.

[PalmerTech]

Palmer, could you name a few of the ones working on video players? I would love to see their work, and what platform/engine they are using.

You, for one. Nthusim has also stated interest in making video playback possible, and I am talking to a couple other companies that are working on it internally.

[Emax]

I don't think the eyes have to be in the centre of the screen, just the centre of the image. Stereoscopic 3D normally uses off-axis projection anyway, so I don't think it's a big issue. We could end up with a non-symmetrical FOV, with slightly more view in your periphery than in the middle, which is probably what people mean when they talk about less than 100% overlap. I don't see anything wrong with that if it gives us more total field of view.

I absolutely agree with you. I also did not mean that there is anything wrong with it. If it is true that we will see partial overlap and it adds to the reality experience I would also love it.

My concerns were just towards the usable resolution for the focus view and that standard applications and methods (like SBS) are not usable any more. For some people (not for us in the forum) it might be a deal breaker when they get to know about that in their decision making process for buying the consumer rift or not. They have not seen oculus ready games (like I did with Doom BFG editions and Gamescom) and might not even know what they will miss. We need to keep standard gamers in mind that don't even have heard of HMZ-T1, ST1080 or Rift. They might not even understand what a HMD can do for you. I realized that even people with academic education in a technical field, who are gamers, have no clue what I try to tell them.
I want the rift idea to take off (higher res consumer version with a lot of game support). And for that we need to convince all people outside this forum.
Even when Palmer is right and we have software solutions for everything, it has to be public and awareness has to be high.
Example: There is 3D capable equipment out since long (Elsa Revelator, Anaglyph, 3D ready Screens) and software solutions for that. But guess how many of the standard gamers I know have heard of TriDef or iZ3D. Even worse, they don't know that their standard Nvidia card will support Stereoscopic output with their 3D TV.

Ok, maybe it is going to far now, as it has nothing to do any more with the initial topic about rift resolution. I also think Palmer and his colleagues are absolutely aware of that (although there is a risk to not correctly estimate the real market when you are living in your technical world with all your fellows).

Other issue: Rift will not support game consoles in the beginning. I wonder where are the PC gamers these days anyway. People grow up with tablets and smartphones these days and love it simple. For high end gaming a game console is ok for them. This is a big market that Palmer should try to conquer. I understand that it is hard at the moment with all the obstacles Microsoft and Sony are throwing at him. If it runs bad, they will just copy the idea, get it right this time and he is out. I hope he has filed some patents on his innovation.

[2EyeGuy]

If it runs bad, they will just copy the idea, get it right this time and he is out. I hope he has filed some patents on his innovation.

They have every right to copy the idea. And not just because he explicitly called it "open source" when he told people the idea. The idea is obvious, and becoming more obvious. Putting a phone, 3DS, or tablet in front of your face and turning around using the motion sensors in the device has already become a standard system that everyone knows about. Putting a single lens in front of each eye to make the image bigger isn't a great leap (even if it is a great LEEP). Neither is taking the phone or tablet part out and just using it's screen and motion sensors directly. And the concept of immersive virtual reality has been around for decades.

Also, I heard that other people on this forum had published the same idea earlier.

I hope he hasn't filed any patents on his innovation. And I'm glad it's John Carmack working on the first software: http://en.swpat.org/wiki/John_Carmack_o ... re_patents. It would be terrible if we were banned from obvious things like using a head and neck model of rotation for head position, feeding in the tracking matrix at the last minute of rendering, or doing warping in a pixel shader. And if someone else had invented First Person Shooters and patented them, it would have been a disaster for gaming.

As far as I can tell, Cybereality is violating at least one patent with his driver. He could get a cease and desist letter at any time, even though he has obviously done nothing wrong and not stolen anyone's ideas, and even though whoever wrote the patent obviously has no intention of actually inventing their invention themselves.

[brantlew]

I looked briefly at VR patents, but the field is so thoroughly studied and patented that it's difficult to see where one could slip a (defendable) patent in. Oh, if you've got a team of lawyers standing by it can be done. Microsoft and Apple have hundreds of ridiculous, obvious, and overlapping patents. But I couldn't bring myself to file something so trivial that it would never stand up in court. Certainly not worth my time and money squabbling over it. If I put out a product and someone claims infringement - I'll probably just fold the company right then rather than waste my energy on that silliness.

[Emax]

So what is Palmers intention with all this then?

I could understand that make it open source and even make other companies go the same way is cool as long as your intention is to bring VR back, and this time to PC-Gamers, just because you love it.

But since Palmer started a company, has employees and money is involved, this become different. Earning money and protecting your proprietary knowledge becomes important (I don’t know if that is possible with his idea).
Did I get something totally wrong here?

On the other hand, could Palmer get some hard times from other companies involved in this business, as soon as he starts to sell a consumer product?

[Namielus]

Personally I think Oculus Rift is going to do fine even with competition. More competition means bigger market and thats good anyway.
No competition means no market and is bad.

[2EyeGuy]

But since Palmer started a company, has employees and money is involved, this become different. Earning money and protecting your proprietary knowledge becomes important (I don’t know if that is possible with his idea).
Did I get something totally wrong here?

Yes you did get something wrong there, and it's about the word "earn". What companies are thinking about in those situations, in terms of patents and proprietary knowledge, has absolutely nothing to do with "earning", and everything to do with taking money by force and stopping consumers getting the products they want while doing so.

[Emax]

But since Palmer started a company, has employees and money is involved, this become different. Earning money and protecting your proprietary knowledge becomes important (I don’t know if that is possible with his idea).
Did I get something totally wrong here?

Yes you did get something wrong there, and it's about the word "earn". What companies are thinking about in those situations, in terms of patents and proprietary knowledge, has absolutely nothing to do with "earning", and everything to do with taking money by force and stopping consumers getting the products they want while doing so.

yep, the patent system is screwed up, especially when it comes to smartphone and software patents. What big companies are doing these days is maybe not what it was intendet to be. It was supposed to protect the innovative inventors so that they can "earn money" with their ideas after a lot of research, time and money was put in. Look at small to medium biotec or medical companies. They spend millions for years and have to feed hundrets of employiees.
How would you feel if a big company steels your invention and makes big business just because they have a big marketing budget, have the infrastructure and a well known name. You can also look at the system in a way that it protects the small and unknown inventors.

My feeling is that Palmers technology is innovative for its simplicity and for solving problems with software instead of expensive hardware. Innovation can be anything, even a production process to produce something cheaper, the combination of known technology in a new way etc.
It is also not an argument that people did it before in this forum. In the rest of the world (except US right now) it is "first to file" not “first to invent”, and the US is changing right now to the same system. So who ever will patent something owns it, does not matter who invented it or did it first.

And again, I am not supporting the current patent system. I am just thinking loud.

[mahler]

How would you feel if a big company steels your invention and makes big business just because they have a big marketing budget, have the infrastructure and a well known name. You can also look at the system in a way that it protects the small and unknown inventors.

I'm not sure about Palmer, but I would be really happy if other companies jump in and find ways to make VR the next big thing. It's another story if this hurts my investments, but as long as it's kickstarted or privately funded, I'd look for a balance between promoting VR and a healthy business.