DK2 details? + Positional Tracking not in Consumer Rift?

[jf031]

Road to VR has some details from the new Edge magazine cover story on the Rift: http://www.roadtovr.com/2013/05/09/the- ... azine-5672.

Latency and field of view will be improved in forthcoming dev kits, the resolution will be improved in the consumer model and positional tracking may be supported further down the line. Looking even further ahead, Luckey talks about the possibility of a wireless headset and motions controllers.

If the next devkit is just a higher FOV and lower latency (I would assume that means a better pixel response time, so less motion blur - the tracker is definitely not a source of detectable latency), I'm personally going to skip it and wait for the consumer version.

Looks like position tracking might just be an add-on for the consumer Rift. I was expecting it to be part of the consumer Rift, but it does seem that positional tracking is a big problem to solve. I'll definitely buy the add-on if they make one.

edit: DK2 = dev kit 2.

[mattyeatsmatts]

Im going to get it because it will be useful and become a cool collectors item in the future, in 20 years we will look back to this is where VR really started.

[Marulu]

I think positional tracking is going to be included in the consumer version.
I think Palmer just phrased it this way because he wants to keep the news for a official announcement.

I myself am going to buy the second dev kit.

[GeraldT]

Blabla "indies will be important" blabla ... I really start to wonder if I want to create games for the Rift.

Positional Tracking will be a big thing for game mechanics. We indies have the chance to get a fair portion of the small VR cake by going that extra mile the big ones will most likely not be able to (in the beginning). But if we keep getting our information through magazines and not from Oculus I really think I rather keep developing LEAP titles and just play the games AAA gives us.

If I had my Rift, I would simulate Positional Tracking via Hydra. Now the consumer kit might not even get it? How are we supposed to target a platform the developer of the platform does not keep us informed what it will be able to do???

[zeroxygen]

Blabla "indies will be important" blabla ... I really start to wonder if I want to create games for the Rift.

Positional Tracking will be a big thing for game mechanics. We indies have the chance to get a fair portion of the small VR cake by going that extra mile the big ones will most likely not be able to (in the beginning). But if we keep getting our information through magazines and not from Oculus I really think I rather keep developing LEAP titles and just play the games AAA gives us.

If I had my Rift, I would simulate Positional Tracking via Hydra. Now the consumer kit might not even get it? How are we supposed to target a platform the developer of the platform does not keep us informed what it will be able to do???

Targeting something that doesn't exist yet seems a bit unwise in any situation. If they are still researching it, how are they going to give you confirmation on what you can target?

[garagebattle]

The speed at which this tech is moving, and the need to reach a 'consumer grade' experience are so high that Im wondering if the enthusiast community will reach a '2.0' experience by the time Oculus does.

Once enthusiasts reverse engineer the Oculus people will start printing their own. Some people will make improvements, and presumably an update with a better screen and an additional place for an integrated tracking sensor.

Remember, unlike many items a homebrew kit does not need to be sexy, it will be a race to functionality and experience. Realistically we are talking: better screen, additional tracking sensor, different lenses. I in no way want to sound anti-Oculus, just a realistic view.

[LukePoga]

position tracking is trivial, just stick a Hydra chip on your head. Why can't they do that?

[Krenzo]

position tracking is trivial, just stick a Hydra chip on your head. Why can't they do that?

Because it's not trivial.

[braddas]

position tracking is trivial, just stick a Hydra chip on your head. Why can't they do that?

It's trivial if the hydra were an ideal solution, but it's not really... The hydra requires a base station for starters, which casuses a few problems. I think the ideal solution would be totally integrated into the HMD (if that's even possible). Also, as far as I know the hydra isn't particularly accurate for this sort of thing (I don't own a hydra so I'm going off what I've read), Oculus will be looking for something better, as they should.

[Ziggurat]

They could use the hdmi box as a base station if they needed to.

[mrklaw]

If oculus expect to deliver positional tracking for the consumer version, they should let developers know as soon as possible. Even if they don't have the exact technical solution sorted out, developers can still emulate it using a hydra etc, and then plug into the proper sensor data when it is available.

[TheHolyChicken]

If oculus expect to deliver positional tracking for the consumer version, they should let developers know as soon as possible. Even if they don't have the exact technical solution sorted out, developers can still emulate it using a hydra etc, and then plug into the proper sensor data when it is available.

Palmer has been quoted on multiple occasions saying to expect positional tracking for the consumer version, and that it is a "must-have" feature. Developers do know this. For example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oD5eEzJjFbA

The comment is not a transcript of what was said by Palmer, it's just the magazine's interpretation - likely it is just poor wording. Try not to panic, guys

[Endothermic]

I'd also expect that palmer has learn't from the kickstarter and wouldn't make the mistake of saying something is going to be in the consumer model if it's something that he can't know 100% for sure will be like higher res.

Considering all that's happened with the kickstarter, can you imagine the shitstorm that would happen if he said the consumer version definately was going to have positional tracking but then for some reason didn't?

Even if they perfected positional tracking and the only reason it didn't have it was cos a big fat rock fell out of the sky and crushed the factory making it, you can bet there would still be endless whining and ranting about it not having it because he said it would

[zeroxygen]

The speed at which this tech is moving, and the need to reach a 'consumer grade' experience are so high that Im wondering if the enthusiast community will reach a '2.0' experience by the time Oculus does.

Once enthusiasts reverse engineer the Oculus people will start printing their own. Some people will make improvements, and presumably an update with a better screen and an additional place for an integrated tracking sensor.

Remember, unlike many items a homebrew kit does not need to be sexy, it will be a race to functionality and experience. Realistically we are talking: better screen, additional tracking sensor, different lenses. I in no way want to sound anti-Oculus, just a realistic view.

I have to say I don't see any realism in assumption. Homebrew kits aren't going to be cheap and any variation will have worse content issues than the actual DK has now.

[GeraldT]

Try not to panic, guys

Not a question of panic, it is a question of "can we use positional tracking for game mechanics or not?" ... I want to make games that truly aim for what the Rift and the Hydra offer. So far I have taken positional tracking as a given - now I can't. So I can't use peering over edges or dodging bullets a game mechanic.

[TheHolyChicken]

So far I have taken positional tracking as a given - now I can't.

Why? Because a single article has a single, vaguely worded translation alluding that might be the case (if you squint)? There have been countless references from multiple people at Oculus clearly stating that positional tracking is going to happen - to believe otherwise based upon this article's choice of words I can only consider to be an over-reaction.

[Paintbrush]

Well, to be fair, they always said they *really* want to include positional tracking in consumer version (in contrast to better resolution, that was promised from the start).
You can bet, they'll try their best to include an affordable PT solution. Trying to keep the price low (which is a must) might get in their way though.

[CaptnYesterday]

Whatever the case, true or poor wording, positional tracking is as important as Palmer said, a "must have" feature. I agree. It needs to be there. Maybe Palmertech will jump in to confirm one way or another. Just saying, if the article is correct or not, it would be nice to get confirmation from the source either way.

Most hope the DK2 will include it regardless of this article. Programming for for it without it's being included is not optimal. Hydra is cool, but there will be differences in the hydra vs native tracking.

------
Hey, quick question regarding DK2,3,etc. Will the change in display result in difficult correction in code already made for this version of the DK?
For example: Display size spec changes, subsequent optics change, warp modification, etc.

How much of a task will it be for the creators of complex games like The Gallery: Six Elements to make corrections for future dev kit specs?

[GeraldT]

So far I have taken positional tracking as a given - now I can't.

Why? Because a single article has a single, vaguely worded translation alluding that might be the case (if you squint)? There have been countless references from multiple people at Oculus clearly stating that positional tracking is going to happen - to believe otherwise based upon this article's choice of words I can only consider to be an over-reaction.

Because I have not read an announcement from Oculus that it is otherwise.
Because I agree that it is a technical hurdle and they might be beginning to realize they are likely not to take it within their schedule.
Because if I build a game mechanic based on it that I then won't be able to publish, I might have made a very, very bad investment.
Because if they won't have it in their kits the motion sickness problems might stay at the current level and you won't convince a large percentage of users to invest in a product if they feel ill after their first encounter.
Because a main reason for not implementing it might be that AAA titles are very unlikely to make use of it and it might be a pact with the devil behind it.

Mostly though because I can only wildly(!!!) speculate and as usual have ZERO real information at hand. The only bit I got from that article.

That is because. If you do it for fun, it does not matter. If you do it for a living it does.

[TheHolyChicken]

So far I have taken positional tracking as a given - now I can't.

Why? Because a single article has a single, vaguely worded translation alluding that might be the case (if you squint)? There have been countless references from multiple people at Oculus clearly stating that positional tracking is going to happen - to believe otherwise based upon this article's choice of words I can only consider to be an over-reaction.

Because I have not read an announcement from Oculus that it is otherwise.
Because I agree that it is a technical hurdle and they might be beginning to realize they are likely not to take it within their schedule.
Because if I build a game mechanic based on it that I then won't be able to publish, I might have made a very, very bad investment.
Because if they won't have it in their kits the motion sickness problems might stay at the current level and you won't convince a large percentage of users to invest in a product if they feel ill after their first encounter.
Because a main reason for not implementing it might be that AAA titles are very unlikely to make use of it and it might be a pact with the devil behind it.

Mostly though because I can only wildly(!!!) speculate and as usual have ZERO real information at hand. The only bit I got from that article.

That is because. If you do it for fun, it does not matter. If you do it for a living it does.

Ok, fair enough. I concede it's true I haven't seen anything in writing from Oculus officially stating that positional tracking will definitely be featured. Personally I don't see it as a risk, but then I don't have my own money on the line. You could always try to email oculus directly, or PM one of the employees here on MTBS, if you are nervous of such issues though.

[Mystify]

Because a main reason for not implementing it might be that AAA titles are very unlikely to make use of it and it might be a pact with the devil behind it.

I don't understand your reasoning here at all.

[GeraldT]

Because a main reason for not implementing it might be that AAA titles are very unlikely to make use of it and it might be a pact with the devil behind it.

I don't understand your reasoning here at all.

As Palmer etc. said multiple times - the real hope for VR optimized experiences are Indies. So far I don't see Oculus addressing indies, they are addressing AAA devs. And very successful. To get the large market excited I see this as a valid strategy.

Now big IPs won't use positional tracking as a deeply integrated game mechanic. Dodging arrows in the next Skyrim is maybe an option, but that is where it ends. I can see much more interesting gameplay mechanics using it.
Since big IPs need to keep everything compatible to console gamepads and mouse/keyboard they are not adding positional tracking. That way it's not like there is something missing when playing in AAA. Also they have something that will help them sell Consumer Version II or III.
And it will keep costs even lower, making their 250$ price more likely.

I wanted to make VR optimized experiences. I wanted to use the fact that I can do that while big IPs can't as an advantage from a business perspective. Without it the playing field indie vs. AAA is much more level. And with an uncertain size of the consumer group investing into a bigger project seems like a very risky thing to do for a small indie.

[Drewbdoo]

[Hewster]

I personally would like to hear, officially, whether Oculus has positional tracking is on their "to-do" list for the consumer version.

As GeraldT says, it can/is influencing design choices at the moment, and to me is definitely VERY important.

[ThomasH]

I agree. If not supported, very different design routes may be needed. Atleast for me. (6dof was a feature during kickstart also)

[Mystify]

Because a main reason for not implementing it might be that AAA titles are very unlikely to make use of it and it might be a pact with the devil behind it.

I don't understand your reasoning here at all.

As Palmer etc. said multiple times - the real hope for VR optimized experiences are Indies. So far I don't see Oculus addressing indies, they are addressing AAA devs. And very successful. To get the large market excited I see this as a valid strategy.

Now big IPs won't use positional tracking as a deeply integrated game mechanic. Dodging arrows in the next Skyrim is maybe an option, but that is where it ends. I can see much more interesting gameplay mechanics using it.
Since big IPs need to keep everything compatible to console gamepads and mouse/keyboard they are not adding positional tracking. That way it's not like there is something missing when playing in AAA. Also they have something that will help them sell Consumer Version II or III.
And it will keep costs even lower, making their 250$ price more likely.

I wanted to make VR optimized experiences. I wanted to use the fact that I can do that while big IPs can't as an advantage from a business perspective. Without it the playing field indie vs. AAA is much more level. And with an uncertain size of the consumer group investing into a bigger project seems like a very risky thing to do for a small indie.

There is a huge gulf between "Not integrating positional tracking as a game mechanic" and "not using positional tracking at all", and an even larger leap to "actively suppress the existence of such tracking", and additionally a huge leap to "Palmer will accept such suppression and leave out what he says is a vital feature". Frankly, this strikes me as outright paranoid.
The only way I see positional tracking not being in the consumer rift would be them failing to engineer a working solution. Which, I'll admit, is a valid concern. But you are proposing an actual conspiracy to hamper the rift's capabilities, which is absurd.

[GeraldT]

There is a huge gulf between "Not integrating positional tracking as a game mechanic" and "not using positional tracking at all", and an even larger leap to "actively suppress the existence of such tracking", and additionally a huge leap to "Palmer will accept such suppression and leave out what he says is a vital feature". Frankly, this strikes me as outright paranoid.
The only way I see positional tracking not being in the consumer rift would be them failing to engineer a working solution. Which, I'll admit, is a valid concern. But you are proposing an actual conspiracy to hamper the rift's capabilities, which is absurd.

Which is why I filed it under: "wild!!! speculations" Mystify ... just reread the original

[Hermit]

So all dk2 has is a faster screen? Let's hope this is a joke.

[GeraldT]

So all dk2 has is a faster screen? Let's hope this is a joke.

why? without that leaked info we wouldn't even be aware it is coming. maybe all that is planed is "we need to update it once our initial display is no longer available"

[Machinima]

If all DK2 has is a better screen then its a logical step but frankly probably not worth upgrading for many. And if it is just an upgraded screen then I hope oculus will sell kits to allow people to upgrade their DK1's.

For me its not a big issue as I never planned to buy DK2 anyway, but it would be nice to have a bit more information just for curiosity sake.

[GeraldT]

If all DK2 has is a better screen then its a logical step but frankly probably not worth upgrading for many. And if it is just an upgraded screen then I hope oculus will sell kits to allow people to upgrade their DK1's.

For me its not a big issue as I never planned to buy DK2 anyway, but it would be nice to have a bit more information just for curiosity sake.

They are likely not even sure which display they will use, that will be influenced by what will be available at the time they need to make the decision. It is just to expect that it will be better.
Maybe they are happy with their current supplier and will just get the newest revision, so the DK2 is not really a product upgrade but a revision.

If there is more to it, they won't mention it. They still want to sell as many dk1 units as possible to make sure they won't have to store a large amount of units due to overproduction.

[CaptnYesterday]

If all DK2 has is a better screen then its a logical step but frankly probably not worth upgrading for many. And if it is just an upgraded screen then I hope oculus will sell kits to allow people to upgrade their DK1's.

For me its not a big issue as I never planned to buy DK2 anyway, but it would be nice to have a bit more information just for curiosity sake.

If the screen is a different size, how could they offer a DIY upgrade? Was under the impression that a smaller screen was optimal for the Rift and, if true, they would be shooting for it.

Anyway, I can't see how they can bring out the DK2 anytime soon. They can't really bring it out until they are able to fulfill orders for the current DK1 as they come in. Otherwise you would be seeing a couple of months worth of people that ordered DK1 and are waiting when the DK2 pops up.... I could only imagine what people would do:

"Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!"

[Syko]

Would be nice if Palmer give out some Information about this. How should Devs create the best VR experience if they dont know what will be in the Consumer Version?

I can´t imagine that 1.5years after the DK1 release the CK1 will only have a better screen and a little more fov.

[Machinima]

If the screen is a different size, how could they offer a DIY upgrade? Was under the impression that a smaller screen was optimal for the Rift and, if true, they would be shooting for it.

"

Well, its not hard to imagine some sort of plastic caddy to allow a smaller screen to fit in the place of the larger one, assuming its not very much smaller that is, otherwise of course you'd have to replace the optics too, but that also isn't unimaginable.

[CaptnYesterday]

If the screen is a different size, how could they offer a DIY upgrade? Was under the impression that a smaller screen was optimal for the Rift and, if true, they would be shooting for it.

"

Well, its not hard to imagine some sort of plastic caddy to allow a smaller screen to fit in the place of the larger one, assuming its not very much smaller that is, otherwise of course you'd have to replace the optics too, but that also isn't unimaginable.

Optics would still have to change right? Not sure if a new set to replace the ABCs would suffice. Distance of screen from lens is also a possible issue (smaller screen at the same distance would not work without modifying optics or distance. Someone will correct me I am far out on my conclusions.

Also, they have already mentioned to people that they don't support breaking the rift open (warranty issues?) I honestly can't think of a way that they can release DK2 while people are still waiting for DK1 and offer replacement parts for those. Then again, I am not working there and I hope they can come up with a creative solution.

[xhonzi]

If the screen is a different size, how could they offer a DIY upgrade? Was under the impression that a smaller screen was optimal for the Rift and, if true, they would be shooting for it.

"

Well, its not hard to imagine some sort of plastic caddy to allow a smaller screen to fit in the place of the larger one, assuming its not very much smaller that is, otherwise of course you'd have to replace the optics too, but that also isn't unimaginable.

Solve for x and y:
Rift - screen - optics = x + y

If the screen and the optics get replaced... isn't that a high enough percentage of the total cost that it just makes more sense to get a new one?

It seems like getting a new engine, transmission, and drive train on an old clunker.

Except in this analogy, you still have a perfectly fine DK1. Makes more sense to me just to add a DK2 to your collection and have 2 Rifts... rather than 1 Rift with a handful of additional parts.

Especially if DK2 has a positional tracker.

[Machinima]

If the screen is a different size, how could they offer a DIY upgrade? Was under the impression that a smaller screen was optimal for the Rift and, if true, they would be shooting for it.

"

Well, its not hard to imagine some sort of plastic caddy to allow a smaller screen to fit in the place of the larger one, assuming its not very much smaller that is, otherwise of course you'd have to replace the optics too, but that also isn't unimaginable.

Solve for x and y:
Rift - screen - optics = x + y

If the screen and the optics get replaced... isn't that a high enough percentage of the total cost that it just makes more sense to get a new one?

It seems like getting a new engine, transmission, and drive train on an old clunker.

Except in this analogy, you still have a perfectly fine DK1. Makes more sense to me just to add a DK2 to your collection and have 2 Rifts... rather than 1 Rift with a handful of additional parts.

Especially if DK2 has a positional tracker.

Cost of screen ~$60 + cost of optics ~$20 =/= cost of new rift ~$300

[GeraldT]

They won't offer separate screens for the few people capable of exchanging them.
Especially since they won't be the only ones that order them and it would be a service nightmare without any upside for them.

[Machinima]

you're probably right

[Paladia]

I'd be very surprised if even the devkit 2.0 didn't have positional tracking. As that would be the main reason to have a new devkit, so the positional tracking can be implemented into games for the consumer version.

There is little reason to release an updated devkit just because the screen latency has changed, that has little to do with the developers and their work. The FOV change is also a fairly simple thing for developers to alter.

Positional tracking on the other hand, that's a completely new feature and one that could warrant another devkit.