It is currently Sun Jul 23, 2017 12:48 am



 [ 39 posts ] 
 Will vrAse be the powerful competitor of Oculus Rift? 
Author Message
One Eyed Hopeful
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2013 2:36 am
Posts: 10
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/204 ... ality-case

I have seen it is cable-free and smartphone-basde device.In smartphone platform there will be more game designer than Oculus developer.
And cable-free makes it more convinient to carry in any place.
Even in price,it only cost 75 dollar,far less than Oculus.

Those who have smartphone maybe purchase it,but they may not purchase Oculus,for the above reason.

So it will be really a killer VR device.


Thu Sep 05, 2013 7:00 am
Sharp Eyed Eagle!

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 7:13 am
Posts: 427
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
No


Thu Sep 05, 2013 7:24 am
One Eyed Hopeful
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2013 2:36 am
Posts: 10
virror wrote:
No

Why not?I give 3 reason for it advantage.


Thu Sep 05, 2013 7:28 am
Cross Eyed!

Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2013 4:21 pm
Posts: 175
No.

It's cool, but it's not prepared for VR. It's for watching 3D movies, 3D Android and iOS games and for augmented reality.

It's not for PC games. It lacks the streaming part and the software one.

Plus, it's 75$ now with "a lot more higher after the Kickstarter campaign ends". And I have my doubts that it will reach its target.

Not to mention it's made exclusively for smartphones, not tablets. You really need a 6-7" display for VR.


Thu Sep 05, 2013 7:29 am
Sharp Eyed Eagle!

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 7:13 am
Posts: 427
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
3 reasons why the Rift is superior:
-Head tracking latency
-Software support
-Weight and comfort (probably)
-Loads of different screens, no way they can make custom optics to all of them so probably bad FOV on many of them
-Name is ridiculous : p


Thu Sep 05, 2013 7:41 am
Binocular Vision CONFIRMED!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 5:02 pm
Posts: 315
pshh ill just make my own in like 10 mins using cardboard and my spare B and C Oculus Rift eyecups


Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:20 am
Binocular Vision CONFIRMED!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 5:02 pm
Posts: 315
^ what he said


Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:21 am
Certif-Eyed!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 11:53 pm
Posts: 541
summerice wrote:
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2041280918/vrase-the-smartphone-virtual-reality-case

I have seen it is cable-free and smartphone-basde device.In smartphone platform there will be more game designer than Oculus developer.
And cable-free makes it more convinient to carry in any place.
Even in price,it only cost 75 dollar,far less than Oculus.

Those who have smartphone maybe purchase it,but they may not purchase Oculus,for the above reason.

So it will be really a killer VR device.


VRASE, no, they're pretty weak, and the problem obviously isn't hardware - it's software.

Durovis is a bigger threat than VRASE .. they at least know enough to give the hardware away:

http://www.durovis.com/opendive.html

That being said - I can see Unity or Oculus coming out with a toolset for Mobile which blows everyone away and allows great games to be built.

_________________
Gear VR: Maybe OVR isn't so evil after all!


Thu Sep 05, 2013 9:04 am
Binocular Vision CONFIRMED!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 3:35 pm
Posts: 273
Location: Thornton, CO USA
mattyeatsmatts wrote:
pshh ill just make my own in like 10 mins using cardboard and my spare B and C Oculus Rift eyecups


mattyeatsmatts wrote:
^ what he said


I don't think you can 2nd your own motion.


Thu Sep 05, 2013 11:16 am
Binocular Vision CONFIRMED!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 1:31 pm
Posts: 214
Location: Barcelona
I don't think that vrAse will be a direct competition to Oculus in the short term since they aim at different markets; obviously there's some overlapping but i think there's more than enough space for both of them.


I actually met the founder of vrAse, Miguel Schiaffino, through MTBS back in February and then in person around March here in Barcelona, where he showed me one of his early prototypes. Miguel is a really passionate and interesting guy, even though this might not translate very well in the interviews since his English is not the best.. Anyway the demo I think was using a Galaxy Note 2 and I must say i was quite impressed with the 3D effect, but that was a few months before i got my RiftDK so i can't really compare both.. Apart from sharing some ideas, i wanted to help a bit more by writing some demos but in the end couldn't find the time to do it.

As vrAse have explained before, their main focus is 3D media consumption and obviously portability. For those that you missed it and are interested, Miguel did an interview with Reverend Kyle, where he answers some of the questions most people have:
http://www.reverendkyle.com/index.php/articles/200-rev-vr-podcast-episode-6
(don't know why it doesn't work directly, press the skip button next to play to jump from episode 7 to episode 6)


However I think that for immersive VR gaming the commercial version of the Oculus Rift is going to be better, since it's going to address many issues that you can only do with a device designed specifically for VR:

- FOV will be wider since you can have custom lenses combined with a specific screen of the exact right size for the job
- Rift should weigh less since you are only carrying a screen + optics + case, not a whole mobile phone / phablet
- Tracking should have less latency using the custom designed Oculus tracker + prediction software
- Oculus can have specific adjustments to improve image quality, like forcing the panel to 90Hz, using low-persistence strobing, special filters to reduce screendor effect, etc
- Positional tracking (still curious on how are they going to accomplish it)
- Possible bonus: a standard VR input device / hand-tracking bundled with the HMD


Having said that there are obviously some good things going for vrAse:

- FOV good enough for watching 3d movies
- games maybe not as immersive as with the Rift, but still provide a compelling 3d effect. Combined with the right phone and the right software people can have great fun with it
- wireless (don't know yet if the latency it's going to be low enough for streaming games from the PC, project shield is doing it but VR is a different ball game)
- possibility of AR (although i'm not sure how well is going to work with a low FOV camera and no stereoscopy, even at 60fps)
- price, they went a bit high for my liking on the Kickstarter, but still going to be a fraction of the cost of the Rift (if you already have a good phone)
- don't underestimate the power of the Android community!


Personally i'm more excited about Oculus because i'm mainly interested in the best possible VR gaming experience, but i can see the potential market for vrAse. Also, as with the Rift, success will depend mostly on software support, if the Kickstarter is successful i think it will come. Finally i think the real competitor of Oculus is going to be Sony if they do release a wide FOV HMD for the PS4 in the end, we will see.

Anyway, i wish the vrAse team the best of luck with their Kickstarter! The more the merrier!


Sat Sep 07, 2013 2:30 pm
Cross Eyed!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 3:56 pm
Posts: 103
Location: Waterford, Ireland
No. Its not direct competition against the Rift but it is a neat Media Viewer and would be great for long trips on planes.

They really should edit the video as its a small bit misleading showing L4D and Battlefield as the games when the phone cant handle anything nearly as taxing.

Its also a bit pricey for the the mount. A fair price for this would be around 50 euros / dollars not pounds as that works out at close to 100 euros and you still need a high end phone.

Also their main selling point is ( No Wires ) anybody here try watch a 2 hour movie on their phone lately without having to plug it into the charger. Once a phone battery gets to about 6 months old its charge level really drops off.

Still I like this product but not at the price its being sold for close to 100 euros for some plastic and a couple of lenses. This could be built extremely cheaply just look at this example http://www.amazon.com/Classic-ViewMaste ... B000IOGVM4 :D

Same stuff going into both products minus a strap.

In all fairness I hope they do well but i would have marketed it as a Media Viewer with some added game applications instead of a VR experience.


Sat Sep 07, 2013 5:09 pm
Cross Eyed!

Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 8:16 am
Posts: 100
mattyeatsmatts wrote:
pshh ill just make my own in like 10 mins using cardboard and my spare B and C Oculus Rift eyecups

I did that some time back, although without the actual lenses since this was before the new VR craze. (And I only imitated someone I saw on Youtube that tried the same thing.) It was kind of fun to look around in Google Streetview in different places around the world.

But I'd say that the gyro/accelerometer is still not good enough in mobile devices. (It's similar to what the Oculus is using, but Oculus is running it a lot faster and with latency in mind.)

The camera isn't really good enough for AR right now. The latency is way too high (100ms+) and you become dizzy very quickly. It works fine when you are holding the device in your hand, because then you can see the real world around you as well as the AR viewfinder.

It's a fun to to play around with. But it's nowhere near $90 value. At that price it's a ripoff.

Palmer's old Fov2Go project is similar if anyone wants to make their own http://projects.ict.usc.edu/mxr/diy/fov2go/.


Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:38 am
Golden Eyed Wiseman! (or woman!)

Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 11:47 pm
Posts: 1497
The thing is, currently VrAse etc don't have anywhere near the demonstrated potential as Oculus, simply because Oculus has invested in the developers already, and has a headstart.
What's holding back VrAse is software - they need devs to write applications for it, and the hardware base is changing constantly. To get anywhere they will probably need to invest in some sort of abstraction SDK, and provide routines to allow devs to easily access sensors, output, etc, in a fast and consistent way, rather than having to directly deal with different models of gyro sensors, slow OS calls, and so on. Then, if they also provided a couple of good game demos (like Tuscany), and examples of using it for more than a viewer, Oculus might have a fight on their hands.

I don't see them as being any real competition in the near term.


Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:59 am
Two Eyed Hopeful
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 5:45 am
Posts: 71
vRase is just a fancier version of the Durovis Dive which is a fancier version of the Fov2Go (and Hasbro My3D).
And thats just it, they even said that on their kickstarter page! They try to make the best LOOKING headset. See, they just don't seem get it.
Jeah sure, they also plan to release a tutorial on how to convert your videos to 3D side by side, and thats just it for the moment.

On the other hand, look at the enormous amount of work developers have put into software for the Rift. And thats with a consumer release relatively far into the future.

I just don't see that coming to an Android Platform anytime soon. My HTC One, one of the most powerful smartphones available, struggles to get Quake2 to run an 1080p 60fps SBS. And that's just the software side. Looking at all the peripherals that is being worked on (STEM or the Omni for example) and the hardware improvements that will be coming to the rift (positional tracking for example) i see the Rift many miles ahead. And don't underestimate the insane amount of talented and influential people at Oculus with awesome relationships to the most talented game developers working on triple AAA (edit: triple AAA would be AAAAAAAAA, so...jeah, you know what i ment) experiences especially made for the Rift.

Sure, in the distant future i can totally see mobile tech catch on and being the way to go for Virtual Reality applications.

I will still get one of those "mobile-hmds" just for the fun of it and maybe bringing it to work for lunchtime, havent decided which one to get though. In theory the vRase could provide the better experience just based on the fact that they got an OPHTHALMOLOGIST (i couldn't even pronounce that if english was my native language lol) on their team vs. the one man show of Durovis.


Tue Sep 17, 2013 5:53 am
One Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 2:10 pm
Posts: 4
Hey,

so this is my first post at the forum - Hi to all ;-).

VRASE is strange: did you notice that they claim a nearsighted user with -3 dpt can use the device as well as a normal sighted user and a farsighted user needs contacts? The only explanation for this is, that they do NOT use lenses with an image projected at infinity, but they use lenses (or a distance to the screen) which projects an image around 33cm in front of the user. This will cause eye strain for sure and this is in my opinion the main cause, why the device won't be a killer for anything at all! People pay a lot of money for a device which will make the eyes tired after one hour of usage, so you will be able to eatch half a movie. Plus they only provide hardware, NO software at all. No changing of lens focus, no changing of IPD BUT a very nice promotion video. Seems like there a people who take a known idea, claim that they do something totaly new and take a lot of money.

I agree: DUROVIS DIVE is the device for the smartphone. These guys will do it, because they provide the software and a focus change and an IPD change!

What do you think?
Regards,
Roman


Sat Oct 05, 2013 2:53 pm
One Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 4:25 am
Posts: 5
It's highly improbable that any smartphone HMDs will compete with the Rift. VR is already hard enough on the eyes and causes nausea for many. Smartphones have positional tracking latency and they don't usually have the best response time in their displays. The exception being OLED smartphones.

I do, however, think they are neat and I may get one for fun.


Sat Oct 05, 2013 11:18 pm
Vireio Perception Developer
Vireio Perception Developer
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 5:20 am
Posts: 491
Location: BB, Slovakia
Hi,

I must admit I was very interested in VR Ase. If nothing else one could try different phones to see what gives the best screendoor effect, or lack thereof. However keeping tabs on articles I believe there is a lot of misleading / irresponsible claims made (not all by VRAse - but certainly where they have been happy to take the praise). One article stated vrAse was superior to the Oculus in every single way. This is largely because it can use the other features a Smart phone has (GPS etc). Also the fact sheet comparing it to other glasses etc is a complete joke. Apparently a Windows PC is a "limited ecosystem" - pfff. However they never cover really important things such as gaming latency / headtracking / 60fps / etc.

I was going to back this project but to be honest the marketing put me off so much I decided against it. This will be interesting to see the results but clearly the Oculus is the current best way forward for vr gaming. I do wish them the best of luck though. I just hope that the VR games / experiences won't put people off the new VR movement.


Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:00 am
Certif-Eyed!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 11:53 pm
Posts: 541
Smartphones such as the Iphone 5s with a coprocessor IMU chip are superior to the Devkit OR.

They're wireless, they have a camera on the outside for many uses, and they serve as a powerful smartphone. They're also very portable, so all you need is a plastic head mount to supplement.

They are not merely competitive, they are superior.

NOW if Oculus come out with a hires / wireless rift with a reasonable price point (say < $400) than that may change the rules of the game a bit.

They have yet to do so, so the jury is still out.

_________________
Gear VR: Maybe OVR isn't so evil after all!


Mon Oct 07, 2013 2:54 pm
Golden Eyed Wiseman! (or woman!)

Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 9:06 pm
Posts: 1644
blazespinnaker wrote:
Smartphones such as the Iphone 5s with a coprocessor IMU chip are superior to the Devkit OR.


The motion tracker in the 5S is pretty poor, actually. The coprocessor does not improve performance in any meaningful way, it just saves battery life by letting applications use the motion data without fully spinning up the main hardware. The maximum update rate is 100hz, and there are quite a few articles about how poorly calibrated the sensors are. Other phones suffer from the same problems, they just don't get put under the scrutiny that Apple devices do.

I love smartphones, and mobile is going to be important for VR, but they are not superior to the Rift for VR, not even close. The fact that they have a bunch of additional features does not make up for their poor tracking.


Mon Oct 07, 2013 3:57 pm
One Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 5:03 am
Posts: 39
Location: Germany
blazespinnaker wrote:
Smartphones such as the Iphone 5s with a coprocessor IMU chip are superior to the Devkit OR.

The iPhone 5s is supposed to be a superior VR device, really? Well it certainly isn't in resolution (568x640 Pixels per eye), nor the possible FOV (which is going to suck on a 4" screen). Nobody can really compare the sensors but I have doubts they're superior for VR purposes. There are no VR apps worth talking about. 3D performance is only good enough for low-fidelity and low-framerate 3D-gaming. Then there's mundane things like how are you even going to control the phone while it is strapped to your face (oooh look - mom's calling right in the middle of a VR game)? It costs roughly 2.5x as much as a RiftDK and you need an adapter. Sorry, but that doesn't sound superior to me at all...

Maybe you meant a different phone? But even that's only going to solve half the issues I listed (like resolution and screensize, not the other, more meaningfull ones).

I think mobile technologies will have a very important part to play in the future evolution of VR (and probably the Rift's). But as I have said in another thread, that doesn't mean the future of VR is going to mean strapping your phone/tablet to your face. That's just a novelty way to experience a quick taste of VR, not "the real deal".

More likely the future is going to be an integrated, wireless HMD, that's going to be able to function both as a VR "screen" for a PC (similar to Nvidia Shield streaming) and also as a stand-alone (most likely Android) device with an integrated marketplace and appstore.


Mon Oct 07, 2013 5:38 pm
Golden Eyed Wiseman! (or woman!)

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 8:18 pm
Posts: 1329
^ Precisely. It's like saying a Swiss Army Knife is the best kind of knife for scaling fish because it can do a bunch of other unrelated things.


Mon Oct 07, 2013 6:35 pm
One Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 11:00 am
Posts: 42
A dedicated vr solution is likely always going to outstrip a jack-of-all trades device (90s pc gaming vs console for similar cost, for example), but as motion tech starts to plateau, that gap will ultimately diminish (pc versus console now).

Having said that, smartphone vr is surprisingly good and relatively cheap as most people already have a smartphone - I'm having fun with it....

http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=138&t=18441


Wed Oct 09, 2013 12:27 am
Cross Eyed!

Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2013 4:21 pm
Posts: 175
the_wretched wrote:
More likely the future is going to be an integrated, wireless HMD, that's going to be able to function both as a VR "screen" for a PC (similar to Nvidia Shield streaming) and also as a stand-alone (most likely Android) device with an integrated marketplace and appstore.


That's a tablet right there.


Wed Oct 09, 2013 1:51 am
Certif-Eyed!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 11:53 pm
Posts: 541
Sorry to say, but the DevKit as is with the screen door effect, wired, no camera, etc .. very few games that actually specifically support it.. it's just an expensive toy.

Unless oculus comes out with a significant improvement over the DevKit, I'm going to say to most people if they have the $400 or whatever, they're better off buying a smartphone + plastic shell + lenses and waiting until the consumer model.
.

The cable is a hassle beyond belief. The lack of a camera for some kind of AR, even OVR admitted that they need a camera for mass adoption.

The devkit, while I love *it* (but I'm a techy geek, and I love my toys), just doesn't make any sense over a smartphone with all its utility unless you're a devotee .. or money to throw away.

But, you know, I also recommend the lumina 520 to all my friends as well. A $100 smartphone versus a $600 whatever iPhone. I guess I'm just pragmatic that way.

_________________
Gear VR: Maybe OVR isn't so evil after all!


Wed Oct 09, 2013 10:45 am
Golden Eyed Wiseman! (or woman!)

Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 9:06 pm
Posts: 1644
It is not just an expensive toy, it is a developer kit, for game developers. Of course most people should not buy it.

It depends on what people want, though. Telling someone to buy a mobile phone in place of a VR headset is like telling someone to buy a laptop instead of a DSLR camera. One of them does many more things, and it has a webcam on it that can take pictures, but the DSLR is focused on taking great pictures. If you want great pictures, then it does not matter how cheap the laptop is, or how many things it goes; it is not what photography enthusiasts need. Things might change in the future, but at the moment, mobile devices do not and cannot provide a VR experience on par with the Rift.


Wed Oct 09, 2013 1:51 pm
Certif-Eyed!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 11:53 pm
Posts: 541
Brilliant analogy... sadly, I can't remember the last time I saw someone with a DSLR.

But what's with all these people taking pictures with their iPads?

_________________
Gear VR: Maybe OVR isn't so evil after all!


Wed Oct 09, 2013 8:41 pm
Certif-Eyed!

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 12:33 pm
Posts: 660
Image
Post#404: Point not found

People who are taking pictures with their iPads wish they were holding a DSLR.


Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:43 am
Diamond Eyed Freakazoid!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 3:34 am
Posts: 733
Location: Brighton, UK
blazespinnaker wrote:
Brilliant analogy... sadly, I can't remember the last time I saw someone with a DSLR. But what's with all these people taking pictures with their iPads?

Those people taking pictures with their iPads are not photography enthusiasts. That was the whole point. For the average person, taking snaps of their friends, an iPad reaches a level of quality they find satisfactory.

What, then, is the quality level that people will find satisfactory for VR? Bear in mind that a poor photo is just a little bit disappointing, whereas a poor VR experience can cause actual nausea; the minimum quality level that people find satisfactory is going to be comparatively high.

  • I want a good FOV for an immersive experience (most phones not large enough)
  • I want optics that focus on infinity so that my eyes are comfortable (most phones not large enough)
  • I want a headset that is comfortable (a phone will be unnecessarily heavy, and will have very poor weight distribution characteristics)
  • I want a screen that looks good under magnification (many phones not suitable)
  • I want a screen with low pixel switching time to minimise blur (many phones have poor switching times)
  • I want a screen with low pixel persistence, to minimise smear (phones have no reason to use low persistence displays)
  • I would prefer an screen frequency greater than 60Hz (I don't know any phones that are >60Hz)
  • I want accurate and high speed headtracking (most phones have mediocre gyroscopes)

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not exactly racing out to buy one. We're on the brink of finally having a really incredible VR system that actually works, and you're arguing that we should instead just be shooting for the mediocre instead. A mediocre experience is what killed VR the first time around.

_________________
Sometimes I sits and thinks, and sometimes I just sits.


Thu Oct 10, 2013 2:06 am
Vireio Perception Developer
Vireio Perception Developer
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 5:20 am
Posts: 491
Location: BB, Slovakia
blazespinnaker wrote:
very few games that actually specifically support it.. it's just an expensive toy.

Yes it is a devkit - no one is arguing with that. Most people should wait for the consumer edition. However few games? I'd love to see your side by side comparison where you think there are so many games for IPhones or Android that people can play side by side on VrAse. And you are forgetting how Vrase actually works - since it says most games will be streaming anyway (the latency of this really scares me). Last time I counted up for a developer kit, VorpX supported 80+ current games, Tridef supports loads (even unsupported works), Virieo is relaunching on Thanksgiving and will grow to have lots of support, RiftEnabled has 337 games listed. There is more and more official support... Slender: The Arrival, Half Life 2, RetroVirus, Aaahhh for the Awesome, Lunar Flight. Need I go on? Or shall we start arguing on how awesome Candy Crush is going to be in VR?


Thu Oct 10, 2013 2:37 am
Certif-Eyed!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 11:53 pm
Posts: 541
baggyg wrote:
blazespinnaker wrote:
very few games that actually specifically support it.. it's just an expensive toy.

Yes it is a devkit - no one is arguing with that. Most people should wait for the consumer edition. However few games? I'd love to see your side by side comparison where you think there are so many games for IPhones or Android that people can play side by side on VrAse. And you are forgetting how Vrase actually works - since it says most games will be streaming anyway (the latency of this really scares me). Last time I counted up for a developer kit, VorpX supported 80+ current games, Tridef supports loads (even unsupported works), Virieo is relaunching on Thanksgiving and will grow to have lots of support, RiftEnabled has 337 games listed. There is more and more official support... Slender: The Arrival, Half Life 2, RetroVirus, Aaahhh for the Awesome, Lunar Flight. Need I go on? Or shall we start arguing on how awesome Candy Crush is going to be in VR?


My point is that the mobile version is superior from a cost / features point of view. The devkit (for the non developer) is just an expensive toy at this point and waiting for the next version before buying is a good idea. If you want to get your VR taste, just pick up a vrase / durovis / openloop / etc.

I already stated above that the enthusiast would like the devkit, or the guy who has money to burn.

I'm just being rational here. OVR needs to come out with a consumer model if they want to be competitive. They also need to think carefully if they're going to be satisfied with just a better screen. Should they also make it wireless? Positional tracking? Camera(s)? What if it is priced at $500? Does it still make sense to pick that over a smartphone for the average gamer?

What if a hires phablet + terrific motion processor comes out at the same price as the consumer rift? The consumer model might no longer be competitive if it is wired + no camera + no positional.

These are things to think about.

_________________
Gear VR: Maybe OVR isn't so evil after all!


Thu Oct 10, 2013 8:21 am
Vireio Perception Developer
Vireio Perception Developer
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 5:20 am
Posts: 491
Location: BB, Slovakia
blazespinnaker wrote:
baggyg wrote:
blazespinnaker wrote:
very few games that actually specifically support it.. it's just an expensive toy.

Yes it is a devkit - no one is arguing with that. Most people should wait for the consumer edition. However few games? I'd love to see your side by side comparison where you think there are so many games for IPhones or Android that people can play side by side on VrAse. And you are forgetting how Vrase actually works - since it says most games will be streaming anyway (the latency of this really scares me). Last time I counted up for a developer kit, VorpX supported 80+ current games, Tridef supports loads (even unsupported works), Virieo is relaunching on Thanksgiving and will grow to have lots of support, RiftEnabled has 337 games listed. There is more and more official support... Slender: The Arrival, Half Life 2, RetroVirus, Aaahhh for the Awesome, Lunar Flight. Need I go on? Or shall we start arguing on how awesome Candy Crush is going to be in VR?


My point is that the mobile version is superior from a cost / features point of view. The devkit (for the non developer) is just an expensive toy at this point and waiting for the next version before buying is a good idea. If you want to get your VR taste, just pick up a vrase / durovis / openloop / etc.

I already stated above that the enthusiast would like the devkit, or the guy who has money to burn.

I'm just being rational here. OVR needs to come out with a consumer model if they want to be competitive. They also need to think carefully if they're going to be satisfied with just a better screen. Should they also make it wireless? Positional tracking? Camera(s)? What if it is priced at $500? Does it still make sense to pick that over a smartphone for the average gamer?

What if a hires phablet + terrific motion processor comes out at the same price as the consumer rift? The consumer model might no longer be competitive if it is wired + no camera + no positional.

These are things to think about.

Yes these are rational and sensible questions which one can consider when the consumer Rift is out and VrAse or similar has reached a level of maturity. My response follows on from my earlier comment that I have seen irresponsible claims made both by the vrAse marketing team and quoted reviews. One of these is the amount of supported games, a point you touched upon in your comment. I think it is important as a community we try and clarify these, at best, inaccurate claims so that consumers in the future can be aware and not blinded by claims.

Let's see what happens when vrAse comes out. Claiming it is better from a cost and feature point of view is fine as long as it actually delivers on the promises. I personally am not optimistic. For example I would love to know the latency of viewing the phone through the camera for AR. My feeling is that it is going to be vomit inducing. If it is, then the lesser cost is better saved for the consumer rift or a better alternative.


Thu Oct 10, 2013 9:54 am
Certif-Eyed!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 11:53 pm
Posts: 541
Vrase is just one player. Durovis claims to have a pretty version of quake going.



TBH, I'm most excited about openloop. Check it out here: viewtopic.php?f=138&t=18441

I have a devkit. It's pretty awesome in TF2. It is blurry, can't fine tune the optics, and drifts a bit now and then and the cable is damn awkward and can break easily and is not replaceable.. but I got around that by bundling a bunch of the other replaceable cables together (which I hang from the ceiling) and taping the control box to the rift. It's insane, but it works in TF2 when I'm standing up which is lots of fun.

I can't wait to get a omni directional treadmill that I like.

Honestly the way people talk about this stuff, it feels like I'm the only one that is actually really using the Rift.

Anyways - for now, if you have a smartphone, depending on what you want - AR or movies or just a 3d FPS, I'd look at one of these.

Though, if you plan on skate boarding with the vrase, make sure your battery is fully charged and the app isn't crashing....... yikes. Oh yeah, turn off notifications too!

_________________
Gear VR: Maybe OVR isn't so evil after all!


Thu Oct 10, 2013 11:30 am
One Eyed Hopeful
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 8:29 pm
Posts: 41
What part of D E V E L O P E R K I T dont you understand?


baggyg wrote:

Let's see what happens when vrAse comes out.



Nothing probably


Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:47 pm
Certif-Eyed!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 11:53 pm
Posts: 541
Yep! And the more we say that the more better the consumer version has to be. An incremental improvement (ie, just a less blury screen)clearly won't do. That'd just be devkit part Deux.

_________________
Gear VR: Maybe OVR isn't so evil after all!


Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:55 pm
Certif-Eyed!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 9:23 am
Posts: 671
Location: Ahmedabad//INDIA
I can’t understand quite why people are drooling for such phone adapters which are really really farcry from any sort of VR ?

I would never invest in such thing reasons are quite obvious

TheHolyChicken wrote:
What, then, is the quality level that people will find satisfactory for VR? Bear in mind that a poor photo is just a little bit disappointing, whereas a poor VR experience can cause actual nausea; the minimum quality level that people find satisfactory is going to be comparatively high.

I want a good FOV for an immersive experience (most phones not large enough)
I want optics that focus on infinity so that my eyes are comfortable (most phones not large enough)
I want a headset that is comfortable (a phone will be unnecessarily heavy, and will have very poor weight distribution characteristics)
I want a screen that looks good under magnification (many phones not suitable)
I want a screen with low pixel switching time to minimise blur (many phones have poor switching times)
I want a screen with low pixel persistence, to minimise smear (phones have no reason to use low persistence displays)
I would prefer an screen frequency greater than 60Hz (I don't know any phones that are >60Hz)
I want accurate and high speed head tracking (most phones have mediocre gyroscopes)


TheHolyChicken is enlighted, may be i would consider it little over sensitive but if you consider serious gaming he is absolutely right even for casual gaming that exceeds 15 Minutes.

I strongly believe putting phone or tablet in adepter and than slapping the slab on face is ridiculous idea for above sited reasons.

Here why can't any one see the other approach

Take powerful tab ( I am looking forward to buy TEGRA 4 TAB which is going to have HDMI1.4 out. Will be cheap as 200 USd a steal deal.

http://gadgets.ndtv.com/tablets/news/xo ... ort-422831

besides i own one with Rockchip RK3066 tab with Dual Core A9 and 1GB DDR3 Ram which also have HDMI1.4 out it plays almost every app you throw at it if its JB4.2 compatible tried Real Racing 3) attach HDMI out to RIFT connect with Bluetooth JoyPad like PS3 and you are ready for mobile gaming provided that you have compatible APPs

i think there are already middleware that convert android 3D games in to stereo 3D for LG 3D phones. they may require little facelift to wrap for RIFT.

So all we need to do is to request palmer to make Consumer RIFT such a way that base station can have one light LI-Poly battery and vest clip and bare minimum cables so that RIFT can be enjoyed while not at home too (at secure place of course).


Fri Oct 11, 2013 4:23 am
One Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 11:00 am
Posts: 42
blazespinnaker wrote:

TBH, I'm most excited about openloop. Check it out here: viewtopic.php?f=138&t=18441




Quote of the thread :D

And I'm not even slightly biased! :lol:


Fri Oct 11, 2013 10:29 am
Certif-Eyed!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 9:23 am
Posts: 671
Location: Ahmedabad//INDIA
@thirty3baboons

Your project is COOL and something that falls between Consumer RIFT and DevKIT for non game developers (as devkit has totally diffrenet purpose hence should not be compared this way oculus already saying it shouldn't be purchased by consumers). As you made it OPEN Project thats opposite to vrAse and its amazing stand alone product having its own catagory.

For those who already have IPhone5 or HTC one sure this is great Accessory and for 60/80$ investment its SIMPLY GREAT. it can be great product if games release to support it.Still its diffrent thing and not at all competetion to RIFT.

Even if consumer rift enters Smart Phone/Tab area that make it Mobile+PC proudct while streaming PC game to phone and playing on phone studed adepter will tough for vrAse like adepters to compete with consumer rift which surely have far advance tracker and may be own super display. so while Consumer Rift could easily compete vrAse. vrAse could hardly stand at PC quality against RIFT.


Sun Oct 13, 2013 2:22 am
One Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 11:00 am
Posts: 42
Agree. Openloop was never to compete with rift, or anything else for that matter, it's purely a bit of fun that's getting a bit out of hand.

Way out of hand :)

I think some people have the wrong idea of rift at this stage - despite repeated and clear statements of 'do not buy if you are not a developer' - it is an approximation of the product that is near enough for developers to start building from and nothing more.

By the time it hits market, it will be polished beyond belief and supported in flagship games on multiple platforms.

Just put it in perspective - if this was a sony or ms product, you wouldn't even know about it yet!

Still, don't discont smartphones as an 'as well as' option...after all, they're no ps4 or xbox one, but the games malarkey seems to be flourishing


Sun Oct 13, 2013 2:49 am
One Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 11:00 am
Posts: 42
Malarkey was an iphone autocorrect for 'market', but I like it, so I'm going to leave it :D


Sun Oct 13, 2013 2:51 am
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
   [ 39 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by STSoftware.