Oculus "Rift" : An open-source HMD for Kickstarter

Post by **BOLL** » Wed Dec 12, 2012 7:33 am

ChrisP wrote:@marbas
well maybe. but that would still be a cool way to do a slight IPD adjustment. thick side out small IPD, turn 180deg thick side in max IPD.

Seems plausible when looking at the images, good detective work people :P Also, unlimited settings if the adjustments are discreet enough so it's not important to have them centered vertically. In that case you just have to make sure they have mirrored angles, nice!

Post by **crespo80** » Wed Dec 12, 2012 8:39 am

WOW
Very nice find EdZ, I put a red circle to make it visible to those who missed it

Post by **ChrisP** » Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:42 am

i just type without thinking sometimes.
... wish there was a delete post button haha

Post by **Randomoneh** » Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:47 am

To get this out of the way.

It is optimal for eyes to look through centers of the lenses in any case, right? Otherwise, you get possible low inner or outer FOV (or low stereo effect) + unpredictable asymmetric distortions that are different for each eye and therefore require different algorithms for each half of the display. For me, this alone should be enough for implementation of physically adjustable lenses.

Am I right?

Post by **EdZ** » Wed Dec 12, 2012 10:53 am

Yes, that is correct. When your pupils are not centred with respect to the lenses, the distortion will not be the same as when they are, and a different shader would need to be used. Additionally, the area where the image is 'most flat' (i.e. has the least distortion and highest pixel density per solid angle) will no longer be straight ahead, and will be in the same location for each eye.

Post by **Randomoneh** » Wed Dec 12, 2012 11:06 am

EdZ wrote:Yes, that is correct. When your pupils are not centred with respect to the lenses, the distortion will not be the same as when they are, and a different shader would need to be used. Additionally, the area where the image is 'most flat' (i.e. has the least distortion and highest pixel density per solid angle) will no longer be straight ahead, and will be in the same location for each eye.

So, would you agree that physically adjustable optics would be the obvious choice and standard feature of future HMD's? Any other way seems pretty backwards way of doing things to me.

Post by **C3DPO** » Wed Dec 12, 2012 1:04 pm

Randomoneh wrote:To get this out of the way.

It is optimal for eyes to look through centers of the lenses in any case, right? Otherwise, you get possible low inner or outer FOV (or low stereo effect) + unpredictable asymmetric distortions that are different for each eye and therefore require different algorithms for each half of the display. For me, this alone should be enough for implementation of physically adjustable lenses.

Am I right?

Yes, if you aren't dead center you create both prismatic and chromatic and other aberrations. Because the lenses in the Oculus are plus powered, if you were to set the lenses too close, or too narrow for your face you will be creating Base In prism. Base Out if the lenses are wider than your interpupillary distance. This prismatic effect worsens as the power of the lenses used goes up. I have no idea what power the oculus rift will use. For collimated light, they would have to use about a 5 diopter lens if the screen is about 20 cm away from your face. Maybe someone has already posted how far the screen sits from the eyes I don't know. If its further than 20 cm then you'd need a less powerful lens, and therefore the negative prismatic effects would be lessened per millimeter offset you have in the alignment. And if it's closer, a more powerful lens is needed and the alignment becomes even more important.

What this means is mostly headaches, and this is also where one of the benefits of the RIFT splitting the screen for right and left eyes will help. If they were to use traditional 3D where the screen is not split, but the entire screen is used for both eyes, there would probably be common headaches because of the large discrepancy between the eye's focusing and the eye's alignment (keeping the image overlapped and not double). If they used collimated light (light behaving as if it were coming from a distance), then your focusing system would be relaxed but your alignment would be pretty active. We don't do that normally, and therefore headache. In that scenario, it would be interesting to see if inducing some base in prism would actually help the alignment system to relax. BUT, the good news is with the RIFT our eyes won't have to converge as much because the screen is split. That means focusing will be relaxed, and alignment will be much more relaxed than with a traditional 3D screen (like 3DS or tv).

But the other issue is you also will get an illusion of image size differences. If the lenses are too narrow, then objects will appear larger/closer than they should. If too wide, then things will look smaller/further. This is probably negligible though. In reality, I will be playing with the IPD a lot to see if inducing just a little Base In relaxes me a little.

Post by **C3DPO** » Wed Dec 12, 2012 1:21 pm

I work with boy scouts and we took them to an aiport to investigate careers in aviation. They had a flight simulator there that cost 6 figures. It was awesome and running it was very cool. But the whole time I was thinking, this could be matched and out-matched by the RIFT. Dang GINA with some good software flight sims could be crazy and so much less expensive! Rift really is the start of something huge.

Post by **brantlew** » Wed Dec 12, 2012 1:52 pm

Flight sims is one area where you really can't do better with an HMD. I think having a physical cockpit environment beats the hell out of a virtual environment - not to mention that the detail of physical screens placed a meter in front of you will kill the resolution of any HMD - plus stereoscopy is practically a non-issue since objects in flight are 100's of meters away at best. But maybe you can make an argument for quality/cost ratio. If your total budget is $1000 then sure, an HMD rocks. But for pure immersive quality those enclosed cockpits are freakin' amazing.

Post by **Mel** » Wed Dec 12, 2012 2:48 pm

brantlew wrote:Flight sims is one area where you really can't do better with an HMD. I think having a physical cockpit environment beats the hell out of a virtual environment - not to mention that the detail of physical screens placed a meter in front of you will kill the resolution of any HMD - plus stereoscopy is practically a non-issue since objects in flight are 100's of meters away at best. But maybe you can make an argument for quality/cost ratio. If your total budget is $1000 then sure, an HMD rocks. But for pure immersive quality those enclosed cockpits are freakin' amazing.

My experience in MS FS-X with my DYI HMD confirms what you say. I found it the least compelling game of all those that I tested. And all this talk about lens placement, adjustable IPD, image center adjustment, etc gives me hope that I may yet get a more satisfying HMD experience, because as it is right now, my DYI unit is sitting unused due to visual discomfort. Hopefully the real Rift will address all the problems I personally have with HMDs.

Post by **C3DPO** » Wed Dec 12, 2012 3:08 pm

brantlew wrote:Flight sims is one area where you really can't do better with an HMD. I think having a physical cockpit environment beats the hell out of a virtual environment - not to mention that the detail of physical screens placed a meter in front of you will kill the resolution of any HMD - plus stereoscopy is practically a non-issue since objects in flight are 100's of meters away at best. But maybe you can make an argument for quality/cost ratio. If your total budget is $1000 then sure, an HMD rocks. But for pure immersive quality those enclosed cockpits are freakin' amazing.

well you have great points. But it's not just the money. If you have the space in your garage or dedicated room, If you have the money, and if you have the permission from the wife, and the time to set it up and get it working then yeah, don't stoop to playing any other way, and you should probably just buy a cessna if you are that into it. Except for the fact that once you do shell out the cash, floorspace, and time, it's the only cockpit you get in that spare room. In a virtual cockpit being able to switch the view from a boeing to an F-22 to a crop duster to a jet pack to a helicopter is a huge plus.

It's true, stereospcopy is trivial, but looking out your side windows isn't. That's a premium I didn't have at the flight school simulator. I'm sure there are nicer ones out there that may wrap around or project to the side. But in an HMD, it's done.

The biggest advantage to a real cockpit is the quality yoke and foot pedals. Those would be a pain in the butt to recreate. But other than that, give me the flexibilty of the headmount.

Post by **C3DPO** » Wed Dec 12, 2012 3:11 pm

That being said I have only arcade experience with VR, so maybe it's wishful thinking. But I would still like to try a flight sim on the RIFT

Post by **android78** » Wed Dec 12, 2012 4:13 pm

Did anyone else see the following headline and have a little heart attack:
http://au.gamespot.com/news/layoffs-at-rift-dev-6401430

... it's ok. Rift is a GAME!

Post by **Owen** » Wed Dec 12, 2012 5:46 pm

I would agree, if your cockpit setup has 360 degree field of view. Being able to look in any direction is huge, for both immersion and gameplay.

But sure, if you are playing the type of sim where you are in a modern fighter and just fly by instruments with self-guided weapons a mile from the target then you only really care about the cockpit. For those kind of sims, the view outside the window is basically just a pretty horizon marker.

Post by **STRZ** » Wed Dec 12, 2012 6:05 pm

Wouldn't it be possible to overlay your physical cockpit over the virtual environment, AR style? If you use a camera and some software tricks?

Post by **brantlew** » Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:48 pm

STRZ wrote:Wouldn't it be possible to overlay your physical cockpit over the virtual environment, AR style? If you use a camera and some software tricks?

Yeah, I guess you could green-screen it in real time just like they do in movies. Sort of the best of both worlds. That would be really cool for a fighter game where the windshield wraps over your head and would be really hard to create with physical screens. I guess a CAVE like projection system could be used instead, but for this usage an HMD and a CAVE system would be fairly equivalent. In a commercial jet sim however, there wouldn't be much benefit to the green screen over just mounted LCD's.

Post by **MSat** » Wed Dec 12, 2012 10:23 pm

EdZ wrote:It's not just a trick of the light, you can see the edge of the grooves here:

Ok, good catch guys! Maybe it's for interchangeable optics, so people with vision problems can screw in appropriate ones? Any educated guesses on how many different ones would be needed for something like that?

Post by **2EyeGuy** » Wed Dec 12, 2012 10:26 pm

Well, I need -4 dioptres. I don't know about other people.

Post by **MSat** » Wed Dec 12, 2012 10:36 pm

I still think an HMD would be awesome for flight simulators. Maybe not the best for commercial flight trainers (where much of it has to do with instrument flying and management), but for home use, especially if you also play games other than that (or as mentioned a variety of aircraft), I don't think an HMD can be beat. Remember, AR could also be used to virtualize your arms and joystick too - no need to see your actual hands and joystick. As for the low resolution, it's been discussed before and would probably be fine by relegating a joystick button to zoom. Just glance over at the instrument and press the zoom button - quick and easy enough (especially if you normally use a mouse or hat switches to look around). Of course, resolution matters. Hopefully that'll be less of an issue with the consumer Rift.

Post by **BOLL** » Thu Dec 13, 2012 5:28 pm

As this thread sure is about Kickstarter, here is an article with Palmer's comments on just that: http://www.develop-online.net/news/4277 ... rter-rules

Post by **STRZ** » Thu Dec 13, 2012 6:24 pm

Indiegogo is a good alternative to Kickstarter http://www.indiegogo.com/

Post by **Dycus** » Thu Dec 13, 2012 6:34 pm

Indiegogo is where rejected Kickstarter projects go.

Post by **marbas** » Thu Dec 13, 2012 6:48 pm

Can you promote your project on both Kickastarter and Indiegogo simultaneously? Sounds unlikely, but then again I haven't read their rules.

Post by **Kazioo** » Thu Dec 13, 2012 7:24 pm

Dycus wrote:Indiegogo is where rejected Kickstarter projects go.

This isn't entirely true.
Kickstarter is only for Americans and Brits. The rest of the world has to use workarounds (US/UK family, friends etc.) or use Indiegogo.

Post by **STRZ** » Thu Dec 13, 2012 10:13 pm

Stumbled on this game brwosing reddit.com, looks cool, very sim like http://www.enemystarfighter.com/

On Youtube there's a comment from the developer that he will support the Rift as he gets his dev kit, Linux supported as well

Post by **Coasterpro** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 1:17 am

Cool! Perhaps not as cool as Star Citizen but I actually kind of like the non-textured retro art style. It also has the added bonus of ultra fast rendering speed (necessary for the Rift). However I noticed the smoke is made up of sprites and that won't look very good in stereo 3D. But if the developer is planning support for the Rift as you say then he'll no doubt make those changes once he sees it in action. I'll have to keep an eye on this one.

Post by **SiggiG** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 4:50 am

Hey guys, check out the lens adjustments and IPD in the old VFX1 helmet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0n5B3fl-bU#t=6m05

Maybe the grooves you saw in the Oculus are for something similar?

Post by **drifter** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 12:13 pm

Coasterpro wrote:However I noticed the smoke is made up of sprites and that won't look very good in stereo 3D.

Good point.
I'm working with Unity and was wondering how to replace all these 2d particle effects (smoke, fire, etc.) for a proper stereoscopic experience ?
In many games adapted for 3d vision, they simply just removed these particle effects :/
The solution i guess would be a kind of LOD particle system : some 3d particles (very costly i guess) displayed under like 10m, and 2d particles beyond.

Post by **codes** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 12:46 am

drifter wrote: I'm working with Unity and was wondering how to replace all these 2d particle effects (smoke, fire, etc.) for a proper stereoscopic experience ?
In many games adapted for 3d vision, they simply just removed these particle effects :/
The solution i guess would be a kind of LOD particle system : some 3d particles (very costly i guess) displayed under like 10m, and 2d particles beyond.

That'd prove more difficult than it sounds though, because you would get really prominent popping on the transitions between 2d and 3d assets. Essentially it'd come down to creating a brand new volumetric/model effect and rendering it out with it's animations into a 2d sprite so the transitions are as smooth as possible, but still you will notice them.
Probably best not to use a sprite system at all and let the engine LOD the effect through the model system.
All of this is a hell of alot ore work than generating sprites though

Post by **Owen** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 1:48 am

Well the easiest way is to have a separate sprite for each eye. You can render out some 3d smoke into those sprites from slightly different perspectives. Not perfect but it definitely won't appear flat that way.

Post by **drifter** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 11:37 am

codes wrote:you would get really prominent popping on the transitions between 2d and 3d assets.

You surely are right.

Owen wrote:Well the easiest way is to have a separate sprite for each eye. You can render out some 3d smoke into those sprites from slightly different perspectives. Not perfect but it definitely won't appear flat that way.

In your prototype, did you make your smoke effects this way ? (if it's doable in Unity...)
(btw nice implementation of the hydra ! - perso i'm still working on it - your gameplay is already well advanced)

Post by **Owen** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 2:54 pm

No, I'm mainly just concerned with gameplay in my prototype, I am holding off on implementation of graphical effects for my own engine.

This wouldn't be hard to do in unity though. You would want to attach scripts to the left and right eye cameras, and have them switch the materials on your particle systems right before they render.

Post by **yuriythebest** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 3:04 pm

Heya Guys! I got intimidated by thew 170+ pages - I went to their site, and what I don't like is that they seem to rely on having games/engines "ready" for their games instead of using drivers like Tridef Ignition - this is bad.

Post by **PalmerTech** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 3:06 pm

Making a driver that reliably gives a good VR experience in most games is extremely difficult, and perhaps impossible.

Post by **yuriythebest** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 3:11 pm

oops I just found this thread here about Tridef - hope they will support you in the future!
"Custom" game requirements for individual hardware usually leads to obscurity

Post by **cybereality** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 3:50 pm

I think it would be great if DDD choose to support the Rift. But even then, it would be difficult to take full advantage of all the features. Doing stereo with the correct format is not too hard, I've got that working with my 3D driver (albeit with only a handful of games). However doing head-tracking right, and really integrating it into the game (for example independent head and gun movements) is almost impossible to do with 3rd party injection drivers. So for the best experience you really need native developer support.

Post by **Owen** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 4:39 pm

On the contrary, I think automated solutions are largely to blame for the obscurity of 3D.

Similar to how post-processing based 3D in movies is far worse than actually filming in 3D, often to the point of being detrimental, relying on some automated process for games leads to a brittle effect that is disorienting in many situations and non-existent in others, rarely providing the sense of realism that its meant for. Calling that effect a gimmick is pretty fair.

The only way to provide a true 1:1 perspective that makes you feel like you are physically in another space is to specifically set all of the view parameters of the camera to match those of the HMD, including exact orientation with much less latency than almost all engines are designed for. Just as important, the game needs to be built around a physically correct perspective, and give up most of the cinematography tricks that are currently popular. Most games that are around today would feel about the same on the Rift as they feel on a big 3D monitor for that reason, and the average person isn't sold on that.

The requirements for a good VR experience and a good "sit in front of a tv/monitor" experience are just too different. Games designed only for the latter will naturally make players prefer not to use the Rift. Its possible to adapt a game to work well for both, but not by any naive automated process.

Post by **PalmerTech** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 6:57 pm

yuriythebest wrote:oops I just found this thread here about Tridef - hope they will support you in the future!
"Custom" game requirements for individual hardware usually leads to obscurity

I am sure there will be generic drivers for other games, and I am also pretty sure people will see a huge difference in quality between native VR titles and hacks for existing games. Luckily, we have a lot of support from developers like Valve and Epic, not to mention new franchises like Hawken and Star Citizen!

Post by **Okta** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 7:28 pm

yuriythebest wrote:oops I just found this thread here about Tridef - hope they will support you in the future!
"Custom" game requirements for individual hardware usually leads to obscurity

Have you been absent for a while? Anyow, i mostly agree with you. Look at how popular all the game peripherals that require special coding are. What peripherals? Exactly. Then i also understand that for VR to take off it does have to break away from the norm. I'm just just disappointed that we didn't get both options with the Rift after the 7 inch screen announcement that was possible with the 5.6. I still have a huge list of FPS games on steam i stopped playing many months ago in anticipation of the Rift with my existing Tridef driver. Now unless we get special Tridef Rift support or really good support from another party like Cyber that plan is trashed and i will never walk Skyrim in the RIft.

Another thing, i am currently reading "ready player one", absolutely love it. In this, the 'Oasis' VR world requires the Oasis headset AND the haptic gloves. It seems like this would have been the path the Rift should have taken if it was going to paint itself in a corner with special requirements anyway. Since the Rift requires its own scratch built content it seems the huge opportunity to nail down a standard control interface along with the visual is a lost opportunity. But.. the SDK is not yet released... is this something that can be allowed for in the SDK by release time?

Post by **Mel** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 8:33 pm

Owen wrote:On the contrary, I think automated solutions are largely to blame for the obscurity of 3D.

Similar to how post-processing based 3D in movies is far worse than actually filming in 3D, often to the point of being detrimental, relying on some automated process for games leads to a brittle effect that is disorienting in many situations and non-existent in others, rarely providing the sense of realism that its meant for. Calling that effect a gimmick is pretty fair.

The only way to provide a true 1:1 perspective that makes you feel like you are physically in another space is to specifically set all of the view parameters of the camera to match those of the HMD, including exact orientation with much less latency than almost all engines are designed for. Just as important, the game needs to be built around a physically correct perspective, and give up most of the cinematography tricks that are currently popular. Most games that are around today would feel about the same on the Rift as they feel on a big 3D monitor for that reason, and the average person isn't sold on that.

The requirements for a good VR experience and a good "sit in front of a tv/monitor" experience are just too different. Games designed only for the latter will naturally make players prefer not to use the Rift. Its possible to adapt a game to work well for both, but not by any naive automated process.

Yes, yes, to all of this.

I hope the first release of the Rift addresses these issues because as it is right now, my DIY Rift doesn't even come close to making me feel like I'm 'in the game.' It's more like I have my face pushed up against my old iZ3D monitor, which, like my DIY Rift, I only used for a brief period then set it aside as an interesting but unusable/unpleasing curiosity.

Watching other peoples' reaction to the demo unit Oculus has been showing around makes me wonder exactly what it is they're seeing that I don't. Can my DIY unit be *that* much different than theirs?

Before I abandon HMD technology altogether, I'm going to try Dycus's driver and see if adjusting the image to match my tiny IPD (5.5cm) will help. I also have a real Rift on order, so there's hope there, too. But I'm not holding my breath on either.

Sorry to be a Debbie Downer...