Meant to be Seen

BinarySplit wrote:I tried playing HL2 using Vireio, but had to stop. Damn that game's horrible menus and unskippable cutscenes

Do not use Vireio for Half Life 2, use Adoral84 mod instead. Be sure to get the latest version (not available on first post), it's 1.0.3 at the moment.

BinarySplit wrote:My first impressions:

The pixels... They're huge. Improving resolution should be Oculus's #1 priority IMO. The screen door effect doesn't really bother me, but due to the low resolution, things become too pixellated to make out at about 20 meters away. Edges "shimmer" as their jagged edges move between pixels, even with antialiasing cranked up.

Tuscany doesn't feel right. I have VSync off, my screen is in Clone mode with the Rift, I get 90-120FPS, but whenever I move my head around, things go blurry, my head doesn't feel like it's moving as far as it should, and the motion often stutters. Having VSync off is probably making things worse, because I can see the tear lines and I have the occasional feeling that the top of the screen is a bit drunk and the bottom is racing ahead.

TF2, on the other hand, feels much better. The detachment between mouse and head orientation works quite well, but often I'd find myself looking in one corner of the screen and aiming in another. I didn't have the same issue with head movement feeling weird, and the calibration tool was nice and easy to use. It's quite hard to make out enemies when they're far away though.

I tried playing HL2 using Vireio, but had to stop. Damn that game's horrible menus and unskippable cutscenes. I don't know if I'll ever get used to the mouse+head looking/aiming mode. TF2's semi-detached mode is much easier on the eyes.

I wish people would wait atleast two days before posting first impressions.

Parallaxis wrote:I wish people would wait at least two days before posting first impressions.

I agree that's why I waited a week, I knew things would be different after several days.

That said the thread is called 'First impressions' but maybe it should be 'So what do you think of the Rift after a few days'

The other thing I think is creeping in too much is deep analysis of the hardware, I guess as a community of 'Geeks' we're all equally interested in the technology as much as the experience if not more so and so are bound to look harder at what's wrong, could be better etc.

However as a $300 'first attempt' I think it's excellent.

Any HMD built with todays technology and certainly one at $300 will make you feel as though you're looking through binoculars or out of a divers mask.

That will not change until we can have something similar to the form of the Google glass mixed with the quality of a high end screen that has 180+ degrees FOV and is in constant focus even when you move your eyes inside the HMD, i.e. not for a while yet.

So I suggest we start focussing on the great experience that the current Rift and the next versions can give us with the technology available as the demand for more is something that contributed to the failure of VR in the '90s.

Parallaxis wrote:I wish people would wait atleast two days before posting first impressions.

Fair point. In fact now that I've tried a UDK demo, I feel that things will rapidly improve for me while I get more comfortable with the Rift. I've redacted my original comment.

Parallaxis wrote:I wish people would wait atleast two days before posting first impressions.

I think there's value in the very first impressions. Like it or not a lot of people will get only a few minutes with the Rift before making the decision to buy one.

Anything we can do to improve the first few minutes will help a lot with final adoption.

Pingles wrote:

Parallaxis wrote:I wish people would wait atleast two days before posting first impressions.

I think there's value in the very first impressions. Like it or not a lot of people will get only a few minutes with the Rift before making the decision to buy one.

Anything we can do to improve the first few minutes will help a lot with final adoption.

Agreed. People's first impressions are exactly that, and should be recorded as such based on those individuals' own experiences. It doesn't matter if they have little experience with HMDs, what they observe on their first go is the initial impact, which is important as that reaction will be indicative of the average consumer's, and as you said can only be a further push for improvements for the future model. Onwards and upwards Oculus!

after many various impressions and certain talk i was kind of afraid, will the motion blur stun me ? will the pixelisation turn me away ? will i get a shock from motion sickness ? i just tried it today for some time with a and b lenses. A lenses didn't fit me well thanks to me being near sighted, still my first run for around half an hour was with a cups.
I tried tuscany together with razer hydra and somehow i lost razer orientation after a certain time, it sort of drifted to my right side. Well, the whole VR is a new experience for me, it feels a bit like playing doom for the first time though. I barely noticed motion blur, the pixels aren't as bad as people make them out to be, they never turned me off though. I actually got a bit nostalgic and felt like entering mario land. I used the analog stick a lot for orientation and wondered how much VR actually annoyed my brain, well i didn't have to pull it off, but yeah it does feel a bit like being drunk. This is just point zero and i will move forward. I like the oculus rift, it's actually everything i expected it to be namely a new experimental entry to VR, but it's not as bad as i feared.

Pingles wrote:

Parallaxis wrote:I wish people would wait atleast two days before posting first impressions.

I think there's value in the very first impressions. Like it or not a lot of people will get only a few minutes with the Rift before making the decision to buy one.

Anything we can do to improve the first few minutes will help a lot with final adoption.

I agree, first impressions are very valuable but I think being able to add experience gained over a few days/tries is also important.
My first impression was not good but everything improved with adjustment and a bit of familiarity.

As I've said elsewhere I think positional tracking is very important to the experience along with a reliably tracked hand/weapon/whatever to minimise the initial disembodied effects which I'm sure add to or create the nausea felt by some.

Software is probably what will make the biggest difference.

If the demo is exciting or immersive enough, you won't really notice the hardware shortcomings.

I feel that a great showcase will be the most important thing for a consumer launch.

Parallaxis wrote:Software is probably what will make the biggest difference.

If the demo is exciting or immersive enough, you won't really notice the hardware shortcomings.

I feel that a great showcase will be the most important thing for a consumer launch.

Totally agree but there are some hardware/interface issues to sort as well, which will have some impact on the software.

A Big Digital Foundry write up on the rift
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digit ... culus-rift

mattyeatsmatts wrote:A Big Digital Foundry write up on the rift
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digit ... culus-rift

From this article:

There's no audio support with Oculus Rift - though the makers are considering options. You'd perhaps think that the number one choice in the here and now would be a pair of surround sound headphones, but one thing to bear in mind is that there's no support right now for adjustments to the audio mix depending on the orientation of your head. That being the case, a standard surround sound speaker set-up may well prove the better bet...

Wut?

MrGreen wrote:Wut?

Sounds pretty weird indeed. Wouldn't surround sound in a game mean it already works for when... you know, you turn your view with the mouse. In those cases only the roll is new, which I guess might have to be added, but it's not a complete lack of surround sound, rite?

Perhaps they misinterpret someone else talking about the lack of integrated audio in the actual headset? I have yet to read the article myself, so not sure of the context, will do so soonish...

Perhaps they mean just having four speakers around your desk is a better option than headphones.

3D audio is pretty processor intensive, I think. And has to be coded in.

So currently you may just be better off just using your speakers.

BOLL wrote:

MrGreen wrote:Wut?

Sounds pretty weird indeed. Wouldn't surround sound in a game mean it already works for when... you know, you turn your view with the mouse. In those cases only the roll is new, which I guess might have to be added, but it's not a complete lack of surround sound, rite?

Perhaps they misinterpret someone else talking about the lack of integrated audio in the actual headset? I have yet to read the article myself, so not sure of the context, will do so soonish...

My guess is that they think of a situation like hawken, make the surround go with the mech, and the player can then turn and look around in his "capsule" with sound being still correctly positioned.

Having sound placement tied to in-game view is how it works for every game. The problem would be with speakers, not headphones, as the speakers would stay in the same place as you turn your head (and, thus, in-game view), causing a mismatch between gameworld sound placement and speaker location. They've got it backwards. Pretty obvious, honestly. edit: I mean, that is a very stupid mistake for them to make. Not directed at anyone here.

jf031 wrote:Having sound placement tied to in-game view is how it works for every game. The problem would be with speakers, not headphones, as the speakers would stay in the same place as you turn your head (and, thus, in-game view), causing a mismatch between gameworld sound placement and speaker location. They've got it backwards. Pretty obvious, honestly. edit: I mean, that is a very stupid mistake for them to make. Not directed at anyone here.

Actually, in thinking that through its more difficult than it seems.

Most games are set up for stationary speakers. You move your position and the sound changes. But the speakers never move. Your head never turns.

If the speakers DO move with you then that changes, doesn't it?

So with the Rift you will be moving the speakers if you have headphones.

Hold on, this is giving me a headache...

Pingles wrote:

jf031 wrote:Having sound placement tied to in-game view is how it works for every game. The problem would be with speakers, not headphones, as the speakers would stay in the same place as you turn your head (and, thus, in-game view), causing a mismatch between gameworld sound placement and speaker location. They've got it backwards. Pretty obvious, honestly. edit: I mean, that is a very stupid mistake for them to make. Not directed at anyone here.

Actually, in thinking that through its more difficult than it seems.

Most games are set up for stationary speakers. You move your position and the sound changes. But the speakers never move. Your head never turns.

If the speakers DO move with you then that changes, doesn't it?

So with the Rift you will be moving the speakers if you have headphones.

Hold on, this is giving me a headache...

With a surround sound speaker setup and a VR HMD, either:

1. You do all head and body rotational movement with the VR HMD (spinning around in in either direction <infinity # of times, but still standing in one place), and the speakers are always "oriented" in the same direction in the game world (for instance, in a 5.1 setup, the middle, FL, and FR speakers could be for sounds coming from the "north" ingame, assuming starting orientation in-game was north); OR

2. sit-down or stand-up (inplace) VR with a cabled HMD like the Rift, where your body is always pointing towards the front speakers - the speakers would then need to be matched with body rotation (so, the front three speakers are for sounds coming towards the front of the player's body), but not head rotation (as in 1.), and the player would have to make sure that he/she doesn't change the orientation of his/her body when facing forward (and thus head direction for "forward"), which would be difficult to do in long sessions.

Headphones would be a much better option for 2 (and 1, also, as all that blind spinning would undoubtedly result in being in a different position relative to the speakers, thus messing up the sound localization), and thus, much better for the Rift. At this point, at least, sound in VR=headphones.

This isn't something I've put much thought into, and that's why I think it is obvious, but it's definitely possible that I'm way off.

edit: DAMNIT, I just realized what thread this is. Sorry for the derail.

Impressions after a week:

Resolution is a limiting factor, personally I think at least an increase by a factor of 2 in each dimension (so 2560x1600) is necessary for a real feeling experience, but the current devkit is plenty good enough for an enjoyable experience. Tracking is fast enough, but for various technical reasons there is motion blur when moving your head. This is unlikely to go away completely but might be helped by the resolution increase (since the blur from one pixel to the next is 1/2 as far). A framerate increase to 120fps would help from the display panel. Personally I would not like a strobed backlight as CRT's were my primary migraine trigger as a teenager, and I was glad to be free of that, I'd rather just have faster updates overall, or put up with the blur.

My favourite 3D VR game was the simple Proton Fusion breakout based game, as an interesting abstract VR game that didn't try to make you a person I thought it really stood out and worked well. The art style (ie not photorealistic) worked better with the Rift's low resolution in my opinion.

My favourite sim game so far is Dirt3, just with the mono Virieo mode. It doesn't matter that the game appears at infinity, because with the good head tracking it's already way more immersive than just using a monitor. I have a Logitech g27, which provides good road feel and coupled with the Rift and head tracking makes for a very compelling experience. The thing that let this down the most was the resolution, as it is hard to tell what the ground "texture" is, how loose the soil is or the snow condition. Sometimes it was actually hard to identify which was the track went. The motion blur was actually not an issue with this game because I tended to track the moving points with my head to keep them stationary (like the inside of a corner as you drive through it), this being the opposite to many first person games where you want to look around lots.

The tracking SDK is very easy to use, I had Rift tracker support added to FTNOIR (to get Dirt3 tracking support) in just two evenings, with no prior experience with the FTNOIR source code or the Rift SDK.


Comment about current warping: the current warping takes a 1280x800 image and warps it. This provides quite bad aliasing issues with alpha textures like tree leaves. I would like it to move to a supersampled approach (eg start with a 2560x1600 input resolution) at least as an option for capable graphics cards, to do brute force anti aliasing to reduce these artifacts.

would love to see a video of you playing dirt 3 on the rift

Headphones, ear speakers, IEMs are the way to go for VR.

A believable audio experience for VR will have to simulate the audio characteristics/signature of the environment. In addition, precise placement of audio elements can only really be done with headphones with good HRTF software. Hopefully, VR will bring back a renaissance of 3d audio where we can input our head dimensions (very much like we do for IPD for visuals) to accurately depict audio in 3d.

It is possible to use near-field stereo speakers or a speaker array to give a decent 3d experience, but it would be ruined by the "color" or your listening environment.

All-in-all, headphones are the only real choice for creating the "audio holodeck."

mm0zct wrote:Personally I would not like a strobed backlight as CRT's were my primary migraine trigger as a teenager, and I was glad to be free of that, I'd rather just have faster updates overall, or put up with the blur.

Trust me - a 120hz strobed backlight is completely imperceptible. It's not like the old CRTs at all; much more comfortable to look at. I run my monitor with "lightboost" on permanently, and all you get is somewhat of a loss in brightness, while eradicating motion blur.

Words can't describe how I felt when I plugged the Rift and launched the Tuscany demo. I had to get back to work so I wandered around for just 5 minutes. I simply couldn't believe it. I wasn't wearing my glasses so the scene was a bit blurry, but the feeling of being inside left me speechless. The field of view was so huge! After so many years playing computer games, I was sure nothing could surprise me. I was wrong. Can't wait to get back home.

Thank you Palmer. Thank you team Oculus.

More detailed impressions after a couple of hours trying games and demos.

In a nutshell: it's freaking awesome! What surprised me most is how huge are game environments. Watching the Doom 3 corridors, halls and characters at real-life scale is an overwhelming experience. It's incredible to stand in front of an NPC and realizing that he's as tall as you! Then you look down, at the floor, and you see their shoes! And if you look up, at the ceiling, you can see the pipes and lightbulbs... you really have to see it to believe it, it has nothing to do with watching in front of a monitor.

The field of view if huge. It's bigger than a scuba mask (if you have tried one), for me it's big enough to create a believable experience.

Moving your head feels very natural, just like in real life, and it helps to the immersion. And talking about immersion, the 3D effect is way better that any cinema/tv glasses I've ever tried, it's so natural that you forget you are in front of a screen. Each eye receives its own image without any tricks like shuttering or interlacing. It's so convincing that you must see it to believe it.

The first time I tried it I was standing and I felt a bit of vertigo when walking with my Xbox 360 controller, walking slowly helps. After taking a rest I played for almost two hours with no issues.

Bad things? Sure. You can see the pixels and the black spaces between them. When you have been playing for 5 minutes you forget about it, but the resolution is really low and it's difficult to appreciate details at medium and far distances. Also the display is a bit blurry when you look around.

Another small problem is the positional tracking. The Rift tracker can track roll, pitch and yaw, but it can not detect horizontal movements like getting closer or further away from the computer screen peering into something. I mean, if you move your head but don't move the Rift, it will not record it. This will probably be fixed in the consumer version and it's especially important for games where you are inside a cockpit.

In my opinion, this thing is not ready for mass market yet, but I'm sure that with a better screen and true positional tracking, it will change gaming forever.

Should you buy one? It's difficult to answer. It won't replace your current monitor(s) for gaming, but if you have the money and you are the kind of geek that loves new technologies and wants to be surprised, go for it. Anyway if you have the chance, try it. You will never forget your first time. Nothing has ever surprised me so much in my long gaming life.

LordJuanlo wrote:More detailed impressions after a couple of hours trying games and demos. (…)

Thanks for the write up. It helps me to master my waiting anxiety.

I think most the people saying the FOV is tiny, they feel like looking through binoculars, are simply being tricked by the round view and darkness around it in the RIFT. Yes the view in the rift is round surrounded by blackness like looking through binoculars, however the FOV isn't tiny it's much larger then you get looking through binoculars.

I tried with the RIFT on then took it off and looked through some binoculars (large FOV binoculars) and the RIFT was "much" larger of a FOV then looking through the binoculars. I think it's just a matter of because it has somewhat the sensation of looking in binoculars due to the round surrounded by black, their brain is jumping to the conclusion that they "are" looking through binoculars so what they are seeing is just as tiny even though it isn't.

I'm one of those people who bought the Rift for WATCHING MOVIES!! I've been warned by many for not getting it to watch movies because it would suck.

I just had it yesterday. I've got to tell you this thing is great for watching movies!! Very immersive. It beats every HMD I tried. Definitely the closest thing to IMAX. I used Stereoscopic Player and SmoothVideo Project filter to watch my 3D and 2D movies collection. The let downs are:

1. The screen door effect. Image quality is greatly reduced.
2. The horizontal FOV could have been higher. Vertical FOV is better than great but horizontal FOV feels short.
3. Maybe the optics. The focus isn't the best, but it could be my eyes. I use the shortest cups and it has the best focus.

I noticed the picture is considerably bigger when I switch my graphics card's resolution from 1920x1080 to 1280x800. Can't wait for the next version of the Rift for watching movies

3dcoffee wrote:

LordJuanlo wrote:More detailed impressions after a couple of hours trying games and demos. (…)

Thanks for the write up. It helps me to master my waiting anxiety.

IT DOES!?

MrGreen wrote:

3dcoffee wrote:

LordJuanlo wrote:More detailed impressions after a couple of hours trying games and demos. (…)

Thanks for the write up. It helps me to master my waiting anxiety.

IT DOES!?

Yes, that is is better than he anticipated. So I am more glad to receive it when I receive it

Oh no disagreement there! But it sure as hell doesn't make the waiting game any easier!

geekmaster wrote:

densohax wrote:

Alkapwn wrote:User will wear a belt of sorts with the control box strapped to it. I'm gonna use a slip ring for the HDMI and USB.

Hmm slip rings are able to convey high frequency signals without noise!?

You can get these 5GHz 1080p video transmitter and receivers for about $20 on amazon and ebay, even though LG lists them for $350:
http://www.lg.com/us/tv-accessories/lg- ... -media-kit

They have been hacked to not need an LG TV, so they could be used with a Rift:
https://plus.google.com/101948760925084 ... tdqMZqCzEA

The receiver is small and only needs battery power connected to it. I use one on my TV about 20 feet away through a wall and furniture and it still shows a solid signal.

The transmitter is big, but mostly empty, and can be controlled with its serial port (or wirelessly from the receiver).

Using these could save the extra slip ring wires, and potential loss of signal.

Now here is something even MORE exciting:
http://www.geek.com/mobile/hd-video-dem ... b-1410085/
And the TED talk:
http://www.ted.com/talks/harald_haas_wi ... _bulb.html

Huge transmission bandwidth using SIMOFDM modulated cheap LED lightbulbs! With one on the ceiling, you should have a pretty good wireless HD video link from desktop PC to portable Rift with no radio interference...

mattyeatsmatts wrote:would love to see a video of you playing dirt 3 on the rift

I second that..I'd also love to see something of this in action.
racers are my main genre of choice so anything racing is good

geekmaster wrote:Using these could save the extra slip ring wires, and potential loss of signal.

Now here is something even MORE exciting:
http://www.geek.com/mobile/hd-video-dem ... b-1410085/
And the TED talk:
http://www.ted.com/talks/harald_haas_wi ... _bulb.html

Huge transmission bandwidth using SIMOFDM modulated cheap LED lightbulbs! With one on the ceiling, you should have a pretty good wireless HD video link from desktop PC to portable Rift with no radio interference...[/quote]

You gotta be f***ing be s***ing me!

I'm throwing money at the monitor and nothing happens, though.

MrGreen wrote:

geekmaster wrote:

geekmaster wrote:Using these could save the extra slip ring wires, and potential loss of signal.

Now here is something even MORE exciting:
http://www.geek.com/mobile/hd-video-dem ... b-1410085/
And the TED talk:
http://www.ted.com/talks/harald_haas_wi ... _bulb.html

Huge transmission bandwidth using SIMOFDM modulated cheap LED lightbulbs! With one on the ceiling, you should have a pretty good wireless HD video link from desktop PC to portable Rift with no radio interference...

You gotta be f***ing be s***ing me!

I'm throwing money at the monitor and nothing happens, though.

I noticed after posting this that in his TED talk wireless video demonstration about a half second latency when he blocked the light transmission path with his hand. I hope they can decrease the latency for wireless HMD use...

It will be cool when every street light and is a "visible light" internet access point. You will be able to see your signal strength with your bare eyes. And you can use a laser and telescope for long range access

would love to see a video of you playing dirt 3 on the rift

I'm letting the almighty Bruce do that for me, I've sent him the head tracking program and FOV correcting utility and he said he's going to go back and revisit Dirt2. If he takes my suggestion he'll try it with Virieo set to mode 0 as well as the EGO engine setting, because I think it's much better just now to play in "mono" with the graphics at full, than to be in 3D but with all sorts of artefacts.

it's cut in a bad way to judge it, but it seems to me the video keeps playing right where it stopped ... which means it's fake (otherwise the part of the stream missed should be skipped).

I do believe they have that tech working, but if it is not working well enough for a demo setting, I can't see it anywhere near our living room. It would be nice though. I wonder how well duplex would work though.

Endothermic wrote:I think most the people saying the FOV is tiny, they feel like looking through binoculars, are simply being tricked by the round view and darkness around it in the RIFT. Yes the view in the rift is round surrounded by blackness like looking through binoculars, however the FOV isn't tiny it's much larger then you get looking through binoculars.

I tried with the RIFT on then took it off and looked through some binoculars (large FOV binoculars) and the RIFT was "much" larger of a FOV then looking through the binoculars. I think it's just a matter of because it has somewhat the sensation of looking in binoculars due to the round surrounded by black, their brain is jumping to the conclusion that they "are" looking through binoculars so what they are seeing is just as tiny even though it isn't.

FYI for the readers, binoculars max out at about 11 degrees FOV. Even that is considered by many binocular users to be a useless number due to fuzziness and distortions that end up being in the presented FOV. All due to optical limits. The best binos, optically, tend to be lower than that max FOV of 11 degrees. About 8 degrees, max - 9 degrees.

With a FOV of 110 degrees, max, the Rift ain't no binoculars.

When you consider that $1k-2k-3k plus binoculars struggle with optical limits at that limited FOV (as do all cameras), you might begin to have an idea that optical integration issues present a real and serious problem for HMD design.

KBK wrote:FYI for the readers, binoculars max out at about 11 degrees FOV. Even that is considered by many binocular users to be a useless number due to fuzziness and distortions that end up being in the presented FOV. All due to optical limits. The best binos, optically, tend to be lower than that max FOV of 11 degrees. About 8 degrees, max - 9 degrees.

I always felt the binocular analogy was a bit odd. A scuba-mask or ski-goggle analogy is a much better approximation.

@geekmaster: Direct line of sight and occlusion seem like big obstacles to me for systems that are constantly in motion. This technology seems well suited to office use, but not sure this is how you would want to connect your iPad or your HMD to the network.

I've used the binocular analogy in another thread, but it was in reference to the fact the FOV was way too low (about 50 degrees) in Dirt3 the first time I tried it, and I was referring to the fact everything was so zoomed in and completely the wrong scale, just like I was driving with binoculars on, not in reference to the FOV in the Rift.

On the topic of the LiFi, or wireless data transmission over modulated white LEDs, it does work, I'm loosely attached to part of the project. The demo's you've seen are transmitting a compressed video stream, and probably do have a considerable amount of buffering in them, but the latency on the network component of the final designs will be fairly minimal (this doesn't mean youtube/vlc etc. won't buffer, which is what is likely happening in the demonstration video), we don't want too much expensive RAM in the transceiver modems after all. First generation bandwidth will probably be close to ~100mb/s with basically ethernet going in one end, going over the modulated light path, and coming out as ethernet again at the other end.

mm0zct wrote:I'm loosely attached to part of the project.

How stringent is a line of sight requirement? Is a single white wall bounce sufficient to recover the data or does is it too diffuse after a bounce. Also what is the FOV of the receiver? How much can it tilt away from the light source before degrading?