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

Post by **crespo80** » Thu Mar 21, 2013 4:21 pm

SiggiG wrote:Congrats to Oculus on this award from NVidia
http://blogs.nvidia.com/2013/03/5-hot-s ... es-summit/

too bad they called them Oculous

Post by **Alkapwn** » Thu Mar 21, 2013 8:55 pm

New kickstarter update everyone!!

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/152 ... f=activity

Post by **s0uL** » Thu Mar 21, 2013 10:40 pm

Yessss.

Too bad I'm #43836. Looks like late May at the absolute earliest. Damn. Oh well, at least we have a date for the madness to begin. TONS of excitement will be coming in the next few weeks, starting with GDC on Monday and with backers getting their Rifts the next! All of the videos, impressions, news, info, etc. will keep me happily occupied until my day comes.

Great job, Oculus. You guys are going to dominate GDC and soon everyone will be able to try.

Post by **Nick3DvB** » Fri Mar 22, 2013 12:23 am

SiggiG wrote:Congrats to Oculus on this award from NVidia
http://blogs.nvidia.com/2013/03/5-hot-s ... es-summit/

Awards are nice, $17K is even better, but I'd try asking them for 50 Titan's instead! Surely if Nvidia really want to help you'd think the first thing they'd do is add a Rift output mode to 3Dvision, they could probably fix the aspect ratio issue in an afternoon if they really wanted to...

Post by **V8Griff** » Fri Mar 22, 2013 1:54 am

Nick3DvB wrote:Awards are nice, $17K is even better, but I'd try asking them for 50 Titan's instead! Surely if Nvidia really want to help you'd think the first thing they'd do is add a Rift output mode to 3Dvision, they could probably fix the aspect ratio issue in an afternoon if they really wanted to...

I'm sure that they'll be talking to nVidia behind the scenes but they won't be able to talk about that as is typical in the development world. When I worked at a company that did work for the mobile phone industry there were development devices that were 12 or 18 months off production in the office!

Post by **donkaradiablo** » Fri Mar 22, 2013 3:01 am

Congrats on the latest update Palmer and crew

Post by **Direlight** » Fri Mar 22, 2013 4:32 am

Lets hope people make some modded drivers (flash game support). Pretty sure that would void your warranty though. There would be no 3d either if you were using that method. Oculus, if you guys want a good accessory to sell, make a 3d/warp-converter card/box! That would be way too cool to hook up a dreamcast or some other device and play in pseudo Rift mode. Yes I am going to casually to continue to mention this. It would only expand Rift support 10 fold.

Post by **Popopinsel** » Fri Mar 22, 2013 5:49 am

Direlight wrote:Lets hope people make some modded drivers[...]

They already do (Vireio, VorpX).

Direlight wrote:Pretty sure that would void your warranty though.

It's just a driver. It doesn't void anything.

Direlight wrote:There would be no 3d either if you were using that method.

Of course there is.

Direlight wrote:[...]That would be way too cool to hook up a dreamcast or some other device and play in pseudo Rift mode.

You can use an emulator on your PC.

Post by **stokis** » Fri Mar 22, 2013 10:29 am

but why the new 7" dev kit display is more pixelated than old 5" display? the resolution is the same, and fov too. Maybe because the 7" display have bigger lenses which doesn't warp the pixels more to the center of the image?? in one dev kit review, i heard that the world in 7" looks much more pixelated than with 5" display was.

Post by **virror** » Fri Mar 22, 2013 10:34 am

I guess the pixels are bigger in the 7 inch screen since 7 > 5?

Post by **zalo** » Fri Mar 22, 2013 10:38 am

It looks more pixelated because it's the same resolution spread across a wider FOV.

Also, if you adjust the lens setup (so you can fit your glasses in there) then the lenses will see a narrower portion of the screen (meaning lower resolution per FoV).

Post by **Zoide** » Fri Mar 22, 2013 10:51 am

PalmerTech: What's the FoV of the 5.6" prototype, and what's the FoV of the 7" dev kit? Thanks

Post by **daniel2e** » Fri Mar 22, 2013 11:05 am

Zoide wrote:PalmerTech: What's the FoV of the 5.6" prototype, and what's the FoV of the 7" dev kit? Thanks

That seems to be the critical question. If FoV and pixel count is the same, then each pixel should subtend the same angular distance and, hence, 'pixelation' should be the same on both screens.

Alternatively, maybe the culprit is the pixel fill factor? The 5.6" display had a more pronounced screen door effect, but this might give the illusion of viewing a sharper (less pixelated) image through a grid, because the pixels are more fine. With the greater fill factor, the screen door effect diminishes, but the pixels become more blocky.

If that is the explanation, it seems like an unambiguously desirable tradeoff.

Post by **EdZ** » Fri Mar 22, 2013 11:16 am

Palmer (or it might have been CR or Dycus) has previously mentioned that the edges of the display were visible with the 5.6" prototype, but are not with the 7" devkit. This would imply the 7" devkit has at least a wider FoV than the initial prototype.

Post by **stokis** » Fri Mar 22, 2013 2:09 pm

One thing is clear - if the resolution and fov is the same for both displays, than pixel size should be the same too. But Mitchell said in engadget dev kit review that the ppi of the 7 inch display is smaller, and that makes pixels seem bigger. I don't understand how pixels can be bigger with the same resolution and fov??? So it really means that FOV for 7 inch dev kit is bigger. I really want that someone of oculus team could explain this. But if the fov is bigger, wouldn't oculus already mentioned it, because everybody would be very happy to hear that?

To daniel2e: i really hope it's not because of screen door effect. Because i think that than Mitchel would say in engadget video that pixels seems bigger because screen door effect is smaller, not as he said - because ppi is smaller for 7 inch display.

May be optics in the 7 inch devkit doesn't bend pixels more to the center as it did in the 5 inch dev kit? Mitchel said that optics for 7 inch display is different.

Post by **Dycus** » Fri Mar 22, 2013 2:31 pm

stokis wrote:One thing is clear - if the resolution and fov is the same for both displays, than pixel size should be the same too. But Mitchell said in engadget dev kit review that the ppi of the 7 inch display is smaller, and that makes pixels seem bigger. I don't understand how pixels can be bigger with the same resolution and fov??? So it really means that FOV for 7 inch dev kit is bigger. I really want that someone of oculus team could explain this. But if the fov is bigger, wouldn't oculus already mentioned it, because everybody would be very happy to hear that?.

It's simple - both the 5.6" and 7" screen have the same resolution and the same number of pixels, but the 7" is bigger... so of course the pixels are a bit bigger to fit the space.

With the 5.6" prototypes, it is possible to see black bars on the left and right of the screen. The 7" is wider so it fills that space. We did mention in the display update a few months back that we got a wider FOV from the 7".

Post by **Mystify** » Fri Mar 22, 2013 2:35 pm

Dycus wrote:We did mention in the display update a few months back that we got a wider FOV from the 7".

They did, I remember that

Post by **Zoide** » Fri Mar 22, 2013 2:39 pm

Dycus wrote:
stokis wrote:One thing is clear - if the resolution and fov is the same for both displays, than pixel size should be the same too. But Mitchell said in engadget dev kit review that the ppi of the 7 inch display is smaller, and that makes pixels seem bigger. I don't understand how pixels can be bigger with the same resolution and fov??? So it really means that FOV for 7 inch dev kit is bigger. I really want that someone of oculus team could explain this. But if the fov is bigger, wouldn't oculus already mentioned it, because everybody would be very happy to hear that?.
It's simple - both the 5.6" and 7" screen have the same resolution and the same number of pixels, but the 7" is bigger... so of course the pixels are a bit bigger to fit the space.

With the 5.6" prototypes, it is possible to see black bars on the left and right of the screen. The 7" is wider so it fills that space. We did mention in the display update a few months back that we got a wider FOV from the 7".

How much wider?

Post by **rwurdig** » Fri Mar 22, 2013 2:44 pm

Hy Dycus,

Im curious, if the 7" gives a higher FOV, isnt better to stay with the 7" inch display (a better one) when the consumer version arrive? I mean i believed i saw some post from Palmer when he was talking about the extra weight of the new display, that he plans to change back to a small panel in the consumer version.
So i get confused, did my memory is playing with me or is really that? Because going to a better panel (lets say 1080p) is better but then u gonna decrease the FOV since its a smaller panel, so isnt this a tradeoff?
Regards.

Post by **IGameArt** » Fri Mar 22, 2013 2:46 pm

Not really, because of the added weight of the new display. The optimal display is a 5.5-6" hd display. They can make the smaller displays fill up just as much of your fov just by updating the lenses.

Post by **brantlew** » Fri Mar 22, 2013 2:52 pm

rwurdig wrote:Hy Dycus,

Im curious, if the 7" gives a higher FOV, isnt better to stay with the 7" inch display (a better one) when the consumer version arrive? I mean i believed i saw some post from Palmer when he was talking about the extra weight of the new display, that he plans to change back to a small panel in the consumer version.
So i get confused, did my memory is playing with me or is really that? Because going to a better panel (lets say 1080p) is better but then u gonna decrease the FOV since its a smaller panel, so isnt this a tradeoff?
Regards.

There are certainly many tradeoffs between FOV, resolution, weight, size, cost, and availability and you will get a different prioritization of those factors from different people. A lot has to be considered when trying to create a mass-consumer product.

Post by **Direlight** » Fri Mar 22, 2013 3:12 pm

Of course there is.

Direlight wrote:
[...]That would be way too cool to hook up a dreamcast or some other device and play in pseudo Rift mode.

You can use an emulator on your PC.

I meant no 3d for non-3d content, like I mentioned windowed flash games etc. Also, saying the word "emulator" does not expand Rift support to every legacy device, cameras or lots of other oddball devices & programs. Some emulators don't even work that well anyway and they are illegal unless you all ready own the games (new laws were passed, ISPs now spy on you for copyright violations.)

I am all for 3d vision support though.

Post by **Charge** » Fri Mar 22, 2013 4:07 pm

Dycus wrote:
stokis wrote:One thing is clear - if the resolution and fov is the same for both displays, than pixel size should be the same too. But Mitchell said in engadget dev kit review that the ppi of the 7 inch display is smaller, and that makes pixels seem bigger. I don't understand how pixels can be bigger with the same resolution and fov??? So it really means that FOV for 7 inch dev kit is bigger. I really want that someone of oculus team could explain this. But if the fov is bigger, wouldn't oculus already mentioned it, because everybody would be very happy to hear that?.
It's simple - both the 5.6" and 7" screen have the same resolution and the same number of pixels, but the 7" is bigger... so of course the pixels are a bit bigger to fit the space.

With the 5.6" prototypes, it is possible to see black bars on the left and right of the screen. The 7" is wider so it fills that space. We did mention in the display update a few months back that we got a wider FOV from the 7".

This makes perfect sense and I personally prefer the idea of a wider fov over a slightly higher pixel density

Post by **3dvison** » Fri Mar 22, 2013 4:40 pm

From using a Diy Rift with a 5.6 inch screen I can say the thing I did not like the most, over anything else, was the black bars, in fact, I would go so far as saying it was the only thing I did not like.

After using a Diy Rift for some time, I am firmly a Give Me Big Fov or Give Me Death, type of Rift user...

So I am very happy the 7 inch screen fixes that, even with the extra weight and bigger pixels.
Those black bars were a slap in the face that always took me out of the game, the pixels I could live with.
The problen with the bars was this, when I would turn my eyes before turning my neck/head so the tracker could keep my vision filled with game world, I would end up with that VR killing wall of black bar.

Post by **zalo** » Fri Mar 22, 2013 5:08 pm

In the latest update they had a mention of Nilay Patel doing some demos. I was so excited for a moment that one of the people working on the tracker was going to talk and give demos.

Then I remembered that his name is Nirav Patel.

Please make this happen, Oculus! I would love to hear the trials and tribulations of building a whole new IMU board from the ground up!

Post by **Direlight** » Fri Mar 22, 2013 5:39 pm

So is AMD ignoring this like they did for a long time with 3d?

Post by **Leahy** » Fri Mar 22, 2013 6:23 pm

I know it has been already mentioned a few times but just as a general shout out to Oculus for those of us outside of North America, I hope you guys are trying to organize shipping to avoid our Rift spending 28 days on a boat before shipping it to us. I did hear you say that over half of the orders were outside of the US. I'm sure something can be done there to help our impatience. Honk Kong has to have a decent shipping solution somewhere

Post by **MSat** » Fri Mar 22, 2013 9:25 pm

I'm sure we would all love to see a super high-res/FoV light-weight HMD in a package that resembles a pair of sun glasses, and if VR keeps moving forwards, then we probably will. But for now the 7" is brilliant IMO. I have no doubt that there will be 1080 or 1200p panels in that form factor *very* soon, so Oculus will be able to roll out an updated high-res dev kit with minimal cost and effort.

Post by **EAPidgeon** » Fri Mar 22, 2013 9:42 pm

Wasn't quite sure where to put this, but there's a fantastic video in this article.

http://www.engadget.com/2013/03/19/Ocul ... Interview/

However we need to really give Palmer a break, just looking at his eyes, he needs to get some quality sleep!

Post by **Endothermic** » Fri Mar 22, 2013 11:16 pm

Did something happen... I seem to recall this thread having alot more then 102 page before

Post by **EAPidgeon** » Fri Mar 22, 2013 11:21 pm

Endothermic wrote:Did something happen... I seem to recall this thread having alot more then 102 page before

Posts numbers per page were raised to 40 for easier browsing.

Post by **Endothermic** » Fri Mar 22, 2013 11:32 pm

Good i'm not going crazy

Post by **Evenios** » Fri Mar 22, 2013 11:37 pm

im glad its doing so well and i regret not being a backer. I wish i can go back in time and have jumped in the second the kickstarter went live or heck had pmd Palmer when he first talked about it and said "Hey ill give you 300 bucks on paypal will you make sure i get in one of the first batches for Dev Kits?" :-p haha oh well

honestly the downside to being one of the first people to have the rift is that there is not a lot of options out there for you yet. unless your a pro Dev. So honestly waiting a few months to get one will make it so when i do get it i will hopefuly have lots of demos and maybe working games to play with

.

I just hope they provide better commication to us down the road as far as shipping progress and other things a weekly update would be good (we shipped "x" number of units this week here is the projections for next week and here is how many we have left)

Post by **stokis** » Sat Mar 23, 2013 12:51 am

Dycus wrote:
stokis wrote:One thing is clear - if the resolution and fov is the same for both displays, than pixel size should be the same too. But Mitchell said in engadget dev kit review that the ppi of the 7 inch display is smaller, and that makes pixels seem bigger. I don't understand how pixels can be bigger with the same resolution and fov??? So it really means that FOV for 7 inch dev kit is bigger. I really want that someone of oculus team could explain this. But if the fov is bigger, wouldn't oculus already mentioned it, because everybody would be very happy to hear that?.
It's simple - both the 5.6" and 7" screen have the same resolution and the same number of pixels, but the 7" is bigger... so of course the pixels are a bit bigger to fit the space.

With the 5.6" prototypes, it is possible to see black bars on the left and right of the screen. The 7" is wider so it fills that space. We did mention in the display update a few months back that we got a wider FOV from the 7".

Thanks Dycus!! Now it is clear to me. Wider FOV is great!

Post by **stokis** » Sat Mar 23, 2013 1:00 am

Evenios wrote:im glad its doing so well and i regret not being a backer. I wish i can go back in time and have jumped in the second the kickstarter went live or heck had pmd Palmer when he first talked about it and said "Hey ill give you 300 bucks on paypal will you make sure i get in one of the first batches for Dev Kits?" :-p haha oh well honestly the downside to being one of the first people to have the rift is that there is not a lot of options out there for you yet. unless your a pro Dev. So honestly waiting a few months to get one will make it so when i do get it i will hopefuly have lots of demos and maybe working games to play with .

I just hope they provide better commication to us down the road as far as shipping progress and other things a weekly update would be good (we shipped "x" number of units this week here is the projections for next week and here is how many we have left)

shiped number each weak would be great!! I think it wouldn't take much time to calculate it each weak. Please Palmer, give us the number each weak!

Post by **Callezetter** » Sat Mar 23, 2013 1:07 am

Direlight wrote:So is AMD ignoring this like they did for a long time with 3d?

Err..what does AMD have to do with the rift? Its not like the rift use any special 3d driver
that AMD, Nvidia or any other company have to support.

A rift game is either native (warp, SBS and headtracking done in game)
or its done exernally with 3rd party software like Vireio or Vorpx.

Post by **Randomoneh** » Sat Mar 23, 2013 1:40 am

Dycus wrote:With the 5.6" prototypes, it is possible to see black bars on the left and right of the screen. The 7" is wider so it fills that space. We did mention in the display update a few months back that we got a wider FOV from the 7".

By see, I guess you mean "see with central (foveal) vision", yes? Because I'm sure you can see the black space with peripheral vision.

Post by **UnityIsPower** » Sat Mar 23, 2013 3:10 am

Maybe someone could help me out. I was reading some post about why the new consoles will not be powerful enough to handle a good VR experience. Someone made a comment that the consoles might be able to pull off solid 720p3D in some games. That image can then be up-converted to the 1080p consumer version Oculus Rift. He mentioned something about artifacts but said they could be sufficiently managed. It was also stated that when mainstream hardware can push 1080p3D more easily, up-converting from 1080p would provide a better output image then up-converting 720p given it has more information to draw out missing parts of the image. Can someone clarify if what he says is possible/correct and how good of a work around would it be if so?

Post by **MSat** » Sat Mar 23, 2013 3:55 am

UnityIsPower wrote:Maybe someone could help me out. I was reading some post about why the new consoles will not be powerful enough to handle a good VR experience. Someone made a comment that the consoles might be able to pull off solid 720p3D in some games. That image can then be up-converted to the 1080p consumer version Oculus Rift. He mentioned something about artifacts but said they could be sufficiently managed. It was also stated that when mainstream hardware can push 1080p3D more easily, up-converting from 1080p would provide a better output image then up-converting 720p given it has more information to draw out missing parts of the image. Can someone clarify if what he says is possible/correct and how good of a work around would it be if so?

I see no technical reason why the next gen, or even current gen consoles for that matter wouldn't be able to do it to some extent, but that entirely depends on the content. Obviously, you shouldn't expect a game that struggles to run at 30fps in 2D to be able to do magically do stereo rending @60fps without at least significant reduction in image quality.

The other issue is whether the console manufacturer would allow a 3rd party device to be hooked up to it. If Sony or MS doesn't allow it, then it doesn't matter how much power the consoles have.

Post by **Evenios** » Sat Mar 23, 2013 6:21 pm

(EDIT) i was wrong the website estimate is still correct

thank Goodness!