It is currently Tue Jul 16, 2019 9:08 am



Reply to topic  [ 60 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
 Next gen console support for consumer level Occulus Rift? 
Author Message
Cross Eyed!

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 9:28 am
Posts: 128
Reply with quote
What's the chance of this happening? Do you guys think Occulus are actively trying to shop this out to the big 3 (or maybe just Sony and MS)?

Strategically, it would be a pretty amazing thing for VR in general and for the console manufacturers themselves.

I mean... what could be more next-gen than VR? Also the motion controls that they've been wasting so much money on this gen will suddenly make a whole lot more sense.

If next-gen gaming is about creating experiences for users that is impossible to achieve this gen - then this would do the trick quite nicely no? Also you differentiate your product in a way that allows it to be seperated from other competing vectors of gaming - things like smartphones, cloud gaming, browser gaming, etc. Even the Ouya (although that would initially seem like the sensible way to go for getting console integration with a VR headset - the chipset would simply lack the power to drive decent graphics at the frame rates needed for this device).

That said, what are the barriers to this kind of thing happening?


I can see console makers demanding exclusivity or ownership or some such tripe making it an impossibility - it's also possible that Occulus would refuse to license the technology (prefering to build and sell the device directly to consumers).

I also suppose that the device standards may be too taxing for console games which are typically optimized for lowest common denominator (30fps, sub 720p resolutions - I expect this trend to continue with next gen consoles to allow for 'more particles' and higher resolution textures, and other effects that make the game more screenshot marketable (because you solve low resolutions with bullshots and fps doesn't matter a whit in screenshots or even videos showing off the game)) - as such it would take too much work/change the game too much to optimize for both the game for screenshots AND VR (higher than 1080p resolution + 60-120fps).


Thu Aug 09, 2012 10:29 pm
Profile
Petrif-Eyed
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2011 9:23 pm
Posts: 2218
Location: Menlo Park, CA
Reply with quote
The console makers want a closed platform. How many PC compatible peripherals do you have that work with a console? So I think if the console makers notice that VR gaming is creating a stir, they will just cook up their own version of the Rift that is only compatible with their console. It's actually pretty good timing because the consoles are far enough out from release that Sony or Microsoft could still include (or at least plan support) for a HMD peripheral. I just wouldn't expect it to be the Rift.

But I think Oculus is doing a smart thing by using their momentum to galvanize the PC industry behind it. It makes it harder for a Sony or Microsoft to come in and shove it aside within the PC space.


Thu Aug 09, 2012 10:49 pm
Profile
Golden Eyed Wiseman! (or woman!)

Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 11:47 pm
Posts: 1498
Reply with quote
Quote:
it's also possible that Occulus would refuse to license the technology


At present, while they could apply on patents on the current tech used in the Oculus, its not exactly a new idea really. I mean, there is another guy on this forum already who has built his own Rift equivalent (before the Rift was even really mentioned I _think_) so it would be hard to know exactly what they'd patent it based on. The concept of putting lenses in front of a screen isn't really novel, and neither is SBS display. Not saying it couldn't be patented and licenced, but I think there is quite a bit of prior art there. Also, PalmerTech did originally say it was going to be open source. Really, patents are not as useful as being first in the field as Oculus currently is anyway, IMHO its much better to just continue to innovate and stay ahead of competitors than get embroiled in legal issues.

However, it is something to consider, as we all share information quite openly on this forum, and really quite a few of the concepts we discuss, could probably be patented in some way by someone unscrupulous, such as those Spanish idiots were trying to claim with the FOV2GO. Certainly i'd be careful about sharing your best ideas, if they are novel and you have any desire to ever commercialize them. Its a shame that stuff like that can get in the way of the free exchange if ideas ;(


Fri Aug 10, 2012 2:25 am
Profile
Petrif-Eyed
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2011 9:23 pm
Posts: 2218
Location: Menlo Park, CA
Reply with quote
It seems like it would be difficult to acquire or defend a patent in the VR field because it has had such a long academic incubation period. I course the patent process is still somewhat of a mystery to me. Things that in no-way seem novel to me continue to be granted patents. And just because patent claims seems ridiculous doesn't mean that big companies can't sue you into submission. We really need a loser-pay system here in the States to combat this business practice.


Fri Aug 10, 2012 9:40 am
Profile
Certif-Eyable!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2012 8:49 am
Posts: 957
Location: Norway
Reply with quote
I personally think the chance is very high, that this will now set the standard and be the base platform that consoles want to support to not be left behind. I even have hopes for current gen consoles.


Quote:
How many PC compatible peripherals do you have that work with a console?


Steering wheels like Logitech G25, made for pc, officially supported in several games on ps3.
Almost all usb and bluetooth headsets for voice communication.
Keyboard and mouse both usb and bluetooth, also supported in some fps games.
Like unreal and counter strike. Its a choice the developers can make.
Tons of third party controllers with similar functionality, are supported by all the consoles.
I think a developer could easily include support for 1280x800 side-by-side, even on the current generation of consoles.
Infact a few was even planned for the ps3 using hmz-t1 and move as a tracker.
The question remains on how easily a developer for a ps3 game could have the game recieve tracking info over usb from the RIFT.

Same the other way, microsoft was pretty quick with releasing drivers for kinect to pc etc.
Now that windows 8 supports xbox 360 games, the line is being blurred even more.

_________________
Riftoholic

My precious 6 month project the Oculus Virtual Lounge:
Image
If you help me in any way I will be forever grateful.


Fri Aug 10, 2012 10:41 am
Profile WWW
3D Angel Eyes (Moderator)
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 8:18 pm
Posts: 11393
Reply with quote
The next-gen is already here. Its called a high-end PC. :D

Seriously, though, the consoles are way too closed off to be useful for VR hobbyists. VR would need to be more mature and standardized before it could go mainstream. Could it happen in the next year or two, I doubt it. Developers will need time to experiment with ideas and bring products to market (keep in mind games can take years to make). So I think a lot of devs will want to test ideas in the PC space over the next few years before things go mainstream. But with the way things are going, who knows?

_________________
check my blog - cybereality.com


Fri Aug 10, 2012 12:59 pm
Profile
Sharp Eyed Eagle!

Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2007 3:38 am
Posts: 425
Reply with quote
Hardware-wise, there's no reason for even current-gen consoles (well, PS3 and 360) not to be able to work with the RIFT. They both have HDMI outputs, and the RIFT has a DVI input, so it's a matter of game-makers outputting the correctly warped double-image and using a HDMI>DVI adapter (the two are electrically identical). Head tracking would be trickier: the USB HID spec has provision for 6DOF tracking, and the PS3 at least already accepts HID mice and keyboards, so it would be a matter of convincing Sony to pass tracking data too. Other than that, the onus is entirely on game developers as to whether they want to support the RIFT.


Fri Aug 10, 2012 3:19 pm
Profile
Certif-Eyable!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2012 8:49 am
Posts: 957
Location: Norway
Reply with quote
I know for a fact that developers have been asked to make their games vr-compatible by sony,
so they are definately working on it , just not on the rift level in terms of fov.

It was for hmz-t1. It means that games have been made to at least support some form of headtracking like
a head mounted move, and the question remains if it can translate into tracking the rift sensor and also distorting the image.
The move is definately capable of 6-dof tracking, tho I dont know if the developers used a "mouse-emulator" or "puppet" type of code in the games. I will try to find a link to some of the games on ps3 where vr has been confirmed as atleast being developed.
(regardless of being implemented in the final product or not)
The xbox360 already does side-by-side.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbkvQ3BvXik

Datura is one example.

_________________
Riftoholic

My precious 6 month project the Oculus Virtual Lounge:
Image
If you help me in any way I will be forever grateful.


Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:14 pm
Profile WWW
Certif-Eyed!

Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2011 3:02 am
Posts: 559
Location: Geekenhausen
Reply with quote
Once Steam for Linux is there and stuff is ported over, everybody can build his own console. ITX Case with Mainboard, CPU, Ram, and a graphics card, with a minimal Ubuntu install directly booting into the Steam client, so you'll have practically a console because ou don't see the desktop at all.


Sat Aug 11, 2012 5:20 am
Profile
Two Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 7:40 am
Posts: 73
Reply with quote
EdZ wrote:
Hardware-wise, there's no reason for even current-gen consoles (well, PS3 and 360) not to be able to work with the RIFT.


You are technically correct (which is the best kind of correct), but none of the games on current consoles could be run with the Rift even if modified. They don't have enough power to render FOVs anywhere near what's needed for Rift. It's one of the reasons we see even shrinking FOVs and large weapons to cull away parts of the viewport on consoles.

Games specifically written for Rift with less details in the scenes would work of course.


Sat Aug 11, 2012 6:44 am
Profile
Sharp Eyed Eagle!

Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2007 3:38 am
Posts: 425
Reply with quote
zino wrote:
none of the games on current consoles could be run with the Rift even if modified. They don't have enough power to render FOVs anywhere near what's needed for Rift. It's one of the reasons we see even shrinking FOVs and large weapons to cull away parts of the viewport on consoles.
This is not true. Increasing the FOV while maintaining the same framebuffer resolution (many console games don't even render a 16:9 PAR, let alone actually render at 720p or above) should not have a significant effect on rendering load.
I agree that retrofitting high-FOV rendering to existing games in unlikely, but for cost rather than technical reasons: large portions of game code would need to be rewritten to prevent weird artefacts due to 2D effects being used.


Sun Aug 12, 2012 3:25 am
Profile
Certif-Eyed!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 9:23 am
Posts: 689
Location: Ahmedabad//INDIA
Reply with quote
I think biggest hurdle will be SBS transmittion of visual & sound data Wire lessly

Think of your self standing in front of Kinect wrapped in cables and hooked with console which is also hooked with kinect now expect free movements that kinnect can record while u are in mess of cables at heart of kinect its indipendence from all sort of controllers now what are you doing being hooked with your console and with all wires near your console????

Same equetion applied to PS3 Move is useless if you are hooked to your console

So Technological breakthrough is required to make totally Wireless Li-on bettries powered RIFT which can receive 1280X800 SBS data along with high quality audio at same time sending data of 6DOF head tracker all without any or atleast LEAST LATANCY

Till then all this is of little use

By the way TOTALLY AGREE with Cyber why you guys need Next Gen consoles when you can have Ivy Bridge Core i7 & GTX670 or Radeon 7970GE at attractive deals PC is hundred times more useful then any console on the earth just leave them for KIDS.*No offence MS or sony fan boys*


Sun Aug 12, 2012 3:47 am
Profile
Certif-Eyable!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2012 8:49 am
Posts: 957
Location: Norway
Reply with quote
I have gtx 680. I have a i7. My computer far outperforms the ps3. Yet I play most on the ps3. Whats your point? I would like to play on a console regardless of why you think it should "Only be for the super-computer, since consoles are just for fanboys and kids".

You say no offense and finish off with a good old fanboy stamp? Dont comment unless you do it in a respectful way. Im not even getting into the discussion when it sinks to this level.

_________________
Riftoholic

My precious 6 month project the Oculus Virtual Lounge:
Image
If you help me in any way I will be forever grateful.


Sun Aug 12, 2012 4:37 am
Profile WWW
Certif-Eyed!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 9:23 am
Posts: 689
Location: Ahmedabad//INDIA
Reply with quote
I Think we have diverted focus from main point to "BTW" Anyway the thing was small and clear that RIFT will be more viable when it will have fully wireless version if anyone intend to use it with Kinect or Move to keep its concept at heart intact.

It really amazes how Fanboy is deep sink level term, it surely doesn't represent any Abuse and it certainly do not break any code of respect. i think this suffice.


Sun Aug 12, 2012 8:53 pm
Profile
Two Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 7:40 am
Posts: 73
Reply with quote
EdZ wrote:
zino wrote:
none of the games on current consoles could be run with the Rift even if modified. They don't have enough power to render FOVs anywhere near what's needed for Rift. It's one of the reasons we see even shrinking FOVs and large weapons to cull away parts of the viewport on consoles.
This is not true. Increasing the FOV while maintaining the same framebuffer resolution (many console games don't even render a 16:9 PAR, let alone actually render at 720p or above) should not have a significant effect on rendering load.
I agree that retrofitting high-FOV rendering to existing games in unlikely, but for cost rather than technical reasons: large portions of game code would need to be rewritten to prevent weird artefacts due to 2D effects being used.


No, it actually is true. Upping the FOV means you see more of the scene witch means you have to handle more tri's. You'd have to re-do all assets to assure a working game with higher FOVs. They have a hard enough time even hitting an abysmal 30 FPS with the current games.


Sun Aug 12, 2012 11:32 pm
Profile
One Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 4:57 am
Posts: 13
Reply with quote
I have both Playstation 3 and Xbox 360 and I know for a fact that 1280x800 is not an available resolution. So even if game-developers add Rift-support with warping and all it will still not show the full supported resolution of the Rift.

The nearest resolution (on X360) is 1280x768, maybe this will work? Or else it's in Sony's and Microsoft's hands to add this resolution (= not as probable)


Mon Aug 13, 2012 1:05 am
Profile
Certif-Eyable!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2012 8:49 am
Posts: 957
Location: Norway
Reply with quote
Dilip.. Learn your terms and definitions.
Fanboy; Known for a lack of objectivity in relation to their preferred focus.
or from wikipedia; A fanboy is a person considered to belong to one or more fandoms to a point of obsession.

Despite your personal confusion as to why the word is negatively loaded, fact is fact.
If you didnt intend to offend, then you should have used terms other than kids and fanboys.

On topic.
This is obviously not for the average joe, but ive been playing gran turismo 4 and gran turismo 5 with very wide fov.
The game has built in support for running on several consoles connected with LAN,
and therefore supports a much wider fov.

I know this isnt a viable solution for the mass market, and I dont know how you would get
side-by-side stereoscopic on one screen from two or more consoles.

Im just pointing it out regarding if any console game at all could support wider fovs, using (fairly) standard console hardware.

_________________
Riftoholic

My precious 6 month project the Oculus Virtual Lounge:
Image
If you help me in any way I will be forever grateful.


Mon Aug 13, 2012 7:13 am
Profile WWW
3D Angel Eyes (Moderator)
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 8:18 pm
Posts: 11393
Reply with quote
I won't lie: I'm a huge fanboy for 3D and PC gaming. You gotta own it!!!

_________________
check my blog - cybereality.com


Mon Aug 13, 2012 9:47 pm
Profile
Petrif-Eyed
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 2:06 pm
Posts: 2255
Location: Perpignan, France
Reply with quote
zino wrote:
No, it actually is true. Upping the FOV means you see more of the scene witch means you have to handle more tri's. You'd have to re-do all assets to assure a working game with higher FOVs. They have a hard enough time even hitting an abysmal 30 FPS with the current games.
It's only the case for geometry limited games, for fill or cpu limited ones you shouldn't have any problems.

See here for an explanation of fill vs geometry vs cpu limited :
http://dmi.uib.es/~josemaria/files/Open ... rmance.htm


Wed Aug 15, 2012 2:23 am
Profile WWW
One Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2009 5:26 pm
Posts: 45
Reply with quote
well, This generation of consoles may struggle but the title of the thread says NEXT gen.. I would hope the next gen consoles could at least run Doom 3 at 1280x800. If not that'd be pretty sad! lol Heck, the Wii U is supposed to be able to run games at 720p minimum while also driving gamepad screen @ 854 x 480 WIRELESSLY..They even said TWO gamepads could be possible. Nintendo like to break new ground maybe they would embrace the Rift. Personally, I'm a PC gamer first and foremost so I'm not particularly worried about it ;) That's not to say I wouldn't enjoy some Metroid prime with stereo headtracking.. but maybe with Cybereality's driver and the Dolphin emulator I could do that anyways! :))


Wed Aug 15, 2012 7:24 am
Profile
Cross Eyed!
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 2:54 am
Posts: 160
Reply with quote
The evidence so far suggests the next generation consoles and computer hardware will have dramatic improvements in bandwidth which is exactly what the Oculus Rift and S3D in general require not to mention the ultra high resolution monitors and TVs coming on the market. Pushing all those extra pixels to run an ultra high resolution screen requires significant bandwidth increases over current systems and the industry is rushing chip stacking technology onto the market among other advances to make it possible. LG's new 84" 4k TV has no less than 8 million pixels to display which is asking a lot for even the most powerful desktop today.

Chip stacking refers to what I like to call "Frankenstein" chips. Already Intel's new hybrid memory cube can stack up to 8 ddr3 chips on top of each other for 1Tb/s transfer speeds. In turn, several such chips can be placed side-by-side on a thin silicon "interposer" (still referred to as stacking) along with a processor/APU. Rumor has it Intel's Haswell chip to be released next year is a graphics monster capable of 3-5 times the graphics processing speeds of their current offerings. All the next generation consoles will be using AMD products, but they will likely incorporate similar technology. While previous generations of computer hardware emphasized faster processors and more powerful graphics cards the next one will emphasize maximizing raw bandwidth potential which is something console manufacturers are traditionally among the first to exploit because among other things adding memory and leveraging bandwidth is just cheaper than adding transistors.


Sat Aug 25, 2012 4:16 am
Profile
Certif-Eyable!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2012 8:49 am
Posts: 957
Location: Norway
Reply with quote
Read several places that the ps4 will run games at 4k.
For normal games 1080p is enough for me, but "inside" the rift, 4K would be optimal

_________________
Riftoholic

My precious 6 month project the Oculus Virtual Lounge:
Image
If you help me in any way I will be forever grateful.


Sat Aug 25, 2012 5:50 am
Profile WWW
Cross Eyed!
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 2:54 am
Posts: 160
Reply with quote
Namielus wrote:
Read several places that the ps4 will run games at 4k.
For normal games 1080p is enough for me, but "inside" the rift, 4K would be optimal


The point is whether the Rift displays 4K or not the increased bandwidth capacity will mean the ability to produce the lower latencies and higher frame rates the Rift demands.

The upcoming Doom 4 is a good example of what I'm talking about and the first game to be designed specifically for the Rift. The engine is designed so many of the effects like lighting can be pre-baked into the textures using a rendering farm. That way they can simply be streamed off your hard drive like a movie and don't require a lot of extra processing by the gpu which would introduce unnecessary lag to the Rift. Textures alone represent about 80% of the data in a video game so processing them quickly is paramount.

In addition, AMD's new hardware acceleration for the partially resident textures in Doom 4 allows the gpu to use system ram as virtual memory to store additional textures for even faster processing so they don't always have to be streamed off the hard drive on demand. For example, the program might predict you are about to turn a corner and pre-load the image into memory in anticipation of your needs to again reduce lag so the picture doesn't hitch and stutter the minute you round the corner. Being able to store extra textures in system ram and eventually use 1Tb/s hybrid memory cubes means the system will have yet again another advantage in producing the low latencies and high frames per second the Rift requires.

The next generation hardware will have other bandwidth enhancing advantages as well, but you get the basic idea. More raw bandwidth capacity means lower latencies and more frames per second. You could trade off for higher resolutions if you want, but the critical thing for the Rift is to lower the latencies and increase the frames per second so it doesn't make people throw up when the picture does not keep pace with your movements.


Sat Aug 25, 2012 7:19 am
Profile
Sharp Eyed Eagle!

Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2007 3:38 am
Posts: 425
Reply with quote
Namielus wrote:
Read several places that the ps4 will run games at 4k.
Rumours are rumours at this point, and a mix of Chinese Whispers and lack of technical understanding means meaning is lost very quickly. The PS3 was supposed to render everything in 1080p according to forums (as well as 3D, facial capture, make you toast, etc).

What is likely is that next-gen consoles will support at least HDMI 1.4b (for 4k output at 24fps), and possibly the next HMDI standard when the HDMI forum announces it (that have previously announced a desire to include 4k at 60fps). This says absolutely nothing about what resolution any console will render games at, but what resolutions it can output a picture stream at (and probably decode video at).

Unless the interface changes drastically between the RIFT devkit and future consumer model, all that is required on the hardware side is a TDMS video output (DVI or HDMI)/DP output + TDMS converter, and a USB input. Both of these are pretty much a given. The problem exists with the software requirements; that whatever console's SDK allows access to the orientation (/position) sensor. Beyond that, it's then up to game developers to actually make games that work well with wide-FoV HMDs (unless support is made a requirement).

Magical best-case-scenario would be for Sony & Microsoft to look at the RIFT SDK once it's released this December, say "hey, that's cool, we're going to both implement this in our consoles and make support in (all/all first party) games mandatory", but it's almost certainly way too late in the development lifecycle for this to occur, especially as the SDK does not even exist yet, has not been finalised, and the consumer RIFT does not yet actually exist.


Sun Aug 26, 2012 3:51 pm
Profile
Cross Eyed!
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 2:54 am
Posts: 160
Reply with quote
EdZ wrote:

Magical best-case-scenario would be for Sony & Microsoft to look at the RIFT SDK once it's released this December, say "hey, that's cool, we're going to both implement this in our consoles and make support in (all/all first party) games mandatory", but it's almost certainly way too late in the development lifecycle for this to occur, especially as the SDK does not even exist yet, has not been finalised, and the consumer RIFT does not yet actually exist.



That sounds about right, but I'd add that Nintendo's Wii remote caught both Sony and MS off guard. It was a simple and cheap device that sold like hotcakes and forced everybody else to come up with their own gimmicky devices to compete including motion tracking. One reviewer recently complained that consoles have focused more on selling gimmicky devices and making them compatible with tablet PCs and smartphones than making the games fun to play to begin with. They are becoming entertainment centers capable of streaming videos, surfing the web, etc. and no longer dedicated single purpose proprietary devices incompatible with all other technology. My guess is at the very least Sony and MS are hard at work investigating alternatives to the Oculus Rift with similar requirements for low latency and high field of view. If they can't produce a viable alternative it's likely they'll at least make sure the hardware can support the technology with a simple download just in case the Rift takes the market by storm so they won't be locked out of the market. While gimmicky devices and whatnot may not seem all that interesting to PC gamers they consistently top the wish lists of console gamers making the threat of not having at least a viable alternative to the Rift all that more real for manufacturers.


Sun Aug 26, 2012 4:59 pm
Profile
Two Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 2:24 pm
Posts: 50
Reply with quote
EdZ wrote:
What is likely is that next-gen consoles will support at least HDMI 1.4b (for 4k output at 24fps), and possibly the next HMDI standard when the HDMI forum announces it (that have previously announced a desire to include 4k at 60fps). This says absolutely nothing about what resolution any console will render games at, but what resolutions it can output a picture stream at (and probably decode video at).


I think that we can expect 1080p with 60fps and 3D but not much more. Higher resolutions are possible for video but i don't expect them for games. I also think that 1080p will be the resolution for the consumer rift. This will be affordable and a good compromise between resolution and the power needed to feed it. Much higher and only a fraction of the market will have a pc with enough power to run it with 60fps. And 960x1080 per eye is not that bad. The toshiba-panel with 2560x1600 would be a dream, but how many people can run games with this resolution on 60fps? This is something for the second or third generation of the Rift.

EdZ wrote:
Unless the interface changes drastically between the RIFT devkit and future consumer model, all that is required on the hardware side is a TDMS video output (DVI or HDMI)/DP output + TDMS converter, and a USB input. Both of these are pretty much a given. The problem exists with the software requirements; that whatever console's SDK allows access to the orientation (/position) sensor. Beyond that, it's then up to game developers to actually make games that work well with wide-FoV HMDs (unless support is made a requirement).


I don't think that they can make support as an requirement. There are many things that work great with a TV but not in VR. The whole cutscenes will suck in VR, because they break the immersion. If you feel like you are in the gameworld and suddenly you are pushed out ouf your char to see out of a camerapath sucks. In a good VR you will never leave your virtual body, so many storytelling tricks that games have from movies will not funktion anymore.

Leaving your body in VR let me think of the new game Dishonored. In this game you can possess other living beeings. It is like your mind jumps from person to person. You can even possess rats, fishes and other animals. You can also teleport. I would really like to know if you can do such things in VR without to much discomfort

EdZ wrote:
Magical best-case-scenario would be for Sony & Microsoft to look at the RIFT SDK once it's released this December, say "hey, that's cool, we're going to both implement this in our consoles and make support in (all/all first party) games mandatory", but it's almost certainly way too late in the development lifecycle for this to occur, especially as the SDK does not even exist yet, has not been finalised, and the consumer RIFT does not yet actually exist.


I think the best case that can happen is, that Sony & MS support VR-Headsets within their SDK. So that games like Doom4 can also support VR-Headsets on the consoles - if they want.


Sun Aug 26, 2012 5:26 pm
Profile
Cross Eyed!
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 2:54 am
Posts: 160
Reply with quote
Mind wrote:
I think that we can expect 1080p with 60fps and 3D but not much more. Higher resolutions are possible for video but i don't expect them for games. I also think that 1080p will be the resolution for the consumer rift. This will be affordable and a good compromise between resolution and the power needed to feed it. Much higher and only a fraction of the market will have a pc with enough power to run it with 60fps. And 960x1080 per eye is not that bad. The toshiba-panel with 2560x1600 would be a dream, but how many people can run games with this resolution on 60fps? This is something for the second or third generation of the Rift.


Evidently you don't understand the basic technology and the direction it has been taking for decades. Higher resolution textures which account for some 80% of all the data in a game has never been an issue of computing power, but of sheer data storage capacity and the ability to display larger numbers of pixels rapidly. All this focus on computing power is merely the outgrowth of recent advancements in applying special effects using graphics cards. Games like Doom 4 have an almost infinite capacity to produce higher resolution textures, but it would require the game to be 1Tb or more which is roughly equivalent to 20 bluray disks. Using compression that can be reduced significantly, but it still not quite yet a viable commercial technology. What is required is a cheap distribution system with higher capacity than current broadband speeds or DVDs can supply and more raw bandwidth capacity from advancements like Intel's new 1Tb/s hybrid memory cubes. That's the way higher texture resolutions have always been achieved not in incremental steps, but leaps and bounds.

Mind wrote:
I don't think that they can make support as an requirement. There are many things that work great with a TV but not in VR. The whole cutscenes will suck in VR, because they break the immersion. If you feel like you are in the gameworld and suddenly you are pushed out ouf your char to see out of a camerapath sucks. In a good VR you will never leave your virtual body, so many storytelling tricks that games have from movies will not funktion anymore.

Leaving your body in VR let me think of the new game Dishonored. In this game you can possess other living beeings. It is like your mind jumps from person to person. You can even possess rats, fishes and other animals. You can also teleport. I would really like to know if you can do such things in VR without to much discomfort.


Like any good Hollywood movie such things are for the directors and cinematographers to figure out which they have excelled at innumerable times. Just because it is beyond your ability to imagine does not mean it can't be done and be done extremely well.


Sun Aug 26, 2012 7:11 pm
Profile
Two Eyed Hopeful
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 7:03 pm
Posts: 74
Reply with quote
It's up to the developer to maybe add in an option to play it with a Rift. Even if you don't get pixel-for-pixel resolution out of the machines for the consumer version of a Rift, devs are no strangers to using upscaled gameplay from sub-native resolution, based on the current generation of games.


Sun Aug 26, 2012 8:44 pm
Profile WWW
Golden Eyed Wiseman! (or woman!)

Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 11:47 pm
Posts: 1498
Reply with quote
I predict the next Rift will have 1080P or above resolution, but I suspect the next breed of consoles will only support 1080P for gaming. It would be a waste of time making new consoles support higher resolutions, since 1080P is the highest res display device almost anyone possesses.

The Rift could go higher, since there are tablet screens with higher than 1080P resolution, so its possible that the Rift might eventually end up using one of those with Retina + display type specs.


Sun Aug 26, 2012 9:11 pm
Profile
Certif-Eyed!

Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 6:38 pm
Posts: 529
Reply with quote
"Evidently you don't understand the basic technology and the direction it has been taking for decades."

Mind was not talking about texture resolution, he was talking about display resolution. Perhaps he is not the only one who does not understand the technology?

"the ability to display larger numbers of pixels rapidly" would most certainly be an "issue of computing power"

"Using compression that can be reduced significantly, but it still not quite yet a viable commercial technology."

True. Data can be compressed masively. But it takes time to decompress. This is an issue of computing power.

_________________
"If you have a diabolical mind, the first thing that probably came to mind is that it will make an excellent trap: how do you get off a functional omni-directional treadmill?"


Sun Aug 26, 2012 9:12 pm
Profile
3D Angel Eyes (Moderator)
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 8:18 pm
Posts: 11393
Reply with quote
I seriously doubt we will be seeing 4K games any time soon. Current gen consoles can barely even muster 720P at real-time frame-rates. And from what I understand, the next-gen consoles will not even be as good as high-end PCs are today. So even if they could technically output at 4K (lets say for video) I don't think games will bother with this. Especially when no one will have displays to view it on.

_________________
check my blog - cybereality.com


Sun Aug 26, 2012 9:27 pm
Profile
Cross Eyed!
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 2:54 am
Posts: 160
Reply with quote
cybereality wrote:
I seriously doubt we will be seeing 4K games any time soon. Current gen consoles can barely even muster 720P at real-time frame-rates. And from what I understand, the next-gen consoles will not even be as good as high-end PCs are today. So even if they could technically output at 4K (lets say for video) I don't think games will bother with this. Especially when no one will have displays to view it on.


Console manufacturers routinely plan for their products to last the next ten years. They are not interested in the current generation technology, but the next which includes cheap ultra high resolution monitors. The major LCD manufacturers are already retrofitting their assembly lines to produce cheap ultra high resolution monitors and TVs that at most cost 1/3 more than current LCD models. With a cheap insert they can also produce the same outrageous color gamut of an OLED. Within the next 3 years or so all the petty details about which monitor or TV has the best resolution or color or whatever will start to become history. Instead the only thing most people will care about is the brand name, warranty, price, and additional features. As cheap OLEDs come onto the market it will become even less important than what color you choose for your toaster. That's just the way it goes for every technology and nobody is more aware of it than those in the IT business.

Like I said, games like Doom 4 are already designed to put out 4K resolutions and the only thing preventing them from doing so is the high cost and limited market, but they developed the technology knowing within a few years it would become affordable. The original Crysis required a $10,000.oo PC to run at high settings, but now one costing less than a thousand will do the job. The newest Crytech 3 engine they claim will melt your computer, but that won't last for long. In each case they are preparing for emerging markets they know perfectly well are coming within three years or so. Getting ahead of the competition is how you not only stay alive, but thrive in this business. When the next generation consoles come out they will have to WOW their customers to get them to fork out the dough and that means among other things providing the ability at least to display 4K games because nothing, but nothing, sells games better than improved graphics.

At 4k resolutions we're talking about ultra realistic graphics. You'll know it's a cartoon, but the characters, rocks, whatever can be so lifelike many people won't want them to be more photo realistic.


Sun Aug 26, 2012 10:47 pm
Profile
Two Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 2:24 pm
Posts: 50
Reply with quote
wuliheron wrote:
cybereality wrote:
I seriously doubt we will be seeing 4K games any time soon. Current gen consoles can barely even muster 720P at real-time frame-rates. And from what I understand, the next-gen consoles will not even be as good as high-end PCs are today. So even if they could technically output at 4K (lets say for video) I don't think games will bother with this. Especially when no one will have displays to view it on.


Console manufacturers routinely plan for their products to last the next ten years.


Routinely? The last generation ist the first generation they want to reach 10 years with.

wuliheron wrote:
They are not interested in the current generation technology, but the next which includes cheap ultra high resolution monitors.


They are burned so much by the cost of the last generation and the victory of the ultracheap Wii that they will not do this again. The next generation will not be about pushing new technologie in the gaming market. Yes, they will push 4k in the TV market, but not for games. The next gen will not have enough power to feed this resolution with complex games.

wuliheron wrote:
The major LCD manufacturers are already retrofitting their assembly lines to produce cheap ultra high resolution monitors and TVs that at most cost 1/3 more than current LCD models. With a cheap insert they can also produce the same outrageous color gamut of an OLED. Within the next 3 years or so all the petty details about which monitor or TV has the best resolution or color or whatever will start to become history. Instead the only thing most people will care about is the brand name, warranty, price, and additional features. As cheap OLEDs come onto the market it will become even less important than what color you choose for your toaster. That's just the way it goes for every technology and nobody is more aware of it than those in the IT business.


Yes, TVs will get cheaper and better, but the next-gen consoles will not have enough power to feed a complex game at 4k.

wuliheron wrote:
Like I said, games like Doom 4 are already designed to put out 4K resolutions and the only thing preventing them from doing so is the high cost and limited market, but they developed the technology knowing within a few years it would become affordable.


A higher resolution is easy for every gamestudio, because the Models and Textures are build in much higher details than they come in the game.
But, you can be sure that AAA games will go for 1080p instead of 4k. Specialy Johns games, because he is possessed with latency. The next generation of games will not be about resolution, because going from 1080p to 4k will not make the game much better. Go and view the keynote from him. They made tests with people and many people already cant tell the difference between low res and high res. The computing power of the next generation will go in better physik, better AI and more objects on the screen but not in 4k resolution.


wuliheron wrote:
The original Crysis required a $10,000.oo PC to run at high settings, but now one costing less than a thousand will do the job. The newest Crytech 3 engine they claim will melt your computer, but that won't last for long. In each case they are preparing for emerging markets they know perfectly well are coming within three years or so. Getting ahead of the competition is how you not only stay alive, but thrive in this business. When the next generation consoles come out they will have to WOW their customers to get them to fork out the dough and that means among other things providing the ability at least to display 4K games because nothing, but nothing, sells games better than improved graphics.

At 4k resolutions we're talking about ultra realistic graphics. You'll know it's a cartoon, but the characters, rocks, whatever can be so lifelike many people won't want them to be more photo realistic.


But the graphics improve much more with better physic and more livelike objects that with higher resolution. You want to have moving hair, correct behavior of clothing, correct behavior of fluids, fog that moves when you went through it and is lit correctly, and so on. This will bring much better graphics than pushing up the resolution. You can be pretty sure that the games will go in this direction instead of higher resolutions than 1080p.
For not seeing this, you must be blind.


Mon Aug 27, 2012 4:42 am
Profile
Cross Eyed!
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 2:54 am
Posts: 160
Reply with quote
Mind wrote:

Routinely? The last generation ist the first generation they want to reach 10 years with.


Semantics. They all went for a ten year cycle.

Mind wrote:
They are burned so much by the cost of the last generation and the victory of the ultracheap Wii that they will not do this again. The next generation will not be about pushing new technologie in the gaming market. Yes, they will push 4k in the TV market, but not for games. The next gen will not have enough power to feed this resolution with complex games....

A higher resolution is easy for every gamestudio, because the Models and Textures are build in much higher details than they come in the game.
But, you can be sure that AAA games will go for 1080p instead of 4k. Specialy Johns games, because he is possessed with latency. The next generation of games will not be about resolution, because going from 1080p to 4k will not make the game much better. Go and view the keynote from him. They made tests with people and many people already cant tell the difference between low res and high res. The computing power of the next generation will go in better physik, better AI and more objects on the screen but not in 4k resolution.


Textures make up something like 80% of the data in a game and the pressing issue has always been sheer data storage capacity, not computing power. Older consoles even used cartridges to get around this limitation, but adding memory is cheaper than adding transistors so it is the first thing console developers consider. The id tech 5 engine of Doom 4 is a perfect example of developers preparing for the higher data storage capacities coming on the market in the next few years with advances such as molecular scale phase change memory. It was designed to pre-bake special effects like lighting into the textures and stream them off the hard drive like a movie without having to crunch the numbers in your computer or console. In fact, it's textures require so little processing you can play a version of Rage on something as wimpy as an iPhone and AMD has already included hardware acceleration for the technology in their newest graphic cards so your display can keep up with the need to change all the pixels fast enough to accommodate higher resolution textures. As for Carmack's comment, the single biggest complaint PC gamers had about Rage was the low resolution of the textures. He needs to focus on what the vast majority of gamers keep demanding which is higher resolution textures.

Mind wrote:
But the graphics improve much more with better physic and more livelike objects that with higher resolution. You want to have moving hair, correct behavior of clothing, correct behavior of fluids, fog that moves when you went through it and is lit correctly, and so on. This will bring much better graphics than pushing up the resolution. You can be pretty sure that the games will go in this direction instead of higher resolutions than 1080p.
For not seeing this, you must be blind.


Complex physics and AI are what actually require more computing power and, for that reason, have always been the redheaded step children of the industry. With heterogeneous architectures we could see serious improvements in them as well, but they are still more likely to be added further down the road than increased resolutions due to the simple fact they require more computing power than higher resolutions which merely require more memory.

Essentially the console manufacturers are waiting for chip stacking technology to become available to reduce the costs of next generation consoles and improve their overall bandwidth rather than their number crunching capacity. These are what I like to call "Frankenstein" chips where you can stack as many as 8 chips or more right on top of each other to reduce latencies and place 5 or more such stacks all on a single thin silicon "interposer" to again reduce latencies. The major manufacturers have already formed a consortium to create standards for Intel's new 1Tb/s hybrid memory cubes and HP has offered to place 2gb of nonvolatile memristor ram in a single layer on top of any chip anyone cares to make. While previous generations of computers where defined by faster processors and more powerful graphics cards this one will be all about raw bandwidth capacity.


Mon Aug 27, 2012 7:27 am
Profile
Two Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 2:24 pm
Posts: 50
Reply with quote
wuliheron wrote:
Textures make up something like 80% of the data in a game and the pressing issue has always been sheer data storage capacity, not computing power. Older consoles even used cartridges to get around this limitation, but adding memory is cheaper than adding transistors so it is the first thing console developers consider. The id tech 5 engine of Doom 4 is a perfect example of developers preparing for the higher data storage capacities coming on the market in the next few years with advances such as molecular scale phase change memory. It was designed to pre-bake special effects like lighting into the textures and stream them off the hard drive like a movie without having to crunch the numbers in your computer or console. In fact, it's textures require so little processing you can play a version of Rage on something as wimpy as an iPhone and AMD has already included hardware acceleration for the technology in their newest graphic cards so your display can keep up with the need to change all the pixels fast enough to accommodate higher resolution textures. As for Carmack's comment, the single biggest complaint PC gamers had about Rage was the low resolution of the textures. He needs to focus on what the vast majority of gamers keep demanding which is higher resolution textures.


You know that higher resolution textures has nothing to do with the resolution of the screen? First, the increasing amount of texture data has something to do with not wanting one or two textures for the floor that repeat all the time. And the need for high resolution textures is for having a sharp texture even if you stand directly before it. You can see it in rage, where you have blurred textures all the time if you standing near them.
Watch this video of rage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQyR2faFomY

You can see that the textures have much to low resolutions. This has nothing to do with the screen resolution. You can increase the texture resolution many many times without needing more screen resolution than 1080p and still benefit from it.

wuliheron wrote:
Mind wrote:
But the graphics improve much more with better physic and more livelike objects that with higher resolution. You want to have moving hair, correct behavior of clothing, correct behavior of fluids, fog that moves when you went through it and is lit correctly, and so on. This will bring much better graphics than pushing up the resolution. You can be pretty sure that the games will go in this direction instead of higher resolutions than 1080p.
For not seeing this, you must be blind.


Complex physics and AI are what actually require more computing power and, for that reason, have always been the redheaded step children of the industry. With heterogeneous architectures we could see serious improvements in them as well, but they are still more likely to be added further down the road than increased resolutions due to the simple fact they require more computing power than higher resolutions which merely require more memory.


You get much better graphics from more detail, better lights and better physics than from increasing the resolution from 1080p to 4k. Clothing that behave like real clothing gives you much better graphics that unreal clothes in higher resolutions. Fluids that behave like real fluids gives you much better graphics that screwed up fluids in higher resolutions.
Look next-gen engine demos like the one from square enix. They are better because of the detail and better physics and not because of the resolution.


Mon Aug 27, 2012 8:24 am
Profile
Two Eyed Hopeful

Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 2:24 pm
Posts: 50
Reply with quote
Let us ask John about the next generation:

quote:
Targeting 1080P for next gen consoles brings pixel precision back to relevance. Almost every display screws with 720P.
http://www.examiner.com/article/john-carmack-reveals-his-resolution-preference-for-ps4-wii-u-and-xbox-720

So we know that 1080p is the target for the next-generation. Not 4k.

quote:
“If you take a current game like Halo which is a 30 hertz game at 720p; if you run that at 1080p, 60 frames with high dynamic frame buffers, all of a sudden you’ve sucked up all the power you have in the next-generation,” he predicted.
http://www.vg247.com/2012/06/20/carmack-not-all-that-excited-about-new-hardware/

So we know that you can eat all the next-gen power even from going to 1080p. If you want to feed 4k resolution, the complexity of your game looks like 10 years ago.


Mon Aug 27, 2012 8:48 am
Profile
Cross Eyed!
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 2:54 am
Posts: 160
Reply with quote
Mind wrote:
You know that higher resolution textures has nothing to do with the resolution of the screen? First, the increasing amount of texture data has something to do with not wanting one or two textures for the floor that repeat all the time. And the need for high resolution textures is for having a sharp texture even if you stand directly before it. You can see it in rage, where you have blurred textures all the time if you standing near them.
Watch this video of rage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQyR2faFomY

You can see that the textures have much to low resolutions. This has nothing to do with the screen resolution. You can increase the texture resolution many many times without needing more screen resolution than 1080p and still benefit from it.

You get much better graphics from more detail, better lights and better physics than from increasing the resolution from 1080p to 4k. Clothing that behave like real clothing gives you much better graphics that unreal clothes in higher resolutions. Fluids that behave like real fluids gives you much better graphics that screwed up fluids in higher resolutions.
Look next-gen engine demos like the one from square enix. They are better because of the detail and better physics and not because of the resolution.


Texture resolution has everything to do with the screen resolution because if nothing else it is pointless to add higher resolution textures than the screen can display. Certainly the two are not synonymous and compromises must be made, but the question is exactly what compromise does the average person prefer on the 4k screens coming on the market. That includes as you point out yourself adding more unique textures and sharper textures which is just another way of saying higher resolution textures or "the ability to reproduce fine detail". All of which again, requires more memory capacity rather than number crunching. Sure, games might get away with using 1080p on a 4k screen, but increasing the number of unique textures and the sharpness of the textures will be mandatory and is just as validly described as increasing the resolution.


Mon Aug 27, 2012 9:38 am
Profile
Cross Eyed!
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 2:54 am
Posts: 160
Reply with quote
Mind wrote:
Let us ask John about the next generation:

quote:
Targeting 1080P for next gen consoles brings pixel precision back to relevance. Almost every display screws with 720P.
http://www.examiner.com/article/john-carmack-reveals-his-resolution-preference-for-ps4-wii-u-and-xbox-720

So we know that 1080p is the target for the next-generation. Not 4k.

quote:
“If you take a current game like Halo which is a 30 hertz game at 720p; if you run that at 1080p, 60 frames with high dynamic frame buffers, all of a sudden you’ve sucked up all the power you have in the next-generation,” he predicted.
http://www.vg247.com/2012/06/20/carmack-not-all-that-excited-about-new-hardware/

So we know that you can eat all the next-gen power even from going to 1080p. If you want to feed 4k resolution, the complexity of your game looks like 10 years ago.


Take anything out of context and you can twist it however you like. What Carmack went on to say was:

“It will be what we already have, but a lot better. You will be able to redesign with a focus on D11, but it will not really change anyone’s world.”

His focus is on higher frames per second and lower latencies which I fully support, but he recognizes perfectly well other people will demand higher resolution textures and geometry and the next generation consoles will support them simply because it is cheap to add and anything less will look like crap on 4k screens.


Mon Aug 27, 2012 9:47 am
Profile
3D Angel Eyes (Moderator)
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2008 8:18 pm
Posts: 11393
Reply with quote
I honestly doubt most consumers could even tell the difference between a 1080P and 4K screen. There are reports saying lots of people can't tell the difference of 720P from 1080P at a certain distance (on certain sized screens). And I am not sure there is a huge market for 80" screens (which is big enough to notice the resolution). Hell, I have a 720P projector with a 90" screen and that even looks OK to me (not 1080P or 4K, but good enough).

So basically we are arguing about a technology that nobody owns, isn't available to buy, has no available content, and even if it did no one could tell the difference. Hmm.. can't really see game devs bending over backwards and wasting all their extra performance to support this. 1080P will be the consumer standard for console gaming for a while I think.

_________________
check my blog - cybereality.com


Mon Aug 27, 2012 10:52 am
Profile
Cross Eyed!
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 2:54 am
Posts: 160
Reply with quote
cybereality wrote:
I honestly doubt most consumers could even tell the difference between a 1080P and 4K screen. There are reports saying lots of people can't tell the difference of 720P from 1080P at a certain distance (on certain sized screens). And I am not sure there is a huge market for 80" screens (which is big enough to notice the resolution). Hell, I have a 720P projector with a 90" screen and that even looks OK to me (not 1080P or 4K, but good enough).

So basically we are arguing about a technology that nobody owns, isn't available to buy, has no available content, and even if it did no one could tell the difference. Hmm.. can't really see game devs bending over backwards and wasting all their extra performance to support this. 1080P will be the consumer standard for console gaming for a while I think.


This is the same kind of debate people have had for years every time a new higher resolution standard comes on the market and the bottom line is YES people can tell the difference and a large number of people already own screens with higher resolutions than 1080p. LG's new 55" infinite contrast 100,000hz OLED TV has 4k resolution and sells for about $8,000.oo because people most certainly can tell the difference. Rage was developed on 30" monitors which typically have resolutions around 2560 x 1600 that provide better images for artists to work with. Apple refers to their higher resolution screens as "retina" displays claiming the pixels are so dense the human eye cannot discern individual pixels at typical viewing distances. At these higher resolutions antialiasing becomes pointless because you can't perceive the individual pixels and can't see aliasing effects anyway. What Apple retina screen owners commonly complain about is that older low resolutions look like crap on their new screens.


Mon Aug 27, 2012 12:21 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 60 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Tbot and 4 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.