Chivas

If the input controllers are accurate enough to be used as stick and throttle controllers, then I can see people modding inputs like the Oculus touch. The Oculus touch inputs should work well for in cockpit switch adjustment, as they have some finger dexterity attributes. I'd envision some sort of quick connect/disconnect docking stations in the stick and throttle positions, where you could use the inputs to adjust cockpit switches as well as stick and throttle use. It doesn't matter what the inputs look like as we can't see them anyway while in VR, and they should feel ok, since they're pistol type grips.

Yes, this has been a perceptual problem for Vive for sometime. I recently watched a Vive presentation where the rep repeatedly had to emphasize that it wasn't just a moving/standing experience but a sitting experience as well. Oculus has had the same, but opposite problem, if you know what I mean.

You know when someone has lost an argument when they use the spelling/grammar retort. :)

You obviously forgotten what Oculus is championing, since you've stuck your head up the Vive cloud. I'll try to remind you, Oculus is championing VR by providing quality hardware near cost, and are creating/funding/supporting the software required, long before Vive mentioned they were bringing VR hardware to the market. It still remains to be seen how that software can and will be implemented between hardware devices, or what hardware devises will actually be around when the dust settles. Your suggesting that Valve knew everything about VR before Oculus, and it could also be suggested that they didn't get it right until they started working with Oculus. :) You do realise that Abrash now works for Oculus, and Valve tied its wagon to a struggling hardware company?

Proprietary software will never destroy VR. VR/AR is unstoppable at this point. It will initially help, hurt ,or destroy specific developers that priorities software, and piss off some people, but market demand will find it own level.

Its not how they're playing it, its how your speculating they will play it. Massive leg up? It probably went both ways. There is no doubt that Valve helped Oculus with the low persistence tech, and there is little doubt that Oculus helped Valve on the hardware side, as well, seeing they worked together for quite sometime. Unless you assume it was all one sided. All the work Oculus did on the software side, explaining to devs how best to develop VR software has also benefited Vive. In the end business is business, as we don't live in a Utopia, but it will be interesting to see how it all pans out. Certainly in the beginning, for many reasons, not all software devs will implement support for both the leading desktop VR headsets, . Many will wait to see which has the better specs/input for the type of games they plan to develop.

Vive has been primarily concentrating on creating VR hardware for the last few years. VR hardware is useless without the software. Lets demonize Oculus for funding, and supporting much of the VR software for the last few years. Oculus has helped DCS implement VR support, and obviously haven't thrown any roadblocks to DCS implementing Vive support.

It will take extra time, and money for a dev to implement support for more than one headset. Some devs will, some won't atleast for the foreseeable future. Some devs are, and will take a wait and see stance. Some will implement support for both. A substantial number of devs have received considerable monetary support to implement VR, or develop a new VR game, which could limit supporting other headsets. Third parties like Vorpx will implement support for some of the popular games, but there will far more games without any VR support let alone supporting the two major headsets. VR is very much a WIP, so there isn't enough known yet too define what are the best practices to implement the best VR support. The goal posts will probably change quite substantially over the next couple of years to write the definitive best practices for VR. It will eventually come, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Maybe your right, but likely only for a portion of the community, "IF" the CV1 is a decent enough upgrade to the DK2. For me personally the immersion level of VR far surpasses my inability to see aircraft a long way off. I can't see them now anyway, and momentarily use Icons offline, and wingup with squad mates who can spot distant aircraft online. I'm not so sure that not seeing distant objects will be a VR deal breaker, as most people use ICONs at least online. I have no idea what the percentage is offline, but its likely to be around the same. Some aspects of peoples competiveness will be compromised in VR. That said in my experience only a smaller portion of the combat flight sim community is highly competitive anyway. A definite Negative is not sighting distant objects if they don't use icons. A probable Positive could be better situational awareness, and immersion. I used to be highly competitive when I could see better, but decent deflection shooting, and OK situational awareness kept me competitive enough for it to be enjoyable. Besides I'm way to old to be waiting for better VR headsets. :)

There is no doubt the VR headsets will get better every couple of years. The question is...will the first generation of VR headset be good enough. That's impossible to answer. For me the DK2 certainly wasn't good enough, to others it was fine. I'm still hoping that refinements to the displays, lenses, and optic hardware/software in the first consumer versions will be good enough for me. Some will love some hate it. I know I have no further interest in flying in 2D, especially after experiencing the unprecedented immersion of even early VR prototype headsets. No one has yet seen or said how well the latest protoypes work with sims like WT, and DCS, other than saying their implemented. Many who have tried space sims with the latest prototypes seem to think it may be good enough.

It will be interesting to see the system requirements for the StarVR. High system requirements were the reason Vive, and Oculus settled on their much smaller displays for the first consumer version. Unless StarVR has some magic up their sleeve, I don't see their hardware having strong adoption for atleast a year or two.

I'm not so sure that the rail around the waste will be as much of an immersion killer as the chaperone system. The rail will always be there and may be quickly forgotten. The Chaperone system just suddenly appears to kick you out of presence. But people will make accommodations for the deficiencies if they like the total experience enough.

Not sure why people whine when someone makes a counterpoint to their argument. People shouldn't take it so personal. Posting sources that compare a new prototype of one dev, to an older prototype of another has very little merit. It would have merit if both devs were going release their unit exactly like their latest prototype, but that rarely happens, and certainly won't happen in this case. All I'm suggesting is that people should wait for the facts before making a decision. Yes I was on the Oculus bandwagon before the HTC Vive was announced, as there was little competition. Now that HTC Vive has been announced I could easily change my mind, but I'll wait for the final specs before making that decision. There is a lot of speculation on which unit will be better. If you don't like my speculation, well again too bad.

I've got news for you, sources mean very little when your dealing with information that hasn't been released yet. You've jumped on the Vive bandwagon, with no idea what the final specs, content, price, preorders or release dates will be for either product. If you have issues with my counter arguments, that's just too bad.

Virtuix Omni with HTC Vive & Lighthouse Enables Fully Decoupled Locomotion http://www.roadtovr.com/virtuix-omni-htc-vive-lighthouse-vr-treadmill-decoupled-locomotion/ This is the type of tech, that could open up the world, and not be confined by an unrealistic 15x15 space. I think the Omni locomotion or other treadmill type will need refinement, but it could be the way to go, and would get rid of the Vive presence killer safety grid.

So your suggesting that I'm bias and your not. Almost every post you make is in favor of the Vive unit for one reason or another. Some I agree with some I don't. If I don't agree, I'll post a reason for it. If you understood my posts at all you'd know I have no idea which one will end up being the better product, but just like you I post reasons why one might be better than the other. If you can't handle a counter argument, maybe you shouldn't post at all. Of course Vive could win the day, with a good combination of price point, content, specs, etc, but once Vive was announced people seem to assume they've already won, and Oculus hasn't made any improvements to their product over the last eight months. Both teams will delivered improved specs over their last prototype. We simply don't know yet which developer will have the best combination of specs, content, price, and release date to suit our needs. You say that Vive has the advantage in content, and I just gave some valid reasons why I think they don't. Others think that Vive won't be anymore expensive than the Rift, I've just gave some valid reasons why the Rift might be cheaper. I really hope that Vive can pull it off, so I can buy a VR headset as soon as possible. I just don't see Vive being the clear winner, YET.

Steam does have a lot of content in their Store, little of it exclusive to, or developed by Steam, and all of it is 2D, and unlikely to be 3D anytime soon. Actually Oculus has the current advantage in VR content since they have been funding and developing VR content for a couple of years longer. Oculus now has their own game store, and ALL of it is VR. So no Vive currently doesn't have a huge advantage in VR software content, and unlikely to have it any time soon, because of the tens of thousands software developers currently working on VR content for the Rift. Much of that content could eventually be cross platform, but that doesn't translate to any kind of Steam advantage. The amount of content available for each platform when preorders start will probably fall in Oculus's favor. Vive may need to have a killer app to save the day in that category.

Be prepared to eat your smartphone. The first prototype Constellation tacking was doing 12x12 months ago. Rift / Touch and two camera trackers will in all likelihood be cheaper than the Vive system. 1. Camera trackers are much cheaper to produce than the Laser trackers. 2. Samsung should be able to secure custom displays at a much cheaper pricepoint considering their partnership with a major display maker Samsung. 3. And the most important point is Oculus suggesting they will sell their hardware near cost. Considering HTC current financial problems, its likely they'd like to secure are larger profit margin. Its also quite likely people will be able to preorder the Touch controllers at the same time as the headset. Its now unlikely that many people will receive the Vive this year, with the majority having to wait until next year. With the Rift already coming of the assembly lines, the Vive's first to market advantage could be shrinking rapidly. Its also likely that the Vive and Rift will be open for preorders at the same time this year. Most smart VR enthusiasts will take into account price, content, specs, and release time frame before deciding which unit to buy.

There are also rumors lately that Vive may also have a killer app, that some think is HL3. I have no idea, nor care what HL3 is, but a popular game will go along way in helping Vive sell more product to people who might have waited for the cheaper Rift.

Again just another old review comparing Rift without Touch, and Vive with Wands. Saying the Vive is 15x15 and the Rift 3x3, which is now wrong. Palmer has stated that the Vive tracking is very good and Oculus has looked at "all" tracking options, and prefer their camera option. I would assume it may make it easier to track all body parts.

Yes, and they've also said the Vive will have built-in headphones. Which I think is a great idea, as it should make it much easier for VR content developers to know exactly how to best tweak their audio software. :)

Maybe you could post this mass of anecdotal evidence that suggests the latest Vive prototypes are better than the latest Rift prototypes. The vast majority of these reviews say that they've tried the DK2, and find the Vive better, mostly because they could move around. Those that tried the latest Rift prototype said they seen little difference in the quality of the headsets, or latencies in the tracking methods. Its possible that the latencies could be lower with the Vive tracking, but if nobody can see the difference who cares. Most people loved the Rift until it was bought out by Facebook. The usual refrain was that Facebook would dumb down the Rift into a social media headset . It didn't happen, Facebook poured even more money into the Rifts development, and content. Then Vive annouced a very good VR headset prototype with tracking inputs. The same people jumped on that bandwagon saying it was the Facebook killer. I guess it didn't occur to them that Oculus would make improvements to their own prototypes, and have far more money, resouces, and R&D to make it happen than their competition. The Rift is just a sitting experience? A review from last June. Room Scale Possible: Testing the standing tracking volume on the Oculus Rift http://uploadvr.com/room-scale-possible-testing-the-standing-tracking-volume-on-the-oculus-rift/ Again I don't care which one ends up developing the better headset/input, and will wait for the preorder specs/content/price to be annouced before making my final decision. I hate confusing the issue with facts, and know you find it painful and tedious, but just stick your head back in the sand, and it won't bother you as much. I am surprised that Oculus hasn't gone the Vive route of a travelling demo display. They must be very confident, their preorder package will be obviouly superior in price/content/specs, or they can't compete at the present time.

I don't care which development makes the best VR HMD, I just don't buy the hype that Vive is better than the Rift yet. Especially in regards to combat flight sims. Its the usual forum hype that some poster can't suggest how good one unit is without posting some mis-information about the other product, to help sell their argument. Even most of the reviews compare the Vive prototype against earlier Rift prototypes which is misleading. Those that compared the latest prototypes could actually see little difference between the headset, and latencies. I'm suggesting that people should wait and see the final consumer versions, and not write-off the development that has a huge advantage in tech/financial resources, and wants to sell you their units near cost. Its folly to choose one over the other at this point. I'm not suggesting that Vive can't pull it off, but anyone with a modicum of common sense, would wait and see.

Of the two "current" input prototypes, I prefer the dexterity of the Touch inputs too the Vive wands. Currently Vive simulates something in your hand while the Touch simulates your hand, with should translate better for cockpit use. Final products could change. StarVR looks very good, but current system hardware would have a very difficult time driving that many pixels especially at high HZ. I don't see that happening for a year or two. Once hardware/software is capable of driving dual displays with than many pixels, StarVR will probably have stiff competition from later consumer versions to the Vive and Oculus's at those high FOV's.

Samsung has a larger display market share than AUO, and makes better displays than AUO. There are reports that Samsung has been putting the poorer quality AUO displays in some of their Samsung monitors/TV's, but that should have nothing to do with the high quality custom VR displays Samsung is currently making. My point is, Oculus a partner of Samsung should have access to these VR featured displays, at a reasonable pricepoint.