Chivas

Some of those reviews were comparing feelings in Vive to the DK1/DK2, which tells me their comparisons are invalid. Most of the reviewers preferred the Vive because of the input wands, and a greater field of movement, not the difference in quality of the headset itself. Neither of those features are required in the combat flight sim market. I do agree that the Valve headset is very good, but you'd have to believe that Oculus has done nothing in the last six months to make improvements over the Crescent Bay prototype to suggest that Valve is ahead in the technology. Reasonable people would take the last six months into account, and wait for release before jumping to any kind of conclusions. I'll wait and see which one turns out to better, and supports the software I want to use, before deciding to buy.

I've got news for you "All" indications are that Zuckerberg is allowing Oculus to create a gaming device first. All the Oculus prototypes are gaming devices, and so will consumer version, unless you believe they are lying about that as well. A small portion of the Oculus team is working with Samsung lending their expertise and support for the GearVR headset that quite possibly could be used for social media. You don't know if Oculus has fallen behind. Your comparing the new Valve unit with an atleast six month old Crescent Bay prototype. According to the software developer creating the demo for Valve, they were scrambling to have their current prototype ready for GDC. There isn't a lot of time to upgrade the current Valve prototype for an end of the year release. Oculus has said the next unit will be much better than the current Crescent Bay, and have been working on that for atleast the past six months. Thats not to say that Valve doesn't have a few tricks up their sleeves as well in the next few months, but you are currently comparing apples to oranges, I'll wait until we have a clearer picture on what the final specs of each unit will be before declaring any of them in trouble. Hopefully both developments will have even better news at June's E3.

You like to continually infer that Facebook will throw a wrench into the gaming plans of Oculus, but say nothing about HTC doing the same thing to Valve. Facebook has left Oculus alone, while Oculus continues the development of a gaming headset, setup a business spending millions to support game developers financially/technically, and hire hundreds of the best minds in the gaming industry. HTC will probably do the same thing for Valve. I never liked the Facebook acquisition either, but so far we've only seen Oculus hugely benefit from that partnership, with absolutely nothing to support the negative position.

Luckey: VR to be Gaming-Focused for the ‘next few years’ http://vrfocus.com/archives/12834/luckey-vr-gaming-focused-next-years/

No word yet if Valve will release any prototypes to the general public. Developers will probably be the only ones to see Valve hardware until its consumer release.

Vive hasn't overtaken the Oculus but they have caught up to atleast a six months old Crescent Bay prototype. Both have dual displays, although the Oculus displays are of a slight higher resolution. Oculus also has arguably the best display manufacturer as a partner. Both use Persistence tech designed by Valve. Both have very good positional tracking, with Vive using lasers that can be used to move around in an approx. 15ft area. I currently don't have much interest in walking around blind, and will be quite happy sitting, and using my Hotas. Although I could see using a stationary bike, or rowing machine for fitness, and exploring in VR. I doubt I will ever be interested in walking around blind in a dedicated VR room. Oculus is currently way ahead in VR specific game/movie software development, and support. Valve will probably be more expensive, than the Oculus unit, especially if Oculus still plans to sell their unit at cost, and recouping their investment on the software side that they also so heavily invested in. Valve is hoping to release their headset by the end of the year, and Oculus is still keeping its release date quite. Hopefully Valve does catch up so that we have two very high quality VR headsets to chose from.

Your right its doubtful the current Valve or Oculus prototypes are good enough for WW2 sims, but time will tell if the consumer versions will be good enough. Ocuulus might have a small advantage considering its partnership with Samsung one of the best display manufacturers in the market. There is the misconception that Oculus is concentrating on the mobile side, but sources in Oculus have stated that only one in four of their engineers are working on the mobile side. Carmack is basicly working with Samsung engineers to develop their gear VR, in exchange for Samsung display technology for their Oculus headset. Its a very good thing for us to have Valve in the market, but it shouldn't effect DCS too much. I would imagine we will eventually have the choice of running DCS on a Valve headset as well as the Oculus headset. We'll just have to do our homework on which will do the job better.

Kickstarter was definitely a huge startup bonus, but the two billion dollar Facebook acquisition was the real difference maker. It allowed the company to hire three hundred of some of the best people in the VR 3D tech market. Also allowed them to make and have custom hardware made, instead of the original idea of just using smartphone parts. A major bonus was the ability to fund and support third party software developers, as there was no point in releasing VR hardware if there wasn't enough software content. As you say, Oculus is continually improving its product, but they have too. I own the DK2. It was released as a developer prototype as it was much better than the DK1, but no where near good enough for the consumer release. Some have suggested that the Crescent Bay prototype was good enough in most respects, but it also wasn't intended as a consumer release as there was still a lot of empty space in the unit to allow them room to easily interchange parts. All else being equal the Oculus consumer version could be much smaller. Not sure about the current Valve prototype as it use lasers sensors in the headset instead of just dots. I'm sure there is room for refinement in all the current VR hardware prototypes. Since the Facebook acquisition there are people under the misconception that Oculus hardware is mainly trending toward social media. Social media will definitely be huge, and Cormack is working with mobile VR, but by far most of the huge Oculus budget is still directed toward a PC VR hardware/software gaming solution. As VR hardware improves EVERY industry as well as gaming, and social media will find a use for Oculus, Valve, Sony, Samsung etc etc hardware.

I agree, unless there are some major optimizations on how VR runs, its unlikely that we will see 4k displays until much later consumer versions. I do like that the fact that Oculus has partnered with the display manufacturer Samsung which could allow them to have custom displays expressly built for the requirements of VR as this new tech improves.

Its highly unlikely any development is caught up endless loop. That's what CV2, CV3's are for. The main criteria for the first version is not about the endless loop of better bells and whistles, but about creating the first VR unit that works, and doesn't alienate the consumer again. This is crucial. It shouldn't matter to us who wins the race, the competition is the best thing that could happen to consumers. I also doubt Valve or Oculus will be losers, as its highly likely both will release very competitive consumer versions. The question for us will be which VR unit is best suited for software we want to run, and each individuals purpose, not which VR unit has slightly better specs. Neither has released a consumer version, and there are always delays, so whichever company suffers the least amount of delays will probably reach the market first, but that certainly won't guarantee market dominance. That's one of the reasons Oculus has focused so much effort on third party developers, as there is no point being first to the market with not enough user content. It will be interesting to see how the Valve hardware will be able to integrate with all the content currently being made for Oculus, and if there will be enough to satisfy the market if Valve does manage to release their consumer version this year. Who knows some VR unit might find the killer app that everyone has to have.

Personally I think the Facebook monies allowed them to make a better initial hardware unit than they first envisioned, but probably the main reason for the delay is getting the latencies low enough, and the whole software/hardware system optimized enough to guarantee motion sickness would not kill VR again. I also like the fact they appear to have gone to two displays instead of one. There is too much competition out there now for them even to contemplate getting into any type of endless loop.

Words out that the Cresent Bay prototype does have two displays, which bodes well for higher resolutions, and possible physical IPD adjustments, etc.

New Nvidia turf effects possible for EDGE?? NVIDIA TurfEffects https://developer.nvidia.com/turfeffects

Facebook has invested more monies into todays consumer version VR hardware than all the previous versions put together. Note I'm not talking about Military of Industrial VR, but affordable consumer version gaming VR. TrackIR was atleast twice as immersive as a hatswitch, and VR will be ten times more immersive than TrackIR. There are definitely issues that have to be addressed but they are being addressed quickly. The newer display tech has allowed "low persistence technology to greatly reduce motion blur, and motion sickness. Two big VR killers. Not to mention the positional tracking, and resolution improvements. It appears the latest Cresent Bay prototype has addressed many of the issues, and the Oculus team isn't releasing a consumer version, until it improves the FOV, Optics, Latencies, SDE, etc etc of the latest CB prototype. The improvements won't stop after the release of the first consumer version. That said I'm not so sure 1440P is a high enough resolution for competitive combat flight sims unless its 1440P per eye. The DK2 1080P prototype is no where near good enough. So the "first" consumer version "may" not be good enough, but hugely immersive for other types of flight sims.

Earlier VR never had much chance to succeed until the developments in smartphone technology made it possible to do, at a much lower price point. Todays VR proof of concept, has drawn the money, and the people necessary to make it happen, that earlier VR attempts could only dream about.

There are alot of comparisons being made between a supposedly finished product, TrackIR with a unfinished prototype Oculus Rift. The VR proof of concept is good enough now that investors with huge amounts of monies, and the best minds in the industry have flocked to its development. I see no reason why VR won't live up to the hype at some point in its development, and future consumer versions. Even then I'm sure some people will still prefer the "hat switch" or "TrackIR.

Simmers with cockpits like that obviously are looking for realism. I know WW2 pilots were trained to be able to access all their switches blindfolded, but not sure about modern jets.

Yes, but I wonder how well, if the camera doesn't correlate accurately with where we feel our hands are. I'm sure there will be a solution, but probably not an easy one to resolve. I think they are probably working on solutions that can be done by feel, and won't break the "presence" they are working so hard to achieve. It shouldn't be that much of a problem for serious flight simmers, as we already have complex systems that we can easily learn to use by feel, that have natural tactile/haptic feedback, thats very difficult to achieve with other methods.

The Oculus prototypes have a FOV around 100, which is much smaller than most people Field of Vision. 98abaile, is worried about people having issues with the displays screen door effect, where you can see pixels, and black dots inbetween the pixels, which is quite pronounced in the DK1, and DK2 prototypes. Most of the people testing the latest Cresent Bay prototype say that the screen door effect has been greatly reduced, and the developers are saying it will be even less of an issue with a much improved consumer version.

I've also used VAC software for years, and it worked amazingly well. Regarding passthru.... Oculus Rift is well aware of the issue of seeing the keyboard etc etc. Some head mounted displays companies have used a physical shutter in the headset, others are using passthru cameras to allow outside views. Oculus is probably looking at a number of different solutions, but no word yet on what solutions they might have come up with yet. Personally I probably won't use any of these solutions, as it will likely break "presence". That and the fact I can type and use my complex Hotas without having to look.

I've used Track IR from its first versions on. Track IR was one of the most immersive additions to a combat flight simmers hardware, and most of those who tried TrackIR never went back to using a hatswitch. VR will be far more immersive than Track IR and most of the people who experience it will never go back to using their Track IR. How long this transition will take is anyone guess. The current DK2 isn't good enough, but the latest Cresent Bay prototype has made some major advances. The consumer version should be even better. Not being able to see a Hotas/keyboard will be an issue for some people, but most will find away around it, either thru a VR hardware passthru feature, or just by learning to use their Hotas without having to look. I find no problem using my complex HOTA's system without having to look at it, and will not use any type of passthru VR feature that breaks "presense". A click-able cockpit and Voice recognition software for tower communication etc should also work quite well.

Cormack was recently asked whether the OR could be used for general desktop work. He replied that won't be comfortable until the OR has a 4K display. That implied to me that the first OR consumer version will not have a 4k display. I'm sure future OR displays will be 4k, and above when the displays ,and the tech required to drive them are more common place. :)

In one of Carmacks keynotes, he's asked a question about using the Rift for normal desktop activities, and he said that won't be possible, atleast comfortable until the Rift has a 4K resolution. It sounded like the Rift consumer versions won't have a 4K display for awhile. The DK2 doesn't have a physical IPD adjustment and it appears the Cresent Bay doesn't either. People have mentioned they lose the sweet spot thru the Cresent Bay prototype lenses if the the headset isn't securely fastened. The first consumer version will probably have a custom 1440 display with a few software, and optics tricks to make it appear even higher.

Its an OLED display, probably 1440, and Oculus is not saying who manufactured it. A Samsung display would be the obvious first guess. We probably won't see a 4K screen until the second or third consumer generation. It does have new Optics, with no word on what range of IPD's will work best with them. It doesn't appear that this prototypes lenses have a physical IPD adjustment. A feature that will be a must, atleast from my personal experience with the DK2.

As of other have said EDGE is going to be a significant upgrade for DCS, hence the significant jump from V1.0 #'s too V2.0 #'s. There is no reason to mourn the loss of the numbers in between.