Valve/HTC Vive Discussion

[Brisse]

VR isn't a new concept.

 

Here's the stereoscopic "View-Master" from 1939:

 

 

There was also a hard push for VR during the nineties with the likes of Sega and Nintendo trying to bring it to arcade games but it never caught on back then.

 

There's a good reason however for the new push of VR development that we are seeing today, and nothing in the past comes close to the potential we can see today. Hardware has come to a certain point where it's possible to create a believable feeling of presence inside VR. We have come to a point where it's possible to go into VR without immediately feeling sick. Huge money are being invested into the development of VR and content creators are jumping into the fray. Without content, VR will mean nothing. Now we see game developers make games specifically for VR. We are seeing movie studios take interest in the technology, wanting to make new experiences similar to cinema, but in VR. We are seeing companies like Facebook and Google supporting 360 degree stereoscopic pictures and video. Applications for social interaction and education is being developed. Gaming is where it starts, but eventually, it's use is going to expand way beyond gaming. VR is not new, but this is the day and age when VR finally takes off, but it's only the beginning of that new era...

Edited November 21, 2015 by Brisse

[S3NTRY11]

Which means it will take four 980ti's to render all those pixels. Let's hope for the sake of StarVR that graphic cards take a big leap in performance now that their moving on to smaller fabrication process, and that prices are reasonable instead of the ridiculous prices we have seen on the current generation of graphic cards.

Hey, I never said it wouldn't take more grunt, just that the density didn't drop for StarVR.

 

There are tricks in the works to improve rendering capabilities; someone mentioned VR SLI, and there's foveated rendering - but I guess that'll probably have to wait until gen2, when eye-tracking is implemented, unless one of the frontrunners does a sneaky for gen1.

[S3NTRY11]

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.

 

Unfortunately, I don't think the res is going to be great for flight sims for at least 5 years (in the range Icarus mentioned - it's a software and a hardware problem), the sweet spot is going to be middle-distance viewing - think car racing sims.

 

I do have hope that gen1 will have just enough res to be usable (I can make out other aircraft within a few miles with the DK2, but it's bloody hard in some lighting situations to keep them locked up by my eyeballs; doesn't take much for them to merge with the sky - especially if they're already painted to blend).

[StandingCow]

Basted on what totalbiscuit mentioned recently when he tried out a VR device... games may not be what the earliest generations of VR are best at... early on the best may be watching a concert, sports, or even a movie on a very large TV screen in a comfortable room with fireplace. It apparently worked very well in all those situations. And all of this was powered by a smart phone...so you could take it in flights, etc.

[Brisse]

games may not be what the earliest generations of VR are best at

 

At least not traditional games. New games will have to be developed specifically for VR, which is already well underway. Perhaps the early games will be a bit rough but eventually developers will find out what works and what doesn't and through iteration, gaming in VR will improve, both the hardware and the software. As I said earlier in the thread: Forget about traditional games in VR. Forget about Battlefield, CoD, and all that mainstream stuff. Simulation type games, especially racing sims are the only genres I can see being brought over to VR. New genres will have to be invented to fill the gaps from genres that don't work in VR.

[Chivas]

Unfortunately, I don't think the res is going to be great for flight sims for at least 5 years (in the range Icarus mentioned - it's a software and a hardware problem), the sweet spot is going to be middle-distance viewing - think car racing sims.

 

I do have hope that gen1 will have just enough res to be usable (I can make out other aircraft within a few miles with the DK2, but it's bloody hard in some lighting situations to keep them locked up by my eyeballs; doesn't take much for them to merge with the sky - especially if they're already painted to blend).

 

 

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. :)

[metalnwood]

It's great for racing now. I cant wait for any improvement, not because I need it but because its really good now so I know better will be very usable for me.

 

How well it will work for for a2a in dcs scenario's I dont know until we have them but I know there has been a shift for me. It's no longer the game that defines what I play but the VR experience so something like DCS may get played less and something like FSX with flyinside fsx could get played more where those specific limitations of needing to see aircraft out in the distance is not an issue.

 

It's very interesting seeing how different we are, some will now choose that game that works in VR and others wont go near it until it supports the games they like. All valid points of view.

[S3NTRY11]

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.

 

How well it will work for for a2a in dcs scenario's I dont know until we have them but I know there has been a shift for me. It's no longer the game that defines what I play but the VR experience so something like DCS may get played less and something like FSX with flyinside fsx could get played more where those specific limitations of needing to see aircraft out in the distance is not an issue.

 

It's very interesting seeing how different we are, some will now choose that game that works in VR and others wont go near it until it supports the games they like. All valid points of view.

 

The immersion that comes from even the DK2 is simply remarkable - to the point that I'm a little giddy when jumping into a new aircraft (can't wait for the M2000).

 

I have been doing a bit of WVR dogfighting and OMG, it is so great to be able to just intuitively look to where the target should be and not have to worry about angle ratios like with TrackIR (as good as it was for its time).

 

My point here is that as metalnwood mentioned, I myself have changed my own usage behaviours. I will not play BMS because there is no native VR support (yes, I am missing out, but I find even the notion of no VR to be hard to take).

 

Even 2D, traditional shooters lack appeal to me. I have no idea how they are going to be successful in VR, but I just bought Fallout, and the lack of VR makes me feel pretty meh about the whole thing. I'll play it, but it now feels that it is missing a key element.

 

VR has ruined me.

[hansangb]

Yeah, I think this is something 4K 50"+ folks and TrackIR don't get. The natural immersion is something that you can't "get" until you experience it. Don't get me wrong, my three monitor TrackIR setup was great. But it pales in comparison to Rift. Software optimization techniques will improve in a year. Moore's law will help as well. So I expect 2016 will usher in the wave of VR.

 

hsb

[Brisse]

All VR software will run on both headsets.

 

Not really. It is entirely up to the developer of the game or application. They have to start from scratch every time they want to add compatibility for a new headset or manufacturer. What I want to see in the future is a standard for VR integration, in the same way D3D or OpenGL are standards for how graphics are rendered. Imagine if a developer had to integrate VR support into their game engine only once, and then it would work on all headsets. What we need is an OpenVR API that is supported by all the major VR hardware manufacturers. As it stands right now, every manufacturer has their own API. Must be a nightmare to develop games for VR and wanting to support several headsets.

[Chivas]

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.

[Brisse]

Once you implement VR for one headset, doing it for others is not that hard. so shouldn't be a big issue.

 

What if the market is suddenly flooded with VR headsets from twenty different manufacturers, and they are all viable options? Would it still be a not so big issue?

[S3NTRY11]

Not for the main contenders it wouldn't be an issue. The hypothetical chance of twenty options as viable as Oculus and Vive is remote at best. This will not be a big issue anyway once you program the first headset.

It's definitely shaping up to be an analogue to D3D vs OpenGL.

And with Oculus already trying to corner the market, and dominate, it's not too hard to see where the analogy goes...

 

Fingers crossed Valve and the Vive can get enough of a foothold to sway development studios to the more open standard.

 

From what I recall, Oculus were pretty "oh we're going to be so open and transparent" in nativity of their youth, and as much as I've read there's been the unsurprising erosion of that credo. "no-one else can be trusted with this stuff - because of past problems, the industry can't afford to stuff it up. We have all the talent, leave it to us. No you can't see it."

 

Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

In fact, it harks back even further, to the early days of 3D accelerators, when dev studios had to write for each chip. It was a nightmare, which is where D3D/OpenGL came from in the first place.

 

It's fair to say that it should be easier to standardise, given the points Icarus made, but whether it will work out that way...

Edited November 24, 2015 by S3NTRY11

[S3NTRY11]

Standardized API's are already being worked on as we speak. Once they are released it will be join on or die. Just like the videocards. Good analogy.

 

Yeah, but wouldn't it be nice to live in a world where the open standard wins for once.

For all their cawing, I just don't think that's the path Oculus want to walk down, hand-in-hand with a glint of love in their eye, unfortunately.

[metalnwood]

Standards will come but when there is a new technology and different companies are racing to get there first they dont want to wait for a standard and come in 2nd place or even 1st equal.

[Chivas]

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.

[PiedDroit]

Proprietary software wars will destroy VR. It needs to be like video cards and it will.

Proprietary will work in the short term but as soon as several credible VR systems will be available (i.e. more than 2), the devs will develop for those who reach the maximum number of VR owners, most likely "open" APIs.

The big players should be working on an unified API as one of their primary goal, otherwise someone else will.

Edited November 25, 2015 by PiedDroit

[S3NTRY11]

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.

I'm just stating how they're playing it. If that demonizes them, so be it.

 

Remember, it was Valve that gave Oculus a massive leg-up. Not the other way around.

[Chivas]

I'm just stating how they're playing it. If that demonizes them, so be it.

 

Remember, it was Valve that gave Oculus a massive leg-up. Not the other way around.

 

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.

[Chivas]

Proprietary software wars will destroy VR. It needs to be like video cards and it will.

 

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.

[S3NTRY11]

Its not how they're playing it, its how your speculating they will play it.

 

I'm not speculating on actions they've already taken. That's observation, not speculation.

You're not even speculating. You're, to quote you, "burying your head in the sand".

 

You can't on one hand, complain that Oculus are being demonised, and then in the next related post, use the term "business is business".

 

Massive leg up? It probably went both ways.

There were initial cooperations between them, but Valve had been working on VR for some time before Oculus were even a thing.

Have you heard of "The Room"?

Have you heard of Michael Abrash?

 

Many will wait to see which has the better specs/input for the type of games they plan to develop.

Yep, and imagine how much better it would be for the industry if they all worked to an open standard. Which is not what Oculus are championing.

[Chivas]

I'm not speculating on actions they've already taken. That's observation, not speculation.

You're not even speculating. You're, to quote you, "burying your head in the sand".

 

You can't on one hand, complain that Oculus are being demonised, and then in the next related post, use the term "business is business".

 

 

There were initial cooperations between them, but Valve had been working on VR for some time before Oculus were even a thing.

Have you heard of "The Room"?

Have you heard of Michael Abrash?

 

 

Yep, and imagine how much better it would be for the industry if they all worked to an open standard. Which is not what Oculus are championing.

 

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?

[S3NTRY11]

A timely article:

http://augmentl.io/can-virtual-reality-escape-the-exclusivity-trap/

[S3NTRY11]

Fingers crossed!

Edited November 26, 2015 by S3NTRY11
removed needless quote

[S3NTRY11]

You obviously forgotten what Oculus is championing, since you've stuck your head up the Vive cloud.

Was it you that was bumbling on about people taking things personally?

 

Allow me to retort.

 

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?

 

Abrash works for Oculus - OH REALLY?! Thanks for the enlightenment, it was completely my point.

You keep throwing my points back at me, like you're informing me of something, when it's clear you simply didn't understand what I was saying. Which I don't quite understand, everyone else seems to get them. Unless...

 

I've come to realise that you are intentionally obtuse (Google it, I'll wait).

 

Valve didn't know everything there was to know, but I bet they regret the Oculus experiment now. If they were such über friends, they'd still be in business now, wouldn't they.

 

Also your is possessive, you're is a contraction. Know the difference.