Differing Development Priorities for VR vs. Non-VR?

[Patersonski]

Like many of you I'm a recent VR convert. While I was initially a little shocked by how bad the graphics were in VR (at 1.5 PD), when I tried to go back to flat screens I realized the depth perception was just too hard to give up so I've resigned myself to 1990s graphics in a box strapped to my head.

 

Clearly there's an ongoing shift in the DCS user base as others go through the same experience. The vast majority of us still use flat screens (in PvP you don't really have a choice) but my question is this:

 

What are the development ramifications if that user base rapidly shifts to the point where VR represents the majority of players?

 

In three or four years with VR Gen 2 I'd argue that's certainly a possibility, at least among the consistent player base.

 

Put another way, if you were in ED's shoes how would your development priorities change if most of your customers suddenly cared much more about VR than 2D? e.g. Things like deferred shading is a current priority, but would they have done it in a predominantly VR environment? Where would those resources have been deployed instead?

 

I don't know much about software development and would be interested in other's views.

[kunterbunt]

The hornet was showcased in VR. I believe ED is aware how much VR adds to the immersion. But user base is probably still not the majority.

[Fri13]

The hornet was showcased in VR. I believe ED is aware how much VR adds to the immersion. But user base is probably still not the majority.

 

FAR from the majority.

 

The VR is still in the baby steps even in its 5th generation. We are only started to see a good development in next 2-3 generations if we ever get there as VR might very well become (again!) what 3D was on TV.

 

In next generation headsets the main thing is the eye tracking feature. That is very crucial because that allows to lower radically requirement for the framerates as once you can quickly identify the area where the eye is looking at with its most accurate foveon area in eye (<2 degree FOV) then that is the area that gets the full resolution and everything else around it is lowered radically so you don't waste processing to render the graphics outside of that area.

 

 

The area gets basically 3-4 areas, inner one is the full resolution and maximal fidelity like now. And then comes a second or third that gets lower resolution and less LOD etc and then the 80-90% of FOV area coverage is then drawn as something like 640x480 resolution that is totally blurry and soft low LOD. And this likely allows to fix most crucial performance requirement of 60-90 FPS and allows to get a 6K (4K per eye) or 8K (about 6K per eye) as the rendering is only required to be a ultra high on tiny area while rest of the high resolution panel can be "left out".

 

Once as well improved optical lenses are designed to be much better, then it will be when VR will penetrate to audience better.

 

So 1) Better panels 2) Better optics 3) Eye tracking....

[dburne]

I would predict it will take another 6-8 years or so before VR becomes the predominant platform for flight sims. I now FB/Oculus is planning for the long term and they have mentioned 10 years for it to truly be the mainstream rather than the niche.

 

I think next generation will probably entice a lot more folks, but I think it will still be somewhat cost prohibitive for at least a few more years.

 

But I do believe it will certainly get there.

And the more user base that is reflected in VR, the more resources the devs can justify allocating to it.

[Mule]

As others have said VR really is in its infancy at the moment. I remember when Track IR first came out on the simulation scene and people saying that it will never take off......;)

 

I'm not comparing the two technologies just saying these things can take time. However, I think VR is the biggest and best leap for flight simulation that we have seen and in the future (I wish it would come sooner) it will be the normal standard for the majority.

[Patersonski]

Interesting stuff guys but not quite what I'm looking for.

 

If you're the ED program manager and your 'to do' list in a 2d environment is projects A, B, C, and D, then there's a rapid shift to VR and your priorities change to projects A, C, E, and F. What's E and F?

 

For example, DCS graphics are superior to what the headsets can currently display (put foveated rendering aside for the moment), so will the rise of VR mean that ED can pause development on further graphical fidelity and deploy those resources into something else? More frames? More maps? Some sort of change to optimization that suits VR better than 2D?

[Mr_sukebe]

A couple of thoughts:

- From a technology perspective, Nvidia have recently launched some new VR technology rendering (sorry, can't remember it's name). If you have one of their better cards (1070 IIRC), then it's already capable of doing the rendering, and I assume for very little overhead. I assume that it would need specific coding by the application developer. Rather niche to say the least.

- When I read through some of the posts here, the level of enthusiasm can be seen with the level of spending on not only the modules, but also the hardware (HOTAS, PC etc). That implies to me that there's likely to be a far larger use of VR by DCS users than your typical game (e.g. Elite).

[toutenglisse]

Yep ! this kind of stuff : "support for VRWorks’ Lens Matched Shading rendering technique (only possible on the Pascal architecture) that maintains the level of performance required to render these higher quality visuals." - would be great for DCS !! as VR is very heavy for the hardware...

https://www.roadtovr.com/eve-valkyrie-gets-new-ultra-graphics-option-thanks-nvidia-vrworks/

With Valkyrie it's not very perceptible as the game runs great on middle class hardware but sure with DCS it would be a nice performance upgrade !

[Patersonski]

A couple of thoughts:

- From a technology perspective, Nvidia have recently launched some new VR technology rendering (sorry, can't remember it's name). If you have one of their better cards (1070 IIRC), then it's already capable of doing the rendering, and I assume for very little overhead. I assume that it would need specific coding by the application developer. Rather niche to say the least.

 

Bingo! A great example of 'Project E.'

 

- When I read through some of the posts here, the level of enthusiasm can be seen with the level of spending on not only the modules, but also the hardware (HOTAS, PC etc). That implies to me that there's likely to be a far larger use of VR by DCS users than your typical game (e.g. Elite).

 

Agree. The cost of the Rift during sales is roughly the same as my graphics card, which I think is an acceptable benchmark for 'reasonableness'. Plus the DCS user base are hardware junkies anyway. VR adoption in this community may be faster than most people, including ED, expect.

[dburne]

That implies to me that there's likely to be a far larger use of VR by DCS users than your typical game (e.g. Elite).

 

I am not sure about that.

Over on the Oculus forums Elite has a huge following of enthusiastic users playing that game in VR. In fact they have their own pinned thread.

It get a lot more press and talk there than any of the combat flight sims for sure. I expect Steam forums probably do as well from folks playing it in VR through Steam.

 

I think it would also help if ED could get DCS World listed in the Oculus Store.

[BigDuke6ixx]

- When I read through some of the posts here, the level of enthusiasm can be seen with the level of spending on not only the modules, but also the hardware (HOTAS, PC etc). That implies to me that there's likely to be a far larger use of VR by DCS users than your typical game (e.g. Elite).

 

Not sure what you're trying to get at here. I've always had a fast PC and I bought my first HOTAS about 25yrs ago. As a flight sim nut, why would I not have these things anyway even if VR wasn't here yet? And what does any of that have to do with the take up of VR in other games like sim racers, for example?

 

Your appear to be over thinking.

[hansangb]

A couple of thoughts:

- From a technology perspective, Nvidia have recently launched some new VR technology rendering (sorry, can't remember it's name). If you have one of their better cards (1070 IIRC), then it's already capable of doing the rendering, and I assume for very little overhead. I assume that it would need specific coding by the application developer. Rather niche to say the least.

- When I read through some of the posts here, the level of enthusiasm can be seen with the level of spending on not only the modules, but also the hardware (HOTAS, PC etc). That implies to me that there's likely to be a far larger use of VR by DCS users than your typical game (e.g. Elite).

 

 

It's the same hardware that requires 3 monitor or 4K at max resolution/refresh rates. So I think DCS users fall into the "tinkering" crowd and have higher than normal class of hardware.

 

I'm sure VR is still in the minority, but within 2 years, the tide will turn. That's my guess.

[kunterbunt]

Yep ! this kind of stuff : "support for VRWorks’ Lens Matched Shading rendering technique (only possible on the Pascal architecture) that maintains the level of performance required to render these higher quality visuals." - would be great for DCS !! as VR is very heavy for the hardware...

https://www.roadtovr.com/eve-valkyrie-gets-new-ultra-graphics-option-thanks-nvidia-vrworks/

With Valkyrie it's not very perceptible as the game runs great on middle class hardware but sure with DCS it would be a nice performance upgrade !

 

Needs direct x 12. so probably next things for VR would be direct x 12 support.

[Patersonski]

Needs direct x 12. so probably next things for VR would be direct x 12 support.

 

Good one! Add it to the list ED.

[Fri13]

As others have said VR really is in its infancy at the moment. I remember when Track IR first came out on the simulation scene and people saying that it will never take off......;)

 

The Oculus Rift or HTC Vive ain't the first generation...

The first VR generation started at late 50's, they were totally in their infant at the time but still very good to hint what to come. The second generation was released at the 60's, the third came at the late 80's and fourth at mid 90's. Now is going the fifth generation.

 

The things that really has changed since every previous generation is the video quality on the displays and most importantly the processing capability and production speed to get the content.

Where first generations where mechanically linked to "track" (change point of view) today we have many many things.

Where the fourth generation was wireframe or 256 color 320x160 quality, we have full HD.

 

The TrackIR was a great example how to make the product smaller and easier to install, thanks to USB and the programmed track-clip and Track-Clip Pro settings and then finally acceptance from the developers to add the system, but most importantly thanks to the games to start allowing to rotate the view!

 

 

I'm not comparing the two technologies just saying these things can take time. However, I think VR is the biggest and best leap for flight simulation that we have seen and in the future (I wish it would come sooner) it will be the normal standard for the majority.

 

The best and biggest leap sorry has been the motion platforms to come to the enthusiasts price range and availability so we can program and build such ourself!

Even just having a 2D display (superior by the video quality) we can have a moving platform that most pilots can get more enjoyment than staring forward with a visor in low resolution.

 

The VR will become a great thing once they start to get polishing it, but to get there, we need a lot more buyers to it and content and to really get it accepted for most situations as without users it just has same fate as every previous generation of VR (or the 3D, that had about 8th generations before the few years back tryout).

 

The 3D that I tried last time when the Geforce 2 was released (using a ELSA 3D glasses back then) was as well pushed back by requirement for 120Hz CRT monitor (to get 60 Hz to both eyes synced) and problem was again the amount of content. A 50 titles is nothing for that. It is like last trial of 3D movies and series, too little with too little benefits.

 

To make a 3D video it takes 3-5 times more time just at the scene, but then even more time in the post production and the most critical time consuming that can be 10-20x longer is the scripting and planning how to actually use the 3D as benefit to create the immersion and improve the story telling.

 

Comparing 3D to just alone for feature that the DVD brought with the multi-angle/content capability is totally different. Even most movies and such were still designed back to the original way where you just have a single story and you left all the multi-angle content and side-stories and such away.

 

Even in easier manner like game development that is very rare thing to be well done, like the old PC games like a "Enter Matrix" or "Blade of Darkness" were just thin as air. In BoD you just started from different location with each character but you finally ran all the same levels with each character. The EM was different that you actually often split in the story where two playtimes were required to understand what happened to second character when they were gone (and they were often!)

 

Even today we don't see the games using a more deeper possibilities to story telling, unless it is like something rare things that "Clandestine" try where two player Co-Op is that other is the agent and other is the hacker behind the computer and they need to work together like in the movies/series.

 

Then finally we just need to accept that we have a element in the equation, the human player and its laziness.

If someone wants a realistic and great immersion for shooting games, they should go to closest airsoft/paintball clubs where they get to be close as possible to reality. Instead most just opt in for sitting behind 2D display to do it comfortably.

 

Console games became success because simplicity and comfort. No siting in chair, fixing drivers and installing games or moving mouse etc. Instead you placed disk inside machine, sit down on coach and just play for 10-15min sessions and that's it.

 

That is the mainstream.

 

And now we try to to again fight against the human laziness that they will want to move, jump, roll, kneel, crawl etc in their homes! After work/school etc.

 

What happens when the new VR sets starts to be released every year? Requiring more HW upgrades etc? People get tired to buy the stuff, to test them etc. And yet you need to invest lot of money to the content, that should be so good and great that it is worth of it!

 

The flying simulations and driving simulations are niche compared to FPS, RTS etc for many reasons, but finally it will settle down to one corner of the gaming market and then it is "stable" for few dealers.

 

The simulation world for flying and driving has the HUGE benefit over every other game, that is we are already sitting down... Our most time is spent sitting in a virtual cockpit and that is what makes VR comfortable as we don't need to move around on floor. Yet the main VR market is exactly now in that "full room" simulation. And it more likely will fail because that, just like the Nintendo Wii Board had.

 

To get the VR success, we need many many big things to happen like example:

 

1) Standard, so that any VR system can be used and no proprietary protocols or features. The system should be open source so even DIY ones can be done.

 

2) Quickly get the critical features out like eye tracking, 6K display and swappable lenses that are well polished from the glass (costing around 200-300€ as pair) etc so the hardware is like a keyboard and mouse, instead "Wii board" or HOTAS "speciality".

 

3) Low price and no huge upgrades in short periods (like 3D card market where new card is released every 4-6 months making older one obsolete!).

[BigDuke6ixx]

 

To get the VR success, we need many many big things to happen like example:

 

1) Standard, so that any VR system can be used and no proprietary protocols or features. The system should be open source so even DIY ones can be done.

 

2) Quickly get the critical features out like eye tracking, 6K display and swappable lenses that are well polished from the glass (costing around 200-300€ as pair) etc so the hardware is like a keyboard and mouse, instead "Wii board" or HOTAS "speciality".

 

3) Low price and no huge upgrades in short periods (like 3D card market where new card is released every 4-6 months making older one obsolete!).

 

You're so funny. I didn't know my year old 980ti was obsolete. It seems to be running DCS, Elite Dangerous and iRacing really nicely. It didn't cost a packet either. Even the Rift was cheap compared to the 22'' CRT monitor I bought in 2000. Your lens prices are a bit of a joke too. Did a unicorn supply them? I'm not really fussed about open source because DIY HMDs will never be mass market.

[westr]

For me the potential is there for improvement in terms of graphics and clarity with my CV1. At the moment I'm getting good frames but at the expense of pixel density. Like many to go back now to flat screen would be like going back to a standard flight model. So my next step will be to upgrade my PC as I noticed much clearer cockpit instruments when increasing the pixel density but unfortunately unplayable FPS. The warbirds are fine the instruments are legible enough to see altitude speed etc. But more complex aircraft it becomes a problem, like the other day trying to adjust the frequency on my radio in the Mirage. I've been pleasantly surprised at how spotting aircraft seems easier for me in VR without labels. The whole experience of dogfighting in the spit with VR is just phenomenal I cannot describe what it's like it just has to be experienced. One thing for me though is although Nevada is great the FPS in Normandy are to low to be playable in VR at this time, but it is possible it will improve further down the line. I shall gradually get my PC prepped for the Tomcat :)

[hansangb]

@Fri13, you can't count VR attempts in the 50's can you? That would be like saying that Babbage machine is version 1 of computing. You have to reset the clock and say that CV1 and Rift is version 1 for consumer grade VR. There was nothing close to it. I'm not counting those silly 3D glasses for movies and TV because there was no immersion. And the customers voted with their money.

 

This is the first VR that some of the main stream folks have adopted. DCS community is tiny, and you're right that console VR will kick it into the next stage of innovation. It makes perfect sense because far greater people play on PS4/XB1's of the word.

 

But Rift today is perfectly capable of playing in DCS. And you would be correct in pointing out that resolution is not stellar, but the package deal of immersion and SA makes up for it in spades.

 

But if I had to prioritize DCS, I would have to put DX12 ahead of VR. It kills me to say that as an adopter of VR, but for the community it makes more sense. And hopefully that optimization leads to better VR experience.

[Fri13]

You're so funny. I didn't know my year old 980ti was obsolete. It seems to be running DCS, Elite Dangerous and iRacing really nicely.

 

Actually it is as you can't run all the latest games 144FPS with all settings maxed out...

 

It didn't cost a packet either. Even the Rift was cheap compared to the 22'' CRT monitor I bought in 2000.

 

Yes, Rift is today cheap with $399 price tag, but it wasn't long time ago when it was far more + extra sensor and controllers. Even now the HTC Vive is around 990€ for the kit.

 

 

Your lens prices are a bit of a joke too. Did a unicorn supply them?

 

You do know that lens design and polishing lenses are not just some injektion melted plastic processing that the current ones are? It demands "little" more to make a good lens than just throwing couple plastic ones around, and to do it to small size (fresnel) will have own optical challenges because physics.

 

 

I'm not really fussed about open source because DIY HMDs will never be mass market.

 

Who said about everything being to mass market?

 

Do you know that even small things can start to be huge mass markets? You do know that Kickstarter and such are solely for the DIY kind projects and ideas? First you need to get something done before you approach the investors or if you want to get some design patents or something.

And all that requires that things are not patented and behind IP so you can do it. And all that actually means all needs to be FOSS so any clever, talented or skilled person can start to do something with the idea they get and get it done and out.

 

After all Oculus Rift was again one "DIY" product based to displays from smartphone display manufacturers and many other very common components at the market... Based to more open standards than closed ones.

 

 

And here we are, everyone again jumping to the Virtual Reality and marketing them like the 3D that reappeared to televisions and movies after some fancy movies made for it like the Avatar.

 

You need to start from something small, something clever and needed, before it becomes mass market success and yet you need a lot of things and space to do it!

 

 

 

The whole requirement for something to come successful is to get it "standard" so you can trust it to be there for years to come. From simple things like power plug to a small string of code is the key requirements. If everyone is doing their own things.... Nothing will work well and all breaks loose.

 

[BigDuke6ixx]

Actually it is as you can't run all the latest games 144FPS with all settings maxed out...

 

What games are they then?

 

I didn't bother reading through all the rest of your hyperbole. What I did read wasn't worthy of a response.

[Fri13]

@Fri13, you can't count VR attempts in the 50's can you? That would be like saying that Babbage machine is version 1 of computing.

 

Yes I can, as that is how it is made.

 

1st generation fighter

1st generation bomber

1st generation helicopter

etc etc

 

Did those happen just last 10 years? No....

 

When you start to manufacture something, you build something and then you promo it to piblic etc, it becomes first generation, even if it is niche thing.

 

Like look at this:

 

 

Or like talk about modern computers without understanding the Turing?

 

You have to reset the clock and say that CV1 and Rift is version 1 for consumer grade VR.

 

No, that is like reseting clock to F-35 and PAK-FA....

 

There was nothing close to it.

 

Neither there was NOTHING close to F-35 and PAK-FA....

 

 

I'm not counting those silly 3D glasses for movies and TV because there was no immersion. And the customers voted with their money.

 

You do know that most TV that were sold in the few year period had 3D? But you do know that even when people had the 3D capability in their TV didn't get the content?

You didn't even get the TV companies to overlay the OSD over the video as 3D!

 

And anyways the 3D wasn't ready because you needed to wear 3D glasses if you wanted to have more than one person perfectly in the center of the TV!

 

The same thing is still a problem with the VR, too big, heavy, tethered, low resolution, processing hungry etc by the hardware!

 

 

This is the first VR that some of the main stream folks have adopted. DCS community is tiny, and you're right that console VR will kick it into the next stage of innovation. It makes perfect sense because far greater people play on PS4/XB1's of the word.

 

Main stream folks adapted already every previous generation, the difference is just that you think that it is about the whole popularity of the people in the world vs the popularity of the people who even had the TV or computer!

 

Even today the HTC Vive etc are NOTHING compared to 2D displays. The majority of the people are using 2D displays for gaming and will keep doing so.

Majority of the gamers don't come to play Full Room VR games as typical gamer is going to run, jump and crawl around their room for hours every day for a week when they want to play something like a Battlefield or Counter-Strike....

 

Virtual pilots and drivers need to understand that they are NICHE target group compared to POPULARITY gaming.

And at this point even the Android has larger userbase than Windows, and most gamers has moved to mobile platform, from the desktop/laptop area. And more and more the whole thing has moved to simpler and shorter games, instead deeper with deeper learning curve.

 

Like look alone the Players Unknowns Battleground, in three months it sold 5 million copies, that is 29,90€ per license (30% cut to Valve) and it is just in the beta, very simple and played from the third person instead first person.... You just can't put that game to VR same way at all in same fun factor (even when it technically actually has possibility).

 

So by the popularity, user base etc, todays VR is just like decades ago the VR systems were.

 

But Rift today is perfectly capable of playing in DCS. And you would be correct in pointing out that resolution is not stellar, but the package deal of immersion and SA makes up for it in spades.

 

The immersion not to spot the targets in air or ground at all so well as in reality... Check

The immersion not to be able glance the cockpit instruments accurately like in reality... Check

The immersion not to have the moving platform to get the actual physics to go around... Check (nothing is denying to combine both, but point is that VR doesn't do it, it is same as standing in a 3D theater of the roller coasters, compared to even just a moving platform systems in theaters)

 

THe VR goes well for just flying, just the immersion to get the idea how to look around you and have the idea that you are looking to nine a clock when you look at that direction. But it is NOT anything at all close to immersion that you can get with real simulator or the real thing.

 

But if I had to prioritize DCS, I would have to put DX12 ahead of VR. It kills me to say that as an adopter of VR, but for the community it makes more sense. And hopefully that optimization leads to better VR experience.

 

4K HDR on large display is one thing that goes already way above VR for the GAMING (combat, learning the aircraft functions etc) over the slight experience of looking around in 1:1.

 

Lots of things needs to change, get better etc. But the VR today is just like the experience decades ago.

 

We can already look back the previous generations of VR just as much as previous versions of any other technology. From phones to a 3D graphics or graphical user interfaces to controllers etc etc.

 

Only to find that decades later we can laugh how primitive most of those things were.

And thinking that today the latest ones are some kind "superior" is just in same foolishness that decades later people will look and think "How they could use that primitive thing!".

 

In 30 years time the VR might have hitted to great level where we can have just normal eye glasses or even utopic dream of contact lenses or direct feedback to brains etc. And we will look back of Rift and Vive that how terrible they were, just like we can look any previous VR generation systems.

 

But some of us can understand the excellence in the simple and limited generations, but only because we can compare it to more modern ones and see what were the good choices and implementations.

 

Seeing this game in VR at the time.... Amazing immersion and experience!

 

Or how about this in 20 years?

 

 

Would you say that first one is somewhat super realistic and immersive, when you compare it to todays DCS World? It was back in the day very amazing and immersive....

Just like the previous VR generations were such back in the days, only having different challenges why they didn't succeed.

 

It ain't even long time ago when cars were totally mystic things and very few had money to buy them.....

 

We can't forget our history and advancements, and neither can we think that what we have today is something so much more special that previously wasn't experienced...

 

The thing is still that the VR is in the tipping point where the content quality has started to get better and we have more people to make it. But still no matter how great technology or content, there is the human part and "good enough" situation. At some point you just don't want something new as something older is already "good enough".

 

And if "upgrades" become too fast or incompatible, there is risk that it ain't worth it.

 

We can already see how small things can be crucial different makers. Like after owning HTC Vive and Oculus Rift side by side and using, the HTC huge benefit was the controllers.... Not the HMD, not the tracking system etc, it was the controllers, instead using XBox controller with the Rift!

But when the Oculus got Touch Controllers out, they leveled the difference and got even a head. But still all the things costing so much, the content, cables etc is something that majority gamers don't need nor want, but they want to try and get the "experience".

It is like trying something just out of curiosity, instead by the need or something that adds something more like driving a car!

 

But it quickly gets to point where you start to get these ideas like "Hey, cars with wheels are bad, we need cars with joysticks!" before you learn and notice that why the steering wheel is so much superior to a joystick. Or you get idea "Hey, with a VR Touch Controller I can replace a HOTAS system!" only to find out later that you can't hold your hands up in the air to fly anything for hours like you can with the HOTAS that allows you to rest your hand on them and have physical motion and friction.

 

Do I like the VR? Yes.... That is reason why I still own such system...

Do I recommend such system? Only to enthusiasts...

Do I see bright future with them? No.... But it ain't doomed either. There is so many things that needs to get "right" to get it "going". And hard to believe but one of those things can be the porn industry, just like history shows it was the thing that decided victory for VHS and Blu-Ray over Betamax and HD-DVD.... (and probably for many other things in the world).

Edited July 24, 2017 by Fri13

[Fri13]

What games are they then?

 

I didn't bother reading through all the rest of your hyperbole. What I did read wasn't worthy of a response.

 

You commented something to be full of hyperboles, even when it was something that you didn't read at all, and then you try to insult that something wasn't worthy to you spend time to write a respond, yet you did respond to it.....

 

So let me think.... What does it make you?

[aeliusg]

Interesting if verbose discussion from Fri13. Porn has always been the apocryphal linchpin for tech adoption, but these stories aren't really well-attested. Did Youtube come first or did P***hub? It turns out that cost is usually the driver for format adoption, not the other way around. I don't think it will be the case for VR anyway. For one thing you can't really see what you are doing. :joystick:

[hansangb]

Fri13, You're making my point. 3D TV never took off because it was cumbersome, there was no content. But I'll tell you this. *IF* there were awesome content, people would be OK with putting on the glasses. It's always the content. 3DO was a company that made awesome hardware, but no games. Conversely, Nintendo makes less than killer HW, but the content is so great that it sells out instantly.

 

I believe VR is at the precipice. We debated the "I need 4K clarity" ad nauseum. And no one will argue that 4K is awesome. It's just doesn't give me any sense of being there. So for me, the immersion is more important than eye candy. For you, it clearly is not. As for the video game differences between the (*AWESOME* Battlezone and DCS), the point you're missing is that one is prettier and more complicated than the other. But it is essentially a 2D, flat, no immersion technology.

 

Today's VR changes that equation. I'll give you another example. I was in the Army, and we trained on SIMNET every now again. A complete mock up of artillery, bradley, M1, AH64 etc. And each vehicle had a Sparc workstation driving it. This is 1990s. And the graphics were LAUGHABLE. Essentially, the same as Gunship from Microprose. But the fact that you are in a 1:1 physical vehicle made it a GREAT training tool. Today's VR affords me the same level of awe. Actually being there and feeling like you are flying. Not moving joysticks around to move a frame of reference on 2D monitor.

 

To sum up, Pong, Coleco Football, Battlezone, QBert, King's Quest, Castle Wofenstein3D, Doom, Duke Nukem, CoD all got prettier, fancier. But it was incrementally better. And it required better hardware. But VR, to me, is fundamentally different. Looking pretty is not immersion because you're brain knows it's only 2D.

 

Finally, I think you have to reset the clock. Vacuum tubes to TTL was a resetting of the clock. 286 to 368 1/2 resetting the clock. So maybe every 3 or 4 Moore's Law, and we have fundamentally different computing. To me, that's resetting the clock. Otherwise, we can retrace our version history all they way back to the steam engine.

 

PS: you're spot on about the controllers. When I got the Vive, I said "I don't need these worthless controllers" Boy was I wrong. Glad Rift got the Touch out.

Edited July 25, 2017 by hansangb

[BigDuke6ixx]

You commented something to be full of hyperboles, even when it was something that you didn't read at all, and then you try to insult that something wasn't worthy to you spend time to write a respond, yet you did respond to it.....

 

So let me think.... What does it make you?

 

What games can't I run on my 980ti then? You say it's obsolete, but I say it isn't.