BFGD vs next gen Vive?

[remi]

I think the BFGD will be awesome for DCS. High resolution yet 65". Will wait to see what HTC does with higher resolution displays.

[*Rage*]

Im interested in the BFGD too although I think VR will supercede it. Im sure the price will be epic.

[VirusAM]

What is BGFD?

 

Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk

[remi]

Im interested in the BFGD too although I think VR will supercede it. Im sure the price will be epic.

 

I figure at least $2000... Should be worth it, I'd imagine it would last for at least 5 years... Has dream specs that could only be superceded by 8k.

[Knock-Knock]

What is BGFD?

 

Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk

 

https://www.geforce.com/whats-new/articles/bfgd-big-format-gaming-display

[finch]

What is BGFD?

 

Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk

 

Nvidia Big Format Gaming Display

 

https://www.geforce.com/whats-new/articles/bfgd-big-format-gaming-display

[Johnny_Rico]

Good god, thats sure looks pretty

[remi]

Vive 2.0 looks decent, resolution improvement I'm sure will improve the quality of the DCS experience.

 

I feel bad for the Vive early adopters being stuck with inferior hardware.

[hansangb]

Vive 2.0 looks decent, resolution improvement I'm sure will improve the quality of the DCS experience.

 

I feel bad for the Vive early adopters being stuck with inferior hardware.

 

 

Opportunity and sunk cost. With the above logic, one could never upgrade the PC. I mean there is *always* something better next year. That's been the case for 25+ years, no?

 

And while the 65" looks beautiful, it's still 2D so zero interest for me. I understand the beauty of it, but I'd rather have the VR aspect.

[javelina1]

For flight sims, I'll skip the large 2D displays. I'll save the coin for a rig and VR setup.

[PureEvil]

Vive Pro

 

Screen: Dual AMOLED 3.5" diagonal

Resolution: 1440 x 1600 pixels per eye (2880 x 1600 pixels combined)

Refresh rate: 90 Hz

Field of view: 110 degrees

Audio: Hi-Res certificate headset

Hi-Res certificate headphone (removable)

High impedance headphone support

Input: Integrated microphones

Connections: USB-C 3.0, DP 1.2, Bluetooth

Sensors: SteamVR Tracking, G-sensor, gyroscope, proximity, IPD sensor

Ergonomics: Eye relief with lens distance adjustment

Adjustable IPD

Adjustable headphone

Adjustable headstrap

[dburne]

Vive 2.0 looks decent, resolution improvement I'm sure will improve the quality of the DCS experience.

 

I feel bad for the Vive early adopters being stuck with inferior hardware.

 

The Vive Pro is not really a 2.0, probably more like a 1.5.

[BitMaster]

65" and 4k ??

 

Pixel Density defines if it looks good or not, not the "2k" "3k" "4k" or "8k", all those pixel amount numbers are RELATIVE to the screen area.

 

65" and 4k will be very very expensive, early adopters need to bleed a lot to get it.

 

Imho, 65" fits an 8k screen, or better 16k. That is pixel Density

 

 

and btw, this is TWO-D only, for a lot of money you are still stuck in the old world, ehhh, no. Rather Rift-V2 or such with better PD.

Edited January 9, 2018 by BitMaster

[remi]

and btw, this is TWO-D only, for a lot of money you are still stuck in the old world, ehhh, no. Rather Rift-V2 or such with better PD.

 

Here's the new world, according to you:

 

 

 

TRULY AWE-INSPIRING!!!! :megalol:

[Fri13]

65" and 4k ??

 

Pixel Density defines if it looks good or not, not the "2k" "3k" "4k" or "8k", all those pixel amount numbers are RELATIVE to the screen area.

 

Nope. What defines it are:

1. Resolution
   
2. Display Size
   
3. Viewing Distance
   
4. Viewer Eye Sight
   

 

To simple give a most common situation, it is this:

What is the typical display distance? It is arm length, about 80cm.

 

So in normal desktop use, 4K (3840x2160) is totally worth the price. You can go up to a 40" before you would start to benefit from a larger resolution.

 

BUT, it is not all about resolution, it is mostly still about the content. If your content can't benefit from higher resolution as details are simple, then you can throw any display to it and it will look same!

A higher detailed content will benefit from higher resolution, up to the point until the details becomes too "sharp".

 

Example, look the Oculus "First Contact" demo, and it will look very good, great even through a Rift. Reason is that the content was simplified so much that the low resolution displays didn't reveal any weakness in details.

 

 

And that is what Eagle Dynamics and every third party should do to their modules, to make their aircrafts cockpits a VR compatible, by re-texturing and re-sizing some of the cockpit instruments by simplifying them and making that way them totally VR compatible and they would look amazingly great then in VR!

 

65" and 4k will be very very expensive, early adopters need to bleed a lot to get it.

 

Bleed how?

A 65" 4K HDR10 television costs only a 1199€ already. If you are ready to drop down to a 60" with 4K and HDR10, then you get it fro 899€.

 

But those models might not have great white-black-white refresh rate, might have a additional lag from HDMI port so unfit for fast gaming (that DCS ain't) (or trackIR).

 

And you get that basic 50/60 FPS max, that shouldn't be a problem for most.

In worst case the TV is two smaller displays together, so when you connect them to PC, you get only other side detected.... That can be very nasty surprise to some.

 

Imho, 65" fits an 8k screen, or better 16k. That is pixel Density

 

8K is four times more detailed than 4K is, that is four times more detailed than Full HD is.

Each step from Full HD > 4K > 8K is doubling the resolution. So you definitely are not going to want to have a 16K at all as it would be doubling the resolution from 8K.

 

Full HD is about 2.1Mpix

4K is about 8.3Mpix

8K is about 33.2Mpix

16K is about 132.8Mpix

 

And you still would have a DCS cockpit textures at 1024px and 2048px if not max 4096px.

Your spotting capability would be seriously engine limited, as 4K is already so, while Full HD is resolution limited.

 

 

and btw, this is TWO-D only, for a lot of money you are still stuck in the old world, ehhh, no. Rather Rift-V2 or such with better PD.

 

Waiting Rift CV2 (Consumer Version 2) can be good idea, as it to be successful, it should get at least 120 degree horizontal FOV and about 110 degree vertical. But higher is better, but without compromise of optics blur.

 

Quote:

Long answer: There are two natural FOV measurements for humans: monocular and binocular. Monocular field of view is what each eye sees separately, and is about 160 horizontal degrees and about 135 vertical degrees. Combine the two eyes and you get a binocular FOV of about 200 horizontal degrees and 135 vertical degrees.

 

The sweet spot where both eye's FOV come together for an overlapping binocular field of view results in about 120 horizontal degrees and 135 vertical degrees of vision. This is also where you get to enjoy that sweet, sweet, natural 3D vision.

 

So if we would get a 120x110 degree FOV, I think it would be more than enough for majority. Add there some RGB lights to edges to blend the edge colors so you can get just a visual and illumination to edges and it is huge win win. Offer developers a API to use that surrounding RGB as information delivery, like impact direction or navigation hint, and it is even more WIN WIN WIN.

[Fri13]

Vive 2.0 looks decent, resolution improvement I'm sure will improve the quality of the DCS experience.

 

I feel bad for the Vive early adopters being stuck with inferior hardware.

 

Being stuck?

 

The whole HTC Vive PRO is backward compatible!

 

Meaning, you only upgrade your HMD by buying a new one. Your lighthouses and your Vive Controllers are still there compatible with the Vive Pro!

 

So you just invest more, sell your Vive non-PRO as the Vive HMD itself will stay on market so HTC is offering two lines now!

[dburne]

Lol, I have fond memories of my Pentium 90. It was a Packard Bell system <ugh>.

[hansangb]

Here's the new world, according to you:

 

 

 

 

TRULY AWE-INSPIRING!!!! :megalol:

 

 

It really is awe inspiring for me. Trying to dodge the sam, knowing how fast you're going, how high you are? The sense of flight? It really is awe inspiring. Or I could fire up an arcade game on a monitor that's no different than pretty space invaders in terms of immersion. It is the same technology after all. That's DCS in 2D. I actually laugh when people talk about immersion with 4K and TrackIR. But, hey, how does one explain the color red to someone who was born blind?

 

You're happy with 2D monitors and I'm happy with VR. All good.

[BitMaster]

It really is awe inspiring for me. Trying to dodge the sam, knowing how fast you're going, how high you are? The sense of flight? It really is awe inspiring. Or I could fire up an arcade game on a monitor that's no different than pretty space invaders in terms of immersion. It is the same technology after all. That's DCS in 2D. I actually laugh when people talk about immersion with 4K and TrackIR. But, hey, how does one explain the color red to someone who was born blind?

 

You're happy with 2D monitors and I'm happy with VR. All good.

 

CORRECT

 

not even the best 65" screen with hdr and what not else can give you what VR does.

 

..and btw, Vive 2 is Q4-2018, long way to go till October 2018, till then the current VR's are what they are, the only ones around.

 

I doubt you will get that 65incher gsynced 120hz for 1k€, hello, wake up.

look at the price for an Asus 34" gsync hdr, roughly 1100€, I dont see why they shoud sell twice the size for less money. this will rather be a 1.5-2k€ screen imho.

[remi]

Trying to dodge the sam, knowing how fast you're going, how high you are? The sense of flight? It really is awe inspiring. Or I could fire up an arcade game on a monitor that's no different than pretty space invaders in terms of immersion. It is the same technology after all. That's DCS in 2D. I actually laugh when people talk about immersion with 4K and TrackIR. But, hey, how does one explain the color red to someone who was born blind?

 

You're happy with 2D monitors and I'm happy with VR. All good.

 

Knowing how fast you're going and dodging missiles are only possible with VR? Give me a break. :doh:

 

I've used VR in DCS. Main problems:

 

Limited FOV, like looking through swim goggles.

Blurry, can't read instruments.

Target identification difficult because of limited resolution and blurriness.

Screen door effect

Discomfort with head mounted gear

Stinky and sweaty head gear after extensive use (you might not care)

 

 

I'm not saying VR is pointless, it's just far inferior to 4k monitors out right now, and the gap will widen further with the BFGD.

[hansangb]

Knowing how fast you're going and dodging missiles are only possible with VR? Give me a break. :doh:

 

I've used VR in DCS. Main problems:

 

Limited FOV, like looking through swim goggles.

Blurry, can't read instruments.

Target identification difficult because of limited resolution and blurriness.

Screen door effect

Discomfort with head mounted gear

Stinky and sweaty head gear after extensive use (you might not care)

 

 

I'm not saying VR is pointless, it's just far inferior to 4k monitors out right now, and the gap will widen further with the BFGD.

 

No issues. Your opinion is no better or worse than mine. We just have different priorities. With one exception.

 

You CANNOT fly the plane in 3D space while looking at the SAM. You can't because our brain is *not* capable of doing it with TrackIR. You simply cannot create 3D spatial awareness in your brain while looking at the monitor. That's what I meant. Pilots say "if you can see it, you can defeat it" And that doesn't apply to TrackIR because of how our brain works. If you don't believe me, why is it that people FREAK out when they are standing on a steel beam in VR? But it's ho-hum on a 4K monitor. Because in the former, your brain understands 3D spatial awareness and on the monitor, you brain knows it's not.

[dburne]

Lol, I will never forget going through the Oculus tutorial after first hooking up my Rift about a year ago, and standing on that ledge as well as that dang dinosaur walking over me.

 

Even today I am still in awe by the experience.

[Kayos]

Lol, I will never forget going through the Oculus tutorial after first hooking up my Rift about a year ago, and standing on that ledge as well as that dang dinosaur walking over me.

 

Even today I am still in awe by the experience.

 

Yep, it's pretty damn cool.

I have a 4K monitor and will probably buy the new BFGD when it comes out but I won't use it for DCS. If I can play in VR I will no matter what monitor I have. There is no comparison.

[BitMaster]

No issues. Your opinion is no better or worse than mine. We just have different priorities. With one exception.

 

You CANNOT fly the plane in 3D space while looking at the SAM. You can't because our brain is *not* capable of doing it with TrackIR. You simply cannot create 3D spatial awareness in your brain while looking at the monitor. That's what I meant. Pilots say "if you can see it, you can defeat it" And that doesn't apply to TrackIR because of how our brain works. If you don't believe me, why is it that people FREAK out when they are standing on a steel beam in VR? But it's ho-hum on a 4K monitor. Because in the former, your brain understands 3D spatial awareness and on the monitor, you brain knows it's not.

 

Haha, the I-beam !

 

I have had my fair share of laughing showing that to all the kids in our greater family over the Xmas days. Some where freaking out.

 

When I took my step daughter for a spin in the Su-25T she couldnt take it, fear of height, she had to get out and quit, that good it is.

 

Also, flying, pure flying, is way different in VR. I still crash for reasons I thought I learned 20 years ago, no, not in VR.