168 replies to this topic

[Skyscream Sapphire]

Matthew, great to see the interest. Thanks for the reply. In the mean time, I might suggest that you guys could get a head start by working out your existing stereoscopic issues. First and foremost is the planar nature of all the HUD elements (crosshairs, mech info, target boxes, etc). Change these to render at their proper z coordinates but obviously ignore any occlusion from the scene. This would be an amazing improvement for Nvidia 3D Vision users.

Continuing forward, just remember to render in 3D space (add those Z coords!) and you'll be ready for the day OR arrives.

And, as people have already mentioned, if you want to be ready for the future OR head tracking aspect, we'd all appreciate TrackIR support today. Thanks for read/responding to the thread!

[BlackWidow]

Matthew Craig, on 15 March 2013 - 08:39 AM, said:

Ultimately I don't get the sense that the Oculus is a gimmick but I do get the sense that it will require a lot of hard-work and similar breakthroughs from developers to truly unlock the full potential of the device which won't happen over night. I don't see any reason we shouldn't start though as the potential is very exciting.

This may be entirely true but....how has this not been the case with virtually (see what I did there?) ever other new technology to come down the pipe in the last two dacades? ever?

Early adopters have always paid the price both monetarily and problematically. But, what we get in return is to feed our inner-geek. Not only by getting to be part of an elite group trying new technology before the general masses, but also in knowing that our early adoption helps to fuel the fires of continued development with leads directly to further improvement and ultimately wide spread acceptance.

The thing that no one has been stressing in here is the price point. Even as crappy as it was, if the price point was more reasonable I would have owned a VFXR1 headset and would have loved it in spite of its limitations. At $300-400 price range, the O.R. is the first TRUE consumer VR that has the potential to deliver the goods. (Im looking at *you* VR BOY)

[Eternal Hunter]

Anything new on this - Piranha said anything? Would love Oculus Rift support, no matter how "gimmicky" VR has been before, this is getting rave previews and comments on most of the net.

Edited by Eternal Hunter, 15 March 2013 - 09:09 AM.

[Skyscream Sapphire]

Eternal Hunter, on 15 March 2013 - 09:08 AM, said:

Anything new on this - Piranha said anything? Would love Oculus Rift support, no matter how "gimmicky" VR has been before, this is getting rave previews and comments on most of the net.

I know the whole thread is TL;DR at this point, but damn man, did you even check one page previous? lol

[BlackWidow]

Skyscream Sapphire, on 15 March 2013 - 09:12 AM, said:

I know the whole thread is TL;DR at this point, but damn man, did you even check one page previous? lol

i LOL'd. But, maybe he read 5 pages and figured that would be enough into to chime in. S'ok. We all want to participate.

[Skyscream Sapphire]

Haha, fair enough. I'll try to make my post useful this time :

Matthew Craig, Technical Director from PGI, posted this on page 6:
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2064158

[Bishop Steiner]

@Black Widow

Early adopters do get to stroke their inner geek. That is true, and in a couple of years this could be the very way of the future. But since neither PGI nor IGP are huge rich publishing or dev houses, early adoption or reliance on unproven tech, with an even more unproven marketability, is the way many companies end up broke and out of business. Even great tech ideas don't always achieve Commercial acceptance.

I believe folks like myself, and I think, Roland, are not against the idea of the Rift. I do know I am against seeing a game that is fighting to get things done devote resources it does not have to a device that might never exist. I have not seen any real substantial strides since this OP was created, hence my tepid response to the OP being necro'd.

When and if it makes some sort of stride to true commercial viability, at that point I am all for it. But even then it would be better for a case to be made to IGP showing how it would implement across multiple titles, and at least get the Publisher to foot a portion of the bill.

Even then it would have to be an optional device, not just due to cost (there are plenty o. Here that realistically can't just cough up 300-400 USD) but because there are a number of people that become I'll trying to use such devices.

Basically, while a cool blue sky discussion, that is all it is. Too many variables and too many ifs, which is why I dislike the "PGI MUST" tone of the whole conversation.

Hell, PGI can't seem to figure out how to optimize joysticks to work with this game (hint: add slop to the mouse... Sacriledge to the twitch shooter, but the simplest and mist realistic solution to many issues, including pinpoint headshots from poptarts and laser/ppc boating. Moving vehicles in combat just aren't THAT accurate... But as different argument for a different time), let alone some call me maybe future tech. If they announce some breakthrough, then I'm all for the cheerleading to start again.

My money is on this going the way of the previous attempts, Carmack ( a financial investor would of course nevr be less than 100% honest, right?) or not. If it were truly THAT viable (or perceived marketable) , Sony or Microsoft would snapped it up by now.

Cool toy, but nothing more ATM. Now let me get back to playing my NeoGeo and using my Nintendo poweglove while watching my betamax tapes.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

xZaOx, on 27 August 2012 - 03:02 PM, said:

http://www.kickstart...p-into-the-game

If this turns out to be as good as what they are hyping it to be..this could change MWO into a totally immersed mech sim(if they eventually support it)! Really interested to see where this is going.

Discuss!

Long time ago, at Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco, I played for about 15 minutes, a version of Duke Nukem set up with virtual reality headgear (it was like the 90s so it was fairly rudimentary) and a neat treadmill/motion detector arrangement. So I got to walk around, shoot, all the coolness. Then I got done, walked three steps and puked all over the sidewalk. Been like that with every virtual reality game Ive tried since. Monitors are good for me, thanks

whatever happened to the Artemis?

Edited by Mechwarrior Buddah, 15 March 2013 - 09:56 AM.

[BlackWidow]

Bishop Steiner, on 15 March 2013 - 09:42 AM, said:

@Black Widow

Early adopters do get to stroke their inner geek. That is true, and in a couple of years this could be the very way of the future. But since neither PGI nor IGP are huge rich publishing or dev houses, early adoption or reliance on unproven tech, with an even more unproven marketability, is the way many companies end up broke and out of business. Even great tech ideas don't always achieve Commercial acceptance.

Now THAT is a very valid point which is dependent on the underlying technology (and it's acceptance) that is refreshing from some of the tech-spec poo-pooing that has been discussed so far.

Thanks!

[BlackWidow]

Bishop Steiner, on 15 March 2013 - 09:42 AM, said:

(hint: add slop to the mouse... Sacriledge to the twitch shooter, but the simplest and mist realistic solution to many issues, including pinpoint headshots from poptarts and laser/ppc boating. Moving vehicles in combat just aren't THAT accurate... But as different argument for a different time)

F'ing BRILLIANT! I love that solution! This should have been brought up in all those conversations about how "cockpit" shake should be added to better balance to TT rules. Well done, again!

[Eternal Hunter]

Skyscream Sapphire, on 15 March 2013 - 09:20 AM, said:

Haha, fair enough. I'll try to make my post useful this time :

Matthew Craig, Technical Director from PGI, posted this on page 6:
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2064158

Thanks

[Bishop Steiner]

BlackWidow, on 15 March 2013 - 10:20 AM, said:

Now THAT is a very valid point which is dependent on the underlying technology (and it's acceptance) that is refreshing from some of the tech-spec poo-pooing that has been discussed so far.

Thanks!

de nada, Widow. I ain't on here trying to puke on people's parades, lol. Anything that can make this game better, and more immersive, I am all for. Also, some of my posts are butchered and rudimentary, as I don't have ready internet access in my apartment in Mexico, so I am doing it form a cell phone. I miss my tactile keyboard very much!

Setting up internet when I move into my new house down here is a top priority, but that ain't til June.

[Eternal Hunter]

Thanks for the info Matthew
My translation/interpretation of what you're saying is that you'd like to see Oculus support, but not quite sure if the Cryengine 3 can implement it in a way that will actually make if fun and useful (Low enough latency), at least not with spending quite a bit of time and effort on it - and i bet quite a bit of that work have to be with the engine developers.

Edit wrong engine

Edited by Eternal Hunter, 16 March 2013 - 03:39 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Eternal Hunter, on 15 March 2013 - 10:53 AM, said:

Thanks for the info Matthew
My translation/interpretation of what you're saying is that you'd like to see Oculus support, but not quite sure if the Unreal 3 engine can implement it in a way that will actually make if fun and useful (Low enough latency), at least not with spending quite a bit of time and effort on it - and i bet quite a bit of that work have to be with the engine developers.

When did we start running on UnReal 3?

Regardless, I agree that it was cool of Matthew to come and give an "official" insight on the whole thing.

ANyone know where I can find a deal on a slightly used Tesla pod while I wait on the Rift and Artemis?

[Kylere]

I already laughed at this once, now I laugh at it again. Go find a mature game and pressure them to waste time with less than beta level hardware.

Occulus Rift is going to be about as widely adopted and supported as Microsoft Bob

[xZaOx]

Matthew Craig, on 15 March 2013 - 08:39 AM, said:

Ultimately I don't get the sense that the Oculus is a gimmick but I do get the sense that it will require a lot of hard-work and similar breakthroughs from developers to truly unlock the full potential of the device which won't happen over night. I don't see any reason we shouldn't start though as the potential is very exciting.

Thanks for your response! If you do get a chance, let us know how the conference goes, and your thoughts/updates.

[ciller]

Matthew Craig, on 15 March 2013 - 08:39 AM, said:

Figured I'd share my thoughts quickly, first off to those saying it's a gimmick I don't think that's true saying VR has been tried many times before and failed is accurate, but you have to look at why it failed and if there's been any break-throughs in the areas where it failed.

I've also kept a close eye on VR tech and from my perspective 3 things holding back VR tech have been price, resolution and latency. Looking at the Oculus the price seems very reasonable and in range of what would be expected for a consumer device. The resolution while not perfect seems acceptable and Carmack has helped make significant strides on the latency so I don't think the word gimmick is fair, though whether or not it truly reaches the level required for wide spread consumer adoption remains to be seen.

We're certainly paying attention and I'm looking forward to attending Nate Mitchell's talk at GDC this year regarding the Oculus to learn more about the details. My expectation without having done extensive research but having read Carmacks article on latency, is that getting down to that 20ms latency barrier that really makes the whole experience work is going to be a significant challenge especially for games with a high level of visual fidelity.

What Carmack is talking about is really the beginnings of a new wave of renderers that operate fundamentally differently from what we currently use. Minimal rendering times have been important for many years but when your trying to attain the levels of fidelity of a modern game within 5-10ms you're really talking about a significant re-factoring of how your renderer fundamentally works.

Many modern engines still have renderers that are largely sequential, draw x objects in one pass, draw x objects in the next pass etc. we're starting to see though that to truly leverage the power of modern GPUs this has to shift to massively wide and parallel tasking which is likely the path to attaining these types of rendering speeds for complex scenes. This has already started somewhat with DX11 and is one of the reasons we want to move to DX11 as we already suffer from these sequential bottlenecks that are starting to be addressed and removed in DX11 and features like this one linked below open the door for developers to work around these bottlenecks.

http://msdn.microsof...s/hh994919.aspx

There's also significant support/development required in the display drivers themselves to ensure we don't just move the bottleneck to the driver level, where the game renderer is requesting large parallel workloads but the driver is still processing it sequentially.

Ultimately I don't get the sense that the Oculus is a gimmick but I do get the sense that it will require a lot of hard-work and similar breakthroughs from developers to truly unlock the full potential of the device which won't happen over night. I don't see any reason we shouldn't start though as the potential is very exciting.

OMG yes, thank you so much for replying Mathew!! I was hoping that sparking interest in this topic would illicit a response from someone up at PGI. I am more then pleased to hear that you are taking a serious look into the realm of VR for MWO and PGI. I hope the technical hurdles can be smashed through and we can see this technology in our hands and being used in games in a year or two.

You should definitely pick up the dev-kit model. Its cheap and looks like it would be fun to play with at the PGI offices. Everyone can geek out to VR.

Glad there is even a glimmer of hope!

Edited by ciller, 15 March 2013 - 11:39 AM.

[Zaptruder]

Matthew Craig, on 15 March 2013 - 08:39 AM, said:

Figured I'd share my thoughts quickly, first off to those saying it's a gimmick I don't think that's true saying VR has been tried many times before and failed is accurate, but you have to look at why it failed and if there's been any break-throughs in the areas where it failed.

I've also kept a close eye on VR tech and from my perspective 3 things holding back VR tech have been price, resolution and latency. Looking at the Oculus the price seems very reasonable and in range of what would be expected for a consumer device. The resolution while not perfect seems acceptable and Carmack has helped make significant strides on the latency so I don't think the word gimmick is fair, though whether or not it truly reaches the level required for wide spread consumer adoption remains to be seen.

We're certainly paying attention and I'm looking forward to attending Nate Mitchell's talk at GDC this year regarding the Oculus to learn more about the details. My expectation without having done extensive research but having read Carmacks article on latency, is that getting down to that 20ms latency barrier that really makes the whole experience work is going to be a significant challenge especially for games with a high level of visual fidelity.

What Carmack is talking about is really the beginnings of a new wave of renderers that operate fundamentally differently from what we currently use. Minimal rendering times have been important for many years but when your trying to attain the levels of fidelity of a modern game within 5-10ms you're really talking about a significant re-factoring of how your renderer fundamentally works.

Many modern engines still have renderers that are largely sequential, draw x objects in one pass, draw x objects in the next pass etc. we're starting to see though that to truly leverage the power of modern GPUs this has to shift to massively wide and parallel tasking which is likely the path to attaining these types of rendering speeds for complex scenes. This has already started somewhat with DX11 and is one of the reasons we want to move to DX11 as we already suffer from these sequential bottlenecks that are starting to be addressed and removed in DX11 and features like this one linked below open the door for developers to work around these bottlenecks.

http://msdn.microsof...s/hh994919.aspx

There's also significant support/development required in the display drivers themselves to ensure we don't just move the bottleneck to the driver level, where the game renderer is requesting large parallel workloads but the driver is still processing it sequentially.

Ultimately I don't get the sense that the Oculus is a gimmick but I do get the sense that it will require a lot of hard-work and similar breakthroughs from developers to truly unlock the full potential of the device which won't happen over night. I don't see any reason we shouldn't start though as the potential is very exciting.

20ms is really just Carmack's magic number. I think most players will accept a larger degree of... slop, for lack of a better term. Upto 50ms can still be quite convincing, although somewhat reduced experience.

But the last sentence is particularly pleasing. Looking forward to playing MWO in VR at OR consumer launch.

[Thunder Lips Express]

i wouldn't mind spending 300 bucks on the finished product, actually i would love to have it and would buy it providing it would work on mwo with hi res, however wouldn't the finished cost more then the $0300 devoloper kit? looks great though

[Taemien]

Looks like the Cryengine has been modded already to use this thing:

http://www.shacknews...oculus-rift-mod