52 replies to this topic

[PropagandaWar]

Veiled, Sorry shouldn’t have went on a bash fest against Hawken. I just hate seeing people compare the two games when you can't. If Hawken had the difficulty level of a game like Heavy Gears then maybe, but it’s just another arcade shooter, not a simulator type game. I def don't think twitch games are newbish and In fact like some of them myself.

Veiled, Sorry shouldn’t have went on a bash fest against Hawken. I just hate seeing people compare the two games when you can't. If Hawken had the difficulty level of a game like Heavy Gears then maybe, but it’s just another arcade shooter, not a simulator type game. I def don't think twitch games are newbish and In fact like some of them myself.

[VeiledMalice]

PropagandaWar, on 28 August 2012 - 08:23 AM, said:

Veiled, Sorry shouldn’t have went on a bash fest against Hawken. I just hate seeing people compare the two games when you can't. If Hawken had the difficulty level of a game like Heavy Gears then maybe, but it’s just another arcade shooter, not a simulator type game. I def don't think twitch games are newbish and In fact like some of them myself.

Hey, no worries. It's not to your liking, I get that. I'm just plain into mech games of pretty much any stripe because I think they're super cool. I don't believe I was "comparing" the games, though. All I wanted was support for what I hope to be a great addition to nearly any fps.

We'll see how things stack up when both products come out. I plan to support both either way, as my Founder's tag would suggest.

[Firelizard]

I dont want to sound like I'm bashing the thing, but looking at the specs, the only thing it has to offer as an improvement from Vuzix' products and the Z800 3DVisor is an increase in FOV. The per-eye resolution is still very small at 640x480, which means you're either going to have a VERY crowded UI, or a very fuzzy picture.

In fact the only wearable that offers a true 'HD' resolution display is Sony's HMZ-T1, and that is still 'only' 720p, in addition to lacking head tracking.

In short: Dont get too worked up over the thing.

(Now, back to figuring out how to mate a trackIR to my HMZ-T1...)

[Zwag78]

Bleh, ain't buying it. Hate gimmicks.

[SakuranoSenshi]

Another thread on this? LOL

I wouldn't hold your breath on MW:O implementation and truthfully I am not that interested or impressed with it... but if the product does make it to market and live and MW:O ultimately adds support, it won't make me rage or anything. I'm betting that neither happens but I don't have a crystal ball...

[benz145]

VeiledMalice, on 27 August 2012 - 08:01 PM, said:

Well... they're *talking* to those companies. That could mean literally "we e-mailed Gabe Newell and hope he'll call back" for all we know. But I sure hope it does end up getting a lot of support.

Fortunately things have gotten real for Oculus. Their Kickstarter just passed $2 million which puts it at the 6th top grossing Kickstarter ever and 800%+ of their funding goal with a few days yet to go -- not to mention that Gabe Newell is in their Kickstarter video : P

http://www.roadtovr....korea-and-more/

[benz145]

Firelizard, on 28 August 2012 - 09:15 AM, said:

I dont want to sound like I'm bashing the thing, but looking at the specs, the only thing it has to offer as an improvement from Vuzix' products and the Z800 3DVisor is an increase in FOV. The per-eye resolution is still very small at 640x480, which means you're either going to have a VERY crowded UI, or a very fuzzy picture.

In fact the only wearable that offers a true 'HD' resolution display is Sony's HMZ-T1, and that is still 'only' 720p, in addition to lacking head tracking.

In short: Dont get too worked up over the thing.

(Now, back to figuring out how to mate a trackIR to my HMZ-T1...)

It's too easy to dismiss its on-paper specs. The FoV and headtracking is what's important (not to mention the price!). The FoV is 110 degrees vertical and 90 degrees horizontal which blows the HMZ-T1 out of the water. Pretty much everyone that has given the Oculus Rift a try has come away impressed. Look at this video from PCGamer:

http://www.roadtovr....-heard-is-true/

And let's not forget, the current incarnation of the Rift is strictly a developer device. The consumer version, expected in 2013, is almost certainly going to have an HD display and probably an even wider field of view. The creator just mentioned in a Q&A that a 4k display in the consumer version is "not out of the question".

[Drenarius]

Kottonmouth, on 27 August 2012 - 07:40 PM, said:

Trufe.

dafuq did I just read? Hurrrrrr...

[VeiledMalice]

benz145, on 28 August 2012 - 01:30 PM, said:

Fortunately things have gotten real for Oculus. Their Kickstarter just passed $2 million which puts it at the 6th top grossing Kickstarter ever and 800%+ of their funding goal with a few days yet to go -- not to mention that Gabe Newell is in their Kickstarter video : P

http://www.roadtovr....korea-and-more/

Well. Nevermind then, that shut me up!

[kalabaddon]

ya, having looked at other vr goggles before, this one is a big difference with the fov being leaps and bounds better then the competition

Firelizard, on 28 August 2012 - 09:15 AM, said:

I dont want to sound like I'm bashing the thing, but looking at the specs, the only thing it has to offer as an improvement from Vuzix' products and the Z800 3DVisor is an increase in FOV. The per-eye resolution is still very small at 640x480, which means you're either going to have a VERY crowded UI, or a very fuzzy picture.

In fact the only wearable that offers a true 'HD' resolution display is Sony's HMZ-T1, and that is still 'only' 720p, in addition to lacking head tracking.

In short: Dont get too worked up over the thing.

(Now, back to figuring out how to mate a trackIR to my HMZ-T1...)

it is 640 by 800, with vr tech that makes it near 1280x800, a respectable number, please don't post incorrect stats so people are not misinformed!

also the best vr out now is the wrap 1200 and thoes sony ones you mentioned and its fov is only 35 deg / 51 deg, vs the oculus's 110 fov. HUGE difference.

current vr goggles on the market emulate a tv screen viewed at a distance (wrap 1200 emulates a 75 inch tv vied at 10 feet) (sony is 750 inches at 65 feet), the oculus high FOV is what will make all the difference! with a fov of 110 it matches / betters the human fov since the human eye views at around 100 degrees fov, http://en.wikipedia....ki/Visual_field

yes it is worth making a big deal about since VR is all about immersion. with such a low FOV the sony and vuzix vr goggles have a watching a tv effect, while the oculus is an actual VR so your eyes FOV is matched with the goggles.

I notice you said you have the sony ones.. to sum up, nearly every VR goggle available to consumers currently emulate watching a TV at a distance (including the sony ones), the oculus will be a true VR solution which aims to replace your vision with the game, it will not look like watching a tv cause your full field of view will be filled with the game video VS. having a screen hanging in front of you.

also to explain the oculus resolution better, since the FOV is so high each eye is displayed independently, that makes the per eye res work differently then the fake large screen tv style VR goggles.

[SakuranoSenshi]

kalabaddon, on 30 August 2012 - 11:01 PM, said:

with a fov of 110 it matches / betters the human fov since the human eye views at around 100 degrees fov, http://en.wikipedia....ki/Visual_field

No, it doesn't. Human FoV is about 180 degrees, far more than anything done so far and certainly this doesn't exceed it. The link you actually want, if you rely on wikifiddlers is http://en.wikipedia....i/Field_of_view . You read the figures wrong, basically, they quote the angles either side of the horizontal and vertical axes in the link you gave but you have to allow for the way eyes interact with the nose; in effect it's about 180 degrees with a blind spot for each eye either side of the nose.

This ought to have been obvious, to be honest, unless your vision is defective so that you don't see people standing next to you. ;-)

And for some fun, try this http://en.wikipedia....nd_spot_(vision)

Edited by SakuranoSenshi, 30 August 2012 - 11:41 PM.

[kalabaddon]

your right I did quote them wrong... my bad. I was also drinking a bit when I posted that and mis judged the angle of my hands when i tested it

however.... 110 FOV is still VR territory where as 35-51 FOV is a joke when thinking about VR goggles. you have to agree with that

dang it I feel stupid now ... and still drinking also

last of like 4 edits. dang I use smileys a lot when drinking.

Edited by kalabaddon, 31 August 2012 - 12:02 AM.

[SakuranoSenshi]

kalabaddon, on 30 August 2012 - 11:58 PM, said:

however.... 110 FOV is still VR territory where as 35-51 FOV is a joke when thinking about VR goggles. you have to agree with that

Absolutely, which is why I let that stand and already mentioned that... or was that in the other thread on this. In any case, the FoV is a big difference and you're right to single it out as critically important in terms of the improvement over previous attempts.

[kalabaddon]

this product is nice by it self, it is annoying to see all the threads saying hawken this hawken that, with it .

[SakuranoSenshi]

I have expressed my doubts, here and elsewhere, however; if it takes off, I will be one of those who take a serious interest in it, too. I have simply seen a lot of VR stuff come and go and as I mentioned in another thread, I worked with expensive (then) state-of-the-art VR gear when I was at university about a decade ago. Nothing I have seen so far convinces me that it will really break through, because I think it's a device looking for a market, or a 'gimmick' if you will. On the other hand, it would only take a few choice titles and a dedicated core of purchasers to give the device a lot of momentum that might easily spur competition. If this device ends up with competitors, the whole concept is well on its way to becoming at least a niche market device, much as dedicated soundcards, 3D accelerators and even joysticks all were (ironically, these days two of those arguably are once again).

[kalabaddon]

well I do have to say they seem to be missing the ball on who they are marketing it to. for example I am amazed at their seemingly disregard for sim pilots. that thing would be amazing with any DCS game! and sim pilots while few and far between cough up the cash for stuff like this. I mean a decent sim pilots setup will have a 500$ + hotas/rudder setup, a 165$ track ir setup, and at least 3 monitors + hardware to run it. they would not hesitate to buy a item that combines multi monitor and hotas in an immersive fashion!

if this is sold at the 500$ price point +/-200 they should really be trying to get it supported with sim's

[Burned_Follower]

personally i say forget the VR helmet and go all the way by purchasing a Holodeck...too bad they don't exist. That would be the ultimate Mech experience, lol. Please don't ask me what a holodeck is...that'll just make me feel old, haha.

[VeiledMalice]

XxDRxDEATHxX, on 31 August 2012 - 12:02 PM, said:

personally i say forget the VR helmet and go all the way by purchasing a Holodeck...too bad they don't exist. That would be the ultimate Mech experience, lol. Please don't ask me what a holodeck is...that'll just make me feel old, haha.

Wow... I just now realized how annoying someone still in their 20's saying something about "being old" is. >_>

[Burned_Follower]

lol i know i'm only 26 but when my lil 17 year old sis asks me who Bugs Bunnys is or what Star Trek is, how am i supposed to feel?

[VeiledMalice]

You're supposed to school her, man! Teach her the classics!

For the love of god, think of the children!