So no consumer version of the product until 4K resolution and reasonably low latency has been tackled and overcome?
Do they need more money to get to the next hurdle? And then the next before something ships?
It'll be interesting to see how it all plays out. It'll be a relatively expensive and sensitive product in a small box (compared to a television of the same price point) and may not be handled with very much care. It sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.
I guess the rift might be one of the few devices where up scaling might actually be beneficial. The problem with 1080p is that you can easily see the pixels at such a close distance. But if the same image were up scaled, of course it wouldn't be aaaaas pretty, but we could still enjoy 1080p details but without the pixelation...?
There is another prototype out there that was mentioned recently about laser light reflected off mirrors directly onto your retinas for even sharper resolution. It doesn't use a display for that screen-door effect, really interested in how this will pan out. I mean won't that burn out your eyes to begin with? Anyways... new competition on the horizon and I can't wait! ^^
Image resolution and latency really have very little to do with motion sickness. Motion sickness is the result of a discrepancy between the motion you see with your eyes and the motion your body feels, especially with your inner ear. When the information going to you brain doesn't make sense, (your eyes see you are moving, but your body senses it is sitting still) one of the main symptoms is nausea. Some people have little or no problem with this, while others are greatly affected. Changing the resolution or latency won't make much, if any, difference. Your entire body would need to be in a motion simulator or actually be moving to match the motion seen by your eyes, but this usually cost prohibitive. While I think this is an interesting and exciting technology, some people will never be able to use it. It's just the way human physiology and perception systems work.
This condensation of the original article changes the meaning a bit. The Oculus dev kit has 1280×800 resolution. In the original article the Oculus VR CEO states that "the combination of improving screen quality and decreasing latency..." should alleviate motion-sickness. The second news was that the Oculus Rift "will eventually have a 4K display"
I also can't say that the pixel resolution will be a problem at 1080 resolution. I tried the Sony HMZ-T1 about a year ago or so and they have 720 res. No problem, just a nice image, I think they were running Harry potter as a demo.
What people has to remember is that nausea can be caused by different things to different people. For example, to many people simply having to move in the game world with a joystick instead of actually walking causes nausea; especially in VR, the brain "sees" that it is moving, but it doesn't "feel" the movement except in the eyes. This contradiction of the senses can cause nausea. I don't think they'll solve ALL "nausea" effects on any VR until we get direct brain stimulation like The Matrix, but they can certainly make it bearable, and even unnoticeable to some people.
The current Oculus Dev kit is only 1280x760 and not a full 1080p display (I have one), what this leads to is 640x760 per eye which is the equivalent of playing a game back in the early 1990's.
I believe the HD version of the Oculus that they showed off at E3 this year was a full 1920x1080 giving each eye 960 x 1080.
Most 4K TVs operate at 3840x2160 which would give 1920 x 2160, this is roughly 10x as many pixels in the current Dev Kit.
Going to 4K would really help for games that are attempting to look more realistic, as well as increase viewing depth in the 3D environment. Packing this many more pixels into the same physical space should also resolve issues with the screen door effect we currently see with the Oculus Rift Dev kit where you can see between the pixels.
The only issue that I see with a 4K screen is that the graphics cards that can support a 4K environment would be pretty high and would limit the number of users that could afford to use a Rift. Also increasing the pixel count will increase the rendering time, and this will add to the latency between what a person see's, how they move, and how that movement impacts their view of the rendered environment. The longer this takes, the greater chance there is a delayed drag effect to the motion. You move your head, and the view has to catch up to you like you are dragging the view.
I look forward to buying future Oculus hardware, I like the dev kit, it shows a ton of promise, but they have a long way to go.
Motion sickness is caused because the Oculus Rift only tracks rotation, not position.
It doesn't track if you move forward-backward, left-right, or up-down.
4K does't mean you have to play games at 4K, you can play 1080p or 1440p if you want, pixel density only helps to minimize the screen door effect.
A few of the reasons why virtual gaming has not becoue mainstream back in the day when it launched are mentioned in this article.
Personally Id rather wait 3 more years and get a really good product than 3 months and get a half cooked hardware.
most people assume 4k is too much for the GPUs, but in reality we have been getting same GPUs just renamed becouse most people still game at 1080p.
If the 4k becomes the new standard, im quite sure AMD and nVidia will step up their game.
The only bad part about all of this is the premium price to pay for the first 2 years moreless untill it gets cheap (just like the first 2 years of full HD 32+ inch flat TVs).