Razer OSVR Hacker Developer Kit 1.4 Review

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jeff Fx

Reputable
Jan 2, 2015
329
0
4,780
0
> can a 60Hz 1080p display really deliver a compelling VR experience?

If you can get games to work with it, maybe, if you haven't experienced modern VR and aren't susceptible to VR sickness.

I had an eMagin 800x600 per eye VR system a decade ago, and it was pretty good for people who don't get VR sick, until Nvidia dropped support and it became useless.

I'd recommend saving up for a Vive, the only full-VR system available today. Buying a low-quality alternative to something nice rarely turns out well. you'll just wind up junking it and spending the money on what you really wanted later.
 

John Nemesh

Honorable
Mar 13, 2013
53
0
10,630
0
The only thing worse than having buyers remorse after buying an $800 VR setup like the Vive is having buyers remorse after doing the "responsible" thing and finding out that it isn't what you really want...then flushing that "savings" down the toilet when you go and buy what you should have bought in the first place...
 

alidan

Splendid
Aug 5, 2009
5,303
0
25,780
0
Personally, all i want of vr is 3d, and track my head, that's it, no room scale no controllers, just simple sensors because what i want is a sit down experience with my head acting as a camera input, especially for racing games.
 

picture_perfect

Distinguished
Apr 7, 2003
278
0
18,780
0
Sounds like a "me too" effort by Razer. I don't see much point in any more VR systems right now because the technology cap has already been hit by Oculus/Valve. Until computer performance increases we probably won't see much better. Well we might, but this isn't it.
 

caustin582

Distinguished
Oct 30, 2009
94
0
18,630
0
I'm a Vive owner and while I have been pretty happy with my purchase, if there's one thing I could change it would be for it to have a higher resolution. Even at 1080x1200 per eye the individual pixels are easily visible and the image looks nowhere near as sharp as when I'm gaming on my old 1080p monitor. When the screen takes up such a wide field of view, the resolution needs to go way up in order to compensate.

So it's kind of crazy to me that some companies think they can put out a good HMD that only splits a 1080p screen across both eyes. It might be worth it as a super-budget option for $99, but at $300 it's not all that cheap. Like it's not something most people are just going to buy on a whim and then happy forget about after they realize it looks ugly and makes them sick. Hate to be a downer but this really seems like the worst of both worlds. If you want a quick, cheap VR experience, you can build or buy a Google Cardboard. If you want the real thing, save up a little while longer and get an Oculus or Vive (or just wait until those are $300).
 

bit_user

Splendid
Herald
You can in the forums. Just follow the link at the top of the comments.

Um, it was more of a "me first" effort, with the initial version beating them to market by about a year. I think the author dropped the ball on explaining HDKs origin and backstory. Although it's touched upon, in the last page, I think the rest of the review would've been better served by covering it in a little more depth, right up front. Otherwise, it's not clear why the product compares so poorly with Vive and Rift. It was made to compete with Oculus DK/DK2-era hardware. And the whole review should've been prefaced with the caveat that they're basically reviewing an obsolete product (see above point about HDK2).

I'm also puzzled as to why you feel there's only room for 2 players, in this young and dynamic market. Would you say that about any other aspect of computer hardware? (true that, defacto, we have 2 players in CPUs and discrete GPUs, but that's more an issue of cost to enter those markets vs. upside potential).

I'm really glad to see a low-cost solution in between phones and the premium PC HMDs. Maybe 1.4 isn't yet a compelling value offering, but I think there's definitely room for other players and other segments in this market than Vive/Rift.
 

kamhagh

Honorable
Mar 10, 2013
331
0
10,810
7
Doesn't look good :S even my 2k note 4 looks ridicules, I know you can't compare them ut you can compare the pixels :S my view is filled with dots

BTW: why are all vr games stupid space games? :|
 

alidan

Splendid
Aug 5, 2009
5,303
0
25,780
0


easy+everyone who ever played a space game, vr was the dream.
 

jferdog

Reputable
Jun 25, 2014
5
0
4,510
0
The whole SteamVR plugin thing is a non-issue now. It works better than before now too thanks to proper lens distortion.
 

Crystalizer

Distinguished
Dec 11, 2011
50
0
18,640
1


It's not only about computer performance. Software is improving too. Vulcan api, new rendering features and technologies.
I don't see performance as the biggest problem in the future since software, tools and optimization is currently the biggest issue imo.
 

Crystalizer

Distinguished
Dec 11, 2011
50
0
18,640
1


Try holopoint or brookhaven :D Totally recommend brookhaven
 

picture_perfect

Distinguished
Apr 7, 2003
278
0
18,780
0


GPU/CPU performance needs to increase before we see any meaning full advances in VR. Therefore new players can only offer more of the same right now. Unless of course they offer downgraded systems like this one, which just make people sick. And the more VR systems out there, the more developers have to code for, and the more proprietary crap we might have to endure. I would say it's not needed right now, until VR is established.

 

bit_user

Splendid
Herald
I'm still struggling to get my head around this argument, Ms Beckinsale. So, what if someone figures out how to make it lighter, or reduce godrays, or add eye tracking, or add integrated hand tracking, or add mixed-reality features, or shave a couple hundred $ off the price. How is that "more of the same"?

There are way more aspects of VR that can be improved or innovated than, say, computer monitors. Do you think we should have only 2 computer monitor brands?

Like Oculus' DK2, this already served its purpose, and that's why Razer is replacing it with their HDK2. The only problem I see here is why they decided to review HDK 1.4 now. It is potentially useful for anyone thinking about picking up one of these units on the used market, however.

I'd argue quite the opposite. The sooner more players enter this market, the sooner we're likely to see some standards. And that will shorten the time of having to deal with proprietary crap.

Valve already has a defacto standard API that games can use to be HMD agnostic, although it's currently tied to Steam.
 

picture_perfect

Distinguished
Apr 7, 2003
278
0
18,780
0


Heh yea, if someone else can make improvements bring it on. Oculus/Valve already have huge funding and employ some of the biggest talent in PC gaming so I'm skeptical. You never know though.

 

deepb

Distinguished
Dec 14, 2009
56
0
18,640
2
Why is the HDK1.4 being reviewed when the HDK2.0 is out? HDK2.0 is 1080x1200 per eye @ 90fps. Unless this is supposed to be an article to shill for vive or rift.
 

bit_user

Splendid
Herald
The thing is, OSVR is really about opening up innovation. So, you have gesture tracking efforts like Leap Motion and eye tracking by FOVE and tobii. These can be prototyped on the OSVR platform and made easily available to SW devs, so that when they appear in a more polished form, both the HW and SW has a higher level of refinement.

There's a reason this is called a "Hacker Dev Kit".

That aside, we've heard about other VR HMD development efforts. I think we will see other HMDs enter the market, in the next year, and I think the value segment represents a ripe target, for many, while a couple are aiming even higher than Rift/Vive.

In terms of rendering performance, all that's needed is to support dual-GPU. I don't exactly know why it hasn't happened, but it's the obvious solution for enabling 4k.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS