calmstateofmind
Distinguished
- Jul 2, 2009
- 898
- 0
- 19,210
- Status
CaedenV
Splendid
- Jun 14, 2011
- 4,829
- 3
- 23,465
[citation][nom]Smartd[/nom]This is just the start, Imagine having a platform like a thread mill under your feet but one that moves in all directions to simulate you walking and physical weapon that you hold to control your weapon in the game.That would not only be awesome but imagine how physically fit all gamers would get? now this is definitely what the future holds.[/citation]
There was some brittish game show a while back (2011?) which had some sort of thing like this. The contestants had to compete is some sort of FPS where they were on a platform with rollers with a center pedistal. If they wanted to sit still then they could just stand in the middle, but to run and move then they woud walk/run on the rollers which would track their direction and speed. But instead of a headset there was a mobile 3 projector array that acted like a movable imax screen. It would rotate with the contestant's body to give a 'surround feel', but without the cost of having the whole room full of projectors.
The really fun part of this was that there were airsoft guns which 'simulated' enemy fire. The whole thing looked pretty awesome.
There was some brittish game show a while back (2011?) which had some sort of thing like this. The contestants had to compete is some sort of FPS where they were on a platform with rollers with a center pedistal. If they wanted to sit still then they could just stand in the middle, but to run and move then they woud walk/run on the rollers which would track their direction and speed. But instead of a headset there was a mobile 3 projector array that acted like a movable imax screen. It would rotate with the contestant's body to give a 'surround feel', but without the cost of having the whole room full of projectors.
The really fun part of this was that there were airsoft guns which 'simulated' enemy fire. The whole thing looked pretty awesome.
PC gamers will require more getting used to this? Uh I don't think so. We are used to exceptional dexterity in 3d environments via the mouse - something an entire generation of gamers now does not understand.
andrewc513
Distinguished
- Apr 28, 2010
- 11
- 0
- 18,510
[citation][nom]g00fysmiley[/nom]" talking to other NPCs about whatever fake people discuss" fasion?but yea really looking forward to getting a chance to put a pari of these on the reviews are all so positive eitehr they are payign people off or they are just that good and hoping it is the latter[/citation]
Gaben and Carmack are on board, and I highly doubt they could be paid off if this wasn't all that it's being hyped up to be. What we have here... is "the real deal".
Gaben and Carmack are on board, and I highly doubt they could be paid off if this wasn't all that it's being hyped up to be. What we have here... is "the real deal".
Another sycophant doing reviews. It's utterly pathetic the way this kid is being heralded as the one who saved gaming. This isn't new tech, the creator (as well as the author, it seems) just isn't old enough to remember the last incarnation. Seriously, games we were playing back in the mid-1990s had support for head-mounted displays.
tokencode
Distinguished
- Dec 25, 2010
- 847
- 1
- 19,060
[citation][nom]universal remonster[/nom]I have a friend that writes for Gamasutra that got to demo these at CES also. The resolution was the one and only thing he said stood out to him, but remember, these are still the prototype screens they are showing. From interviews I have read, resoluton was one thing they wanted to address before releasing the final production product.I'm with alot of people in the comments that are extremely excited about trying these. Everything I have read and from asking my friend tons of questions, they really do seem to be ready to live up to the hype.As much as I would love to get these at $200, I really doubt they will be that cheap. Sony's VR headset is upwards of a grand. I don't think thse will be $1000, but I could definitely see a $499 price tag (or maybe more).Best of luck to the team to get these on the market soon![/citation]
The developer kit is available for pre-order for $300 with an expected delivery date of April 2013.
The developer kit is available for pre-order for $300 with an expected delivery date of April 2013.
[citation][nom]bak0n[/nom]3D movies make me sick. Can't think this'll be any better. Then again, I could always vomit and pass out every time I play L4D2 which would bring a new exicting element to it![/citation]
3D movies have a few other things going against it. Such as flickering and not actually rendering objects from the proper perspective, instead, they just sort of make things pop out. 3D Vision helps a bit on the flickering, though it is still present, and does do the proper perspective, assuming no bugs.
This technology will have no flickering, and true stereoscopic view (like 3D Vision). The only possible draw backs is latency (very likely), and perhaps the lack of proper non focus on objects you aren't looking at.
It all depends on what causes you to get sick from the movies you have seen, to know if this would have any draw backs.
3D movies have a few other things going against it. Such as flickering and not actually rendering objects from the proper perspective, instead, they just sort of make things pop out. 3D Vision helps a bit on the flickering, though it is still present, and does do the proper perspective, assuming no bugs.
This technology will have no flickering, and true stereoscopic view (like 3D Vision). The only possible draw backs is latency (very likely), and perhaps the lack of proper non focus on objects you aren't looking at.
It all depends on what causes you to get sick from the movies you have seen, to know if this would have any draw backs.
[citation][nom]mydragon15[/nom]Can we get an article on prices, pc requirements, and what they will do for those who have vision problems in one eye *no glasses and those who have glasses?[/citation]
According to this guy, wearing glasses was not a problem
http://techreport.com/news/24211/oculus-rift-is-freaking-amazing
According to this guy, wearing glasses was not a problem
http://techreport.com/news/24211/oculus-rift-is-freaking-amazing
mdrejhon
Distinguished
- Feb 12, 2008
- 74
- 16
- 18,645
[citation][nom]Achoo22[/nom]Another sycophant doing reviews. It's utterly pathetic the way this kid is being heralded as the one who saved gaming. This isn't new tech, the creator (as well as the author, it seems) just isn't old enough to remember the last incarnation. Seriously, games we were playing back in the mid-1990s had support for head-mounted displays.[/citation]To be fair, what he has created has vastly superior resolution at a vastly cheaper prices. It is a great use of the Kickstarter concept. Props to him for iD Software John Carmack saying it's the best VR display he has ever seen.
Pulling this off, at low weight, lower cost, and far better quality, is still a rigthfully impressive feat for a 20-year old. The old head-mounted displays were at very low resolution, often 320x200, and had lots of motion blur and low contrast due to bad LCD's back in the day.
Pulling this off, at low weight, lower cost, and far better quality, is still a rigthfully impressive feat for a 20-year old. The old head-mounted displays were at very low resolution, often 320x200, and had lots of motion blur and low contrast due to bad LCD's back in the day.
Anyone else remember "Dactyl Nightmare" from the early 90s? I remember going to a gaming conference where they had one of the machines. It was mind-blowing for the time. It's nice to see this technology being updated for modern games at consumer prices.
Yup. The Oculus Rift as it stands is perfectly comparable, vis-a-vis, with no caveats whatsoever, to technology from the mid-90s. Pretty useful when generalized: Getting a new PC's a cinch since you're basically re-buying your grandma's old IBM Aptiva, anyway. Cause it's not like technology improves exponentially over time. Or that >15 years in information technology is an eternity. Nope. /rolleyes
rawoysters
Distinguished
- Jun 12, 2009
- 175
- 0
- 18,690
How much does that thing weigh and how long are you going to be comfortable with it hanging on your head? It doesn't look very "user friendly".
jkflipflop98
Distinguished
- Feb 3, 2006
- 1,990
- 448
- 20,170
[citation][nom]officeguy[/nom]Ok.... ok.... I will be the first to say this. I want to "touch" the virtual boobs and other female body parts. My gf wont even know. gf - what are you grabbing at.me - I am err... trying to grab the sword from this guys hand.gf - oh, I can tryme - no, you will mess me up[/citation]
. . . strap it on her face and hand her the "sword". What kind of man are you, anyways?
. . . strap it on her face and hand her the "sword". What kind of man are you, anyways?
CaedenV
Splendid
- Jun 14, 2011
- 4,829
- 3
- 23,465
[citation][nom]Achoo22[/nom]Another sycophant doing reviews. It's utterly pathetic the way this kid is being heralded as the one who saved gaming. This isn't new tech, the creator (as well as the author, it seems) just isn't old enough to remember the last incarnation. Seriously, games we were playing back in the mid-1990s had support for head-mounted displays.[/citation]
no comparison, '90s tech looked terrible. It was heavy, expensive, often ran hot, had cables everywhere that restricted movement, and had lag time enough to make navy seals sick. If you do a little research into it, this kid basically purchased just about every VR headset available to him, found what worked, and what didnt, and then took what did work, and managed to make a product that game industry leaders are highly impressed with.
Now don't get me wrong, I am as skeptical as anyone. I think a lot of the hype is simply that it is better than the mid-90s tech, and once the novelty wears off we may get some more critical reviews, but frankly this kid does not have enough money to pay off all of the people who are raving about the experience Rift brings to the table, so he must have something right. And if they manage to get a sub-$500 product on the table then I will probably jump in and try it (though probably on the 2nd revision).
It's like SSDs. It is age-old tech. What makes it wonderful is that it is now super fast, and cheap enough to be affordable, and brings an experience that you will never want to go back from. Are there problems? Absolutely! the growing pains of getting reliable drives out, and the lack of secure erase features have been nothing sort of a nuscience... but SSDs have been worth all the praise they have gotten, and it did take a year or two to get some real level-headed reviews on them.
no comparison, '90s tech looked terrible. It was heavy, expensive, often ran hot, had cables everywhere that restricted movement, and had lag time enough to make navy seals sick. If you do a little research into it, this kid basically purchased just about every VR headset available to him, found what worked, and what didnt, and then took what did work, and managed to make a product that game industry leaders are highly impressed with.
Now don't get me wrong, I am as skeptical as anyone. I think a lot of the hype is simply that it is better than the mid-90s tech, and once the novelty wears off we may get some more critical reviews, but frankly this kid does not have enough money to pay off all of the people who are raving about the experience Rift brings to the table, so he must have something right. And if they manage to get a sub-$500 product on the table then I will probably jump in and try it (though probably on the 2nd revision).
It's like SSDs. It is age-old tech. What makes it wonderful is that it is now super fast, and cheap enough to be affordable, and brings an experience that you will never want to go back from. Are there problems? Absolutely! the growing pains of getting reliable drives out, and the lack of secure erase features have been nothing sort of a nuscience... but SSDs have been worth all the praise they have gotten, and it did take a year or two to get some real level-headed reviews on them.
[citation][nom]mydragon15[/nom]Can we get an article on prices, pc requirements, and what they will do for those who have vision problems in one eye *no glasses and those who have glasses?[/citation]
first off, first run should be between 270 and 300$
pc requirements for it, the consumer version should have 960x1080 per eye, so about what it takes to run a game at 1080p + a little background for the tracking data.
[citation][nom]CaedenV[/nom]Everything I hear about Rift sounds too good to be true. I cannot wait for an opportunity to play with one myself.Kevin, I am curious about a few things that you might be able to clear up:1) Did the low resolution of the device stand out? I just know that my 1080p screen screams pixel problems that have me begging for a retina style display for the desktop. I just find it difficult to believe that a screen which is below 1080p, and then only having 1/2 that res per eye could be that immersive.2) Any wierd feelings of vertigo or disorientation during the demo? Or does the good head tracking fix that to better integrate the virtual with reality?3) Any word about this being used with something like kinnect or even Emotiv in order to get rid of the controller entirely? I would imagine that with the visuals being so convincing that the fact you have to use a controller would pull you out of the experience.4) Similarly, any word on some form of haptic feedback to 'complete' the experience? I love that new games have gone towards a simplistic HUD experience, and I think that some form of haptic feedback would give more of a 'pure' game experience where you simply see and feel the world around you.It all sounds like very cool tech.[/citation]
from the vr i have had in the past, which was INSANELY low resolution, your eyes when they perceive 3d like this, tend to do some amount of aa work when the 3d is done properly, you really have to be straining to notice the aa, and that was on 320x240 yea... though if at 1080p you have THAT big a problem with pixles, i cant speak to that.
to your third point... that would be a great way to kill the product entirely.
[citation][nom]stoogie[/nom]or even $1000[/citation]
thats what current low end pro sets cost.
these were kickstarterd for 270 a pop.
[citation][nom]universal remonster[/nom]I have a friend that writes for Gamasutra that got to demo these at CES also. The resolution was the one and only thing he said stood out to him, but remember, these are still the prototype screens they are showing. From interviews I have read, resoluton was one thing they wanted to address before releasing the final production product.I'm with alot of people in the comments that are extremely excited about trying these. Everything I have read and from asking my friend tons of questions, they really do seem to be ready to live up to the hype.As much as I would love to get these at $200, I really doubt they will be that cheap. Sony's VR headset is upwards of a grand. I don't think thse will be $1000, but I could definitely see a $499 price tag (or maybe more).Best of luck to the team to get these on the market soon![/citation]
they got kickstartered for 270 a pop.
keep in mind, they dont have side businesses to support this if it doesnt take off. and i personally wouldnt get these at higher than 300$, considering than cellphone screens are less than 100$ and 1080p, and that cellphones in parts cost 200-250$, i would never accept this at a high price point.
and that is coming form someone who has waited 15 years for this.
if they want it to go mass market, they need to sell these as close to cost as they can, they dont have the luxery of a pro market for these, they have the gamer market who are already skeptical about 3d as it stands, much less VR.
[citation][nom]shikamaru31789[/nom]The Rift does look cool, but I want to know if it can be worn over eyeglasses and what kind of price and system requirements it will have?[/citation]
from what i remember, yes, glasses are ok to wear with them, though the dev kit its a bit snug, they were making improvements for the consumer kit.
[citation][nom]andrewc513[/nom]Gaben and Carmack are on board, and I highly doubt they could be paid off if this wasn't all that it's being hyped up to be. What we have here... is "the real deal".[/citation]
gabe is also claiming they arent good enough, if i remember right. though that may just have been in house stuff.
first off, first run should be between 270 and 300$
pc requirements for it, the consumer version should have 960x1080 per eye, so about what it takes to run a game at 1080p + a little background for the tracking data.
[citation][nom]CaedenV[/nom]Everything I hear about Rift sounds too good to be true. I cannot wait for an opportunity to play with one myself.Kevin, I am curious about a few things that you might be able to clear up:1) Did the low resolution of the device stand out? I just know that my 1080p screen screams pixel problems that have me begging for a retina style display for the desktop. I just find it difficult to believe that a screen which is below 1080p, and then only having 1/2 that res per eye could be that immersive.2) Any wierd feelings of vertigo or disorientation during the demo? Or does the good head tracking fix that to better integrate the virtual with reality?3) Any word about this being used with something like kinnect or even Emotiv in order to get rid of the controller entirely? I would imagine that with the visuals being so convincing that the fact you have to use a controller would pull you out of the experience.4) Similarly, any word on some form of haptic feedback to 'complete' the experience? I love that new games have gone towards a simplistic HUD experience, and I think that some form of haptic feedback would give more of a 'pure' game experience where you simply see and feel the world around you.It all sounds like very cool tech.[/citation]
from the vr i have had in the past, which was INSANELY low resolution, your eyes when they perceive 3d like this, tend to do some amount of aa work when the 3d is done properly, you really have to be straining to notice the aa, and that was on 320x240 yea... though if at 1080p you have THAT big a problem with pixles, i cant speak to that.
to your third point... that would be a great way to kill the product entirely.
[citation][nom]stoogie[/nom]or even $1000[/citation]
thats what current low end pro sets cost.
these were kickstarterd for 270 a pop.
[citation][nom]universal remonster[/nom]I have a friend that writes for Gamasutra that got to demo these at CES also. The resolution was the one and only thing he said stood out to him, but remember, these are still the prototype screens they are showing. From interviews I have read, resoluton was one thing they wanted to address before releasing the final production product.I'm with alot of people in the comments that are extremely excited about trying these. Everything I have read and from asking my friend tons of questions, they really do seem to be ready to live up to the hype.As much as I would love to get these at $200, I really doubt they will be that cheap. Sony's VR headset is upwards of a grand. I don't think thse will be $1000, but I could definitely see a $499 price tag (or maybe more).Best of luck to the team to get these on the market soon![/citation]
they got kickstartered for 270 a pop.
keep in mind, they dont have side businesses to support this if it doesnt take off. and i personally wouldnt get these at higher than 300$, considering than cellphone screens are less than 100$ and 1080p, and that cellphones in parts cost 200-250$, i would never accept this at a high price point.
and that is coming form someone who has waited 15 years for this.
if they want it to go mass market, they need to sell these as close to cost as they can, they dont have the luxery of a pro market for these, they have the gamer market who are already skeptical about 3d as it stands, much less VR.
[citation][nom]shikamaru31789[/nom]The Rift does look cool, but I want to know if it can be worn over eyeglasses and what kind of price and system requirements it will have?[/citation]
from what i remember, yes, glasses are ok to wear with them, though the dev kit its a bit snug, they were making improvements for the consumer kit.
[citation][nom]andrewc513[/nom]Gaben and Carmack are on board, and I highly doubt they could be paid off if this wasn't all that it's being hyped up to be. What we have here... is "the real deal".[/citation]
gabe is also claiming they arent good enough, if i remember right. though that may just have been in house stuff.
chimera201
Splendid
- Apr 19, 2012
- 2,738
- 2
- 21,465
very great thing for controller users since its very hard to turn with controllers.
not a very great thing for keyboard/mouse users since its already perfect except the 3D thing.
not a very great thing for keyboard/mouse users since its already perfect except the 3D thing.
I guess when most people just want to tune out of actual reality this sort of thing seems appealing. The movie Wall-E has a nice spoof of this.
fuzzietech
Distinguished
- Feb 21, 2007
- 19
- 0
- 18,510
I remember trying out a VR helmet and a game for it on an Amiga seminar back in the 90's. And it wasnt all too shabby!
this to me looks like a decent advance for gaming. perhaps something similiar to .hack can be worked out in the coming years. i would love to see something like Sao but i doubt it for atleast another 20. this looks closest if not second best. if anything, this would highly sell on the mmorpg market and i say this probably because i would buy it in a heartbeat and any supported mmo lol
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
Question Writing speed of the 990 PRO SSD will drop to 2 MB/s after a few minutes of game installing- Started by IoanT
- Replies: 12
-
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram