Oculus Unveils the Rift S, a Higher-Resolution VR Headset With Built-In Tracking (theverge.com) 68
Oculus VR unveiled the Oculus Rift S, a higher-resolution pair of virtual reality goggles that remove the need for external cameras by incorporating built-in tracking. The company partnered with Lenovo "to help it speed up manufacturing and to improve upon the design of the original Rift," reports The Verge. From the report: The result is a new VR device that is more comfortable, sports 2560 x 1440 resolution (or 1280 x 1440 per eye), and features the same inside-out tracking system that will ship on Oculus' upcoming standalone Quest headset, which the company calls Oculus Insight. That way, you won't need cumbersome cameras to enable full-body movement. In another twist, both the Quest and Rift S device will cost exactly the same at launch: $399, with the same pair of slightly modified Touch motion controllers included and the same integrated audio system (plus a headphone jack for external audio). That decision makes it clear that Oculus wants its VR platform to offer a choice not between two vastly different pieces of hardware, but by the more simple determination of whether you have the hardware to power PC-grade VR. The Rift S will support every existing and future game on the Rift platform. "The company is also enabling cross-buy and cross-play features," the report adds. "That way, you can buy a Quest and, at a later date, upgrade to a Rift S and still have your entire library intact. Additionally, multiplayer games that support both platforms will let players play one another, regardless of whether you're playing on a Quest or Rift device."
The Rift S and Quest will be shipping this spring.
The Rift S and Quest will be shipping this spring.
Sounds pretty good (Score:2)
I've used Oculus headsets for a few short things, including some experiences at the Void.
While they were pretty cool I could tell that even higher resolution would for sure help with fidelity, as sometimes you are looking at things you can tell should have more detail but the resolution is failing you...
Hope they are finally getting around to having these headsets work on the Mac though. Ignoring a customer base with a lot of money seems like a pretty stupid play for VR makers, or at least opens up a giant
Macs can drive VR just fine (Score:2, Informative)
Macs don't have suitable drivers for the video card and the apps/software runs on Windows.
They have capable hardware so that is not an excuse. In what way do they not have "suitable drivers"?? Are you saying I couldn't easily drive a Rift from a Thunderbolt 3 connection and an eGPU or iMac Pro GPU? Come on.
Plus, you'd need a Mac Pro,
Nope. Newer iMacs, any laptop that can support eGPU, an iMac Pro. Multiple options for how it could happen and consumer who would pay if it worked well. Very likely as lar
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who owns a premium mac, is wealthy and likes premium gaming experiences will probably own a PC.
That seems like a dubious statement, insofar as they will "probably own a PC".
But I'm not even talking about really wealthy people, someone with just about any modern MacBook Pro and an eGPU could easily do VR these days. Or the iMacs that just came out, which are not that expensive.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What are the reasons for owning a Mac in 2019?
It's produced by Apple and sold at ripoff prices.
Re: (Score:2)
Escape Windows anal probe 10, with forced software install and deletions and gross invasion of privacy with M$ claiming the right to investigate your data storage and delete any content for any reason. M$ sells your privacy and Apple sells you privacy, there is a huge difference right there. You know what, I would rather buy privacy, that have some anal retentive cunts sell my privacy because they consider me a wallet they can raid and not a human being, fuck M$.
Re: (Score:2)
What are the reasons for owning a Mac in 2019?
For the people I know who are Mac owners, it goes beyond a particular laptop or phone, partly it the sharing and connectivity integration available through the Apple ecosystem, and some people really buy into it 100%. From what I can tell, it seems to work for them for the most part.
There are similar, less expensive sharing and connectivity options for Android users, but I think that when compared side-by-side, Apple has a more seamless system. Apple's control at the hardware level definitely gives them an
Re: (Score:2)
How big is the market though, really? Macs hold about 13% of the market, total. And what, maybe 5-10% of those have high performance video cards that could handle a midrange VR game nicely? Remember, you need probably about 3-4x as much video card power for a good VR experience as for a comparable quality FPS gaming experience - you have to double both the frame rate and the number of geometry transforms - that's not cheap.
So, lets be generous and say good-VR-capable Macs are about 10% of the mac market
Re: (Score:3)
hence the "Built-In Tracking"
Higher resolution, but not all rainbows. (Score:2)
The screen has higher resolution, and is not pentile so it's actually even higher than the ~40% pixel increase. Interestingly it actually has less resolution than the Quest.
The screen is LCD rather than OLED, so one might think it will have poor black levels compared to the CV1. However, CV1 is often driven with compressed blacks and so doesn't get that brilliant OLED "completely off" black in practice anyway. Will need to play with it to see.
It also runs at 80hz rather than 90hz, though I suspect that may
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Or built 802.11ad ("WiGig") into the Quest, and allowed anyone with a suitable access point (or PC via peer-to-peer) within 3-10 meters in the same room to basically stream 90fps uncompressed video directly to it with minimal latency. From what I understand, short-distance line of sight 60GHz 802.11ad is capable of easily sustaining 4-6gbps with a minimal implementation, potentially faster with a more sophisticated implementation.
Assuming my math is correct, 1440 x 1600 x 2 x 4 x 90 = 1.659gbps. With 4-6gbp
Re: (Score:2)
Ugh, the math actually isn't correct. I realized a half second after hitting submit that it should be 1440 x 1600 x 2 x 90 = 414,720,000 PIXELS/second. Assuming 32-bit alpha-blended color, that would be a little over 13gbps (415 million pixels x 32 bits/pixel).
That said, my idea might still be do-able... assuming the left and right frames are relatively similar, you could get lossless compression approaching 2:1 right off the top, reducing it to ~6.5gbps. Converting the video to 4:2:2 YUV with 2-4 bit RLE-c
Re: (Score:2)
I think as soon as you throw compression into the mix you introduce huge latency issues.
The sad fact seems to be that we just don't yet have the wireless bandwidth to stream a premium VR experience.
Unless perhaps you can operate multiple WiGig channels simultaneously without interference - 4 channels delivering a combined 20+Gbps could do the job nicely.
Or, a personal favorite - what if you took something like the Quest, and wirelessly fed it pre-transformed and optimized geometry so that it only had to per
Re: Downgrading the PC Rift to focus on Mobile VR (Score:4, Interesting)
Compressing with something like h.264/265 that depends upon having a few frames to reference adds latency. Doing things like HuffyUV... YPbPr with 4:2:2, RLE, etc, is fast, because it doesn't depend upon knowledge of anything besides the current frame.
The big delay with most codecs isn't literal calculation time, it's the need to wait until you have at least 2 or 3 frames in the pipeline before you can even START compression. For a modern GPU, matrix transformations between RGB & YPrPb or between 4:2:2 and 4:4:4, are practically instantaneous.
The key to making something like this work with a 1-2gbps link is to forget about codecs designed to be maximally-efficient, and instead look at codecs designed to be fast & "efficient ENOUGH".
Re: (Score:2)
I have a Vive pro with a wireless modules which uses WiGig. And it works perfectly. The delay is negligible and you don't see the difference with a tethered headset. The only drawbacks are that WiGig doesn't penetrate anything so the screen goes grey when you block the line of sight your body and the battery only lasts about two hours so if you play a lot you need two and be prepared for an interruption after about two hours.
Re: (Score:2)
Truly? I suspect that varies a bit from person to person, but you say no problems?
That bore investigation, and you might be interested that one of the things I came across was a comment about high-capacity replacement batteries that extend the life to 4-5 hours
It really does demand two extra QC 3.0 batteries if you're going to use it for any extended period. It draws 18 watts (12v @ 1.5 amps), which means a 20k mAh / 72 kWh battery lasts about 4-5 hours. The included battery's life is too short to be usable
That's all the info they offered, but it sounds like it might be worth investigating.
Re: (Score:3)
Interesting note... the Quest uses a Snapdragon 835 SoC, which was designed to cheaply support 60ghz 802.11ad with the addition of a single chip and some passive components. While that chip obviously isn't in the Quest, I can't help but wonder whether Carmack might have been able to pull some strings and find a way to expose the pins needed to interface with that chip so it could be implemented as an external add-on.
In most Android devices, the USB port is actually connected to the USB root hub through a cr
Re: Downgrading the PC Rift to focus on Mobile VR (Score:2)
The main issue with 802.11ay is that 802.11ad exists today at a cost that's within the realm of 'sane', even though it's still pretty niche. 802.11ay, not so much. Not everything involving 802.11 turns to gold. Just look at 802.11y (basically, 802.11n with tweaks & extensions to operate in the lightly-licensed 3.6ghz band).
Back when AT&T still had a 1gb monthly data cap, I would have totally bought a home 802.11y access point & license, and a pocket-sized access point that used 802.11y for the b
Re: (Score:2)
Update... just did some more research about 802.11ad. According to what I've read,
* 60GHz can't penetrate anything (including fleshy lifeforms), but absolutely DOES reflect from most surfaces. Its max distance is approximately 100 feet, measured along the signal's path (including any reflections necessary to reach the receiving antenna).
* In an area like an enclosed conference room that's approximately 12x20 feet, with the AP itself located in a spot that's sane (ie, not inside a cabinet or deliberately hid
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly the Quest has better resolution and the better colors of OLED.
I'm open to trying a LCD VR display.
With OLED dark areas especially in space SIMS have annoying lag to them. Worse is the burn-in dirty sheen that gets worse as display elements age drifting further out of calibration. Not all that impressive to me either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that's what the world needs, people who pay even less attention to their surroundings.
It's a Lenovo Mixed Reality Headset (Score:4, Informative)
Sure, it has more inside-out cameras (I think), but it no longer has mechanically adjusted PD and no ear phones.
In some ways, it's a step backward. I'd rather have seen a hybrid approach to sensors - the inside out is great, but a couple sensor pods behind wouldn't be too bad. Oculus "partnered" with Lenovo on the "S" - and they basically swallowed up the Lenovo Mixed Reality headset (which can usually be had for a lot less than $399), and passed none of the cost savings onto consumers.
Where's the wireless option? Go and Quest are standlones, and have their own issues... how about something like Vive's wireless option? Instead of pushing VR tech forward, they've just sidestepped into Microsoft's MR standard. It's not a terrible thing... the MR headsets are very good, and inside-out tracking is very slick, but it isn't a step forward.
I want no tethers and galvanic stimulation to ward off motion sickness (and feel motion). I want OLED displays. I don't like losing the earphones.
Re: (Score:2)
Why are they using cameras instead of an IMU and do dead reckoning? Or does it have some sort of Kalman filter that integrates with the cameras?
Re: (Score:2)
The cameras in the Rift aren't made for tracking. They are made to correct IMU drift. The IMUs do the bulk of the work, but they drift hard and fast so you need something to correct that.
Re: (Score:2)
I think their branding of "S" as opposed to "2" is pretty important, and is a remarkably honest way to market the device.
Compared to some of the later headsets (Vive Pro, some of the MS-based headsets) it's not much of an improvement (or a small step back). When compared to their current offering, though, it provides a number of quality-of-life benefits which are pretty substantial outside of the in-home market. First is reduction of the SDE, partially due to higher resolution, and also partially due to the
Oh.... (Score:2)
sports 2560 x 1440 resolution (or 1280 x 1440 per eye in Canada)
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
Keep in mind that OLED usually has a pentile sub-pixel layout that only includes two "color dots" per pixel instead of LCDs 3.
The actual number of individually subpixel elements is then:
LCD: 2,560 × 1,440 x 3 = 11.06 million
OLED: 2,880 × 1,600 x 2 = 9.22 million
Despite the apparently lower resolution, the LCD actually has 20% more "color dot" subpixels, and will thus deliver an overall sharper image.
Re: (Score:2)
The Odyssey is actually lower resolution than most MS MR headsets, with the same "2880x1600" OLED resolution as the Occulus Quest, so it will also have a lower quality than the Rift S. In order of decreasing number of subpixels:
From what I can find:
MS MR Acer, LCD: 2880x1440x3 = 12.4 million
Rift Quest LCD: 2,560 × 1,440 x 3 = 11.06 million
Rift S, Vive PRO, Odyssey, OLED: 2x2880x1600 = 9.22 million
Original Rift and VIVE, pentile OLED, so 2160x1200x2 = 5.2 million
And of course there's lots of variat
Built-In Tracking (Score:2)
Inside out tracking (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The WMR headsets only have 2 cameras, this thing will have 5, so it will be a lot better. But it won't be perfect. You'll probably have trouble with shooting games and things like Echo Arena. Anything that involves you manipulating objects close to or behind your head will go out of tracking range. Trying to grab an arrow out of a quiver won't work well. Holding onto a wall with your left hand while you look over your right shoulder might fail. Things like that.
No built in gaze tracking? (Score:1)
Didn't Oculus claim gaze tracking was the next big step here after the last headset was released over a year ago? (having trouble finding any article now)
And my reaction is "Lame"...I've seen a competing device with these resolution specs (1440p) and built in gaze tracking. Out for over a couple years now already. I'd been waiting on higher FPS and maybe from a bigger company.
https://www.getfove.com/ [getfove.com]
Re: (Score:2)
So basically you are waiting for the new Vive pro Eye ? To bad HTC pricing is so high.
The tracking will be flawless (Score:2)
I'm fairly sure that any and all activities of the player will be tracked to the utmost detail.
It's Facebook, after all.