I was literally going to write that.
I was literally going to write that.
It reminds me of when VR first came out and people were complaining that, “You actually have to turn your head all the way around to check your six. It’s a huge disadvantage.”
Yup, one of the big things for me has been the fact I have a rather big, annoying module that sits on the right side of my skull for my implant, thus making VR gear a bit of a finiky affair to use.
I got to thinking while reading some VR reviews online today. The FOV consideration is one I think is particularly interesting…with various people reporting different “measured” FOV based on the equipment and how close you want to jam your eyes to the lenses.
I couldn’t tell you what the FOV is in my Rift, but I did start to wonder if people who wear glasses perceive FOV in ways different than those that don’t. My glasses just naturally limit my FOV with a very visible frame around everything I look at all day long. The frame has been there so long in my life that I don’t even see it anymore. I would guess that those of us that wear glasses have also adapted to perhaps moving our heads ever so slightly more than someone who has great vision and just moves their eyeballs. I would love to have that gift of naturally perfect vision.
Anyway…I don’t know where I’m going with this other than to say that I suspect FOV probably has more importance and impact on people than others.
I’ve always thought the same thing. Its very interesting and I would take it a step farther to say that our (those who where glasses) peripheral vision is also limited further by our glasses focus point. Depending on how bad our vision is, beyond that focus point could be very blurry, so in a sense, we are looking thru binoculars which in turn allows VR to feel more natural to us.
I do think it ultimately FOV does benefit even those with glasses since its part of the immersion.
Now if they do eye tracking, that WILL change things for us that wear glasses! Depending on how exactly it works, it could actually allow us to see how it feels to look around with our eyes and everything be in focus.
$350 - ballpark. Good price.
Walmart has the Lenovo Explorer bundle for $180.00. It compared quite well in the video review in another thread and at that price would be a great entry into VR if you are not sure.
And for the Ti’s (trashy incomes) among us this might be the best way to get a family member to VR with.
That Lenovo Explorer price is great. As @Freak mentioned before, the downside with that headset is that it has no mechanical IPD adjustment, so if you have a head like a cow (or an owl) then it can be a bit odd. IPD < 60 or > 68 seems to be the problem zones. Got to be worth a try at that price though.
This is interesting: https://www.roadtovr.com/report-new-valve-vr-headset-appears-leaked-images/
A Valve headset would be great, but as I understand it, they’ve always just built lots and lots of internal testing sets. In a lot of ways the DevKit1 Oculus was mostly a Valve test rig.
While I’d love to see some news, I’m not sure these pics will indicate if something is coming to production or not. The ‘VR Half Life’ bit seems fun. It’s like a unicorn now.
My impression is Valve builds the hardware they think is needed to drive development of their software. They’ll license it off as needed to stimulate the ecosystem that buys that software, but I don’t think they want to be a hardware merchant. At least not anymore.
So I guess Pimax is rolling out BrainWarp with fixed foveated rendering? And if I’m hearing right, it is only working on RTX cards at the moment? So obviously fixed means it won’t track your eye movements…so is it essentially just blurring the periphery of the center of the HMD view? That would mean you’d have to move your head all the time for even small glances…I wonder how distracting that would be in sims where you occasionally just cast your eye down to check a gauge…
I guess that depends on how large the hi-res area is… I think they can get away with an area smaller than full screen, which would be beneficial to performance.
Especially since the Pimax has a wide FoV. Maybe they could use the 75°closest to the center in hi-res, and the rest of the 125° in lower res. And…when you turn your head to look over your shoulder, the hi-res area moves a bit…? Wouldn’t that be cool?
That’s the only position when I feel that the FoV of the Rift is limiting.
HP ”Copper” WMR VR…
Looks very promising. I’m also glad to see that they have gone with a Rift like design. One of the Rift’s great strengths is that it is a very comfortable headest. Having the weight supported across the top of your head makes quite a difference.
Sounds great…! I’m all for improved clarity over field of view…so that is wonderful.
“Ludwig said that HP’s customers were not nearly as concerned with expanding the field of view as they were with seeing resolution move to the next step. As such, Copper’s field of view is in the Rift/Vive class, though the headset is using all new Fresnel lenses.”
“That’s no doubt primarily driven by Copper’s 2,160 × 2,160 (per eye) displays, which have more than twice the number of pixels as the Odyssey+, and more than three and a half times as many pixels as first-gen headsets like the Rift. Looking through Copper’s lenses, sharpness is a drastic step forward over Odyssey+. And while the Odyssey+ uses a diffuser on the screen (which sacrifices some sharpness in an effort to hide the screen door effect), Copper hardly has a need for a diffuser as the pixel dense RGB-stripe displays make the screen door effect vanishingly apparent.”
Hopefully this can possibly be my next step beyond the O+. At this point, I’m not a slave to any manufacturer, I love VR so much that I’ll move incrementally with each step forward. Well, most steps forward, I’m still not hopping on the Pimax train…
Sooooooo, you’re saying you won’t need your O+ anymore, right?