Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by Ajedi32 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Ajedi32

On the other hand, there are a lot of things that were improved:

- Slightly higher resolution (1080×1200 per-eye -> 1,280×1,440 per-eye)

- Inside-out tracking

- Guardian can be set up via video passthrough

- More comfortable halo head strap (better weight distribution, more surface area)

- Wider lens sweet spot

- Fewer god rays (better lenses)

- Less pronounced screen door effect (better lenses, RGB-stripe subpixel layout)

- Low-latency stereo-corrected video passthrough (Passthrough+)

- Headphone jack

- Slightly longer cable (4m -> 5m)

Not a huge upgrade of course, but that's probably why they called it the Rift S and not the Rift 2.

View on HN

I'm not saying you're wrong, but we're on year 3 of this brand new tech and it's "kinda better, kinda worse". Think about the iPhone in 2007 vs 2010. They can call it whatever they like; it's still an utter disappointment, at least to a gamer like myself. If we're going to get to a point where VR actually feels like virtual reality then someone is going to have to push the envelope, and it clearly isn't going to be Facebook.

I think right now Oculus is more focused on bringing VR to a wider market than they are on pushing specs. If you look at it from that perspective, the Rift S is a _massive_ improvement. No need to mess with sensors during setup; just plug and play.

And it's not like they've abandoned R&D into higher-end tech. It's just that resolution and FOV improvements are bottlenecked by modern GPUs. To overcome that bottleneck will require a breakthrough in foveated rendering technology; which Oculus is working on but hasn't achieved yet. (I believe Michael Abrash, the chief scientist at Oculus, estimated it'll take them another ~4 years to get the technology to the point where it's ready for mainstream consumer use.)

The quest is an even larger step given the fact that it doesn't require an external PC. But still, I would love to see something more gamer oriented.

Didn't the second Vive release provide something more gamer oriented?

That's not what HTC were going for with the Pro, it's geared towards commercial use. Hobbyists are still buying it (naturally) but what we're really waiting for is whatever Valve are up to.

≥but what we're really waiting for is whatever Valve are up to.

You could be waiting a while. If I am not mistaken valve just let go most of their VR headset staff.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2...

Yeah, looks like they're pivoting their non-Steam/game related dev strategies more towards linux gaming and better streaming support than anything else

> No need to mess with sensors during setup; just plug and play.

If that's what you want, the WMR headsets have provided it at a lower price point and equivalent spec for years.

WMR = Windows Mixed Reality. Had to look it up. Please ease off on the acronyms or add a parentheses to clarify.

Sorry, I'm usually more careful with this kind of thing but having one of these headsets (Sony HMD Odyssey, it's great and the newer version is meant to be even better) and lurking on /r/WindowsMR it somehow didn't even cross my mind that it was an obscure acryonym.

The gameplay-experience isn't what is holding VR back. VR was good enough 3 years ago.

Price, PC-Specs, and ridiculously complicated setups are the reason, why VR hasn't taken off yet. The Rift-S helps with all of those issues.

It makes some smart tradeoffs, so that it is accessible to more people.

> The gameplay-experience isn't what is holding VR back. VR was good enough 3 years ago.

This is wrong. All of the other things you mention matter, but at the end of the day I cannot buy a compelling VR experience at any price. VR itself still needs to be improved before all of those other things matter.

VR is incredibly underwhelming at this point, regardless of price. I'd say it's still a few years away from being good enough I'd want to buy it, and I'd expect to have to pay over $1000 for that pleasure when the time comes (ignoring the cost of the top-of-the-line gaming PC to accompany it).

And that's only talking about the actual technology in the headset, that's not even discussing the lack of good content.

And many (maybe most) people still get sick when using VR for more than an hour, so the argument it's "good enough" is absurd.

Have you tried PC VR recently? It's very compelling.

There are obviously still lots of things that could be improved, but high resolution isn't necessary to make VR "compelling" any more HD screens were necessary to make console gaming compelling.

What have you tried so far? I bought myself a Rift during the last Black Friday and am very pleased. BeatSaber and Eleven Table Tennis alone make it worth.

I tried the Oculus Rift at Facebook HQ with all of the fancy dongles, including things I'm not allowed to talk about.

I've also tried the regular HTC Vive.

Both felt like a gimmick, and the Vive made my girlfriend nauseous after a few minutes.

I'm a big believer in the potential of VR, but the current options do not impress me. I think it's still a few years away for someone like me, and still another 5+ years where it starts to become mainstream (largely due to cost and lack of content).

FWIW I tried the Quest recently and it felt consumer-ready in a way none of the other systems I've tried so far did. Mostly due to the freedom to move without the cable, increased resolution, and better lenses (the price doesn't hurt either).

That's coming out in a few months though, and it certainly addresses the cost point. Is the main thing you think will take 5+ years content? Trying the Quest I couldn't help but be reminded of the Wii (maybe because I played a tennis game). Even though it's not perfect it offers a very novel experience at an affordable price point. I have no idea what the content line up for the system is though.

The first problem is the technology just isn't good enough yet - it literally makes people sick. Higher resolution, faster frame rates, and better tracking can help with this.

The second problem is it's too expensive. Once there is enough demand to scale the technology better, costs can come down. And costs for better screens and chips will come down in time on their own anyway.

The third problem is a lack of content. For the amount of money Facebook has been pouring into VR developers, it's really just sad how few good games there are. The general consensus I hear from gamers is they've just given up on VR, and I don't know any devs who see it as anything more than an experiment right now.

There just isn't anything compelling about VR right now, at least not for me. Even the people I know who used to champion it almost never use it anymore, and many of my friends who used to work at Oculus have quit as they no longer believe in the vision.

All of this is anecdotal of course. The real data point is sales, and they are bad. Look at VR sales and compare them to the Microsoft Kinect, which MS has essentially abandoned and admitted to being a failure (at least for gaming and mainstream consumer applications). If VR is woefully trailing behind a technology accepted to be a failure that was practically force-fed down consumer's throats as MS tried to push it with their Xbox business, it's hard to see a bright future for VR.

It's been years and billions of dollars have been spent, and VR has a couple of indie hits and no killer app.

It's not too surprising that sales are bad, the V1 hardware is pretty terrible in various ways, and the cost all in is ~$1400 for a PC system (cheaper for PlayStation but not that cheap). At least management at Facebook and Valve have been very clear that their expectations for V1 were not high.

If you look at tablet PCs, Microsoft didn't capture much market share with early $1000+ systems with non-touch based software, but there was still room for the iPad to come in at a lower price and be a successful product.

I think the difference between a (not-terrible) mobile system like the Quest at $400 and existing PC based systems is at least as stark. BTW I didn't hear of anyone getting motion sick, but neither of the Quest demos had any artificial movement, and people weren't using it for hours.

Of course there still needs to be content with some sort of appeal. That's pretty subjective. I liked the tennis demo I had, the lack of a cable made quite a big difference and the lenses aren't nearly as fussy to get a clear picture. I'm not a big gamer but I like being active IRL and playing table tennis etc. I don't know how big a market that is. But I could see myself buying one at $400, not as a developer, if it had a variety of that sort of stuff. None of the other systems I've tried get remotely close to that, in terms cost/inconvenience for what you get.

I'm also curious about movie watching. I wouldn't use existing systems for it, but a higher-res mobile system with better lenses (and hopefully a native Netflix app)? I'm very curious to see if it's a practical thing yet. People watch lots of shows on their phone, it doesn't seem unthinkable that VR could have some appeal for that.

If they have decent content, I think they will probably move more units than VR systems have to date. But to think about the Wii again, even though it was successful as a device it still didn't end up having a major long-term impact...

I don't think just the numbers matter in early stage hardware while there are still extreme qualitative differences. You see companies that focused on cardboard/GearVR based on that sort of reasoning, even though that had an even less likely future as a platform than fully-tracked systems. The Palm Treo wasn't a mass market product, but that hardly doomed smartphones.

To be honest though, I'm surprised the VR porn industry hasn't really taken off. Though that's hardly the driver of high end rigs, but rather more towards something lower end.

VR Dev since 2014, here.

The content is what makes people sick, not the hardware (these days). I haven't gotten sick in VR since Rift DK2. Been using the Vive since. No sickness in The Lab. Recently tried playing Everest VR -- queasy due to lots of flying, slow camera movement. Apollo 11 was a lot better, but still had some iffy swooping camera moves.

Basically, you can not make the same kind of game for VR that you would for non-VR, but developers keep trying and they end up making players sick.

Finally, there's a problem with maximizers vs. satisficers and VR. I would say that it's not about comparing specs and buying the "best" device -- although maybe that's a problem of price point. Instead of looking for flaws, allow yourself to suspend disbelief. This requires good content.

Every single game and experience in Valve's "The Lab" is excellent. On Rift, Robo Recall is excellent. Very few games reach this level of polish (graphics, audio, HCI).

Look at the original Star Wars (A New Hope). The special FX are shite by today's standards. If we were just to compare bullet points of features, it would be garbage. Let yourself be transported.

People get sick mostly because of the neurological issues associated with keeping eyes focused on objects at fixed lengths even though they are perceived as far away in the VR world.

Vergence-accommodation conflict:

https://medium.com/vrinflux-dot-com/vergence-accommodation-c...

Vergence accommodation conflict is a contributor but not anywhere near a primary source.

The jury is still out on that. There simply is no research to prove or disprove what you or I are saying.

My educated guess is that it actually is quite important and the key to making VR more comfortable for long term use.

I think it is the primary issue. I am a software developer who works in the neuroscience field. I am not an MD but I have read enough research to know you cannot definitively say what the cause is, and that disrupting such natural processes in the brain are likely to have consequences. To me it seems obvious that it's the primary source of the headaches and nausea commonly associated with VR.

For example I have certainly felt sick in the real world from roller coasters. But I have never felt the type of sick I get when I put on a VR helmet. It's another feeling all together. And it comes on differently than any other sick feeling I've had. This is anecdotal of course. I digress.

If VR doesn't solve this issue, VR doesn't go anywhere IMHO. But it's obvious they will solve it in time and as someone who closely follows the field it seems to be one of their primary concerns.

I've been working in VR and AR for nearly a decade. I've even built my own headsets. The experiences that make people sick are always low framerate. I've put people through experiences pegged at 90FPS for hours at a time with no nausea.

Perfectly valid point. I still think vergence/accommodation needs to be solved as an important key step in VR dev for more comfortable experiences. Its harder to do than just upping frame rates.

You need foveated rendering to start with but im sure you know the rest. If you want VR, well you need actual VR. Its not enough to trick your vision superficially. You have trick the whole system. I digress.

Foveated rendering doesn't solve vergence accommodation. Your eye will still be focused at infinity regardless of where you are looking, you'll just have the illusion that the foreground or background are out of focus. Eye tracking plus dynamic lenses (perhaps liquid lenses) or real light fields are necessary.

The primary engineering challenge of VR is motion sickness caused by a mismatch of visual and inner ear information, which is extremely well established as causing people to throw up in a wide range of contexts outside of VR. The principles behind modern VR tech are decades old - the reason we're getting consumer VR now, in the late 2010s, is because commodity computing hardware is now fast enough to render scenes and track heads with a low enough latency to prevent motion sickness. However, low hardware latency is necessary but not sufficient to prevent motion sickness - the application developer also has a responsibility not to throw the user around in virtual space without corresponding real-world movement. A great many VR applications do not respect this principle - two such programs were mentioned by JabavuAdams at the top of the thread. Hence, the primary cause of nausea on VR is motion sickness caused by content.

Yes, even in a decent VR experience you will get headaches after an hour or two, possibly or even probably from vergence-accomodation conflict. But that's entirely secondary - you won't last more than a couple minutes on a virtual roller coaster.

If this were true, why can I stay in The Lab for hours, but I get sick in Everest VR in minutes, on the same hardware? Why did the dozens of VR devs I have talked to get sick on 2014-2015 hardware, playing tech-demos, but they don't on 2018 hardware, playing games designed for comfort?

Also, lack of positional sensing (versus angular) on mobile VR devices is a much bigger contributor to discomfort.

I'm not sure why you're so keen on vergence accommodation, but it seems that you're focusing on a tiny effect, when the large effects are known.

Just because there's little in the peer-reviewed literature, does not mean that this is poorly understood by practitioners.

I come from a neuroscience background hence my bias. It's the fundamental way in which we focus on objects in the real world. It is not functioning normally at all with a headset on.

No one Ive met can stay in VR for hours regardless of game. Most of my friends who have tried or have VR devices get sick after 45 minutes. Admittedly they are not VR enthusiasts or hard core gamers however.

That sounds pretty anecdotal for a scientist.

Not a scientist. I'm a developer who has been working in the neuroscience field for 15 years, specifically with brain stimulation devices.

I'm not saying this qualifies as any sort of degree nor was I saying you should count my anecdotes as facts.

It is simply my belief that the vergence-accommodation conflict needs to be solved before VR will be adopted by the masses. I think vergence-accommodation neurological process should stay coupled as it does in nature to provide a completely natural feeling and non strained experience for the user. The research here is scant. Perhaps someone is aware of some ongoing research on this topic.

I'm curious -- which hardware devices? I find Vive and (current-gen) Oculus Rift the most comfortable. The biggest issue for me playing a well-designed game is fogging up due to sweating.

EDIT> I have a relatively low tolerance for motion sickness.

They were Vive headsets. From the moment I put on the helmet something feels off and I can't quite focus on objects comfortably without some kind of strain. I've learned over time to let my eyes just relax and not try to focus but it still gets me after about 30-45 minutes. If I'm in Big screen watching a movie it's not a big deal because my eyes aren't moving around focusing on different objects in a room so much. But if I'm out walking around in Skyrim I feel sick after about 30 minutes.

What are the walking controls in Skyrim? Any kind of locomotion that is not strictly tied to the player's movement is a big no-no for comfort. This is a huge problem for the kinds of FPS games that people want to make for VR. The fundamental problem is that you're not moving but your whole field of view is telling you that you are.

I've read that this is a problem for astronauts IRL when they're in free-fall next to a slowly rotating or panning object that occupies a lot of their field of view. So, that would be a kind of existence proof that it's not vergence, but rather optical flow that is decoupled from the subject's actual motion.

It sucks, but basically FPS games are out for VR, until you can actually run around, leap, etc.

EDIT> Another example -- during a scene in Apollo 11 where the camera (and hence my view) was orbiting the spaceraft while my IRL body was still, I started to feel queasy. I was able to reduce the sensation by looking at the growing space-craft as it started to fill more and more of my field of view -- it was relatively stationary to me. This again speaks to optical flow, and motion that is out of whack with what the player's ears are telling them. Another cheat along these lines is to use a cockpit that is fixed relative to the player's view to reduce the amount of visual area that is giving wrong motion cues.

EDIT2> I'd be interested to know whether you can last longer in a game that uses only your own IRL motion + instant teleport. So, no thumbsticks, mouse, keyboard locomotion -- as these are all known chunder inducers. Unfortunately non-VR games with bolt-on VR are like the worst-case for comfort, but also often the games that we really want to see in VR.

How do you get from this limited experience to "at the end of the day I cannot buy a compelling VR experience at any price"? It sounds more like current VR tech just doesn't work /for you/ on the couple of demos you've tried.

If that were the case, why didn't Microsoft's WMR partners blow everyone away (pretty sure 100% have used inside out tracking which prevents the station setup of Vive/Rift plus the lower barrier to entry PC specifications)?

I bought the Odyssey+ HMD during the Black Friday sale and I must admit, it is fantastic. But outside of that incredibly low priced sale ($299 I think it was?), I don't think WMR headsets have been really hot sellers while having access to most (all? I don't know) SteamVR titles and the ability to use Oculus ones via ReVive. I personally haven't had any tracking issues, but I haven't played anything where a hand goes behind the view of the visor like Skyrim, apparently.

Oculus Quest/Gear VR/etc seem more like the setups that will make VR "take off" (if it is going to, that is). The tethered experience seems more for the enthusiast but this particular side-upgrade seems to be going for the worst of both worlds (a tethered experience that isn't going to really resonate with enthusiasts as it most likely isn't an upgrade over their current setup and due to that tethering probably not going to appeal to the mass market either).

> If that were the case, why didn't Microsoft's WMR partners blow everyone away?

I can only speak for myself here: I bought the Rift, because I didn't know anything about VR and trusted Oculus more than some 'wierd unknown' manufacturer. (a lack of knowledge is another huge issue in my experience)

To be clear: I don't think, the Rift S is going to _fix_ any of those issues. But it certainly is an improvement. And that's what so many are debating here.

> The tethered experience seems more for the enthusiast

I don't know... If everybody with a 1070 or better is an enthusiast, then you might be right. But as PC's get faster, that will hopefully change.

No. Palmer Luckey even said so:

https://www.roadtovr.com/oculus-founder-palmer-luckey-price-...

http://palmerluckey.com/free-isnt-cheap-enough/

I think after the Quest it would be a big mistake to make PC headsets a separate product anyway. Any resources for Rift 2 would be better invested on Quest 2 and making it work well with a PC (plugged in, wirelessly, or both).

I can't see any fundamental design differences between a good mobile and PC headset. Sure the PC can drive a higher resolution on most games (for more detail or field-of-view). But even mobile can run certain apps like virtual theaters at high res, and it will benefit from less screen door effect. The weight distribution of the battery needs to be solved in any case, and a wireless PC-only headset would need a battery too. If an ultra-high res screen increases the cost they can always do multiple products but I don't see why they should segment them into PC/mobile. I think most PC users would rather pay an extra $50 for an all-in-one device that works with PC and standalone than $400 each for entirely separate headsets.

Looking forward a little bit, it might make sense for Oculus to make a compact wireless eGPU if they want to be competitive on high end graphics, since it could probably have much better setup, cost, and portability for users that don't already own a gaming PC (in addition to providing a standard performance profile). If the external graphics brick could have a snap on battery and be used on a backpack/vest even better. I've tried some arcade type stuff with multiple users, haptic feedback etc and it's pretty cool although totally non-standardized.

> Rift S and not the Rift 2

from cars industry: S version of any model means worse upholstery, worse radio, worse trim, worse engine, worse everything, but with a plastic spoiler!

Unless you're Tesla. ;)

Or Audi!

Tesla doesn’t have S versions, just a Model S

Audi as mentioned has S models and they’re legitimately better than their non-S counter parts (S-line package is not the same)

quite opposite, see Mercedes S-Klasse.

s class and model s are models not badges on top of models. But even the mercedez c class have a sports submodel that falls into the S badge paradigm

There are bunch of tech not available on C-Klasse or even E-Klasse that is on S one.

Not for Porsche or Audi.

> Wider lens sweet spot

... and it's gone. Software IPD means a tiny sweet spot. Even if this is mitigated by slightly better optics it'll be smaller. Plus lack of hardware IPD will cause eye fatigue and headaches; discomfort is still an important part of VR HMD considerations. It didn't go away.

And using LCD means no blacks. So crappy space sims and games that have to be made to not use black.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com