Hacker News Reader

Comment by higherpurpose | Hacker News Reader

You'll need a "gaming rig". That's the simplest way I can put it. Don't buy an "ultrabook" or an "all in one" or some $500 laptop to use Oculus. Whether it's a PC (cheaper) or a notebook, it needs to be gaming-focused one.

In terms of specs I'd buy a GPU with at least a 3TF performance, and even that it's probably going to be "mediocre" for the next 2 years. 2TF should work, too, but might not last you too long, especially for new games. Obviously, the higher the performance the better, so if you can afford to pay thousands of dollars for a gaming rig knock yourself out. It will last longer.

You might also want to keep some accessories in mind, such as the Virtualix Omni or those full body controllers, which could cost you an extra thousand dollars.

View on HN

I'd be interested to know how simple you can make the graphics and still have a good experience. Isn't there an inherent problem with VR that if you try to compete with state of the art non-VR graphics, you're always going to need a more powerful machine for VR than you need for non-VR (e.g. larger field of view, two screens, higher FPS)? The problem will only increase as the headset Field of View increases.

Very simple graphics with flawless 75fps+ and very little lag is highly preferable to dropping frames in a complex scene. In fact Minecraft is a case in point - it works great in VR!

Everyone I know has a gaming rig of some type, but not anything that can do 1080p per eye at 60fps per eye, which is where this stuff actually starts to work correctly and what Oculus is designed to use (less motion sickness, better 3D illusion, etc).

I don't think a lot of people interested in this technology realize how much hardware they will need to buy to make this work. You're looking, at minimum, a $400-500 graphic card. Assuming you have the CPU heft to handle everything else. If not then there's another $400-500 for the chasis, mb, high-end cpu, high-watt ps, fast 8-16gb of RAM, etc. And that's for a fairly mid to low-end VR box. That could be $1000 out of pocket right there on top of whatever the Oculus costs.

Well, it depends entirely on your fidelity of course.

For example, just last night I played a game of Supreme Commander. That was one of the first games I know of that supported dual monitors, and it does it well. But I digress- the point is that I had it maxed out on two 1080p monitors and it was running at 60fps the whole time.

So yes, you will need a big beefy expensive graphics card to play the newest AAA games maxed out at 60fps. But you could always just turn the settings down, or play older games. I'm also willing to bet that when the VR market takes off later this year/early next year, that the indie scene will heartily embrace it. And typically most of those games run fine on "normal" hardware.

>For example, just last night I played a game of Supreme Commander.

I'm not buying a VR headset in 2016 to play a game from 2007.

If you're not happy with first generation then don't buy it. I guarantee that the second and third generation will be even better. Some guy whining on HN about a first generation product adds zero value. That first generation iPhone had lots of critics too, and rightly so.

Bottom line is that a real VR product ships in less than 12 months.

The Vive ships earlier, so Oculus will actually be second fiddle.

I had to turn down numerous sliders, including the Oculus Quality slider which made screen door pronounced, but I was able to play Elite at 70fps (you want 70 on the DK2) on a Retina iMac bootcamped into Windows. It tore or jerked occasionally, like in Lave, but it's not nearly as demanding as you say. Minecrift did even better.

My experience was very smooth and playable for hours. On a Mac. With laptop graphics. I'd definitely build a machine around a 980 next, but the tech is perfectly accessible.

If you're getting shitty graphics, turning everything off or lowering to low levels, low framerates, and screen door effect and jerking, etc uh I would rethink what it means to have an acceptable VR experience.

If anything your sub-par experience is proof that I'm correct. Without excellent hardware, the experience is terrible. Just because "it kinda worked" doesn't mean its going to sell or impress anyone.

You were arguing a barrier to entry, not quality. My point was there's not a wall in front of this stuff as you say. You moved the goalposts to "acceptable VR experience," which is a different topic and largely subjective.

I also never said the experience was terrible or "kinda worked." Quite the opposite, in fact, I rather enjoyed it even at a lower quality because I understand the limitations of things. Outside of Lave I stayed right at 70fps and could turn my head from left to right without even a millisecond of delay. It was actually the most fun I've ever had in PC gaming. But you're right, because I didn't have everything turned up to maximum, I should rethink my enjoyment.

Yep! I bought all the stuff you said, but skimped slightly on the CPU/motherboard (2 years old) and I'm having a terrible experience. A universe of judder :-( I'm ready to sell the whole thing.

In theory, with DX12 timed for a 2015 release it could ease the burden enough to make the PC upgrade easier. From what I've gathered DX12 will be significant in terms of efficiency, so new games which support it may be viable.

It's also worth considering whether new games that come out will take VR into account in terms of graphical complexity. If it's clear VR is a viable marketing strat for a game or it gets to a point where big games are expected to support it, it could mean a developer will compromise scene complexity for it. I'm okay with that.

That's fine. One thing that I am certain of: today's $500 video card is next year's $250 video card and the next year's default upgrade from on-motherboard.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com