Need to Register?

Currently you can register through a Gmail, Facebook, or OpenID account. This helps us avoid spam. Click an icon below! :)

Sign In with Facebook Sign In with Google Sign In with OpenID

Oculus Rift

They finally announced pre-orders will start later this year, and it will ship Q1 2016

https://www.oculus.com/blog/first-look-at-the-rift-shipping-q1-2016/

Comments

  • System requirements:

    https://www.oculus.com/blog/powering-the-rift/

    Think I'm due an upgrade early next year.
  • edited May 2015
    I've got to be honest, those specs seem very low given my experience with the Rift.

    For my DK2, the display is 1920x1080 at 75 Hz split across two eyes. I run games (typically Alien: Isolation and Elite: Dangerous) at 2560x1440, downscaled to 1920x1080. The downscaling makes text a lot more readable. It's not a requirement, but games like Elite definitely benefit from it, since you're not squinting at the HUD all the time. Presumably the new Rift will be a bit better with it's slightly higher resolution, but you'll still have to render at a higher resolution than the native 1080p on the DK2. Anyway, so I have to run games at at least 155 Mpixel/s, and I find to make them legitimately playable I need 276 Mpixel/second. Use these as a point of comparison to the minimum requirements in Epi's link and my system specs.

    Putting aside the pixel throughput for a second, the key here is that you need the minimum framerate you are capable of rendering to stay above 75 in order to get a good experience. Of course you'll vsync at 75 Hz so that's also your maximum displayed framerate, but you never want the framerate to drop below that. A couple things happen when it does fall off 75: First, the latency on head movement increases abruptly. Second, the low persistence mode for the display stops, so you get blacks that 'smear' when you move your head around. Third, it just sort of looks like shit and breaks the immersion. These three things combined will kick up any feelings of nausea, and otherwise decrease the amount of time you're willing to play. I can't stress enough how much a 'low framerate' feels shitty when you're moving your view around with your head instead of your mouse. It's a lot more disorienting.

    Anyway, I'm running a six-core i7-5820K, overclocked from 3.3 GHz to 4.4 GHz, 16 GB DDR4-2333 and dual-GTX970s with an overclock of around 15%. I'm finding that this is 'enough' for 2560x1440@75Hz, with details around the 'high' mark in the games I mentioned earlier. The resolution on the Rift being low DOES mean that you can lower the details without losing too much though, and antialiasing isn't really necessary when you're down-scaling (this acts as low-level supersampling anyway).

    So the point is that I'm running ~double the specs he recommends, and I feel like they're barely adequate. On top of that, the new rift has 25% more pixels on the display, and it displays 20% more fields per second (i.e. it needs to render 50% more pixels per second at native res). I imagine the higher res won't matter since most people already downscale on the DK2 and the target resolutions will be similar, but the 90 fps target framerate means systems will need a bit more oomph.

    Anyway, food for thought. BTW, while I'm glad I bought my Rift, I'm not sure that I would recommend (or discourage) it for others. If you haven't tried it, it really is as cool as you imagine it to be. With that said, I don't use it very much. Not because of technical limitations or anything, but rather just because you're wearing ski goggles while gaming in your house, and I've found that my stamina for that is a lot lower than when I'm just using a monitor. For me it lives in this weird space between 'life changing' and 'gimmick'.

    With that said, I've refused any offers to sell it. It is super cool ;)

    Anyway, I'd try one for a bit before you buy, just to make sure, and especially if you're going to drop a grand or two building a machine to power it. Mine is always available if one of you fuckers needs a demo, or even wants to borrow it for a few days.
  • I'm with Xo here, and why I'm upgrading now, mainly cause I want 4K @60Hz, but also if it will run 3840x2160 resolutions at 60fps (~12Gbits/sec), then the idea is it should have no problem running 2160x1200@90Hz (~8-9Gbits/sec?).

    ... and to that extent:

    From Amazon.com:
    Hello Darek Gajewski,
    "ASUS GeForce GTX TITAN X..." has shipped.

    :D - Ohh man I can't wait!

  • Hey.

    Just so you guys didn't miss it, Gif bought a GTX Titan X.
  • GifGif
    edited May 2015
    Can I be excited for once with out the sass level going up? You know some of us buy fancy BBQs, some buy cars, and others video cards :P
  • edited May 2015
    You are in the wrong place my friend. Winky face.
Sign In or Register to comment.

USDN.CA does not support IE8 or less. Things may not look good or work at all. Why aren't you using a modern browser? :)