NVIDIA GTX 970 / AMD 290 equivalent or greater - Intel i5-4590 equivalent or greater - 8GB+ RAM - Compatible HDMI 1.3 video output - 2x USB 3.0 ports - Windows 7 SP1 or newer
2160x1200 pixel screen | Effectively 1080x1200 Per Eye. The Device will also run at 90Hz
I was not expecting the resolution to be this low. But I guess I set my expectations too high. Oculus has always aimed for making VR a consumer Product. The computer requirements right now already shut out a lot of people with low end systems. If they made it higher we would've run into an even higher standard. I understand why they did it, because it was necessary.
I have a feeling CV2 will be the big brother of the CV1 with higher specs and be inherently more expensive.
I've never actually tried the oculus rift, but judging from a galaxy S6 edge up-close to my face (2560x1440) I have a feeling that this resolution (or pixel density rather) could be fine for the first consumer version. Of course staring at a really high res phone screen can't be compared directly because you lack the lenses and all that stuff, but I think it makes sense to go with this.
It's higher than 1080p since that was obviously too low, but it's not quite 1440p yet so a single GPU should be able to drive modern games at that resolution. The real problem is 90Hz IMO. Running a game at a consistent 90fps can be quite challenging.
Also, HDMI 1.3? I never really keep up with HDMI but that is supported by the R9 290(x), right? becaue otherwise recommending that card would be a bit silly.
As for the specs, makes total sense. You don't want people complaining about a terrible experience because their midrange system can't handle the resolution.
I'll do my best to try one at a store or at an event when they come out, but I might actually be interested in the CV1 if I don't get motionsick and if they have decent support for existing games (even if shooters aren't perfect for the VR exprience, it would probably be interesting to play them like that) and of course the "specifically made for VR" types of games. If the pixel density turns out to be too low then I'd probably also wait for CV2.
Also, crossfire should work with the Rift, right? There's no reason why it shouldn't? It just works as a different screen for your PC? Because that should really help in maintaining those 90fps.
It's not just the resolution it's the pixel fill or how much gap between the pixels there are (DK1 had huge screen door effect) And also persistant, how long it stays on screen. 90Hz is very good much better then DK2 at 75
Oh, okay. Again, I can just interpret it from my exprience with a 1440p OLED phone screen, but literally going as near as humanly possible with my eyes I had to focus to really see the tiny gaps inbetween or the individual pixels. IIRC they basically use low persistence phone screens for the rift, so OLED with a few tricks to eliminate blur while moving around. I don't know how much of a difference the lenses make, they might ruin everything that looked "fine" to me on a normal screen, but I sure hope that they know what they're doing with this.
That was like 300 bucks, right? I would imagine the consumer version is maybe a bit cheaper than that, but I'd be okay with that price as well. Seems okay for what's basically a dedicated gaming "monitor" with a unique experience.
And thus ended all interest in owning an Oculus Rift. I have used the DK1 and it was interesting but the resolution just killed it, completely not worth it. I know that CV1 is even higher but no where near enough
I was hoping when they were saying they would upgrade it that the jump would be to 2160p screens. At the distance from the eye that those screens you need pixel density in the 4-500 PPI range to be convincing or anywhere near as good as current displays we are used to.
The annoying thing is they are working with Samsung who have made 1440 screens and are working on 2160p screens. They would be a far better choice but still not up to scratch.
The problem is that to get a screen that is dense enough to looks good will also require GPUs that we don't have yet.
So yeah OSVR away. Custom high density screens. Oculus is useless to me now.
Yes I am aware that OSvR would not be any easier to.run and I did say that we don't have the GPUs to do it but it offers potentially better options than a fixed resolution and refresh rate.
Edit. Yes I have been out of touch revise that up to around 800ppi. 3840x2160 at 5.5 inch.
Looks like HTC/Valve's Vive is going to win in sales, even if it's a bit pricier. With both Oculus and Sony releasing in 2016, and with the first Oculus CV being so low, they're both in bad spots. At least for Sony, they have their console owners to fall back on as customers for their headset.
I don't think so, Enthusist may be loud but we're not the majority of users The recommended specs for CV1 are already extremely high. The majority of people don't have systems like that. Vive & OSVR are going to run into the issue where no one game use them because it's not possible. The point of Oculus is to be the first ti bring it to a widespread market.
This is where I expect Oculus to act like Mantel, not to be the one that assumes control but rather slingshots others to the front by making a viable base and usable games with the system that the likes of Vive and OSVR build on.
I think there were words along the lines that Vive and OSVR would work with Oculus enables games. But this I am not sure of.
I'd still recommend more horsepower though, FPS dips are significantly more noticeable in VR and cause a certain bunch of things to happen - Disorientation - motion sickness - Immersion breaking
