Discussion in 'Video Cards & Monitors' started by summoner, Jul 9, 2018.
...and we keep banging on about the low resolution not making current VR worthless.
Well, I don't disagree that extra resolution would certainly be welcome, but it's not like VR is unplayable as it is today. It's far from perfect, and it'll be fantastic when we have high quality, high resolution displays, but I don't see it being especially likely that we get that in the next couple of years. My bet would probably be on 3rd/4th gen VR meeting the kinds of expectations you have of the technology. Wireless in particular won't be coming anytime soon i'd expect though, given the sheer amount of data involved in sending raw video. (It's easy enough to say 4k 240Hz VR will be perfect, but geeze, that's a far from realistic expectation for the time being, You're talking upwards of 8x the amount of pixels needing to be pushed xD)
Regardless, it's a fully functional and rather astounding technology as it is right now, though it isn't suitable for everyone given it's current limitations.
uh, rift has a wireless one coming like next month.
Of course, and there are wireless solutions for the Vive as well right now. I was speaking more in the context of higher resolution/fps headsets. As resolution and framerate increases wireless transmission is going to become a lot more difficult. Even conventional 4k is 4x as many pixels as the current headsets, which means you need 4x the bandwidth to transmit a signal, barring compression shenanigans. Increasing framerates contribute to the need for bandwidth too.
most gpu's cant go to the supersampling needed for decent perceived dpi/resolution so when 7nm cards come out with 1-4 cores and enough power to get 4k "90hz" or whatever vr has at that time in 202x ill be on it.
I know at this point I'm essentially being baited into it but you are wrong wrong wrong.
You can run the Pimax 8k on an Nvidia 1070.
The resolution of the game is not relevant to what you are saying, the better GPU you have, the better the game will look.
Higher resolution headsets will look better even if you don't get a better GPU.
There is no reason to wait for these 7nm cards you keep talking about.
True but there is some serious new tech The theoretical max speed of 802.11ac is eight 160MHz 256-QAM channels, each of which are capable of 866.7Mbps for a total of 6,933Mbps, or just shy of 7Gbps. That's a transfer rate of 900 megabytes per second
That is the most important bit. The Theoretical max speeds are basically, ideal conditions, which means end device is within few cm from the Access Point, no obstacles, no noise, interference etc, etc, etc....anyway 802.11ax should be available end of 2019 boosting the theoretical throughput to nearly 10Gbps pretty sure they will be able to get he wireless VR sorted in next 2-4 years., fingers crossed
In VR the most important factor in latency.
I mean, its big, but HDMI 2.0 is 18gbps and DP 1.4 is like 26gbps actual/32gbps total. Wireless isn't really all that close. If you put in compression maybe, but then you need decoders and latency becomes an issue.
4k60 needs 13 gbps, 4k90 ~ 20gbps. Wireless is still not close, even under optimal conditions with current wifi standards.
I'm guessing ultimately, we'll need the video processing to be done in the VR headset itself.
My experience with VR is that if you have space and room for a fixed setup the Vive/Vive Pro is the best setup. Once setup, jumping in an out of VR is quick. WMR is great as a portable/casual setup, but software/support behind it is lacking vs. the Vive.
I own both a Vive and the Samsung Odyssey and though the Odyssey has a higher resolution, I feel the VR experience with the Vive is better.
Processing video is not difficult for companies to do.
Compressing VR is not a good idea though, at such high resolutions how in the Vive and Vive Pro you can literally see the pixels, you aren't going to get very far before it negatively effects the experience.
Guys can I ask what GPU you would recommend to power a Rift - mostly will be used by a pilot for plane sims like X Plane 11 etc. I was suggesting 1080ti but perhaps 1070ti - 1080 would be fine at that res? Want it to be the best experience without a lag fest I guess.
Anyway any advice would be appreciated.
for VR I'd say faster the better....
1080ti if he can afford.. otherwise 1080 minimum
2080ti will be you're best friend
Haha sure it would, just need to start selling crack. The day I recommend anyone spend that money on a GPU is the day hell freezes over.
You really do need the best GPU you can buy.
Can probably be happy with a 1080ti though.
1080Ti works well for me, if the 2080Ti were in the same price zone that the 1080Ti was, I'd buy it, but for now, the pricing is insane.
I have 1080Ti and get 15FPS in X-plane 11 in VR but 60FPS in 4K monitor. It's open GL and bound to a single core on the CPU and we all know VR requires a LOT of CPU power.
Your GPU will be just sitting around pulling its dick. Hopefully when it goes Vulkan things go better.
DCS world on the other hand runs very nice!
Got a customers pc that I just upgraded from a gtx780 to a 1080ti and he wants me to test the occulus rift.. any suggestions as to what to test with?
Its a DK2, looks confusing to even use haha