cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Oculus Fuzz Question

tjstratton72
Honored Guest
Seems like these games are designed not quite for VR then they move it over to VR and we have to deal with this fuzzy picture. I'm surprised that the devs can't overcome this with software changes or a different type of headset that is perhaps larger/longer and counter weighted in the rear with wifi tech. I'd drop up to several grand on a device with a clear picture and wireless. Heck my now dated DellU3011 monitor was $1200. The PC guys will pay for high res.

Since this is VR picture quality should be the #1 concern. I bet they had prototypes of Oculus that were better but they went with this barely sufficient one for costs etc.
11 REPLIES 11

shiari
Heroic Explorer



I bought my 295x2 and DellU3011 years ago. Sure they are over $2600 but I'm still using them and I haven't been staring at crap 1080p resolution this whole time or having games fail with my buggy SLI setup or acting like multi monitors are actually good. I been looking at 2560x1600 - 30inch screen at 100fps with zero problems.


I'm going to call bollocks on that 100 fps claim.

There are many, many games where the 295X2 will not get anywhere near 100 fps at a 2560x1600 resolution. If it did I wouldn't feel the need to upgrade to Vega, as I'm now on a 3440x1440 75Hz ultrawide, and the 295X2 can not drive that screen (nor the Rift) adequately even in its freesync range of 45 to 75Hz. In some rare (usually old) games you can get close to that 100 fps at QHD resolutions *if* crossfire is supported well, but usually it's not supported or not supported well at all.

Sure, many Oculus experiences and games run okay on the 295X2 as long as you're not too sensitive to framerates. And there are some apps and games that really struggle like Quill, Elite: Dangerous, X-Plane 11, ETS2, etc. SteamVR itself doesn't run that great either. What it comes down to is that as crossfire generally won't work the card is effectively equivalent to a single R9 290, and that's minimum recommended spec.

Now lets say the displays went to QHD per eye, so 2560x1440 vs the 1080x1200 it is currently. That would more than double the number of pixels, 3.68M rather than 1.29M pixels per eye. Your performance would drop to well under comfortable ranges for most peeps, not even ASW would be able to cover that. Not even a 1080Ti or Titan would be able to drive 2 x 3.68M pixels at 90 fps, not anywhere close. You might be able to get about 50 fps or so from those, and that's only QHD. It would need eye-tracking, foveated rendering and incredibly low latency in that process to be able to boost that performance to comfortable levels.

No, GPU power and the tech in general isn't quite there yet for a massive jump in display resolution while keeping graphics fidelity to the level of Elite: Dangerous, Lone Echo, etc.

kzintzi
Trustee


The point I'm making is in the VR headset realm there is no high end rig. Its all this baby end crap for console etc. They just need to make it.


There have been high-end rigs available for a couple of years but they were never aimed at consumers.. there was one I saw about 4 years ago that had 9 OLED screens for each eye, and they were arranged in such a way that they provided something like 160deg FOV in all axis. of course this carried a $40,000US price, and that was just the headset.

unfortunately I can't find any references to that specific HMD any more - they used to be advertised on www.tekgear.ca back in the day but the one I'm thinking of isn't there anymore but some of the others still are, so if you're interested in what was considered cutting edge before Oculus take a look (kinda interesting to see what was the direction in the old days before hi-res single panels - the shift in thinking that happened REALLY changed how people were trying to make VR happen).
Though you are more than slightly incoherent, I agree with you Madam,
a plum is a terrible thing to do to a nostril.