New Vive Pro

[Skuzzy]

So the consumer support is consistent with the developer support.  I.E. nonexistent and what might be there is a joke.  Actually, nonexistent would be better than what they have.

[DubiousKB]

Excellent, thanks for the information!  Thinking the Rift is now the way to go for this gamer...

 

[Gman]

Pretty much Skuzzy - on HTC's own forums I simply can't believe how bad they let things get, completely out of control in terms of a backlog of people with huge hardware problems, some waiting 4 to 6 months just to get a resolution started.  It doesn't surprise me that on the developer side they are just as incompetent.  I was told there is only 4 reps on the continent of North America for the entire HTC company by one rep there...the rest is all outsourced, and not outsourced well.

I read that RoadtoVR article - it looks like the hew headset is shipping without the new 2.0 sensors...which means you'll have to own a current Vive with the old sensors in order to even use it.  I'll cut paste the paragraph about this -

Today at CES, HTC announced that the Vive Pro would be first shipping sometime in Q1 as the headset only. That means it would be used with the old Vive wand controllers, with both the headset and the controllers utilizing 1.0 tracking. HTC said that later in the year the Vive Pro will eventually ship with 2.0 base stations and controllers, but they didn’t specify which controllers. 2.0 base stations aren’t compatible with the current Vive wand controllers, so it will either be a the same wand controller with updated 2.0 sensors, or something completely new.

So, if I read that correctly, the new 2.0 sensors will come out later - knowing HTC much later - in 2018, and in the meantime you're just going to be stuck with using the old sensors on the new headset?  A headset which the article hints at being even more than the $800USD cost of the original Vive?  I hope that's all incorrect, as I see the makings of gong show 2.0 in this article,  and it's not even out yet.

[Mister Fork]

Edit - The Rift works extremely well for the space game Elite Dangerous.  It was the 2nd or 3rd thing I played using the Rift.

When showcasing my Rift, I load up Elite Dangerous and let them try it out - having the Saitek controllers is kinda neat cause the ingame controllers kinda look like a Saitek X-52.

[Gman]

Still, the new Vive is about 1/2 way there to what I "want", in terms of improving the resolution and general look of the screens.  I sure hope Oculus has a counter for this.  I'll honestly probably try the new HTC headset, only IF I don't have to buy another old one for the sensors, just to see how much better the resolution looks - after all, I still have a "free" one thanks to HTC's incompetence and stupidity.  Unless they announce a similar Rift that will come out soon too, then I'll wait for that, but if it's going to be a year for a Rift 2.0/whatever, and I can see that since Oculus is coming out with China focused "cheap" VR headsets right now, I may have to settle for the HTC for a higher res unit.

Real tough call, I absolutely HATE the idea of giving HTC any more money, even if I'm just giving their money back to them, but I also don't want to wait a year, IF the new resolution makes a big difference.  Probably wait to try one in a store, or get advice from a tester I really trust before getting one.

Again, optimal situation is Oculus or some other solid VR maker comes out with a higher res unit by Q2/Q3 this year.  I know there are the Pimax/etc ones, but guys I've read on other sim boards that have messed with it with other sim games, it didn't really blow my hair back, the reviews I read there. 

I'll admit, I'm one of the VR adopters -and I got them both right away - who really, really hates the resolution and general "huge step backwards" that both sets give compared to even a 1080p 24" LCD.  When you have 1440p and 4k 100 to 165hz units, comparing that screen to the VR one is a real, real drag.  Yes, it's the "experience' that VR gives, and I'm into that, but I sure do miss the higher quality graphics.  A lot.  Play a single player jet sim game, and realize that blob you're looking at just out of guns range in VR, comparatively to a good gaming LCD,  where you can read the numbers off of that same aircraft, and see little details....it's a big negative for me with VR.

[FLS]

VR resolution is better than 1080P. Saying the resolution is lower is misleading. The issue is that the virtual "screen" appears bigger than 24". Even with improved resolution you're still going to be looking at magnified pixels.

Compare VR to 1080P projected on a wall and VR looks pretty good.

[Mister Fork]

For me, it's not necessarily the resolution, but the field of view offered by the headset.  Both right now make me feel like I'm walking around with a pair of swimming goggles on.  The first headset that has a broader screen to cover a better and more realistic peripheral view with decent resolution will be the winner in the long run.  It's that lack of side vision that causes balance issues for some wearers.

Vive 2.0 doesn't address that - maybe Rift 2.0 will? Resolution is nice, but total view is king.

[germ]

The other game i'd really like to experience in VR is Elite Dangerous, anyone have experience with that game and VR?

I picked up Elite Dangerous, but haven't played it yet because I got stuck in the UI trying to figure out how to map my CH hardware. I got frustrated and gave up.

[Gman]

VR resolution is better than 1080P. Saying the resolution is lower is misleading. The issue is that the virtual "screen" appears bigger than 24". Even with improved resolution you're still going to be looking at magnified pixels.

Compare VR to 1080P projected on a wall and VR looks pretty good.

I'll put it a different way - I only used 24" as it's the cheapest 1080p lcd size typically.

Take ANY sized 1080p lcd, 24, 27, 32, whatever - take a game, not this one, but say DCS.  When you're just into guns range on a planform aircraft, in VR, it looks like a blob, there is NO way you can even ID the type of aircraft at the same distance on a desktop LCD where you can literally see small details already.  That's what I mean.

To me what's misleading is people throwing out the VR resolution as though it's somehow comparable to desktop LCDs, number for number, as it's not, not even close (not you FLS btw).  A very low res (these days) LCD used for gaming, any old 1080p, is far, far superior to both VR sets out there now, when it comes to seeing details at similar ranges. Take any aircraft you can visually ID on a desktop, and look at it from the same distance in VR, and, again, it'll just be a giant blob essentially still.  You can tell it's a plane, but that's about it, and a similar distance.  A 1440p or 4k monitor, it's not even close.

What I'm after, and when I'll consider VR truly "there", and sell off my gaming 1440/4k LCDs, is when VR looks even reasonably close to a 1080p LCD in terms of the visual acuity of details.  It's not even close right now.  I doubt it'll be there even with Vive 2.0, but it'll be an improvement at least.  IMO it'll take a larger jump to even higher VR resolutions, higher than the 8k Pimax perhaps even, to get it to where it looks as good as a desktop from the last generation/1080p. 

[hitech]

The reason the resolution is so much differences is

First your real real res is 960 x 1080 to each eye.
2nd only ab out 70% of the the 960 x 1080 is Visable. 

Hence your are down to and apparent res of 672 x 756.

HiTech

[Gman]

HT, does that mean that if you turned a desktop down to that res, 672x756 or something similar/close, that it would be fairly close to representing what you see in VR?

Will HTC try out one of the Vive 2.0s if they offer dealer/creator units?  If it comes out in Q1 as they say, this is the first place I'll watch to decide if it'll be worth it to try it out.

[Drano]

FWIW, I'm loving this conversation. I've delayed jumping into the VR thing for these exact reasons. What you can see in a game is very important! While it may be super awesome for a FPS game where visuals that matter range from a few feet to a few tens of feet, in the flying world you really NEED to be able to see, and clearly, over great distances. Hundreds and even thousands of yards of good vision are needed in this kind of game. Speeds are too fast. It's not the same as running on the ground. You simply HAVE to be able to identify a target's identity and attitude way farther out than just guns range.

I have no doubt that this tech will improve over time to get to this level of clarity but for now it's looking like updating my controllers is the right path. I'll wait. Make no mistake! I'll be all over this when one comes out that's RIGHT.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

[FLS]

The reason the resolution is so much differences is

First your real real res is 960 x 1080 to each eye.
2nd only ab out 70% of the the 960 x 1080 is Visable. 

Hence your are down to and apparent res of 672 x 756.

HiTech

That seems low. I would have guessed 1400x1200

I understand the horizontal overlaps but why is the vertical reduced? 

[DaddyAce]

FWIW, I'm loving this conversation. I've delayed jumping into the VR thing for these exact reasons. What you can see in a game is very important! While it may be super awesome for a FPS game where visuals that matter range from a few feet to a few tens of feet, in the flying world you really NEED to be able to see, and clearly, over great distances. Hundreds and even thousands of yards of good vision are needed in this kind of game. Speeds are too fast. It's not the same as running on the ground. You simply HAVE to be able to identify a target's identity and attitude way farther out than just guns range.

I have no doubt that this tech will improve over time to get to this level of clarity but for now it's looking like updating my controllers is the right path. I'll wait. Make no mistake! I'll be all over this when one comes out that's RIGHT.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk

...this basically summed up my thoughts too....until one of my sons sent me a rift.  I do find that when I receive helpful 6 calls in a fight, I have a more difficult time finding the bandit in the rift as compared to TrackIR/monitor, and end up getting shot down more often by someone I didn't see.  But the bottom line for me is that now that I've experienced the immersion of VR, I'll stick with it, and prefer the immersive experience despite, at least inititally, a SA penalty.

[Skuzzy]

The immersive experience is a compelling feature for VR.