Nope. Unless they're using some sort of downscaling, number of pixels displayed = number of pixels that need rendering. The correct number is 2880*1600.
You actually need more pixels rendered than displayed.
The Vive and Rift already do this too.
Because of how the lenses work in the headsets you have to actually warp the rendered image a lot before displaying it on the panels. This warping causes a native pixel signal to become less than native around the edges once it's mapped to the actual displays after the lens warp.
So you need to super-sample the image before warping. HTC Vive and Rift are 1080x1200 per eye, so 2160x1200 total, but SteamVR renders the games by default at 3024x1680.
So for the new headset being native 2880x1600, if you need the same percent supersample for warping, you would need about 4032x2240.
This is not actually as bad as it sounds. Many people with the Vive are already supersampling their games in addition to the built in supersampling in order to geta little sharper image and less aliasing artifacts. I have GTX 1080 that is over 3 years old and I actually run my Vive at 200% resolution scale, so that means a 200% higher area, and that applies after the lens warp super sample.
So 3024x1680 is 5 million pixels. I'm actually rendering at 10 million pixels on my GTX 1080.
If they supersample the Index by 40% to the 4032x2240 I quoted, well that's 9 million pixels, so actually 10% less than I have already currently been rendering on my GTX 1080 for the past 3 years.
This means that you could basically comfortably run a Index on a RTX 2060 which is about 10% slower than my GTX 1080.
Plus all the recent improvements to SteamVR with motion smoothing and such so that when you don't make frame time the framerate lowers gracefully and you don't see any stutters or anything like that.
Whoa, that’s a lot of technical detail for a semantic technicality!
The headset has 2880x1600 pixels. That means, the image that needs to be rendered to be sent to the display is… 2880x1600 pixels. What an app does on the back end to achieve maximum fidelity post-warp simply doesn’t come into it; we’re talking about what actually needs to be sent to the display, which is the warped image.
In terms of resolution through the cable or through a wireless adapter then yes you are correct that you only ever need 2880x1600.
I thought people were wondering about what resolution their GPU needs to render which probably will need to be more than 2880x1600 for an ideal result.
2880x1600 is what it needs to render. Though modern gfx cards (since the 1000 series on?) have been getting built in optimozations for VR. They shortcut some of the rendering pipeline, leveraging the fact that both eyes are looking the exact same direction and generally are seeing an identical environment. Only the final "to the view" transforms are done per eye.
So the short of it is... it's actually less work than rendering a single huge screen in many cases.
Supersampling is just highly recommended since it provides excellent antialiasing results. Aliasing is VERY noticable with current VR headsets, so in most games, it is totally worth the extra rendering.
Supersampling is not required at all. Yes it produces clean antialiasing results, but it is not required nor is it necessary to adjust for the lenses.
In fact, VR often runs a tiny bit faster than rendering an entire scene at the combined resolution. The graphics card vendors and the headset makers have worked very, very hard to squeeze out any optimizations they can. Not the least of which is shortcutting the rendering pipeline so that EG: geometry and many aspects of texture sampling do not have to be fully computed for each eye per frame. They are looking the same direction at the same geometry, so there is little need to do EVERY step of the pipeline for both eyes.
Supersampling is still a good idea for clarity, but it is not required or enforced for all games.
Yes it's a mistake, their other article is right : « The HP Reverb VR headset is outfitted with two 2.89-inch screens featuring a 2160×2160 resolution per eye (4320×2160 combined resolution), (...) »
Doesn't fix my main problem with most headsets: 1) it's still wired. All new headsets should be wireless by now - or at least only needing to plug into a battery pack clipped to your waist. 2) it's far to bulky and all that weight is out the front putting strain on your neck. Needs to be much lighter and better balanced.
Ya, I think they could help even out the weight by putting more of the electronics on the back of the thing, while only having the screens in front. Not sure what that'd do for latency though.
At these resolutions and refresh rates, low-latency wireless already exists and works well (google "Vive Pro wireless" if you don't believe me). For higher resolutions, there's foveated compression to reduce the required bandwidth.
AMD demo'd VR over standard 5 GHz wifi. Supposedly, it's pretty decent. My guess is they're doing some sort of ATW in the HMD, itself. If so, that can hide a lot of latency.
Imagine how much better it'd be, if you didn't have to traverse a whole wifi stack, but instead had a purpose-built wireless connection integrated directly into the GPU.
Facebook has already figured out that the market for VR headsets has run out of Steam (see what I did there?). Old Zuckster even dropped that deuce last time he talked company finances -- covering the fact that buying up Occulus was a mistake and that VR wasn't going anywhere. Instead Facebook is putting most of that development on the back burner in favor of entering a holding pattern while technologies improve so it too can creep out people in the same way Alphabet did with Google Glass. It looks like Valve has to learn the hard way this time around just like it did with it's dressed up Linux OS and PCs too. I suppose it'll take a few more companies sinking money into R&D to make things no one buys before everybody gets off the VR train at the next station.
I agree. I love vr but there just arent enough games. No way I'm going to pay $1000 considering I already have a rift. And those controllers... exactly how many people are going to own a pair and how will that justify any development of games that actually use them???
Agreed, the idea of VR is interesting, but the limitations (costs included) result in slow adoption and a lack of software support. We aren't there yet. Someday we will be, but I don't think this latest attempt has all of the necessary elements for success.
I don't know what Zuckerberg has said in the last few years, and you haven't linked to anything, but back in 2015 he sent an email saying: "Our vision is that VR / AR will be the next major computing platform after mobile in about 10 years." So, he, unlike most millennials seems to be thinking more than 1 or 2 years down the road. And he, in 2015, did not expect VR / AR to have taken over by now, 2019.
I think what Facebook has realized is that better display technology is necessary to make VR a success. It needs to have full or nearly full field of view, eye tracking, and some way of dealing with vergence-accomodation conflict. They canceled their next-generation hardware that didn't deal with the key issues holding the platform back and will come out with something that does. Eventually, all the technologies will come together to make VR a complete experience: display technology, accurate physics and acoustics, accurate rendering technology (use of ray tracing), sufficient processing power, accurate tracking of representation of users' bodies and faces, user input, and developer savvy with hiding the limitations and taking advantage of things that work. But it will take years to happen. It is an intimate interface between a virtual world and human psychology, what do you expect?
yeah fans would also solve the lenses fogging when the headset is not yet warmed up from its IR emitters. i would also reccomend the removeable (and washable) cloth facial interface replacements. its just way more comfortable than that foam sweat sponge that the rift comes with.
LCD tech is already pretty good for 240Hz screens and with the backlight synchronized to the refresh rate (as the "ultra-low persistence global backlight illumination" suggests) it should work pretty well. Though a full RGB-OLED display with that resolution would have been nicer, you can't have everything and a lot of people (reddit thread I read a while ago) said they liked the low-res RGB PSVR OLED more than the high-res pentile-ish OLED of Oculus and Vive offerings. For $1k I think I will pass.
I'm still absolutely baffled that they're using displays that are taller than they are wide. I get that maintaining vertical viewing angles is important, but human vision is wide, not tall - even per eye. At least they're claiming 120-degree viewing angles, but compared to the 180+ of a human field of view, that's a rather narrow tunnel.
Human vision is dramatically more vertical than the movie industry has standardized on. Movie theaters usually fill 75%-80% of my horizontal field and 40-50% of my vertical field.
The human focal area is roughly circular, which is likely the chief reason you have this impression - we're accustomed to filtering out our horizontal peripheral vision to a far greater degree than our vertical peripheral vision, simply because there's far more of it. Also, a theater screen (unless it's Imax) comes nowhere close to filling your horizontal field of view either - that's an illusion created by the darkness in the theater in combination with the centering of the screen (and of the content on the screen) conditioning you to barely move your eyes around. Calculating a field of vision based on constantly staring straight ahead is useless, as that's not how humans work, and even then our field of view is much wider than most people think.
Of course the vast majority of our field of view is peripheral vision, which means that it's relatively blurry, not very rich in color, and we're barely able to "see" it consciously - but that doesn't negate the fact that it's extremely important for spatial awareness and detecting movement. And cutting it out does create a tunnel vision effect, period.
You don't seem to spend much time outside and off-pavement.
If you're walking around in the un-built world - especially the forests and jungles where our ancestors evolved - you need to pay attention to both the ground and what's above.
"Human vision is dramatically more vertical than the movie industry has standardized on." Not sure why you bring in the movie industry. This concerns biology more than movies. And biology shows that we move our eyes and head more left to right than up and down.
Is this set usable by people who have to wear glasses? I don't see any mention of it here. I also like to know if and how well this is ventilated. Some of these VR goggles can get quite hot and uncomfortable.
I like that it uses DisplayPort or VirtualLink instead of HDMI, and the controllers look like the best in the industry right now. Tracking towers are still a non-starter for me, though. I get that they are more accurate overall and better for room-scale, but I don't have a dedicated room for VR. For me, it's sitting or standing with only a little side-to-side movement (VR racing is great!). I hope we'll see similar finger-tracking controllers with inside-out tracking soon.
Also, I think you meant to say "interpupillary distance". "Interpapillary" would be a whole other thing entirely, and kind of weird.
I ended up 3D printing wall mounts for the HTC Vive trackers that hang from a picture hook on a single small nail. The built-in solution required six large screws in my wall and floor-standing towers are equally obtrusive. Not sure why the product designers over-engineered this one because the hook solution is no more difficult than putting a couple of small pictures on your wall...
Being a "VR enthusiast" I think every aspect of this looks amazing. Most people don't seem to appreciate the advancement made by this headset. Wider FOV, higher pixel density, smaller inter-pixel gaps, 120hz+ screens, dual element lenses with IPD and Lens Distance adjustment, off ear flat panel sound, 3D camera pass through with developer SDK, a built in accessory port, the largest tracking area, best tracking fidelity and controllers with finger tracking.
I do appreciate it a lot. But the price is too steep and the PC hardware needed for it doesnt even exist yet, unless you put like 2 or 3 2080 Ti in your PC, which would make the price completely insane and you going nuts from microstuttering and power bills. So it will fail. Its too soon, unless Valve is going to announce a GPU tomorrow that is twice as fast as a 2080 Ti and costs only $500.
Any indication this will be coming out with the launch of a premium valve title? Seems like they used to launch new engines and tech with an amazing new game.
Far too expensive. I mean the technology looks good on paper, but thinking about what kind of a PC you need for that and that even the fastest GPUs are essentially still too slow for that at 120 FPS, its just not feasible.
Wait another 2 or 3 GPU generations, which should also decrease their price a good amount for performance like this, and then we can talk about it again. GPUs able to power this first need to reach at least GTX 2070 prices. Before that, this will just not be successful enough. So now, this will just be another overpriced VR set that only few people will buy, and will probably be axed again in a few years, like all Steam hardware so far.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
55 Comments
Back to Article
HollyDOL - Thursday, May 2, 2019 - link
The Valve Index is equipped with two LCD screens featuring a 1440×1600 resolution per eye (2880×3200 combined resolution)Shouldn't that be 2880x1600 combined? Or I am missing something here?
Squeeler - Thursday, May 2, 2019 - link
Exactly. Unless you have 4 eyes.jordanclock - Thursday, May 2, 2019 - link
According to all of the football players I met in high school, I indeed have four eyes.Tunnah - Thursday, May 2, 2019 - link
I think they mean in the sense of pixels needed to be pushed.Valantar - Thursday, May 2, 2019 - link
Nope. Unless they're using some sort of downscaling, number of pixels displayed = number of pixels that need rendering. The correct number is 2880*1600.SirMaster - Thursday, May 2, 2019 - link
You actually need more pixels rendered than displayed.The Vive and Rift already do this too.
Because of how the lenses work in the headsets you have to actually warp the rendered image a lot before displaying it on the panels. This warping causes a native pixel signal to become less than native around the edges once it's mapped to the actual displays after the lens warp.
So you need to super-sample the image before warping. HTC Vive and Rift are 1080x1200 per eye, so 2160x1200 total, but SteamVR renders the games by default at 3024x1680.
So for the new headset being native 2880x1600, if you need the same percent supersample for warping, you would need about 4032x2240.
This is not actually as bad as it sounds. Many people with the Vive are already supersampling their games in addition to the built in supersampling in order to geta little sharper image and less aliasing artifacts. I have GTX 1080 that is over 3 years old and I actually run my Vive at 200% resolution scale, so that means a 200% higher area, and that applies after the lens warp super sample.
So 3024x1680 is 5 million pixels. I'm actually rendering at 10 million pixels on my GTX 1080.
If they supersample the Index by 40% to the 4032x2240 I quoted, well that's 9 million pixels, so actually 10% less than I have already currently been rendering on my GTX 1080 for the past 3 years.
This means that you could basically comfortably run a Index on a RTX 2060 which is about 10% slower than my GTX 1080.
Plus all the recent improvements to SteamVR with motion smoothing and such so that when you don't make frame time the framerate lowers gracefully and you don't see any stutters or anything like that.
chaos215bar2 - Thursday, May 2, 2019 - link
Whoa, that’s a lot of technical detail for a semantic technicality!The headset has 2880x1600 pixels. That means, the image that needs to be rendered to be sent to the display is… 2880x1600 pixels. What an app does on the back end to achieve maximum fidelity post-warp simply doesn’t come into it; we’re talking about what actually needs to be sent to the display, which is the warped image.
SirMaster - Thursday, May 2, 2019 - link
In terms of resolution through the cable or through a wireless adapter then yes you are correct that you only ever need 2880x1600.I thought people were wondering about what resolution their GPU needs to render which probably will need to be more than 2880x1600 for an ideal result.
MotoAsh - Monday, May 6, 2019 - link
2880x1600 is what it needs to render. Though modern gfx cards (since the 1000 series on?) have been getting built in optimozations for VR. They shortcut some of the rendering pipeline, leveraging the fact that both eyes are looking the exact same direction and generally are seeing an identical environment. Only the final "to the view" transforms are done per eye.So the short of it is... it's actually less work than rendering a single huge screen in many cases.
Supersampling is just highly recommended since it provides excellent antialiasing results. Aliasing is VERY noticable with current VR headsets, so in most games, it is totally worth the extra rendering.
MotoAsh - Monday, May 6, 2019 - link
EDIT: Woops, I misspoke a bit. It's not less work than ONE giant image, but it is less work than two completely separate views.Thud2 - Thursday, May 2, 2019 - link
Can you elaborate?MotoAsh - Monday, May 6, 2019 - link
Supersampling is not required at all. Yes it produces clean antialiasing results, but it is not required nor is it necessary to adjust for the lenses.In fact, VR often runs a tiny bit faster than rendering an entire scene at the combined resolution. The graphics card vendors and the headset makers have worked very, very hard to squeeze out any optimizations they can. Not the least of which is shortcutting the rendering pipeline so that EG: geometry and many aspects of texture sampling do not have to be fully computed for each eye per frame. They are looking the same direction at the same geometry, so there is little need to do EVERY step of the pipeline for both eyes.
Supersampling is still a good idea for clarity, but it is not required or enforced for all games.
MotoAsh - Monday, May 6, 2019 - link
EDIT: Sorry, I misspoke a bit. It's not less work than ONE giant picture, but it is less work than two complete separate views.NicolasQC - Thursday, May 2, 2019 - link
Yes it's a mistake, their other article is right :« The HP Reverb VR headset is outfitted with two 2.89-inch screens featuring a 2160×2160 resolution per eye (4320×2160 combined resolution), (...) »
Thud2 - Thursday, May 2, 2019 - link
In order to avoid confusion this manner of describing headset is accepted as the current standard.Ryan Smith - Friday, May 3, 2019 - link
"Shouldn't that be 2880x1600 combined? Or I am missing something here?"Right you are. Thanks!
guidryp - Thursday, May 2, 2019 - link
"1440×1600 resolution per eye (2880×3200 combined resolution)"It would require 4 of those screens to equal 2880x3200, and then only if there were no overlap.
With just two screens and significant overlap, Effective VR reslolution is closer to the one eye resolution than adding up the two screens.
Dribble - Thursday, May 2, 2019 - link
Doesn't fix my main problem with most headsets:1) it's still wired. All new headsets should be wireless by now - or at least only needing to plug into a battery pack clipped to your waist.
2) it's far to bulky and all that weight is out the front putting strain on your neck. Needs to be much lighter and better balanced.
khanikun - Thursday, May 2, 2019 - link
Ya, I think they could help even out the weight by putting more of the electronics on the back of the thing, while only having the screens in front. Not sure what that'd do for latency though.JeffFlanagan - Thursday, May 2, 2019 - link
> All new headsets should be wireless by nowNot unless a low-latency wireless solution is created for high-resolution video. You can choose between cutting-edge visuals or wireless.
> it's far to bulky
It's the size it needs to be for the optics to work.
>and all that weight is out the front putting strain on your neck.
Only if you have a very weak neck.
You seem to want a science-fiction prop rather than an actual VR headset.
Meteor2 - Thursday, May 2, 2019 - link
WiGig?oddity1234 - Thursday, May 2, 2019 - link
At these resolutions and refresh rates, low-latency wireless already exists and works well (google "Vive Pro wireless" if you don't believe me). For higher resolutions, there's foveated compression to reduce the required bandwidth.mode_13h - Thursday, May 2, 2019 - link
AMD demo'd VR over standard 5 GHz wifi. Supposedly, it's pretty decent. My guess is they're doing some sort of ATW in the HMD, itself. If so, that can hide a lot of latency.https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-radeon-reliv...
Imagine how much better it'd be, if you didn't have to traverse a whole wifi stack, but instead had a purpose-built wireless connection integrated directly into the GPU.
PeachNCream - Thursday, May 2, 2019 - link
Facebook has already figured out that the market for VR headsets has run out of Steam (see what I did there?). Old Zuckster even dropped that deuce last time he talked company finances -- covering the fact that buying up Occulus was a mistake and that VR wasn't going anywhere. Instead Facebook is putting most of that development on the back burner in favor of entering a holding pattern while technologies improve so it too can creep out people in the same way Alphabet did with Google Glass. It looks like Valve has to learn the hard way this time around just like it did with it's dressed up Linux OS and PCs too. I suppose it'll take a few more companies sinking money into R&D to make things no one buys before everybody gets off the VR train at the next station.DigitalFreak - Thursday, May 2, 2019 - link
That was EpicOpencg - Thursday, May 2, 2019 - link
I agree. I love vr but there just arent enough games. No way I'm going to pay $1000 considering I already have a rift. And those controllers... exactly how many people are going to own a pair and how will that justify any development of games that actually use them???PeachNCream - Friday, May 3, 2019 - link
Agreed, the idea of VR is interesting, but the limitations (costs included) result in slow adoption and a lack of software support. We aren't there yet. Someday we will be, but I don't think this latest attempt has all of the necessary elements for success.Yojimbo - Saturday, May 4, 2019 - link
I don't know what Zuckerberg has said in the last few years, and you haven't linked to anything, but back in 2015 he sent an email saying: "Our vision is that VR / AR will be the next major computing platform after mobile in about 10 years." So, he, unlike most millennials seems to be thinking more than 1 or 2 years down the road. And he, in 2015, did not expect VR / AR to have taken over by now, 2019.I think what Facebook has realized is that better display technology is necessary to make VR a success. It needs to have full or nearly full field of view, eye tracking, and some way of dealing with vergence-accomodation conflict. They canceled their next-generation hardware that didn't deal with the key issues holding the platform back and will come out with something that does. Eventually, all the technologies will come together to make VR a complete experience: display technology, accurate physics and acoustics, accurate rendering technology (use of ray tracing), sufficient processing power, accurate tracking of representation of users' bodies and faces, user input, and developer savvy with hiding the limitations and taking advantage of things that work. But it will take years to happen. It is an intimate interface between a virtual world and human psychology, what do you expect?
willis936 - Thursday, May 2, 2019 - link
Will it have fans? Sweat is a real problem. Also will the lower contrast ratio and longer response time by switching to LCD be an issue?Opencg - Thursday, May 2, 2019 - link
yeah fans would also solve the lenses fogging when the headset is not yet warmed up from its IR emitters. i would also reccomend the removeable (and washable) cloth facial interface replacements. its just way more comfortable than that foam sweat sponge that the rift comes with.Death666Angel - Thursday, May 2, 2019 - link
LCD tech is already pretty good for 240Hz screens and with the backlight synchronized to the refresh rate (as the "ultra-low persistence global backlight illumination" suggests) it should work pretty well. Though a full RGB-OLED display with that resolution would have been nicer, you can't have everything and a lot of people (reddit thread I read a while ago) said they liked the low-res RGB PSVR OLED more than the high-res pentile-ish OLED of Oculus and Vive offerings. For $1k I think I will pass.Opencg - Thursday, May 2, 2019 - link
the oled on the rift has a pretty noticeable subpixel pattern. If this lcd doesnt then it might be a good upgradeDigitalFreak - Thursday, May 2, 2019 - link
New VR headsets should not require base stations anymore. Inside out tracking is on the Rift S.Cygni - Thursday, May 2, 2019 - link
Lighthouse tracking is more precise. This is supposed to be a premium unit with premium specs.PseudoKnight - Thursday, May 2, 2019 - link
To be clear, the base stations do not do the tracking. They just offer more precise "inside out" tracking.Valantar - Thursday, May 2, 2019 - link
I'm still absolutely baffled that they're using displays that are taller than they are wide. I get that maintaining vertical viewing angles is important, but human vision is wide, not tall - even per eye. At least they're claiming 120-degree viewing angles, but compared to the 180+ of a human field of view, that's a rather narrow tunnel.surt - Thursday, May 2, 2019 - link
Human vision is dramatically more vertical than the movie industry has standardized on. Movie theaters usually fill 75%-80% of my horizontal field and 40-50% of my vertical field.Valantar - Thursday, May 2, 2019 - link
The human focal area is roughly circular, which is likely the chief reason you have this impression - we're accustomed to filtering out our horizontal peripheral vision to a far greater degree than our vertical peripheral vision, simply because there's far more of it. Also, a theater screen (unless it's Imax) comes nowhere close to filling your horizontal field of view either - that's an illusion created by the darkness in the theater in combination with the centering of the screen (and of the content on the screen) conditioning you to barely move your eyes around. Calculating a field of vision based on constantly staring straight ahead is useless, as that's not how humans work, and even then our field of view is much wider than most people think.Of course the vast majority of our field of view is peripheral vision, which means that it's relatively blurry, not very rich in color, and we're barely able to "see" it consciously - but that doesn't negate the fact that it's extremely important for spatial awareness and detecting movement. And cutting it out does create a tunnel vision effect, period.
Meteor2 - Thursday, May 2, 2019 - link
But we live on flat planet (you know what I mean). Things happen either side it is, not at our feet or above our heads.mode_13h - Saturday, May 4, 2019 - link
You don't seem to spend much time outside and off-pavement.If you're walking around in the un-built world - especially the forests and jungles where our ancestors evolved - you need to pay attention to both the ground and what's above.
Death666Angel - Friday, May 3, 2019 - link
"Human vision is dramatically more vertical than the movie industry has standardized on." Not sure why you bring in the movie industry. This concerns biology more than movies. And biology shows that we move our eyes and head more left to right than up and down.mode_13h - Saturday, May 4, 2019 - link
> biology shows that we move our eyes and head more left to right than up and down.Biology shows this? Or just some researchers who studied how modern humans in developed countries move their eyes?
Opencg - Thursday, May 2, 2019 - link
as well horizontal resolution is important for depth perceptioneastcoast_pete - Thursday, May 2, 2019 - link
Is this set usable by people who have to wear glasses? I don't see any mention of it here. I also like to know if and how well this is ventilated. Some of these VR goggles can get quite hot and uncomfortable.evilspoons - Thursday, May 2, 2019 - link
Yes, they reviewed it on Tested and Norm was saying it fit fine over his glasses.29a - Friday, May 3, 2019 - link
Norm is an idiot.bloodgain - Thursday, May 2, 2019 - link
I like that it uses DisplayPort or VirtualLink instead of HDMI, and the controllers look like the best in the industry right now. Tracking towers are still a non-starter for me, though. I get that they are more accurate overall and better for room-scale, but I don't have a dedicated room for VR. For me, it's sitting or standing with only a little side-to-side movement (VR racing is great!). I hope we'll see similar finger-tracking controllers with inside-out tracking soon.Also, I think you meant to say "interpupillary distance". "Interpapillary" would be a whole other thing entirely, and kind of weird.
PseudoKnight - Thursday, May 2, 2019 - link
I think if you can't do room scale, this might not be the optimal choice anyway. Valve has always seemed pretty focused on room scale.stephenbrooks - Monday, May 6, 2019 - link
I ended up 3D printing wall mounts for the HTC Vive trackers that hang from a picture hook on a single small nail. The built-in solution required six large screws in my wall and floor-standing towers are equally obtrusive. Not sure why the product designers over-engineered this one because the hook solution is no more difficult than putting a couple of small pictures on your wall...isthisavailable - Thursday, May 2, 2019 - link
So 802.11ad wifi turned out to be useless?Thud2 - Thursday, May 2, 2019 - link
Being a "VR enthusiast" I think every aspect of this looks amazing. Most people don't seem to appreciate the advancement made by this headset. Wider FOV, higher pixel density, smaller inter-pixel gaps, 120hz+ screens, dual element lenses with IPD and Lens Distance adjustment, off ear flat panel sound, 3D camera pass through with developer SDK, a built in accessory port, the largest tracking area, best tracking fidelity and controllers with finger tracking.I for one can't wait... and can't afford it.
Beaver M. - Friday, May 3, 2019 - link
I do appreciate it a lot. But the price is too steep and the PC hardware needed for it doesnt even exist yet, unless you put like 2 or 3 2080 Ti in your PC, which would make the price completely insane and you going nuts from microstuttering and power bills.So it will fail. Its too soon, unless Valve is going to announce a GPU tomorrow that is twice as fast as a 2080 Ti and costs only $500.
pkmar - Thursday, May 2, 2019 - link
Any indication this will be coming out with the launch of a premium valve title? Seems like they used to launch new engines and tech with an amazing new game.Opencg - Friday, May 3, 2019 - link
look up boneworks on youtubeBeaver M. - Friday, May 3, 2019 - link
Far too expensive. I mean the technology looks good on paper, but thinking about what kind of a PC you need for that and that even the fastest GPUs are essentially still too slow for that at 120 FPS, its just not feasible.Wait another 2 or 3 GPU generations, which should also decrease their price a good amount for performance like this, and then we can talk about it again. GPUs able to power this first need to reach at least GTX 2070 prices. Before that, this will just not be successful enough.
So now, this will just be another overpriced VR set that only few people will buy, and will probably be axed again in a few years, like all Steam hardware so far.