Oculus Rift VR headset

[kremator 1065]

OK so now we need someone who has now got the developer kit to work its magic on Arma3 :)

[NeonShark 10]

I ordered a Oculus Rift, now all I have to do is figure out how to make a MOD for ARMA3, any thoughts on editing video in ARMA3?

Thx

[Pulverizer 1]

1) It's not twice the frames because it's still 60 fps and rendering for both eyes on each frame does not mean rendering twice. That theory would mean that adding a reflective surface would require 2x rendering for each surface. That's just not how it works.

2) "The rest is semantics" suggests that semantics are not significant but we ARE talking about computer technology where semantics are everything.

3) Your experience with stereo graphics has almost guaranteed been alternating frames and either 2x30 WAY back with LCD shutter or 2x60 (which is VERY demanding). The rift uses neither AND only renders at 720p currently, then likely 1080p next year, for public release.

As a developer who is getting the Dev kit in days, works on the Leap Motion and will work with the Myo as soon as it arives (and consequently is attending Google I/O for the 3rd time this year), I assure you that I know what I'm talking about.

There are significant hurdles to implementing the Rift SDK for an app that wasn't designed with their requirements in mind but that doesn't mean that all those hurtles will be so tall either. Good design patterns lend themselves to easier implementation (like a properly scaling HUD which Arma has had for some time) and independent head tracking (which Arma has also had for some time).

In other words, Arma is a great candidate for the Rift AND they're still in Alpha so there's hope still.

1) "rendering for both eyes on each frame does not mean rendering twice" LOL... Actually it does, by definition. Rendering for both eyes separately means that you render two slightly different views to get the stereoscopic effect. Regardless of the final output being displayed side by side or alternating.

2) Read what the reply was for. Rendering 1920x1080 twice as fast on single 1920x1080 screen, or rendering the same two images side by side on a 1920x2160 screen. IE, still two frames rendered, which he was trying to spin around with semantics to magically not require the same amount of rendering.

3) I'm using Asus VG278H 120Hz monitor and the Nvidia 3D glasses. I didn't try 3D games with CRT monitors.

[Donner 10]

i would love to see this happening... planning on buying a dev-set or a customer version if i can wait till q3 2014.

not seeing your keyboard wont be a problem for most players (dont need to look down to find a key, its all memorized)

[dmarkwick 261]

Won't there be a requirement for some dev-side setup for this to happen? I can't imagine just having the Occulus-Rift SDK will be enough. There is bound to be some ArmA 3 internal code needed.

[mrcash2009 0]

BTW theres a large section about VR in the offtopic section:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?138144-New-VR-Headest-actually-looks-viable-for-avarage-gamers&

Won't there be a requirement for some dev-side setup for this to happen? I can't imagine just having the Occulus-Rift SDK will be enough. There is bound to be some ArmA 3 internal code needed.

It would Tonic posted this 44 min test video link, worth a watch as it shows calibrating it for a game and also GUI distance settings:

I must say this video also shows how not so simple it is with keyboard, assuming you have everything set right :) I think also he misses something in this video about forward/lean/backward movement and thats clipping on TrackIR with it? Surely that would work, can track IR ignore all other movements other than lean/in/out? They also mention this is the first time for looking around a game independent of gun, but forgot Arma does this anyway, plus with Track IR.

Im not sure about arma, I realise voice commands can take over allot, the action menu would have to be put to mouse buttons for sure, also things like ACE and its menu would be tricky. I would imagine it would take some getting used to in that regard.

Edited April 7, 2013 by mrcash2009

[BlackLord 0]

Wow, virtual reality? it's like the early 90s all over again. This is like, the next best thing right after 3D, totally radical!

Are there any more failed gimmicks from the past we can futilely revive?

[mrcash2009 0]

Are there any more failed gimmicks from the past we can futilely revive?

We are not in the 90's Rift has proven just on Dev Kit its far more than a gimmick and thats early days.

[v8_laudi 1]

Wow, virtual reality? it's like the early 90s all over again. This is like, the next best thing right after 3D, totally radical!

Are there any more failed gimmicks from the past we can futilely revive?

How the fk is it a gimmick? it's 2013 we have all the tech to make it work, someone has to packed it and make it work which they have.

Now be patient for the release, it's going to change immersion for good.

No more triple screen, you'll BE in the game.

[dmarkwick 261]

I guess there will still be triple screen around and popular, because it gives you far more awareness especially with TrackIR (which gives you translation as well as rotation - which Occulus so far cannot). I've played ArmA with 3D and although it's kind of nice, it quickly gets old and after a while you prefer the resolution & clarity of ordinary 2D. But, I guess we should wait and see what the retail version of Occulus will bring.

[jumpartist 0]

OK so now we need someone who has now got the developer kit to work its magic on Arma3 :)

I also want this badly! But I have seen in multiple videos that the Rift needs 60 FPS in EACH EYE!!! I have trouble getting a consistant 30 FPS in A3 right now. Hopefully it gets patched to be more graphically stable. Then we can get some rift up in here!

[liquidpinky 11]

I guess there will still be triple screen around and popular, because it gives you far more awareness especially with TrackIR (which gives you translation as well as rotation - which Occulus so far cannot). I've played ArmA with 3D and although it's kind of nice, it quickly gets old and after a while you prefer the resolution & clarity of ordinary 2D. But, I guess we should wait and see what the retail version of Occulus will bring.

I would tend to agree, although I would probably like using the Oculus I would probably find wearing it tiresome after a while. I get sick of just using my headphones sometimes as my TrackIR clip is fitted on them, again I can switch to the hat with the ordinary clip but on a hot day that is uncomfortable too.

For a real experience I would rob a bank to build a triple 4k projector system, would also have to murder my wife as there is no way of building it in the house while she is still breathing either.

The Oculus would however be a value for money alternative take on it though, my only concern is long term comfort as I like mammoth gaming sessions.

[Tonci87 163]

I would tend to agree, although I would probably like using the Oculus I would probably find wearing it tiresome after a while. I get sick of just using my headphones sometimes as my TrackIR clip is fitted on them, again I can switch to the hat with the ordinary clip but on a hot day that is uncomfortable too.

For a real experience I would rob a bank to build a triple 4k projector system, would also have to murder my wife as there is no way of building it in the house while she is still breathing either.

The Oculus would however be a value for money alternative take on it though, my only concern is long term comfort as I like mammoth gaming sessions.

^this

I guess this gets pretty exhausting after 2 or 3 hours. I can play longer than that. Hell our average Arma Event is longer than that.

[WalkerDown 1]

It's matter of get used to and you can wear the Oculus by hours... but the problem, as someone mentioned it already, it's the fps. You'll probably never seen ArmA3 running at stable 60 fps .. neither with a monster PC, nor in multiplayer at least, because of the old engine.

[dmarkwick 261]

RE the long gameplay sessions: I'll copy-paste my response from the other Occulus thread here:

What you will get to greater or lesser degrees is eyestrain due to forcing your eyes to converge on objects at different distances but at the same focal range. Your eyes naturally want to focus wherever they're converging, so your weapon will be close in and your eyes will want to focus at about 50cm or so when you look at that, but your target might be 50m away so your eyes will want to focus at that range when you look at at that. But your focus will be clamped to whatever you've set it to.

After a few hours you get headaches etc. Mileage may vary, I watched Avatar and didn't suffer too much, but 3-4 hours of ArmA in 3D caused me some eyestrain.

[WalkerDown 1]

RE the long gameplay sessions: I'll copy-paste my response from the other Occulus thread here:

It's not a problem of your eyes (not "physically") but of your brain. In other words each person can react in different ways: there's person that can wear a couple of Oculus for hours without noticing any problem, other that would feel sick after 5 minutes of usage, and this is not just about the 3D, it's about many other visual inputs: there's ppl that suffering playing at BF3 because of the visual effects; there's ppl that cannot watch a film projected by a DLP projector; etc. etc.. I would recommend you to STOP to use any device (it doesn't matter if it's a pair of goggles, a 3d monitor, glasses, whatever) that cause you headaches: your brain doesn't "like" it; on the other side if a personal is perfectly fine after wearing those goggles for several hours, then it's fine (or at least not worse than sitting in front of a monitor for the same amount of time).

When you say "you" .. it's really you (yourself), it doesn't apply to all the other persons out there.

[dmarkwick 261]

It's not a problem of your eyes (not "physically") but of your brain. In other words each person can react in different ways: there's person that can wear a couple of Oculus for hours without noticing any problem, other that would feel sick after 5 minutes of usage, and this is not just about the 3D, it's about many other visual inputs: there's ppl that suffering playing at BF3 because of the visual effects; there's ppl that cannot watch a film projected by a DLP projector; etc. etc.. I would recommend you to STOP to use any device (it doesn't matter if it's a pair of goggles, a 3d monitor, glasses, whatever) that cause you headaches: your brain doesn't "like" it; on the other side if a personal is perfectly fine after wearing those goggles for several hours, then it's fine (or at least not worse than sitting in front of a monitor for the same amount of time).

When you say "you" .. it's really you (yourself), it doesn't apply to all the other persons out there.

*sigh* yes, we all know everyone's different. It's a caveat that I actually did make.

[kremator 1065]

So can people that actually HAVE the OR please let us know here?

[Kieran 11]

Dose anyone know if the OR is 3D - 2D switchable like the Nintendo 3DS?

[WalkerDown 1]

Dose anyone know if the OR is 3D - 2D switchable like the Nintendo 3DS?

It is physically 3D: each eye looks at a different image, so there's nothing you can turn "off". The 2D contents (like a screen, a menu, etc.) are shown as "floating".

[Pulverizer 1]

You can probably dial the eye separation to zero, making the view have no depth, ie 2D.

[sproyd 2]

It is physically 3D: each eye looks at a different image, so there's nothing you can turn "off". The 2D contents (like a screen, a menu, etc.) are shown as "floating".

Its not "physically 3D" its just two slightly different perspectives that tricks you into thinking you are looking at something in 3D. The 3DS thing the guy is referring to (I have one) is that each eye receives the same image rather than two different perspectives - my guess is this will definitely be switchable via software.

[WalkerDown 1]

Its not "physically 3D" its just two slightly different perspectives that tricks you into thinking you are looking at something in 3D.

This is exactly how the 3D works in real life: each eye watch a different image, and in the Oculus Rift you obtain the result by physically separate of the two views, so yes it's "physically".

While in most traditional 3D systems, the eye separation is obtained electronically (ie: by polarization or by using LCD blind screens), hence it can turned "off", in the Oculus Rift there's really nothing that can be turned off: you cannot turn off a single portion of the screen (for obvious reason: one eye will be blind then) and you cannot "remove" the eye separation (again, because it is physical), the only thing you can do is have both the images "matches" on the two portion of the screen, but it's not this easy because the image is projected into th eye from different angles (and the periphal vision gives to you an odd effect) it is pretty different than watching a 2D monitor in front of you (you can try the effect by wearing any 2D goggle on the market), that's why the developer suggests you to project the 2D screen at distance, to obtain the best result: it's like wathing a 2D monitor into a 3D enviroment (the screen is "floating" in the air).

[Pulverizer 1]

the only thing you can do is have both the images "matches" on the two portion of the screen,

That's exactly what I meant by removing eye separation. Set the separation of the views to zero in software.

[WalkerDown 1]

That's exactly what I meant by removing eye separation. Set the separation of the views to zero in software.

You are confusing the eye separation with the image separation: in the OR the two images are physically separated, there's TWO IMAGES sent to your eyes. Even if you "align" those both combining em into an APPARENTLY single image, they will still two (you cannot have a single image projected into the center). Watching a 2D image over a monitor is different: each eyes watch THE EXACTLY SAME SINGLE IMAGE from a slightly different perspective.

While (again) in a traditional sistem i can turn it off and watch the single flat image, in the OR you can't really turn it off, you can only "combine" the images, and the result is much different than watching a SINGLE flat surface.

Try to do a test yourself: take two identical coins (you can use two printed images.. or whatever), watch one first with both eyes.. it's perfectly fine (of course.. it's what you do every day); now watch both of them, trying to focus each one with each eye (left coin with left eye; right with right), you can trick your brain by initially focus the background eventually, you'll see the two images eventually will align to combine a single picture.. do you notice anything strange? Isn't a bit odd? It looks like watching a "compressed" world, the proportions are out of place... and that's how you feel when you watch two different pictures (even if they are identical) separately... this is because your eyes are aligned in a odd way, that doesn't match with the natural object distance.