PC Oculus Announces the Rift S

[TwinIon]

Oculus finally announced their successor to the 3 year old Oculus Rift, and it's not exactly what people were expecting.

 

Some of the improvements are what you might have suspected. Tracking is now inside out, so no need to place any sensors in your room. The lenses should be improved. The ergonomics have changed, moving towards a more PSVR style "halo" model. You can use the exterior cameras to see the room you're in. It's starting at $400.

 

Then there are things that will surprise people hoping for an upgrade to the original. The refresh rate is lower (80hz vs 90hz), the screen is now LCD instead of the OLED on the Rift and Quest, the resolution is higher than the Rift, but lower than the Quest, the field of view is minimally improved, the audio now comes from Go/Quest style speakers built into the headband rather than the built in headphones of the Rift. All IPD adjustment is done in software. Supposedly the move to LCD means there is less of a screen door effect, but I wouldn't expect a huge improvement.

 

A small annoyance to me is that the Rift S comes with a Displayport and a USB 3 (A) connector. Oculus is a member of the VirtualLink Consortium that built a USB-C based standard for VR headsets. We've even seen some small support in graphics cards. It would have made so much sense for Oculus to use a VirtualLink connector and include a Displayport/USB-A adapter. I suppose it would have been confusing,  and people would plug it into their phones or the TB3 port on their laptop and get nothing, but it still would have been nice to see that standard get traction with the largest VR hardware provider out there.

 

Overall, the impression that I get is that it's not really a better Rift so much as it is a new one. It's a replacement that is likely cheaper to make, but doesn't really improve on the experience (other than the ease of use factor). I doubt we'll see many Rift users "upgrade" to a Rift S. Meanwhile, the standalone Quest continues to look like the real future of VR.

[Mr.Vic20]

Yuck. This looks even worse with HP's newly announced "Reverb" HMD. Then again, it seems they are currently more focused on the Quest. 

[Spork3245]

Hopefully the screens are no longer that Pentile BS

[Alpha1Cowboy]

I'm all in for the Quest.   

 

Also what's wrong with the Reverb?   Seemed like it was speccd nice

 

 

[Mr.Vic20]

Just now, Alpha1Cowboy said:

I'm all in for the Quest.   

 

Me too! I see it as its own game platform and I'm very interested to see what they do with it. Day one!

[Alpha1Cowboy]

I like it for games, but I also have a lenovo mirage camera which works really well with Occulus Go for looking at my VR180 Pics and Video I take with it.   

 

[legend]

 I think I'll get the quest instead.

[CitizenVectron]

80hz? Yuck.

[number305]

With so much focus on game streaming it will be interesting to see the support VR gets in the next couple of years.

[Mr.Vic20]

1 minute ago, number305 said:

With so much focus on game streaming it will be interesting to see the support VR gets in the next couple of years.

If I had to guess, VR will get mothballed again until the HMD are:

 

-ultra light weight and compact

-All wireless

- resolutions high enough to eliminate the screen door effect

-better lens for superior FOV

-cheaper

and all of this will be happening over the next few years, but likely the gains will be made in pursuit of business focused models.

[legend]

1 hour ago, Mr.Vic20 said:

If I had to guess, VR will get mothballed again until the HMD are:

 

-ultra light weight and compact

-All wireless

- resolutions high enough to eliminate the screen door effect

-better lens for superior FOV

-cheaper

and all of this will be happening over the next few years, but likely the gains will be made in pursuit of business focused models.

 

I think Quest sounds like it's getting pretty close to that point, and just misses. The main things it's missing on are resolution and FOV. So yeah, I agree that this may happen in the next few years.

[Mr.Vic20]

3 minutes ago, legend said:

 

I think Quest sounds like it's getting pretty close to that point, and just misses. The main things it's missing on are resolution and FOV. So yeah, I agree that this may happen in the next few years.

I would guess that by 2022 most discrete GPU fabrications will be at the 5nm level and we should be seeing cellphones with just below (1.5 TFLOPS) the GPU power of the launch PS4 (which was 1.8TFLOPS, for reference).  The power draw on such a chip should be very low and afford the designers the ability to create a much lighter and complete successor to the Quest. At that point, I would hope that the price point and the optics would have come in line as well. Here's hoping? 

[TwinIon]

3 hours ago, Mr.Vic20 said:

If I had to guess, VR will get mothballed again until the HMD are:

 

-ultra light weight and compact

-All wireless

- resolutions high enough to eliminate the screen door effect

-better lens for superior FOV

-cheaper

and all of this will be happening over the next few years, but likely the gains will be made in pursuit of business focused models.

 

 

If by mothballed you mean that existing platforms will be canceled and go away for a few years, I don't think there's any evidence of that. If you simply mean they won't hit any kind of mass market, you might be right, but I'm not convinced your metrics are the right ones.

 

I honestly don't think that the FOV or resolution limits are what prevent VR from growing more quickly. We hear a lot about those qualities because it's what early adopters (like myself) care about, but I doubt they're real concerns to the greater population. I also think the size and weight of current models is sufficient to sell well enough.

 

 

I think wireless 6DOF tracking, price, and software are the things that will actually drive adoption. There's a reason that the Go has sold a couple million units, but the tracking limitations mean that those people aren't getting a real VR experience. The average customer might not know the first thing about tracking tech, but they certainly can tell the difference between the experiences that 6DOF tracking offers and what they're getting in the Go. The price is also a big hurdle, and even at $400, I think it'll be a barrier for many. Software is pretty self explanatory, since there needs to be content to sell people these gizmos.

 

Really though, if I were to pick a single thing to boost VR's mass market appeal, I'd say it's solving the nausea problem. The potential for nausea is a reason people stay away from VR generally, but I think the bigger issue is how limiting it is to the software experience. If you found a solution to the nausea issue, you could easily port so many more existing games and game types to VR platforms that the content issue would disappear. One of the first things I played with my DK2 was Half Life 2, and it was awesome, at least until the sickness took over and I felt ill for the next couple hours. If standard gaming locomotion worked in VR without making most people sick, I think we'd see adoption rise dramatically. Of course, it's an open question as to if there even is a technical solution, but I really hope there is.

 

 

[stepee]

My wallet is happy but my heart is sad.

[Spork3245]

37 minutes ago, stepee said:

My wallet is happy but my heart is sad.

 

But, how’s your penis? 🍆

[chakoo]

My personal take of the two, Buy a Quest or hold out for the eventual refresh in 1-2 years. Don't expect a newer better rift after the S. 

[Mr.Vic20]

14 hours ago, TwinIon said:

 

 

If by mothballed you mean that existing platforms will be canceled and go away for a few years, I don't think there's any evidence of that. If you simply mean they won't hit any kind of mass market, you might be right, but I'm not convinced your metrics are the right ones.

 

I honestly don't think that the FOV or resolution limits are what prevent VR from growing more quickly. We hear a lot about those qualities because it's what early adopters (like myself) care about, but I doubt they're real concerns to the greater population. I also think the size and weight of current models is sufficient to sell well enough.

 

 

I think wireless 6DOF tracking, price, and software are the things that will actually drive adoption. There's a reason that the Go has sold a couple million units, but the tracking limitations mean that those people aren't getting a real VR experience. The average customer might not know the first thing about tracking tech, but they certainly can tell the difference between the experiences that 6DOF tracking offers and what they're getting in the Go. The price is also a big hurdle, and even at $400, I think it'll be a barrier for many. Software is pretty self explanatory, since there needs to be content to sell people these gizmos.

 

Really though, if I were to pick a single thing to boost VR's mass market appeal, I'd say it's solving the nausea problem. The potential for nausea is a reason people stay away from VR generally, but I think the bigger issue is how limiting it is to the software experience. If you found a solution to the nausea issue, you could easily port so many more existing games and game types to VR platforms that the content issue would disappear. One of the first things I played with my DK2 was Half Life 2, and it was awesome, at least until the sickness took over and I felt ill for the next couple hours. If standard gaming locomotion worked in VR without making most people sick, I think we'd see adoption rise dramatically. Of course, it's an open question as to if there even is a technical solution, but I really hope there is.

 

 

I agree with what you've put forward here! Perhaps "Mothballed" is too harsh, but perhaps its better stated as present, but not setting the world on fire. 

[stepee]

11 hours ago, Spork3245 said:

 

But, how’s your penis? 🍆

 

soft

[Mr.Vic20]

2 minutes ago, stepee said:

 

soft

Harden my friend, things will improve:

 

https://www.anandtech.com/show/14104/hp-reverb-virtual-reality-headset

[TwinIon]

Something that I also think is worth bringing up is that he Rift S was built as a partnership with Lenovo. The S strongly resembles Lenovo's other headsets, and while it certainly seems to be Oculus's tracking tech, they seem to have shifted some of the burden over to Lenovo. I think that brings up a very real question as to how important Oculus sees the Rift in their lineup.

 

Right now the Go exists because they can't make the Quest for $200. The Rift S seems to exist almost entirely as a development platform. It's a recognition that stand alone headsets don't have quite sufficient power to have the graphical fidelity they want, so a PC based solution makes sense as a way to keep building the kinds of games you couldn't build with a Snapdragon 835. I think Facebook is partnering with Lenovo on the Rift S is a sign that they don't much care about owning the future of PC based VR, because they don't see that as the future of VR.

[brucoe]

I have the Oculus Go, and I like it, but to be honest, it's somewhat uncomfortable for someone who wears glasses. They do have an insert to make it usable with glasses, but for the most part, that insert falls out a lot and gets loose. Now, they have an addition that you can buy separately to get a more comfortable feel, but I have yet to see where to find it, other than to order it online, and I remember it being a bit expensive.

 

I'm still waiting for a comfortable VR experience. And the other problem is software. They still don't make a lot of great software that makes having a VR unit worth it. Right now, it honestly feels like porn is about the only thing that is made for these things, other than an occasional title. My one favorite thing for it is an ASMR artist who actually makes ASMR VR content, which is pretty awesome. But she's a rarity, and she has very few titles.