Oculus RIFT Head Mounted Display 90 Degree FOV

  • Thread starter ibuycheap
  • 839 comments
  • 69,194 views
Using the instructions at RoadtoVR, I finally gave HL2 a go. Unlike Tuscany, which makes me sweat within about 2 minutes, I played about 30 minutes of HL2 without my head sweating like crazy. Didn't want to push it too much the first time through, but I think I'll be able to play it in VR without too much trouble. Looks pretty terrific in VR too.
 
Using the instructions at RoadtoVR, I finally gave HL2 a go. Unlike Tuscany, which makes me sweat within about 2 minutes, I played about 30 minutes of HL2 without my head sweating like crazy. Didn't want to push it too much the first time through, but I think I'll be able to play it in VR without too much trouble. Looks pretty terrific in VR too.
I agree. My perception was that I would only use the Rift for racing and flight sims but I have been pleasantly surprised how good it is to play FPS games with it. If the Rift is correctly implemented into the games it really does add to them.
 
Coming to think of it sweat may actually be the absolute showstopper for racing simulations. Considering how I bath in sweat in my endurance racing even when racing naked with just a towel for the chair. It get all soaked up anyway no matter what I do lol
 
Coming to think of it sweat may actually be the absolute showstopper for racing simulations. Considering how I bath in sweat in my endurance racing even when racing naked with just a towel for the chair. It get all soaked up anyway no matter what I do lol

Haha. It's why I try to keep things moderately powered. Although if it's with iracing, forget it. That can't be avoided. Adrenaline and all. Although I'm sure the t-shirt mod will keep it confined to below the neck.

The sweat I was referring to was the nauseous head sweat you get when things are quickly turning south. I've learned to respect this signal because it kicks in before I'm consciously aware of problems.
 
There is a great fix that I just discovered from the PCARS forums. Use Nvidia Inspector (if you have an Nvidia card) to limit the frame rate to 75 fps. You can then enable vsync in game. The result is buttery smooth, no tearing and excellent head tracking with no latency.
its got the limit option greyed out and won't let me change it. It also only shows 20, 30 and 40 as limits. Any advice? Sometimes the options in inspector confuse me.
 
Coming to think of it sweat may actually be the absolute showstopper for racing simulations. Considering how I bath in sweat in my endurance racing even when racing naked with just a towel for the chair. It get all soaked up anyway no matter what I do lol
53541597.jpg
 
its got the limit option greyed out and won't let me change it. It also only shows 20, 30 and 40 as limits. Any advice? Sometimes the options in inspector confuse me.
Hmm, not sure. This is a you tube vid I found to explain how to do it. Check that out to see if they are doing anything different. I hope you get it working because it does make such a difference.
 
Same as before. It only works if I run the game on my monitor. Ince iturn on the rift and boot the game up it doesn't limit the fps anymore.
 
Same as before. It only works if I run the game on my monitor. Ince iturn on the rift and boot the game up it doesn't limit the fps anymore.
Hey Bevo, I see you posted in the Rift thread over on the PCars forum. I'm not sure to be honest hopefully matt, the guy who found the fix, will be along soon over there to help you out.
 
Hey Bevo, I see you posted in the Rift thread over on the PCars forum. I'm not sure to be honest hopefully matt, the guy who found the fix, will be along soon over there to help you out.
hopefully someone knows. My setup seems to act weird though. Nothing works at all on mine in direct mode and I never have to switch my rift to the main monitor for anything except elite and if I switch to main in any other game it doesn't work. Everything except pcars though I get running almost perfect. Is the only one with the latency for the head tracking.
 
I agree. My perception was that I would only use the Rift for racing and flight sims but I have been pleasantly surprised how good it is to play FPS games with it. If the Rift is correctly implemented into the games it really does add to them.


Rift was basically built with FP experiences in mind. It just happens to be awesome also for driving and flying. :)
 
hopefully someone knows. My setup seems to act weird though. Nothing works at all on mine in direct mode and I never have to switch my rift to the main monitor for anything except elite and if I switch to main in any other game it doesn't work. Everything except pcars though I get running almost perfect. Is the only one with the latency for the head tracking.

Do you have an AMD card? Anecdotally, it seems like those are the people having issues with direct mode (assuming the game supports it).

PCars seems like it has a lot of engine latency to it. Not sure it'll be something that can ever be fixed. VR needs to be below a certain level for comfortable head tracking, and if a game engine just takes a long time to render everything out, it can exceed those comfort levels all by itself. And it's completely separate from anything Oculus can do.
 
Do you have an AMD card? Anecdotally, it seems like those are the people having issues with direct mode (assuming the game supports it).

PCars seems like it has a lot of engine latency to it. Not sure it'll be something that can ever be fixed. VR needs to be below a certain level for comfortable head tracking, and if a game engine just takes a long time to render everything out, it can exceed those comfort levels all by itself. And it's completely separate from anything Oculus can do.
I've got a 670. I've actually got 2 of them but I've just been using one because they claim sli doesn't work that well and pcars doesn't use it anyway.

Ive been thinking about upgrading to windows 8 to try and just start over on my PC. Its been a little sluggish the last year or so and I think a fresh os would help. Maybe a fresh install of everything would fox some of my problems.
 
It might. Although it's certainly not the problem by itself. I run a factory overclocked 660ti and Windows 7 and have never had a single issue with direct view. So we seem to have very similar setups.
 
Hey everyone if you like, try this for a taste of what AC will be like :

Download Virtual desktop, https://developer.oculusvr.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=8182

Install it, run in extended mode, go to settings for virtual desktop and set screen to floating and re center the screen using the button in the bottom left of the virtual desktop pane or F4.

Keep the screen distance at 1.00 meter, slide the screen size to however big you want to make it, I had mine at 770%.

Next fire up Assetto Corsa, check in options that full screen rendering is NOT checked. Select a car and track, once on track adjust the onboard settings FOV to around 70 to 75 and DRIVE!!!!!!!!!!!! You can look around and you have a virtual 180 degree POV!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are now on a life size track with a life size car, it's not 3D but it is a **** load of fun. give it a go if you like :-).

Let me know how you get on cheers AussieStig
 
/\

I'm going to try it tomorrow. Made the mistake of ignoring signs with Half-Life 2 a little too long. Lasted about 35 minutes before my head was really starting to roll with sweat. Had to pull out before I really ruined the rest of the night.

I know Mayaman thinks FPS is the intended target of VR, but I agree with Oculus: it was a logical assumption that leaves a lot to be desired in practice. I'm sure I'll eventually get my sea legs with it, but no genre that requires this type of dedication is every going to be a showcase genre for it.

Find it interesting that Routine (which once looked like one of the most interesting VR projects in development) recently announced they'd suspended VR development/support for the game, because all their developers got sick trying to implement/test work on it.
 
Last edited:
Got my DK2 today. Tried a few things like Titans of Space, Tuscany demo.

My impressions are 4K is a must if not more. Textures/detail on for example a planet are not displayed good enough. When the planet is a bit further away there's just not enough resolution pixels to resolve an object properly. It quickly becomes a collection of easily visible screen pixels of one colour rather than an object with any detail. Background stars are like pixel cluster blobs. I'm often too distracted by the pixels and the gaps surrounding them ie screendoor.

I think a driving game might be better experience, with a wheel in hand but have to get a some long usb hdmi cables.

FOV and lenses needs to be larger for more immersion

Tracking is very good I'm pleased to say. The 3D works very well as does the scale but is let down the resolution. Something like 4K will greatly add to the depth of the scene as a whole rather than just object fairly close. Which takes me to how 2D landscape backgrounds often used in games look too obvious and need to be full 3D construction.

Overall its pretty neat, but should be incredible with a seamless screen and larger field of view.
 
That Virtual Desktop app really is quite cool. And I can definitely see how something like that is the future of mainstream VR devices. With the seating distance set to 2.82M and 979% magnification, it really is like watching a huge movie screen (which was a joke on the Sony HMZ-T1).

When the CV2 rolls around (CV1 is for hardcore gamers) and they have a video content store, I'd imagine it'll be pretty killer to watch things on your own personal Imax screen. And even if people have no interest in 3D game content, it'll still be the way many prefer to watch things. Because it's pretty awesome.
 
That Virtual Desktop app really is quite cool. And I can definitely see how something like that is the future of mainstream VR devices. With the seating distance set to 2.82M and 979% magnification, it really is like watching a huge movie screen (which was a joke on the Sony HMZ-T1).

When the CV2 rolls around (CV1 is for hardcore gamers) and they have a video content store, I'd imagine it'll be pretty killer to watch things on your own personal Imax screen. And even if people have no interest in 3D game content, it'll still be the way many prefer to watch things. Because it's pretty awesome.

Yeah, all you thought 3D content and 4k content was hard to find, ha! Wait till we are all sitting around with our rifts on thinking, "man I wish there were more movies for this" or "I wish I could watch Formula One in first person 1:1 on this"... (cue the trombones)wah wah wah. The content will take a long time to catch up. Think about how big of a transition it will be for movie and television studios to start shooting all their content on 360 3D cameras in 4K resolution!
 
Got my DK2 today. Tried a few things like Titans of Space, Tuscany demo.

My impressions are 4K is a must if not more. Textures/detail on for example a planet are not displayed good enough. When the planet is a bit further away there's just not enough resolution pixels to resolve an object properly. It quickly becomes a collection of easily visible screen pixels of one colour rather than an object with any detail. Background stars are like pixel cluster blobs. I'm often too distracted by the pixels and the gaps surrounding them ie screendoor.

4K in Rift with about 100 FPS (if that's the screen refresh rate) will take 2-3 years, the hardware needs to catch up. DX12 and 16nm GPUs look promising and small 4K displays are already made (Xperia Z2).

If they made one today, no one could run anything. There's struggle already with 1080p. So no hurry
 
I'll tell you one under-rated aspect of the Rift: my eyes really like it. I have a tendency to suffer from dry eyes. And if I'm playing games and staring too intently at a monitor, it can make them even worse. With the Rift, between focusing on infinity, and the fact they're semi-goggles that have some trapped humidity in it, I can do some racing even if my eyes are dry to start with and they'll actually be better when I'm done playing.
 
Played some Euro Truck Sim 2. Best Rift experience so far.

Like I thought before though is any glitch or a slight pause when loading in a new area is pretty jarring. If I get a few of these and frame rate drops below 75fps I soon get a bit eye strained and need a break. I really notice issues on 2D screen games so VR needs to be super smooth frames for me.

Still, the resolution is a killer. Say in Truck Sim a car passing when its very close by you can tell its a Range Rover lookalike but soon as it advances a bit further away there's just not enough pixels in one area to resolve the render model and it becomes a 10-20 pixel indiscernible blob. The cockpit and close by vehicles are relatively great, you get the VR feel of being in a 3D space but beyond that no more depth is resolved and you just start seeing pixels over images. close up you see game assets more so than pixels as the object is visible.

I'm thinking that a 4k screen for pixels running at 1440p would be a good solution or some other way like castAR. 1080p feels like only a quarter of what's required.

Was watching a Chris Roberts interview (Star Citizen) and he feels the same way about the resolution.

Despite that, Oculus Rift is on the right path to being a true virtual reality real deal.
 
Last edited:
Played some Euro Truck Sim 2. Best Rift experience so far.

Like I thought before though is any glitch or a slight pause when loading in a new area is pretty jarring. If I get a few of these and frame rate drops below 75fps I soon get a bit eye strained and need a break. I really notice issues on 2D screen games so VR needs to be super smooth frames for me.

Still, the resolution is a killer. Say in Truck Sim a car passing when its very close by you can tell its a Range Rover lookalike but soon as it advances a bit further away there's just not enough pixels in one area to resolve the render model and it becomes a 10-20 pixel indiscernible blob. The cockpit and close by vehicles are relatively great, you get the VR feel of being in a 3D space but beyond that no more depth is resolved and you just start seeing pixels over images. close up you see game assets more so than pixels as the object is visible.

I'm thinking that a 4k screen for pixels running at 1440p would be a good solution or some other way like castAR. 1080p feels like only a quarter of what's required.

Was watching a Chris Roberts interview (Star Citizen) and he feels the same way about the resolution.
i think better optics would be a better solution than 4k. 4k just isn't going to happen. I'm guessing they have a way to not need to magnify the image so much for the cv1. At least I hope so. Hopefully with 1440 and better optics we will see a big improvement. Just going from dk1 to dk2 sa huge improvement and up to 1440 is a bigger jump than from 800 to 1080. I bet 1440 will look much better than we think it will. At least I hope so because 4K is years and years away.

I've read several articles that mention optics improvements so hopefully they have a truck with them.
 
/\

Especially with these current optics. You're supposed to render at like 1.6X the resolution so you match pixel density in the center. 1.6 X 4k X 120hz X stereo 3D. LOL. Good luck with that. I'm using 120hz because I know either Abrash or Carmack has talked about needing to increase framerate as you scale upwards with low persistence. It needs to be done to keep the brightness up. No idea why, but I'm pretty sure it was Abrash who went into great detail on the subject and he's a whole lot smarter than I am. So I'm going to accept at face value and move on.
 
4K in Rift with about 100 FPS (if that's the screen refresh rate) will take 2-3 years, the hardware needs to catch up. DX12 and 16nm GPUs look promising and small 4K displays are already made (Xperia Z2).

If they made one today, no one could run anything. There's struggle already with 1080p. So no hurry
That Sony only has a 1920 x 1080 screen. The manufacturer claims 4k camera, not display. the Samsung Galaxy Note 4 has not yet been release but is rumored to have a 5.7in, 2K screen. There is yet to be a 4k screen of that size released for the obvious reason... why would anyone need a 4k resolution smartphone screen! It seems to be that the Rift and the other head mounted displays are the only reason to increase micro display resolution.
"Because smartphone screens are so physically tiny compared to TVs, the PPI is incredibly high – up to 530 on phones like the LG G3. Although that might sound like improvement, the human eye stops being able to make out a screen's individual pixels after a certain point – and after that point, increasing the resolution further won't really do anything of benefit. According to Apple, that cut-off is 326 PPI for a smartphone."
taken from this article:
http://www.techradar.com/us/news/ph...adness-or-clearly-the-next-big-thing--1260691
 
Last edited:
Finally cracked. I couldn't take waiting for rf2, GSC:E, AC, or iracing to implement support any longer. Buckled and bought the LFS license.
I bought a LFS licence, the guys have done an excellent job and it is probably the best overall DK2 experience IMO because everything works as it should.

I caved and bought Elite Dangerous last night, took a flight, entered a spaceport and my jaw hit the floor :D it was amazing, cant wait to get home and try some more (except I have to put a few concrete fence posts in first when I get home :( )

I'm so glad my only real gaming desires are racers and flyers..and the rift suits them perfectly. I'm in the middle of building a dedicated flight seat for rift stuff to go next to my race rig :)
 
Back