Is VR dead?

[Turvey]

For RC (Remote Control) Helicopters I use the same transmitter that I use when I fly at the airfield, a Jeti DS-16. View attachment 293581

Cool i was looking into old ww2 planes to fly but id probably smash them so ill go tanks instead,

 

[RCHeliguy]

Cool i was looking into old ww2 planes to fly but id probably smash them so ill go tanks instead,

RC Planes are actually not that hard to fly. You might like it!

RC Helis fly in all directions which means learning to fly in a many orientations.

It takes an insane amount of practice to get good at it and simulators dramatically reduce the cost of the learning curve. You can work things out in the simulator and when they feel comfortable, then try them out at the field.

 

[Miguel Batista]

While VR might not be perfect yet, I think it is in a better place now than it has ever been.

First, you have an increased user base which is obviously good. Every year more and more people take the leap. I believe if there were places available where you can try VR you would have a much faster adoption. Having recently taken the leap I must say the results far surpassed my expectations. Comparison to 3D Tv's is not accurate imho as those didn't offer a third of the benefits VR does. And they are still used by academia and business. When I was doing stereoscopic reconstruction of images for mapping purposes I used 3D monitors as they were invaluable. I only see AR as an advancement of this and VR as an something else entirely.

Second, it is cheaper than ever to use. We had a spike in GPU prices due to the crypto craze and still the user base increased. When VR came out you needed officially a $350~400 graphic card. Now you need a $200 card new. If you go on eBay you can grab a 970 (which will give you a very good experience imho) for $100. The price of the headsets also halved compared to two years ago which brought more people in to just try.

With the continuous development of tech, we will have cheaper VR ready components as we move forward. In my view VR has moved from the enthusiast field to the high end field. Subjectively, I don't think the lack of resolution is a problem. Willingly trade it off for the added immersion.

And finally, I think the rate of adoption has been held back by the mobile experience of VR. I know plenty of people who tried stuff like Google cardboard to "dip their toes" only to be disappointed because their experience sucked.
I mean, I tried it like that and although I could see some potential, the experience left a lot to be desired. A lot. It is horrible compared to the rift and eve PSVR with its pug and playability for me had issues (conversely people who told me it was the best thing since sliced bread hardly play it anymore due to the lack of cool titles)

In conclusion, I think VR is neither dead nor dying and it is here to stay. I think sims is where it shines and where it has a bigger following. As more experiences are becoming available more mainstream people will come into it.

Looking at SteamVR in the steam charts, it shows an upward trend in the number of users.
Sure this is not a perfect analysis but it seems to indicate people are slowly bit surely adopting it. Of course as with any population you will get people who like it and people who don't but that is life.
Finally I think the introduction of headsets like oculus quest that can be connected to the PC or be used as is, is also a positive as more people can be brought into a premium VR user experience. And at a cheaper cost.

 

[maelstrom]

Finally I think the introduction of headsets like oculus quest that can be connected to the PC or be used as is...

My understanding is that the Quest can't be connected to a PC and is purely a standalone system.

 

[RCHeliguy]

My understanding is that the Quest can't be connected to a PC and is purely a standalone system.

Correct. Oculus currently has no plans for a device that runs both independently and attached to a PC. The Quest is a stand alone device and there is an Rift "1.5" coming that will always be tethered to a computer. It doesn't mean it could never happen, but there have been no hints that they are working on something like that.

 

[Miguel Batista]

I stand corrected then Might've confused both.

Still, people already found a way to get Oculus Go working with the PC so it will be a matter of time I suppose.

 

[John-Eric Saxén]

While VR might not be perfect yet, I think it is in a better place now than it has ever been.

Back in 2016, if I had been told where VR is today with Oculus development dead and no interest from big games, I would never have gone aboard the VR hype train. VR is definitely not in a good place compared to how things looked a few years ago.

First, you have an increased user base which is obviously good. Every year more and more people take the leap. I believe if there were places available where you can try VR you would have a much faster adoption. Having recently taken the leap I must say the results far surpassed my expectations. Comparison to 3D Tv's is not accurate imho as those didn't offer a third of the benefits VR does. And they are still used by academia and business. When I was doing stereoscopic reconstruction of images for mapping purposes I used 3D monitors as they were invaluable. I only see AR as an advancement of this and VR as an something else entirely.

I tried VR with first-gen headsets and I wasn't impressed with the resolution or FOV. Both of those things can be done better, but it comes at an increased price, both from the headset itself and GPU. IMO things like resolution cannot fall short if VR wants to succeed, people are used to high pixel densities on their 4K TV's and phones.

Second, it is cheaper than ever to use. We had a spike in GPU prices due to the crypto craze and still the user base increased. When VR came out you needed officially a $350~400 graphic card. Now you need a $200 card new. If you go on eBay you can grab a 970 (which will give you a very good experience imho) for $100. The price of the headsets also halved compared to two years ago which brought more people in to just try.

A $200 GPU will not work well on basically any modern sims in VR. A GTX 970 is starting to become aged even in single screen mode for the most demanding sims. Playing rF2, ACC or PC2 in VR with a GTX 970 and we are talking about bare minimum settings.

In conclusion, I think VR is neither dead nor dying and it is here to stay. I think sims is where it shines and where it has a bigger following. As more experiences are becoming available more mainstream people will come into it.

It may stay, but in what form. The biggest problem isn't adoption, an even bigger problem is the willingness of game developers to actually support it. We are already seeing reluctance from many developers and sometimes it takes aggressive social media campaigning to make them change their mind (Codemasters). This is not indicative of a good situation.

 

[RCHeliguy]

Obviously Oculus and HTC both had unrealistic overly optimistic expectations for VR adoption.

However when I got my Rift for $350 on a black friday sale over a year ago, I felt like it was a heck of a lot of kit for that money. I've really enjoyed mine!

That said I never saw the point in games on 2D screen. They never grabbed me, so I never bothered. It took VR to get me to enjoy gaming for the first time in decades. "Being there" made games a LOT more compelling. Games on a screen just aren't involving enough.

This is obviously a YMMV situation. My son has been an obsessive gamer and frame rate resolution junkie for a while, but he enjoyed my Rift enough that I got him a headset for Christmas.

There was hype and there were unrealistic expectations, but this is very typical of disruptive new technology. There is a Hype phase, followed by a Disillusionment phase, followed by steady more realistic growth before the hockey stick part of the exponential curve with mass adoption.

 

[Mark Ratzenbacher]

Looking at the prices of the MS HoloLens2 and the Varjo VR1, which offer high-res displays (i believe still not high enough though), my guess is we´re 5-7 years away before available consumer affordable AR-&VR-sets will hit the streets which will offer a experience almost en par with normal monitor experience resolutionwise.

Hope never dies, imho, the first company to offer high-quality VR experience without compromises for the small wallet will rule the market for a long time. And therefore a joint-venture of the big VR-players would be the best share for everybody, devs and users alike. C´mon, make it happen !

 

[Deleted member 197115]

Coma is perhaps the best description for its current state.

 

[Miguel Batista]

Back in 2016, if I had been told where VR is today with Oculus development dead and no interest from big games, I would never have gone aboard the VR hype train. VR is definitely not in a good place compared to how things looked a few years ago.

Well, I disagree. But again, I never expected VR to be the end all be all like some people did. I always thought VR adoption in 2016 was a pioneering effort.

I tried VR with first-gen headsets and I wasn't impressed with the resolution or FOV. Both of those things can be done better, but it comes at an increased price, both from the headset itself and GPU. IMO things like resolution cannot fall short if VR wants to succeed, people are used to high pixel densities on their 4K TV's and phones.

for me the extra immersion possible offsets any kind of resolution issue. And try and put a phone 2 inches from your face and you will run into the same resolution issues. Again, problem of expectations. Plus, with some SS and MSAA, the image gets quite acceptable quality in the close to mid range.

A $200 GPU will not work well on basically any modern sims in VR. A GTX 970 is starting to become aged even in single screen mode for the most demanding sims. Playing rF2, ACC or PC2 in VR with a GTX 970 and we are talking about bare minimum settings.

Though I can't speak for ACC or RF2 as I have neither, in PC2 and AC a 970 provides a very solid experience with about mid settings, no PP and some 2x MSAA and SS 1.1 or 1.2. Sure, you can have better with befeer GPUs but the experience is still very good. Again, our expectations were different probably but to be honest, the headset resolution is such a limiting factor that I don't think a 970 or a 1070 will be much different (well, you can use SOL in a 1070 and in a 970 you might struggle).

It may stay, but in what form. The biggest problem isn't adoption, an even bigger problem is the willingness of game developers to actually support it. We are already seeing reluctance from many developers and sometimes it takes aggressive social media campaigning to make them change their mind (Codemasters). This is not indicative of a good situation.

Or, another way to look at it, the VR community is large enough that made a developer scared of losing sales if they didn't support it. Those are good news.

As for major AAA developers supporting VR or not, I don't think the future of VR depends on it in the slightest. I think social media and professional use is the driving force of AR and VR and those are growing fast. And I will reiterate again, it is getting cheaper and cheaper to run VR.

 

[Deleted member 197115]

I have just build 3.5k PC to run AC in VR at good visual fidelity, mostly because of CPU becoming a bottleneck on the older one, not GPU which is 1080Ti.
Also have 980, but can't imagine even trying it with VR, works like a charm for flat screen though, 1440p Ultra all modern titles and even 4k on some not very demanding, it's mostly limited by memory.
No, I do not agree one can get decent VR experience with $200 GPU or $80 HMD
https://uploadvr.com/cheap-walmart-vr-headsets/, that's just kidding yourself, sorry.

 

[RCHeliguy]

I have just build 3.5k PC to run AC in VR at good visual fidelity, mostly because of CPU becoming a bottleneck on the older one, not GPU which is 1080Ti.

I'm running a mini-ITX MB with an i5-4690 16Gb RAM, SSD drives, and 1080Ti and it seems to have no issues running anything in VR that I've thrown at it. The CPU has yet to be a bottleneck with NLRv3 motion & SimHub Shake It tactile & my Rift and Dirt Rally, PC2 or AC. It cost much much less than your PC figure. It's using on MB sound card and network. I'm not saying it has lots of room to spare, but it does well.

I'm waiting for the next gen 7nm Intel CPU's before I bother with an upgrade to my PC.

 

[Miguel Batista]

I have just build 3.5k PC to run AC in VR at good visual fidelity, mostly because of CPU becoming a bottleneck on the older one, not GPU which is 1080Ti.
Also have 980, but can't imagine even trying it with VR, works like a charm for flat screen though, 1440p Ultra all modern titles and even 4k on some not very demanding, it's mostly limited by memory.
No, I do not agree one can get decent VR experience with $200 GPU or $80 HMD
https://uploadvr.com/cheap-walmart-vr-headsets/, that's just kidding yourself, sorry.

Did I say anything about Wal-Mart hmd's? And the only thing to be sorry about in your post was your attempt at strawmaning.
Congrats on your computer but it brings nothing to the discussion. If you try a 970 in VR or your 980 you might be pleasantly surprised. Sure the image won't be as high a quality overall but the difference will not be that large. There is only so much you can do on a limited resolution.

 

[Deleted member 197115]

I'm running a mini-ITX MB with an i5-4690 16Gb RAM, SSD drives, and 1080Ti and it seems to have no issues running anything in VR that I've thrown at it. The CPU has yet to be a bottleneck with NLRv3 motion & SimHub Shake It tactile & my Rift and Dirt Rally, PC2 or AC. It cost much much less than your PC figure. It's using on MB sound card and network. I'm not saying it has lots of room to spare, but it does well.

I'm waiting for the next gen 7nm Intel CPU's before I bother with an upgrade to my PC.

You are saying you can run AC or even PC2 without going into reprojection most of the times on that CPU.
Vanilla AC with no Shader patch, PP, and SOL, with some degraded settings, may be.
I have moved from i7-5930K 3.5GHz 6-Core (OCed to 4.3GHz) to i9-9900K 3.6 GHz 8-Core (Oced to 5.0GHz)
and even that monster bottle-necking on full grid or some mod tracks/cars so I am trying to use all tricks in the sleeve to retain 90fps without losing much of visual fidelity.
You can check my settings here, there is nothing extra ordinary like 8xMSAA.
I can only imagine what compromises you guys need to make to still run at 90 fps.
The problem is that VR visual quality is not that great comparing to flat screen to begin with and when you start dialing down graphics settings just to make it run, visual experience is degrading even more.

That was essentially my point, to make VR look half decent you need beefy and costly system, 2080Ti alone cost $1500. How many people shelved VR just because theirs couldn't do VR justice?

Anyway, having said all that, I am very hopeful for VR feature. Right now it's a bumpy ride for sure not everyone is willing or capable to take.

 

[RCHeliguy]

I picked up my 1080Ti for about $650 and my computer is nothing special.
PC2 looks fantastic! I even played with boosting OVERSAMPLING in Dirt Rally to boost the effective resolution. The other settings are maxed. I think I only have PC2 set to 1.1 oversampling and I've found 1.5 to be really nice. So there is that, but I'm not picking up a 2080Ti just so I can oversample at a higher rate.

Any chance you have a bunch of baggage running in the background eating valuable CPU cycles?

 

[Deleted member 197115]

Yes, I have Windows 10 running in background.

 

[Miguel Batista]

Yes, I have Windows 10 running in background.

Well it certainly doesn't sound normal. I have a 6700k and it is not a bottleneck (granted my 980ti is getting long in the tooth). I certainly can have 90 fps (and btw, Sol is a shader patch) if I keep to 1.2 ss (in AC) and msaa 2x but AI prefer the extra clarity of 1.3 d's and msaa x4 and suffer ASW during start (using sol too). For project cars I have as set to 1.1 and msaa 4x.

 

[Deleted member 197115]

You can check my settings in the link above, it's optimized for best performance/visual balance for my system.
You can try them out.
How many AIs can you run with these settings, Shader Patch and SOL (and no, SOL (Peter) is not Shader Patch (Ilya), it's using one but it's separate, you can use Shader Patch without SOL) on Le Mans daylight (Few Clouds) without reprojection. What about night, rain?
I probably ate a dog optimizing AC for WMR, and that's on 2 different systems, so no, unfortunately there is no secret gremlins stealing CPU cycles that I can just turn off (wish there were though), AC single rendering thread will always be a bottleneck, unless of course you GPU gives up first.
The only way around is dialing down CPU intense settings, even with i9-9900k I can't run everything maxed out. New optimization options in Shader Patch help a lot though.

And going back to the topic, it's just another example of how much fiddling and tech knowledge required to make everything run properly in VR. Unfortunately even after so many years, it's still not seamless plug and play experience, and can be overwhelming at first even for technically experienced people.

 

[Miguel Batista]

Sol patch is a shader patch. As for AI's from about 10 I start to hit ASW on the start with my settings and can us up to 30 in ASW. with rain at night 30 is the absolute maximum I believe. Again, hit that ASW while traffic is packed once it starts thinning performance goes up. If I remove SS and just keep msaa x4 I can hit 90 fps consistently. I keep world details on high and pp on low btw, reflections on medium and shadows on low or medium (still checking if the fps hit is noticeable. Also openvr deals with shadows and shimmering a lot better than oculusvr on similar settings so I am still debating which rendering process to use).