Digital foundry: There are yet-to-leak PSVR2 specs that "make it look even better"

[DynamiteCop 2,108]

4 minutes ago, jehurey said:

 

 

 

So it will have a larger FOV than even the Valve Index.

 

Significantly better resolution, with OLED screens (holy shit) and with combined technologies of Flexible Scaling resolution and Foveated Rendering, it will look absolutely fantastic, and achieve far more than other headsets with eliminating the screen-door effect.

 

And then on top of that, for the thumb, index finger, and middle finger...........it will have the ability to do FULL FINGER tracking to determine how far your thumb/finger is from the capacitive sensor. The fourth and fifth finger location will be derived from the position of the index and middle finger (or those may just be simple binary sensors to detect if the finger is closed or open).

 

Which is more than good enough.

 

Which means....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I was right

The index has a 20 degree higher field of view at its maximum setting of 130, it's adjustable and you would know this if you actually researched anything. Its minimum FoV is 110.

 

There's several other problems with what you're getting excited about. Even though the resolution may be higher, the ability to super sample on PC renders that extra resolution as irrelevant and screen door is already a non-factor.

 

Adding to this with OLED panels it will without any shred of a doubt be unable to reach the refresh rate of the index, not to mention there's no way that system has the power to drive that resolution.

 

As far as the controllers are concerned and finger tracking, you're getting way too excited for something that you have to continually hold on to. We already had a discussion about this, the fact that you have grip the controller at all times means you are limited in what you can do.

 

Adding to all of this the headset is without a doubt going to have inside out tracking. This is insanely inferior to a base station setup. The second those controllers go out of view of the headset you lose tracking.

 

Going beyond even this you have no ability for full-body tracking, you're stuck with three point tracking while I am using 6-point tracking.

 

Please be excited.

 

[jehurey 3,313]

1 hour ago, DynamiteCop said:

The index has a 20 degree higher field of view at its maximum setting of 130, it's adjustable and you would know this if you actually researched anything. Its minimum FoV is 110.

 

There's several other problems with what you're getting excited about. Even though the resolution may be higher, the ability to super sample on PC renders that extra resolution as irrelevant and screen door is already a non-factor.

 

Adding to this with OLED panels it will without any shred of a doubt be unable to reach the refresh rate of the index, not to mention there's no way that system has the power to drive that resolution.

 

As far as the controllers are concerned and finger tracking, you're getting way too excited for something that you have to continually hold on to. We already had a discussion about this, the fact that you have grip the controller at all times means you are limited in what you can do.

 

Adding to all of this the headset is without a doubt going to have inside out tracking. This is insanely inferior to a base station setup. The second those controllers go out of view of the headset you lose tracking.

 

Going beyond even this you have no ability for full-body tracking, you're stuck with three point tracking while I am using 6-point tracking.

 

Please be excited.

 

No one cares about increased vertical FOV.

 

Its about horizontal FOV, and this is greater.

 

Super sampling does not help with efficiency, it will result in lower framerate. Just means it lowered the chances of there being high-production graphics games in VR.

 

Which is what you are currently playing on PC, cheap looking games...........go ahead and boast about super sampling low poly VR games.  I'll take Sony's solution that is able to deliver better graphics through efficient rendering technology.

 

No, OLED panels already do 120Hz, and you aren't playing anything on Valve index at 144Hz.

 

Yes the system does have that power, I just told you about resolution scaling and foveated rendering.

 

Sony is just one simple adjustable nylon strap away from you being able to let go of the controller when playing a game. No there isn't anything to indicate that the headset has to visually see the controller through an inside-out camera.

 

No, you aren't using 6-point tracking..............because you don't have any fucking games to play on your $800+ Valve index

 

I am excited, because Sony gave the entire PC industry an 8 year headstart on VR, and they've utterly failed to capitalize. Sony will leapfrog them in hardware and in games next year.

[DynamiteCop 2,108]

40 minutes ago, jehurey said:

No one cares about increased vertical FOV.

 

Its about horizontal FOV, and this is greater.

 

Super sampling does not help with efficiency, it will result in lower framerate. Just means it lowered the chances of there being high-production graphics games in VR.

 

Which is what you are currently playing on PC, cheap looking games...........go ahead and boast about super sampling low poly VR games.  I'll take Sony's solution that is able to deliver better graphics through efficient rendering technology.

 

No, OLED panels already do 120Hz, and you aren't playing anything on Valve index at 144Hz.

 

Yes the system does have that power, I just told you about resolution scaling and foveated rendering.

 

Sony is just one simple adjustable nylon strap away from you being able to let go of the controller when playing a game. No there isn't anything to indicate that the headset has to visually see the controller through an inside-out camera.

 

No, you aren't using 6-point tracking..............because you don't have any fucking games to play on your $800+ Valve index

 

I am excited, because Sony gave the entire PC industry an 8 year headstart on VR, and they've utterly failed to capitalize. Sony will leapfrog them in hardware and in games next year.

The maximum horizontal FoV of the Index is 130, the maximum vertical FoV of the Index is 110. The maximum perceived horizontal FoV is 120.

 

So you're wrong. This is higher, not a debate.

 

I don't care about efficiency, I have a 6900XT and a 5800X. The point is you can increase the render resolution for much more granular detail rendering a higher display resolution irrelevant. Not to mention if you had a higher resolution you would have to render that all the same.

 

All the games are low poly according to you and in conjunction I'm not playing anything at 144hz? Are you retarded? Make up your mind. There's plenty of games I can play at 144hz, which also don't look like shit. The other point is you're not going to be getting a higher refresh rate than me or even one that matches what I have, the end.

 

Sony is a nylon strap away from hands-free control? Are you kidding me LOL? The design of their controller is not conducive to that just as a start, not to mention there's zero evidence that they would even try this. You're talking out of your ass with a failed point.

 

That's how inside out tracking works moron, the controllers must maintain field of view of the cameras on the headset to retain tracking. You are so outside of your depths talking about VR it's hilarious.

 

I in fact do play games with six point tracking, something you'll never experience on your kids toy.

 

 

[jehurey 3,313]

Just now, DynamiteCop said:

The maximum horizontal FoV of the Index is 130, the maximum vertical FoV of the Index is 110. The maximum perceived horizontal FoV is 120.

 

So you're wrong. This is higher, not a debate.

 

I don't care about efficiency, I have a 6900XT and a 5800X. The point is you can increase the render resolution for much more granular detail rendering a higher display resolution irrelevant. Not to mention if you had a higher resolution you would have to render that all the same.

 

All the games are low poly according to you and in conjunction I'm not playing anything at 144hz? Are you retarded? Make up your mind. There's plenty of games I can play at 144hz, which also don't look like shit. The other point is you're not going to be getting a higher refresh rate than me or even one that matches what I have, the end.

 

Sony is a nylon strap away from hands-free control? Are you kidding me LOL? The design of their controller is not conducive to that just as a start, not to mention there's zero evidence that they would even try this. You're talking out of your ass with a failed point.

 

That's how inside out tracking works moron, the controllers must maintain field of view of the cameras on the headset to retain tracking. You are so outside of your depths talking about VR it's hilarious.

 

I in fact do play games with six point tracking, something you'll never experience on your kids toy.

 

 

No, it isn't, its 108 degrees.  Vertical FOV is 130

 

You are wrong, this has already been calculated for the past couple of years. OpenVR values measures the horizontal FOV at 108.8 degrees.

 

You are basing your opinion from Valve's stupid advertising, in which they VAGUELY compare it to the HTC Vive, and it having 20 degree more FOV than that.  Its only if you have weird vision and eye placement that allows you to adjust the lens in such a way to get a higher vertical FOV.

 

For most people, its simply 108 degrees. This is not up for debate.

 

Yes you should care about efficiency if you want to play actual high-production graphics games instead of simplistic shit like Beat Saber.

 

You rendering higher resolutions is just inefficient, which means you are not going to get 144Hz, or even a steady 120Hz unless you are playing a low poly game.

 

Yes, the controller is "conducive" (lol) to adding a simple nylon strap that would allow you to open your hand.

 

Just run a strap right behind the knuckles, and have piece of thread to pull that tightens and keeps your upper palm pressed against the controller plastic.

 

No, its already reported that the base of that of that ring is using a sensor, and its not a visual sensor.  The headset could have inside-out tracking, but there is nothing to indicate that the controllers are relying on that for their tracking.

 

No, you aren't playing any games on your Valve Index. I'd be shocked if you actually played anything since Half Life Alyx.

 

[DynamiteCop 2,108]

43 minutes ago, jehurey said:

No, it isn't, its 108 degrees.  Vertical FOV is 130

 

You are wrong, this has already been calculated for the past couple of years. OpenVR values measures the horizontal FOV at 108.8 degrees.

 

You are basing your opinion from Valve's stupid advertising, in which they VAGUELY compare it to the HTC Vive, and it having 20 degree more FOV than that.  Its only if you have weird vision and eye placement that allows you to adjust the lens in such a way to get a higher vertical FOV.

 

For most people, its simply 108 degrees. This is not up for debate.

 

Yes you should care about efficiency if you want to play actual high-production graphics games instead of simplistic shit like Beat Saber.

 

You rendering higher resolutions is just inefficient, which means you are not going to get 144Hz, or even a steady 120Hz unless you are playing a low poly game.

 

Yes, the controller is "conducive" (lol) to adding a simple nylon strap that would allow you to open your hand.

 

Just run a strap right behind the knuckles, and have piece of thread to pull that tightens and keeps your upper palm pressed against the controller plastic.

 

No, its already reported that the base of that of that ring is using a sensor, and its not a visual sensor.  The headset could have inside-out tracking, but there is nothing to indicate that the controllers are relying on that for their tracking.

 

No, you aren't playing any games on your Valve Index. I'd be shocked if you actually played anything since Half Life Alyx.

 

First off the vertical fov is always shallower than the horizontal fov so you've got that completely wrong to begin with. Secondly they're testing against the advertised value which is the default configuration of 110. Not the maximum value possible when you have the lenses pushed as close to your eyes as possible.

 

Wrong again, why you're doubling down on things you know nothing about with technology you don't even use is beyond me.

 

Secondly I could give two shits about efficiency, I'm running one of the most powerful single-gpu computers you can get. Efficiency is nice but when you have the capability to brute force it's a secondary concern relegated only to those with lesser hardware.

 

I can't get 144 FPS in non low-poly games? This is your problem, you're speaking of things you have no experience with and haven't researched. You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

 

I'm sorry Jerry but that's just a no. It's either light-based tracking, base station tracking or inside out tracking. It's going to be one of the two that is not base stations, and it WILL be inferior, greatly so. 

 

Dawg, they're not going to have some type of strap on there which is exactly why they have the wrist teathers. Drop it.

 

I play VR every weekend and more than anything else now oh, so thank you for being wrong yet again. All you accomplish around here is being continually wrong.

[Remij 4,822]

LMFAO Jerry talking like as if knows a fucking single thing about VR  

[-GD-X★ 7,955]

damn, the sound design in alyx

[DynamiteCop 2,108]

27 minutes ago, -GD-X said:

damn, the sound design in alyx

The whole experience is incredible, it's not only the best VR game made without a doubt, it's just an amazing game in general.

[Remij 4,822]

28 minutes ago, -GD-X said:

damn, the sound design in alyx

Dude... there's nothing else out there like HL: Alyx.  Some chapters are fucking crazy audio and visually.  

[jehurey 3,313]

5 hours ago, DynamiteCop said:

First off the vertical fov is always shallower than the horizontal fov so you've got that completely wrong to begin with. Secondly they're testing against the advertised value which is the default configuration of 110. Not the maximum value possible when you have the lenses pushed as close to your eyes as possible.

 

Wrong again, why you're doubling down on things you know nothing about with technology you don't even use is beyond me.

 

Secondly I could give two shits about efficiency, I'm running one of the most powerful single-gpu computers you can get. Efficiency is nice but when you have the capability to brute force it's a secondary concern relegated only to those with lesser hardware.

 

I can't get 144 FPS in non low-poly games? This is your problem, you're speaking of things you have no experience with and haven't researched. You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

 

I'm sorry Jerry but that's just a no. It's either light-based tracking, base station tracking or inside out tracking. It's going to be one of the two that is not base stations, and it WILL be inferior, greatly so. 

 

Dawg, they're not going to have some type of strap on there which is exactly why they have the wrist teathers. Drop it.

 

I play VR every weekend and more than anything else now oh, so thank you for being wrong yet again. All you accomplish around here is being continually wrong.

No, it isn't in the Valve Index, you can thank Valve for that piece of stupidity.  OpenVR FOV values for Valve Index measure horizontal FOV at 108.8 degrees.

 

Sweetie..............Valve is telling you this by how they characterize their per eye screen resolution

 

Remember, resolution is measured HORIZONTAL NUMBER OF PIXELS x VERTICAL NUMBER OF PIXELS.

 

1920 x 1080

Horizontal x Vertical

 

3840 x 2160

Horizontal x Vertical

 

So the FIRST number should be BIGGER than the second number when Valve gives their "per eye" screen resolution, right?????????????????????

 

Wrong.

 

https://www.valvesoftware.com/en/index/headset

 

It has a higher vertical pixel count than horizontal pixel count. The 130 degree FoV is for vertical field of view, not horizontal. You just lost this argument, and it isn't up for debate.

 

LOL Half Life Alyx, I said that you can't get 144Hz in anything BUT low poly games. Half Life Alyx definitely classifies, and its just nowhere close to being a next-gen game.  The PS5 is going to be having VR running next-gen games.

 

So, no, your GPU can't "brute force" SUPERSAMPLING next-gen games at 120FPS framerates.

 

I love how you're now whittled down to try to make yourself feel better over controller positioning.

 

No, you don't play shit on your Valve Index, unless you just bought it recently

[DynamiteCop 2,108]

3 minutes ago, jehurey said:

No, it isn't in the Valve Index, you can thank Valve for that piece of stupidity.  OpenVR FOV values for Valve Index measure horizontal FOV at 108.8 degrees.

 

Sweetie..............Valve is telling you this by how they characterize their per eye screen resolution

 

Remember, resolution is measured HORIZONTAL NUMBER OF PIXELS x VERTICAL NUMBER OF PIXELS.

 

1920 x 1080

Horizontal x Vertical

 

3840 x 2160

Horizontal x Vertical

 

So the FIRST number should be BIGGER than the second number when Valve gives their "per eye" screen resolution, right?????????????????????

 

Wrong.

 

https://www.valvesoftware.com/en/index/headset

 

It has a higher vertical pixel count than horizontal pixel count. The 130 degree FoV is for vertical field of view, not horizontal. You just lost this argument, and it isn't up for debate.

 

LOL Half Life Alyx, I said that you can't get 144Hz in anything BUT low poly games. Half Life Alyx definitely classifies, and its just nowhere close to being a next-gen game.  The PS5 is going to be having VR running next-gen games.

 

So, no, your GPU can't "brute force" SUPERSAMPLING next-gen games at 120FPS framerates.

 

I love how you're now whittled down to try to make yourself feel better over controller positioning.

 

No, you don't play shit on your Valve Index, unless you just bought it recently

No it doesn't you absolute autist lol. It's 1440x1600 per eye, combined resolution is 2880x1600.... Your horizontal FoV is a result of the combined figure and horizontal offset, you know how a 3D image is generated...

 

Herrr fucking derrr... You are so dumb I can't even believe it lol.

 

Those tests are not even from OpenVR, fail yet again. They were done by an organization called Infinite. They test against the manufacturers stated FoV, not a potential maximum. Valve claims 110, in reality it's 108, but it can go as high as 130 given the adjustable lenses.

 

You're stupid as shit.

[jehurey 3,313]

5 minutes ago, DynamiteCop said:

No it doesn't you absolute autist lol. It's 1440x1600 per eye, combined resolution is 2880x1600.... Your horizontal FoV is a result of the combined figure and horizontal offset, you know how a 3D image is generated...

 

Herrr fucking derrr... You are so dumb I can't even believe it lol.

 

Those tests are not even from OpenVR, fail yet again. They were done by an organization called Infinite. They test against the manufacturers stated FoV, not a potential maximum. Valve claims 110, in reality it's 108, but it can go as high as 130 given the adjustable lenses.

 

You're stupid as shit.

No you are wrong. Calculating horizontal FOV ends up with overlap between the left and right eye.

 

You are not seeing 2880 unique pixels horizontally, there's a significant amount of overlap over what you are seeing. Those pixels are not situated to the outer extremes of your eyes, they are situation on the inner part of your eye.

 

Just like your REAL VISION in real life...............tell me when you close one eye, does the INTERIOR horizontal field of view end right around the same area where your INTERIOR horizontal field of view for the OTHER EYE begins??????

 

No, of course not, they greatly overlap one another.  Same thing with the Valve Index.

 

Like I said, OpenVR measurement values for the Valve Index are at 108.8 degrees. You do not have 130 degrees horizontal FOV for Valve Index. This isn't up for debate. You don't have anything that debunks this.

 

 

Edited August 6, 2021 by jehurey

[DynamiteCop 2,108]

5 minutes ago, jehurey said:

No you are wrong. Calculating horizontal FOV ends up with overlap between the left and right eye.

 

You are not seeing 2880 unique pixels horizontally, there's a significant amount of overlap over what you are seeing. Those pixels are not situated to the outer extremes of your eyes, they are situation on the inner part of your eye.

 

Just like your REAL VISION in real life...............tell me when you close one eye, does the INTERIOR horizontal field of view end right around the same area where your INTERIOR horizontal field of view for the OTHER EYE begins??????

 

No, of course not, they greatly overlap one another.  Same thing with the Valve Index.

 

Like I said, OpenVR measurement values for the Valve Index are at 108.8 degrees. You do not have 130 degrees horizontal FOV for Valve Index. This isn't up for debate. You don't have anything that debunks this.

 

 

Jerry, that 108 is on the basis of of the advertised 110 degree FoV... It can go UP to 130. It's the only headset with the ability to move the lenses forward and backward.

 

You can have as little as 110 (108) or up to 130 depending on the distance you place the lenses from your eyes... Just stop, you are unbearably retarded.

[jehurey 3,313]

1 hour ago, DynamiteCop said:

Jerry, that 108 is on the basis of of the advertised 110 degree FoV... It can go UP to 130.

Only if you have completely fucked up face with messed up eyeball sockets.

 

So.............unless you're developmentally retarded with a smushed face because your mother slept on her sides way too much during pregnancy...............which you MAY BE...........that's the only way to achieve a 130 degree FOV, so its pathetic advertising on Valve's behalf.

 

Its not up for debate, its measured at 108.8 degrees for standard viewing.

Edited August 6, 2021 by jehurey