My Oculus Rift has Shipped

[MikeChipshop Member]

7 minutes ago, DirtyLarry said:

Lucky's Tale no doubt at all about it looks like a PS2 era game.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this.

I think people forget just how old and bad PS2 games look these days. Take the example below using a comparable style of game.

 

 

Crash, and...

 

 

Lucky's Tale.

 

Lucky does look much, much better. But in general i get your point.

 

If you do find anything you're appy with graphically, let me know as you've inspired me to dig out my DK2.

[DirtyLarry Veteran]

14 minutes ago, MikeChipshop said:

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this.

I think people forget just how old and bad PS2 games look these days. Take the example below using a comparable style of game.

 

 

Crash, and...

 

 

Lucky's Tale.

 

Lucky does look much, much better. But in general i get your point.

 

If you do find anything you're appy with graphically, let me know as you've inspired me to dig out my DK2.

My Luckys Tale looks nowhere near that good. Not even close.

To me it looks like they bumped up the resolution, jacked up the graphical settings, and took a screenshot for Marketing.

So what is shown for marketing purposes and what one actually sees are two very, very different things.
Like I said, the Edge Of Nowhere screenshots I found make the game look great visually. 

It does not look great.

 

Again, perhaps my Rift is just auto detecting everything and setting everything to low so it meets all the requirements for VR.

But I can promise you, absolutely promise you, those are not the graphics I am seeing. 

 

Finally I will say this. Why would I exaggerate or twist the truth about this? I have no stake either way. Hell, if anything, I want them to look that good. That would be the best if they did. Perhaps I would feel way better about spending $600 on this.

 

So people can choose to believe me or choose to believe screenshots for marketing. Really up to you. But I would no doubt say in this case it is more bullshot than not. And/or they are taking the screenshots on a PC most people do not have yet. Probably both honestly.

 

So either the 980Ti I have is not capable of outputting decent graphics, which absolutely could be the case, or they show marketing shots like that.

 

Also FTR, I did say I was revising my statement to be Late PS2 to Launch PS3 graphics. Crash was released early on in the PS2's lifecycle.

 

[Jason S. Global Moderator]

15 minutes ago, MikeChipshop said:

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this.

 

I think people forget just how old and bad PS2 games look these days. Take the example below using a comparable style of game.

 

Lucky does look much, much better. But in general i get your point.

 

If you do find anything you're appy with graphically, let me know as you've inspired me to dig out my DK2.

perhaps im misinformed, but arent these VR headsets basically driving TWO displays at 90fps? That's going to require some pretty intense hardware. my laptop has a 970M, and it's not even compatible according to nvidia. it doesnt surprise me at all that these games arent Crysis-level quality.

[DirtyLarry Veteran]

Also keep in mind Lucky's Tale gives the end user two options for resolution. VR and Non VR. The Non VR resolution is for the Window that runs the game normally on your desktop so if anyone was next to you without the Rift on they could watch the game like a normal game. Just like any other non VR game out there. One can bump that non VR window up to very high resolutions. Thus, Lucky's Tale can take very good looking screenshots. The resolution that is going through the Rift itself is a much different, much lower, experience.

[+Asmodai MVC]

2 hours ago, Jason S. said:

perhaps im misinformed, but arent these VR headsets basically driving TWO displays at 90fps? That's going to require some pretty intense hardware. my laptop has a 970M, and it's not even compatible according to nvidia. it doesnt surprise me at all that these games arent Crysis-level quality.

My understanding is that only the Vive has two displays.  I'm not 100% positive this is the case but I believe both the PSVR and the Rift have a single display that's just split via the optics.  Both Vive and Rift target 90fps while the PSVR (the headset itself) targets 120fps.  Sony DID add support for 90fps late in the development cycle to make it easier for devs to port Vive/Rift games.  Also the PS4 console obviously can't push 120fps natively (well technically it can but with very simplistic graphics) so it uses the frame doubling technique behind the scenes so game developers "just" need to target 60fps.  That all happens inside the PS4 itself though so the output of the console is 120fps as far as the headset is concerned, even if Sony does employ a hack to get there.

[Jason S. Global Moderator]

16 minutes ago, Asmodai said:

My understanding is that only the Vive has two displays.  I'm not 100% positive this is the case but I believe both the PSVR and the Rift have a single display that's just split via the optics.  Both Vive and Rift target 90fps while the PSVR (the headset itself) targets 120fps.  Sony DID add support for 90fps late in the development cycle to make it easier for devs to port Vive/Rift games.  Also the PS4 console obviously can't push 120fps natively (well technically it can but with very simplistic graphics) so it uses the frame doubling technique behind the scenes so game developers "just" need to target 60fps.  That all happens inside the PS4 itself though so the output of the console is 120fps as far as the headset is concerned, even if Sony does employ a hack to get there.

So doesnt that mean that computers using Oculus need to be able to hit 90fps? That's going to be difficult for many games, which is probably why the GPU reqs are so high.

[+Asmodai MVC]

15 minutes ago, Jason S. said:

So doesnt that mean that computers using Oculus need to be able to hit 90fps? That's going to be difficult for many games, which is probably why the GPU reqs are so high.

I believe that to be the case.  In theory Oculus could use a similar frame doubling technique though which would allow the devs to target 45fps but I've not heard that.  I'm pretty sure both Vive and Rift target native 90fps in most cases.  That's one of the things that makes it easier to port Vive/Rift games to PSVR despite the weaker hardware.  The dev has to get a solid 90fps from the minimum required PC for the Vive/Rift but only 60fps from the PlayStation (which Sony then doubles to 120fps)

 

VR graphics are ALWAYS going to be worse then non-VR graphics on the same hardware though because it's just a more graphically taxing display option.  If you're expecting to put on a VR headset and see graphics of similar quality to what you get playing a game on the TV/Monitor you're going to be disappointed... that's not going to ever change.  Maybe in a few years graphics in VR will look like top end graphics on the TV/Monitor do TODAY but by then the TV/Monitor graphics will look even better.  The gap is never going to close (completely, it may get a little smaller) they'll just both move up together.

[DirtyLarry Veteran]

Oculus has 2 displays. 

Quote

The Rift uses an OLED panel for each eye, each having a resolution of 1080×1200.

Also right on the Oculus website, one of the first quote talks about "displays"

Everything I am finding says it is two displays.
 

As a result, I knew the graphics were not going to be as good as current games. I just did not think they were going to be as simplistic as they are. Again, perhaps my 908Ti is the culprit and if I get a 1080 card it would look a lot better. Not sure I am down to spend the money to find out just yet though, as I do believe Gameplay is important as well, and right now none of the games are Wow on the gameplay either, just very damn cool.

 

I think people are focusing way to much on what I had to say about the graphics. As I said, occupying a 3D environment is pretty damn amazing.

[+Asmodai MVC]

2 minutes ago, DirtyLarry said:

Oculus has 2 displays. 

Also right on the Oculus website, one of the first quote talks about "displays"

Everything I am finding says it is two displays.

I stand correct on that then.  Like I said I wasn't sure on that point and just did a quick wiki check and it looked like it said one but apparently not.  As mentioned before I haven't actually used the CV1 and the DK2 (the most recent one I've used) did have a single screen (essentially a Samsung Galaxy Note 3).

 

I'm not sure it makes much difference if it's one or two panels to the CPU/GPU though.  Having one 2160x1200 panel that was split via optics as with DK2 wouldn't be significantly different than having two 1080x1200 panels side by side.  The GPUs frame buffers would be the same resolution and such either way.

 

Do you know if the CV1 has a pentile display or not?  I've heard rumors it does and I see lots of chatter in forums but I haven't seen anything official.  Sony made a big point of saying PSVR has full RGB subpixels which seemed odd unless they were taking a shot at the Vive or Rift.

[spaceelf]

On ‎6‎/‎19‎/‎2016 at 1:21 PM, Elliot B. said:

Your processor doesn't meet the minimum requirements, that's why...

Side note - that said recommended, not minimum.

[DirtyLarry Veteran]

Just wanted to reply real quick, as I am literally in matchmaking. Eve: Valkyrie is the real deal, and what I expected from VR. It looks pretty damn good visually too. This is pretty damn amazing and may have been worth it alone, not even kidding. If more games can match its quality, yeah, I am not worried at all.

[DirtyLarry Veteran]

5 hours ago, Asmodai said:

I stand correct on that then.  Like I said I wasn't sure on that point and just did a quick wiki check and it looked like it said one but apparently not.  As mentioned before I haven't actually used the CV1 and the DK2 (the most recent one I've used) did have a single screen (essentially a Samsung Galaxy Note 3).

 

I'm not sure it makes much difference if it's one or two panels to the CPU/GPU though.  Having one 2160x1200 panel that was split via optics as with DK2 wouldn't be significantly different than having two 1080x1200 panels side by side.  The GPUs frame buffers would be the same resolution and such either way.

 

Do you know if the CV1 has a pentile display or not?  I've heard rumors it does and I see lots of chatter in forums but I haven't seen anything official.  Sony made a big point of saying PSVR has full RGB subpixels which seemed odd unless they were taking a shot at the Vive or Rift.

Full disclosure, you are starting to get out of my realm of knowledge. LOL Not sure about the pentile display at all.
Also full disclosure, I am picking up the PSVR. Already have it preordered. I figure if there is any VR I am going to get my wife and parents to check it, it is it. I also like the sound of some of the exclusives on the PSVR. I just do not have high hopes at all for it based on my time with Oculus and seeing how much power is really needed.

 

So about the two displays vs 1 display thing. It does make sense to me that wether it is 2 or 1 it should be roughly the same processing power. Where I think the big difference is, if it was just 1, it would be the native resolution I am guessing. The two displays means a lower resolution combined to make one, so it is in a way a form of upscaling, Hence the not so great looking visuals. perhaps I am wrong here?

 

As I said though, and I just spent the last 90 minutes playing it, Eve: Valkyrie is for real. I almost feel like Oculus should have just made that the first thing you see after the demo they force you to watch. Hell, they force a demo. Why not a game. Get people amped up, because seriously it is damn impressive. From both a visual and gameplay standpoint, it is REALLY KICK ASS.

So much so I do something I almost never do. I jumped right into online after the tutorial. I seriously almost never do that with normal games. I did it with this, AND I was in VR. That is how excited I was. I actually do okay too. First two games I was second to last, then third to last. But my third and fourth match I was 3rd place both times. I actually felt like I was playing decent. Also another thing I hardly experience in online games this early.

 

Also I have to share the fact I checked out a demo, not a game, a demo entitled Showdown. It is done in Unreal 4. WOW it looked really good. It was not a game, but it really was so impressive visually. It is about 2 minutes long and checks in at 1.3 GB iirc. That is pretty crazy, but does show there is also some great potential there. More info on it here. From the official page...

Quote

Showdown is a VR action cinematic that takes you through a guns-blazing scenario in slow motion. This version uses Oculus's experimental UE4 renderer from Farlands and Dreamdeck to enable significantly higher pixel density and 4x MSAA. The result is a razor-sharp, high-definition experience at full frame rate. You can compare the forward and deferred renderer by pressing Up and Down on the Oculus Remote. You can also press right and left to compare high and low pixel density for each renderer.

Finally, I just had to share this. I was really not feeling good about just leaving my Oculus on my desktop sitting there, so I did some research, and wound up picking up this.

Best gaming related purchase I have made in awhile. LOL

[MikeChipshop Member]

Grabbing Showdown now

[DirtyLarry Veteran]

3 hours ago, MikeChipshop said:

Grabbing Showdown now

I would say it is easily the best visuals I have seen so far. There are some clipping issues with objects, it is not flawless, but if it is a showcase of what is potential with games in the future, that is definitely more like it.

[+Asmodai MVC]

15 hours ago, DirtyLarry said:

Full disclosure, you are starting to get out of my realm of knowledge. LOL Not sure about the pentile display at all.

Basically each pixel normally has a red, green, and blue light (subpixel) that combines to various degrees to make all of the colors for that pixel. (just like playing with the color picker in a paint program or RGB values in html, etc.)

A pentile display uses only two subpixels by always having green but alternating between red and blue with it. (there are other subpixel arrangements in addition to RGBG)

 

IF it's true that Oculus is using a Pentile display (and it's the RGBG type) then despite the lower resolution the PSVR actually has a greater number of subpixels.

 

1920x1280 x 3 subpixels = 7,372,800 subpixels

2560x1200 x 2 subpixels = 6,144,000 subpixels

 

15 hours ago, DirtyLarry said:

Also full disclosure, I am picking up the PSVR. Already have it preordered. I figure if there is any VR I am going to get my wife and parents to check it, it is it. I also like the sound of some of the exclusives on the PSVR. I just do not have high hopes at all for it based on my time with Oculus and seeing how much power is really needed.

I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.  Eve: Valkyrie is going to be available on PSVR as well and it's not a huge downgrade in graphics.  Again I haven't tried PSVR personally but some of my Rift owning friends have and they claim at least that it looks good.  You seem pretty impressed with Eve: Valkyrie on the Rift so I'd be very interested in your opinion of the PSVR version when you get it (assuming you even bother to buy the game for PSVR since you already have it on Rift).

 

Keep in mind also that the apps available for Oculus are mostly just side projects, hobbyists, and tech demos.  Sony has real AAA studios working on VR as their primary development not just something they're playing with on the side.  Also most Oculus games are likely using DX11 or OpenGL which has massive overhead compared to PlayStation.  DX12 and Vulkan go a long way to closing that gap (but don't entirely eliminate it) but I doubt many games already out for Oculus are already using those APIs.  A finely tuned PSVR game running at 60fps (doubled by the system to 120fps) has a good chance of coming very close to a DX11 Rift game running at 90fps, at least on hardware close to the required minimum Rift specs.

 

15 hours ago, DirtyLarry said:

So about the two displays vs 1 display thing. It does make sense to me that wether it is 2 or 1 it should be roughly the same processing power. Where I think the big difference is, if it was just 1, it would be the native resolution I am guessing. The two displays means a lower resolution combined to make one, so it is in a way a form of upscaling, Hence the not so great looking visuals. perhaps I am wrong here?

The GPU still is using the same frame buffer(s) no matter the number of displays.  It outputs a single image at a time at a single resolution.  If the GPU sends out a 2560x1200 image each frame it can be displayed on single panel 2560x1200 or on two 1280x1200 panels side by side, it makes no difference to the GPU.  There may be advantages to having two panels for the optics and other things but having one or two panels doesn't make any difference at all the the processing power of the box (CPU/GPU) if the total resolution remains the same.

 

15 hours ago, DirtyLarry said:

As I said though, and I just spent the last 90 minutes playing it, Eve: Valkyrie is for real. I almost feel like Oculus should have just made that the first thing you see after the demo they force you to watch. Hell, they force a demo. Why not a game. Get people amped up, because seriously it is damn impressive. From both a visual and gameplay standpoint, it is REALLY KICK ASS.

THAT is what I've heard from others and why I was surprised by your PS2 graphics quality claim.  If you pick up Eve: Valkyrie for the PSVR when it comes out I think you'll be pleasantly surprised as well.  Again though I just want to be clear that I haven't personally tried these but I have friends who have and THIS reaction of yours falls in line with what they have been saying to me.

[DirtyLarry Veteran]

Thanks for taking the time to explain it all. I have to say I am definitely more amped for the PSVR now as a result of you breaking it down.

I can also say I almost definitely will probably pick up Eve: Valkyrie for the PSVR even though I already own it. Hopefully the give a break for + subscribers or something as well, as it may be hard to repurchase it at full price, but I think I will probably purchase it for two reasons.

1) It is a lot of fun.

2) It will allow me to compare the two platforms.

I probably will not be able to resist the second reason truth be told. And #1 is a damn good reason too.

 

I really wish there was a way to take screenshots of what one is seeing on the Oculus itself, just so you all can see. Edge of Nowhere particularly, the screenshots I have found out there are absolutely not a representation at all as to what it looks like on the Rift. I just will always keep going back to the penguins towards the beginning. They reminded me of Max Payne's blocky ass head in Max Payne 1. I did find this little sentence in the IGN review of it...

Quote

but on the whole Edge isn’t a terrific-looking game. Some of the environments look extremely low-polygon and jagged, which doesn’t look all that convincing even for big chunks of ice.

I actually wonder if the beginning part I played is so bad graphically as a developer trick to get people used to the way the camera moves, etc. as that is the game performing at its best from a technical standpoint. Less resources = better performance in an effort to get people used to the different approach for how the camera and VR works itself? Because this is the part I keep going back to, there was ice, etc., and it really looked bad. Super blocky and really low textures. Who knows. But especially with the Steam Summer Sale starting today, I am not going to be getting back to it anytime in the near future I do not think.

 

And there is no doubt the possibility things looked worse to me because it was in fact my first impression and I was being overly critical. I am aware this can be the case. I have been playing games for quite a long time now. I also do digital design on the side for a living and although I do not develop games I do develop for digital use so I am pretty aware of things like resolution, etc., and I have always admitted that is also a detriment. My eye catches things others do not. So it may very well be a situation where a week from two from now I go back and realize I was being harsher than needed, but for now I am sticking to some of the games look pretty bad. A few look really good. The rest are in the middle.

 

And actually that is a good reason to be looking forward to PSVR. As you said, a lot of the developers are studios that produce AAA titles, so perhaps with their resources and talent pool they will also up the ante.

 

I still am on for other people on the fence about wether to dive in now or not, specifically with Oculus, my recommendation is a firm WAIT. 

[+Asmodai MVC]

16 minutes ago, DirtyLarry said:

Thanks for taking the time to explain it all.

No problem.  You're the one doing the service here of actually dropping the $$ to buy these things and taking the time to write up your reviews.  If I can provide a little insight it's the least I can do.

 

16 minutes ago, DirtyLarry said:

I have to say I am definitely more amped for the PSVR now as a result of you breaking it down.

I can also say I almost definitely will probably pick up Eve: Valkyrie for the PSVR even though I already own it. Hopefully the give a break for + subscribers or something as well, as it may be hard to repurchase it at full price, but I think I will probably purchase it for two reasons.

1) It is a lot of fun.

2) It will allow me to compare the two platforms.

I probably will not be able to resist the second reason truth be told. And #1 is a damn good reason too.

3) The PSVR version will almost certainly have a larger player community.

With the PSVR being cheaper and 40+ million people already having the hardware to drive it there is likely to be a lot more players.  This is important for an online combat game such as Eve: Valkyrie.

Oculus was wise to give this game away, I hope Sony can come up with some great deal and not just sell it for $60 because from everything I've heard this game will really sell people on VR.

 

16 minutes ago, DirtyLarry said:

I actually wonder if the beginning part I played is so bad graphically as a developer trick to get people used to the way the camera moves, etc. as that is the game performing at its best from a technical standpoint.

I doubt that's the case but who knows.  I'm not familiar with that game myself.

 

16 minutes ago, DirtyLarry said:

And there is no doubt the possibility things looked worse to me because it was in fact my first impression and I was being overly critical. I am aware this can be the case. I have been playing games for quite a long time now. I also do digital design on the side for a living and although I do not develop games I do develop for digital use so I am pretty aware of things like resolution, etc., and I have always admitted that is also a detriment. My eye catches things others do not. So it may very well be a situation where a week from two from now I go back and realize I was being harsher than needed, but for now I am sticking to some of the games look pretty bad. A few look really good. The rest are in the middle.

This is a big problem for VR.  People don't like the idea of buying expensive $400+ hardware to get worse visuals but that's how it is.  It's hard to explain to people that the feeling of "presence", like you're actually IN the game, totally makes up for the drop in graphics quality.  I'm not sure I'd believe it myself if I hadn't actually used the Rift DK1 and DK2 as well as the Gear VR.  I'm convinced that the only way people are going to buy in is if they get to try it themselves.  As such having demo stations in GameStops and Best Buys (in the U.S.) is going to be CRITICAL.  Again I'm personally a VR believer for the long term I've just not determined exactly what product I'm going to buy in at. (again not counting the free Gear VR I got with my phone as a major VR platform).

 

16 minutes ago, DirtyLarry said:

And actually that is a good reason to be looking forward to PSVR. As you said, a lot of the developers are studios that produce AAA titles, so perhaps with their resources and talent pool they will also up the ante.

I hope you enjoy it and I look forward to hearing your thoughts when your PSVR comes in.

 

16 minutes ago, DirtyLarry said:

I still am on for other people on the fence about wether to dive in now or not, specifically with Oculus, my recommendation is a firm WAIT. 

I'm still firmly in the "WAIT" stage myself and as I'm the one in my friends group my non-techy friends ask for advice I'm adivising them to wait still as well.

 

Again right now I'm thinking either I'm going to get a PSVR from friends/family for Christmas this year (unlikely) or I'm going to buy Project Scorpio and an Xbox branded Rift next Christmas (assuming I'm even right on guessing that will happen...)

Of course who knows what's going to be announced between now and then.

 

For example one thing that may annoy some but would help convince me to go ahead and buy a PSVR is if Sony were to assure us the PSVR headset will be the VR headset for the PS5 as well.  Then at least I know it will last for a long time should I buy it.  I'm sure some people would be upset by that wanting much higher rez screens on a "next-gen" PS5 era headset but I think developers could just use the extra horsepower of the PS5 (whatever that may end up being) to output a native (instead of frame doubled) 120Hz 1080p image with a very high detail/effects level.   To do 120Hz at the maximum detail setting would take a ton of horsepower even at 1080p.

 

[DirtyLarry Veteran]

Good stuff Asmodai. Not going to quote you as it is just easier to say I agree with everything you said (and not being sarcastic or anything, I absolutely do). I also hope Sony says it is the solution for the future as well.

 

So I went a little crazy on the Steam Sale (I now see the Oculus store has a sale as well, not sure what they were thinking not matching the prices), and let me just say that ADR1FT is ######## bonkers.

 

Excuse my French but I am using it to get the point across. Ever since I saw the reveal for ADR1FT it is partially why I wanted the Rift, and it is pretty much what I imagined VR would be like. And the good news is I did not really get sick at all. I felt a small tinge coming on so I took a break,  but that was after 22 minutes and it was really just me being safe rather than sorry.

 

Also checked out Windlands, and yeah, that made me a bit more nauseous, but again nothing crazy. It was pretty cool as well though.

 

Really think I am just getting my legs still so to speak. And I have figured out if I start sweating a little, it is coming, so I am being proactive in stopping.

 

So yeah, it has been a full 5 days with VR now, and I am somewhat switching my stance. ADR1FT especially is just WOW. Like exactly what I expected VR to be. Asmodai you mentioned the term "presence," and I will be damned if I was not just floating in space right now. Seriously. 

 

That, as I said when i first posted even with the negative critiques, is pretty damn special to me. I do think VR has some serious potential. Way more than 3D ever did. Way, way more. It is an entirely new experience.

 

Off to check out Project Cars.

[DirtyLarry Veteran]

I wanted to come back to say I can admit when I am wrong. @MikeChipshop you were right, Lucky's Tale looks pretty damn good. I played it again tonight after checking out a whole bunch of games since I last posted, and no way Lucky's Tale looks like a PS2 era game. None.

I think it was just because it was literally the first game I checked out and I expected more. Now that my expectations are in check and realistic, it really is a nice looking game all things considered. Not going to win any visuals of the year awards, but it does look nice for VR and there is a lot of subtle stuff going on with the animation I did not see the first time around.

Pretty fun game too once you get playing.

 

With that said, Edge of Nowhere still had the worst looking beginning by far. LOL PS2 era for sure, which is perhaps most disappointing out of everything.

[MikeChipshop Member]

Appreciate the reply @DirtyLarry

 

I had a couple of mates over at the weekend and as we'd been discussing the Rift here, I'd got it out to play around with it a bit and my friends spotted it and instantly wanted a go. It was great to see the reaction on people's faces that had never experienced VR in any way (Except one of them is a bomb disposal expert for the Navy and gets to play around with crazy tech all the time!).

 

They especially loved the 'Showdown' demo that you recommended. If they could make a whole game based around that sort of thing, like a Quantum Break style time freezing type game but in first person, i'd throw my money at them.

 

I'll give edge of reason a miss then.

 

Now my turn to retract a statement, originally i played 'The Vanishing of Ethan Carter'  in 2D when it game out and then via a VorpX hack later, and it looked awesome. Over the weekend i grabbed the official VR add on to the game from the Steam store and it looks no where as good now. I think you're right, i think it's dramatically dialling back the graphic quality of the game to hit the desired 90fps target. If you go in to settings, all the graphic settings are missing which leads me to believe it's all automatic. The game's not nearly as beautiful looking. To the point where i went back to use the hack but realises i no longer had it installed on my computer. Looks like it's time to update the graphics card.

[DirtyLarry Veteran]

Yeah so far I have only encountered one game that actually let me change the graphics settings, and it was just a simple Low - Medium - High slider. I think it was Lucky's Tale actually but not 100% on that. No other games have any graphic settings whatsoever and I have checked out over 10 now thanks to the Steam Sale. So they are definitely not leaving it up to the end user, which is probably a good thing because people like me would be like "this has to look better" and then make it a vomit inducing experience.

I am curious to see what a 1080 does to the experience but I am not rushing out to get one anytime too soon. I am going to see how my 980Ti handles Battlefield 1 first. 

[MikeChipshop Member]

I picked up project cars this morning, not had a chance to play it but it was in the Steam sale for a tenner so i thought "Why not?". I'm slowly edging towards upgrading my graphics card, not sure which way to head yet but no way i can afford to shell out for a 1080

[DirtyLarry Veteran]

On 6/29/2016 at 6:10 AM, MikeChipshop said:

I picked up project cars this morning, not had a chance to play it but it was in the Steam sale for a tenner so i thought "Why not?". I'm slowly edging towards upgrading my graphics card, not sure which way to head yet but no way i can afford to shell out for a 1080

I actually got a refund for Project Cars. The VR works, I just thought it was a bit too intense actually.

 

Did not pop in the thread to post that though. Just came to say I am playing Edge of Nowhere right now and while I still say the graphics are the worst on the Oculus (ironically when it is playing on my desktop at the same time it looks pretty damn good), it does pick up from a gameplay perspective and although it is still not a great game, it is a good one. It also makes some pretty good use of VR itself a bit later on. The best thing I can report is I just played it for almost 2 hours and never once even felt a tinge of sickness, which is a far cry from the first night I played it. I got sick almost immediately.

 

And as strange as this is going to sound to people who have not had the chance to check out VR yet I know why I got so sick the first night. The dinner I had eaten upset some stomach some. Now you are probably reading this saying "So what?, " but VR is such a body experience that what you have to eat will no doubt come into play as to how much you can take once you strap whatever VR component on. Crazy but very true.