Quantcast
4k vs VR - what is better ?

Forums - Gaming Discussion - 4k vs VR - what is better ?

AlfredoTurkey said:
Errorist76 said:

Two award winning games are fully playable in VR. Both are many steps up from their 2D versions.

 

Playable is not the same as exclusive. There's a reason they won some awards... 

Name a single game exclusive to any particular feature or add-on peripheral ,on any platform, that won GOTY.

Games don't win GOTY *because* of console specific features or optional add-ons, they win GOTY *in spite of* them.



Around the Network
potato_hamster said:

Take some time and go back and look into the VR technologies that were developed during the 90's and how they're not nearly as different from today's VR than you think they are.  Almost all of the problems that prevented VR from catching on in the 90's and 00's still exist in VR technology today.

Don't make me laugh, the differences of the VR headsets in the 90's and now are huge.

The Forte VFX1 had a resolution of 263x230 per eye, the modern VR headsets have a resolution of 960x1080 to 1440x1600 per eye, so 20x to 40x improvement.

The Forte VFX1 had a field of view of 45 degree, the modern VR  headsets have a resolution of 90 - 110 degrees.

The Forte VFX1 had a shitty refresh rate and a lot of lag, the modern VR  headsets have 90 - 120 Hz displays with almost no lag.

The Forte VFX1 could only use a 256 color palette and the display brightness was also shitty.

The Forte VFX1 had no positional tracking, it could only recognize pitch, roll and yaw input.

The Forte VFX1 had a weight of 2.5 lbs (1.1 kg), double of the weight of modern VR  headsets.

The controller of the Forte VFX1 (the "cyber puck") emulated a computer mouse and had no positional tracking or even sixaxis motion sensors... not the best device for VR games.

Most of the few games with VFX1-support weren't designed with VR support in mind.



Conina said:
potato_hamster said:

Take some time and go back and look into the VR technologies that were developed during the 90's and how they're not nearly as different from today's VR than you think they are.  Almost all of the problems that prevented VR from catching on in the 90's and 00's still exist in VR technology today.

Don't make me laugh, the differences of the VR headsets in the 90's and now are huge.

The Forte VFX1 had a resolution of 263x230 per eye, the modern VR headsets have a resolution of 960x1080 to 1440x1600 per eye, so 20x to 40x improvement.

The Forte VFX1 had a field of view of 45 degree, the modern VR  headsets have a resolution of 90 - 110 degrees.

The Forte VFX1 had a shitty refresh rate and a lot of lag, the modern VR  headsets have 90 - 120 Hz displays with almost no lag.

The Forte VFX1 could only use a 256 color palette and the display brightness was also shitty.

The Forte VFX1 had no positional tracking, it could only recognize pitch, roll and yaw input.

The Forte VFX1 had a weight of 2.5 lbs (1.1 kg), double of the weight of modern VR  headsets.

The controller of the Forte VFX1 (the "cyber puck") emulated a computer mouse and had no positional tracking or even sixaxis motion sensors... not the best device for VR games.

Most of the few games with VFX1-support weren't designed with VR support in mind.

Hasn't changed a bit.....  (sarcasm)



Errorist76 said:
potato_hamster said:


What comparisons have I made that are ridiculous? You do realize that everything before today's generations of user headsets demanded to be taken just as seriously as today's headsets do, and people have been advocating that the "VR experience" is "revolutionary" and "mind blowing" for decades now, right?

By blockbusters, do you mean games like Duke Nukem 3D and Quake? Because I played them both in VR in the 90's. Seriously. Take some time and go back and look into the VR technologies that were developed during the 90's and how they're not nearly as different from today's VR than you think they are.  Almost all of the problems that prevented VR from catching on in the 90's and 00's still exist in VR technology today.

Look. It's not my fault I was around for what have been multiple waves of VR popularity and have heard the same tired things said about every wave. I remember the Lawnmower man. I remember reading video game magazines about the VR headset SEGA developed for the Genesis that never came out despite full games being made specifically for it. I remember trying the VFX1 at an internet cafe for a couple of hours. I get you want to act like this wave of popularity is finally the one that breaks into mainstream because obviously this one is the revolutionary one, but pretty much every single thing I've ever seen written hying VR in the past couple years was written almost word for word in the 90s with the exact same level of sincerity. So please, excuse my hesitance to buy into the hype this time around after seeing VR come and go plenty of times before.

We get it...you’re traumatised and now everyone else should dislike VR as well. I get it.

You‘re comparing a market of a few thousand VR headsets to 3-4 Million nowadays. That’s ridiculous. I’ve been gaming since 35 years as well and am a total tech nerd...don’t try to fool us in telling us that some VR experiments in the last decades had anywhere close to the significance as it has today.

What? Your response is completely nonsensical. It's completely laughable how and the diehard VR fans on this site treat people that prefer to game on televisions like they're either neanderthals or hating liars.

I don't even dislike VR, and have never even so much as indicated that I didn't. Just the current VR offerings on the market aren't great, and aren't worth the price tag, and aren't anywhere close to having mass appeal or mass market acceptance doesn't mean I don't enjoy VR. My views on VR aren't controversial to anyone but the handful of people on this site that think things like "the PS5 should ship with a VR headset" or"GTA VI should be VR exclusive".





Conina said:
potato_hamster said:

Take some time and go back and look into the VR technologies that were developed during the 90's and how they're not nearly as different from today's VR than you think they are.  Almost all of the problems that prevented VR from catching on in the 90's and 00's still exist in VR technology today.

Don't make me laugh, the differences of the VR headsets in the 90's and now are huge.

The Forte VFX1 had a resolution of 263x230 per eye, the modern VR headsets have a resolution of 960x1080 to 1440x1600 per eye, so 20x to 40x improvement.

The Forte VFX1 had a field of view of 45 degree, the modern VR  headsets have a resolution of 90 - 110 degrees.

The Forte VFX1 had a shitty refresh rate and a lot of lag, the modern VR  headsets have 90 - 120 Hz displays with almost no lag.

The Forte VFX1 could only use a 256 color palette and the display brightness was also shitty.

The Forte VFX1 had no positional tracking, it could only recognize pitch, roll and yaw input.

The Forte VFX1 had a weight of 2.5 lbs (1.1 kg), double of the weight of modern VR  headsets.

The controller of the Forte VFX1 (the "cyber puck") emulated a computer mouse and had no positional tracking or even sixaxis motion sensors... not the best device for VR games.

Most of the few games with VFX1-support weren't designed with VR support in mind.

Do you know what would make you laugh? Someone saying phrases like "console gaming is still in its infancy in 2016" or "the PS4 Pro is revolutionary, and is such a game changer, I can't go back to playing a standard PS4". Yet if you compare it to the PS1, you can come up with a laundry list of ways of how much better of a gaming experience the PS4 offers over the PS1 that completely blows the PS1 out of the water.

All of those things you listed doesn't mean the VFX1 was unplayable or unusable, and didn't offer a more basic version of the VR experiences we have today. There were plenty of people that raved about how that headset was "revolutionary" or how that basic VR experience was "mind blowing". Ohh right, that was my point, wasn't it?



Around the Network
SvennoJ said:
Kerotan said:

Would tue human eye notice any difference between 4k and 8k in VR? 

Definitely. Current headsets have 110 degree fov. Normal tv viewing max 30 degree fov. So the difference between 4K and 8K per eye is comparable to 1K and 2K on a screen. Or 540p and 1080p. The human eye as 150 degree fov per eye. To get the clarity of 1080p on a screen (at recommended seating distance) you need 10K per eye. (Although with the optics putting higher pixel density towards the center, 8K should be sufficient)

As an upper limit, the human eye can tell the difference in clarity up to about 150 pixels per degree x 150 derees = 22.5K per eye! Of course the human eye can only see that kind of detail in a 3 degree cone in the center from where vision quickly degrades. Hence pupil tracking and foveated rendering will be the most important improvements going forward.

Great information. So plenty of improvements will be needed over the next 10 years.



Errorist76 said:
AlfredoTurkey said:

Fair enough. But until a VR experience is compelling enough, I won't be interested. Right now it feels novel to me. The games with the most critical acclaim are not VR. The games that are moving the industry (BOTW,Horizon, SMO) are not VR. It's a parlor trick, not something critical to gaming. There is no OOT happening in VR... it's again... novel. It's a novelty. Something that has potential but is still in proof of concept. When that concept is realized, I'll give it a go. Until then, I'll wait. 

Two award winning games are fully playable in VR. Both are many steps up from their 2D versions.

 

derpysquirtle64 said:

4K obviously. VR is not that great in terms of quality right now. Though it has a potential to become a way better thing than 4K if the quality improves.

That totally depends on your perspective. If I’d have to chose between Skyrim or RE7 in VR or 4K (played all of them) I’d chose the low res non HDR VR version any day of the week.

the sense of scale and added immersion is a total game changer to me. A few added pixels are not.

 

John2290 said:

Apparently the Pinmax still has screen door effect so i would assume so. 8k should solve the problem, that being 8k per eye that is.

8K per eye is approximately the eye’s resolution. That said screen tech plays a huge role here. Pimax uses not very sophisticated LCD screens. Even 1 4K RGB screen for both eyes could almost eliminate the screen door effect if they’d use an RGB Matrix Screen like the PSVR uses.

Human eye is 576 mega pixels. 8k is 33 mega pixels.



I'm not a huge VR fan YET. The technology is so young, res is so poor and there is a lack of quality content. But instead I'm choosing VR.
4K is so overrated. I bought 4k HDR TV (65 inches), upgraded to PS4 Pro with SSD, built a new rig with 1080Ti etc to enjoy gaming at full scale. And I think that it's not worth it at all. I just didn't see the big difference. I still enjoy watching movies in 1080p on my old 55 inches TV in other room, playing regular PS4 and PC on it. My opinion that 4k is soo overrated. Ok, I understand that 2160p is 4x bigger than 1080p, must be far more realistic and detailed, but not for the 65 inches TV. I think you need faaar more bigger TV or superb projector to see the significant difference.



SegataSanshiro said:
Errorist76 said:

Two award winning games are fully playable in VR. Both are many steps up from their 2D versions.

 

That totally depends on your perspective. If I’d have to chose between Skyrim or RE7 in VR or 4K (played all of them) I’d chose the low res non HDR VR version any day of the week.

the sense of scale and added immersion is a total game changer to me. A few added pixels are not.

 

8K per eye is approximately the eye’s resolution. That said screen tech plays a huge role here. Pimax uses not very sophisticated LCD screens. Even 1 4K RGB screen for both eyes could almost eliminate the screen door effect if they’d use an RGB Matrix Screen like the PSVR uses.

Human eye is 576 mega pixels. 8k is 33 mega pixels.

Maybe. Ive not heard this but the eye doesnt work on resolutions or a pixel count, thats for sure. my time with photography I know there is a cone of focus in the center of vision that can't diferentiate 2mp held at thumb distance in less than a 5 degree arc. The eye finds it difficult at 20/20 vision to differentiate pixelxs up that close at near 8k for most people spread across 110 degrees. Of course there'll be the exception of people who are super focised and eye like a hawk who need just a tad more and as the FOV increases the pixel count may need to increase to something closer to 10k but 8 k per eye will easily be elemitinating screen door effect and putting a soft cap on resolution for 95 percent of people. After 8k there not much point in adding more pixels to screens in general (Many say 4k is too far as is)



 

Everything in the above reply is my opinion, from my own perspective and not representative of reality outside of my own head!

-Android user, please be gentle with critique on my spelling.

4k and vr are different things. Not really a thing of one vs the other. I like them both.