What are you willing to sacrifice for 60 FPS or higher?

[SvennoJ]

caffeinade said:

SvennoJ said:

Yup, it's what will make VR cheaper to render than full screen in the future. It's the same as multi res rendering, except more extreme and dynamic. However the early headsets are so low res that it doesn't help much, once 4K and 8K headsets become the norm, foveated rendering will cut the workload dramatically.

Instead of a full hi-res screen this startup is trying to do it differently
https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/19/this-startup-wants-to-build-vr-headsets-with-human-eye-resolution/
Move a high res image over the low res image keeping pace with where you look. Sounds complicated to make that work without being noticeable. Less moving parts is usually better.

Foveated rendering can also help making the headsets wireless. The image should compress a lot better for transmission, plus the software can aid the compression to preserve detail where you are looking. Dual 4K at 90hz is a lot of bandwidth, especially through wifi.

Have you seen the StarVR headset?
Mmm.

Not in person, afaik not out yet. It's actually not that impressive anymore already. They boast a comined resolution of 5120x1440, or 2560x1440 per eye. The cool thing is the 210 degree fov, yet that also almost halves the effective resolution.

PSVR is 960x1080 per eye at 100 degrees fov, means 9.6 pixels per degree.
HTC Vive is 1080x1200 per eye at 110 degrees fov, or 9.8 pixels per degree
StarVR 2650x1440 per eye at 210 degrees fov,  12.1 pixels per degree.
Windows mixed reality is 1440x1440 per eye at 100 degrees fov, 14.4 pixels per degree.

The full surround view will be amazing afcourse, yet their boast of eliminating the screendoor effect is a bit much.
For comparison human 20/20 vision can resolve 60 pixels per degree, and see the difference in quality at upto 150 pixels per degree.

Tech is moving fast with VR headsets, Pimax is already working on a 3840x2160 per eye 200 degree fov headset.