By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Phil Spencer - Virtual Reality Not Yet 'A Thing'

Dr.Henry_Killinger on 09 April 2015
CladInShadows said:
Dr.Henry_Killinger said:

VR is a niche audience, I said nothing about PC. Those having a PC powerful enough to support 4k OR is a niche of that VR audience, and I'm not talking about a game running on OR, a game developed specifically for OR.

Also unless you are upscaling to 4k, then it will cost more, if 4k textures could just materialize when you ran the game at higher resolution settings many artists would be out of a job.

Sorry, misunderstood what you meant by "niche market".

However, onto the 4K thing.  Textures have nothing to do with whether to render a game in 4K or 1080p, or 1440p, or whatever resolution you want.  That's all it is.  Resolution. A texture's dimensions just indicates how detailed an object's surface will look when up close to it.  And that varies from game to game, regardless of resolution, depending on the developer's intentions and their balance between graphics and performance.

You make textures when you develop(create it) a game not when you render(run it) it, furthermore, textures determine the color applied to each pixel or a texel(a unit of texture), it doesn't affect cpu, but the texture itself is stored in vram so that it is drawn by the gpu on the pass. Texture is not resolution, all resolution determines is how many pixels are stored in the framebuffer.

The texture itself is just a 2d image applied to a 3D object.

So yeah you can render a game developed in 480i in 4k, but it will still have 480i textures applied to it. The framebuffer will hold 4096 x 2160 pixels. 

The textures applied to the models will still look blocky even if rendered with more pixels.



In this day and age, with the Internet, ignorance is a choice! And they're still choosing Ignorance! - Dr. Filthy Frank

Around the Network
GribbleGrunger on 09 April 2015

Someone do a poll. I have a feeling that Sony fans will be looking forward to VR but the majority of XB1 owners won't be interested. Just a hunch.



 

The PS5 Exists. 


CladInShadows on 09 April 2015
Dr.Henry_Killinger said:
CladInShadows said:

Sorry, misunderstood what you meant by "niche market".

However, onto the 4K thing.  Textures have nothing to do with whether to render a game in 4K or 1080p, or 1440p, or whatever resolution you want.  That's all it is.  Resolution. A texture's dimensions just indicates how detailed an object's surface will look when up close to it.  And that varies from game to game, regardless of resolution, depending on the developer's intentions and their balance between graphics and performance.

You make textures when you develop(create it) a game not when you render(run it) it, furthermore, textures determine the color applied to each pixel or a texel(a unit of texture), it doesn't affect cpu, but the texture itself is stored in vram so that it is drawn by the gpu on the pass. Texture is not resolution, all resolution determines is how many pixels are stored in the framebuffer.

The texture itself is just a 2d image applied to a 3D object.

So yeah you can render a game developed in 480i in 4k, but it will still have 480i textures applied to it. The framebuffer will hold 4096 x 2160 pixels. 

The textures applied to the models will still look blocky even if rendered with more pixels.

Yeah, I know all that.  What I'm saying is, there is no such thing as a "480i texture", or a "4K texture." Textures are going to vary by object size, distance, and the level of object detail the developer is going for, and typically come in 256x256, 512x512, 1024x1024, 2048x2048, and higher.  All those texture sizes can be used in a 1080p rendering just as easily as they can be used in a 4K rendering (or 720p, or 480p).  

I get the feeling that a lot of people, when they mention 4K, automatically think this refers to a higher level of graphical fidelity, when it literally means rendering the screen at 3840 x 2160.  Nothing more, nothing less.

Anyways, I have a feeling we're severely off topic on this one.



HokageTenshi on 09 April 2015

of course it isn't a now thing since non of the announced headset starts launching and selling... 



Augen on 09 April 2015

Agreed, the real question is if in the coming years it will gain any traction? 2016/2017 will be very interesting to see how the market reacts to the various attempts at VR.



Around the Network
ROBOTECHHEAVEN on 09 April 2015

I think microsoft is doing the right thing with vr tech, its nice but its a few years at least from being a now thing if it ever happens ,which I dont think it will.



GAMERTAG IS ANIMEHEAVEN X23

PSN ID IS : ANIMEREALM 

PROUD MEMBER OF THE RPG FAN CLUB THREAD

ALL-TIME FAVORITE JRPG IS : LOST ODYSSEY

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=52882&page=1

Chazore on 09 April 2015
GribbleGrunger said:
Someone do a poll. I have a feeling that Sony fans will be looking forward to VR but the majority of XB1 owners won't be interested. Just a hunch.

Whatever gave you that idea?.



Step right up come on in, feel the buzz in your veins, I'm like an chemical electrical right into your brain and I'm the one who killed the Radio, soon you'll all see

So pay up motherfuckers you belong to "V"

Teeqoz on 09 April 2015
true_fan said:

VR is dumb, the technology has been around for over 20 years, there is a reason it has never caught on.


Why is VR "dumb" just because it hasn't caught on in the last 20 years despite the constant availability of advanced VR technology in that period?

 

If you've tried an Oculus Rift, you'd know it's actually quite great.



true_fan on 09 April 2015
Teeqoz said:
true_fan said:

VR is dumb, the technology has been around for over 20 years, there is a reason it has never caught on.


Why is VR "dumb" just because it hasn't caught on in the last 20 years despite the constant availability of advanced VR technology in that period?

 

If you've tried an Oculus Rift, you'd know it's actually quite great.

Very few people are going to sit in their gaming area with a freaking helmet on, or those huge goggles. The same way very few people wanted to wear 3d glasses in their living room to look at a 3d tv. Not to mention VR causes dizziness and nausea for some people, so I doubt you can even have extended play times.



Aura7541 on 09 April 2015
true_fan said:

Very few people are going to sit in their gaming area with a freaking helmet on, or those huge goggles. The same way very few people wanted to wear 3d glasses in their living room to look at a 3d tv. Not to mention VR causes dizziness and nausea for some people, so I doubt you can even have extended play times.

So you're basically making a bunch of assumptions. The comparison to 3D glasses and 3DTV's is also a very weak one considering 3DTV's and VR headsets are functionally different.

At the end of the day, it's all about execution. As Zekkyou said before, touchscreens have been around for decades, but it wasn't until about 10 years ago, touchscreen devices took off. How come? Because the technology worked really well.