Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Best Virtual Reality Headsets?
Quantus347 writes: Straightforward question: I held off for a year to let the various manufacturers shake out the bugs, but now it's down to either a virtual-reality system or a new generation console. So I ask you, the Slashdot community, what are your personal experiences with any of the various VR systems out there? What are their strengths and weaknesses? What little things annoy you the most? What features make a given product the best (or worst) option? "Sprinkle us with wisdom from your mighty brain!" For reference, the HTC Vive costs $799.00, while the Oculus Rift with Oculus Touch motion controllers costs $598 (which is the price after the recent markdown from $799). These prices do not include the necessary hardware required to power each headset. The PlayStation VR ($399.99), Samsung Gear VR ($99.99), and Google Daydream View ($79.00) are also available for less moolah.
Which ones don't rape your privacy?
Rift is better visually and comfort wise. Vive can have a larger play area and is easier to get the room scale tracking right on. There are no other real headsets. The rest are novelties.
...is none. Virtual reality will never work. The disconnect between what your eye sees and your inner ear senses will cause motion sickness in the vast majority of people. This is a physiological problem that cannot be solved. AR is the future, VR is dead. Microsoft is finally doing something smart by ignoring VR and going straight to AR.
I have both the Rift and the Vive, and the Rift is collecting dust. Rift may have better ergonomics, but the Vive has a much higher 'just works out of the box' factor with better tracking and software. It is sadly also becoming a choice made on principle. The Rift was supposed to be the open system, but after the Facebook money they have turned into what is by far the most closed system of them all right now.
HillaryBeatTrump.org.
Fake news at its finest.
Wow... these colors taste so good, the music smells awesome, and the visuals feel so friggin real. Yeeahh! VR!!
Seriously, it's too early. You're looking at first generation hardware across the board and not enough software support for any of the platforms to make it a long term compelling experience. If VR is truly getting established this time, a big 'if', then within three years you will have a worthless gadget that can't keep up. Everyone else will be on 3rd or 4th generation hardware with 2x - 4x the resolution and the software won't be compatible with your 1st gen stuff.
If you absolutely want to drop the cash on this stuff now I'd say get a PS4 and a PSVR headset. It's the lowest cost of entry, is the easiest to set up, and you can be certain a game you buy will worth with your hardware. Neither of the PC based solutions are anywhere close to being that turnkey currently.
Back when I was a kid, the best VR headsets were when we just closed our eyes and imagined. The cost was FREE, but the struggle was REAL.
Rift is better visually. Vive has much better room scale tracking. Vive accommodates glasses better
I bought a Rift and although it is a great VR headset, my biggest disappointment is that for the money I paid, I expected to be able to see all the newest VR content out there. This cannot be any further from the truth. I can't even experience Google Earth (without hacking) on the Rift and there are countless Gear VR experiences I would love to try, but I cannot do so. So PC headsets are a good buy if you are a gamer with specific games in mind, but for experiencing general and free VR content, the Gear VR seems to be where it is at right now.
I hope open standards like WebVR improve the situation, but for now the fragment nature of the VR landscape is a major let down.
-- Marcio
Technically speaking the Rift and Vive headsets are very close. The Rift has a slightly lower FOV resulting a higher pixel density which ends up producing slightly less screen door effect. However, people also complain the Rift has more lens flair issues than the Vive does. So when it comes to which one objectively looks better you can make solid arguments for both headsets and it comes down to which specific flaws stand out more to you.
The Rift (out of the box) is absolutely better when it comes to ergonomics but having integrated headphones is debatable... I personally decided to get rid of the Vive strap and did a variation of the welding mask mod ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?... ) and feel that closed the gap in terms of comfort. There is an official HTC strap coming in the next few months that will resolve Vive comfort issues. It won't be included and sold for another $100 but I suspect with the Rift price cut they're going to rethink that strategy.
Touch vs Vive wands is tricky... It really depends on what game you are playing as both have their advantages and disadvantages. Touch is absolutely better for gesturing and feels closer to actually having your hands in VR. However, when it comes to holding objects like a sword or a gun the Vive wand feels more natural/realistic. HTC has a tracker module coming out in the next few months that will allow all sorts of 3rd party peripherals and Valve has demoed new controller prototypes so any advantages Touch has probably won't be long lived.
When it comes to tracking the lighthouse technology is superior. If you are just playing seated games then Rift is faster/easier to setup but as soon as you're standing and want to move around there is no contest. You can get a good room scale experience with a Rift but it is more complicated to setup and is still officially considered "experimental" by Oculus.
Openness/Compatibility is another obvious win for HTC/Valve over Oculus/Facebook. Oculus wants you to use its store and only with its hardware and has DRM to prevent other hardware from using their software. Revive is software that less you bypass the DRM and play Rift games with the Vive but Oculus could break it anytime they want (they stated they won't anymore...) and have done so in the past. HTC's new tracker module offers tons of flexibility. Valve's lighthouse technology is being used with LG's upcoming ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?... ) VR headset. Even though I don't agree with Oculus business practices I admit i still think it's debatable which is better for VR in the long run as they are throwing tons of money into software development.
I'm a Vive owner since June and would still recommend Vive over Rift in spite of the $200 price difference. However, I still absolutely recommend you check out both in person and see for yourself.
If I was throwing away money I'd get the PSVR because of RE7 and other big budget VR games including racing franchises (and with some extra software like Trinus it can be used with Steam on PC), but these are first generation devices. If I were to be smart with my money I would wait for a new generation of devices that have perfected tracking, have higher definition displays, and are overall less expensive. By then a lot more games would be out as well, it's still slim pickings.
Twinstiq, game news
My friends and I own both systems, honestly as first generation systems they work damn well.
The Vive was launched with motion tracked controllers from the start, and I feel a lot of the enthusiasts went towards that product. The /Vive Reddit group is particularly vocal about the product and reminds me of console wars played out decades ago.
The Oculus Rift is similar in many ways to an Apple product in terms of higher level of refinement and ease of use. Facebook/Oculus are funding developers to develop quality content on the Rift - quality beyond what you'd expect from a VR market at the current size (examples are RoboRecall, SuperHot VR, Dead and Buried to name a few)
Here are some major categories discussed from my experience that I hope will help you.
Motion tracking performance
As of now both system's VR motion tracking performance are very similar. The Vive's tracking system is an elegant solution relying on scanning lasers that are detected on the HMD and motion tracked controllers. Oculus' camera image tracking system with the latest version of the Oculus runtimes (version 1.12) works very well. My anecdotal experience is that the robustness and performance of Vive vs Rift tracking systems are very similar.
The Oculus Rift motion camera tracking system uses coded LEDs emmitted on the HMD and motion tracked controller. Default is two camera forward facing configuration whcih is optimal for a forward-facing VR experience (cockpit simulations, forward facing shooters etc). The two cameras can be placed at opposite ends of the play area to give 360 degree tracking. For optimal 360 degree configuration, two forward facing and a third rear camera is the recommended configuration. The Oculus camera derive power and send data via USB connection to a computer.
The Vive's motion tracking system consists of two lighthouses on the elevated opposite corners of the room to function. This system require power from a wall plug and optional sync cable to be connected if the Lighhouses are not in visual line of sight.
Both the Vive and Rift have similar drawbacks, if emitter and sensor is blocked (line of sight occlusion), tracking accuracy is reduced.
Ergonomics
The Oculus Rift HMD and tracked motion controllers are significantly lighter (around 85 grams for the HMD alone), and more arguably more ergonomic than the Vive. The Oculus HMD have in-built headphones (optional In Ear Monitors). Audio is very important in VR. The Vive is soon to release an integrated audio strap to address this issue (optional purchase, unsure if this will be included in an updated HTC Vive system).
If you want to be on the bleeding edge, wireless HMD to PC solutions are coming for the Vive and Rift as optional accessories in 2017. The Vive will also likely get additional motion-tracked peripherals (e.g. gun props etc).
Resolution is the same between the Rift and Vive. The Rift's optical lens is sharper towards the edge of FoV. Both systems show visible internal reflections in the lens (god rays).
Ecosystem
The Vive runs software from Valve's Steam store and HTC's Viveport stores. The Vive can also run software outside of either of these stores (titles from independent developers, self-developed Unity and Unreal projects). An unofficial hack will allow Vive to also run some titles from the Oculus Home store (while unofficial, users have reported good experiences).
The Oculus Rift runs software from the Oculus Home store and Valve's Steam store. My own experience is that the same title on either stores (for example Elite Dangerous), tends to run more optimially in the Oculus Home environment for the Rift. The Oculus Rift can also run software outside of either stores (titles from independent developers, self-developed Unity and Unreal projects).
Final thoughts
Right now VR in the consumer market reminds me a lot of the first consumer GPUs that came out in 1995-1999. Initially the industry required exclusive support from third-parties
Smartphone VR is a vastly different experience than using Rift/Vive. It's like watching a big action movie on your phone vs an IMAX theater. Eventually it'll catch up to where it's as good as a decent home theater experience in a few years though.
We have a product that runs now on Rift, Vive, and PSVR and will soon on Daydream and upcoming mobile and Windows VR. Take my opinion for what it's worth.
Comfortable VR requires low-latency motion sensing, screen displays with pixels on/off for precise periods to avoid blur or flickering, simulation and rendering that is at least 60 fps, and asynchronous reprojection of that output to 90 or 120 hz. All of the above VR systems are capable of comfortable VR running applications that meet that framerate requirement. Many would additionally argue that head-position tracking is a requirement for comfortable VR, because otherwise the world "moves" with your head. We say it's definitely better to have than not, as long as it has the same low-latency as rotation sensing and is reliable.
Applications also need to minimize the difference between acceleration you see with your eyes and feel with your balance. Our research shows people have different trigger thresholds for simulation sickness, and different sensitivities to different types of acceleration (for instance most people can handle differences in forward acceleration than vertical, and both better than turning). Different applications have many ways to address this: low detail backgrounds or background occlusion when turning, "cockpits" that turn with you, shuttering of FOV to reduce peripheral detail when turning, teleporting, acceleration limits, head-synced turning, level design that encourages more or less accelerations and vertigo, room-scale only movement, etc. You will have to jump in yourself and find what you are capable of and what applications do the trick for you.
The rest comes down to features and ecosystem of each VR system. Hardware systems have been evolving very rapidly but here's a brief rundown.
Vive & Rift are very similar from sensing and screen and computing requirements,wide fields of view, high application framerates, They both now require a tether to your PC with I5-4590 & GTX 970 or better performance. Vive came out with full room-scale position sensing and two hand-controllers, which has led to a lot of great room-scale applications. Rift came out with built-in headphones which are key to enjoying the full VR experience, as sounds can be "binaurally" mixed to sound like they are coming from precise locations, and is lighter than Vive. There are a lot of Vive add-ons available now or soon that include face covers, wireless transmission, tracking pucks and alternate head mounts with headphones.
PSVR actually has a higher screen refresh (120 hz) than Vive & Rift (90 hz) which makes looking around (with async reprojection) feel more crisp. But most PSVR applications run at 60 fps rather than 90 fps like most Vive & Rift apps, which makes object animations and positional travel less crisp. PS4 Pro apps can hit 90 fps at about the same level of detail but that depends on the developer. The PSVR's screen might be the brighest and uses a different pixel technology, less little dots and more solid squares, that is a matter of taste. It's a little heavier than Vive but is balanced between front and back so the weight rests on your forehead--in fact its screen guard doesn't even touch your face like Vive & Rift, and can move out and in for easier use by glasses wearers. PSVR's position tracking relies on visible light which is a bit less robust than the other two, though all of them have problems in direct sunlight.
Microsoft VR is further out but looks to be aiming for PSVR level performance on PCs with less than Rift/Vive specs. A notable feature is "inside-out" position tracking, coming from their Hololens research, which doesn't require external cameras like Vive/Rift/PSVR.
Daydream on a Pixel phone (Snapdragon 821) is surprisingly good for mobile. In our tests it has about twice the power of S7 running on GearVR, which our application can't yet run on with sufficient detail. Its applications require 60 fps but it has asynchronous reprojection to what feels like a 90 hz screen refre
Buddies of mine are bulding a business in Germany offering multiplayer experiences in VR. They tested all and Vive beat them all. Which is no real surprise, since it is the most sophisticsted system. The others are at least two generations behind.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
It all depends on what you want out of VR.
The only computer I have at home these days is a Surface Pro 4, so Rift & Vive don't interest me at this point.
After following posts by/about John Carmack for years I figured if he plays Minecraft on the GearVR weekly, the experience must be pretty good. A refurbished Galaxy S7 ($300), a X-box One Bluetooth controller ($60), and a GearVR ($99) later and I am a happy camper.
GearVR is admittedly VR-Lite since it does not have positional tracking (only rotational) and uses a non-VR controller, but it is pretty amazing and 100% wireless. So far MinecraftVR and videos use up all the time I have for VR.
VR Developer and AC here. Like most things, "best" depends on your metric.
Personally, I find the Gear VR to be the most comfortable to wear. It's got a nice soft fabric liner and fits very snugly. If you use a nice phone you're going to have just about the same resolution as anything else. Lots of wheels and sensors and touchpads to mess with as well, and the Oculus Store app is very nice. Oculus also sent us a few of these just for asking, so in terms of developer support Oculus is the king. They've got the financial backing to be that way, and because of it I know there's a guy I can call on my cell if I have questions.
The Daydream is very easy to "plug-n-play", but only works on a very limited set of very expensive phones. I find it to be the worst wearing headset, since it only has a 2-point sling. It's also very cheap (no extra sensors), though it looks rather nice and has a nice fabric body. The wand controller is kind of cool but is only rotational, not positional. The few things I tried with Daydream placed the wand sort of at your right hip, which was very awkward. Our development S7s from Oculus can't be forced into Daydream mode even as a developer (who cares if it overheats, we just want to run the software!), so big downside there. It's either "get a pixel or get out" which is a terrible position to take given Cardboard's "run on whatever" approach.
The Rift has the highest quality build, but suffers from this giant nose gap that the Gear doesn't have. We've not done much development for the Rift yet (we're mainly mobile VR right now) but Oculus sent us a Rift for development anyways. They're the only people to have sent us development hardware for free.
The Vive I find to be one of the least comfortable but has the best experience because of the ubiquitous room-scale. I've not tried the Oculus room-scale yet to compare.
I also haven't gotten to use the Rift Touch controllers so I can't say which is better, though I've heard good things about the Touch.
The most fun thing to do with it, though, is to have guests over and introduce them to VR. The most played games in my library are The Lab's archery demo, fruit ninja VR and the space pirate trainer. Some of the other titles I've tried are well executed, but a lot of the VR games on steam right now are just crap.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
HTC vive is artificially tied to steam. You must have steam to even use Vive.
Rift is tied to Facebook. Rift maintains 24x7 persistent connections to Facebook from a service running with full administrative access to your system. It routinely uploads logs with data including every application you used with Rift and imposes mandatory software updates. There are no configuration settings of any kind to disable or prevent any of this from occurring.
Oculus has piss poor QA internally. Their automated updates *routinely* break shit with no recourse to the victim other than "waiting" for Oculus to push a fix and hoping the fix doesn't break anything else. No rolling back to previously working versions and no installing drivers from installation archives. Software and drivers 100% online/cloud managed.
Rift has a long history of screwing with it's customer base from retroactively imposing new "hardware" checks that turn working systems into not working systems for no technically defensible reason. Adding non-configurable features like ASW touted as allowing lower end hardware to work in practice actively introducing new problems for many such as unwanted clipping to 45 FPS. While it can be disabled with a number pad each time it is used it can't be disabled permanently through any configuration option and there is no feedback to know current state of it. They have also introduced new display problems such as very annoying display lag/smearing around dark objects that did not exist in previous versions of the software. Of course there is no configuration to control this either.
Rift seemingly has no intention of ever supporting any operating system other than Windows while Vive is actively working on Linux support.
If your into sims/sitting on yer ass get a Rift. The display is slightly better, cheaper and single IR tracking camera easier to deal with.
If you want "room scale" with tracked motion controllers vive is a better choice but Rift with 3 or more cameras and extension cabling isn't bad.
VR is nice but Facebook/HTC are shitty companies and no other vendors have yet to step up with a better product. 4k and higher FOV is going to be amazing.
I got a Samsung Gear, and I have no idea what to do with it. It seems to be some locked-in sort of bullshit thing with lame videos of crap I could care less about. Then it stops working after ten minutes, and tells me it's too hot. Hell, I could hardly hold my phone in my hand, not good for the battery that can't be removed! I originally bought it for my DJI Mavic for FPV since those lame ducks haven't produced the googles they said they would, but that requires a USB cable to the transmitter, and the Gear VR has a USB connector built-in and making life hell for me. SO.... I cut a groove in the clip opposite the stupid USB connector, and fly with my phone upside down, which automatically rights itself, of course. Google Cardboard is a better investment IMO.
The Steam Hardware Survey shows 0.23% of users having a Vive, vs. 0.11% with an Oculus Rift and 0.2% with the older Rift DK2 development kit
http://store.steampowered.com/...
I have a Rift and, while it seems to work just fine, VR is almost there but not quite.
The first issue is the resolution. It's not the high resolution, crisp displays we're used to with current gen monitors.
The Vive is glasses friendly, sort of. You'll need narrow frames if you want to comfortably wear them.
Some folks don't care for the weight, but it doesn't bother me much. Is similar to a set of heavy headphones like the Astro A50's.
The cable connection is a pita and I find myself unwinding from it quite a lot. They're supposed to be working on a wireless solution.
Some folks can't handle the immersion without becoming motion sick. Test it out before you commit first.
Make sure your play area is large and clear of obstructions. The VR does a good job of making you forget you're in a small room until you whack the wall, ceiling fan or door while swinging about.
What's holding VR back atm is GPU capability. You want the same resolution as that shiny monitor you have, but current gen GPU just can't push dual 4k ( one for each eye ) at 90 fps. It struggles to keep up as it is, depending on how many polys the system is trying to throw around on screen at any given time.
Once the GPU hardware is sufficient, THEN VR will absolutely rock.
At least the GPU folks have new reasons to innovate again :)
I have all the Oculus devices since dev kit 1 for work. Over the last year my (nearly grown up) kids and I all chipped in and bought VR headsets and rigs just for kicks.; so now we also jointly own current versions of the Vive and a PS VR. ...
We use the PS VR only for gaming; while we use the Oculus and Vive for both gaming and non-gaming applications. Non-gaming applications include data visualization, 360 degree video experiences, watching 3D movies. We also did some initial experiments in alternate reality experiences for disabled folks (but that was not as effective as we hoped it would be).
For non-gaming applications; the Vive seems to be everyone's favorite hands down. It just feels more "accurate" to folks who are not hard core gamers and are not as used to what gamers feels when they are deep in a game. For gaming, we find that we spend more time playing on the PS VR or Vive because the Playstation and Steam ecosystems are deeply entrenched in our household.
There's nothing really wrong with the Oculus; but it does not seem to get as much love as the others.
Now for something to really blow you away, you have to try the $3,000 Microsoft Hololens. The augmented reality experiences are way more fun than the closed off world of the VR headsets. One our friends got one home from work; and I don't think anyone slept that night; with all of us taking turns to play with it. There are cheaper versions of those coming out we hear. The whole family is staring to save up to get one of those
I run a museum with a public VR setup, introduced last July. After looking at HTC Vive and Oculus Rift I decided the Rift was better for our situation because it's more comfortable and the visuals scored better with my test audiences. IMO the resolution and overall visual experience is close enough that it's not a big deal but I do give the edge to the Rift. I also love the Touch controllers but I haven't tried the Vive controller so I can't compare.
You can safely ignore the people who claim VR is dead or doesn't work.
VR is a huge hit at our museum, possibly our most popular attraction. We have regular visitors who come back just for the VR. We have an active gaming community full of people who never want to go back to screen games. The educational applications are enormous. The software is growing and improving all the time.
At this stage anything other than Rift or Vive won't give you a decent VR experience. They are fine in their own way but they're not the real thing.
The Vive is the best mainstream kit you can buy in terms of realism. The Rift + touch though is a close second, but with generally better produced games. It is also more comfortable for some (and less comfortable for others). PSVR is a close third, and for me is the most comfortable of them. I have not tried daydream yet, but gearvr is passable for mobile vr.
If you just want to dip in, mobile vr is ok, but it won't entertain for long. A lot of people are doing some good stepping stone work on all of these devices, including mobile. But if you just want to dip in, you might be better off waiting for better vr/ar devices in a few years that are more affordable, and trying it at a friends or in a store when you get a chance.
DIsclosure: vive developer
For some background:
I lead an Augmented and Virtual Reality community of practice. As such, I've developed for the HTC Vive, Oculus Rift, Microsoft Hololens, and Google Cardboard (I haven't gotten to Daydream yet). I've used OSVR and PSVR, though I haven't developed for them. Here's my current breakdown:
HTC Vive is likely best-of-breed VR tech at this moment (more on this later). If you have a fairly large space (15+ square feet), it has a better tracking system, though it does at time have foibles. The cords can be a pain, though there are new products out to help deal with the cord issue, the price really starts to add up.
Oculus Rift is a very capable system, and is not to be ignored. For standing setups up to about 15 square feet or so, it's often my preference. The touch controllers are more ergonomic than the Vive wands. It seems to lose tracking more often than the Vive (especially in larger areas), though I haven't done extensive tests to fully characterize what conditions this is the case.
Both have good "starter" catalogs of content. Not many exclusives (and sometimes you can break through the exclusivity with tools such as ReVive).
PSVR is a nice starter, but isn't as full featured as the PC VR headsets.
OSVR has some promise. There's certainly industry interest... Thus far everything looks a bit rough around the edges though. There are games on Steam that will run on OSVR, so it's not a total open-source wasteland. They seem to be off to a good start, but are trailing the "big" players right now. This is for those who want to tinker / experiment, or have open-source running through their veins.
For Augmented Reality, everyone is months, if not years, behind the Microsoft Hololens. That is, however, a VERY expensive device, and isn't really for entertainment like the other systems. Look into it, but don't buy unless you're really sure that's what you want.
What's coming up????
Microsoft is positioning themselves to make some big announcements about Windows Holographic sometime soon. They've already partnered with companies such as Dell and Lenovo to build new VR headsets. Looks like they're structuring things much like how Google does Android: Some first-party hardware, but open so third parties can build too.
Apple looks to be going toward Augmented Reality. I know they've been hiring some high-power counterparts at other organizations (they just made a hire from the Jet Propulsion Lab).
This sig has been enciphered with a one-time pad. It could say almost anything.
Everyone has their opinion of course but all I can tell you is I fucking love my Vive. I've dedicated a room to it and while it's hard to find time in between work and family it's truly an escape like no other. Google Earth is almost enough reason to have it alone. Let alone exploring space, works real and imagined, and of course games. Why watch entertainment when you can be inside it? Everyone should try it.
The biggest weakness is they are all the technological style equivalent of the brick-sized cellphones of 1980, and are going to look primitive in three years compared to the ones they will then be selling for $34.95 at Wall-Mart.
I have ahd the DK2 for a long time, and the Vive for a year.
The Vive is a better choice currently if you want roomscale. My current playarea is 25ft x 25 ft. No tracking isuues. This is currently unobtainable by the Rift.
There are a number of hardware debates here, but for most people what matters is the software that exists and how well it runs, given that the general VR display and tracking is roughly the same between Rift and Vive. But the Rift software is much better than the Vive software. Blame it on exclusives, but the fact remains. And the Oculus engine is better than Vive and runs smoother and with better detail on any given hardware. This is largely because the Rift has "ASW" and "ATW" and the Vive only has partial ATW on only NVidia. For most users who don't have hardware religion, the Rift is better in practice.
Virtual reality headsets sounds amazing. I want them.