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.
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.
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.
>AR and VR are the same thing, really.
In terms of technology, they can be, if they just do the camera thing. Things like Hololens go a different route though, with digital imagery overlayed on actual vision.
In terms of functionality, AR is a strict superset - as you say, put blinders over it and it becomes VR. Heck, just have the digital overlay completely cover your field of view and you don't need the blinders. But, take the blinders away, and you've opened a whole world of additional applications.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
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.
I personally believe the visuals are close enough to not care but...
Rift has reduced screen door effect making it better than Vive
Rift has slight smaller field of view making it worse than Vive
Rift has a slightly darker screen and often people prefer the brighter more vibrant colors of the Vive.
Rift has worse lens flair issues than the Vive
Rift and Vive have different focal planes. One requires you to focus a few feet in front of you while the other at infinity. Some people find one more comfortable than the other.
Rift's head strap is simply better engineered to stay in place and balance the weight of the device so you can play longer. It also has integrated headphones which makes it faster/easier to put on/take off. However, if you don't have a head shaped for it the Vive's elastic bands can be more comfortable. Vive offers more flexibility for people who wear glasses as you can adjust the distance between your eye and the lens independent of how it's mounted on your head. HTC is releasing a deluxe strap that is similar to the Rift in the next couple months.
The Vive strap is annoying enough to many where you'll find plenty of people (myself included) elected to fix the problem using off the shelf parts like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
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
I tried Elite Dangerous VR briefly, but found it to be entirely disorienting. A large part of that was not knowing the controls or mapping them properly to my joystick, I think. I'm not sure if it would help if I played the game some time without it -- the gaming system is set up in a shared area of the house, so I can't just set up camp and play for hours on it. I'll be building another system for myself when I have the funds to do so.
Interestingly, with a steering wheel and pedal system, I can play a racing game reasonably well, but find that going above 80 mph on the track makes me rather uncomfortable. I believe that the game is actually entirely TOO realistic in VR. Likewise, I can tell you, specifically, that Mount Wingsuit is not a realistic wingsuit simulation, and I'm not sure any VR-based wingsuit game would be. The developer seems to have put very little consideration into the wisdom of learning to fly a wingsuit by throwing one on and then jumping off a cliff. I've only ever flown one out of a plane, but I can do that reasonably well and don't approve of training yourself to fly into the side of a cliff over and over again until you figure out the controls. Moreover, with their controls you have to look almost straight up in order to see the horizon. This gets uncomfortable very quickly. While I do have to look up-ish to see the horizon while flying my wingsuit as well, the angle on my neck is not quite as severe and gravity is pulling me from different directions then when I'm standing with the VR headset on. And I only ever do it for at most 90 seconds or so in the sky, whereas I might want to play that game for half an hour or so. When the new wingsuit tunnel opens in Stockholm later this year, I'll have to visit and see what it's like to fly the wingsuit for 4-5 minutes at a time. I imagine it will take a good bit more effort.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?