Vive Foveated Rendering in Q2 2019? - Page 6 - ED Forums
 


Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-12-2019, 08:49 PM   #51
Zoomer
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Munster, Ireland
Posts: 129
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brun View Post
I'm being realistic, not negative.

Everyone with a Pascal or later Nvidia card - the overwhelming majority of VR users if this topic is any indication - already owns technology which is designed specifically for VR performance but isn't being used*.

No single pass stereo
No lens matched shading
No VR SLI

I just don't see any evidence that developers will jump at the opportunity to implement foveated rendering, especially seeing as it's likely to be even more complex than the above. I still think eye tracking has potential, but expect it will be used for interaction and effects (i.e depth-blur) rather than rendering performance.



*Nvidia Funhouse doesn't count, sorry.
It`s critical mass. VR is new tech, and as adoption grows so will the tech and the software around it. Slower than we`d like, but I`ll take what we have over a monitor any day.
Zoomer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2019, 09:44 PM   #52
etherbattx
Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 187
Default Vive Foveated Rendering in Q2 2019?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoomer View Post
It`s critical mass. VR is new tech, and as adoption grows so will the tech and the software around it. Slower than we`d like, but I`ll take what we have over a monitor any day.
i agree, but even after more than 2 years of VR, it has not even been adopted by 1% of game users.
and some companies have canceled VR projects because of the lack of potential revenue.

i like my VR experience, but i’m not nearly as hopeful as what i read here.
etherbattx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2019, 09:53 PM   #53
Svsmokey
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Dystrumpia
Posts: 932
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by etherbattx View Post
i agree, but even after more than 2 years of VR, it has not even been adopted by 1% of game users.
and some companies have canceled VR projects because of the lack of potential revenue.

i like my VR experience, but i’m not nearly as hopeful as what i read here.
I note the Rift has dropped in price again . Good for me as I'm soon to order , but maybe another indication VR market is not growing as we wish ?
__________________
I5-6500 3.2ghz cpu, 16 gb ddr4-2133mhz , Asrock H170M PRO4 , 128gb & 240gb ssd's , 1tb hdd , EVGA 1070 FE , TiR5 , BenQ 1080p monitor , CH hotas and pedals

"Hold my beer"
Svsmokey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2019, 10:02 PM   #54
etherbattx
Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 187
Default Vive Foveated Rendering in Q2 2019?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Svsmokey View Post
maybe another indication VR market is not growing as we wish ?
i suspect that’s true, but it’s not going to go away entirely and it’s a lot of fun!

buy one and enjoy the experience.
it’s worth the money.
etherbattx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2019, 10:32 PM   #55
dburne
Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,529
Default

There is a much larger footprint of folks offering VR headsets now than just a year or two ago.
I would say that is a positive sign for VR.
Also seeing VR now in a lot more advertising and shows.
__________________
Don B

EVGA Z390 Dark MB | EVGA RTX 2080 Ti FTW3 Ultra | 32 GB G Skill Trident Z 3200 MHz CL14 DDR4 Ram | i9 9900k CPU | Corsair H150i Pro Cooler | EVGA T2 Titanium 1000w PS | Samsung 970 Pro 1TB m.2 Nvme | Samsung 970 Evo 1TB m.2 Nvme | Samsung 860 Evo 1TB SATA SSD | EVGA DG 87 Case |
dburne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2019, 10:43 PM   #56
hansangb
Veteran
 
hansangb's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: New York
Posts: 3,704
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoomer View Post
It`s critical mass. VR is new tech, and as adoption grows so will the tech and the software around it. Slower than we`d like, but I`ll take what we have over a monitor any day.

Well, ED has always said they won't support vendor specific optimizations. And NVidia owns what, 85% of the gaming market? Whatever the number is the vast majority. So I do agree that if FR is done on a per vendor basis, we may get to enjoy it.
__________________
hsb
HW Spec in Spoiler
---
Spoiler:
i7-8700K Delid/OC'ed to 5.1GHz, EVGA Z370 MB, 32GB DDR4 3200MHz, EVGA 2080 Ti FTW3, NVMe+SSD, Win 10 x64 Pro, MFG, JetSeat, Warthog, TM MFDs, Komodo Huey set, CV1
hansangb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2019, 10:49 PM   #57
nrosko
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 90
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by etherbattx View Post
i agree, but even after more than 2 years of VR, it has not even been adopted by 1% of game users.
and some companies have canceled VR projects because of the lack of potential revenue.

i like my VR experience, but i’m not nearly as hopeful as what i read here.

VR isn't going anywhere.

Statistics can be as distorting a they can be clarifying. For example how many STEAM users could actually run VR???
Arguably anyone with a 1060+ but i think in reality we could say a 1080 & 1080+ users are a small chunk of the cake. We could could say maybe 5% potential. PCVR having a 0.8% share isn't so terrible.

There is potential huge market for VR, its a problem that VR is only available to a small % of gamers due to HW limitations but hopefully anything that helps with GPU load will increase availability.
__________________
Win 10 64//4.5g i7 Kaby Lake//gtx Titan x pascal//16gb 3200ram//Asus Maximux Hero IX//Oculus Rift//
nrosko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2019, 11:08 PM   #58
DeltaMike
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 47
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brun View Post
I'm sceptical of significant performance gains from foveated rendering. Even though it might lighten the rendering load, the reason for of poor performance in VR (in DX11 at least) is having to 'create' the scene twice rather than render the pixels. I don't see how foveated rendering will do anything to alleviate that.

Might be that DX12 and Vulcan benefit more, but that's not much use for DCS.
Not just that, but you're rendering it at higher than native resolution, and having to scale it back down for the goggles. Interesting thing about the Pimax is that (supposedly) it doesn't require any more horsepower than an Oculus, because it doesn't need supersampling.

In support of the OP, having lived with and without MSAA, I vastly prefer to have it in my central vision. If I were playing say a FPS, eye tracking would be the bomb. THing about DCS is, we know where the instrument panel is, we know the target is in front of us somewhere, or at least where we are looking. So we kind of know where the MSAA mask needs to be.

I guess that's not the only thing you can mask, you can mask what's rendered way out in your peripheral vision. In that case, eye tracking would tend to obviate the benefit of wide screens. Masking the pixels you aren't using doesn't grow more pixels on the side where you need them, right? Eventually you gotta turn your head.

Flight sims is a different kind of thing. The ideal flight simulator would be a physical cockpit with the world projected onto a dome. We are sitting in here, and the world is out there. That is a simpler problem to solve than some other things. VR goggles is not the perfect solution, but they are relatively cheap.

My question is, what's the marginal utility of eyeball tracking for this sim. And I think the answer is, not much.
__________________
Ryzen 7 (OC 3.8GHz) 16Gb RAM Vega 56 (Memclock 900). T16000M set.

Last edited by DeltaMike; 01-12-2019 at 11:38 PM.
DeltaMike is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 01:24 PM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.