Oculus Rift CV1 vs HTC Vive for AC - What is the best?

I'm considering buying Oculus but I'm not sure is my GTX 980 Ti capable of running good quality VR? I'm a bit sceptical about VR and looking for honest opinion.

How much heavier is VR when compared to triple screen 1080p?

 

According to NVIDIA's GTX1080 White Paper (see pgs. 26 and 44 ), the graphics demand is closer to 4K #. VR ~ 1680 * 3024 (for both eyes) = 5MP * 90Hz = 457MP/s vice triple's 1920*3*1080*60Hz=373 MP/s. That comes out to 23% more demanding (assuming 60 Hz for 1080p gaming). I run it with a 1070, which is comparable to your GPU, and it's a good experience at 1.7 pixel density and can get 90Hz. Some people don't mind running it at 45 Hz w/ more eye candy. You should demo (or buy from a place w/ a good return policy) a unit before buying just to make sure it's for you. The image quality vs. immersion is a trade off that is very personal to people--the latter is going to take some time to notice.

 

I'm running my triples at +100 fps all the time regardless of my 60Hz monitors so am I right 90Hz VR shouldn't be much heavier than that?

I've tried only two "VR" helmets (crappy Samsung Gear and Oculus DK2 running 360 camera footage) and both of these had really terrible image quality. Unfortunately I don't know a single place where to try and if I buy one, I think I'm gonna buy some "Almost brand new. Wasn't my thing"-unit 2nd hand. There seems to be quite a lot of those on the market... Otherwise the price tag is just way too ridiculous.

 

It depends. It's not 1:1 comparison due a majority of AC VR users seem to increase the pixel density (PD) beyond the 1.0 default. 1.5 PD seems to be the minimum (I personally couldn't play at 1.0 PD). This essentially affects the clarity (in focus) of the image. The PD will tax the GPU to the point where you'll have to make compromises on the eye candy. The problem is exacerbated further by the amount of cars you have on the grid and sunset/sunrise (increases shadow size) vs. noon time of day. To give you an example, if I turn post processing on (lowest setting possible) w/ my current settings, I cannot maintain a consistent 90Hz with a 24 car MP grid. I suggest you take a look at the GTX 1080Ti thread to see what settings those guys are running. This would give you an idea.

 

I don't think it's heavier than triple 1080, the only thing is you'll need the constant 90FPS (or half of that if you're fine with ASW). If you have 90FPS now, you should be fine. Other than that it depends on what do you want to sacrifice, with lower settings the 980Ti should be more than enough (I had a 970 before getting the 1070, and without PP it was fine for me).

 

Your hardware should run VR decent - probably not with a full grid in AC though. My GTX 980Ti does pretty good so long as I don't crank the graphic details too high and I'm on Win7 so ASW won't help me out.

 

There's a thread in the Oculus forums regarding PD where 1.4 seems to be the sweet spot - both in terms of BOP and image benefits; it's said to have something to do with the pixel count but, they provide direct capture comparisons with various settings.

 

In fact, for my experience with 1080 and i5 4670k@4,4G it's better to use AAx8, turn off PP completely an PD at 1,4 (over 1,4 you got a kind of "color aliasing" an negligible clarity despite the GPU power used).
Take in mind also that to reduce microstutters you need to leave a 20/30% of headroom especially with modded tracks and cars and with full 24 grids.

 

I bite the bullet and bought myself a brand new ticket into band wagon where the VR Mafia keeps vandalizing gaming world.

 

With the same 980Ti? I'd like to see your feedback if its going to run fairly fine.

 

I just upgraded to a 1080 Ti from a 1070 (similar to you 980ti) and it should run fine as long as you don't mind turning off post processing ...the issue with that is that you can't see brake lights (very faint on most cars). Supposedly there's a fix on the way, but we will see about that.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

That's great to hear. I think I saw a post of someone (sorry, forgot) in the CV1 thread sharing a modified .ini file that improved on the brake lights.... I have to search again for it.

 

Sure. If I haven't posted within 2 weeks, remind me please..

 

New VR headset
https://www.gamespot.com/articles/vive-unveils-new-wireless-standalone-vr-headset/1100-6450129/

 

Standalone. That sounds more like Samsung Gear than something you'd be gaming with.

 

That was me who made a pp .ini file for just brake lights. (VR_brakelights.ini)

Kunos says the subject is fixed, in fact that's the thread you'll find the ini file which I updated last weekend for someone - it's not fixed if you don't run a pp filter. But the subject is done from my understanding (status fixed).

However, since going to openVR I can run pp filter "default" on "normal/medium" without dipping below 90fps with 18 cars on track. This is with environment/shadows on max, AAx4, supersampling 1.4, reflections low, freq ultra and mirror on high.

 

Do you are using openVR with CV1?
Do you got better perfomance than using the normal oculus engine?




http://soundcloud.com/carlogosamo

 

No, I was lucky enough to be loaned both a oculus cv1 and a vive for about 3-4 weeks from work. After testing both back to back there was a clear choice for me (vive hands down). I've heard many other people write the opposite but from a technical standpoint I think it's folly. For me it's simply not even a question, especially for anything cockpit bound where you turn your head/body more than 110 degrees. So sorry - no experience with CV1 with openVR as that happened AFTER I gave the CV1 back.



Nathan

 

And you were saying.... what's your job??

 

Have you got some review of both, why your preference for the Vive? Sounds like you found significant advantages.