Oculus Rift S Hands On - Why It’s Better Than You Think

  • Finally, some burning questions answered plainly.

    External Content youtu.be
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    Devons rig

    Intel Core i5-13600K - Core i5 13th Gen 14-Core (6P+8E) @ 5.5Ghz / G.SKILL Trident Z5 RGB Series 32GB RAM DDR5 6000 / GIGABYTE GeForce RTX 4070Ti GAMING OC 12G / Sound Blaster Z / Oculus Quest 2 VR Headset / Klipsch® Promedia 2.1 Computer Speakers / ASUS ROG SWIFT PG279Q ‑ 27" IPS LED Monitor ‑ QHD / 6x Samsung SSD/NVME's various sizes / Windows 11 Pro 64-bit / GIGABYTE Z790 AORUS ELITE AX LGA 1700 ATX Motherboard DDR5

  • Good video thanks. :thumbup:

    I think the tracking is a really positive move forward and I'm pleased to see it getting good reviews. I'm sure inside-out is the future of tracking, no one wants to mess with mounting sensors in corners of rooms.

    Not so sure about the halo design, lack of good integrated earphones, 80Hz, no manual IPD adjustment.

    A high res screen would have just about sold me, but it doesn't seem like a worthwhile upgrade otherwise.

    Think I'll skip this one and wait patiently for the next Rift.

    AeroScenery - Easily create photoreal scenery for Aerofly

  • However good it is, this is for the general mass market, not for the flight simmers, hence not worth much discussion here.

    HP Reverb is the one to anticipate, even better than Pimax 5K+, which is better than Vive Pro, which is better than Oculus S, for simmers.

  • However good it is, this is for the general mass market, not for the flight simmers, hence not worth much discussion here.

    HP Reverb is the one to anticipate, even better than Pimax 5K+, which is better than Vive Pro, which is better than Oculus S, for simmers.

    Honestly, while we all search for the Holy Grail of super high-resolution, my experience says that aerofly is probably the only Sim that could run acceptably at those resolutions .

    Anything else will be reduced to a slideshow , so I'm not sure how good those super hi-rez hmds are really going to be for simulation .

    Perhaps Oculus being a bit more humble with its ambitions , will actually provide the more reasonable compromise .

    Devons rig

    Intel Core i5-13600K - Core i5 13th Gen 14-Core (6P+8E) @ 5.5Ghz / G.SKILL Trident Z5 RGB Series 32GB RAM DDR5 6000 / GIGABYTE GeForce RTX 4070Ti GAMING OC 12G / Sound Blaster Z / Oculus Quest 2 VR Headset / Klipsch® Promedia 2.1 Computer Speakers / ASUS ROG SWIFT PG279Q ‑ 27" IPS LED Monitor ‑ QHD / 6x Samsung SSD/NVME's various sizes / Windows 11 Pro 64-bit / GIGABYTE Z790 AORUS ELITE AX LGA 1700 ATX Motherboard DDR5

  • Honestly, while we all search for the Holy Grail of super high-resolution, my experience says that aerofly is probably the only Sim that could run acceptably at those resolutions .

    Anything else will be reduced to a slideshow , so I'm not sure how good those super hi-rez hmds are really going to be for simulation .

    Perhaps Oculus being a bit more humble with its ambitions , will actually provide the more reasonable compromise .

    Demanding sims, typically IL2, and I guess AFS2 is similar (EDIT: OK, that seems wrong), are generally CPU bounded. Which means that all things being equal, increasing the resolution, which exclusively relies on the GPU, will not significantly decrease the frame rate. What does decrease the frame rate is amount of details, terrain resolution (3d resolution) or viewing distance.

    So better VR resolution is more than welcome.

    The only thing I wonder is should I spend my money updating my CPU to improve my framerate or updating my headset to improve the resolution. Both would be perfect...

    Edited once, last by haltux (March 30, 2019 at 7:26 AM).

  • Demanding sims, typically IL2, and I guess AFS2 is similar, are generally CPU bounded. Which means that all things being equal, increasing the resolution, which exclusively relies on the GPU, will not significantly decrease the frame rate. What does decrease the frame rate is amount of details, terrain resolution (3d resolution) or viewing distance.

    So better VR resolution is more than welcome.

    The only thing I wonder is should I spend my money updating my CPU to improve my framerate or updating my headset to improve the resolution. Both would be perfect...

    Aerofly is more GPU dependent than CPU so you won't get too much gain by upgrading your CPU.

    IPACS Development Team Member

    I'm just a cook, I don't own the restaurant.
    On behalf of Torsten, Marc, and the rest of the IPACS team, we would all like to thank you for your continued support.

    Regards,

    Jeff

  • Honestly, while we all search for the Holy Grail of super high-resolution, my experience says that aerofly is probably the only Sim that could run acceptably at those resolutions .

    Anything else will be reduced to a slideshow , so I'm not sure how good those super hi-rez hmds are really going to be for simulation .

    Perhaps Oculus being a bit more humble with its ambitions , will actually provide the more reasonable compromise .

    Even turning down the resolution and Steam VR SS, a higher resolution headset still has better clarity than one with lower resolution panels. And FS2 can handle higher resolutions.