The HTC VIVE Pro Should Be Much Nicer For Steam VR Gaming

[schmidtbag]

lucrus
When games first came out, they weren't meant to be anything more than just a fun way to take advantage of the hardware at the time. To my knowledge, it took over a decade since the release of Pong until we started seeing processing hardware purpose-built for gaming. At that point, games were no longer a time-wasting novelty, and they were slowly focusing more on being immersive. We're reaching a point in gaming where detail levels are pretty close to life-like and large-format displays are becoming more affordable or common. Since big publishers like to play things safe and recycle the same titles over and over again, we're reaching the first point in gaming history where evolution in gaming is stagnating, and not because of financial issues. That kind of makes VR the next step forward, it's just a bit of an exclusive one, for now.

[roothorick]

I'm afraid I won't never understand why people wastes those amounts of money for PC gaming. Granted, I'm old school and I can enjoy 8 bit pixelated games and not everyone has to be like myself, but I hardly see the difference in fun while playing when you have a decent 300 bucks worth GPU and a 1000 bucks one.

Please explain me.

A supersampling ratio of 2.0 with the vanilla Vive will challenge even the mighty 1080Ti in some games already. This Vive Pro will already be getting close to the envelope at the default 1.0, and the card simply won't be able to hit 1.0 at all on the Pimax 8KX.

And yes, there is a very obvious visual clarity difference at higher supersampling ratios, to the extent that it impacts text readability, though you hit diminishing returns pretty quickly past around 2.5.

[moilami]

4K damn pisses me. They don't sell decent HD TVs anymore, everything decent is UHD and I don't freaking want to pay of those extra pixels.

[schmidtbag]

4K damn pisses me. They don't sell decent HD TVs anymore, everything decent is UHD and I don't freaking want to pay of those extra pixels.

What are you talking about? There are plenty of decent HD TVs and for good prices.
Also, you do know this is a VR headset, right? You most certainly do want to pay for the extra pixels - it's almost a necessity. Besides, it's not exactly a 4K display.

[Kemosabe]

I'll definitely buy one as soon as Linux is confirmed.

This is quite an investment for literally a hand full of Linux VR games and no sign of change ....

[Zoll]

This is quite an investment for literally a hand full of Linux VR games and no sign of change ....

I'm really just buying it mostly because of XPlane11, I want to try VR in there. They said they would support Linux if SteamVR for Linux is well supported.. which is not the case now, but hopefully by Mid 2018 things could improve.

[moilami]

What are you talking about? There are plenty of decent HD TVs and for good prices.
Also, you do know this is a VR headset, right? You most certainly do want to pay for the extra pixels - it's almost a necessity. Besides, it's not exactly a 4K display.

That comment was regarding 4K discussion. And no, new TVs are low to mid tier TVs if they are HD. Upper tier TVs are all UHD.

[Fpsgamer101]

I'm really just buying it mostly because of XPlane11, I want to try VR in there. They said they would support Linux if SteamVR for Linux is well supported.. which is not the case now, but hopefully by Mid 2018 things could improve.

With all the different requirements to support different hard and software means vr is pretty annoying to develop even on Windows, but keep in mind openXR is still in development and Microsoft joined the effort in November so in terms of development barriers the future looks hopefull

[fuzz]

I wasn't meaning Vega is better: I can't see the need for a Vega card either. Please consider I'm using a passively cooled Radeon HD 6450 with 256MB of RAM and I feel like I need something more, so I'm thinking about a RX550 and I know it would be more than I need to have fun at the PC... but its active cooling turns me down. I know NVidia provides better cards for the money, but I don't want to buy NVidia for other reasons. Anyway, that's not the point of this thread.




Hmm, I'm not that convinced. 4K is already more than human eye can see on a 28" monitor, and slapping a 40" display in front of a person at a 20" distance while sitting at the desk it's just useless, because human visual angle blocks you from seeing the whole thing. Desktop real estate is good, but too much is useless, except in some use cases where are probabily better off with two or three monitors in line.

However I can understand that while playing in front of a 4K 40" display, if you keep distant enough to fully see it and if you are sharp-sighted enough, you can benefit from extra detail.

I'm not sure about how many people do that math before buying a 1000 bucks card and a 40" 4K monitor, but you clearly did it.

Regardless of gaming, 4k displays allow font renderers to produce much clearer font images. Makes a huge difference for coding and eye strain.

[mike44]

With all the different requirements to support different hard and software means vr is pretty annoying to develop even on Windows, but keep in mind openXR is still in development and Microsoft joined the effort in November so in terms of development barriers the future looks hopefull

Use SteamVR and you're done on Windows/Mac/Linux like for ex. X-Plane does. We will see what Openxr brings though.