Great summary! I have both the Vive and Rift as well and all your observations are spot on. I'd definitely recommend the Rift as well when strictly looking at racing/sitting titles.
Have you tried Elite Dangerous with them? Th'ats basically what i want a VR set for, i read that people tend to prefer the rift for it, too, but people who have the Vive say that it's very cool to be able to move around the cockpit from time to time.
I ordered the Rift (when it was in low supply) followed by the VIVE a couple days apart in May '16. For racing, or any seated experience, I prefer the Rift by far. This video is 100% spot on. With my PC setup, PCARS stutters while using the VIVE where the Rift runs doesn't. Not to mention setup times.
I'm into how things look which one is clearer graphically I went to the local VR place and drove project cars 2 and noticed their Oculus Rift was a little blurry is the Vive clearer or are they the same
I don't know if it's just me, but with my Vive I can nearly always see a bit of the frezznel (sp?) lens distortion lower down near my nose? I never had any trouble with my DK2.
I'm only waiting on oculus coming this week, a 1080ti it 8600k set at 4ghz and 16gb ddr4 at 3200, what setting in racing games should I use, set medium or high not ultra? I dont want burn any chips.
On point review. I own both as well and a full race cockpit with super computer. I use the rift for driving. One thing u didnt mention is that when your doing a 1hr+ race/session the weight and breathability become a factor too. Love my HTC Vive, but the rift is better for driving
I agree in many ways but strangely I find the rift gets warmer than the vive when doing longer sessions , probably a fan would help. Mind you I am using the 6mm VR cover on the vive which is 100x better than defult foams ( unless you ware glasses) vrcover.com/?itm=12
Keep in mind that "HTC has managed to shave 15% off of the original 550 grams (1.21 pounds), bringing the headset’s weight in line with the Oculus Rift. [...] Depending upon when the headset was manufactured, it seems a given device could fall between the original 550 grams and the current 468 grams."
How about another important question: If we already have a vive and not a rift, should we consider getting the rift for racing/flying sims? I wanted to wait for the M$ headsets before I justified buying another HMD. Another option which I'm seriously considering is upgrading my 1070 to a 1080 ti or something, so I can SS more.
Great review! It really makes me feel happy about the fact, that I ordered a Rift for Flight Sim/Racing Sim. PS: You can get the Oculus Rift + Touch Controller Bundle for 450€ now.
GamerMuscleVideos I have a Threadripper 1950x and two 1080Ti's. With that considered, can I get the same clarity and frames from the Vive in iRacing? I am torn because I probably will do some room games and the Vive seems far better at those but my primary function would be iRacing. If I can power the Vive to the same clarity, I'd probably go with that.
What would be consider a super computer ? I have the Htc cosmos elite and am running a a Rtx 2070 super 32 gb's of ram and the Ryzen 7 3700x Cpu I have no Idea about VR I had an issue with one of my base stations so tomorrow The new base station will be here.
Cool video, I love all the VR technology but think I'll wait a while before I decide what way to go. Thinking about using a VR setup for driving and flying, I've seen other positive information about the Oculus Rift also the new Xbox Scorpio is apparently going to use the Oculus Rift and the HTC Vive. Exciting times ahead me thinks ;)
As a vive owner, seems like a pretty honest option. Just one question, are you enabling always on reprojection on the vive in the developer tab of steamvr? It should be enabled for all cockpit games (if you lack the gpu power). Async and interleaved should be disabled. That would clear up the issue you spoke about. Think about it. Async copies the frame based on tracking movement. If you're in a cockpit, which isn't really moving, and you move your head, you're going to get an image pasted over a few inches - the amount that your head has moved. That's why you get the weird trippy effect. Async is best for room scale games. That paste over effect is not really noticeable because your surroundings are farther away. You should note, if you have a powerful gpu, 1080 or ti, you won't need any of those settings. ATW is only best if you lack the gpu power to drive the game at 90 fps. And as time goes on and gpus become more powerful, all those features become more irrelevant. IMO, in just one year with volta on the horizon, they won't be needed. GPU tech is about to pass games.
I think using always on re projection is really bad , sure you get a consistent performance and consistent movement of ghosting but it just ends up making everything feel as if you are watching a screen rather than been in VR. I mean if someone has the system where they need to use always on re-projection say a game never runs at 90 fps for them or they often go from 90 to under 60 fps. A better thing would be fore them to run the game on lowest settings , upgrade system or just not play that given game in vr. The ideal situation would be to have it so game is running a 90FPS almost all the time , but say at race start or some random points it might drop to 75 or 80 for a split second in which case it will use interlived re projection and be way less noticeable than the whole game cutting to 45fps , or running the game always at 45fps with always on re-projection. Maybe with non combat flight simulators always on might be ok and for when you are developing and testing things, but other than that situation id just avoid it like the plauge.
always on reprojection =/= interleaved reprojection .. ie 45 fps always on reprojection runs at 90 fps.. it's under the developer tab in steamvr settings. Try it in a cockpit game that you have trouble running.. not like 60 fps.. something with a few drops in the 80s. Disable the other two, async and interleaved.
great video. I think i'm just going to grab a rift from best buy and return it 20 days later. If it works well on my pc ill buy one off craigs list later lol
yes, I knew it, it's the Rift! I like the Vive, but the Oculus Rift even with lower technology, it's still a really good headset, really confortable, easy set up, pretty light, and super fancy looking, lower screendoor efect, and best for seated experiences, also the 2 cameras still do a pretty nice job for room scale, and the price is more reasonable
Thank you for the review. I have a good computer with a good graphic card ( 1080ti) the Vive looks better quality, I use Rfactor2 and sometimes assetto corsa, do you think the rift s is better for me? many thanks
Hmm I use 2.4 super sampling on my Vive everything looks super clear I can see everything on the dials on my flight sims. They have a slider now under the developer settings. Sims I play are DCS and IL2 BoS.
i know, and i have seated in many cars, i understand there is no more 3d than looking in front of you almost all the time.i have rear camera and can wiev around, but still cant get into helmet.
I have a Vive and super pc 1080ti and ryzen 1800x MSI titanium mobo 32gb mem everything is liquid cooled , totally worth it ! My friend just bought a Rift has similar set up only 1080 gtx so we will see actual comparison when we swap our VR's
HI.i own a hp omen laptop with a gtx1070 built in. it states that it's vr spec. display port and hdmi with 3 3.1 hdmi. i was looking at an oculus as i can pick one up for a good price. any ideas if it's worth bothering with. i have a psvr with a pro ps4, but can't decide whether to bother. i like the psvr coz it has 1 camera and i prefer not having too much everywhere. just straight fwd. i would consider waiting for the quest as portable, but not sure if it will be worth waiting and turns out not so good. thanks.
I'm not sure ! Rift main titles for me are onwards Pavlov then flight and driving simulators,. For the last 2 other than RBR and live for speed I don't think the others will run on your laptop. The stand alone oculus will probably be quite good but it's probably not going to be massively different from PSVR when it comes to depth of gameplay. Personally new valve be headset with a proper pc looks most exciting at the moment. I'd just hold onto your money and see how things develop over the next 4 months.
I have them both. VIVE with deluxe audio cra...strap, and a Rift. VIVE requires less from your PC, but is heavier than the rift and the straps suck, no matter which youre using. Plus, I can just pop the earphones off of my oculus and use my corsair or my logitech headset.
I just got the OCULUS RIFT with 2 Motion Controllers, 2 Sensors and 6 games for $349 at Best Buy for Black Friday! VIVE is still ridiculously expensive (HEY UPLOADER! Don't you have an old Gear VR? Use the FOAM from rhwe Gear VR, Take off the Face Interface for the Rift and use the thinner foam, MAJOR INCREASE in FOV and Decrease in God Rays!! I did the Plastic Shroud Removal MOD to my Gear VR and it has a Totally Usable FOV now, I don't even notice it anymore!
First of all: Great video! So I'm still a little in between the Rift and the Vive, I'm not sure which one to pick. I do own a 1080 (not sure how much that affects the whole FPS issue with sim-racing). The thing I keep coming back to although the Rift controllers seem to be really nice while the Vive supports more room-scale action aswell as features like vr desktop and the Vive "Chaperone" is that HTC has said that they will add more gear to use with the current VIVE such as gloves etc. which i think can be really cool if integrated with sim-racing with. What are your thoughts? Which one would you recommend?
Alright thanks for the help! Really looking forward to do some sim-racing as well as watching movies.The Rift is also a lot more financially comforting as it costs 400 dollars incl. touch here in Sweden. Many thanks for the swift response too!
i will try to bye it for different purposes watching and playing in 3d, for racing you can use headtracking with almost same results, but it wold be nice to get into car.just for a sake of it.
Hey GM, what do you think about the newly shown Acer and HP headsets? Is it worth it to wait for those to release and and in the meantime get Fanatec V3's, or should I just get a Rift (I have a GTX1060 by the way)? (Also, deaths by corgi's sounds a lot more appealing than being punished multiple times by Kunos' North Korean deathsquad)
They might be ok for sim racing but really not sure will have to try them to know in the end with HMD's its all about trying them out for a good amount of time, like with TV's headphones and projectors really need to test them. I think the rift is a moderately safe bet hard to say if you should get that over V3's I mean I love VR I guess it would depend on your setup. Maybe get second hand V2's or other similar pedals that work well. Kunos North Korean death squad corner martials provide an instant and painless death though, its not a bad way to go. Corgis on the other hand is a drawn out affair something only reserved for the worse of people.
My current set of pedals is the Thrustmaster T3PA Pro. I can live with them, but it can sometimes be hard to use the right amount of brake. On the other hand, VR might also help this a little, since you have a better feeling of speed and with that a better feeling of the brake (maybe?) Oh, and on the corgi topic. One big pro for the corgi's: corgi's are a lot fluffier than Kunos' deathsquad. Death by fluffy > Death by bullet ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
GamerMuscleVideos I've heard that it improves VR and reduces motion slickness in AC. Have had a brief go on AC using my Vive but felt a bit nauseous so was wondering if it was worth a go.
So after all of that. Are you saying the Vive is the best for the future? The complaint seems to be the gpu power needed to drive the better technology? A GTX 1080 should be enough for the moment or not?
Great review of both headsets. I about to purchase a vr headset but was unsure of what was best as i only do racing sims. One question im in a tight space in the corner of the room so would the oculus sensors be ok to set up.
Yah should be fine if anything they work better the closer you are to them, 1m away should be fine especially for sims. You could mount the oculus cam on the ceiling looking down which can work quite well.
Vive sensors don't have to be set up across the room , you can just use one sensor if you wanted to and just put it on shelf in-front of you. The only reason you would put vive sensors across the room ( same for rift) is if you want to do full room scale VR.
Just wanted to add that after watching your video and many more through the week i do have an oculus rift arriving today, I cant wait to experiance vr for the first time as i am an avid assetto corsa racing through racedepartment. Keep up the great work, your videos are always in depth an intuitive.
Thanks for good vid , do check out formula E vr app that just showed up on the oculus store , use touch too, brill new way for watching a mixture of live tv feed & virtual live virtual replica broadcast live
hmm IMO having tried both if I had to keep one it would be the Vive(with 6mm foam) the extra FOV esp vertical helps greatly with immersion then there's the brightness/colour deeper blacks far less pupil swim and reduced god rays especially important in games like ED, comfort for my big head and most of all the rock solid tracking I had a few grey outs in Iracing and with ED with the CV1 which can get annoying after a while used to get them with the DK2 too but saying all that the Rift is cheaper, lighter has built in audio has better software support (at least at the moment) and is slightly sharper when both are are super sampled. I suspect there will be a Vive 1.5 soon with the cheaper single motor lighthouses and the new strap included for a better price, also looking forward to the tracking puck's and knuckles controllers coming out for the vive but its a tough choice \o/
I'm mostly the same , the main thing that changed from this and my last comparison video is the price the vive has even gone up in price now in the uk £759 from curries where as rift is £499.
I am at such a dilemma right now. I've been racing on triple screens for a few years now, and I'm using a GTX 980. I'm about ready to upgrade to a 1080...but VR is also starting to look pretty cool to me. Should I buy a 1080, or stick with my 980 and buy Oculus? The only thing I'm worried about is that the resolution will be too low for my tastes.
Try it out in a shop , loads of places have demos , or get it from amazon amzn.to/2qOKc7S ;) and then you can return it within a week if you don't like it. (assuming you live in Europe)
I tried out Oculus at a public event a while back but I only played Job Simulator. The resolution was fine, but I know I am much more picky about it when it comes to racing sims. I live in US, but I think amazon has the same return policy here...or I could just go pick it up from best buy and return it if I don't like it, I assume. I think I'm going to buy one.
Wow, that certainly was a quick answer! How come? To me, the specs seem pretty similar to the other two except for the tracking abilities. (I think they are supposed to be added in the future.)
Just the subtleties of the software , drivers, the optics combined with comfort and all the other subtle things that can make a big difference with VR headsets. I'd certainly like to try one out though and maybe its "good enough" for its price but I'd be very sceptical I think CV1 and VIVE pritty much represent the base level of what you would want for VR gaming as they still have large room for improvement.
yeah I was all in for the Vive but then I realised I am only interested in racing simulation, however isn't true the Vive with its front facing cameras means you can blend in reality to see things like your mouse and keyboard?
Simulators are generally lengthy play sessions and I admit the Rift is lighter on your face and less taxing. However, I still prefer the Vive's image quality and FOV over the Rift.
I agree, with the five the FOV and brightness and certain aspects of the depth / 3D cross over make it much more immersive than the rift. But on a functional level when looking at price the rift now makes way more sense than a vive.
It depends on the games, lots of made for VR games are really well optimised so can run on (moderately) slow systems. On the driving simulator side Live for speed I think is the only simulator that will run on a potato. As for your system specifically I'm not sure I can say, but in general I'd say a 1070 is going to be the card to shoot for and then most things should work reasonably well , Id have thought your system should run most "VR" games ok though if you turn graphics down. Maybe someone with similar specs to you can chime in :) I think with VR for the first time in 7 years or so a faster PC really does make a big difference.
Me, I didn't even consider the Vive.. The price is so much higher and I only use mine for simracing so no need for those controllers or 2 trackers.. I find it a bit weird HTC doesn't give you more options like Oculus does.
I think the reason vive will stay with its two light houses and controllers is that it means developers all know that vive users all have that setup, so developers can then know exactly what they are targeting. Mind you as you say, now VR is starting to grow and be more established and that there are people that would only ever want to do racing and flight sims I agree it would be good for them to just do a cut down version soon.
Curse you with this late video, GM. I just last week bought a Vive and also my dad bought one as a result. Reasons I went for the Vive though. I got eczema and the Rift didn't feel nice on my head. Also as a person with broken eyes I need to get my glasses in there, and that was possible with the Vive. I know that there are prescription glasses out there for both, but the way they clamp in the Rift they do tend to shift... so again the Vive was the better choice for a glasses wearing poor sod like me. Being near sighted I couldn't read text clearly without them in either headset, let alone look sharply into the distance. Lastly... nose gap vs camera. I prefer using the camera and have no/very little light coming in. So anyway... for me the Rift wasn't the sharper option. So I guess I am glad in the end that you're late. :p
Oh yah I should have said that in the video , vive is most probably better for most people with weard shaped heads or those that ware glasses. I think if money is not an issue and you also plan to do more "VR" type games then the vive is probably a better all round purchase for most people. Rift is just the best bang for buck HMD along with its other perks specific to Simulators. As I have said in other videos I think people would generally be happy with ether as well !
That's true. Money wise it's the best and can't be beat for sure. One more consideration I did though. The USB ports on my computer are rather limited. For the Vive you only need 1 USB port for its Link Box and for the Rift I would need at least 2 USB ports for the headset and 1 sensor. If you get touch you need an extra sensor, so 3 USB ports, and with roomscale added to that you'd need 4 USB ports and one bloody long USB extension cable to get around the room. In that respect the Vive was more practical where everything is wireless except the one cable to the headset itself. Which hopefully we can get rid of soon as well. You only need 3 power outlets for the 2 Lighthouses and the Link Box and you're done. So yeah... placement and how many USB ports are available can be another thing to consider before you purchase a VR HMD.
LogiForce86 The reason I took my Vive back was because I didn't have enough power outlets for the lighthouses, I didn't have enough space for the lighthouses to go on tripods and I didn't want to drill into my walls for them either. I think if I played anything other than driving sims, I would really regret my choice. I'll never be able to play Drunk'n Barfight though :( LOL!
TRACK IR, got a rift and yeah it's immersive but damn graphics res on both vr systems are shit :)) combat flight sims you can't always figure out who the friend or foe is.
The best VR headset......................will be version 2 of any of the major ones. Or maybe Pimax 8k that is coming later this year. I have the Vive and have tried the Rift. Both are very lacking.
I'd stay away from Pi Max they may be able to make cheaper headsets but the quality of their products and the support they get will always lag behind headsets made with the western market primarily in mind. Stuff designed from the ground up made primarily for the Chinese market isn't held to the same standards as the west, if you owned a pi max 4k and a oculus rift/vive you'd see what i mean.
8 months after you posted your comment... Higher resolution displays on VR has a long way to go yet. It's unlikely the Oculus CV2 offers a higher resolution really, and it's expected to launch 2020 and further. The technology is incredibly hard to implement as of right now, because OLED panels are already difficult to manufacture (those 8k headsets some brag about, are just LCD screens, and believe me, you don't want LCD for long periods of time). And, besides the resolution, the Rift is already an amazing product for the price, so I doubt CV1 owners would see any benefit in the CV2. If you haven't gone for the Rift, go for it.
The Pimax is garbage.. It's got a 4K display, but it's a 60htz lcd so there's horrible motion blur and smearing, no position tracking as you said.. And worst of all, it does not even have the interface to support the 4K, so actually outputs like 1080p or something like that..
I'm surprised you recommend using ASW for racing SIMs. For racing in titles like iRacing it's simply not reliable enough. I like knowing where things are, not where ASW 'imagines' they may be. Net code is bad enough without ASW technology guestimating where things should be. You should turn down your detail to avoid ASW at all costs in serious racing SIMs. Or save to buy a better rig. Hopefully upcoming VR options that have internal graphical processors will help more people get into VR without a very high end PC. Cheers. Like you channel
Your right that's why I specifically say in the video ARP is not good as it affects perception of speed and that ASW does as well but its not as bad as ARP. Ideally the given game runs at 90 FPS and you don't use it at all but given not everyone has a 1080 or 1070 and that some simulators just don't run properly to always hit 90 fps all the time ASW is really handy to have. Also ASW is no where near as noticeable as ARP when you say dip to 80FPS for a split second , which can happen at random maybe at race start or on specific corners / situations on a given simulator where otherwise you hit 90 FPS all the time. So the key thing is on balance ASW is better than ARP when it comes to racing simulators on the odd time you do end up using it.
fair comment. best of two evils. I think that the better answer is to use one's noodle and make sure they have investigated the requirements for having a good VR experience with the Rift BEFORE buying one. The minimum requirements stated by Oculus are just silly. Sure, it will 'work' but you won't really be having a very good experience especially if you want to get into SIM racing titles in VR. Even the best current hardware (I have z170x board, i7 6700K @ 4.5ghz using AIO water cooling, 32GB Corsair XMP DDR4@3200mhz, OC'd GTX 1080ti FTW3) still has occasional issues with all graphics/supersampling cranked up. Basically more people need to do a lot more research to avoid disappointment. I think that's the best advice for this current generation of VR.
Globespy my system is quite the same as yours. only difference I run a 970, PPD 150, dynamic shadows off on cars only. 90 FPS rock solid no matter what. you really don't need an expensive pc to enjoy VR
To be fair to oculus there specs are more for "VR" games and what they sell on the Oculus store as core VR or Oculus VR games , in which case you can easily run them with quite low spec PC's , same with most made for VR games on VIVE. Obviously racing simulators and flight sims were not "made for VR" so really do need much more power to get them to run to an acceptable let alone ideal frame rate. I agree though, getting people to research things is always good advice, Its the case with everything really !
Marcello Pagnan - if you're talking about iRacing then that makes sense. iRacing is an interesting example in that the SIM is actually primarily CPU driven, or to be more specific, limited by. iRacing only uses 2 CPU cores so it actually makes high end GPUs redundant. I experienced this yesterday actually. doing an endurance race at nurb-combined I saw drastic spikes in VR FPS and recording system utilization I could see that my GPU was actually sitting underclocked and half asleep because the iRacing 2 core system was bottlenecking my entire rig! A 970 might be fine for iRacing if you have a decent CPU. Try maxing all graphical settings and supersampling to 1.6-1.8 on Assetto Corsa or Project cars and watch your 970 fall to it's knees. Very different process utilization.
Virtual Reality was here, in our hands, and cost about the same back in the mid-to-late 90's. It died for a reason. Let's hope they figured out a way around that. And no, the reason wasn't that the graphics looked unrealistic. For the time, they looked exceedingly realistic. As well, the head-tracking was very effective. Even so, it still died.
I think you are mistaken and maybe have forgotten how bad 90s VR was, I used VR in the 90s It never looked "realistic" and it did not cost about the same, here are the main reasons VR failed. - It was the tail end of the arcades people gamed more at home - It was £1 - £3 a go for 5 min or so - VR booths required a staff member to introduce people set them up at first - The tracking was really bad - The HMD was really heavy - The graphics though 3D were mostly flat polygons and lines , 16 bit sprites look way better and are way more appealing - The games were awful , sluggish , worse than any 2d games at the time interms of actual game play. - Kids 10-14 couldn't really use it (cost and impracticality) VR has always been quite successful in specific industries but even then most opt for wide screen projectors or cave systems as they were just more practical especially for demonstration purposes. Why VR will slowly grow now as it has been since the RIFT VIVE , PSVR and Mobile phone VR HMD's is due to - Its Way cheaper and rapidly getting cheaper even for high end HMD's still to hit the crucial £299 ( and ideally 299 with out needing a PC) - Tons of high quality software specifically being designed for VR is being made ( tons of rubish software as well ;) - VR Adult content is proving to be quite popular - Its more covenant (space) and cheaper than "good" gaming tipple screens for simulators , flight / driving - Hand tracking / motion control precision is utterly unprecedented with Rift and VIVE - The hand tracking combined with the view allow the RIFT/VIVE to be used as a really efficient creative tool for sculpting 3D models like a 3D sketch pad. Maybe you were thinking of the VFX 1 , in that case it was maybe within the same price range as the rift and Vive but the FOV was terrible and the tracking was also delayed and not even 1/50th as precise as today, curcaily there was no software for it and no development environment surrounding it or companies funding development. In short there has been nothing like CV1 RIFT , PSVR even mobile VR ever before on the consumer market, the only thing really comparable to this gen of consumer VR are the private VR Professional systems which cost £100k+
I used it myself. I even sold it at the store I worked at. It looked realistic for its time, which was when 3D graphics on home PCs just got started. It also absolutely cost about the same. Most kits cost between $200-$400, and the best kits cost around twice that. I'm not talking about the arcades, but the home systems for PC. - The tracking was slow, but only on the bad systems. The best two or three out there had good tracking. - The HMD was heavy, but neckstrain wasn't bad due to the straps. - The graphics were as good as graphics got at the time. Remember: ALL 3D games looked like that, and we thought they were freaking amazing. Looking back now, they look bad, but relative to what we were used to, they were outstanding. - The games were bad. That's exactly right - just like the large majority of VR games now. In fact, most VR games are flat polygons with bad textures. The AAA titles look good, but with the low-res screens they look far worse than their desktop equivalents. Immersion is still a big problem. - Kids 10-14 have nothing to do with the cost. They never have. Like always, parents were buying (or not buying) the actual hardware while the kids were bugging them to do it. Just like now. How many 10-year-olds do you know spending their own money for an HTC Vive today? Or a PSVR? None. It's the parents, not the kids. The major issues are the same today as before: - Low resolution compared to desktop PC monitors, and it looks even worse because it's so much closer to your eyes. - Still too expensive for a good system. - So many people try it for the first time on some cheap "VR" garbage from the department store and get turned off of it altogether. - Eyestrain is still a major issue. - People with glasses (a LOT of people have glasses) still often have major eyestrain, comfort, and fogging issues. - System requirements for a good experience tend to be on the high side - far higher than the average home gamer. - Many home gamers were interested, but stopped being interested due to the lack of support. Those ones may not come back to the well, even though support is growing. - Major AAA developers are still staying away from it due to the slow adoption of the tech. There are exceptions, but even those exceptions are experimental at best. - New applications give us new niches, but they're still niches. We need mainstream adoption, and those new applications won't bring the mainstream. The fact is, only the hardcore gamers and tech-heads are buying it, and many are giving up on it already. The ONLY thing holding off VR 2.0's demise is the phone market, which is plagued by screen-door effect issues and a dearth of application support. Whole-room systems are still too impractical, so most potential users will do without that. And yes, I'm referring to many of the systems in the range of the VFX1. It wasn't by itself, although it was the most common. Hell, we even had those fake VR systems for the Genesis, just like the fake VR systems you see on the shelves for $100 now. Same price, same limitations (just headmounted screens, with no head-tracking and no true stereoscopic support), and same ability to chase away customers. Look, I really like my Rift. It's pretty great for some games, and racing sims are really fun on it. In fact, racing simulations and space-flight simulations are really the only thing I keep coming back to, and my favorite racing simulation for VR right now is the terribly-old Richard Burns Rally (which is far more immediate than Dirt Rally or Dirt 4). That said, I'm a hardcore gamer, and have been one since 1978, And yes, if you put a set of VR goggles on a casual gamer they'll be impressed. But those people usually don't rush right out and buy a PSVR, Vive, or Rift. They grab Google Cardboard or that Viewmaster headset and get turned-off of VR altogether, and that's it.
Starting this video, you'd better say the Vive cause you were telling me before I bought the Vive you said you preferred the Vive cause of the wider FOV....
If you do lots of room scale VR as well or have a fast PC the Vive is really good if not better in many ways , the main reason to go with rift would be 1) its cheaper and still really good 2) for sim racing you wont need touch and extra cam so you can save even more money. 3) You don't need to buy 6mm foam or new strap saving u more money again. In short I'd be happy with ether headset :)
thx for the reply muscle man getting me a new PC with a GeForce 1080ti just for the reasons you mentioned to have the best of both worlds goodbuy money and welcome VR :D
Vive is brighter, better field of view, less glare from it's lenses, better tracking. etc. etc... But yes, for sit down sim racers, Rift does hold a slight edge
Rift has built in audio, a sharper image, is more comfortable and has the better controllers etc etc...but yes...I don't get it why so many people try to make Vive the superior VR Headset, when they are almost equal in reality. Every advantage against each other has to start with the word "slightly"
Headsets are near as dammit identical... Don't choose the VR brand on headset alone. Choose it on Tracking system and use case. +1 for Both For the price difference... I'd say the Rift is the better value for money with Sim's in mind. Sims don't need 360 tracking or room scale or touch controllers. +1 for Rift Touch vs Wand... the touch controllers are a dream to use Vs the wands in my experience with both... ... +1 for Rift I think the Vive has a better tracking system... +1 Vive At the end of the day.. you'll be happy with both. If you can get one of them MUCH cheaper than the other and the Rift plays almost everything on steam too. Surely that would be the main reason there... +1 for Rift If Rift want to get back in the game for future technology robustness... it needs to drop the camera tracking system and migrate to Vive's lighthouse tech for Gen 2.... -1 for Rift Yes I own a rift... but I think Oculus are going to struggle in future Gens with the limitations of IR Camera based tracking system...
Well... The Vive's got better FOV, brighter display, better tracking with massively better room scale support etc.. The Rift's gotta be better at something! Haha! Seriously though, I worry for the future of Oculus.. Now that pretty much everyone who was responsible for it's formation are now gone..
Integrated audio, comfort, and while Vive has more FOV the Rift has more clarity. The only advantages that Vive has that isn't subjective are brighter screens, and better tracking. Rift with 3-4 sensors still have less occlusion in the trackable space than Vive with 2 base stations. Vive is really expensive compared to Rift, especially if you want integrated audio. The Vive wands are also much less desirable than the Touch controllers for my preferences, and Touch is overall the most popular controller. I don't see how Vive is much superior except for in a few areas, while the Rift is better in others.
I don't understand where this idea that the vive is a landslide victory comes from, I own a vive, but I would actually prefer the rift. Had the rift come with controllers from the start, it would've been a no brainer for me.
I've seen issues with Rift tracking even with 3-4 sensors.. Vive's tracking system really is just flat out better. Screen is brighter, and FOV is wider... But yeah, It's no landslide.. In fact, it's more of a trade blows scenario, and now with the Rift undercutting the Vive by $200, and with my preference for sim racing, my choice would be the Rift.. At the same price though, I'd go Vive.
