Where were you when Apple single handedly saved the VR industry?

Where were you when Apple single handedly saved the VR industry?

techcrunch.com/2018/04/27/apple-is-reportedly-building-an-insane-16k-vr-headset/

Attached: 1521249172383.jpg (2894x1708, 710K)

it's nice and well but how are you supposed to drive that thing? modern hardware chucks already at the current resolutions

It'll flop.

2 times 8K isn't 16K.

This.
The shills will defend though....

I think they are claiming 2 times 16K.

It's all just a fantasy though.
They might as well have written 2 times 32K.

let me tell you about my plans for a 2GK VR headset, user

i just need a kickstarter and then we can REALLY get the ball rolling

8K per eye at 90 fps (apparently what you need for VR, so says Valve anyway) is 5.97 gigapixels/second. Even 4K@120 is only 0.99 gigapixels/second. A quick look around suggests even an overclocked Titan V can't reliably do 4K@120 in modern games. What is ever going to be to drive this?

Apple stuff doesn't flop. I hope this brings the attention of normalfags to VR.

This. I'm not going to buy an overpriced Applecuck VR headset, but they will at least jumpstart the industry and more and more developers and manufacturers will join in.

gtx 1280Ti with 24gb HBC memory

>8K per eye at 90 fps (apparently what you need for VR, so says Valve anyway)

It was actually Abrash who said that, he works for Oculus now.
That statement is vastly simplifying it. 90 fps or so is the bare minimum and headsets will see benefits even going up to 1000 (with diminishing returns obviously). Also you need that kind of resolution for a small part of the screen, the one you're pointing your gaze towards. A lot of things could change with foveated rendering and eye tracking, not to mention there is still a very big possibility that with so many big players investing in this, someone in the space can reinvent the wheel and change the way VR is approached completely (like having laz0rs shot into your retina).
So, I'd be apprehensive about trying to point out flaws in something that we know so little about.

>everyone is strapping computers around their heads
>its moar than that we dont REALLY know how it works
See how silly you sound? It's basically a head mounted computer.

Again, you're just simplifying it to the point of sounding silly. Right now it's more similar to strapping a display to your face and viewing it through a lens. Sure, eventually it'll be a standalone device and that's already the case with phone VR and the upcoming Oculus Go, but it's sheer hubris on your part to assume to know where this is headed since nobody knows for sure. Saying it'll be a computer on your face is just stating the obvious and even that is not a complete guarantee. VR might just as well evolve to be just glasses powered by an external device wirelessly, making your computer on face model incorrect or incomplete.

2x 8K sounds too much for any GPU even in two years. At least if you render the whole scene at that resolution.

What if they have high precision eye tracking and don't render the scene at 2x 8K except precisely where the user is currently looking at? They could render the rest of the scene at much lower resolution and just upscale it.

Why not 2k & 14k? Seems more interesting to me.

knowning apple this probably isnt true at all they dont have the hardware for this

I don't think so. It sounds right in line with the higher end limits of GPUs by then. Sure, it'll take delivering real improvements that are not just 15-20% better from one year to the next, but that used to happen back in the days.
nVidia's GTX 8800 was miles better than anything that came before it, almost revolutionary. It's not out of the question that that happens again even without AMDs providing serious competition. A lot of new technologies are demanding better GPUs right now.

Fuck this shit. True "V.R" is not here yet. When they create Holodecks as seen in Star Trek TNG that's when you will have true V.R. No fucking wearing headsets or any other device. Just step inside a room and program it to simulate something down to the last little detail. Or someone complete with actual personality. Both being so lifelike/real that you can't tell the difference.

that's called foveated rendering, and is probably the only way they'll be able to achieve 2x8k

16k at 10 fps

eye tracking and foveated rendering.

The thing with resolution in VR is that it will improve image quality even if the rendering resolution is lower than native. Just having high DPI screens will get rid of the ugly screen door effect even if the rendering resolution is lower than that of the actual screen. The screen door effect happens due to the screen's physical construction and number of pixels it has. If there are lots of physical pixels, SDE will be gone even with lower res video signal which is then upscaled. Of course the upscaled video will be blurrier than native resolution, but that's a different problem. It can also be addressed with foveated rendering and eye tracking.

It's not about fidelity, it's about mitigating screen-door.
If you care so much about speed, render at 4K/UHD and blow the image up to 16K. It'll be fine.

>Apple stuff doesn't flop.
A first time for everything.