Oculus Rift
|oR|RobertC
Join Date: 2012-11-09 Member: 168761Members
Join Date: 2012-11-09 Member: 168761Members
Will there be support for this. http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1523379957/oculus-rift-step-into-the-game
Comments
The think that the type of person who is likely to purchase an Oculus Rift is the same type of person who owns a computer that maintains 60+ fps in NS2.
For people who want see the latest prototype
and
I think it would be great for unknown worlds if they create a very optimized Oculus Rift DLC? for like 2,99$ or like you said, just by donations which would be better for everybody.
I mean they have to spend time to get the game working with Oculus Rift and i would pay if they really optimize the game for the Oculus Rift.
Notch, the creator of minecraft got one already, maybe Unknown Worlds too.
Hawken has as much, or probably more, action and explosions as NS2....not to mention the hud for Hawken is more detailed than NS2's, so I think that proves the OR is up to the task for action games.
I guess I always pictured primary shooting and movement to still be handled with WASD and a Mouse. The movement of my head would be more a free floating camera... I guess that might be disorienting, but you could say look around a little bit while you were shooting a hive for example. I am not sure how that would play out IRL though.
Would be great to see something if so.
Bruce got it :P
Cant remember where though.
Looks like a swell shiny piece of hardware I will probably not get for a long long long time. haha
You can't compare Hawken and NS2 straight away:
Hawken uses the Unreal Engine 3, which has years of development and finetuning to look back at.
- UE3 uses culling checks for performance savings whereas NS2 uses some rasterization system.
- In UE3 the majority of the world consists of a heightmap Landscape that simplifies it's geometry in the distance and StaticMesh assets. BSP is rarely used nowadays. The engine is optimized to render large amounts of high polygon meshes extremely fast. Each map in NS2 on the other hand consists of unique geometry that is put together in the editor, so everything needs to be kept in memory - not much chance for batch processing, I guess.
- UE3 uses static raytraced global illumination and lightmaps on every object while NS2 uses full dynamic lighting.
- UE3 has native C++ code for all the important parts of the engine and hands control over to the script through countless event hooks. UnrealScript can call native code for all the basic functionality in return, which are computed faster. Because of the event based approach, in only about 5% of the CPU time is actual UnrealScript code executed. NS2 has non-event based Lua on top of their C++ engine as bottleneck, I think.
- UE3 has a different networking approach. There is no extra prediction thread and latency doesn't have any impact on the framerate whatsoever. Instead they use reliable replication which makes it easy to just work off the current variables and notifications about their change in order to locally simulate the behavior of an entity until the next update.
- In NS2, all traced bullets have a thickness applied to them. I am only used to ZeroExtentTraces for gunshots since they are faster to compute than NonZeroExtentTraces. But here the NonZeros are needed for gameplay reasons.
The engine are vastly different, Spark had other goals in mind. A comparison is not really fair.
A comparison of Doom 3 with NS2 doesn't have much merit. Movement is not a criterium since it has not really any impact on performance unless you need to stream different assets and parts of the level in and out because you are moving extremely fast, but that is more a limitation of player RAM.
Doom's shaders look rather outdated, it doesn't have any fancy modern effects and the texture resolution seems rather low. The specular shading in particular looks quite odd. Levels in Doom are narrow and cramped, there are not many light sources and also not much stuff happening at the same time - nothing there that could really drag performance down.
Back to Hawken: there's not really any more action happening than in NS2, they just have some more particle and camera effects going on to make things look cool. Don't get tricked by that. It's simply easier to create good effects, shaders, etc in UE3 because they have graphical editors for everything that enhance the workflow a lot. Developing that engine is Epic's primary business model and they have the dominant market position in that regard, so you can't really expect a small indie team with their custom engine to hold up to it right away.
And you get impressed by their HUD? It's nothing NS2 couldn't really pull off either: it's just the model of a mech cockpit attached in front of the camera, only visible to the owning player, that has some scripted textures showing stuff. NS2 has scripted textures in the Exo HUD or as ammo counter on guns too and the Exo has it's own cockpit as well. The rest of the HUD that looks slightly tilted is just Autodesk Scaleform in combination with Adobe Flash going on, which is a state of the art HUD technique that basically every AAA game ships with nowadays. It basically just creates some faces for each element of the Flash movie so they get a 3D look and can be tilted. It could be faked manually, but that takes of course longer and is not as easy to edit as doing it directly in Flash.
I am just saying that "decade old game or new and highly optimized engine may run Oculus Rift, so NS2 should as well" is not really a valid argument for performance estimations.
Can you imagine watching in an onos face in 3D? :P
This would push gaming so much forward, to bad the consumer version comes end of 2014.
But the second Developer Kit will be released and of 2013 if everything works out.
Edit:
Oh and the display from the oculus rift is actually like the Nexus 7 display, nothing special ^^
Check this out, an Eve Online themed fighter game for Oculus
www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjhyRkAlK5I