Cannot wait to see these in action! VR is improving pretty darn quickly it seems! Engineers are awesome.

The image will always be flat on the retina. No amount of LCDs will change that. Still, it's too bad they need to use the dusty old LCD technology in these goggles. I imagine that creates other drawbacks as well in addition to the lousier colours. Must have been a difficult choice when others use OLED, but since it's Nvidia, I guess they judged the more novel, proposed, benefits of the design worth trying.

Finally - something that isn't just yet another stereoscopic headset. @Kaarme The image will be flat, but something like this should give realistic depth perception, though, I think it should've used 3 LCDs instead of 2. For example, imagine you're playing a racing game (with the camera in the driver's seat): The dashboard and steering wheel would be on the front LCD, objects immediately in front of you would be in the middle LCD, and any object you can't touch would be on the back LCD. This would be an incredibly powerful visual effect. As for using LCDs, they don't really have another option. LCD is the only display technology that's actually see-through.

Vr I have been waiting for home VR since I was a kid. I wonder which one will be better. Steam, Oculus, or Nvidia?

I have been waiting for home VR since I was a kid. I wonder which one will be better. Steam, Oculus, or Nvidia?

There are a lot more options than that. I currently own an OSVR. But as of right now, Oculus is probably the best choice due to being the most widely adopted.

The image will always be flat on the retina. No amount of LCDs will change that. Still, it's too bad they need to use the dusty old LCD technology in these goggles. I imagine that creates other drawbacks as well in addition to the lousier colours. Must have been a difficult choice when others use OLED, but since it's Nvidia, I guess they judged the more novel, proposed, benefits of the design worth trying.

God damn this typical negativity of this site. Shut up. Ban me.

There are a lot more options than that. I currently own an OSVR. But as of right now, Oculus is probably the best choice due to being the most widely adopted.

+1 Agree with this,I've only on few days borrowed Oculus Rift DK2 for testing in few SW and as above is widely supported right now,what will be in next 12 months,hard to say,VIVE or PS4 Morpheus or MS Hololens plus NVIDIA and few others starting to surface and end of the year,we will see which one is worth to get Thanks,Jura

Agree with this,I've only on few days borrowed Oculus Rift DK2 for testing in few SW and as above is widely supported right now,what will be in next 12 months,hard to say,VIVE or PS4 Morpheus or MS Hololens plus NVIDIA and few others starting to surface and end of the year,we will see which one is worth to get

I suspect it should be somewhat easy to narrow down the results. Console accessories (particularly ones that were released mid-cycle) don't tend to get much attention, so Morpheus won't get far. Nvidia's VR seems very difficult to develop for. Google Cardboard is more of a proof-of-concept than an actual product, and shouldn't be taken too seriously. Hololens is reality augmentation, not VR, which limits the amount of uses for it (doesn't mean it isn't cool though). The way I see it, Oculus, Vive, and OSVR will be the main contenders, since they're the right balance between manufacturing costs, ease of development, and software availability.

I suspect it should be somewhat easy to narrow down the results. Console accessories (particularly ones that were released mid-cycle) don't tend to get much attention, so Morpheus won't get far. Nvidia's VR seems very difficult to develop for. Google Cardboard is more of a proof-of-concept than an actual product, and shouldn't be taken too seriously. Hololens is reality augmentation, not VR, which limits the amount of uses for it (doesn't mean it isn't cool though). The way I see it, Oculus, Vive, and OSVR will be the main contenders, since they're the right balance between manufacturing costs, ease of development, and software availability.

Agree,but still if Oculus will cost $600 which is way too much and plus PC which will run this at reasonable details this can be maybe hard pill for many people.. VIVE not sure what price point will be,but still we don't know who will be developing the games for them and if two or three studios and rest will be developing for Oculus and at the end you will end up with 3 VR headsets Nvidia,I remember still bloody 3D Stereoscopic/Vision and where is this now,due this go with their VR I would be very cautious for now,but they I'm sure develop or they're developed their GameWorksVR Regarding the Morpheus,this can be dark horse as PS4 install base is good to start and if price will be good enough,many people will adopt that sooner than above technologies,but as I said,we will see when all those VR starting to rolling out and mainly if games will be out which will use that in full potential Thanks,Jura

Finally - something that isn't just yet another stereoscopic headset. @Kaarme The image will be flat, but something like this should give realistic depth perception, though, I think it should've used 3 LCDs instead of 2. For example, imagine you're playing a racing game (with the camera in the driver's seat): The dashboard and steering wheel would be on the front LCD, objects immediately in front of you would be in the middle LCD, and any object you can't touch would be on the back LCD. This would be an incredibly powerful visual effect. As for using LCDs, they don't really have another option. LCD is the only display technology that's actually see-through.

@schmidtbag OLED is an emissive technology, and their panels can be transparent. Therefore you can (and they've already demonstrated this in many concept products and prototypes) have clear panels with individual light emitting pixels that still produce wider contrast and dynamic range than any LCD transparent or not, all on a paper thin, bendable transparent substrate. Pretty cool, no? The ONLY problem with OLED right now is that manufacturing volume and yield rates are not up to par with LCD yet. Once they are, it will actually be cheaper to produce these OLED panels vs. LCDs.

The image will always be flat on the retina. No amount of LCDs will change that.

So how do you think the human eye works. The 'real' world is also a flat image on the retina. It's the brain that makes it 3D. A good VR lens just tricks the brain in making it think it is looking at a 3D image. That is perfectly possible with LCD, even if it takes 100 LCD's to help the illusion. The challenge of this generation VR glasses is to see what works best.

The image will always be flat on the retina. No amount of LCDs will change that. Still, it's too bad they need to use the dusty old LCD technology in these goggles. I imagine that creates other drawbacks as well in addition to the lousier colours. Must have been a difficult choice when others use OLED, but since it's Nvidia, I guess they judged the more novel, proposed, benefits of the design worth trying.

The problem is not that it's flat on the retina. The problem with current headsets is that the eye convergence tells to the brain that the focus point is lets say 5 meters ahead, while the eye's lens tells that it's just a few CM away (because it's focusing at the LCD). And hence eye strain. I think this is a study on how to do away with that.

So how do you think the human eye works. The 'real' world is also a flat image on the retina. It's the brain that makes it 3D. A good VR lens just tricks the brain in making it think it is looking at a 3D image. That is perfectly possible with LCD, even if it takes 100 LCD's to help the illusion. The challenge of this generation VR glasses is to see what works best.

Eh, it's not quite that simple. For example, if you only have 1 eye, you still have the ability to quickly focus on objects a few inches away from your face to one several meters away in no time at all. This suggests we have some degree of depth perception without 2 eyes. So, there are 2 ways to measure depth in vision - stereoscopic vision (where you analyze the differences between 2 images in order to measure depth) and focal point. Right now, headsets don't offer a way to measure the focal point, and this detracts from the realism. The focal point can be simulated, but that's in the hopes that the user isn't attempting to look at the out-of-focus object. Kind of interesting when you really think about it though - we use a lot of GPU power to blur objects in realtime. Blurring is also a form of post-processing, which means it delays the output. If VR displays were designed to emulate varying focal points (like a hologram), we could disable blur and reduce GPU processing and latency. Might be pretty minimal, but not negligible.

I always interested in 3D images since I was in school, and used to draw many simple crossed eye 3D images. I like how now stereoscopic images develops into VR, which was only a dream when I was young. I hope this technology gets better and cheaper, so I can afford one. Currently the best VR experience affordable by me is Google cardboard. I even watched some 3D movies using cardboard. Oculus, although I really want one, is still way too expensive for me.

This looks really promising, by using lightfeilds it would make moving around the VR scene a lot more natural and reduce nausea would love to demo this the 3D effect must be incredible, I think the only drawback at this point is you have to render the scene with two lightfeilds which I imagine is a lot more intensive than with stereoscopic rendering.

I can't wait for the VR-hype to finally blow over.