So I don't have inside information on hardware plans nor are authorized as a spokesperson, marketing, pr, whatever for Razer, but I've worked in VR for a while and work at Sensics where we've worked with VR for a long time. I can offer my personal opinion on a few of the questions you had.
BlouBulle wrote:Hi, I am a software developer and I think this device is the way forward
Glad to hear it! The software is an important part and effectively independent of (though supporting) the hardware - the OSVR software framework works with more than just the HDK, so writing software using it doesn't lock you into a single HMD vendor.
BlouBulle wrote:however I have a few questions about the current device:
Display:
1) Will it come out with a 60hz screen, I am just worried about this as Oculus tried 60 fps but said 75 fps was required to eliminate sickness?
RE: refresh rate - don't know what plans are for the OSVR HDK headset itself, I'm over in softwareland. However, personally, I wouldn't put too much emphasis on "Oculus said 75hz or people get sick". There's a lot of factors that affect cybersickness (known in academia as VRISE), but unfortunately for product marketing/publicity, most of them aren't numbers/specs you can easily quote in a press release, package, etc. There's lots of ways that virtual reality can be subtly unlike reality that the brain just papers over, sometimes with cybersickness, and it's hard to nail down a specific cause for a specific instance. (Maybe given the rest of the software and hardware, the easiest way for them to get their "unreality" amount below the level of sickness was overclocking the display to 75Hz, but those kinds of subtleties often get lost in translation.)
Unfortunately I think the side effect is that people might be led to believe that the aspects that are somewhat easily quantified (latency statistics, refresh rate, persistence) are the most important, when really they're just the easiest for people to talk about or compare with "specs". (and things like latency, while important, the measurements aren't universal: the same equipment will give different numbers depending on the specific test setup. Reminds me a bit of response time specs on LCD screens - is it a grey-to-grey transition time? black to white to black? etc) For instance, you probably don't want me to go on a tangent explaining off-axis display frusta and the effects of per-user calibration - just not very catchy stuff, though hugely important for a quality experience. What I do know is that people have been running VR on HMDs at 60Hz for a long time, and before that, even lower - I have papers here from some years ago that say that it's ideal if you can provide at least 30 fps, and I know room-sized industrial VR systems installed in the very recent past that provide 60 Hz to each eye but only 30 independent frames per second to each eye (frame doubling) - because the integrators cited that most apps they worked with couldn't provide the full 120fps required for 60Hz/eye active stereo (frame sequential - not an HMD where both eyes are shown at once). Faster refresh rates on the display might be helpful in pulsing backlights for low persistence, but even if your app can spit out 75 frames per second (since otherwise it's just re-displaying the same or at most a timewarp-distorted image), the difference in time between frames at 60Hz and 75Hz is barely going to touch the latency stat - a 60Hz frame is ~16ms long, while 75Hz frame is ~13ms long. 3ms isn't nothing, but it's also not make-it-or-break-it on its own most likely. If we get a 75 Hz display, great, cool, but it's not keeping me from using a 60Hz prototype.
BlouBulle wrote:2) will a 1440p variant be released, 1080p is grainy and even the DK2 isn't good enough for my liking?
No clue, that's not my area, but note that there's more to display quality than resolution - the optics on the DK2 are totally different (single-element Fresnel-type lens - a thin lens with ridges, and a lot of distortion) from the HDK optics (dual-element aspheric - no ridges, lower distortion), so they look a lot different.
http://vrguy.blogspot.com/2015/01/how-t ... cs-of.htmlIn addition to resolution and optics, there are different panel technologies available out there, pixel arrangements, etc...
BlouBulle wrote:
Headset:
3) Will the comfort be increased, I am not expecting OR comfort for 57% of the price but I hear that it makes you hot and uncomfortable (may not be true)?
There were a couple of demos where the prototype may have felt hotter because of tweaks to the rubber facemask portion or foam padding (or missing foam padding, just smooth rubber, if that revision's foam was too thick or not squishy enough and thus cut down on the field of view so was skipped on demo units), but I think that's all ironed out now. Eye relief - distance between eye and optics - is critical for correct results and field of view (field of view drops super fast as eye relief increases), so I know at least for some demos I was involved in, we opted for less comfy of a face mask experience to get good field of view. The HDK I've been using the most is pretty comfortable, and I know it's not the final version or even the latest version. (I've tried the same exact individual display with no foam, and that little bit of closeness to the screen and electronics did make it feel hotter. I like the foam that's on it now.)
BlouBulle wrote:4) Will the cable be moved to the center, a cable hanging off the side isn't as nice (not a major issue)?
Not sure where you saw one with a cable on the side - the HDK's cable goes over the top center strap at least on all the ones I've worked with or seen, and I don't know why you'd do otherwise with the current HDK design (the cable comes out the top) unless you manage to eliminate the top strap while keeping the mounting suitably stable.
Now, just a guess: Sometimes we attach a leap motion to the front for some demo apps, and can't find a really short USB cable to connect it to the HDK's onboard USB port, which might be what you have seen (despite somebody undoubtedly trying to neatly bundle the cable out of the way), but that's nothing innate with the headset. And, Leap Motion has announced they'll be making a faceplate that has the leap motion sensor embedded in it, so no box or cables outside the housing at all for that functionality in that case.
BlouBulle wrote:5) Will a variant be made that uses both camera head tracking and the internal tracker like Oculus does?
So an optical-based positional head tracking add-on/version was just announced, formally at E3, IIRC. (Of course, what people have done for a long time and what the software stack is designed to make seamless, is use another tracker: we've had demos where different units had different internal trackers, and no changes to the code were required, by design. Eventually we'll get past the "all parts must come in the same box from the same company" in the consumer space for VR: in academia and industry, while you might have an integrator sell you everything in one box, you'll get "best of" solutions given your needs and constraints for each component - display, tracking, input, etc - and they are quite likely to be from different companies. There are companies that only do tracking, or only do displays, or only do input, and they're really good at those things...)
BlouBulle wrote:Software:
6)Will the device work with Tridef 3D?
That would be a question for Tridef - nothing innate about the hardware that would forbid it. I know Vorpx, which looks to be somewhat related software, recently joined up as a partner
http://www.osvr.com/blog/?p=67BlouBulle wrote:7)Will the latency issues that people complained about at the demo be fixed?
Not sure which demo you're referring to, but there are lots of folks working at lots of stages in the pipeline from game logic to eyeballs to improve latency, and depending on the demo you saw, things could be a ton better than what you saw already.
Hope that was helpful!
