A headset is not enough for a fully immersive VR game experience, you have to build a whole flight simulator cabin. What is the point of carrying a headset if you have to turn left or right by means of the controller buttons? If you turn your head left or right at the game's speed then you'd have a neck injury before completing level one... Just humble questions of a decent gamer...
Apple builds their computers to serve a particular purpose. Most people don't need all of that power, and the few that do, Apple isn't going to waste money on. Besides, rumors are Apple is working on their own VR, so I could care less what that douche bag thinks.
Are you serious? This is exactly what is wrong with many of the Apple Fanboy mentality on Appleinsider. Really is sad.
Workstation GPUs like the AMD's FirePro and nVidia's Quadro are intended for graphics professionals and their gaming performance simply isn't competitive with the high-end consumer cards that Oculus specifies. Even if they performed equally, Mac Pros are a tiny segment of the Mac userbase that wouldn't be worthwhile for Oculus to pursue.
Funny thing is you can use just about any video card with El Capitan if you're willing to lose the boot screen if you don't want to flash it AND since most macs have thunderbolt these days, why would it be impossible to buy the card they require and run it in an external chassis via thunderbolt. I do it with my laptops running ATi R9's. Great setup. Killer frame rates in ESOL. I'm sure you can do better than also.
Oculus officially "paused" work on Mac support last May. In January Luckey made similarly pessimistic comments about the Mac, saying that support is "on the roadmap post-decent Apple hardware release, whenever that is."
Pessimistic? No, realistic. Apple doesn't put a lot of emphasis on the sort of graphics support products like the Rift require to function. That's not a cut, that's a statement of fact. My F-150 is a fantastic work and off-road vehicle, but it would get it's hat handed to it on any race track by even the slowest vehicle there. High performance graphics are not a priority to most Mac users, and so Mac's don't normally feature powerful graphics cards. Pointing this out is not an insult, and no one should take it as such.
I just don't have an interest in this product yet. I don't think it's for me as I'm not a heavy gamer. It sounds interesting but I like to play sports and listen to music and read and chat with friends etc...
The right tool for the right job for the right audience.
You'd prefer Oculus moved the graphics processing onto the unit itself instead of the host computer, thus adding several hundred to a thousand dollars to the price of the unit, punishing even those who do have computers powerful enough to handle the graphics load?
Apple started the iPod bussines because nobody wanted make drivers for Mac,
they thinked it was a resource wasted to invest in Mac, how wrong they were.
Maybe if Apple develops an VR glasses, maybeOculus will regret
Thats not the reason Apple created the iPod. You are way off.
Apple created the iPod because most mp3 players on the market at the time were "crap" (according to Steve Jobs) and that most mp3 players at the time only had the capacity of about 12 songs or one CD album. Obviously the iPod changed all that.
Apple started the iPod bussines because nobody wanted make drivers for Mac,
they thinked it was a resource wasted to invest in Mac, how wrong they were.
Maybe if Apple develops an VR glasses, maybeOculus will regret
Thats not the reason Apple created the iPod. You are way off.
Apple created the iPod because most mp3 players on the market at the time were "crap" (according to Steve Jobs) and that most mp3 players at the time only had the capacity of about 12 songs or one CD album. Obviously the iPod changed all that.
Always funny to watch brand loyalists drop $3000-$5000 on Apple junk when they can buy a god-like computer with Windows for $1500.00..
Proves Apple fans generally lack technical knowledge and consumer savvy, and are mostly brand loyalists.
6 years ago I used a crappy Windows notebook that's half the price of my MBA now. The experience was so painful I coughed up the dough and converted to Mac and never looks back. 4 years on and my Macbook Air's still running great. My productivity is going through the roof. The consumer savvy will always prefer Mac. They will becomes a brand loyalists. It's the same thing actually.
6 years ago I owned a dumpy used regular cab that cost a quarter as much as my current vehicle. Comparing the two is just as pointless as you trying to compare that notebook to a Macbook Air that retailed for twice as much, so what were you trying to say, exactly? As for you productivity increasing, I'm not sure exactly what programs you are using because I can kick out an Excel spreadsheet just as fast on my 5 year old Dell at work as I can on my top of the line 27" iMac at home. Granted the pleasure in doing so is much greater on my iMac, but my speed is not a factor of pleasure, but operator prowess.
Not sure why Oculus needs such high end graphics cards to work. Sony has VR that will utilize the PS4.
In terms of specs - the PS4 VR delivers a1080p resolution, with only half of that - 960x1080 - to each eye. It supposedly runs at 120fps (again, 60 in each eye), but I'm not sure how the PS4 is going to do that considering it hardly outputs at 30fps stable in most games at 1080, and most run at 720p or 960. The oculus has a resolution of 2160 x 1200, with 1080x1200 going into each eye, so it's got about 25-30% higher pixel density. It also has a global refresh of 90fps. The PS4 VR also has some kind of co-processor, the details of which have not been fully disclosed by Sony, and it's about half the size of the existing PS4 (photo). The occulus lacks this, and plugs directly into the PC with HDMI/USB.
Really, it depends what you're trying to play. If you're playing the first 1990's Doom or Quake in VR, it'll run on any old toaster of a PC without difficulty. If you're playing something must more modern, then it'll be a hell of a lot more taxing. PS4 games play well on the PS4, but it won't pump out nearly as much visual fidelity as what a $2000+ gaming PC will be able to.
There will probably be optimizations discovered as the technology develops to reduce the impact of the resolution, dual viewports and refresh like not having to recompute everything from the slightly offset viewports, interpolating frames and upscaling techniques. The following pages have some VR requirements:
The iMac's M395X is about 60% of a 980 (~4.86 VR score). The M370x in the rMBP is about 25% (~2.0 VR). The higher-end Mac Pro GPUs should meet the requirements if both cards are used. It comes in above the 290 when both cards are used properly but this isn't always the case:
These are all old cards now. The next generation will be shown off in under two weeks at GDC and the GPU manufacturers will be using VR to help sell them:
If AMD/NVidia manage to achieve double performance-per-watt then every Mac from the 27" iMac up will jump into the recommended VR spec. The next Macbook Pro will probably still fall short of the minimum but most other laptops would too. It would need to run both Intel and dGPUs together. Every game can have the quality settings dropped down a bit to improve performance though.
Metal or Vulkan will help out, Apple can support both. The Vulkan 1.0 spec only launched 2 weeks ago so Apple wouldn't likely add it until the next OS. It will be an option in Bootcamp for games at least.
So, given that the next iMacs and Mac Pro will easily meet the VR spec, that means the Oculus founder will be adding Mac support in the coming months, that's nice.
Having recently tried an Occulus on both a friend's gaming rig and on my MacBook Air, I can understand why they are demanding with the requirements.
I realise the MacBook Air has a weak graphics card, but it really drives home the point when you try to use it for VR. While there are probably ways Apple could improve their graphics pipeline, the biggest issues is still the fps. If you don't have enough frames per second, then the result is nausea.
I can read a book in a moving vehicle without issues, but my 5 minutes with MacBook Air and Occulus left me very nauseas. The last thing you want from a VR experience is lots of people feeling sick, since that would ruin the whole reputation and experience.
I don't have an immediate use for VR, but it is probably something that will drive the requirements in the next generation of graphics cards.
He's a douchebag for pointing out the obvious? He was asked by the interviewer why he doesn't support Macs and he replied that Apple doesn't place an emphasis on powerful GPUs that the Rift obviously needs.
What exactly did he say that is inaccurate? Granted, I watched the entire 7-minute interview.
Granted, you couldn't see a biased statement if it smacked you in the face.
"If they ever release a good computer, we will do it,"
Please define good. Seems like his definition is whatever fits his little corner of the universe. Maybe he needs to get out and interact with average people more to realize that he's in a very niche group, and demanding that the world bend to his will by spouting insults just makes him seem like an immature child.
Apple builds their computers to serve a particular purpose. Most people don't need all of that power, and the few that do, Apple isn't going to waste money on. Besides, rumors are Apple is working on their own VR, so I could care less what that douche bag thinks.
He's a douchebag for pointing out the obvious? He was asked by the interviewer why he doesn't support Macs and he replied that Apple doesn't place an emphasis on powerful GPUs that the Rift obviously needs.
What exactly did he say that is inaccurate? Granted, I watched the entire 7-minute interview.
He failed to mention that his lack of the ability to either write software efficient enough or include the necessary hardware to accomplish their goal. In music and video production companies do just that even camera companies are processing specialized task on device. What he is deflecting is that they can't make their product work in a mainstream environment which will be required to make a profit, something it seems Apple cares about. Most of these tech companies are just chugging along making noise hoping someone with buy them before they implode.
Granted, you couldn't see a biased statement if it smacked you in the face. Please define good. Seems like his definition is whatever fits his little corner of the universe. Maybe he needs to get out and interact with average people more to realize that he's in a very niche group, and demanding that the world bend to his will by spouting insults just makes him seem like an immature child.
The guy's being purposefully antagonistic. It's like complaining that a Lambo is shit because it can't go offroad; different computers have different purposes.
The annoying this isn he isn't wrong, but If he worded himself slightly differently I'd have a touch more respect for the statements. No mac line is a gaming powerhouse.
I think it's because they would like to be able to test on either NVIDIA "or" AMD, and Apple has them locked in on AMD only. In addition they only consider the D700 worthy! So their only Mac option is one video card! And they don't even consider Pre-2013 Mac Pros, you know that...
I have a GTX 970 and an i7 and I just meet the requirements for the Occulus.
It makes sense though. You have two displays for each eye (running at 1200p I think) with support for 90hz refresh for each eye. You're asking your machine to compute not only more than 2x the resolution of a game, but you're asking it compute more than 2x the framerate on something as beautiful as Elite Dangerous or No Man's Sky, that already ask a lot of your GPU at 1080P on a single display. All of this is required so you don't barf all over your keyboard while gaming from motion sickness.
Nvidia already has their Pascal GPU's in development that will be a very large jump in performance and hopefully ease the burden that these VR's will have on a machine.
The guy's wording was insensitive, but Mac's are in no way capable of using gaming VR's at they stand right now. Apple has laptop-ized their desktop solutions and there's just not any products i'm aware of that can manage gaming VR as it stands today.
That actually includes Sony with the Playstation VR. Bloodborne is a beautiful game but it can barely run at 30FPS. In fact, most PS4 games are so underpowered, i'm confused how the VR will even function. I suspect it will be for smaller and simpler games and not actually their AAA titles.
If Oculus requires such high power graphics in the computer - they are positioning the devices to be so much of a niche product that they will likely position themselves out of the market -- at least for many years to come. Therefore their support at this time is not very important in the overall scheme of things. Not many Windows machines will have that type of graphics power - only really the serious gamers....
I have a GTX 970 and an i7 and I just meet the requirements for the Occulus.
It makes sense though. You have two displays for each eye (running at 1200p I think) with support for 90hz refresh for each eye. You're asking your machine to compute not only more than 2x the resolution of a game, but you're asking it compute more than 2x the framerate on something as beautiful as Elite Dangerous or No Man's Sky, that already ask a lot of your GPU at 1080P on a single display. All of this is required so you don't barf all over your keyboard while gaming from motion sickness.
Nvidia already has their Pascal GPU's in development that will be a very large jump in performance and hopefully ease the burden that these VR's will have on a machine.
The guy's wording was insensitive, but Mac's are in no way capable of using gaming VR's at they stand right now. Apple has laptop-ized their desktop solutions and there's just not any products i'm aware of that can manage gaming VR as it stands today.
That actually includes Sony with the Playstation VR. Bloodborne is a beautiful game but it can barely run at 30FPS. In fact, most PS4 games are so underpowered, i'm confused how the VR will even function. I suspect it will be for smaller and simpler games and not actually their AAA titles.
OMG so touchy. Everything he said was objectively true. In the end, like everyone says, Apple doesn't design for the 1/1000 people who want oculus. They target the fat middle segment of people who want light touch, dependable computing. That in itself can be powerful and empowering but it does not need the kind of hp that oculus needs to push to get the required outcome.
Comments
And your nasty ad hominem reply proves what, exactly, and furthers the discussion how, Ming?
The right tool for the right job for the right audience.
Thats not the reason Apple created the iPod. You are way off.
Apple created the iPod because most mp3 players on the market at the time were "crap" (according to Steve Jobs) and that most mp3 players at the time only had the capacity of about 12 songs or one CD album. Obviously the iPod changed all that.
Thats not the reason Apple created the iPod. You are way off.
Apple created the iPod because most mp3 players on the market at the time were "crap" (according to Steve Jobs) and that most mp3 players at the time only had the capacity of about 12 songs or one CD album. Obviously the iPod changed all that.
http://amd-dev.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wordpress/media/2012/10/gr_proc_req_for_enabling_immer_VR.pdf
https://developer.oculus.com/blog/powering-the-rift/
A GTX 970 and R9 290 or higher is the recommended spec.
The following page shows where the Mac GPUs are vs the 980:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-980-Desktop.128942.0.html
The iMac's M395X is about 60% of a 980 (~4.86 VR score). The M370x in the rMBP is about 25% (~2.0 VR). The higher-end Mac Pro GPUs should meet the requirements if both cards are used. It comes in above the 290 when both cards are used properly but this isn't always the case:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7603/mac-pro-review-late-2013/10
These are all old cards now. The next generation will be shown off in under two weeks at GDC and the GPU manufacturers will be using VR to help sell them:
http://wccftech.com/amd-polaris-architecture-vr-minimum-spec/
If AMD/NVidia manage to achieve double performance-per-watt then every Mac from the 27" iMac up will jump into the recommended VR spec. The next Macbook Pro will probably still fall short of the minimum but most other laptops would too. It would need to run both Intel and dGPUs together. Every game can have the quality settings dropped down a bit to improve performance though.
Metal or Vulkan will help out, Apple can support both. The Vulkan 1.0 spec only launched 2 weeks ago so Apple wouldn't likely add it until the next OS. It will be an option in Bootcamp for games at least.
So, given that the next iMacs and Mac Pro will easily meet the VR spec, that means the Oculus founder will be adding Mac support in the coming months, that's nice.
I realise the MacBook Air has a weak graphics card, but it really drives home the point when you try to use it for VR. While there are probably ways Apple could improve their graphics pipeline, the biggest issues is still the fps. If you don't have enough frames per second, then the result is nausea.
I can read a book in a moving vehicle without issues, but my 5 minutes with MacBook Air and Occulus left me very nauseas. The last thing you want from a VR experience is lots of people feeling sick, since that would ruin the whole reputation and experience.
I don't have an immediate use for VR, but it is probably something that will drive the requirements in the next generation of graphics cards.
Please define good. Seems like his definition is whatever fits his little corner of the universe. Maybe he needs to get out and interact with average people more to realize that he's in a very niche group, and demanding that the world bend to his will by spouting insults just makes him seem like an immature child.
The guy's being purposefully antagonistic. It's like complaining that a Lambo is shit because it can't go offroad; different computers have different purposes.
The annoying this isn he isn't wrong, but If he worded himself slightly differently I'd have a touch more respect for the statements. No mac line is a gaming powerhouse.
It makes sense though. You have two displays for each eye (running at 1200p I think) with support for 90hz refresh for each eye. You're asking your machine to compute not only more than 2x the resolution of a game, but you're asking it compute more than 2x the framerate on something as beautiful as Elite Dangerous or No Man's Sky, that already ask a lot of your GPU at 1080P on a single display. All of this is required so you don't barf all over your keyboard while gaming from motion sickness.
Nvidia already has their Pascal GPU's in development that will be a very large jump in performance and hopefully ease the burden that these VR's will have on a machine.
The guy's wording was insensitive, but Mac's are in no way capable of using gaming VR's at they stand right now. Apple has laptop-ized their desktop solutions and there's just not any products i'm aware of that can manage gaming VR as it stands today.
That actually includes Sony with the Playstation VR. Bloodborne is a beautiful game but it can barely run at 30FPS. In fact, most PS4 games are so underpowered, i'm confused how the VR will even function. I suspect it will be for smaller and simpler games and not actually their AAA titles.