So I just got my Oculus Rift DK2 on Friday and I said I would post a blog review of it. That said, this is going to have to just be the first of what will probably be many because after a weekend of playing with this thing the biggest thing I've learned is that I'm going to have to play with this a -lot- more before I'll have a solid idea.
First of all, the good: This is a pretty cool device. The stereoscopic 3D works well, although that's not exactly new technology. It does head tracking well and the 3D space recognition appears to be dead on. The device does as advertised.
Now the bad: This is not ready for primetime yet. If the DK2 were released as the final retail version, this product would fail miserably for many, many reasons. It's a bit rough and the software support is very spotty right now. You absolutely should not buy this device if you are looking for the next new gaming peripheral. This is a development kit so as such it's more of a technical proof of concept. I can't imagine what the DK1 must have been like if this one is a huge improvement over the previous version.
Now the rest: The device itself functions in one of two modes, "direct" or "extended". Direct means that the software application that you are using is aware of the Oculus and sends video directly to it and understands how to read its inputs. "Extended" means the Oculus shows up as another display device in an extended desktop. Technically, the desktop shows up on the Oculus but you can't really "see" it properly through the display because each half of split between each eye and they overlap (just like turning 3D on a non 3D signal). When you use the Oculus in this mode, you either have to set the Oculus as the primary display (making navigation tricky) or your game has to support running on a secondary display. Direct mode works better with less latency, but unfortunately almost nothing besides a handful of tech demos supports Direct mode. Extended theoretically can work with any game, although sometimes third party utilities are required in order to get the game working properly and not every game will support every feature (i.e. support 3D but not headtracking, etc).
The device itself is interesting. I'm nearsighted (nothing crazy but I wear glasses and contacts to read anything more than a foot or two from my face) and this device absolutely does not work with glasses because it fits like nightvision goggles. However, contacts obviously work and depending on your own vision problems they may not even be necessary because the screens are only inches from your eyes even though they simulate distance viewing. There are two sets of "lenses" included that sit between your eyes and the displays. They are intended for people with different levels of nearsightedness and by using the correct set I'm able to use the Rift without any other corrective lenses which is pretty cool.
The screens on the device are lower resolution than a nice, high end monitor. There's pixelization that's pretty noticeable because you're so close to the displays. This combined with different aspects of the software support can make a game look pretty ugly. Elite Dangerous has native support for the Rift in extended mode, but in its current version it looks horrible. The 3D effect is there but game text is unreadable due to the resolution and relative scale of the heads up displays. The weird thing is that I can read the displays more easily if I lean my head in closer to the virtual display in 3D space, which is a bizarre concept. One of the freakiest things about playing Elite was looking down at my hands and feet and seeing the game pilot's hands mirroring my own movements. The scale was even pretty close to being accurate.
Software support is really rough right now and I've only gotten a handful of games working properly if at all. Star Citizen was next on my list but I haven't had much luck getting that one to work correctly. Over this weekend I've spent more time trying to get games to work than actually playing them. Alien Isolation is out next week and although Ethan Carter came out they cut the VR support for that game just before release.
Another weird thing is that placement of the device on your face has to be dead on accurate. Even a quarter of an inch in any direction will make the display look odd and creates a color bleed effect that looks like a convergence issue. Even when placement on your head is perfect, only the portion of the screen that is directly in front of you is totally clear and aligned. As you get towards the outer edges, the color convergence goes off. When that's your peripheral vision it looks fine, but if point your eyes at the edges they look pretty bad. This means that the ability to turn your perspective or use head tracking is a must and it's another reason why you can't use the Oculus to view your desktop (as there's no tracking). Even when the stereoscopic vision works, if you are in a situation where you can't turn your perspective (like a menu in a game that doesn't have native support) then you might not be able to see what you need. For games that do support the Oculus, the menu exists in 3D space so you can move around it.
As far as how well the device works overall, when it works well it works very well. The 3D works great (although it doesn't fill your entire vision but for glasses wearers this should be less of an adjustment), but what really sells it is the headtracking. Turning your head and having your perspective change 1:1 with your head movement really makes you feel like you are standing in the game. The tech demos are currently the most impressive uses of the tech, and the rollercoaster demos can give you a real sense of vertigo although I didn't find myself flailing like a spaz or falling over but I can see why this messes with people's perception. The biggest issue is just the software support, but that'll only improve over time.
More to come...
Log in to comment