The Top Tech of 2013

Comments 1 to 7 of 7

andrew8200m 1st January 2014, 18:01 Quote
Must say the qh-90 are superb and the 780ti is a beast. Why the 290x? The 290 is much better value. 290x doesn't seem to be as quick as release day either with average clocks recorded at much less than the 1000 it's stated to... Needs a water block so it's not really a finished package is it?
rainbowbridge 1st January 2014, 19:02 Quote
Last night I spent 5 hours playing War Thunder in the Oculas Rift and have invested £300 in a Thurstmaster Warthog, and will be getting peddels.

To understand how good it is, you have to put an rift on and then the words out of your mouth will be oh my god, this is briliant.

I think rift is wounderfull, but we need to test virtual retinal display (VRD)
loftie 1st January 2014, 19:05 Quote
link for the func is broken
Meanmotion 1st January 2014, 19:21 Quote
Originally Posted by loftie
link for the func is broken

Cheers. Fixed.
Pookie 1st January 2014, 22:14 Quote
Dont get me started on the 290x. We have a love hate thing going on at the moment.
edzieba 2nd January 2014, 00:43 Quote
Originally Posted by rainbowbridge
virtual retinal display (VRD)
Marketing Speak, not actual engineering terminology. It's just a microdisplay and collimating lens assembly, used on many many HMDs before.

The talk of 'reflected light = more realistic', 'no image focal plane', 'retinal focus' etc are disingenuous at best:
- The eye cannot tell whether light has reflected from a surface or was emitted by that surface, it can only tell the relative intensity of three overlapping frequency bands (Red, Green and Blue) along with a slight amount of polarisation sensitivity in very specific circumstances. The idea that your eye sees reflected light as somehow 'more real' than emitted light part is pure grade-A bullshit.
- The 'no focal plane image' bit is also false. The light modulator (DMD, LCOS, etc) must form an image in order to work. There's no holography or interferometry going on here, or they'd be shouting it from the rooftops and throwing patents (or at the lest landmark technical papers) left and right.
- The 'retinal focus' is technically correct, but entirely moot. If you can see an image in focus then by very definition it is focussed on your retina. The Rift, for example, used a single plastic lens to (nearly, other than chromatic aberration) collimate the light from the backlit LCD (backlight = light source, LCD panel = light modulator), which the eye's lens then focusses onto the retina. In a microdisplay HMD, light is emitted by a point source, reflected off (or passes through) the light modulator, then is collimated by a lens assembly, before the eye's lens focusses it onto the retina.

What remains to be seen is if their claims that they can achieve greater than 45°FoV can actually be delivered on. Thus far, the optical issues of using microdisplays has severely limited the possible FoV, leading to things like the Sensics PiSight, which crams 24 microdisplay modules (12 per eye) in order to achieve the desired FoV coverage. That their proposed Glyph HMD is still only 45° speaks volumes. They have thus far demonstrated nothing beyond what previous microdisplay-based HMDs have delivered.

That, and there's the issue that microdisplays rely on sequential colour rather than simultaneous emission which results in Bad Things for HMDs, mainly nasty movement-dependant chromatic abberation.
maverik-sg1 2nd January 2014, 10:44 Quote
I always read Hadron as Hardon, feels like I regressed 26years, because it makes me laugh like a pubescent teenager who's just heard his first innuendo.

Please manufacturers, for the love of all things sensible, refrain from such anagrams in future, or continue and keep giving me cheap laughs....your choice :)
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.

Discuss in the forums