Talk:Oculus Rift

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Shine821.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

The article claims "The field of view (FOV) is more than 90 degrees horizontal (110 degrees diagonal), which is more than double the FOV of previous VR devices from other companies, and is the primary strength of the device." This is overly vague and potentially misleading. A comparison with other VR devices shows that 110 degrees FOV is fairly standard: http://www.virtualrealitytimes.com/2015/05/24/chart-fov-field-of-view-vr-headsets/So which devices had less than 55 degrees FOV, where is the citation, and why is this relevant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.247.15.238 (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

In the table, I think "Development Stage" is being interpreted in different ways. Is this supposed to be "Development stage of Oculus Rift integration" or "Development Stage of the game" ? Take Minecraft and TF2 for instance: Minecraft is a released game but Oculus support as not been integrated yet AFAIK, TF2 is a released game and the Oculus support has been demonstrated at GDC. X-dark (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to list frameworks / 3d engines that support the Rift in addition to individual titles.This week will see a lot of announcements so at the end of this week we can probably start with this section. For now, we have the Three.js framework and Unity is obviously in the works.Also it can be seen that the source engine now supports the Rift with the release announcement of Team Fortress 2. Neuhaus (talk) 07:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Good point. The software section already mentions some game engines that are supporting the OR, but a subsection focusing on engine support is probably a good idea. Few major titles are built on ground-up custom engines any more.
—Sowlos 09:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

This page needs some pictures of the Rift. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShotmanMaslo (talk • contribs) 14:34, 17 April 2013‎ (UTC)

There are pictures now. (I was about to delete the obsolete suggestion, but the talk page guidelines don’t seem to allow that). --Nomeata (talk) 16:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Generally, talk page discussions older than six months can be archived. This talk page doesn't have an archive yet. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The picture displays some man rather than Occulus Rift device. And that man has nothing in common with Occulus, this looks rather like advertisement of some person. Note: the same picture was inserted to many languages, I think all of them should be replaced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.8.51.13 (talk) 13:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The Oculus Rift is confirmed to have OS X support thanks to the Oculus SDK v0.2.1! I added it to the platforms list. Fix things that I forgot to put in.
Source (Add it to references and next to the [[OS X]] in the platforms):http://www.oculusvr.com/blog/sdk-update-new-gdc-video-global-shipping-and-eve-fanfest/Pikachu4170 (talk) 23:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Development for OSX and Linux has been "paused". https://www.oculus.com/en-us/blog/powering-the-rift/ as of May 15, 2015. It will not even be tackled until 2016. This needs to be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.137.75 (talk) 05:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

The link in External Links, Oculus Rift Consumer and Developer Forum, is not a helpful source of external information or an official forum for the Oculus Rift. The official forum is this link and is geared for developers.

The unofficial forum as of May 29, 2013, contains 363 posts in the "introduce yourself" section, out of a total of 409 posts. Contrast this with the official forum, which, as of today, has thousands of members and posts, and every topic (except for "official announcements from Oculus Rift") is in active discussion.

The unofficial forum has banner ads, which motivates why this uninformative link is here, and why I believe there is a violation of Wikipedia:SELFPROMOTE.

I'm going to replace the link with a link to the developers' forum, which may provide some more detailed information to a reader with an interest in developing for the Oculus Rift.

Dan A Lewis (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/orange_county&id=9122999

Is this worth a mention? RocketLauncher2 (talk) 06:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Andrew Scott Reisse was one of the co-founders of Oculus VR. However, the wiki doesn't give him any credit whatsoever 12.20.14.2 (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

According to the article, Reisse co-founded Oculus. It would be appropriate to mention him in an article on the company, Oculus, if we had one. This article is about the Rift, their first product. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 13:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

http://www.oculusvr.com/blog/andrew-reisse-in-memoriam/

Andrew was one of the heads of the Oculus SDK and development 12.20.14.2 (talk) 14:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

What did the "Enabled By" column in the software section even mean? My guess is that it was meant to distinguish games enabled by special driver such as Vireio from games with native support, but non-native games aren't even on the list at all, so the column is at best redundant, at worst confusing since some different entries are using different terminology to refer to exactly the same thing. Seriously, some were called "Default (In-Game)", some were "Game Engine" which is the same thing, and so forth. When every entry in a column is the same, it is pointless. Fieari (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Near the end, this section claims that the development kit "comes with one DVI and two HDMI cables, and a DVI to HDMI adapter". This is not true at all. The kit comes with no DVI cables, and only one HDMI cable. It does come with a DVI to HDMI adapter. I'm not sure why anyone would think that the kit came with three cables or even how that could be useful.Alajamber (talk) 13:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The rift is not powered from USB, the power supply is required for operation. (however it is possible to power from USB with a small hardware modification to the control box, depending on if your USB controller will allow the extra current drain http://mikejmoffitt.com/wp/?p=156).--124.170.243.15 (talk) 14:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand this sentence:

The company was founded by Palmer Luckey and the co-founders of Scaleform, and id Software cofounder John Carmack was later hired as its Chief Technology Officer.

Is it trying to say that Oculus Rift was founded by the following three entities:

1. Palmer Luckey
2. the co-founders of Scaleform
3. id Software cofounder John Carmack

And sometime after the initial founding John Carmack was hired as the CTO? Or is it trying to say the company was founded by Luckey and the Scaleform co-founders; and sometime later John Carmack (a non-founder) was hired as CTO? And who exactly from Scaleform co-founded Oculus Rift? Was it two people or a whole bunch? Was it every co-founder of Scaleform or subset? If it's just two people from Scaleform, I think it would be better to just name them and add that they were co-founders of Scaleform. If it's a lot of people, then say 'many (or all) of the co-founders of Scaleform'.

If the meaning is the same as my initial interpretation. I think it should be something like:

The company was founded in 2012 by Palmer Luckey, John Doe, Jane Smith, and John Carmack. Prior to founding OculusVR, Doe and Smith had co-founded Scaleform together and Carmack had founded id Software. Carmack was also hired as OculusVR's Chief Technology Officer in 2013.

If the second interpretation is correct, then it should be:

The company was founded in 2012 by Palmer Luckey, John Doe, Jane Smith. Doe and Smith had previously co-founded Scaleform. John Carmack, founder of id Software, joined OculusVR in 2013 as Chief Technology Officer.

Additionally, John Carmack is referenced being from id Software several times in the article. I think that only needs to be mentioned once at the top, especially since his wikipedia article is linked and has all his details there. There also seems to be some confusion as to whether he is 'formerly' of id or not, according to this engadget article, he's still working at id. Onlynone (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

This whole article reeks of fanboy edits, especially the endorsement section where 90% of the people listed lack any citations.

Do these people even know what "endorsement" means? Because it looks like it's being used as a buzzword here.

Just because some industry guy was impressed by a demo doesn't mean he's openly endorsing it.

I'm surprised they didn't add Jimmy Kimmel to the list.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.222.7.237 (talk • contribs) 25 December 2013‎ (UTC)

I was coming here to raise this issue too. Is an 'endorsements' section really necessary? It's just "These notable people think this product is good." Doesn't seem particularly encyclopedic to me. Samwalton9 (talk) 10:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree. I think the section would be okay as long as it was clarified at the top what is meant by "endorsed by". Being impressed with a demo doesn't mean endorsing. And of course John Carmack endorses it, he works for the company now. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 16:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I heard that Sony showed off their version of a VR HMD for the PS4 at the current GDC. I didn't catch what it's called. Should it be added to the "See also" section? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 13:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

It's called Project Morpheus and doesn't have its own Wikipedia article yet. The PS4 article hardly mentions it either, so probably not right now. I imagine it will get is own article or section in PS4 soon though. Samwalton9 (talk) 13:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I added a mention about Project Morpheus in the Related projects section with a ref. I added a wikilink to the (non-existent) article. I guess we'll have to go back and fix it when it actually has an article. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 13:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

This needs to be added ASAP:

Facebook is acquiring Oculus VR for $2 billion, which was announced by Mark Zuckerberg on Facebook on March 25th, 2014. The deal includes $400 million in cash and 23.1 million common shares of Facebook, valued at $1.6 billion, as well as an additional $300 million when Facebook reaches certain milestones.

References:

https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10101319050523971http://newsroom.fb.com/news/2014/03/facebook-to-acquire-oculus/

Cyberork (talk) 01:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

@Cyberork: Thanks! I've added it to the page at Oculus Rift#Acquisition by Facebook. Are you okay with the way it's written? I'm not sure if I like it as-is. --Nicereddy (talk) 01:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi guys,

Now that Oculus has been acquired by Facebook, the question arises: How do we refer to the Rift? Is it the Facebook Oculus? The Facebook Rift? The Facebook Oculus Rift?

I've renamed the article to the most concise possibility in the interim, but the other options are still open.

InternetMeme (talk) 10:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

It will stay the Oculus Rift pending some sort of announcement or press release from Oculus VR or Facebook regarding a name change. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 13:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Absolutely no changes until we have a reliable source (Facebook/Oculus Rift themselves) referring to it as anything other than Oculus Rift. Nymf (talk) 15:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Per this discussion, and adding my agreement with it, I've reverted the recent move to Rift (head-mounted display). I think you should suggest and discuss page moves here in future InternetMeme. Sam Walton (talk) 08:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

It just seemed like something that needed to be done, and I didn't realize it was really a matter of contention. The device has never been named the "Oculus Rift": That's a compound term used by people, derived from the name and the company that owned it. I figured it was a matter of common sense to rename the article now that the Rift was no longer owned by Oculus. I'm not too bothered either way, I just thought the current title was now a bit misleading, and that it was better to fix it sooner rather than later. InternetMeme (talk) 22:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

What you say does make sense, but per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, the most recognisable and natural title for the article is still the Oculus Rift as it's what most people identify the device as being called. That said, their own website still identifies it as the Oculus Rift too [1]. Sam Walton (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that. As a bit of a WikiGnome, I tend to try to fix every little thing as I come across it; in the process, it's become apparent that many things on Wikipedia get left unattended as most editors concern themselves with the larger issue of content addition. I just figured this was one of those things, though looking at your link, it does seem like the term "Oculus Rift" is more official than I realized. Thanks for finding that link. InternetMeme (talk) 00:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

On a completely unrelated note: I see you're a keen editor of video game articles, and you seem to have a diplomatic way of looking at things. So another WikiGnome-like undertaking of mine was to rename the articles such as "History of video game consoles (fourth generation)" to "Video game console (fourth generation)". This seemed like common sense, and I presumed that no real thought or logic had gone in to the original title anyway, as:

1. Most information on any product or other item has a main article describing the thing itself, and as a sub-set of that, the article has a history section. If the article grows too large, it may be split in two The parent article "X" , and the other article "History of X". However, in the case of these articles about each generation of video games, there is no parent article; just the "History of X" article.
2. If an editor were to argue that an old video game console is an inherently historical item, it should be pointed out that an article about a steam engine isn't called "History of locomotives (steam engines)", even though a steam engine is an inherently historical item. The article is just called "Steam engine". Likewise, the video game console article should be titled "Video game console (fourth generation)".
3. Even if you do buy the argument that these video game consoles are inherently historical items, then why is the article that covers the new consoles titled "History of video game consoles (eighth generation)"? What's historical about them? They're still even considered next-gen.
4. The articles themselves contained a "History" section, which is illogically recursive given that the article itself is nominally a history article.
5. The articles contain mostly non-historical information, such as technical information about how the hardware works, and categorical lists of all consoles in a generation. It makes no sense to call it a history article when it is largely a "List of..." article.
6. It's more concise to title the articles things like "Video game console (fourth generation)". Why make the title any more complicated than it needs to be?

What I think has happened is this: There were originally two articles, one titled "Video game console", and the other titled "History of video game consoles". Eventually the "History of video game consoles" article grew too large, due to the addition of exhaustive lists of consoles from all generations. So the "History" article was split in to one article for each generation, and retained the same naming convention by default, without ever considering whether it made sense.

Most editors get used to it being this way, and the naming convention garners undue respect due to familiarity. Many editors just want things to stay whatever way they've become most familiar with, without being concerned with what's best. What are your thoughts about this?

InternetMeme (talk) 01:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Since everyone is trying to follow the money with the facebook acquisition, I think it'd be useful to see that Spark Capital and Matrix Partners both invested ~$19 million and Andreessen Horowitz invested $75 million.

-http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-26/oculus-deal-said-to-deliver-20-fold-return-to-spark-and-matrix.html-http://venturebeat.com/2013/12/12/oculus-vr-raises-75m-from-andreessen-horowitz-to-create-consumer-version-of-its-virtual-reality-goggles/199.241.14.252 (talk) 14:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I've started a draft of an article on the company. Right now, this Oculus Rift article is a hodge-podge of information on the company, Oculus VR, and its product, the Rift. Though they are of course closely related, it will be cleaner to pull out the information on the company into a different article. Then this article can just focus on the Rift itself. Right now the draft is just some information from this article, with some re-arranging. Feel free to chip in and help! Draft:Oculus VR — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Good move. --uKER (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Don't have time to help right now or I would, but definitely a good idea. Sam Walton (talk) 16:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I think I have everything essential in there. If there are no objections, I'll move it into the main article space soon. At that time, I'll also remove all company information from this article. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks good, and should tidy this article up nicely. Sam Walton (talk) 15:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. I moved the article to the article space. I also trimmed information from this article that was company-specific. Some of the information was so intertwined with the Rift, however, that I needed to leave it intact. Feel free to edit either. Thanks again! — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 19:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Does the mention of Facebook buying Oculus VR the company belong in the lead of an article about one of their products? λuzie (talk) 19:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be. I was on the fence about it since the Rift is their only product right now. It's already in the Oculus VR article, so if it bugs you go ahead and take it out. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 19:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I would, but I'm not yet autoconfirmed. If no one else is willing, It's probably better that I don't, anyway. λuzie (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Today I am trying to find out what a stereoscopic image will look like if "depth-of-field" is not an automatic side effect of the display vis-a-vis the viewer. I can't find anything documenting this. I turned up some terms, "foveated", "collimation", yet neither seem to truly apply. My impression is this is a visual effect which this round of VR headsets will not include, and I think its being glossed over in marketing of them. Or is this blurring a process that is done inside the brain, as a way to stitch the two images together? That's not the impression I get from my cursory research just now. If it's not done by the brain then then if it is to be reproduced in software a backwards facing sensor must measure the focus of the eyes--184.63.132.236 (talk) 17:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't Google Cardboard be linked to, under "Related projects" or "See also" ? It is too a head-mounted virtual reality system with a single screen visible through two lenses and an IMU.It seems obvious to me it should be linked, yet there is no link - is there some good reason or nobody thought about it so far? “WarKosign” 13:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

...from what exactly?I am searching for hours, and the only information that i can find ANYWHERE are "It has 90/100/110 degrees of fov" and "it has a tracking of 40/50 degrees", but nothing official. Those answers just sound plain wrong and contradict each other. If you had only a little more then 10% of the 360° of the CB, that would mean you can barely move your head, while there are already 360° video players seemingly available. Someone PLEASE add some information about the head tracking on the older versions, especially the DK2. It should be at least able to look 90° left and 90° right, making it a total of 180° degree, not 40 or 50...

I don't know where they get those 40/50 degrees. You can look 360 degrees and get rotational tracking from the onboard IMU in all the headsets, but you won't get 360 degrees positional tracking in all of them.

DK1 = you can rotate 360 degrees, but it only has rotational tracking (DK1 doesn't have any method for positional tracking)
DK2 = you can rotate 360 degrees, approx. 180 degrees positional tracking via standalone camera (headset has sensors only on the front)
Crescent Bay = you can rotate 360 degrees with positional tracking via standalone camera (headset has sensors on front and back)

I can't find exact DK2 specs on degrees of positional tracking, but I have a DK2 myself, and it's definitely at least 180 degrees, probably a bit more. Actually the degrees of positional tracking depends on how the DK2 camera is mounted relative to the headset. Also, "90/100/110 degrees of fov" and "40/50 degrees of tracking" is not contradictory. They're talking about two different things, field of view and degrees of head/positional tracking are two separate things.Kadmium (talk) 23:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Consumer Rift hardware will include a wireless Xbox One controller and the Xbox One can stream to the Rift. Just announced today over Twitch. Citation. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 17:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The Runtime/Driver section of this article could also mention that with Windows 10 the Rift has "Native" support. Meaning that the OS will simply recognize the device as a Rift as soon as it's plugged in. http://venturebeat.com/2015/06/24/oculus-chief-explains-the-secret-to-fun-vr-games-and-how-to-make-them-just-right-interview/ (look for 'native') — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.187.41.187 (talk) 15:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. There should be a section about criticism. For example that such technology would further isolate people in their own virtual worlds and so. Study after study.--Lexikon-Duff (talk) 01:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you claiming there are studies after studies showing this effect? Please include a few sources for this claim. Kadmium (talk) 01:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Now that the CV1 has been announced and confirmed, this article needs a major overhaul.

It needs to be about the Rift, the product, not its development kits, except for the '1 History' section, which of course should include them.

I am willing to help out, as an expert on the topic of VR, but I can't do this alone. Heaney555z (talk) 10:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Did some more today. 'Content' main section will be next (to replace 'Adoption'). Really would like an image of the consumer version for the main image. Anyone got one? -Heaney555z (talk) 15:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Banshee Chapter was apparently filmed with VR/OR specifically in mind. This according to video at http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2015/08/13/in-search-of-the-one-innovation-that-will-finally-bring-virtual-reality-to-the-masses/: "the first feature-length...specifically for virtual reality". Kdammers (talk) 06:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

There should be a discussion of VR/OR in education. See, e.g., http://www.roadtovr.com/world-of-comenius-virtual-reality-education-biology-lesson-leap-motion-oculus-rift-dk2/. Kdammers (talk) 06:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Seems like a $2 billion oversight to not mention it on this page. Even if there is some obscure page referencing the acquisition, it really should be at least mentioned here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.137.75 (talk) 05:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

The details of the device under https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Oculus_Rift#System_requirements are completely wrong for the released product. No mention of how they changed the SDK several times in 2015? 73.170.156.225 (talk) 23:08, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

That part of the article specifies:

"Oculus Rift's recommended specifications specify a CPU equivalent to an Intel Core i5-4590, at least 8 GB of RAM, at least an AMD Radeon R9 290 or Nvidia GeForce GTX 970 graphics card, an HDMI 1.3 output, three USB 3.0 ports, and one USB 2.0 port."

That exactly matches what's currently shown on the Oculus website. There's indeed no mention of how they changed the SDK several times, though I'm not sure what you are saying there; are you saying the system requirements changed? In any case, if you think the section is wrong and doesn't match what the oculus website lists for system requirements, please be more specific and we'll be very happy to discuss. --Yamla (talk) 11:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

The current lead image is of one of the developer kits, but the consumer version is out now and this should be updated. I don't see any images of the consumer version in commons. Does anyone have an image they can upload? AmateurEditor (talk) 23:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@AmateurEditor: I have one; I'll take some images today. Sam Walton (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@AmateurEditor: They're not great, this is the first time I've taken pictures like this and I had to heavily improvise, but I've added some images of my Rift and other hardware. I'll probably revisit them some time with improvements. Sam Walton (talk) 14:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: Those are excellent! Thank you! AmateurEditor (talk) 02:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

First, I know this isn't a forum, however, this information ought to be included in the article, so I think asking these is fine.

(1) Does the Oculus Rift DK2 require AC power? Why does it come with an AC adapter? I asked in #hardware and someone said "apparently to power the usb accessory port", but I didn't get any more info. Does that mean that you can plug in USB devices directly into the headset?

(2) Can you see BIOS stuff with the Occulus Rift? I'm guessing not, is that correct, since it requires drivers for it to work, right?

Thanks. 108.248.162.202 (talk) 05:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I just started this section, though I didn't make it as exhaustive as it should be. The sources I cited, especially the one from Business Insider have a very good wealth of information that could benefit the section if incorporated by someone with better understanding of the legal matter. --uKER (talk) 15:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

A new headset Oculus Rift S was released today (March 20, 2019). Rift S is intended to become a drop-in replacement for the original Rift, which will be phased out. However, there are very few common characteristics between the two products aside from pricing (US$400) and PC hardware retirements. Rift S has two 80Hz 1280x1440 LCDs, Rift has two 90Hz 1080×1200 OLED screens. The original Rift has outside-in tracking with Constellations, Rift S has inside-out tracking with 5 cameras. They different controllers: original Rift's controller tracking ring is positioned in front of the controller to be seen by Constellation cameras, while Rift S controllers have rings above the player's hand to be seen by he headset's cameras. 130.126.255.74 (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Created a dedicated page for Oculus Rift S. Anton.bersh (talk) 07:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)