VR

>>60968304
Doubt it.

Dual 1440 @ 90+hz is already pretty demanding. If they went to 4k then it would push the requirements for hardware to drive it beyond what most people could afford.

>>60968482
>Dual 1440
???

>>60968505
He's saying that dual 1440p displays are pretty demanding as it is. If the rift and vive went to 4k, nobody could run it and nobody would want to buy it.

File: C-dnb_mUMAAHzuo.jpg (167KB, 1083x1200px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 1083x1200px

>>60968868

>>60969127
Foveated rendering requires in engine modifications. Until this is stock in Unity and Unreal or Oculus/SteamVR, it's a meme.

>>60968304

using two of those displays would be 4K x 2K
which is just ONE normal 4K screen + 480px horizontally (about 1mp) (assuming their "2K" here is 2160px)

On the Rift, it's only 1080x1200 per eye (2160x1200 total)
The issue here isn't 4K, it's the 90hz/fps

which means you need the 1080 life to do anything

>>60968304

isn't the main requirement for a smooth vr experience maintaining a minimum 90 fps? vega and volta should be able to do that at 4k

Vr is going to continue to be memeware until they start manipulating the inner ear and balance.

I forget the details but VR has visual problems that aren't really resolved until you go very high in resolution, so yes.

>>60968482
Dude, when youre doing this kind of shit the price isnt an issue.
>makes $1,000 headset
>purposly stunts its usability so poorfags can run it

>>60969382
foveated rendering isnt as great as it's cracked up to be

there's an overhead for running the foveation

meaning even if you're reducing render res you're not reducing resource consumption as much as you thought you'd be

vr is doa

>>60968304
It had better go 4k- 1440p is a step in the right direction, but not quite enough. Give it a couple years though

Wireless
Foveated rendering
then 4K

>>60972901
You're also probably going to need to blur the pixelation.