Is headset gaming without VR better than a monitor? seems like it would be more immersive

i'm not sure if im confused or if all these posts have misinterpreted what i've said

not that user but most computers are barely good enough to run a single monitor at 4k
VR needs to essentially render two "monitors"
there isn't a computer available to people right now that'll be able to use that kind of hardware without dropping into sub-60 framerates
consolewarring and elitefagging aside, VR looks AWFUL in sub 60 and will make you want to vomit

it'd be doable with two 1080ti's because my computer runs 4k 60fps fine with one 1080ti. and that's not completely out of reach for most since its 1k per 1080ti.

I tried one of those injector apps to play starcraft 2 in 3D on a virtual screen. Honestly, it just made me want proper VR.

I asked OP to clarify if he/you meant roomscale because I didn't understand what he meant by "VR"

You can't have a VR headset "without VR" and the word "headset" in this context doesn't have any other meaning, even on its own.

Tossing extra cards into your machine doesn't give an additive benefit, they typically only boost performance by a percent. 20% last I checked out SLI, but that was a while back. That's also conveniently right around the additional rendering overhead VR brings to the table. 4k 60fps is one thing, but 8k 90fps with an extra 10-20% overhead is another.

>extra 10-20% overhead is another.
Except VR is cheaper to render since you can do a lot of optimizations due to the fact that you're just rendering the same scene twice at slightly different positions, 4k VR is lighter than a traditional monitor 4k.

>20%

78% in this example. problem is that games are beginning to remove support for it.

Attached: SD_01.png (1299x1725, 68K)

>VR is cheaper to render
Not in its current state as available to consumers. Once ray tracing picks up speed and sees more use, strategic ray sample reductions can bring things way down, especially when paired with eye tracking which I don't think is in any available headsets and would also have to be popular enough to warrant being adopted by the people making the software. Maybe even the individual gamedev studios.

tl;dr it's not there yet

>you can do a lot of optimizations due to the fact that you're just rendering the same scene twice at slightly different positions

No, not really. 3D is costly because it has to be fully rendered twice. A lot of post-processing effects can be scrapped because they don't work in VR though.

8k per eye is theoretical 'retinal' resolution. 4k/eye, despite being half that should be very close (diminishing returns) although subpixel arrangement at 4k/eye might still be a factor.

>Not in its current state as available to consumers.
Yes it is, all modern engines have VR optimizations and the performance gains can be pretty dramatic.
docs.unrealengine.com/en-us/Platforms/VR/VRPerformance

>No, not really.
Yes, please don't pretend to know what you're talking about.

>3D is costly because it has to be fully rendered twice.
No it doesn't.

Those optimizations you're talking about are why there's only a 10-20% overhead instead of a nearly double one you'd expect at face value from having to render most things twice. They're dramatic, but not so dramatic that it's easier to render something to VR than it is to render to an otherwise identical game to a 2d display with an identical pix/s being rendered

>but not so dramatic that it's easier to render something to VR than it is to render to an otherwise identical game to a 2d display with an identical pix/s being rendered
It literally is, even the slightest VR-only optimization means it will be easier than a traditional screen at the same resolution if you don't count the very small tracking overhead, why do you think rendering in VR would be any more expensive?

There's literally more to render, geometry-wise. An increase in things to render logically does not translate to being easier to render, ceteris paribus

Second paragraph, first line
>The Copper headset features a resolution of 2160 × 2160 pixels per eye. That doesn’t beat Pimax’s 8K headset or Google and LG’s super high-resolution display prototype
2160 × 2160 is not 8k.
Pimax 8K isn't even 8k. It isn't even 4k. It's 1440p upscaled to 4k because lol cable restrictions.

>Yes, please don't pretend to know what you're talking about.

He said into the mirror.

fucking hell the state of Yea Forums

Attached: wreck it ralph.jpg (474x531, 55K)

You'd get motion sick if your field of vision didn't change when you moved your head.

Just use one of the virtual theater/desktop apps and put your desktop screen on a giant curved movie screen.

that'd violate OP's criteria of "without VR", and I don't think staring at a virtual 2d screen any a virtual movie theater would be any more immersive than staring at a real 2d monitor on a real desk