Oculus Rift support?

  • [quote:2lennoso]However, I can't see a family of four sitting in their living room looking like the borg

    lol

  • Anyone who thinks VR isn't going to happen is not in touch with AR. Facebook didn't buy the company for $2 billion for the sake of it. I haven't seen anything new out there causing this much of a stir since iPhones and Tablets.

    The next version of the Rift which is about to drop is a wireless version which uses a Samsung Android device as the screen / processor. So if Scirra allow for parallax and give us options for creating shadows in their attempts at allowing us to create some depth to our games then I have a feeling some OR support will happen especially if they want to stay with the times... Just a matter of when.

    We don't need XYZ controls on the screen just at least the ability to control the depth of images through numbers. Just the current parallax would work well as is and would be great if it could be taken further to allow images to pop out and some simple background shadow effects.

  • whalan84: Shadows and parallax(see the layers and System actions manual articles) are already part of Construct 2, and have been for a while now.

    Still I don't believe a 2D plan is really the best use for the Occulus Rift and C2 is first and foremost a 2D tool. If browser's vendors add HTML5 compatible support to the input of the OR it could be added to C2 somehow.

    From what you are telling, it sounds more like a phone screen that would be put right in front of your eyes. If that's supposed to be "progress" then I'll gladly pass on it.

    On the other hand, for a full immersion in a 3D space, I do agree OR sounds like quite the experience.

    For now it's still not universal and a lot of people still complain of motion sickness. This is probably the worst problem they have to fix before fancy "wireless" 2D AR interfaces.

  • Sorry for confusion. I mean as they already do have shadows and parallax, I feel as though they are half way there and I think they will add support (as I am sure will HTML in future iterations).

    The Oculus Rift already uses a phone screen right in front of your face... the magic is with the lenses it utilises to view the screen. The motion sickness is hugely attributed to lag on slower computers... the less latency between moving your head and the screen moving the less motion sickness... As time goes on and Graphics cards become more powerful (was a new generation just released by Nvidea this month) this won't be as much of an issue. On an older computer it is akin to being drunk and as things become slower to register with our brain we start to feel a bit woozy. I used it to play Minecraft yesterday (awesome by the way) and played for hours without feeling nauseous but started to when playing some more intensive games as I have a pretty low end laptop.

    As the thing has sold well over 50,000 of the most recent developer kits (dk2) and even Sony is releasing it's own headset for the PS4 (morpheus) it is obviously only a matter of time before it is universal and as Construct 2 makes it so easy to create games, even though they are only 2D, it would be great to see some forms of support so people like my self can still make fun experiences easily without needing to delve in to 3D assets and meshes and more complicated game engines such as Unity and Unreal Engine.

  • whalan84: The motion sickness is more than just lag because of an old computer.

    Certain FPS with "head bobbing" will make you nauseous right away. Some others won't.

    I used to be able to play old FPS like Wolfenstein3D, Doom, Quake and so on for hours when I was younger I'd feel nauseous but it would take hours before it would declare itself and be really noticeable.

    As I grew older, playing those same games on far more powerful computers I lost the stamina to do so and felt the nausea coming far sooner (a matter of minutes instead of hours).

    It's more a physical human issue than really a computer hardware problem I believe.

    As for the support, well as I said, if browser vendors do ever support OR and interface it with HTML5, it could be possible.

    But I'm not sure that's a priority for them, especially since apparently at the moment, 2D fonts are still a bit blurry within the OR and so long reading sessions are not the most fun activity to do on OR, whereas on browser it is still OK.

  • Kyatric Trust me the nausea is not a reason to not support the Rift, especially for a 2D game. That is almost akin to saying rollercoasters should not be built.

    As for the fonts this can be an issue but it is due to the resolution of the Rift's screen. The rift is still in it's development phase... the next release (the consumer version, pegged for release next year) will apparently be using 4K res screens and this won't be an issue at all. As it stands the font issues are generally caused by too small of font and looking from too far a distance. If you can't read a font it is usually a matter of leaning your head forward to get a little closer, but any games designed with the rift in mind won't face that issue, I have played many games which are perfectly readable.

    I understand it probably isn't on the top of Scirra's to do list but as a new device with plenty of backing and more than just potential it probably wouldn't be a bad idea for them to put in a little bit of research to see what is possible.

    I personally would love to be able to use the software to create Rift compatible games and I know some people might not see the upsides but I think loads of people will... I can say with certainty Construct would gain many thousands of new developers the moment they added the support.

  • Kyatric Trust me the nausea is not a reason to not support the Rift, especially for a 2D game. That is almost akin to saying rollercoasters should not be built.

    That's not what I'm saying, but you also have to understand that due to this current issue, the OR isn't the VR revolution some believe it is going to be. I doubt the OR will be universal because of this specific issue.

    I understand it probably isn't on the top of Scirra's to do list but as a new device with plenty of backing and more than just potential it probably wouldn't be a bad idea for them to put in a little bit of research to see what is possible.

    Nothing to see with Scirra, as I already mentioned two times, it is about the support in browsers that browser's vendors should provide.

    If they (Microsoft, Google, Mozilla, Apple, ...) don't add the OR HTML5 support to their browsers, there is nothing Scirra can do about it anyway.

  • The concelt of the OR is actually a pretty nice one, not only for games, but also applications (imagine a 3D preview of a house, would be pretty, or to have a full 360 viewport for some applications), and if browsers makers supports it via useable JS APIs, that would be a nice thing to have indeed (maybe as a third party plugin though, since I hardly see how that overlaps with Scirra currents objectives), and that would still be another option, and even if an option is not used by everybody, it is still useable by the ones who needs it.

    As for the VR talking, I do not care anyway, the oculus rift is a nice device by itself, but virtual reality will never be a thing I would ever want, there are I think more ways to use it than that however, which actually saves it for me I think.

  • Nothing to see with Scirra, as I already mentioned two times, it is about the support in browsers that browser's vendors should provide.

    If they (Microsoft, Google, Mozilla, Apple, ...) don't add the OR HTML5 support to their browsers, there is nothing Scirra can do about it anyway.

    Ok I see where you are coming from for the fact that Construct is based on HTML. And I guess for easy testing purposes it could potentially be necessary for a browser to offer support but come export time it would be hopeful that some form of compilation could happen maybe with something similar to cocoonJS where browsers would be redundant it is more down to a tool at the end which converts the mark up. (This will be Facebook's first dive in to the paid apps app store concept so preferably any end result would be an executable). It may not ever see the light of day with Construct which is a pity in some respects. But there is definite possibilities for it to happen without the need for browser support for instance you can see here with JanusVR http://janusvr.com/site.html it is more than possible to have mark up turned to workable code. If a single developer can make that happen who knows what professional teams could do.

    The concelt of the OR is actually a pretty nice one, not only for games, but also applications (imagine a 3D preview of a house, would be pretty.

    Yes it has started to open my imagination up to many possibilities and this has been one of them. Utilizing a camera such as the Panocam3D http://www.panocam3d.com/camera.html you could potentially open houses up to potential buyers right within a Real Estate Agency's lobby for people to visit many properties in only minutes and to get an idea before even stepping foot in to the real thing. As well as turning floor plans in to a 3D space to visualise yet to be built homes. It is definitely opening up many possibilities for new concepts outside of gaming.

  • Wanted to add my input, as I'm one of the first 5,000 developers to gets hands on with the OR, and I've had the DK1 now for 16 months and have had time to explore the tech.

    TL;DR: In my opinion, fixed vantage point cameras have no real place in VR. The best VR you are likely to get with Construct 2, if anything at all, will be a 3rd party tool that will project your 2D game export into a 3D environment like sitting in a movie theater, watching a flat screen. They have programs that do this with movies, and your desktop, so I don't see doing it with a game to be too far off.

    Some background on the OR and why you have to actually put one on your head to understand it:

      The biggest thing that needs to be taken into consideration is that the OR is an entirely new beast. For anyone who has tried one, you know what I mean. Beyond having head tracking capabilities, it is also the most immersive/realistic stereoscopic vision technology on the market. The biggest difference here is that all the 3D tech such as IMAX 3D or 3D TVs, or the 3DS render both images (one for right eye, one for left) on top of one another. That means your eyeglasses and brain have to separate out the 2 images from the stream using polarized glasses or shutterglasses, or putting your head at exactly the right spot while playing the 3DS. On top of all that, all current 3D tech has a fixed vantage point, so you always see through the eyes of the camera, rather than the camera being where your eyes are looking. Unlike traditional 3D glasses, OR gives each eye its own image without ever putting them on top of each other so there is no ghosting or shine through such as you can run into with shutterglass 3D tech. You also can turn and tilt your head which you can't do with polarized glasses. Unlike the 3DS where you have to be at just the right angle to see the 3D effect, the OR is fixed to your head so you always have the correct angle. Your eyes process the 3D just like real life, so if you have your face against a chainlink fence in a game and focus beyond it, the fence becomes blurry - and if you focus your eyes on the fence, the area beyond the fence becomes blurry ( Hiding in bushes in VR is pretty awesome ). Good old fashioned brain rendered depth blur in games that don't actually have depth blur. Even without head tracking, the 3D is much more advanced than any 3D you've used before, and can and will trick your brain into thinking you are there. Standing at the top of a tall stair case, or at the edge of a cliff and looking down will make your stomach sink or give you vertigo (to an extent).

    Why C2 isn't a great VR fit:

    • Would have to render in stereo (one image for each eye), which C2 does not support. You would need a z-axis for depth in order for C2 to render 2 different images for each eye. That means the entire C2 engine would need to reworked to become a 2.5D workspace at a minimum to simulate actual depth.
    • Rendering 2 separate cameras in 2.5/3D is resource intensive, and people already complain about performance with 2D C2.
    • Even with a z-axis for depth on objects, the best you'll really be able to do is project your 2D game onto a plane or inverted sphere in front of you. It would be in your face and take up all your vision, sure. But it's not really a true VR experience as if you turn around, all you'll see is black empty space. See TheWyrm's post for what to expect:

    Also this is someone getting their 3DS working on an Oculus Rift => http://www.engadget.com/2014/09/15/oculus-rift-3ds/

    It's cool enough, but feels really gimmicky compared to true 3D environments. To be honest, it's the same difference between going to the IMAX 3D and playing your game on the screen in 3D, versus looking down at your own hands while in the theater and seeing that kind of 3D depth. The 2.5D approach just feels very shallow by comparison to what a 3D environment can accomplish in VR. It looks good, takes up your vision, definitely worth playing, but you lose almost all of the immersion that VR has to offer, which is the biggest appeal.

    Subscribe to Construct videos now

    I mean, if given the choice, you would rather watch/hear a movie where bullets fly past your head and flames actually engulf you rather than have the cliche "spear poke towards the camera" thing they do in every 3D movie. AND you don't have to keep facing forward, look whatever direction you want. It does wonders for immersion.

    It's hard to explain, but you can feel the warmth of fireplaces, the sun in your eyes, the drop in your stomach when you go on a roller coaster, etc.

    Rambling:

    > Someone will probably make a way so you can view any 2D applications/games/movies as if you were viewing it on a massive TV/imax. (Although you'd probably want the oculus to be higher resolution first.)

    >

    I have no doubt in my mind that this will happen. I use 3 monitors at work and at home, and with an oculus rift I could have something ridiculous like 80 borderless monitors. In fact, I think the entire notion of flat desktops might end with the rift - the desktop of the future might look more like a "headsphere', and that's considering current control schemes (keyboard and mouse).

    The rift will revolutionize book reading, movie watching and working.

    This already happened a year ago, it's pretty spot on for making you feel like you are in a theater. Program is called VR Cinema. And if I see C2 making it's way to the OR any time soon, it'll be in a format like this. 2D projected into a 3D environment. As far as that's concerned the best you get from that is you get to play your game on a giant theater screen. I know that sounds cool, and it is cool, but you haven't seen 3D VR yet.

    I think it will always have to be in a 3D environment of some sort, due to head tracking. If you just display the game typically through the display and don't account for head tracking, then anytime you move your head you feel like barfing. Imagine moving your head in real life and your vision not moving, your brain hates it.

    They're supposedly lighter than some models of headphones, and people wear those for long sessions. I have no trouble imagining them being used by powerusers in office jobs.

    It's comfortable enough, it's basically like wearing big headphones, eventually you start noticing that they are cramping on your head and feel weird, but typically once you are in an immersive environment, you don't even think about it anymore.

    Also, the main thing keeping people from wearing it for 8 hours is going to be motion sickness. Unless you are immune to motion sickness, you will feel sick within 10 minutes of playing the OR for your first time. It gets easier as you use it more regularly. I can use it for about 4 hours a day.

    TheWyrm, I see your point: the face-to-face interaction a family or a group of friends is used to is unlikely to be replaced anytime soon. I don't foresee you putting on one of those for watching a romcom with your girlfriend, for instance.

    It won't replace intimate interaction - it may augment it however. That said, social interaction is definitely going to be one of the biggest uses for VR, think exactly like the episode of futurama where everyone goes on the internet.

    Subscribe to Construct videos now

    For now it's still not universal and a lot of people still complain of motion sickness. This is probably the worst problem they have to fix before fancy "wireless" 2D AR interfaces.

    The motion sickness is the biggest drawback to the tech taking off. I also suspect we won't see a consumer version until they fix the inherent ipd (inter-pupilary distance) issues which are getting standardized pretty quick.

    Essentially the ipd and lenses must be profiled for each user, because everyone's eyes are different distances apart, everyone is a different height, everyone has different levels of focus (near-sighted, far-sighted, etc) so in the early days, when you loaded up a game, there was no ipd settings. So your eyes didn't match up with the virtual person you were supposed to be, so it triggered motion sickness since you felt like you were looking through someone elses eyes.

    After you get past the ipd and focus issues, then you also have to have a PC that is powerful enough to give you a solid 60+ fps, because real life is pretty high frame rate and your brain is used to that.

    whalan84: The motion sickness is more than just lag because of an old computer.

    Certain FPS with "head bobbing" will make you nauseous right away. Some others won't.

    This is the thing people fail to realize about VR too, it's immersive to the point that most things that make you sick in real life are going to make you sick in VR. Spinning around in a tube rolling down a hill? You're gonna get dizzy and barf in VR and that's not a shortcoming of the tech, that's just being human like you said.

    If you could run around at 20mph in real life with your head bouncing up and down, spinning about really fast like in quake, you'd probably barf too.

    As well as turning floor plans in to a 3D space to visualise yet to be built homes. It is definitely opening up many possibilities for new concepts outside of gaming.

    I've loaded up several architecture/house demos, one called 'Red Frame' will blow your mind at how detailed and realistic a virtual home/environment can look.

    Gaming is going to be awesome, but I really see it taking off in so many directions, especially therapy.

    Have social anxiety? Load up areas with a specific amount of people, increase as you become more comfortable.

    Have a fear of heights? Start on a smaller platform and work your way up to the top of a sky scraper.

    The first thing I did when I put on the rift was stare at dust specks floating around me and let the sun shine in my eyes for 30 minutes, things that you never look twice at on a monitor in 2D.

    If VR doesn't take off, it will be ONLY because not enough people actually put one on their head.

  • I have tried the OR and the ones that came out in the 1990s... they are basically the same thing.

    The ones from the 1990s became so popular that people today think the OR is something new because they never heard of the same technology already being tried out well over 15 years ago. e.g. "cyber 3d visor"

    The resolution on the OR is no better than back then... some day they got to get it right...but then again some day the holodeck type experience will be here also.

  • Good old fashioned brain rendered depth blur in games that don't actually have depth blur.

    I hadn't actually considered that. Surprising that it works! I thought we'd see the "everything-on-focus" effect, like we have in flat screens.

    This already happened a year ago, it's pretty spot on for making you feel like you are in a theater. Program is called VR Cinema. And if I see C2 making it's way to the OR any time soon, it'll be in a format like this. 2D projected into a 3D environment.

    I don't know if you got what I was implying. I meant to use VR as a productivity tool, such as having 10 excel windows open at once without getting lost, since you have "infinite" screen space. The limit would obviously be the device's resolution - I hear text is tiring (due to low-rez) even in the OR DK2.

    the main thing keeping people from wearing it for 8 hours is going to be motion sickness. Unless you are immune to motion sickness, you will feel sick within 10 minutes of playing the OR for your first time. It gets easier as you use it more regularly. I can use it for about 4 hours a day.

    But that's because you're in a game, with all sorts of action-result mismatches, right? I imagine that if you had it on in a "sitting-in-a-desk-simulator" it wouldn't cause any problems at all.

    The scenario I'm thinking of would be binaural sound simulation (i.e. rain or the ocean) and having some sort of vista projected around you (a mansion, top-floor-skyscraper, yacht deck, this thing), meanwhile, flat windows (from desktop programs) would be projected in a globe around your head. You could look and interact with them as if you were surrounded by monitors. Of course, later programs would be designed to be less flat.

    social interaction is definitely going to be one of the biggest uses for VR

    Feedback and control schemas are much too primitive for that. We'd need some sort of tactile simulator capable of transmitting tactile info from the character to the player and some system that can convert movement intent to in-game movement, without moving your body, otherwise the dissonance that comes from indirectly controlling a character through an input device will still break the immersion (as well as cause motion sickness).

    I'm not saying it's impossible or unwanted, the porn industry alone would pay fortunes to see this through, but without direct neural stimulation or spinal bridges (both still in the realm of scifi), I don't see this happening satisfactorily.

  • > Good old fashioned brain rendered depth blur in games that don't actually have depth blur.

    >

    I hadn't actually considered that. Surprising that it works! I thought we'd see the "everything-on-focus" effect, like we have in flat screens.

    It's interesting, this is one of the defining factors of immersion and even standing in the same room as a user on the OR with a monitor showing what they are seeing, it's in no way the same experience. Things like dust specks that are just "filler" on a flat monitor become complete atmosphere in the OR.

    My favorite in this category is watching people play 'dreadhalls' which is a randomly generated maze. To us watching on the screen it's a scary game, to them in the OR, it is a haunted house.

    > This already happened a year ago, it's pretty spot on for making you feel like you are in a theater. Program is called VR Cinema. And if I see C2 making it's way to the OR any time soon, it'll be in a format like this. 2D projected into a 3D environment.

    >

    I don't know if you got what I was implying. I meant to use VR as a productivity tool, such as having 10 excel windows open at once without getting lost, since you have "infinite" screen space. The limit would obviously be the device's resolution - I hear text is tiring (due to low-rez) even in the OR DK2.

    They have desktop workspaces like this, and it definitely will help productivity. However like you said, text and low definition are a bad mix since text is very often among the smallest elements on screen. Most all text that isn't cartoon block letters or giant in the OR DK1 is unreadable, and I'm sure DK2 isn't quite there yet either.

    I am looking forward to virtual workspaces though all the same, I think they just have a limited start.

    > the main thing keeping people from wearing it for 8 hours is going to be motion sickness. Unless you are immune to motion sickness, you will feel sick within 10 minutes of playing the OR for your first time. It gets easier as you use it more regularly. I can use it for about 4 hours a day.

    >

    But that's because you're in a game, with all sorts of action-result mismatches, right? I imagine that if you had it on in a "sitting-in-a-desk-simulator" it wouldn't cause any problems at all.

    The scenario I'm thinking of would be binaural sound simulation (i.e. rain or the ocean) and having some sort of vista projected around you (a mansion, top-floor-skyscraper, yacht deck, this thing), meanwhile, flat windows (from desktop programs) would be projected in a globe around your head. You could look and interact with them as if you were surrounded by monitors. Of course, later programs would be designed to be less flat.

    The main issue is that there are so many variables in making virtual reality appear as actual reality to the brain, that there is much to account for. As it stands, the best rule of thumb is generally the more you move your head (and around the virtual space), the quicker the motion sickness sets in regardless of what you are doing.

    I guess it's kind of like being on a boat, you feel pretty much the same as being on land, but every now and again you get sea sick because the waves of motion somehow don't line up with what your brain expects. Like sea sickness, some people never will experience OR motion sickness. I had a friend who was strapped into a space shuttle spinning out of control that made a few of us watching the flat monitor sick, but not the guy in the OR, so it's a bit odd.

    However, some have come a long ways in regards to this. A game I played recently called 'Windlands' has you swinging around like spider man at skyscraper heights and it didn't make me sick at all, I played it for an hour and 30 minutes. And another misconfigured game where I wasn't even moving made me need to take off the OR immediately, so I think once they standardize the eye profiling they will also improve the motion sickness issue substantially.

    > social interaction is definitely going to be one of the biggest uses for VR

    >

    Feedback and control schemas are much too primitive for that. We'd need some sort of tactile simulator capable of transmitting tactile info from the character to the player and some system that can convert movement intent to in-game movement, without moving your body, otherwise the dissonance that comes from indirectly controlling a character through an input device will still break the immersion (as well as cause motion sickness).

    I'm not saying it's impossible or unwanted, the porn industry alone would pay fortunes to see this through, but without direct neural stimulation or spinal bridges (both still in the realm of scifi), I don't see this happening satisfactorily.

    I think we will see some try to break into that eventually, but social experiences don't have to be based solely on reality or use all the senses. I mean people will come to interact with one another in ways similiar to how online gaming has brought people together. In fact, it's surprising how natural it is for a gamer to adapt to a hybrid control scheme of movements used in real life, and movements used in console or PC gaming to immerse yourself in the rift. Sight, sound and head feedback are typically enough along with the familiarity of a gamepad to tie your immersion together.

    One program called 'JanusVR' is a multiplayer virtual web browser type thing. People basically walk around with an xbox controller or the mouse and keyboard and people can see where you are standing and where you are looking based on a simple polygon model, and I think there's chat. It's just a different way you and a friend could browse the internet together, by entering theaters to watch youtube videos or walking down halls with comments scattered on the walls from users of that site. It's not inherently a better or worse way to do it, just a different way to experience it, full realism or otherwise.

  • Hey guys. My name is Raoni, I have an indie company called Mopix Games and we're making 2D games. I don't agree with a lot people here saying that there's no point of 2D VR. Let's be open minded, right?! Have you guys ever heard about parallax plans? 2D VR can be in fact a very amazing experience if done the right way. Let's be open minded... And for those saying that VR is a puke experience, you should probably test the HTC Vive. It's the best VR experience and it's not going to make you dizzy. The question here is if there any Construct 2 support or plugin for this? I would love to experiment some with this kind of tools. Best wishes!

  • Try Construct 3

    Develop games in your browser. Powerful, performant & highly capable.

    Try Now Construct 3 users don't see these ads
  • ...The question here is if there any Construct 2 support or plugin for this? I would love to experiment some with this kind of tools. Best wishes!

    There's no official support and AFAIK there's no plugin for VR.

Jump to:
Active Users
There are 1 visitors browsing this topic (0 users and 1 guests)