kastriot Well i will wait for more future proof product which will have:





Quartz lenses with individual focal adjust for both eyes

VirtualLink

120Hz@1080p, 90Hz@1440p, 60Hz@2160p

7680x2160p resolution

Carbon fiber reinforced



Cost max 500$



any other ideas? :)

Raunhofer This seems to be a very small step up, I wonder what the target audience is supposed to be?

Why on earth would someone pick this over the Rift? What's the selling point here?



So many questions.

Far more important that what you've listed here: wider FOV. Humans see 180-190 degrees horizontally (around 120 vertically, IIRC), so for proper immersion we need to go way beyond 100 degrees - at least 150. Doing this without foveated rendering being properly implemented would be beyond silly, though, as our peak visual acuity only covers a fraction of that area - 20 degrees or so both vertically and horizontally. Wasting computing power on rendering 100% of the scene at 100% quality and resolution is ... well, wasteful when you could render 20% of the scene atresolution and quality while lowering the rest, for an overallin perceived visual quality, while lowering or keeping level the required compute/graphics power. Also, 60Hz VR doesn't work. Why you list that as an option is beyond me - it causes nausea in themajority of users.As an aside, pointing out specific (expensive) materials is rather meaningless; it's their properties that count (low weight and high strength for carbon fiber; ??? for quartz). No need to limit your wishes to existing, expensive solutions ;)...people who want a headset with better specs and availability (as in: retail)? It seems like a competitive solution (at the US price).For me, I'll hold off on VR until wide-FOV headsets with foveated rendering and fewer drawbacks are below €500. This is a step in the right direction, but a tiny one.