Tarquinn2049

I would imagine it's the same scale, just a base 10 feet instead of 20 feet. So in yours you would see at 24 feet what the average person would see at 20 feet. Assuming there is a linear relation, and no circumstantial drop off.

Also, usually when people use the term "perfect" vision, they mean 20/20, is that the case for you too. Another term for that is average vision, with people that have better vision than that having "better than average" vision.

And you get a TV small enough that it doesn't suit that purpose? Looks like 75 inch to 85 inch is what would suit that use case. Big, but still common enough.

Hmm, I suppose quality of TV might matter. Not to mention actually going through the settings and making sure it isn't doing anything to process the signal. And also not streaming compressed crap to it. I do visit other peoples houses sometimes and definitely wouldn't know they were using a 4k screen to watch what they are watching.

But I am assuming actually displaying 4k content to be part of the testing parameters.

So, a 55-inch TV, which is pretty much the smallest 4k TV you could get when they were new, has benefits over 1080p at a distance of 7.5 feet... how far away do people watch their TVs from? Am I weird?

And at the size of computer monitors, for the distance they are from your face, they would always have full benefit on this chart. And even working into 8k a decent amount.

And that's only for people with typical vision, for people with above-average acuity, the benefits would start further away.

But yeah, for VR for sure, since having an 8k screen there would directly determine how far away a 4k flat screen can be properly re-created. If your headset is only 4k, a 4k flat screen in VR is only worth it when it takes up most of your field of view. That's how I have mine set up, but I would imagine most people would prefer it to be half the size or twice the distance away, or a combination.

So 8k screens in VR will be very relevant for augmented reality, since performance costs there are pretty low anyway. And still convey benefits if you are running actual VR games at half the physical panel resolution due to performance demand being too high otherwise. You get some relatively free upscaling then. Won't look as good as native 8k, but benefits a bit anyway.

There is also fixed and dynamic foveated rendering to think about, with an 8k screen, even running only 10% of it at that resolution and 20% at 4k, 30% at 1080p, and the remaining 40% at 540p, even with the overhead of so many foveation steps, you'll get a notable reduction in performance cost. Fixed foveated would likely need to lean higher towards bigger percentages of higher res, but has the performance advantage of not having to move around at all from frame to frame. Can benefit from more pre-planning and optimization.

Overall is that even a deal over a used headset? Even a fully featured non-stripped down one? Like given what features his headset does have, it's comparable to some pretty old headsets... and it likely does even those bare minimum features more poorly than an older used headset would. Not to mention comfort.

Like a 10 year old Rift CV1 has almost as much resolution at 90hz/fps instead of 60. And while it's lenses would be relatively terrible now, they were pretty much the best option of their day, and likely still better than whatever this dude sourced. Not to mention their motion to photon was around 12 ms. The absolute best result this guy can hope for is 16.6ms, and that's only if everything else in the pipeline is faster than the screens refresh rate... maybe it is... but I wouldn't bet on it personally.

I'm sure it was a fun project though.

Hehe yeah, unfortunately the things you didn't like are also on the pro side of my pro/con list.

I like that you basically have a good reason to practice all the zones until they feel like tony hawk levels, you know all the lines and how to trick across all the gaps, hehe.

Stringing one combat across every enemy in the zone, getting that multiplier way up. Nothing to really spend the money on, but still fun to do.

Man, I need to play crosscode again. I think of all the games I have played in the last 40 years, that has been the best one. Feels like it was made specifically for me.

There is also Hero's Hour, a fresh(relatively) indie take on the HoMM series. One major difference that might be polarising is that every unit is displayed rather than being a single stack, and combat happens live rather than in turns. But you can set it super slow and pause too if need be.

I generally hate RTS, but I really enjoyed it. It's got a fair bit of content. And so many factions that are all quite different from each other.

I have a fairly decent computer(4070s and a 7800x3d), it took about 100'000 units in active combat to start slowing it down. So no worries about how big HoMM armies can get and if it could run them all live. It can. Most of those units had to be summons, as it would take a pretty high levelled hero to have the stats necessary to field more than 10k units.

Yeah, a pc that runs the Crew well would be fairly cheap now. If you can't just get one donated to you that would otherwise be going to the dump, picking one up from a garage sale or something would be pretty cheap. And you can hook a pc to a TV, set Steam to launch with Windows and enter bigscreen mode when it does. Steam bigscreen mode is used with a controller and has an option to turn off the computer in it's menu. So you could do without a keyboard and mouse 99% of the time.

That makes more sense.

Oh, as far as I could tell they were part of the same company, the health was an umbrella with the wealth one under it.