Google announced at last year’s Society for Information Display (SID) Display Week that the company was actively working on a VR-optimized OLED panel capable of packing in pixels at a density heretofore never seen outside of microdisplays – all at a supposedly ‘wide’ field of view (FOV). Now, it appears that the company is going to talk in detail about that high-resolution OLED at this year’s SID.

Update (1:20 PM ET): More details about Google’s pixel-packed VR display have come to light via the DisplayWeek event schedule: LG engineers will also be co-presenting at the session detailing the display with Google, likely indicating that LG was Google’s partner on the project.

“The world’s highest resolution (18 megapixel, 1443 ppi) OLED-on-glass display was developed. White OLED with color filter structure was used for high-density pixelization, and an n-type LTPS backplane was chosen for higher electron mobility compared to mobile phone displays. A custom high bandwidth driver IC was fabricated. Foveated driving logic for VR and AR applications was implemented.”

As first reported by OLED-info, an advanced copy of the event’s schedule maintains that a talk featuring Google hardware engineer Carlin Vieri will be taking place May 22nd.

The talk is named simply “18 Mpixel 4.3-in. 1443-ppi 120-Hz OLED Display for Wide-Field-of-View High-Acuity Head-Mounted Displays.” Such a display, OLED-Info postulates, could land somewhere around a resolution of 5500 × 3000. If correct, it has a clear advantage over even the highest resolution panels seen in current headsets such as the Samsung Odyssey or the upcoming HTC Vive Pro, both of which pack dual 1440 × 1600 resolution, 3.5 inch AMOLEDs at 90Hz.

SEE ALSO
'Vail VR' Studio Reveals $5.5M in Revenue as It Opens Crowd-investment Campaign

Google’s VP of AR/VR Clay Bavor stated last year that the company “partnered deeply with one of the leading OLED manufacturers in the world to create a VR-capable OLED display with 10x more pixels than any commercially available VR display today,” saying that the panel under development would reach 20 megapixels per display – a bit higher than the display featured in the talk listed above, but holding the same implications.

Incorporating such a high-resolution display into a VR headset, Bavor explained, will also create enormous performance challenges of its own, and that data rates could range between 50-100 Gb/sec with current rendering configurations. Foveated rendering combined with eye-tracking is largely believed to be a solution to knocking down the massive graphical requirements for such a display. Yes, Google is researching foveated rendering too.

We’re hoping to find out more come May.

Newsletter graphic

This article may contain affiliate links. If you click an affiliate link and buy a product we may receive a small commission which helps support the publication. More information.


Scott Hayden
Well before the first modern XR products hit the market, Scott recognized the potential of the technology and set out to understand and document its growth. He has been professionally reporting on the space for nearly a decade as Editor at Road to VR, authoring more than 4,000 articles on the topic. Scott brings that seasoned insight to his reporting from major industry events across the globe.
  • ZeePee

    Massive news.

    Like you said, foveated rendering is basically a necessity for this, so hopefully it is solved asap so we can start enjoying a massive leap in VR tech.

    • Jeff

      Seems to me if you have a good enough display foveated rendering gets pretty easy to deliver. Eye tracking has already been accomplished, and works great. So, if you have a large FOV high res display, you just render the area being looked at ultra high def, then render the rest of the pixels in groups of 8 or so adjacent pixels (as if they were one big pixel, thus low res). Basically the need for any mechanical device to move the high res area in real time is eliminated all together. So long as the display can be produced at reasonable cost, I think this is the future, and will require minimal gpu upgrades from current headsets.

      • Bryan Ischo

        You should read more about foveated rendering. It is much more complicated than that. Your eyes are sensitive to certain visual features in the periphery that cannot simply be rendered at a low resolution without causing noticeable visual artifacts. So a more sophisticated algorithm than “just render at a lower res in the periphery” is needed. Smart people are working on this already, doing the research and designing the solutions, but it is taking time.

        • Downvote King

          There’s also the fact that even when studying a fixed point, our eyes move in “saccades”, many times per second, taking in information around a central point at a fluctuating number of degrees.

          • Ian Walker

            indeed, saccades are a form of dithering over imperfect receptors that works to reduce noise (amongst other things) Then you have the psycho-motor blanking of vision that occurs when you foveate from one target to another, and then you have persistence of vision, chromaticity, and other artefacts that make it a wonder that we can see at all. So the idea is that there are enough smarts and configurability in the system to augment out defects, and facilitate ‘supra-vision’ :), continuously monitoring for defects and making changes to ameliorate them at least, correct them if possible, or refer you to potential medical intervention as a last resort. And if the medicos can do no more, go back to augmenting and enhancing as much as possible to improve quality of life. Cut to the primum mobile that should motivate us all IMHO – that we intend to do well for others, to uplift them as much as possible, not profit from their misery…

          • Downvote King

            I like how that neatly segued from a deconstruction of the inner-workings of the human visual system to the need for compassion (and universality?) in healthcare – and indeed, life in general. Cheers Ian!

          • Ian Walker

            You know I could tell you a story about laying down a plausible line of patois, with the person in the core, about MTF’s and the temporo-spatial resolution of the eye to influence into being retina displays… with (the occult) intent of using such in ARVR… with the hidden agenda of making life easier for people (not just making money); enabling them to do things they otherwise couldn’t dream of doing. One of the intended beneficiaries, alas, just died. damn. I could tell you that story, but I won’t, as you probs won’t believe me, and it’s probs a narrative for another time. Maybe. Maybe this is why I get a little aggro – there is a great need for both ‘ambulatory’ and ‘stationary’ modes, for what I now hope is obvious reasons, and other obvious versatilities too. Sad that such beneficial technology has to be snuck in under the noses of the bean-counters, as a dual use for a technology sold to such as a lucrative gimmick… One of the reasons why the ‘transformers’ parable has such import for our times, too. We are slowly moving into an era where TDCS and ARVR are no longer sci-fi. We now need to keep the accountants away for long enough to make the experience Hi_Fi too…

          • Downvote King

            One of the first apps I thought of developing was an eye-exercise routine – similar to the ones fighter pilots do to maintain eye health. I think they’re out there now, some optometrist schools have been developing them. Your idea of using AR/VR to treat phantom limb is pretty cool too – and actually should be straight forward – in this case, even using a mirror to trick the brain into seeing the limb in place already works relatively well. Augmenting the senses of balance and direction to the point of becoming ingrained has always interested me as well.

            Thankfully it shouldn’t be absolutely necessary to hope that companies will simply release the best product they can as soon as possible – this is a very competitive new market, and it will behoove any new entrant to push the technology as far as possible; this is a uniquely hackable tech. It shouldn’t be until it is an established field that we see such tactics as the collusionairy hold-back of new advancements in full force. I’m not sure how exact the science of TDCS is yet though it is interesting.

          • Ian Walker

            One of the first ‘dual uses’ of game technology in this area was to use an FPS to help correct a ‘lazy eye’ In this case there was not too much wrong with the physical eye – mild atrophy, but the actual pathways and region of the brain responsible had ‘quiesced’ So give the patient a stereo FPS, with the action only going to the lazy eye, and the ‘background’ going to both… 30 minutes to real improvement. Couple this with a ‘halo’ like TDCS to affect ‘plasticity’ and then you start cooking. And as I alluded to in an earlier post, I have found one particularly effective way of getting this sort of tech past the gutless capitalist beancounters, and that is to bait the cupidity of the oligarchs… Get the ‘man at the core’ involved for whatever reason (money, hubris, cruelty, ego, vanity, altruism) and stuff gets done…

          • How is saccades an issue? Genuine question. I know that eye tracking has to manage it for power reasons (esp if we go wireless) but for actual viewing of displays, how does it interfere with foveated rendering?

            Maybe this is more to do with AR and simulating focal points?

          • Downvote King

            I’m actually not commenting on it as a on ongoing hurdle in the quest for a workable eye-tracking system, but rather an example of how it is not necessarily a straightforward problem to solve. To my knowledge, it has mostly been ironed out – I think the most recent Qualcomm mobile reference design demonstrates this, and by all accounts functions adequately.

        • Jeff

          Its more complicated then that, yes- but the algorithm to do it is not that complicated. I was just using it as a dumbed down example for explaining what I meant. My point is doing it with one high res display seems to me an order of magnitude easier(and more realistic/achievable) then mechanically moving around a small high res display to match eye tracking. It could easily be done immediately, but will take time to perfect, especially given market limitations due to consumers gpu power. Still, I think a display like this is a must have and a huge step for VR…

      • airball

        “just”…

      • Ian Walker

        I for one (pun intended :) don’t like the version implemented in PSVR. I have great peripheral vision – and just as well, it has saved my ass on numerous occasions. PSVR just does not do a good job, for me at least. Edge cases do matter (sigh, another one)… All of this speaks for a new kind of compression algorithm, like MP3, instead of psycho acoustic, it is psycho visual. So a few ideas to work on here, I think…

  • Nuno Silva

    Come on guys! Really? Everybody knows that Google doesn’t know how to build good hardware. In a few months will see Google again with excuses after excuses about the delay and quit about this. That’s Google.

    • RagnarLothbrok

      I believe that’s why LG’s have partnered with them …. as I can see on the article ;)

    • ummm…

      Yeah, as much as I dislike Facebook (but love my vive) I give both companies credit for the bravery. For that I appreciate Facebook . Google and apple are showing just how brave they are. I thought their brand was bravery and forward thinking. So far we have positioning and promises.

  • Jean-Sebastien Perron

    My Gtx 1070 cant even produce decent framerate on project cars 2 at Mixed Reality resolution. Everything set on low it wont run properly. So foveted rendering wont solve anything.

    • Keith Deveney

      So you think the GPU only having to render 10% of the pixels at anywhere near full resolution won’t solve anything?? Dude, Eye Tracking with Foveated rendering might mean future VR games run better on your 1070 and at a much higer apparent resolution than current games do now on your WMR HMD without it.

      • Jean-Sebastien Perron

        I dont believe vaporware demos. Current gen pc cant render at 3k 90fps, Foveted stil need 3k in the center of your view + some more around so it does not solve anything for current computers.

        • D3stroyah

          did you try playing a recent game using the “scale graphic” option? Like battlefront (or many others) have a slider for render scale. 100% means you’re rendering at 100% resolution you set, 50% means half of that. You surely noticed what of an improvement you get there. Now imagine rendering 3k in a small circle following your eyesight and then degrading the rest gradually. Surely you can get 40% more fps out of it without even noticing much.

      • dk

        yep …..but it will have to be a next gen card
        1070 specs…..Maximum Digital Resolution 7680×4320@60Hz
        and we’ll need dp1.5

        • D3stroyah

          whatever they’re creating now regarding eye tracking and Gen.2 VR, they’re surely NOT targetting anything over a 1070.
          That will probably be the new minimum requirement, but you’ll be able to run everything on it.

          • dk

            1000 series will be replaced by the next generation …sort of soon

          • Andrew Jakobs

            you’re very naive if you think that a 1070 will be the minimum to drive this dual 18MP headset.. no sirree, even a 1080 will be the least minimum..

        • Icebeat

          nope, with foveated rendering you don’t need to send the whole 7680×4320

          • dk

            with foveated rendering u still have to support the high resolution at the high framerate …….it’s the same resolution…..the difference is most of what u r rendering in real time is not as detailed as what u r looking at …..and dp1.4 can do uncompressed 5120 × 2880 at 60hz

          • Icebeat

            It required special signal process on the headset and image composition but basically the idea is to send two images the non focuses at low resolution zone (let say 70% of the image) and the focuses and high resolution (30% of the image)

          • dk

            hmmm if they do that approach …….u have a display at about 5k 120hz and the gpu has to support that (dp1.4 can apparently do it with compression)………..right?…and if they do that it would still be combined and it sends one signal to the display right

      • Andrew Jakobs

        Don’t count on it, as it still has to render more than it currently does, even with only a part rendered sharp, don’t forget that this part is still a relatively large part on a 18MP display.. Nope, a 1070 nor a 1080 won’t be able to drive a headset with 18MP per eye even with foveated rendering, not even ONE eye..

        • ummm…

          We have disagreed, but I appreciate your pragmatism.

        • Jeff

          It depends on how you go about it. Clearly you could use this diplay, have higher then current gen res at the center of vision, foveated rendering and better performance then current gen headsets right now. You would be wasting most of the display, but it would still add some value, allow users with highest end equipment to get more resolution if they chose to, and it would be future proof(to some extent).

          There is also the possibility of- dare I say it; cloud computing options…

          I hear what you are saying, but I would still prefer a hmd which allowed me to maximize resolution and foveate rendering to whatever extent possible on my hardware. It would be awesome if their foveating worked on a sliding scale this way, and upgrading gpu would be like instantly upgrading your hmd resolution.

        • Most people are counting on foveated as the answer to high PPD for VR. The answer for lower end kit already exists, buy a more powerful GPU however foveated still brings huge speed gains across the board.

          1. With foveated you just need the focal point rendered at a higher resolution. This could be native panel res OR a lower resolution.

          2. The outer rings input resolution could be lowered for older hardware.

          3. The foveated area size could be dynamic, based on hardware performance.

          Or you can just turn everything up if you have top end hardware.

          Pimax have split the scaling issue into two headsets, the 8K and the 8K-X but it would have been much more versatile as just one headset with an upscaler that can be enabled or disabled.

    • D3stroyah

      not really some deep reasoning there mate..if an entire developer’s community is working on eye tracking since years…there might be a slight reason, don’t you think? Also, benefits of foveated rendering were already displayed in many demos, and they were pretty significant

    • Peter

      Project cars is a very bad example.. that game is very badly optimized for vr..

  • dk

    the old article was 10x more pixels ….if u take a 1200by1080….10x is a bit more 4k per eye….so something similar to the pimax setup

  • David Herrington

    Regardless of whether Google is able to pull this off or not isn’t really the point. This is still a great sign that the big players are working towards the future of VR. The fact that they are announcing and demoing means that other big players will be pushing into these technologies as well.

    In the end, the point is that real money is working to solve Gen 1.0 VR problems and that we can expect real results in the near future.

    Show me what you got, Google!

    • Michael Sherman

      The biggest issue of Vr is locomotion. The immersion factor completely dissapears when you cannot move around. Where are my 360 bi pedal shoes?

      • elev8d

        How much do you actually use VR? Because in my experience over heavy VR usage the past two years… locomotion is a non-issue. People don’t want to move around all the time. It’s exhausting.

        Displays on the other hand are far more important.

        • Pablo C

          I agree display is more important, but that´s around the corner. And I don´t think locomotion is an issue for having fun, but it is definitely an immersion breaker, and one that will not be solved easily.

          • ummm…

            Immersion? Guys aren’t we going to far. We have reality … VR has so many other things to worry about.

        • Michael Sherman

          I’ve invested hundreds of hours and teleportation is not a solution, its a gimmick. To claim locomotion is a non issue is complete ignorance to the platform. Motion sickness will always be factor for most users until locomotion is really solved. I handle motion sickness pretty well but when it happens its devastating and the effects can last hours. The massive worlds that are created and having no natural way to traverse truly disconnects the user. You sir are doing a disservice to the industry by stating otherwise. Moving around is in your biology.

          • Andrew Jakobs

            Ofcourse it all depends on what you want to do with VR…. racing/flying for instance, locomotion isn’t a factor, and for standing experiences with minimum walking it also isn’t a real problem, hell even with the tread-wheel kinda devices it also isn’t really a problem.. Motion sickness is hard to solve for everyone as your brain knows it’s fake (only ‘vr’ that will solve this is when it’s really plugged into your brain).
            And for most locomotion really isn’t a problem, it all depends on what you want to do with it.. and I agree, teleportation is no solution..

          • ummm…

            How do we know I’m planning don’t cause firthr issue. It will.

          • Gonzalo Novoa

            Not everyone feels sick when moving with artificial locomotion, I don’t and like me many other users. Teleportation is not an option for me, I agree with that, I hate it but that does not mean you need to move around.
            First of all not everyone has the space and second not everyone wants to move when playing, in fact a lot of people still like to play seated.
            Room scale is ok for those who want and can have it but it is not necessary to enjoy VR, far from that.

          • Michael Sherman

            We need innovation in movement. It seems like it dissapeared as a topic of discussion. The only way this platform succeeds with the sucess of traditional gaming is full consumer adoption. The room space is a huge issue for many and room scale might not be viable as a permanent setup. In the sense that treadmills made running indoors possible, we need a low cost option for Vr (Brain implants are a ways off) I also fully understand there are reasons you might not need or want to move, I am discussing the occasions you would. Lets not forget FPS gaming dominates as a medium. If you could simulate natural movement and still stay in one place the mind bending experience would be jaw dropping. I’m a firm believer in this technology and very hopeful someone will figure it out!

          • ummm…

            Brain implants? Can we just enjoy this now? This is a bit much. They give us a great start, some companies are brave, and we demand full locomotion like IRL, and on top of that elude to brain implabts? I like your enthusiasm, but let’s slow down a bit lol.

          • Rainfox Wolfstone
          • ummm…

            ive had a hard time sleeping recently. this will help. thx lol. in all seriousness, have to love a talk that sucks in many subjects and disciplines.

          • Icebeat

            Why teleportation is not a option for you?

          • Gonzalo Novoa

            Because I don’t like it, it feels unnatural. There are certain games where I can stand it but moving with teleport around a big world is a horrible option imo. I can’t imagine playing RE7 like that instead of moving with the stick.
            That does not mean of course that teleport should not exist, it’s good for a lot of people who feel sick with free loco or simply like it but not for me. Having the choice is the ideal thing.

          • impurekind

            Google has already solved free fps movement in VR* with no motion sickness with its brilliant tunneling system as specifically implemented in Google Earth VR–yet no one is actually using it but Google, which is really starting to annoy me!

            *I don’t mean you physically moving but using an input to freely move around inside the virtual world rather than teleportation.

          • polysix

            That’s not what WE envision as the end goal of ‘true VR’, to run and soar off a cliff and feel like we are there is a lot more than just pushing a stick like trad-gaming.

            That is going to take some solving or we’ll be stuck at ‘half VR’

          • impurekind

            Well, within the realms of what’s actually possible on the current VR headsets, this is the best solution for elimination motion sickness while freely moving around in VR that I have seen, by far. So, until we move a couple of generations forward, I’m saying developers making and releasing VR games now that have any kind of moving around should really be trying this particular solution so they can do free moving without making people sick. Does that make sense?

          • M Rob

            Um both fallout 4 VR and skyrim VR have this kind of locomotion. So do a lot of games.

          • impurekind

            No, they don’t. Just like basically every VR game developer, you’re not paying attention to the very specific way Google has solved this issue in Google Earth VR, the way I mentioned, and that’s the issue. The solutions you see in games like Fallout VR and Skyrim VR are not really very good at all imo. Google’s solution actually/genuinely removes motion sickness almost entirely–unlike all the other examples that just add a simple dark area or static HUD graphic around the outside of the view that really only just makes the field of view even smaller and basically gives you an even more Ski-goggle feel. Again, look at Google Earth VR’s solution more closely–see how it also renders a static 3D virtual room within that peripheral “tunnel” area (this is how you ground the player, show them very clearly they are not moving, and counter the effect of motion sickness since the brain and inner ear no longer gets confusing/conflicting messages)–that’s the method I’m talking about specifically.

          • ummm…

            Some ppl don’t have to use teleportation . Just go out into the real world then…lol

          • vivid

            For me, it’s not even about motion sickness. I don’t feel sick at all, so any kind of locomotion system is fine for me. However, I want to freakin move in VR, like really walk with my real legs freely and not press a stick using my thumb or whatever.

          • Gregory Martin

            I feel the same way Vivid. I am really looking forward to an all-in-one self contained product (like santa cruz). When that day comes I am going to the park with my wife and running around looking like an idiot in an empty soccer field or something. Its going to be amazing! haha.

          • Adrian Meredith

            I find just jogging on the spot works perfectly fine with analogue control

          • brubble

            well it sounds like youll need one of those very restrictive annoying looking suspension diaper harness slip and slide pad contraption thingys.

          • Raphael

            Actually motion sickness is a MINORITY issue. This is backed-up by steam-metric data on ALL VR games involving fast/violent motion. You’re being melodramatic People who use teleport are positive about using it to cover large areas and don’t find it immersion-breaking. You’re really not making any sense… “massive worlds having no natural way to traverse”? I’ve been told by teleport users they can cover big areas quickly. I don’t need teleport and I will never vomit while using VR but I have had many conversations with vomit players.

          • Sonja

            Gℴogle is offereing every one $97 per-hr to do some small tasks off a home computer .. Labor only for few time and fun greater time with your friends . Anyone can catch this easy job!!last Wednesday I bought a new Infiniti after I been getting $7017 past four weeks .it’s certainly the easiest-work but you could now not forgive yourself if you don’t try it.!wg951w:⇆⇆⇆ http://GoogleBoxMoneyMakingOnline/getpay/$97/hourly… ♥♥♥t♥♥♥u♥♥h♥♥n♥♥s♥x♥♥k♥♥♥u♥♥z♥♥j♥x♥♥♥r♥♥♥f♥♥z♥u♥♥♥n♥♥♥r♥j♥♥t♥l♥♥♥h♥♥♥u♥♥h♥♥z♥f::::::::!cf54v:pznrvlk

          • Johan Pruijs

            I found a method: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RosiVPYpBdw Old, young, healthy, sick they all enjoyed free flying without motion sickness.

          • elev8d

            “You sir are doing a disservice to the industry…” Haha, I wouldn’t go quite that far.
            I used to get motion sickness via artificial locomotion when I first started VR. I don’t anymore because most games have implemented in a way that is not unpleasant, hence why I consider it a non-issue.

          • VR Locomotion is definitly a huge issue. There are multiple options out there that aim to correct this problem.
            – I tried an omnidirectional movement platform called the Motus at a demo event that let me stand up and use my feet to walk in VR. It’s a basic platform you stand on, and step/lean for movement/speed. Coupled with a chest tracker, it steers your movement direction and feels natural. I liked it better than other options I’ve tried because it allowed me to easily strafe, then step off the platform into roomscale gameplay for fast paced immersion when necissary. You can check it out at http://www.vmuv.io
            – some other options are:
            — Virtuix Omni – a large rig that holds you in place, allowing you to run in place with special slippery shoes in a tracker dish.
            —3D Rudder – a platform you put your feet on while sitting down. This is a good option for 3D CAD work in VR, as you can move left, right, up, and down with your feet. For gaming however, because your sitting it is dificult to turn around quickly, and you move the direction you look, keeping your free mooving neck from the virtual experience.

          • Dylan

            Michael – locomotion has been solved. Two solutions are perfect: One is “Onward style” and the other is “armswinger” as found in games like sprint vector. There is a tool that enables this for everyone called “natural locomotion”. You can find it on steam.

            Three things remove vestibular disconnect. 1: body engagement, 2: high, non skipping frame rate, 3: accurate visual tracking. The more you move your body the less sim sickness smooth locomotion issues you encounter. This is why people get carsick as passengers, but not drivers. You have to be the one causing the locomotion. Making sure your ipd is correct, your lenses are clean, and they are not causing distortions goes a long way as well: and not being hungry, sick, or tired helps. Proper audio helps a ton too. The sound of wind going by when you walk or run actually reduces motion sickness.

            Some people get what they think is sim sickness but is actually sickness from physical activity that they’re not used to.

            Simulator motion sickness is caused by the brain assuming you are experiencing poisoning or a hallucination – because you have to override enough queues so that you feel present. The simple act of imagining in your mind that you’re on a hoverboard or something similar is enough usually to stop the sickness in it’s tracks, and like seasickness, with practice it is overcome in the vast, vast majority of people.

            We should be developing games for the majority (and the majority does not experience sickness with movement using the above methods) rather then the minority of people who can’t get over it even with one or more of those things present.

        • Shawn MacDonell

          He’s not referring to room-scale, idiot.

          Solving the issue of how to implement locomotion in VR is the single-most important aspect to solve in the coming generations. Teleportation or analog-based movement in the world are not valid solutions and are, like room-scale, stop-gaps until a proper method of locomotion that poses zero-risk to simulation sickness to the user.

          We have more important issues than display resolution which is primarily reducing overall cost-of-entry for the entire system (the PC and VR hardware), this will require eye-tracking in-conjunction with foveated rendering to allow more users to enter into VR. This would also of course benefit console and standalone systems to provide a significant boost to their graphical capabilities.

          Displays are important, but they are not near the top of the list of priorities companies need to work on if we want VR to be mainstream; and that’s what we should care about rather than having the utmost best hardware available that only those of us with high-end PC systems can utilize.

          • Bibelo

            Calm down and treat others with respect.

          • ummm…

            Get an Omni. I think he really idiots are ppl going on about implants and endless movement when right now all we have are two brave companies with wired hmds and low fidelity .You are getting aggro and it is getting is aggro. There is reality you know, right?, So effing greedy.

          • GunnyNinja

            You may have said something intelligent, but I won’t know because I stopped reading at “idiot”. Not necessary.

        • Gonzalo Novoa

          Yes, agreed! I play in VR every single day and locomotion is not a problem at all, actually, the last thing I want is to move around, I don’t need that, I just need full artificial locomotion.
          The future of VR is going to be amazing.

      • ummm…

        i have roomscale. thats cool for now. there are limits to vr, and lets work out fidelity and wireless first.

        • Michael Sherman

          Pop quiz, hotshot. You’re in a western duel and told to walk 30 paces. What do you do? What do you do?

          • ummm…

            you need to get out of vr and go walk thirty paces outside lol. i kid, but cmon man…..lets work out the basics before we figure out how to warp time and space, or make treadmills, for infinite vr.

          • brubble

            haha really?

          • Sandy Wich

            What you don’t do is buy a 2000 dollar omnidirectional 300 pound tredmill and slap it in the middle of the room and claim half the house your VR tripping hazard.

            ..What you should do is don’t buy a dueling simulator that tries to make you walk into a wall for no reason.

          • Laurence Nairne

            That would constitute bad game design and I’d not play it. It’s a freaking duel simulator, why the hell would I need to walk to the location first?!

      • Facts

        As long as the FOV is high enough to fool your brain ingo thinking you are moving, loco motion will always exist. We just have to work with what we have now till the far fetch future when someome create a direct brain to computer vr

        • ummm…

          There are alot of ppl getting greedy here. I think we should be happy there were two companies with the bravery to come to market. Google and apple clearly have lost their mojo. To little too late in my book, but hey I like opening my wallet .

          • Pablo C

            I think you are missinterpretating us. It´s not that we want locomotion NOW. We are just saying it IS a big deal. Sure, other things need and can be solved in the short/medium term, but locomotion will be hanging there, avoiding full immersion until is solved.

          • @disqus_sPitjbgTsN:disqus What do you consider “Full Immersion” to be?

            Because to me, full immersion is already here. You can be sat still in “Face you Fears” and feel fear or you could be floating through space in Lone Echo and feel fully immersed in your surroundings.

            Full Immersion, in my opinion is where you forget the real world and start taking in the virtual world like it is a real place. e.g. instinctively put up your arms when something flies at your face. Or rip off your headset because a zombie was getting too close.

          • Pablo C

            I agree, full immersion is already here, but pretty much, everytime you have to walk in VR, that immersion brakes (for some time anyways).

          • ummm…

            ok i can very well be misinterpreting, but if we looked at comments on aggregate there are definite demands and obsessions. for me with the vive roomscale and movement hasn’t really been an issue beyone wireless, and my own limited space – which for nyc is actually pretty good.

            at a certain point roomscale loses out to vr arcades, and actual reality. we have to prove the viability of vr to drag people in before we start giving them infinite space. plus, there is the omni. it exists.

      • polysix

        I would’t say locomotion is more important, but it’s sure one of the hardest issues to solve. We can do a ton of great stuff if we have amazing vision and hands/haptics. But we are somewhat limited without amazing locomotion solutions. And to the elev8d, he’s thinking NOW, short term, sure right now most people stand or sit in the spot with a bit of small movement if that, but yeah, to properly ‘simulate reality’ we are going to need to be able to RUN and feel like we are running, and it won’t be treadmills. Without that dream like empowerment of the physical side of our VR we’ll never reach the true ideal of VR. So it must be solved eventually. but first? Yeah we sure need better visuals, FOV, Resolution, GPUs, eye tracking, wireless, better hands in, better haptics etc.

      • brubble

        Personally Im content with vehicle based sims until realistc solutions and tech catch up. Just how the hell theyll “solve” and implement a passable locomotion is beyond me.

        IMO when it comes to a blossoming tech like VR even the baby steps are monumental and damned exciting.
        Im all for visual fidelity first, wheres the immersion if it looks like shite?

        • Laurence Nairne

          A few years back some guy did a hack to get a run-on-the-spot locomotion working by jamming a Vive wand down the front of his trousers (good look). Now we have trackers, the concept could work by fixing two tracks to your hips.

          I definitely think it’s a software problem over a hardware one – I don’t have the space for a regular treadmill in my house, so I certainly don’t have it for a VR one that I might use once a month.

          • brubble

            haha the pants, clever, thats one I havent heard. Not a bad idea on the hip tracker too. Those treadmills, while maybe a swell idea on paper, are IMO preposterous in every last single way in application.

          • Laurence Nairne

            https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/04/for-vr-walking-forget-treadmills-just-stick-a-vive-wand-down-your-pants/

            You’re welcome :D

            And yes, treadmills just don’t make sense – I’d venture they’re not even sensible in an arcade setting.

          • Ian Walker

            No, I saw one of the first attempts at ARVR fail because of the clunkiness of this, in the early 90’s Roll forwards to now’ish and you have the runaway success (sorry) of Pokemon…

          • Michael Sherman

            Think of it as an exoskeleton that goes up to your thighs. You would be able walk freely with some sort of hydrolics on a small circular platform. That’s what I’m imagining. The footprint for that should be a little more than the width of your body

          • I think something like this could be modified to work for locomotion.

            https://youtu.be/cJ4EX9OU0BQ?t=141

          • Michael Sherman

            Yes!!! If it had a stabalizer up high that would allow hands free operation. There also could be hip sensors that sense you are shifting your weight to turn on a radial pad.

          • I think you could get away with holding a button in for look to turn based orientation with something like this. e.g. you are walking running / forwards, hold the trigger button in and look left and your avatar in the world rotates to point in the look direction while still moving forwards. Release the button and look rotation is disabled and now you can look everywhere without affecting your rotational direction whilst still moving forwards. People could get used to that very quickly imo as it is similar to how we walk in the real world, we always look where we want to go prior to our body turning (A reason a lot of new motorcycle riders crash because they subconsciously aim towards what they look at)

            When running we use a lean action to turn and then our feet compensate (to stop us toppling over) and with inertia and momentum we perform a turn. That is harder to simulate as we have no physical momentum in VR.

          • Ian Walker

            Did you see the hack where the chap dremelled the plastic off a six-axis, put a, ermmmmmm, Richard Ring onto the vibrator thingy, and, ahem, stuck it on his ‘joystick’… ‘teledildonics’ Got a fair bit of DOF whilst going loco with the motion :) apparently worked rather well, and I try not to judge…

      • Raphael

        Why can’t I move around? If you want to walk around get foot trackers. There are many options for locomotion in VR and people use different options according to their preference.

      • Sandy Wich

        I don’t think locomotion is that big of a deal. Plenty of games are introducing cool ways to move around that works great.

        Sway, vanilla controller stick/directional look hybrid, pointing movement, and I’ve seen games designed specifically to explore new options. It’s going to work itself out, trust me. It’s not just movement, the headset will improve, and the game design will improve as well.

        Motion platforms/special shoes will never go mainstream, VR is already annoying enough to put on your head.

        IMO vr needs to go wireless, increase FOV, make the headset smaller/lighter, all while becoming cheaper.

        • user

          locomotion is a big deal for most people who did not buy a vr headset.

      • victor

        Non-issue for driving, flying, or any sit-down games. So I’m ok with it cuz who wants to come home from work and keep standing to play a game

      • Krzysztof Kiersznicki

        nope….locomotion is just fine for me

      • mirak

        Virtual Reality is not immersive because it reproduce exactly the reality.

        Have you never dreamed in the real world to be able to just teleport from one point to another without even needing to walk ?

        VR allows to make this desire a (virtual) reality.
        That’s why I don’t think it breaks immersion, because it instead brings an enhancement to reality.
        It doesn’t make reality worse, that’s why it doesn’t break immersion.

    • ummm…

      yeah 2 years later and still nothing. really dissapointing. they are still playing wait and see. no cohones. LETS SEE WHAT YOU GOT PEOPLE!

      • Engineer_92

        What do you mean 2 years later?? The first headsets came out 2 years ago. These things take time. The progress has been fairly quick actually.

        • ummm…

          i pre ordered a vive. i know. i like how the big players just started developing their tech 2 years ago….is that what you are selling me? im just saying google, and apple and whoever else are really lame and lack cohones for not getting in. i know all the arguments, but im pretty sure they will need to do A LOT to get my money. and i doubt they will blow us all away when they do. i just dont appreciate them dragging their feet until its “safe”.

          • Alex Butera

            what the actual fuck are you talking about? Have you been somehow misled into thinking that all this technology already exists and the big guys are just scared of releasing it for some reason?

          • ummm…

            Wow. Did I say that? I dunno why you are acting like a *itch to me. Get lost.

          • ummm…

            I just read your comment again. You need to learn how to read. I actually really no effing clue how you think your comment is answering mine .

          • Ian Walker

            the technology does exist, as does the knowledge of human factors, as does the engineering expertise to put it all together very quickly – dual use of mobile phone technology is just one facilitator here. And have you had a look at military headsets? AR yes, locomotion generally not. Take a look at tracking point technology, done with mobile phone tech, along with shot glass, and you will understand why the ‘big boys’ are ‘scared’…

          • Gregory Martin

            I can get behind the sentiment. I think it is interesting that Google is partnering with LG, who demoed that HMD of theirs the last year or two, but have since gone silent. Google bought up a lot HTC’s smartphone assets as well as manufactured some hardware, like google assistant, but by and Google is mostly all software. I could see this situation turning into something like Valve and HTC, where LG manufactures the hardware and google gives the R&D/software backing.

          • user

            Google wants to ramp up its hardware production. There is a rumor that they want to release their own console. Maybe the VR headset is an add-on for that. LG Display could manufacture the display and everything else is done by Google.

          • Gregory Martin

            Interesting. I don’t doubt you are right, but I still hope you are wrong. I am getting tired of silo’d product lines where you have to buy into someone’s ecosystems.

          • user

            True. But I think the idea is to replace Windows and build a new OS (Fuchsia) which runs on everything from smartphones, to consoles, PCs, and headsets. Devs would build apps with Flutter and it would run on Fuchsia, Android and iOS automatically.

          • Gregory Martin

            I have mixed feeling on that idea. It does sound convenient. But, at the same time I am a bit of a paranoid when it comes to big tech’s “altruism”.

          • >> im just saying google, and apple and whoever else are really lame and lack cohones for not getting in

            Google not getting in? Where have you been the last few years! Have you not heard of Google Cardboard? or Google Daydream?
            What about all the research they have done with VR Video, SDK’s and having a huge input into the VR industry.

            You also mentioned Apple. Apple did however say that VR is not what they will aim for and AR is the way forwards for them. I agree, VR is entertainment and AR is both that and business + a host of other areas but at much greater technical challenge. Look up ARKit too.

        • ummm…

          i dont mean to sound salty if i did. but cmon, you aren’t a bit disappointing by these “forward thinking” companies? they are being a bit cowardly in my book.

    • Lucidfeuer

      The kool-aid bullshit is still strong in VR. Has it gotten it anywhere yet?…

      • ummm…

        Not everyone e is greedy. Some ppl really want to escape reality and can’t enjoy the brave companies that went to market first, and now want to jump on the d of some guys with promises and no product. My vive has been awesome for two years. Give me higher fidelity, wireless, and a few other bells and whistles . I’m really ashamed of some of the greed and contempt for THE REAL WORLD by these ppl . Have we forgotten about actual reality?

    • dk

      obviously they can pull it off …apparently ….but producing it and coming to the market will take pretty long time …most likely

  • SavingPrincess

    I wonder if we’ll see the GPU makers finally unlock their withheld tech.

    I’m one of those tin-foil people who believe they’re micro-iterating to maximize profit on each generational release while they’re sitting on tech that can drive 200-300+GB of bandwidth.

    • David Herrington

      Even if that tech existed, the current VR landscape isn’t robust enough to make them show their “tech Ace up their sleeves.”

      On top of this, if that tech existed they would be personally creating those and using it for themselves to create uber miners of crypto-currency at obscene rates and you would never hear about it. *hint hint*

      • Ian Walker

        lol, Raoul Silva… and the technology does exist in the guise of FPGA’s and SoC’s, and silly banks of coin mining racks full of GPU’s that will usher in a new era of computational power, at low cost… Because that is what a true and efficient marketplace will demand.

        • Ian Walker

          and replying to myself – the gpu makers will have to short stroke the cycle because the coiners demand so, and gamers and ARVR folks may reap the benefit. T-rouble is that the silicone is getting silly, the process size is leading into milspec sekrits. and Mr Creosote may well explode (just one more wafer…) So whats the bet we head down a biological track where we can CRISPR up a quantum computer as quick as brewing a beer… Cheers!

    • Downvote King

      That’s not much of a conspiracy theory – it’s pretty open that they release small iterations on a roadmap to what’s currently in the lab. The question is just how much of a gap there is between the two…

      • SavingPrincess

        In my mind they’re sitting on tech that could give us Ready-Player-One levels of VR immersion… XD

        I know that’s probably not the case but it’s probably the case.

        • David Herrington

          I bet that the basic theories are there to do what you are thinking, but there is still a lot of research and manufacturing that needs to happen to bring that to life. Those things require ridiculous amounts of money and the GPU makers are in it to make money.

        • Smokey_the_Bear

          “I know that’s probably not the case but it’s probably the case.”
          hahahahaha

        • Downvote King

          Who knows… I believe the Japanese broadcaster NHK tested HD broadcasts in the 1970’s, and even the BBC had a pretty sweet sounding 8:3, 1501-line system ready in the same timeframe. Meanwhile HDTV doesn’t become a thing until the late 90’s, only to continue receiving updates every few years, from 720p to 1080, to 4K – with 8K ready down the pipe, and supporting technologies lined up waiting.

          Sometimes it’s a combination of dripping out technologies on purpose, and sometimes it’s the fact that multiple industries on multiple continents using different formats and standards need to work together in order to make something happen. Most computer technologies are roadmapped at least in part by international consortiums making sure that hardware manufacturers of all kinds have standards in place to ensure their components will actually even function together before heading to the assembly line.

          It’s certainly a mixture of many confounding factors, but then there are straight-up ripoffs like the ever-evolving HDMI standards, which for some reason require you to upgrade to new cables – not because of any actual conceivable bandwidth issues, but because of a new chip in the cable end which communicates it as the proper version, about as requisite in real terms as the new Keurig coffee pods. Greed can definitely never be factored completely out, although this still doesn’t help us calculate its actual effect.

    • ummm…

      Interesting idea. I sure burned through a lot of gpus, and they are still lagging a bit .I’m happy for what we have, but my cynicism is tickled by your comment .

    • Ian Walker

      just stick a cpu ‘socket’ on the gpu… glue ’em together with dram, with smart Peltier effect cooling on die :) I like tin foils too!

  • I’m guessing their partner starts with an “S”, and ends with an “ung”

    • user

      LG?

      • David Herrington

        No, its SLGung

    • Arashi

      Most likely LG. Although BOE is also an option, their new OLED factory will be ready next year where they’ll make for example the new iphone panels.

  • Icebeat

    Where is Pimax?

    • Heliosurge

      Good Article; but your right Icebeat. I am surprised at rtvr omitting pimax’s efforts only citing a Samsung Headset that is released & the Vive pro which is……. Delayed.

      • David Herrington

        While we all hope the best for Pimax since they are pushing the boundaries, Pimax’s headset hasn’t officially released yet. I mean there could be a totally unknown HMD manufacturer that could release a high definition, wide FOV HMD before Pimax ever hits stores. It’s not likely but the point is that Pimax is still unofficial and unreleased.

        • Hivemind9000

          Huh? What has being unreleased got to do with anything? Pimax have been demoing their tech for the past year and are in the refinement stage of pre-production. They are likely to be the closest rival (spec-wise) to Google’s as-yet-unseen tech if/when released. I for one am interested to see how they compare (especially FoV).

          As for your comment on some totally unknown HMD manufacturer surprising everyone by releasing a high-def, wide FoV headset…

          “I know, we’ve got this cool tech that’s really going to blow the market away, but let’s keep it a secret until we’re about to release it in stores. No pre-market testing, feedback or seeding. Let’s not sew doubt in the minds of consumers about to purchase one of the current HMD offerings. Just drop it on everyone. Boom!”

          Said no one ever.

        • Heliosurge

          True but neither has the Vive Pro on that thought. Vive Pro is delayed; Granted with the fact Vive Pro really isn’t anything new & is not pushing anything forward (not even a new lens), that this is likely to try & sell off more of their v1 headsets.

          • David Herrington

            You are correct, and since Road to VR did mention the Pro (which is unreleased), they should have also mentioned Pimax in the same sentence. It appears that RtVR is a little biased towards HTC products.

  • ummm…

    im sorry, if it isn’t the vive then its not important…….lol jk. lots of talk for 2 years about who has what – and so far only oculus and htc have offered anything of note and attractive – or maybe ive just been in vr the whole time and not paying attention.

  • Cdaked

    I’m thinking on the LG UltraGear VR…

  • Lucio Lima

    This is fantastic!

  • Really happy at the the way these companies are heading. Finally a headset that could replace a monitor for Business software with a higher resolution display.

  • impurekind

    Liking the resolution, liking the Hz, but what is the field of view? Hopefully the field of view is at least the current 110 degrees and ideally even higher.

    • One would assume min 110 but as they also mention Wide-field-of-View then one would assume 110+

      “18 Mpixel 4.3-in. 1443-ppi 120-Hz OLED Display for Wide-Field-of-View High-Acuity Head-Mounted Displays”

  • polysix

    Excellent! Nice one LG (and Google)

  • Ian Walker

    argh, same old mistakes, over and over… Foveation is good if done well, but like vaccinations should be, it should be tailored to the individual… My psvr screams ugly compromise to me. The capabilities should be well beyond the norm, so much so that it facilitates supra-human capabilities, like a few do have… And all can benefit from. Also the whole locomotion vs stay still argument is a silly one – you need to be able to do both! You need to be able to move around from an ARVR POV if doing inspections, maintenance, other things because YOU WANT TO, and also you need to be able to just be cool, and move in an ARVR world without moving at all, because you want to or because YOU HAVE TOO – you may be in bed, in an immersion tank, or in an iron lung (in other words incapacitated). In all cases the ‘locomotion’ – poor term now! can and should be augmented by sensors that can better convey intent; BCI is the ideal no? In any case, one should be able to seamlessly transition from locomotion to quietude in an act of volition. Also the conformation of the headset should be adjustable to suit the individual, and should facilitate the amelioration of physical imperfection, allowing the correction of ailments from strabismus, lazy eye, presbyopia, etc to maybe even phantom limb and PTSD… The opportunities are there, and I don’t want to see some form of Apple inspired capitalist hell hole of numbers of slightly different devices with deliberately crippled capabilities, done so as to make more sales from a relatively narrow repertoire of devices and IP, and bind us all in the thrall of rent to never own currently being rammed at us…

    • ummm…

      Oh dear

    • brubble

      easy man…. your shoe is untied

    • JJ

      …take a chill pill and stop trying to use only the biggest words you know to sell your point.

      Basically, if you want to persuade anyone right now, then starting off with a bold, contradicting, vaccination statement in a VR forum is NOT the way to do it.

      These are the companies with the money to fund VR research and its not up to you what they research and develop. Their going to develop what is marketable and what can generate investments(though this is lesser important), and even though a lazy eye training scene could help people, specifically me, its such an unneeded niche market that threes no benefit even in the research gained from doing it.

      If you can’t see why Google and Apple make the development decisions that they do, even if you don’t agree with them, than you’re the ignorant one. You are blinded by your perception that every business is here to serve you to your satisfaction, They’re here to make money based off what we buy and how we buy it and if you hope for anything else again you’re being the ignorant one.

      • Ian Walker

        lol, if you know the back story you would taste your words turning to ashes in your mouth… And the vaccination story is an apt analogy – I have seen what happens when a mass inoculation meant to maintain herd effect goes wrong WITH A FAMILY MEMBER! To gutless out of a proper solution to either issue is to adulterate the potential of modern engineering and technology to properly provide a safe and bespoke solution for all participants. There needs to be proper science done in both realms to validate the technology continuously and to keep the greedy assholes who want to maximise profit at a terrible cost at bay. And I use words from my experience to illustrate my point in a technical discussion, to elide…

  • oompah

    Great
    But if u r using foveated tech, u dont need so many pixels
    rather u need high density at the centre only
    and that decreases the load on processor too
    However I urge google to also implement the
    ray tracing using MLT or energy methods
    I said also becuz current procs cant handle
    ray tracing but if u also have this option as additional
    then at least u can see the progress and eventually one day
    tech will catch up to allow 30 fps or more in ray tracing
    That will be wonderful
    Matrix hmmmmm
    & by the time the glasses (hmd) will also shrink to
    those types as of Flash Gordon or Phantom comics types
    hah ha but why not

    • Jaap Olsthoorn

      I think you may misunderstand how foveated rendering works. You need the high resolution all over the screen, but you only display high resolution imagery in the places that you’re looking at. If you only had high reso in the middle of the screen you wouldn’t be able to look left and still have a high res image.

  • Overworld

    That sounds awesome!

  • Eugene Panich

    A simple objective test shows that the picture quality even in current low-res HMDs is limited by the optical system. You can have as many pixels as you want but you can’t put a high quality (big and heavy) optical system onto a user’s head.

  • Zappa

    I am surprised more people are not just commenting on how fantastic these new displays from Google/Lg potentially are. As a person who loves sim racing and flight with high end peripherals i am VERY happy already but this could be a real upgrade. I honestly think the regular gaming aspect by game developrs has a long way to go..I see a huge amount of potential in unreal engine though. As far as the the real purists who a ready for a complete holodeck rite NOW! Try Ayahuaca but first consult you local medicine man.