Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×
Graphics

Ask Slashdot: Why Don't Graphics Cards For VR Use Real-Time Motion Compensation? 159

dryriver writes: Graphics cards manufacturers like Nvidia and AMD have gone to great pains recently to point out that in order to experience virtual reality with a VR headset properly, you need a GPU capable of pushing at least a steady 90 FPS per eye, or a total of at least 180 FPS for both eyes, and at high resolutions to boot. This of course requires the purchase of the latest, greatest high-end GPUs made by these manufacturers, alongside the money you are already plonking down for your new VR headset, and a good, fast gaming-class PC. This raises an interesting question: virtually every LCD/LED TV manufactured in the last 5 or 6 years has a 'Real-Time Motion Compensation' feature built in. This is the not-so-new-at-all technique of taking, say, a football match broadcast live at 30 FPS or Hz, and algorithmically generating extra in-between frames in real time, thus giving you a hyper-smooth 200-400 FPS/Hz image on the TV set with no visible stutter or strobing whatsoever. This technology is not new. It is cheap enough to include in virtually every TV set at every price level (thus the hardware that performs the real-time motion compensating cannot cost more than a few dollars total). And the technique should, in theory, work just fine with the output of a GPU trying to drive a VR headset. Now suppose you have an entry level or mid-range GPU capable of pushing only 40-60 FPS in a VR application (or a measly 20-30 FPS per eye, making for a truly terrible VR experience). You could, in theory, add some cheap motion compensation circuitry to that GPU and get 100-200 FPS or more per eye. Heck, you might even be able to program a few GPU cores to run the motion compensation as a real-time GPU shader as the rest of the GPU is rendering a game or VR experience.

So my question: Why don't GPUs for VR use real-time motion compensation techniques to increase the FPS pushed into the VR headset? Would this not make far more financial sense for the average VR user than having to buy a monstrously powerful GPU to experience VR at all?

Comment Re:Not a surprise (Score 1) 227

It's why on the Android side other than a few top selling phones, cases are non-existent and you either deal with it caseless, use an ill-fitting generic case, or use whatever crappy one the manufacturer supplies.

Remove your goggles.
You don't "deal with it" caseless. It's not a problem you have to deal with, it's the expected case. A phone doesn't need a case for regular use, including being dropped from time to time. That's why they are made of plastic, and they try to make them very light, which helps with damade. Some specific phones do expose their glass a bit more, and have a fragile design, like iPhones. Those do definitely need cases, but a phone without a case is not something you have to "deal with", it's the most reasonable scenario.

Comment Re:Cost Increase...for customers (Score 1) 595

... The other issue is security. You're broadcasting everything whether you think the connection is secure or not. It's a possible exploit vector. I'll stick with wires and my iPhone 6. ...

Analog wires (you can also call them antennas) are very easy to eavesdrop on. Bluetooth is much harder, even though it's still not _that_ hard. Security in your audio shouldn't be a reason to choose analog wires over BT.

Comment Re:Cost Increase...for customers (Score 3, Informative) 595

Pretty much exactly this. Apple is and always has been a HARDWARE company. Removing these things and creating a walled garden on even the equipment that is usable with their devices just feeds right into that model, but goes against the rest of the industry giants (mostly anyway). Problem is this will eventually kill them if they can't keep coming up with revolutionary ideas (and be first to market with them), because everyone can do it cheaper while still making money and being compatible with everything else.

You haven't been paying attention. This is Apple.
They don't come up with revolutionary ideas, at least not regarding their products. They don't have to be first to market. Let HTC/Samsung, or even some guy on Kickstarter be first to market.

They take new stuff that already exists, make it better, package it well, market it well, charge a premium. Nothing revolutionary about that.

As long as their competitors keep producing inferior quality products, they can keep pulling this kind of stuff on their customers. They only need to keep the quality bar very high, and they are safe.

Comment Re:Discuss solutions (Score 2) 343

I think the discussion in this post is great, and this is why I come back to Slashdot.

The problem itself is nothing.
From and engineering standpoint, locating a plane is no big deal. We all know that if we want to find a fallen plane, the best approach is to track it all the time. It's expensive, takes time, but also has a lot of advantages for regulating traffic.

The fact that this is such an obvious idea and is not being done yet, explains how hard it is to make changes to this kind of thing. It's not for lack of ideas. As always, it's execution that counts.

Comment Re:Starship Troopers (Score 1) 702

This whole "taking jabs at the original material" bit was engineered on later. They had a plot. They had a property with a recognizable title. They stuck the two together.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Nobody engineered that movie to take swings at the "source material." They changed the names of the characters in an entirely different script to cash in on the recognizability of Heinlein's book.

Comment Well, actually... (Score 5, Interesting) 561

Recruiters like it when you shave you beard for interviews in the midwest. They do, they really like it. They prefer if you do it. They can't tell you that you have to do it anymore, but they still very strongly prefer it. I've always felt kind of awkward without a beard. So, one day, about five years ago, and just as my beard started going gray, I stopped doing it. It's idiotic to change your appearance in this way, especially when it's a dishonest representation of what you actually look like most of the time.

I've always had a good resume, I get compliments on it all the time from clients and recruiters alike. The only people that dislike the way I write a resume are college guidance counselors, and people poisoned by their terrible advice, but they're few and far between. So all things considered, that factor in this equation has not changed. But since I've been growing the beard both longer and grayer, the number of successful interviews I've had has gone up. And the way I've been treated on the job has changed, dramatically. Bear in mind that the type of roles I go for hasn't changed since I was 25. I like coding. I intend to continue doing it.

People are more respectful. They ask me for my insights more often. I'm treated like an eccentric code sage, and that's absolutely fine with me. Even when I fly out to work in places like California or Seattle, this does not seem to change. I can only think of one instance where this decision has worked against me. One interview for a very hostile publishing company a few years ago, where they made it a point to ask me how often I keep up with new things, where they refused to believe that I read more books every year than their CEO. That said, I think that one would probably have went poorly no matter what I looked like.

I don't mind being older than my coworkers or project managers.
I don't mind taking orders from people younger than me. This isn't my trip in life.
I'm just there to make better stuff, solve more interesting problems, and keep myself challenged intellectually.
My biggest problem is boredom, so I've learned to be pickier in selecting my assignments.

Getting older, and reaching middle age isn't a bad thing.
You just have to know how to sell it.

Comment Re:They are doing the same in Brazil (Score 1) 429

OK, read the news.

Dilma's impeachment is not about alleged corruption.
They accuse her of making government number look better than they are, by moving money around.
You can call that bad government, or even hiding the truth from the people, whatever, they are not impeaching her for corruption.

If you want to know further, her party has many officials involved in corruption. The trigger for the impeachment was that they accused some guys that were part of the governing coalition, of corruption. The guys felt betrayed, and hit back by trying to overturn Dilma.

The president, again, is not being accused of corruption.

Comment Re:They are doing the same in Brazil (Score 1) 429

You forgot to mention that while corruption scandals were in all parties, they affected most of the guys who are impeaching the president.

"The other guy does it too" is a terrible excuse for corruption. Impeach em all, says me.

Read again. I never said that. I'll say it differently:

Dilma is clean. The ones that impeach her are corrupt, she is not even been accused of corruption.

Comment Re:They are doing the same in Brazil (Score 1) 429

You forgot to mention that while corruption scandals were in all parties, they affected most of the guys who are impeaching the president.

Also, the president is not involved in any corruption issue, so the scandals did trigger the impeachment, but they are not the cause or excuse for it. They accuse her of misreporting public finances, not a crime, just something they don't like.

Comment Cool. (Score 1) 108

With some of the cutbacks and revisions over at Google, with their personalized service over the last few years, I'm a long time apps user who might be open to a subscription based outlook.com service. It's a good idea, and we need more free market competition. Google, at least up until this point has remained generally unrivaled in this space for too long, and it's been suffering from many of the main factors that made Microsoft a huge pain in the ass for so long. This is good news for everybody. At least, potentially.

Comment Re:Let 'em go. (Score 1) 503

What I want to know is when Slashdot got so loaded with fascists that comments like this became toxic. Really is a sad state of affairs on Slashdot when things are being moderated this way. "Hey remember all that lofty shit we said about free speech on the internet? Just kidding. Fuck you."

My original point, even though I never followed it through was this: If you're someone who is willing to leave your country at the first sign of a political movement you don't like coming to power, one that doesn't even have much chance of making any real change to begin with... how good can you possibly be at something like writing code, or maintaining systems? I mean, honestly. What's it going to take to get you to change careers, if you're willing to change countries over something as slight as who is President? Not much, probably. Success in any field of endeavor requires persistence and dedication.

Anyway, let's address this:

Registered Republicans make up less than a third of the voting public; when including independent "leaners" and voter surveys from states which do not associate a party affiliation with voter registration, we get up to around 40% of the voting public being effectively Republican.

That's simply untrue. There are numerous polls that show that there are more conservatives in America than Liberals. Even among the non-white voters that everyone keeps talking about this cycle. But the numbers are closer than you might imagine. The 10% margin you speak of simply doesn't exist. Even Gallup has the numbers statistically tied in 2015, which is interesting. But the math is a lot more complicated than all that, with so many other things in play.

And if you compare wins to losses in most every state where both Democrats and Republicans have played, Trump is beating clinton. Arizona for example. Where Trump's 249,916 beat Clinton's 235,697, Missouri where Trump statistically tied with Cruz at 382,093, but beat Clinton who could only pull together 310,602 votes. This is even true in states that Trump lost in. Overall turnout for the Republicans this year in general is higher than turnout for Democrats nationwide, and it's even something our friends in the media noticed.

So, no, it's not clear that Trump is only appealing to white voters, because the facts on the ground are simply not reflecting that (sorry media guys). And it's further unclear that Clinton can rally enough of her base enthusiasm in the event of a Trump nomination to beat him, if he he is the nominee.

Slashdot Top Deals

MOUNT TAPE U1439 ON B3, NO RING

Working...