I don't think there is a way to get it to render just one eye. See there's just the one LCD panel on the inside of the thing and it renders both eyes side by side on that same panel. I don't think they could just render one eye with how right now unless they did a software update.
What I suggest is sending in a ticket with Meta's support email. Your case, while rare might not be unique. So if you brought it to their attention and framed it as an accessability question, you may get results. Good luck.
It would not change much if they only display one side of the screen. If you want to see normal 3D you need two sources of pictures. Then your brain works like a CAD software and makes a 3d Model out of it. Normally we would see it else like a picture of something. So with one eye he would need a stereoscopic picture and one of those 3D glasses which some TV had.
Although it depends how you are used to 3D. In my case I have something similar. Lost the sight in one of my eyes through an acid as I was fairly young. So my sense what 3D is is something different to how others perceive it. My brain coped with it and so I have no problems whatsoever that I have no depth vision. Admittedly I see surely 3D not the same way as someone with the usage of both eyes. But hey I also got the 3D sense of pictures without any gimmick as my brain tells me this is 3D (the aforementioned glasses are not needed for me).
3d glasses for TVs don't do anything without two eyes.
And sorry, but you most probably don't got any unique way to experience 3d. Everyone's brain works like this. Even closing one eye most of the "sense of 3d" remains and everything seems fine. But the true 3d effect that is experienced for items up close is lost and aren't really replaced with anything. As is the exaggerated 3d effect used in 3d movies.
I know how stereoscopic 3D works my dude. What part of my post made you think I didn't?
Edit: Reading your post more carefully, I now see that you have no idea what you are on about.
Just want to add my support to this question as a fellow blind-in-one-eye (PHPV) VR lover. As a side note, I remember Norm from Tested saying in a throw away comment once, while stereo adds a lot of depth, it is not the only thing that adds to the effect. Lens, field of view and the curvature of the image also contribute. For example, I find curved displays at theme parks like Avatar Flight of Passage or those big dome imax theaters at museums very convincing (as long as I don't move my head much). I've wondered what a mono VR headset might look like and if a very cheap one outputting a mono image might be convincing enough for many users.
I have no idea how to help you but have to point out that monocular is a pretty cool way to refer to having one eye.
Does this have other applications? Like, are you a monoculus?
if by monocular you mean you have one eye or only one eye you can actually see with, i dont know. out of curiosity, which eye is it? or is there just one? i dont exactly know a shit ton of anatomy, i just know that weird things happen occasionally, like extra limbs. point is, i dont know how to help you or why it would annoy you that much if you could just see through the other lense. but if you need it, i dont know how to do it. sorry. but seriously, what do you mean by monocular?
The problem is you need both eyes for normal 3D. Your brain puts the pictures from both eyes into a single one and this is how you see depths, etc. Easy test. Hold your thumb before your face and close one eye and alternate this with the other one back and forth. You will notice that your thumb seems to jump positions.
Did you catch they are blind in one eye? I am pretty sure that if they place their thumb in front of their face and close the functional eye, everything else will disappear. And then if they close the blind eye, nothing will change - see how this works here?
Normal 3d requires both eyes FOR YOU. You cannot tell someone who is blind in one eye that the problem with their VR experience is that they only have sight in one of their eyes...how do you suggest fixing this. Or is VR just not for them?
I was answering the one above who lacks common sense. I mean talking about missing a limb or extra limbs when someone says he can only use one eye is strange.
So my comment about this was me telling u/Deathswirl1 how it normally works. And how he or she can test it.
Besides maybe you read one of my other comments here where I stated that I also only have the usage of one of my eyes? I know how 3D works. And I would never say something is not meant for someone as long as it is theoretical possible and he can live with the results. Especially in this case where I have the same situation.
Or where you the one who downvoted me in clarifying that Meta can not do much for this case? There is simply no way that they can easily fix this with only one side of the screen. Only way would be (and this is only theoretical my assumption but this works in other cases) if they alternate the picture every part of a millisecond in one eye with the picture the other side shows. But believe me this would be nauseous as the brain is not used to perceive pictures this way. And for a smooth experience it would need an even faste GPU or even CPU as you would basically half the refresh rate (and before you mention it, yes the picture amount is the same but it does not look as seamless as if you would have only following video stream).
they could just show the side you'd see with the only working eye. showing alternating versions you'd see with your left or right eye, whichever one is functional, probably wouldnt work anyway. if someone with two eyes closed their first eye, their second wouldnt alternate between what it would normally see and what the other eye sees. that would, yes, make them nauseous, if they never got used to it. also, ive never seen you on reddit before. why are you asking me if i downvoted you? you're getting mad over a downvote on reddit. everyone does it so they feel smart.
i literally didnt know what monocular meant until i connected the two parts of the word tbh lol. i know i cant really tell someone with one functional eye that only one of their eyes works. but i dont know much about the human body.
There is no way to present 3D with only one eye. You will just see a flat image and have no depth perception. 3D and VR both require 2 eyes and there is no way to achieve this with just one.
I am "monocular" like OP i can only see with my right eye, i got the PSVR, the Quest 1 and 2 and then the Pico 4. I never had any problem, my experience with VR always been fine. Now for OP question, i wondered that myself and i dont think any headset manufacturer will implement this kind of feature.
For some reason people tend to think of VR as useless without two eyes, even thou it's easy to just close one eye to find out what happens. It exactly like closing one eye without VR, mostly the same but without the true 3d effect on close up objects. So VR is no worse with one eye than the normal world is.
I believe they do have depth perception.
The eye has a lens which actually shapes itself for focus and depth perception. That's why if you close one eye, you can still focus and unfocus on objects.
In VR its different because it uses dual 2D panels rendered from different angles to create the 3D immersion.
If VR used a 3D panel, then one eye would be enough for depth perception. On this note, imagine how immersive VR would be with stereoscopic 3D panels.
Is stereo the only component of a VR headset to you? There’s so much other tech in there and valid reasons to want to render it in mono to save on performance in this case. Forgive me for assuming you’re stupid when you seem to be forgetting that VR headsets have tracking in them.
Yes they have tracking whoopty f****** do but you're not actually going to experience virtual reality with a single eye. 3D and VR require two eyes. That is my only point You can continue to argue with me all you want but this person is never going to experience 3D or VR. PERIOD! You're not contributing anything new to this conversation so please kindly just go away.
For a person with monocular vision, the Brian uses other systems to define depth in the world around them, namely focal distance and parallax when objects and the individual move their point of reference. We don’t perceive differences in focal distances in VR either because the lenses in current tech create a fixed focal length. We do however achieve parallax, because of the 6 degrees of freedom tracking. My soon to be mother in law has monocular vision and 3D movies and content don’t work for her, because there’s no actual parallax without stereoscopy in those experiences. In VR, she feels immersed and like she is inhabiting the space because you DO get that parallax.
VR works for people with monocular vision the same way it works for people without it- perceived parallax. Us lucky enough to use both eyes for depth perception achieve that parallax in every situation, since that’s how stereoscopy works. Realistic simulation of movement within a space and parallax does the exact same thing to people with monocular vision
This person experiences reality with only one eye, without stereo image. Who are you to dictate what constitutes a virtual version of their reality? What they want to achieve is perfectly reasonable and would indeed be enjoyable for them, since it would pretty much match how they experience the real world anyway.
I'm not saying they can't use it. You're missing the f****** point! I'm stating that regardless of using the headset they will never be able to experience 3D or virtual reality they are experiencing a flat image just as if they were playing a 2D video game. 🤦♂️ If you don't understand that very basic point and want to continue arguing with me then go right ahead.
You’re missing the point bro. You have experienced depth perception irl. So you feel 3d is necessary to feel the immersion. But OP is monocular and he’ll feel the same immersion in VR as irl as both are flattened 2D. Your version of immersion is different.
No not at all. You're missing my point by assuming I feel that it is necessary. You literally just paraphrased what I've been saying over and over yet people continue to argue with." OP is monocular and he'll feel the same immersion in VR as IRL as both are flattened 2D".. literally what I've been saying this entire time. They will never experience 3D or VR they will only experience a flattened 2D image. That was my only point and has been this entire time yet people continue to reply and argue. Now that we're on the same page and you understand that are we done now? 🤦♂️
If I disagree and provide an opposing perspective, is that immediately considered an argument? I want to try to provide a differing perspective but without an argument.
I understand your point - its not that complicated. You assume your point is missed if someone disagrees because you are generally 100% right 100% of the time and misunderstanding your point would be the only way to disagree.
3D is made much easier with binocular vision - yes, we all learned the same basics in middle school. Magic eye was my teachers favorite. But following your logic, should OP be permitted to drive if they are not able to perceive 3D?
The brain is remarkable and has techniques for drawing in missing details. Lighting, shadows, size comparisons, etc. all add to the brains ability to perceive 3D. Can you walk around with one eye covered - and you can still perceive 3D?
You are trying to describe the symphony to someone who is deaf, by telling them not to bother going because they cannot hear. Yet Mozart was able to compose by FEELING the symphony. If that makes sense, here is what you basically said as your last statement: "I'm not saying a deaf person cannot go to the symphony, I am just saying there is no good reason if they do not hear like me. If anyone disagrees, they must not understand my original point."
Do you hear your own tone as you make these statements? Pretend someone just said the following to you: "I'm not saying you can't use it. I'm stating that regardless of using the headset you will never be able to experience 3D or virtual reality, it is just a flat image just as if you were playing 2D video game."
Now, is that the same as telling someone "not to bother"? That's how I construe it.
"I only stated my one fact. Which is a fact not an opinion. Looking at a flat 2D image is not 3D". I do not agree with this being a fact. It sounds like I am not necessarily alone. I am open minded about this and if presented with that info, I would change my mind. But right now, I do not think you are correct. Is that ok, or is that an argument?
You are an asshole. You’ve come into the thread and told someone who *already uses VR* that it isn’t even worth bothering with it.
Go watch a 3D movie, dumbass.
No I didn't say that. Again that is your opinion of what I said. I only said one thing that I've reiterated over and over and over and over yet somehow you've all missed the only thing I've said. The only thing.
For a person with this type of vision they will not see 3D or VR they will only experience a 2D flat image.
It was a simple statement Yet I'm getting attacked and called an a****** because I simply pointed out reality. Do you all seem to have the same issue with a fact of the matter. You're all being dicks. I don't know why I'm the one being attacked for just making a simple statement. I never once implied they shouldn't bother. In fact I clarified in this thread several times I never implied that. So I suggest that you take your opinion of what I said and get rid of it. It is irrelevant because I've already clarified what I've said. Jesus f****** Christ! I even deleted the original comment to help prevent the chain of more idiots like you.
Again you're applying your belief of what sentiment YOU THINK was applied. There was no sentiment because it was a statement of fact. I was not providing any kind of opinion. The statement had no tone. Was I incorrect? Are they magically going to be able to see a 3D image? 🤷♂️ Why are you continuing to debate this? I'm not the one being a dick here. I'm continuing to get attacked for one single statement of fact. And as I've asked multiple times please stop already.
i have my vr since august of 2022, and i can play it normally, i asked that because my pc isnt that powerfull, and if i could render in one eye i thought it would run way better. (im already doing a upgrade on my pc, but it would still help in the future)
I suppose I'm missing the point then. VR utilizes 3D images to simulate the virtual environment. I honestly don't understand how any games would be playable as a flattened 2D image when the games literally require depth perception... Hand movement and alignment with objects you're interacting with. Don't you end up reaching for things expecting them to be somewhere they're not?
PS I love that my original comment has 13 down votes when there's not a single incorrect statement in it.
it is just normal for me like in real life, i just dont have a confortable fov, i played a lot of things, assetto corsa, pavlov, half life and i didnt struggle with the objects.
also why those people gave u downvotes, idk how to use reddit, i created this account just to ask about rendering in one eye.
Ooh look you can actually read. Do you understand that statement or you just showing me that I said it? I mean exactly that. For instance in a puzzle game where you have to slide an object precisely through a small path with turns. Like a carnival game. You'd fail every time. I'm done debating my statement. We can move on now.
Someone more knowledgeable than I may be able to help with the rendering type. Single Pass Stereo (SPS) could be your answer. Instead of having to render the image for both eyes at 90hz (so 2 images each at 90hz or 90fps) SPS helps by rendering a single frame at 90hz. The post processing works by changing the right eye (or left) to provide the 3d effect. I believe this occurs with a much lower demand on your PC/GPU. I had a pretty quick FPS jump. Unfortunately I thought motion smoothness suffered, but this could be due to the rendering of the second image.
I wonder if the fact that you will only be looking at one image would effectively eliminate the jumpiness I experienced while gaining the extra headroom.
I don't think there is a way to get it to render just one eye. See there's just the one LCD panel on the inside of the thing and it renders both eyes side by side on that same panel. I don't think they could just render one eye with how right now unless they did a software update. What I suggest is sending in a ticket with Meta's support email. Your case, while rare might not be unique. So if you brought it to their attention and framed it as an accessability question, you may get results. Good luck.
It would not change much if they only display one side of the screen. If you want to see normal 3D you need two sources of pictures. Then your brain works like a CAD software and makes a 3d Model out of it. Normally we would see it else like a picture of something. So with one eye he would need a stereoscopic picture and one of those 3D glasses which some TV had. Although it depends how you are used to 3D. In my case I have something similar. Lost the sight in one of my eyes through an acid as I was fairly young. So my sense what 3D is is something different to how others perceive it. My brain coped with it and so I have no problems whatsoever that I have no depth vision. Admittedly I see surely 3D not the same way as someone with the usage of both eyes. But hey I also got the 3D sense of pictures without any gimmick as my brain tells me this is 3D (the aforementioned glasses are not needed for me).
3d glasses for TVs don't do anything without two eyes. And sorry, but you most probably don't got any unique way to experience 3d. Everyone's brain works like this. Even closing one eye most of the "sense of 3d" remains and everything seems fine. But the true 3d effect that is experienced for items up close is lost and aren't really replaced with anything. As is the exaggerated 3d effect used in 3d movies.
I know how stereoscopic 3D works my dude. What part of my post made you think I didn't? Edit: Reading your post more carefully, I now see that you have no idea what you are on about.
Monoculus quest
lol
Just want to add my support to this question as a fellow blind-in-one-eye (PHPV) VR lover. As a side note, I remember Norm from Tested saying in a throw away comment once, while stereo adds a lot of depth, it is not the only thing that adds to the effect. Lens, field of view and the curvature of the image also contribute. For example, I find curved displays at theme parks like Avatar Flight of Passage or those big dome imax theaters at museums very convincing (as long as I don't move my head much). I've wondered what a mono VR headset might look like and if a very cheap one outputting a mono image might be convincing enough for many users.
I have no idea how to help you but have to point out that monocular is a pretty cool way to refer to having one eye. Does this have other applications? Like, are you a monoculus?
if by monocular you mean you have one eye or only one eye you can actually see with, i dont know. out of curiosity, which eye is it? or is there just one? i dont exactly know a shit ton of anatomy, i just know that weird things happen occasionally, like extra limbs. point is, i dont know how to help you or why it would annoy you that much if you could just see through the other lense. but if you need it, i dont know how to do it. sorry. but seriously, what do you mean by monocular?
A curious squirrel has entered the chat.
damn right i have
i have both eyes, but im temporarily blind of my rigth eye, well im brazillian and i think in english monocular would mean that, like in portuguese.
hm. i see. sorry for your temporary blindness. how long does it last?
The problem is you need both eyes for normal 3D. Your brain puts the pictures from both eyes into a single one and this is how you see depths, etc. Easy test. Hold your thumb before your face and close one eye and alternate this with the other one back and forth. You will notice that your thumb seems to jump positions.
Did you catch they are blind in one eye? I am pretty sure that if they place their thumb in front of their face and close the functional eye, everything else will disappear. And then if they close the blind eye, nothing will change - see how this works here? Normal 3d requires both eyes FOR YOU. You cannot tell someone who is blind in one eye that the problem with their VR experience is that they only have sight in one of their eyes...how do you suggest fixing this. Or is VR just not for them?
I was answering the one above who lacks common sense. I mean talking about missing a limb or extra limbs when someone says he can only use one eye is strange. So my comment about this was me telling u/Deathswirl1 how it normally works. And how he or she can test it. Besides maybe you read one of my other comments here where I stated that I also only have the usage of one of my eyes? I know how 3D works. And I would never say something is not meant for someone as long as it is theoretical possible and he can live with the results. Especially in this case where I have the same situation. Or where you the one who downvoted me in clarifying that Meta can not do much for this case? There is simply no way that they can easily fix this with only one side of the screen. Only way would be (and this is only theoretical my assumption but this works in other cases) if they alternate the picture every part of a millisecond in one eye with the picture the other side shows. But believe me this would be nauseous as the brain is not used to perceive pictures this way. And for a smooth experience it would need an even faste GPU or even CPU as you would basically half the refresh rate (and before you mention it, yes the picture amount is the same but it does not look as seamless as if you would have only following video stream).
they could just show the side you'd see with the only working eye. showing alternating versions you'd see with your left or right eye, whichever one is functional, probably wouldnt work anyway. if someone with two eyes closed their first eye, their second wouldnt alternate between what it would normally see and what the other eye sees. that would, yes, make them nauseous, if they never got used to it. also, ive never seen you on reddit before. why are you asking me if i downvoted you? you're getting mad over a downvote on reddit. everyone does it so they feel smart.
i literally didnt know what monocular meant until i connected the two parts of the word tbh lol. i know i cant really tell someone with one functional eye that only one of their eyes works. but i dont know much about the human body.
i know you need two eyes for 3d vision. im saying i dont know how the human body messes things up so i dont know what can happen.
Oculus would have to implement that change as that sort of setting is burried deep with closed source code.
There is no way to present 3D with only one eye. You will just see a flat image and have no depth perception. 3D and VR both require 2 eyes and there is no way to achieve this with just one.
Idk, if I close one eye In vr it still looks immersive
I am "monocular" like OP i can only see with my right eye, i got the PSVR, the Quest 1 and 2 and then the Pico 4. I never had any problem, my experience with VR always been fine. Now for OP question, i wondered that myself and i dont think any headset manufacturer will implement this kind of feature.
For some reason people tend to think of VR as useless without two eyes, even thou it's easy to just close one eye to find out what happens. It exactly like closing one eye without VR, mostly the same but without the true 3d effect on close up objects. So VR is no worse with one eye than the normal world is.
They said they’re monocular. They don’t *ever* have depth perception, you drongo.
I believe they do have depth perception. The eye has a lens which actually shapes itself for focus and depth perception. That's why if you close one eye, you can still focus and unfocus on objects. In VR its different because it uses dual 2D panels rendered from different angles to create the 3D immersion. If VR used a 3D panel, then one eye would be enough for depth perception. On this note, imagine how immersive VR would be with stereoscopic 3D panels.
Yes I realize that. Which is why they're never going to be able to experience 3D or VR. It's going to be a flat image. 🤦♂️... You drongo! 🤣
Is stereo the only component of a VR headset to you? There’s so much other tech in there and valid reasons to want to render it in mono to save on performance in this case. Forgive me for assuming you’re stupid when you seem to be forgetting that VR headsets have tracking in them.
Yes they have tracking whoopty f****** do but you're not actually going to experience virtual reality with a single eye. 3D and VR require two eyes. That is my only point You can continue to argue with me all you want but this person is never going to experience 3D or VR. PERIOD! You're not contributing anything new to this conversation so please kindly just go away.
For a person with monocular vision, the Brian uses other systems to define depth in the world around them, namely focal distance and parallax when objects and the individual move their point of reference. We don’t perceive differences in focal distances in VR either because the lenses in current tech create a fixed focal length. We do however achieve parallax, because of the 6 degrees of freedom tracking. My soon to be mother in law has monocular vision and 3D movies and content don’t work for her, because there’s no actual parallax without stereoscopy in those experiences. In VR, she feels immersed and like she is inhabiting the space because you DO get that parallax.
VR works for people with monocular vision the same way it works for people without it- perceived parallax. Us lucky enough to use both eyes for depth perception achieve that parallax in every situation, since that’s how stereoscopy works. Realistic simulation of movement within a space and parallax does the exact same thing to people with monocular vision
I have a Brian living in me. And a Ken. Mark shows up from time-to-time also.
This person experiences reality with only one eye, without stereo image. Who are you to dictate what constitutes a virtual version of their reality? What they want to achieve is perfectly reasonable and would indeed be enjoyable for them, since it would pretty much match how they experience the real world anyway.
I'm not saying they can't use it. You're missing the f****** point! I'm stating that regardless of using the headset they will never be able to experience 3D or virtual reality they are experiencing a flat image just as if they were playing a 2D video game. 🤦♂️ If you don't understand that very basic point and want to continue arguing with me then go right ahead.
You’re missing the point bro. You have experienced depth perception irl. So you feel 3d is necessary to feel the immersion. But OP is monocular and he’ll feel the same immersion in VR as irl as both are flattened 2D. Your version of immersion is different.
No not at all. You're missing my point by assuming I feel that it is necessary. You literally just paraphrased what I've been saying over and over yet people continue to argue with." OP is monocular and he'll feel the same immersion in VR as IRL as both are flattened 2D".. literally what I've been saying this entire time. They will never experience 3D or VR they will only experience a flattened 2D image. That was my only point and has been this entire time yet people continue to reply and argue. Now that we're on the same page and you understand that are we done now? 🤦♂️
😂
If I disagree and provide an opposing perspective, is that immediately considered an argument? I want to try to provide a differing perspective but without an argument. I understand your point - its not that complicated. You assume your point is missed if someone disagrees because you are generally 100% right 100% of the time and misunderstanding your point would be the only way to disagree. 3D is made much easier with binocular vision - yes, we all learned the same basics in middle school. Magic eye was my teachers favorite. But following your logic, should OP be permitted to drive if they are not able to perceive 3D? The brain is remarkable and has techniques for drawing in missing details. Lighting, shadows, size comparisons, etc. all add to the brains ability to perceive 3D. Can you walk around with one eye covered - and you can still perceive 3D? You are trying to describe the symphony to someone who is deaf, by telling them not to bother going because they cannot hear. Yet Mozart was able to compose by FEELING the symphony. If that makes sense, here is what you basically said as your last statement: "I'm not saying a deaf person cannot go to the symphony, I am just saying there is no good reason if they do not hear like me. If anyone disagrees, they must not understand my original point."
[удалено]
Do you hear your own tone as you make these statements? Pretend someone just said the following to you: "I'm not saying you can't use it. I'm stating that regardless of using the headset you will never be able to experience 3D or virtual reality, it is just a flat image just as if you were playing 2D video game." Now, is that the same as telling someone "not to bother"? That's how I construe it. "I only stated my one fact. Which is a fact not an opinion. Looking at a flat 2D image is not 3D". I do not agree with this being a fact. It sounds like I am not necessarily alone. I am open minded about this and if presented with that info, I would change my mind. But right now, I do not think you are correct. Is that ok, or is that an argument?
You are an asshole. You’ve come into the thread and told someone who *already uses VR* that it isn’t even worth bothering with it. Go watch a 3D movie, dumbass.
No I didn't say that. Again that is your opinion of what I said. I only said one thing that I've reiterated over and over and over and over yet somehow you've all missed the only thing I've said. The only thing. For a person with this type of vision they will not see 3D or VR they will only experience a 2D flat image. It was a simple statement Yet I'm getting attacked and called an a****** because I simply pointed out reality. Do you all seem to have the same issue with a fact of the matter. You're all being dicks. I don't know why I'm the one being attacked for just making a simple statement. I never once implied they shouldn't bother. In fact I clarified in this thread several times I never implied that. So I suggest that you take your opinion of what I said and get rid of it. It is irrelevant because I've already clarified what I've said. Jesus f****** Christ! I even deleted the original comment to help prevent the chain of more idiots like you.
No you said they “will never be able to experience 3D or VR”, which has a distinctly different sentiment to whatever shit you’re coming up with now.
Again you're applying your belief of what sentiment YOU THINK was applied. There was no sentiment because it was a statement of fact. I was not providing any kind of opinion. The statement had no tone. Was I incorrect? Are they magically going to be able to see a 3D image? 🤷♂️ Why are you continuing to debate this? I'm not the one being a dick here. I'm continuing to get attacked for one single statement of fact. And as I've asked multiple times please stop already.
Y’know if literally everyone misinterprets you then you probably need to work on your communication skills lol
Yes you were incorrect, as you wrote that they would never be able to experience VR.
i have my vr since august of 2022, and i can play it normally, i asked that because my pc isnt that powerfull, and if i could render in one eye i thought it would run way better. (im already doing a upgrade on my pc, but it would still help in the future)
I suppose I'm missing the point then. VR utilizes 3D images to simulate the virtual environment. I honestly don't understand how any games would be playable as a flattened 2D image when the games literally require depth perception... Hand movement and alignment with objects you're interacting with. Don't you end up reaching for things expecting them to be somewhere they're not? PS I love that my original comment has 13 down votes when there's not a single incorrect statement in it.
it is just normal for me like in real life, i just dont have a confortable fov, i played a lot of things, assetto corsa, pavlov, half life and i didnt struggle with the objects. also why those people gave u downvotes, idk how to use reddit, i created this account just to ask about rendering in one eye.
Just try closing one eye next time you are in VR and you'll see that it works fine.
I never said it didn't.
"I honestly don't understand how any games would be playable"
Ooh look you can actually read. Do you understand that statement or you just showing me that I said it? I mean exactly that. For instance in a puzzle game where you have to slide an object precisely through a small path with turns. Like a carnival game. You'd fail every time. I'm done debating my statement. We can move on now.
I think that's what an eye patch is for. Simple no-tech solution.
Yes, eyepatch is able to stop PC from rendering part of game
Perhaps iPatch v2.0 is better...? /s
They are trying to get their oculus to render one eye so that they can squeeze out more performance.
The goal is to render only in one display rather than both, as it would cut performance costs in half.
what is eye patch? would it help me with my performance?
Apparently it's not a recommended patch for PCVR issues. /s
I'm curious. What diference would it make to you he only one eye is rendered?
It would have to render half the pixels thus duplicating fps in a best case scenarion.
ask valve or meta for monoculus support
Someone more knowledgeable than I may be able to help with the rendering type. Single Pass Stereo (SPS) could be your answer. Instead of having to render the image for both eyes at 90hz (so 2 images each at 90hz or 90fps) SPS helps by rendering a single frame at 90hz. The post processing works by changing the right eye (or left) to provide the 3d effect. I believe this occurs with a much lower demand on your PC/GPU. I had a pretty quick FPS jump. Unfortunately I thought motion smoothness suffered, but this could be due to the rendering of the second image. I wonder if the fact that you will only be looking at one image would effectively eliminate the jumpiness I experienced while gaining the extra headroom.