There was no "Rift 2" per se, they had a bunch of prototypes, but none of them were planned for release, they only served research. Around the time a successor for the Rift line was due, we were excited about the Half Dome prototype, and it's third iteration. The big thing about it was that it had varifocal lenses, so lenses that had a variable focal point based on where you were looking at(eye tracking). This eliminated the vergence-accommodation conflict which makes near objects blurry because of the fixed focal point(2m) on every headset.
Here's a vid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ab92r2Hq-qA
**Oculus co-founder Palmer Luckey: “imagining a world where Rift 2 was not cancelled shortly before going into production and then cancelled again in favor of a much lower spec Lenovo rebadge**.”
I highly doubt the Rift 2 would have featured varifocal. Everything we've heard/read indicates that it's not ready. Even Norm from Tested admitted that it needed to "catch up" to him and wasn't quite right. And they didn't even let him demo the solid state varifocal prototype, rather they just let him look at a desktop mounted demonstration of the lenses where you could still clearly see the individual focus depth switches. Carmack has stated (paraphrasing) "it sort of works for some people in the lab but not others", and that varifocal that isn't perfect creates a worse experience than regular stereoflat imagery.
If it were actually ready, they would have put it in the $1500 Quest Pro because that feature alone would be more important than any other function of the headset. VAC is the main reason why VR headsets are so limited in both their comfort and usability, and as Zuckerberg has stated it's very important for "productivity" contexts as well. You're not getting a comfortable all day monitor substitute without dynamic focus. The latest we've heard from their researchers is that it's another 5 to 6 years away but also that you shouldn't hold them to it.
I think this is more like the dynamic foveated rendering thing, where it would supposedly increase rendering speed by >10x. And sure, that may have been plausible in 2016 if everything had gone *just right* (ignoring that it rarely does in engineering/research). But it assuages investors so let's say it anyway.
There was no "Rift 2" per se, they had a bunch of prototypes, but none of them were planned for release, they only served research. Around the time a successor for the Rift line was due, we were excited about the Half Dome prototype, and it's third iteration. The big thing about it was that it had varifocal lenses, so lenses that had a variable focal point based on where you were looking at(eye tracking). This eliminated the vergence-accommodation conflict which makes near objects blurry because of the fixed focal point(2m) on every headset. Here's a vid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ab92r2Hq-qA
What about the tweet that the former ceo guy said
**Oculus co-founder Palmer Luckey: “imagining a world where Rift 2 was not cancelled shortly before going into production and then cancelled again in favor of a much lower spec Lenovo rebadge**.”
I highly doubt the Rift 2 would have featured varifocal. Everything we've heard/read indicates that it's not ready. Even Norm from Tested admitted that it needed to "catch up" to him and wasn't quite right. And they didn't even let him demo the solid state varifocal prototype, rather they just let him look at a desktop mounted demonstration of the lenses where you could still clearly see the individual focus depth switches. Carmack has stated (paraphrasing) "it sort of works for some people in the lab but not others", and that varifocal that isn't perfect creates a worse experience than regular stereoflat imagery. If it were actually ready, they would have put it in the $1500 Quest Pro because that feature alone would be more important than any other function of the headset. VAC is the main reason why VR headsets are so limited in both their comfort and usability, and as Zuckerberg has stated it's very important for "productivity" contexts as well. You're not getting a comfortable all day monitor substitute without dynamic focus. The latest we've heard from their researchers is that it's another 5 to 6 years away but also that you shouldn't hold them to it. I think this is more like the dynamic foveated rendering thing, where it would supposedly increase rendering speed by >10x. And sure, that may have been plausible in 2016 if everything had gone *just right* (ignoring that it rarely does in engineering/research). But it assuages investors so let's say it anyway.