vacancies advertise contact news tip The Vault
facebook rss twitter

Frontier reveals Elite: Dangerous VR minimum system specs

by Mark Tyson on 7 December 2015, 15:11

Tags: Google (NASDAQ:GOOG), DICE+

Quick Link: HEXUS.net/qacwtt

Add to My Vault: x

Elite: Dangerous VR specs

Back in May Oculus first revealed what components should be in your PC to meet the recommended hardware spec to enjoy the "full Rift experience". However at the end of last week Frontier Developments revealed Elite: Dangerous minimum VR system specs considerably higher than those published by Oculus. To make the comparison simple I have tabulated both sets of specs below:

 

Oculus "full Rift experience"

Minimum VR spec For Elite: Dangerous

OS:

Windows 7 SP1 or newer

Windows 7/8/10 64 bit

Processor:

Intel i5-4590 equivalent or greater

Intel Core i7-3770K Quad Core CPU or better / AMD FX 4350 Quad Core CPU or better

Graphics:

Nvidia GTX 970 / AMD 290 equivalent or greater

Nvidia GTX 980 with 4GB or better

Memory:

8GB RAM

16GB RAM

Network:

 

Broadband Internet Connection

Hard Drive:

 

8GB HDD space

I/O:

2x USB 3.0 ports

 

 

Above you can see a noticeable jump in component spec to enjoy the 'minimum' VR experience in Elite: Dangerous. Most specs have been turned up a notch and the prices you will have to pay to create a new VR-ready system for Oculus experiences, as offered in Elite: Dangerous are significantly increased.

Another interesting spec comparison is afforded by taking a look at the minimum and recommended specs to play Elite: Dangerous on a traditional non-VR headset PC setup. Such players can get away with any Quad Core CPU (4 x 2GHz) and an Nvidia GTX 470 / ATI 7240HD or better according to the official Horizons beta store page. Frontier explains the difference in specs as it is "leading the way in cutting edge VR software development," and it thinks that the potent minimum VR specs are the minimum to "have a good experience on forthcoming consumer VR headsets".

DICE builds VR team

This weekend we heard that Swedish developers at DICE are constructing a "small & collaborative VR team in Frostbite here in Stockholm". VRFocus spotted the news as it saw DICE advertising for five key vacancies. This is a cautious first move considering the size of the market now. However EA bean counters must see it as a worthy investment, to get a small team with VR experience before VR takes off.

Google Cardboard Camera

Turning to cheap, accessible and mobile VR, Google has published a new app for Cardboard fans; the Cardboard Camera. This is a tool for any (compatible) Android device to take VR photos. Later you can re-live your photo locations, or you could choose to share them with others, with scenes viewable/audible in VR by anyone with a Cardboard compatible viewer.

Cardboard Camera key features:

  • Take beautiful panoramic photos with depth and sound you can see and hear in VR.
  • Download and start capturing immediately. No sign-up or account required.
  • View photos in virtual reality using Google Cardboard.

All in all it looks like a fun app that might be worth trying out if you like to take and share holiday photos. Reviews of this recently released app are overwhelmingly positive.



HEXUS Forums :: 7 Comments

Login with Forum Account

Don't have an account? Register today!
It's worth noting that ED currently only supports the 0.5 SDK (you can get it working with 0.6 though).

Also of note os that the VIVE / Steam VR is supported in the Horizons Beta while the Oculus has not seen an update for most of year
I think Frontier are being overly cautious with the specifications. It's only a 1920x1200 resolution both the Rift and Vive are using. With all the bells and whistles turned up (no AA) I'm pulling way above 100fps @ 1440p on my GTX970 (more like 130-140fps, but comfortably above the the baseline 92fps for the Rift at all times, and that's pushing 60% more pixels per frame as well). I'd expect around 170-200fps at the resolution the Rift/Vive are using, factor in some AA and I suspect I'd still be well north of 100fps.

Can't really see a GTX980 being baseline for Elite. Not sure about planetary landing however, probably more taxing but you can always lower quality settings and remove AA to give any necessary boost if needed.
Ah but Cptwhite_uk, you have to remember that it's not just 1920x1200, you've got to factor in that it's effectively rendering 2 960*1200 frames from different perspectives.
It's got to calculate all the shadows, lights, fog, depth-of-field etc etc twice.
So yes it's 56% less pixels but it's also twice the back-end complexity.
Playing at 1920x1200 in vr is probably about the same as 2560x1440 out of vr, performance wise at least.
Hadn't really thought of it like that Zaphod, but seems obvious now you mention it! Still an overclocked GTX970 is akin to a stock GTX980 anyway ;)
zaph0d
Ah but Cptwhite_uk, you have to remember that it's not just 1920x1200, you've got to factor in that it's effectively rendering 2 960*1200 frames from different perspectives.
It's got to calculate all the shadows, lights, fog, depth-of-field etc etc twice.
So yes it's 56% less pixels but it's also twice the back-end complexity.
Playing at 1920x1200 in vr is probably about the same as 2560x1440 out of vr, performance wise at least.


Aye, this is what all these new techniques that NVIDIA and co are doing is all about.. Where they only render the area actually visible to each eye rather than the whole scene and then only the centre at high fidelity etc.

I think it's going to be exponential once the various CV's hit the shelves. The more people that have them the more efficient the GPU guys will want to be so they can claim the crown and so more people will buy… rinse repeat.

It's going to be like the early days of 3D cards all over again IMHO