When I entered into this discussion I was thinking that at a certain resolution it would be more emersive. This would be an entry level resolution that would eventually lead to higher resolutions.

@MartinW

I make no apologies for being straightforward.
If you chose (which is what it was, a choice) to find an honest response hostile then that's your prerogative.

Simple fact of the matter is that if you try to suggest there's something special/interesting about yourself having a pretty typical setup, even for Amiga fans, then someone is going to correct you.

Im also freaking sick and tired of redundancy and people needing every single subtle nuance of computing explained every single time you try to enter a conversation.
What else could I have possibly meant by, "apart from what is obvious" ?
It's a computer enthusiast site. Unless people are being deliberately obtuse then there should be no need to explain things like resolution, framerates and how they influence things.

@trekiej

He's one of the biggest nutjobs in the entire "amiga-noid" world. Listen to absolutely nothing he says.

Here is a response from amigaworld.net
https://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=42714&forum=17

Wow, that was a pretty damn hostile response!!

@MartinW

All of which would fall under, as I said, "apart from what is obvious". Additionally mainstream doesnt mean perfect, it means, funny enough, "mainstream".

Also, it's a little presumptuous, perhaps even arrogant to say things like, "I'm guessing people frequenting Amiga-like forum's are probably fine with 5 to 10 year old graphics quality".

What makes you think that just because someone enjoys retro they don't also enjoy new? Pretty much every man and his dog also has newer gear. You're no different than *ANYONE* else in regards to what they use outside of the Amiga-noid hobby.
That comment was as far from true as the assumption some have that AROS people use older gear exclusively. My AROS box is an i5@4.4ghz for example. Hardly cutting edge, but far from ppc levels of obsolete.

Thanks, I have been looking at different ideas on YouTube.
There are plenty.
It looks like it can be applied to non VR game not too sure it how will it work.

I disagree. Being someone that owns an Oculus Rift paired with a GTX1080 I think the resolution and frame rates in each eye need to be considerably better yet. Mine is hardly ever used and if there were any resale value in it I'd sell it (there isn't).

I bought it for use in flight simulation but the current resolution is simply not good enough. When looking at the virtual cockpit you can hardly read what most of the dials say which makes it pretty pointless. A shame as the overall experience is really awesome.

Obviously run of the mill games and stuff are OK as long as the frame rate is kept way up to counter motion sickness (not the only factor of course) but they're still not great. I'm guessing people frequenting Amiga-like forum's are probably fine with 5 to 10 year old graphics quality which is what you get. I'm not.

As for what resolution is it going to take? Impossible to say but if I had to make a wild guess I'd say 4k in each eye at 90 to 120 fps. But we're a way off that yet. There's just no way round the grainy pixely picture you get in the current headsets.

Resolution makes very little difference other than what is obvious.
As for making it mainstream, we're pretty much there already. A cheap $100 tablet, some cardboard and some tape provides an ok experience already.

What video resolution would make Virtual Reality more main stream or more useful?