Untethered PC-Connected VR Might Come Sooner Than You Think (Updated)

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
Contributor

Kevin Carbotte is a contributing writer for Tom's Hardware who primarily covers VR and AR hardware. He has been writing for us for more than four years.

  • quilciri
    I guess the more, the merrier, but I can't help but feel a third party wireless solution compatible with the Vive and Occulus might have been easier to develop and more profitable. I'd me more than willing to strap a battery/receiver pack to my belt with a short cord to the headset rather than the tethers we currently have.

    I don't know the design hurdles for that, though.
    Reply
  • falchard
    Main limitations are probably bandwidth and patency. Need an absurd amount of bandwidth for vr quality video. Do they use like 10 transmitters on different frequencies.
    Reply
  • quilciri
    The Vive can connect over HDMI, which has a theoretical max bandwith of 10.2 Gb/s.
    Wireless AC isn't far off that at 7Gb/s (using all 8 channels). Given that you'll be very near and in line of sight of the transmitter at all times, we should be able to get close to that.

    I know data transfer from the headset to the PC will eat a big chunk of that, but you could actually use two separate wireless networks operating in different frequencies for data to/from the PC.

    *there was a 100 Gb/s wireless network successfully demonstrated two years ago, though
    http://www.extremetech.com/electronics/168566-worlds-fastest-wireless-network-hits-100-gigabits-per-second-can-scale-to-terabits
    Reply
  • dstarr3
    While I would like this, I still have to say, I'll believe it when I see it. I feel like bandwidth and latency are going to ENORMOUS hurdles to get over. That's so much data to transmit wirelessly.

    Things like Steam's in-home streaming admittedly work pretty well, if you're viewing it on a TV on the other side of the living room. If you put that screen a couple inches from your eyes, the compression artifacts would become VERY obvious and distracting. Not to mention the input lag. If your display is lagging so many milliseconds behind your head movements, you are going to get so motion sick so fast.

    Again, it'd be great to see it happen and working well. But... that's a tall order.
    Reply
  • hellwig
    I bought an HDMI wireless transceiver. It just uses 802.11N (5GHz) and creates a private wifi network. I imagine an 802.11ac network could suffice, with the base station having very high power to transmit the video signals, with the headset needing far less power to simply relay telemetry back to the the PC. Heck, basic controls could be Bluetooth, with the wifi being essentially one-way for video.
    Reply
  • hoofhearted
    Why not just put a big 12 cell battery and the GPU in a backpack?
    Reply
  • jaber2
    So, current version would be 1.0, the ver 2.0 would be wireless? the more I read the more I want to stay away until ver 3.0
    Reply
  • quilciri
    Version 3.0, with the *ahem* "full body" haptics? :D
    Reply
  • e36_Jeff
    wireless VR is the usage that 802.11ad is begging for. Tons of bandwidth, but needs line of sight to work well.
    Reply
  • dE_logics
    Wireless VR for Windows?
    Reply