Intended for gaming, but with the wide viewing angle these goggles may be a good match to FPV flying and driving. Learn more and pre-order a developer kit: http://www.oculusvr.com/
The Oculus Rift goggles go 1080p. Fat Shark has to step up their game now. I think the Oculus Rift will become the FPV goggle of choice. Via PC World: Eyes-on: Oculus Rift VR headset ramps up the resolution http://www.pcworld.com/article/2041464/eyes-on-oculus-rift-vr-headset-ramps-up-the-resolution.html
There isn't enough bandwidth to support the use of those goggles and there never will be. Also, the aspect ratio is not right for us. Don't get me wrong. I still like the goggles, but there are limitations on their usefulness to us. ...Tiger
I think we will agree that it's never good to say never will be. They were never going to be able to put a man on the moon either. I think what you are saying is that there isn't enough bandwidth today with the crappy old school analog FPV video technology that is mostly prevalent at the moment. Don't you find it odd that we have this super high-tech, even state of the art, digital micro gyro controller electronics, and frequency hopping control radios but still use 1950's style analog video transmitters and receivers? My guess is that this will change really soon. Probably in a year or so. Especially when you consider that 4K video is on the horizon. Soon 1080p will be the new old school. Young people getting started in this today will look at these video transmitters the same way they look at typewriters. I think that actually the aspect ratio of 16:9 compared to 4:3 is very much more desirable especially when we are talking about having remote situational awareness. I bet if you asked any pilots if they could have 120+ degrees of visibility over 90 degrees you wouldn't find many opting for the lesser visibility. That the common FPV video transmitters and cameras use 4:3 instead of 16:9 is mired in the fact that the crappy old analog technology video transmitters that are so common for FPV don't have the bandwidth to push the pixels, not because it's better. The only benefit to analog technology over digital is that it tends to fail more gracefully than digital when you get to the outer limits of their range. Analog usually tends to get a intermittent yet sometimes still useable signal whereby digital tends to just drop out altogether. I read a interesting article this week from a quad pilot who is making his entire rig run on 2.4 Ghz WiFi. He brought some interesting pros and cons and was not shy to admit where the difficulties lie in doing such a project. One point that he was making was that he felt that sooner or later the IP protocol will play a role in all of this UAV stuff. Since so much of what these things are capable of comes almost directly from the cell phone world it's not too hard to follow that this could be indeed the case. Another article I read recently was about a guy flying FPV and got pretty far out there and lost FPV video. He removed his goggles and could not see nor hear his quad. Then he remembered he was still getting telemetry overlaid in his goggles so he turned his drone around and flew the direction of the arrow and sure enough he started to hear his quad and was able to get back and land safely. It was the first case of FPV instrument flying I had read about. Pretty cool.
There you go! I was thinking about how this could be accomplished and also thought multiple beams would be a good solution. Now if they can get the cost down under $300.
