Connectivity company DisplayLink is showing a reference design for a 60GHz Oculus Rift wireless adapter at CES 2019.

DisplayLink created the DisplayLink XR wireless adapter reference design that would go on to become the Vive Wireless Adapter. The unit pairs DisplayLink’s compression technology with Intel’s 60GHz WiGig tech, enabling enough bandwidth for a pretty compelling wireless experience on the Vive that’s unmatched by WiFi solutions.

The Vive Wireless Adapter | Photo by Road to VR

Now the company is showing off a Rift-compatible version of the adapter, both as a proof of concept and a reference design that could be the foundation for another company to further develop into a retail product. The reference design could also be adapted for headsets other than the Rift.

For the wireless Rift adapter, the unit accepts the Rift’s USB and HDMI inputs, and sends them wirelessly to the host PC, while also powering the headset. The battery in this unit is built into the adapter itself, though in the case of the Vive Wireless Adapter, the battery is a separate component which goes on your belt or in your pocket.

This article may contain affiliate links. If you click an affiliate link and buy a product we may receive a small commission which helps support the publication. See here for more information.


  • jean thompson

    Do we if this is any better than the TPCAST? I personally have a TPCAST and normally don’t have issues but it’s not perfect.

    • Firestorm185

      Every time I’ve heard of DisplayLink’s tech it’s talked about as being much better than TPCast, especially in set up, I think.

      • sebrk

        While setup could be a bit of a hazzle if you don’t know your way around the technical stuff it is a one time thing. I run opentpcast and it is better than stock but it has issues at times for sure. I’d buy this solution in a second if it’s as good as the Vive solution.

    • Str][ker

      I tried the TPCast and wound up returning it well before the Vive version was released. I consider this to be much better than TPCast in that no modifications are needed to get the microphone to work and I feel that I have fewer issues with brief signal interruption compared to the TPCast.
      I still think TPCast did a great job getting this thing to market so quickly and to have it work as well as it does.

    • Caven

      I have both the TPCast and the Vive wireless adapter, and I definitely prefer the Vive wireless adapter. Simpler setup, much faster startup time, and a bit less cumbersome to wear due to the electronics being entirely in the head-mounted adapter. The single wire for the battery is less annoying to deal with and is easier to replace if it should ever fail, since it’s just a male-to-male USB 2.0 cable. The only real advantage the TPCast had for me was the larger battery, but that’s easily rectified by buying a larger capacity battery that’s compatible with Qualcomm Quick Charge 3.0.

  • Rudl Za Vedno

    Buy DisplayLink XR wireless adapter now and you get glioblastoma multiforma for free.

    • FireAndTheVoid

      Maybe you’re joking about these products causing brain cancer, but to avoid misinformation for others:
      1. 60GHz radiation will not penetrate human skin. The penetration depth for human skin at 60GHz is less than 1 mm. Human skin (epidermis and dermis) is about 2 to 3 mm thick. (Source: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1503/1503.05944.pdf)
      2. A 60GHz wireless signal is non-ionizing and is primarily associated with heating of the skin. “mmWave radiation (between 30 and 300 GHz) is non-ionizing, and the main safety concern is heating of the eyes and skin caused by the absorption of mmWave energy in the human body” (Source: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1503/1503.05944.pdf)
      3. Skin cancer is caused by ultraviolet radiation and higher frequencies (Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4629874/). These are wavelegnths less than 400 nanometers. For comparison, a 60GHz signal has a wavelength of 5 millimeters.

      As far as we know, these devices are perfectly safe. The worst that you can expect is localized heating of the skin. With my Vive Wireless Adapter (also 60GHz), I have experienced no heating.

      • Firestorm185

        Very good to hear, thank you for clearing that up void. ^^

      • Rudl Za Vedno

        “As far as we know”, well said.

        “Non-ionising radiation” has microwave oven effect. It doesn’t have waves small enough and enough energy to knock electrons off atoms, ionising them, but that’s not to say it doesn’t exert any effects on the matter it travels through. It’s an oscillating wave, which swings between positive and negative. As the positive bit moves towards a positively charged molecule, it will cause the molecule to rotate a little bit. A bunch of molecules rotating causes friction and energy is given off as heat. Mobile phone radiation exposure increases the temperature of the cortex about 0.1 degree.

        Does radio frequency have any effect on human tissue, apart from heating it a fraction of a degree?
        That question is still open. Even though some of the evidence that radio frequency causes damage on the face of it looks quite compelling, there’s still a question of consistency. Studies are inconclusive, but point into the direction that would classify radiofrequency radiation as a weak carcinogen. Using this thing sticked to your head for hours on daily basis is a no go for me. After seeing empirical comparisons of onion growth with and without 2W/kg 24/7 12 weeks exposure in our Institute for ion physics and applied physics, I stopped using oven, induction cooker and use smartphone only with bluetooth. If we can’t be certain, it doesn’t mean it’s not harmful. Better safe than sorry.

        https://www.webmd.com/cancer/brain-cancer/news/20180205/study-some-evidence-cell-phones-cause-tumors

        • sebrk

          Dude. Compare this usage to just talking in a mobile phone and at the frequency and power they operate and you will quickly realise that either we are running the biggest human test ever with possible extinction of our species at the stakes or it is just fine. Does your “better safe than sorry” apply to walking across the street as well? Because that has far higher risks.

          • Rudl Za Vedno

            Walking across the street has known risk factor, influence of Non-ionising radiation doesn’t.

          • sebrk

            Right. To this date. Given the average life expectancy of a human don’t you think that we would have more empirical data on this at this point if it would be considered to have a pathological effect? It’s not like non-ionizing radiation happened yesterday.

            My point being simple logic and rational thinking suggests it’s safe and should not hinder you from whatever.

          • Caven

            Agreed.

            Even if we ignore visible light (which is also non-ionizing radiation), almost the entire human population of the planet has been constantly bombarded by a wide spectrum of RF radiation for literally their entire lives, courtesy of technologies like radio and television broadcasting. Historically, those forms of radiation have been quite capable of penetrating all the way through the human body. On the other hand, it’s impossible for 60GHz to affect the brain under normal use because it can’t fully penetrate skin. Even visible light can penetrate farther than that.

            The only ways for 60GHz to be able to affect the brain would be to either cut someone’s skull open so that it’s directly exposed to the 60GHz transmitter, or to implant a transmitter inside the skull so that it’s either inside or adjacent to the brain. And even then, it can only affect the 1mm worth of brain matter next to the transmitter. Something tells me those aren’t going to be common situations.

  • iThinkMyCatIsAFlea

    Yay! More VR hardware…

    • Mo Last

      Why are on you Roatovr if you’re complaining about vr hardware? are you dumb..?

      • Ted Joseph

        Bring it on. The more companies competing for technology, the faster we get more advanced VR. I am not getting any younger, and want to live long enough to experience the very best VR possible.

      • brandon9271

        He’s only on here to remind people that Palmer Luckey didn’t like Hillary Clinton.. just like 50% of the U.S population. In other words, yes, he’s dumb.

    • Jeon

      Get off this site you retard.

  • JesuSaveSouls

    It doesnt solve the issue of needing the sensors but its still cool.I use mirage solo with riftcat to have a standalone experience with steamvr.Problem is I can use only one 3dof controller in place of the virtial vive controller in steamvr.Need two and 6dof for most games.

  • JesuSaveSouls

    Standalone I think is the future.No pc needed,no phone,no wires and no sensors.On my mirage solo the battery for the headset and controller works for at least two hours of constant game play.

    • Wildtz0r

      Mobile level graphics? No thank you.

    • Gonzalo Novoa

      That’s far from enough, for me at least. I play an average of 4-5 hours a day, sometimes 6-7, even 10 hours straight more than once.

      No doubt the future will be like that but it’s a distant future.

    • JustNiz

      Depends on the games you want to play. Standalone won’t work for me, I want the in-depth games and graphics that only a top-end gaming PC has the power to handle.

      • MosBen

        I mean, that’s the reality of mobile hardware today, but I think that his point is that the flexibility and ease of use of a standalone system will always useful features, and eventually the mobile hardware will allow for more graphics intensive games. Thus, it’s the future of VR, in his opinion, and mine as well. Yes, in the future PCs will also be able to render even more realistic games, but for most people there will be a limit beyond which the value of increased graphics isn’t super exciting anymore.

        • JustNiz

          Mobile will never be able to hit even slightly the same graphics, game complexity etc as PC versions, that’s why for gaming, mobile will always be a 2nd place toy. Mobile VR has it’s place, just not hardcore gaming.

          • MosBen

            Yes, mobile will never be able to match contemporary PC graphics. That’s just physics. But that doesn’t mean that it won’t reach a point where the graphics provided by mobile are good enough for all but the most hardcore, or at least good enough that the benefits provided by mobile outweigh the value of the improved graphics provided by traditional PCs. And if we reach a point where most people are regularly using VR in their lives and they’re mostly doing it through mobile hardware, then mobile VR won’t so much be a toy as the segment driving the industry.

        • bmichaelb

          The biggest issue with mobile, is the storage, or lack thereof. The Oculs Go only has 64GB’s of storage, with 55-58GB’s just for games. Some games on the pc are already 20, 30 and even 55GB’s. Yes, mobile versions of the same games are ~50% of the original, but that’s still going to leave you with only enough space for a handful of games. You can delete them and reinstall later if you want, as you’ve already paid for them, but what about saved game play? And just the fact you’d have to spend 5 minutes just to redownload a game could get irritating.

          As for graphics…you’ll never get a decent experience with a mobile device. The Go has stepping artifacts everywhere…jagged edges. The only way to fix them in pcvr, is to use supersampling. You can’t supersample the mobile screens. If they ditched the built-in smartphone approach, and went with an Intel NUC, or even using laptop hardware, then you’ll finally have a standalone device capable of replacing the pc. They could use eye tracking and foveated rendering, thus reducing GPU load, but even then…the onboard GPU will need proper cooling.

          As for the value of increased graphics not being ‘super exiting anymore’…if you’ve actually used pcvr, then there’s no debate…graphics is everything. You want realism, not artifacts. You may enjoy simple games such as Beat Saber or Shooty Fruity, but there’s a much higher percentage of people who enjoy AAA games with tons of graphical content. It’s why we get into vr in the first place.

          • MosBen

            The problem that I have with comments like your is that it seems to assume current mobile power, when most of the time people talking about mobile being the future of the industry are talking about years in the future. Sure, mobile storage isn’t huge today, but the growth of storage capacities has far outstripped the growth of game install sizes. Right now you can buy a 256gb sd card for just over $50. Sure, that’s not super impressive compared to the multiple terabytes that you can have on a PC, but it’s reasonable to think that in a few years we’ll see mobile storage that’s large enough for some big game installs.

            Similarly, yes, the Snapdragon 821 in the Oculus Go isn’t very powerful, but it’s not even the most powerful SoC available today, let alone what we’ll see in the next several years. Yes, mobile will never match what can be done in a desktop machine; that’s just physics. But that doesn’t mean that mobile parts won’t be able to run more graphically demanding games in the future.

            As for the last paragraph, no graphics aren’t everything. That’s a ridiculous overstatement that nobody actually believes. A super powerful graphics card that cost $10,000 wouldn’t sell many units to consumers, even hardcore gamers, because the increased graphics power wouldn’t be worth the increased cost. Every feature in a product is balanced against other available features and how they contribute to the overall experience. There is a certain level of graphical realism (and I don’t claim to know what that is) which is good enough for most consumers, or at least good enough that other concerns like cost, ergonomics, ease of use, tracking, ability to interact with friends, etc. become more important. The need to build/buy, setup, and maintain a big gaming PC is a huge drag for most people, and is a big barrier of entry. Some might be convinced to overcome that if the VR experience was sufficiently compelling, but it wouldn’t take much improvement in mobile to make that the more compelling option.

          • bmichaelb

            We agree to disagree. You obviously do not own vr, or know what the hell you are talking about. Carry on.

          • MosBen

            Not at all. I have a Rift that I use fairly regularly on an older but competent gaming PC. There’s a big difference between “graphics are important for immersion” and “graphics are everything”. If the current era of VR has taught us any lessons it’s actually that graphical fidelity is not nearly as important to immersion as many people had assumed. High frame rates, good tracking, good audio, ergonomics, and good inputs are also exceptionally important. So important, in fact, that people can be immersed in relatively cartoony worlds. But, of course, really good graphics are also great. It’s just that it’s not some factor that always must be improved some limitless amount, never to be satisfied. At a certain point, graphics are good enough for most people such that other concerns, like cost, become more pressing. You could build the most amazing VR setup ever and nobody is going to buy it if it costs $100,000. Similarly, you could have the most high resolution displays ever, but if the headset causes neck strain after ten minutes, nobody will care. Or you could have screens covering 250 degrees of horizontal view, but a really clunky controller could ruin it.

            The point isn’t that graphics aren’t important at all, or that we’ll reach a point where nobody will ever aspire to better graphics (though I do think that that’s an eventuality, there are diminishing returns are you edge ever closer to photo realism), it’s that while mobile SoCs available today, like the Snapdragon 821 in the Oculus Go, are under powered for a lot of gaming experiences, that will change as newer, more powerful parts are available. And there’s probably a point coming, and I think that it’s at least in the medium term, where the graphics power of mobile chips will be sufficiently good that for most people the convenience of not needing to buy or setup a gaming PC will far outweigh the increase in capabilities that the gaming PC represents. Some enthusiasts will have the interest and disposable income to keep that segment going, but most people simply aren’t singularly obsessed with graphics, and even those who are have limits.

          • bmichaelb

            We definitely disagree then. Most people out there want 4K screens, but are putting up with what we have now. The new Vive Pro Eye uses eye tracking and foveated rendering, to render at 9x the original resolution, then adds the foveated rendering to the screen, resulting in an incredibly crisp focal area, that follows the gaze of the user via the eye trackers. That’s what people want. That…and a bigger FoV so it’s not like looking through binoculars. I love my Rift, but I’ll be happy when they release the 140 FoV they were planning for CV2. the 200 FoV the Pimax has is nice…but the headset is far too bulky for me.

            As for the mobile power you mentioned before regarding the Go…I understand it’s an 821, and the Quest uses an 835, but they only do 72 fps, and they are maxed out at the stock screen resolution as it is in most cases. With the Go, you can use the adb shell to force a larger resolution, but it slows the processor right down. It’s a mobile phone, running on Android. You are limited to the fastest, most powerful smartphone of the moment. You could even go ARM if you wanted to, but it was easier to use a system that already worked with Android. The devs still need to rewrite the games just to play on the platform…extra work, and it doesn’t always work out as intended. Do you have Star Wars: Droid Repair Bay on Rift? Do you see any artifacts when using supersampling? On the Go, even though it was ported to mobile, it has stepping artifacts everywhere…the shimmering on every surface literally made me sick. You can’t supersample, so you can’t fix it. Even opening the web browser…there’s stepping artifacts all along any horizontal line, including the borders of any web page or youtube video you have open. And that’s at the screen’s maximum resolution.

            If they ditch the Android smartphone approach, and use a mobile CPU and GPU, they can improve game play dramatically, as well as improve the graphics. The devs probably wouldn’t even have to do anything in regards to porting the original to mobile.

          • MosBen

            Sure, if you ask people if they wand 4k screens, they’ll say yes, they want 4k screens. And if you ask them if they want a flying car, they’ll say that they do. The question isn’t whether people would like having a given feature, but what they’re willing to trade off for that feature. Sure, people want the tech in the Vive Pro Eye, but few are likely willing to pay to buy it because they don’t care enough about having that tech to justify that cost. The point about mobile vs desktop isn’t that mobile will ever be better in terms of raw power. It won’t. The point is that better graphics isn’t the only thing that people care about. They care about cost a lot. They care about how hard a device is to set up and maintain. The original comment was that mobile is the future of VR, and I think that that’s right.

            Desktop-based VR will continue to exist, but it will be a small niche of people willing to pony up the time and cost to have bleeding edge processing power. For most people, a few generations of improvements in mobile graphics processing power will give them a VR product that is powerful enough while also being cheaper and easier to own and use. And it’s the “most people” demographic that drives an industry like VR. Lots of people would love to own a supercar, but most are satisfied with a mid range sedan or SUV because it does what they really want it to do at a price they can afford.

          • bmichaelb

            Considering all the posts of people saying they won’t even get into vr until the graphics improve, I’d say you’re a little out of touch dude.

            Either way…we will continue to disagree. I’m done.

          • MosBen

            There are a couple problems with that reasoning. First, people posting about how they won’t get into VR until the graphics improve isn’t a reliable measure because it’s a self selection problem. Second, and I’ve said this several times, but you still seem to be missing it, but neither I, nor I think the original poster, are talking about current mobile parts. Yes, the Snapdragon 821 in the Go is under powered for gaming, and even the 835 in the Quest by not be sufficient for lots of games. Even the 845, which is already available in the market, may not cut it. We’re talking about a few years in the future. So mobile VR at that time will likely have better screens than today’s units, and will certainly have more powerful SoCs. Now, desktop PCs will also have whatever follows the RTX/Vega lines. But the point that I have made, many times now, is that given the choice between mobile VR, like the third or fourth generation of the Quest, and desktop based VR, like the third or fourth generation of the Rift, most people will choose the Quest.

            It is, of course, possible that I’ve read this wrong, but the vast majority of people in my life are simply never going to buy or build a gaming PC. They don’t have the money, interest, or technical knowledge. Yes, the graphics will always be better on desktop, but mobile VR has a lot of features that are really appealing that desktop-based VR will never be able to do. Maybe the future of VR is to remain a niche hobby enjoyed by enthusiasts who already own gaming PCs. But if the future of VR is mainstream, and everyone interested in VR should want it to be mainstream, then the future of VR will be in mobile products.

          • bmichaelb

            I read your posts…it didn’t evade me. But you seem to be talking about hardware that isn’t created yet, and seem to miss the point smartphones only do 60fps. We don’t have 90fps videos, so there’s no need for them to make them 90fps. That’s why they get overclocked in order to do 72-75fps. It gets damn hot while gaming. Why go through all that, when you can use the ARM, specifically designed for standalone VR, or even a mobile CPU/GPU setup? Why fight and do it the hard way, when we have hardware that’s already capable of outperforming any smartphone available? You talk about what may come later…but fail to see that the alternatives we have today, will also improve in the future.

            As for people not wanting to buy a gaming PC just to get into VR…did I say it had to be a PC? No. Personally, I think console VR will be the saving grace for VR. A PS4 costs less than a GPU, let alone the CPU, RAM, motherboard, SSD, case and power supply combined. It’s plug ‘n play…doesn’t need any configuring. The games are tailored for that hardware, so everybody gets the same experience. The PS5 is going to be an absolute beast, and PSVR 2.0 is supposed to have full room 360 tracking, and new controllers. That’s a far better alternative to an overclocked smartphone. Seriously dude…you are stuck on smartphones, with no desire to look at the alternatives, even though they are better. Just give it up already.

          • MosBen

            I don’t seem to be talking about hardware that isn’t created yet, I am explicitly talking about hardware that isn’t created yet. And I’m not talking about literal smartphones, but mobile hardware. Mobile VR has used a lot of off the shelf phone parts previously, but going forward they’re going to need to have hardware designed for VR (Carmack has said as much). I don’t know where you got the idea that I’m talking about smart phones. I haven’t mentioned them at all, and the examples that I have referred to, the Go and the Quest, don’t use smartphones.

            Console VR is certainly going to be more appealing than PC VR (and indeed the PSVR has already sold a ton more units than technically superior products like the Rift), but a console + HMD setup is still going to be more expensive and complicated than an all-in-one system like the future versions of the Quest.

            And seriously, nobody is talking about smartphones.

          • bmichaelb

            I literally said, “You are limited to the fastest, most powerful smartphone of the moment.” You didn’t say anything then, only now. Because that’s what they use…a smartphone that already has a screen, and an operating system. It’s the easiest route. But the screen is only 60Hz, overclocked to 72-75. It gets hot. I also said they could use a mobile CPU and GPU…or the ARM. Both of which are ‘mobile’. You didn’t say anything either. You just said ‘in the future’.

            As for the Quest being less complicated…you still have to set it up as well, and it has inferior tracking. It also doesn’t do full-body tracking.

            You seem to think everyone thinks like you, or should think like you. From the threads and posts about what people want in a new CV2, graphics is top of the list. From replies on videos and blogs, people say they don’t want the screen door effect, and will wait until they get 4K screens. The SDE doesn’t affect me, but there’s quite a few people out there with that line of thinking. that’s not a ‘self selection problem’ as you arrogantly called it. That’s what people want.

            You may want something sub par, but that’s you. I’m done. Go away.

          • MosBen

            I didn’t say anything because I was clear that I was talking about mobile hardware, not phones, and your comment about the Go, which doesn’t use a phone, made it seem like you understood that. Your comment about being limited by the fasted phone of the moment could have been a reference to mobile hardware targeting high end phones, but I don’t know, man, that’s on you. The Go, and soon the Quest, use a lot of the parts that are in higher end phones, particularly the SoC and the screen, but it’s not literally a phone, which changes lots of things, like, for example, thermals as compared to phones. I have consistently talked about self contained, mobile VR, like the Quest. I literally never referenced phone-based VR, and it was only when you started to really focus on that that I brought it up because it made no sense as a response to the points that I had been making. For example, “Similarly, yes, the Snapdragon 821 in the Oculus Go isn’t very powerful, but it’s not even the most powerful SoC available today, let alone what we’ll see in the next several years.” If you thought that I was talking about mobile phone-based VR, man I don’t know what to tell you. I was talking about mobile parts, like the SoC.

            Yes, the Quest needs to be set up. That doesn’t really address whether it is more or less complicated than desktop-based VR. That also needs to be set up. And you have to set up base stations for tracking (unless you’re using Window HMDs). And you have to buy, own, and maintain a desktop PC, or, in the case of consoles, a console. For both consoles and PCs, that’s an extra layer of cost and complexity that mobile doesn’t have.

            I don’t really have an opinion on what other people think like. Indeed, what I try to get across to people in these discussions is that the kinds of people that hang around on enthusiast VR websites are not typical consumers that VR companies are going to want to appeal to to make VR go mainstream. I’m someone with a gaming PC and a willingness to upgrade it because I also want better graphics, etc. But appealing to my interests is not going to produce a product that my non-gamer sister is going to consider buying, or my aunt and uncle. The self-selection problem is that people who post on VR websites have self-selected themselves because this is a topic on which they are at least interested in enough to go to a VR website to discuss current and upcoming technology. That’s the definition of self-selection.

            We’re gamers and enthusiasts, which means that we’re not typical consumers. Some company will likely see enough of a market to continue making enthusiast-targeted VR systems, but companies like Oculus and HTC are making mobile-based VR specifically to appeal to the mass market, and if they are correct and the mass market adopts those products then that means that mobile is the future of VR. Yes, “people” want expensive, cutting edge tech. It’s just that those people are a niche audience of gamers, not the broader population of consumers that are the future of VR.

          • care package

            Performace has a lot more to do with it than just graphics. You do kind of just talk out your ass.

          • MosBen

            Of course it does, but this conversation specifically focused on graphics. Do you have something of value to add?

          • polysix

            well said. Those of us who’ve lived, eaten, slept and bought into VR (I’ve had 5 hmds here) know what VR needs, steps backwards to mobile aren’t gonna do squat for long term adoption or the image of VR.

            Needs all the power it can get to even begin to start doing VR Properly on PC (still can’t yet – long way to go) so no snapdragon, even 5-10 years from now will do VR “properly”, until then it’s novelty cartoon games and a watered down version of VR that noobs to it assume is what VR was meant to be/all it can do.

            They lack imagination, they probably never even heard of VR before the Matrix (or even Ready Player one or w/e), some of us have dreamed about it for decades… it’s here but it’s still NOT here if you get me. Hardware must get better before we chase the casual market. It’s not a numbers game it’s a quality of experience game.

          • polysix

            Mate, we’ll NEVER have enough power, surely you know that by now? People have said what you’ve said time and time again since the 60s… ‘ok 128k ram is more than enough’.
            It’s not.

            This is VIRTUAL REALITY we are taalking about, don’t judge power needs based on the crap they are serving up today cos of limits, yeah when mobile 10-20 years from now is faster than 10 of today’s fastest PCs… PCS will be 100x faster and they will be driving VR and what VR means, vast resolution, FOV, physics, haptics, and photorealistic worlds that deliver on the term virtual reality. Mobile will never be enough.. for a long long time, and it will always be second to a larger computer system.

            When we can do wireless properly from a PC, anyone with a brain who has a PC will want to do it that way, not limit themselves to cartoon games.

            And btw, VR has a long long way to go yet to get it right, more than just the visuals, we have to solve proper movement, nothing cuts it right now, certainly not roomscale (real world doesn’t map to VR worlds at home – neither texture, shape or walls). I’ve had dk1,2,vive (in a 15×10 VR room just for it), PSVR and Rift and it’s clear VR has a lot of work to do that will not be solved by relying on all-in-one mobile rubbish.

          • MosBen

            Please note that I haven’t said that some amount of power is “enough”, meaning that we won’t need or want more powerful hardware after that point. What I have said is that at a certain point hardware reaches a level of power which is enough that other considerations become at least as important, if not more important. Most people don’t own gaming PCs, and there’s just about no level of hardware horsepower that would convince them to buy or build one. Yes, PCs will always be more powerful than SoC mobile parts. That’s just physics, but being able to take their VR to different parts of the house, or outside of the house is a huge factor, as is price.

            I happen to think that self-contained units based on mobile hardware, like the Quest, represent the future of VR. Is it possible that what we’ll see instead are headsets that can wirelessly tether to a low end or midrange laptop or iPad, and that that will be the most popular form factor? Maybe, but I doubt it. But it is definitely not the case that in 10 years most people will be rocking gaming PCs with semi-up to date Nvidia graphics cards to run their VR. That will forever be a niche populated by hardcore enthusiasts with the money, time, and technical knowledge to participate in that segment.

      • care package

        Corporations don’t care what you want. They care what investors want.

        • polysix

          They will care long-term when casuals abandon nerfed-vr like they did the Wii, leaving the hardcore VR lovers to shore them up again.

          Eventually obviously VR should and will be super mainstream, a long time from now when the tech is worthy of it. Until then VR needs all the power it can get and much better hardware, a snapdragon APU isn’t going to deliver “VR” , only a short lived gimmick version of it, even with 6dof and hand controls, people get tired of low res, blocky cartoon gfx eventually (when the VR novelty dies), i know cos I and others have been there (DK1, DK2, Vive, PSVR and currently on Rift.. have owned them all).

          Quest will not become mainstream at all, not good enough for non VR nuts, not cheap enough for super casuals, not powerful enough for core VR fans (who just want rift 2 or cosmos now), a small subset of each of those ARE interested in quest but once they are over the wireless-ness they’ll hate the low power gfx, hardly what VR needs is it? plying fkin beat saber and superhot all day every day..

          Yeah, that’s true ‘ready player one’ stuff right there.. not.

          • care package

            I don’t see any HMD driven VR becoming mainstream. Ever. Visions of massive amounts of people spending their time inside an HMD is a sci-fi pipe dream. VR is no match for drugs when it comes to escaping reality. That’s the people’s choice. I would expect something like a more advanced google glass AR device to hit mainstream.

    • Firestorm185

      I agree, partially, however I’ve been with friends in games like Rec Room and VRChat for like 5-6 hours at a time, so I definitely want a tether(able) solution until batteries high capacity enough for my long play sessions are available in standalones.

      • MosBen

        People have talked about an external compute pack for mobile VR, but it’d be nice to have an optional additional battery pack that you could strap to your waist would be nice for people wanting longer sessions. Or at least hot-swappable batteries.

    • Jeon

      Potato graphics and content. You need to try real VR apparently.

      • MrGreen72

        Yet the most popular VR game we have today is about slicing fucking cubes and could effectively run on a potato.

        I’m a KS Oculus backer and I bought every other VR headset under the sun but the god damn cord has become a real deal breaker for me, to the point where I barely play VR games anymore.

        • Suitch

          Echo arena needs to be close to runnable on mobile for mobile to become viable.

        • polysix

          So? Lets all race to the lowest common denominator just like the iphone/smart phone goldrush shovelware fest that was…

          How about we leave idiots to play simple ‘fun’ games that are good in-spite of VR rather than claim it’s the future of VR, the FUTURE of VR is way more than any mobile/standalone can handle and will be for decades yet until we actually get VIRTUAL REALITY and not what people think passes for it on mobile systems.

          • Unfortunately, Rift and Oculus devs seem to be heading there while the PSVR devs are making the most out of VR. (in full disclosure I would never buy a PS)

            If you look at the games coming out in 2019….Sony devs are pushing boundaries in game types and gameplay.

            All the “best” upcoming ones for PC seem to be the same old FPS or maybe a puzzle game or two. yeah, there are a few unique things but the plethora of cool games coming to PS shows they are really pushing the envelope. (sad for me)

            Cheers!
            BN

        • HEY !

          Slicing cubes on my son-in-laws PSVR is *exactly* what convinced me to buy a Rift! Love me some Beat Saber.

          I’ve been following VR for 20 years now, but it took a stupid rhythm game to pull me in. (and I hate rhythm games normally)

          Cheers!
          BN

      • FloridaOJ

        Some of you are hilarious. You’ll also be eating a lot of words once the Quest launches.

        The Snapdragon 825 (with active cooling) operates very differently, as compared to the passively/no-cooling iteration in my OnePlus 5.

    • xxTheGoDxx

      Any standalone solution will always be at least a magnitude behind a tethered solution when it comes to performance, and that would only be with a truly high end portable solution.

      Go ask a PS4 Pro, XBone X or PC core flat games player if he would be cool with just getting a Switch and selling is other hardware. Most will not. And the difference in graphical fidelity between the Oculus Quest and an Odyssey+ or Pimax 5K+ on a 1080 will be bigger than between lets say Wolfenstein on a Switch vs. a XBone X.

    • brandon9271

      Wireless or better cable management. Mobile sucks

    • care package

      It will probably be the future whether we like it or not. PCVR is better obviously, but that isn’t where the money will be.

  • Tom Szaw

    What is the weight. Looks ugly, heavy and big. Will head head like microwave.

    • Jack Liddon

      If it’s anything like the Vive Wireless Adapter is weighs almost nothing. Even the external battery, which clips into your back pocket, is quite light for around 3 hours of play.

  • HomeAudio

    Will it handle microphone on CV1? As far as I know TPCAST do not send wireless audio signal….

    • Wildtz0r

      Wrong.

    • FireAndTheVoid

      I have the Vive Wireless Adapter (reference design produced by DisplayLink and also using the 60GHz wireless signal) and it does transmit the microphone audio. So, I would guess that the Oculus version would as well.

    • JustNiz

      It doesn’t send the front camera either.

  • Str][ker

    I have the Vive wireless and absolutely love it. It would be very difficult to go back to tethered having played this way. One thing which I did was to buy a large 26,800 power brick. I plug my wireless into it and have a backpack to hold the battery and keep it out of my way when I swing my hands playing high activity games (like Sparq). It’s nice to see that this lacks the wire to the battery BUT, I would rather have the ability to plug in a large capacity battery instead of having to recharge the headset constantly (and if it can be swapped out which I suspect it is) having to pay a pile of money for a low capacity battery from the manufacturer (like HTC does for their official battery replacement).

    • mirak

      I found it was heating too much on the head.
      How is yours ?

      • Str][ker

        It’s fine for me. It does get warm but not so much that it’s uncomfortable. I have the Deluxe Audio Strap as well which I think mitigates the heat a bit as there’ more padding there (I could be wrong on that point though).

        The only discomfort noted was by my wife and it was due to the pressure on the head by the wrap around straps to hold the wireless in place. I think it impacts people with more hair (I have very short hair and I have never had issues)

  • boogie2

    It “accepts the Rift’s USB and HDMI inputs, and sends them wirelessly to the host PC”? I think you’ve got that a bit backwards.

    • brandon9271

      It’s bi directional actually.

    • bmichaelb

      As brandon9271 said, the signal goes both ways. HDMI from PC to HMD, but USB communicates from HMD to PC…gyroscope data, controller inputs, etc.

  • sebrk

    I’d buy this in a heartbeat. Currently running TPCAST with Opentpcast but there is a lot of room for improvement. Wireless PC graphics and experiences is absolutely amazing.

  • Simon Defretin

    Ok, great. But why are you not putting this on a belt or anything ? It would be so much better… But this is still very good, keep it up, guys, I’m up with you ! ;)

    • Candy Cab

      That would actually keep me from buying [ besides being overpriced @ 500.00 the corded battery has turned me off from the Rift TPCAST ] . I would rather swap a few smaller lighter batteries if need be than deal with a corded battery.

    • Caven

      No, the product would be far worse if it was belt-mounted. 60GHz is completely incapable of penetrating the human body, so a belt-mounted pack would lose reception every time your body gets between it and the transmitter. You’d be limited to forward-facing VR only, which defeats the point of going wireless, and even then occlusion would be a problem unless you wore the adapter on the back of your belt and faced away from the transmitter.

      The only way a belt-mounted device could work would be if it was an actual belt with circuitry mounted along the entirety of the belt. And being a belt, it would have to be flexible, which increases risk of wire fatigue.If you do that, your devices would probably need to come in different sizes to accommodate different waist sizes, which is only going to make the product even more expensive.

  • Brad Neuberg

    I’m a bit worried having such a high frequency radio transmitter right by my brain. In general RF energy is fine, but a very high frequency literally pressed against your head for hours can’t be good…. Any studies on this?

    • Caven

      Yes, and as it turns out 60GHz can’t fully penetrate skin, so it can’t reach your brain in the first place. It can’t even reach the bone of the skull protecting your brain. Even if it somehow could, one study found that 60GHz was incapable of causing single-strand DNA breaks.

      Also, it’s not entirely clear that the head-mounted portion actually transmits 60Ghz. For instance, the TPCast only receives 60GHz, as the transmitter is the device that gets mounted to the wall or ceiling. TPCast returned controller and headset data via a 5GHz transmitter worn at the waist, which by the way penetrates into the body far more effectively than 60GHz.

      • Holy crap! Thanks for the science lesson on human wavelength absorption! I almost bought a TPCast for my rift today, but after considering the “need” or OpenTPCast, and the fact they are releasing v2 this quarter…I think I’ll stick with my ceiling webs for now.

        Hopefully, Intels partners can get this to market soon.

        BN

        • Caven

          Yeah, I’d definitely recommend waiting. If the TPCast were the only game in town (as it was when I got one for my Vive), then it’s an easy recommendation for people who want to get away from the tether. But with alternatives for the Rift on the horizon, waiting will give you more options. If I ever decide to make my Rift wireless, I’d probably go with the DisplayLink solution, since the Vive implementation has worked so well. I think DisplayLink is better designed for initial installation, and I appreciate how much quicker the DisplayLink solution starts up versus the TPCast.

          The only real advantage TPCast currently has over DisplayLink is that TPCast will work for people who use a laptop for VR or don’t have a spare PCI-E slot in their computer.

  • domahman

    could have made it as a belt so it can handle more battery…arrange it like a grenade.

  • brubble

    Its not a tumour.

  • FriendlyCard

    Fantastic amounts of wireless radiation, positioned right on top of your head? Great idea! The perfect gift for those who want brain cancer.

    • Baldrickk

      Except that 60Ghz can’t penetrate skin, yet alone your skull.

      GJ with the scaremongering