3 ms·
Here's the basic crux of my outlook as a general principle, well stated: >The use cases for AR seem, to me, to be not necessarily the same as VR and both shoul
by 6stringmerc 11y ago
Here's the basic crux of my outlook as a general principle, well stated:
>The use cases for AR seem, to me, to be not necessarily the same as VR and both should easily be able to co-exist.
My instinct is that one will be far more adaptable and incorporated into entertainment / business / activities than the other, and at this juncture, I'm pretty convinced it'll be the AR track. It seems more dynamic and this review, on the whole, feels a lot more positive than ones noting the current state of VR (e.g. disorientation). That might change over time, but if this is an indication of things to come, I'm anxious to see what AR can drum up for use cases and software (yes, I did like that Minecraft demo a while back and dream of what a DAW could be like).
- ehsanu1 11y agoIn the future, I imagine a single device that can do both. In that world, VR is just AR that occludes your entire vision. Then you use AR when you want to stay in your current environment, and VR when you want to be transported to a very different environment from the one you are physically in.
- ansible 11y agoThat's something they're working on with CastAR. They're developing an attachment which clips onto the front of the glasses. http://www.castar.com http://www.castar.com
- renox 11y agoThe HTC Vive has already a front facing cameras, so there you are: a VR headset which can do AR. Of course with only one low-res camera, it's very poor AR. And it's tethered.. When most people talk about AR, they're talking about untethered AR.. The tethered --> wireless --> autonomous transitions won't be easy though (probably needs to track the eyeball to reduce the power needed).