6 ms·

I believe that this has way more chance to revolutionize human/computer interaction than anything Occulus is doing. Outside of specific areas (like gaming and c

I believe that this has way more chance to revolutionize human/computer interaction than anything Occulus is doing. Outside of specific areas (like gaming and certain types of video based entertainment), this type of AR/MR is much more useful than Rift style VR. You can interact with others, your environment, and other systems without the isolation or nausea of VR. On top of that, being able to supplement the real world instead of only temporarily replacing it seems far more valuable to me. Now we just gotta shrink it down to contact lens size, and we're good to go! edited for formatting

moron4hire 11y ago
I don't see why VR should be isolating. Just because you're not immediately available to the people immediately around you doesn't mean you aren't available in a very personal way to many, many more people. VR is going to enable "face to face" communication across continents. It already has, it's just a matter if penetration now. And VR doesn't cause nausea. Bad applications cause nausea.
RangerScience 11y ago
You're only getting half the equation. Remember that the other half - the half that's not about the human - is the computer /understanding the space you're in/. This is software that understands there's a wall thing there, for whatever understanding of "wall" it has.
YZF 11y ago
I think these are two fundamentally different things: AR, as would suggest, augments reality. VR however allows for creation of a completely synthetic reality. Reality can then be anything and you're liberated from reality. So fundamentally VR has more potential than AR. Things like nausea may take some time to work out but they're not unsolvable. For example, if the issue is the disconnect between the acceleration/orientation sensors in your ears and the virtual reality we can just bypass those sensors and inject a signal directly into the relevant nerves. It might even be possible to do this through the skin in combination with training. The frame rate/resolution issues will also improve until eventually virtual reality will be indistinguishable from reality (ignoring tactile input for a sec). Sure physical movement in this environment is another problem. But the end game is something that is simply incredible/unimaginable. With AR- sure you can add more synthetic information over reality. You still have tactile challenges (you can't touch it or interact with it). It is very difficult to combine seamlessly with the outside environment to make it more than just a fancy heads-up-display. Not saying AR isn't cool and full of potential but I don't think we can compare its potential with VR. VR is the holodeck... AR is ... a heads-up display? Not to mention the need to carry AR with you wherever you go if you want to use it in the "real world", power it, compute, etc. EDIT: One more thought while I'm at it. You can always inject the real reality into VR and thus make it AR but you can't remove reality from AR... Or if you could the two would basically merge. So AR can be seen as VR with "transparency" ... And VR is a superset of all ARs where you can't completely remove reality.
- Razengan 11y ago
  > So fundamentally VR has more potential than AR. Fundamentally, VR just has a different potential than AR. > Not to mention the need to carry AR with you wherever you go if you want to use it in the "real world", power it, compute, etc. You need to carry the VR headsets and their host-devices with you too. I believe we should clearly delineate the definitions of VR vs AR first. Virtual Reality should be things like The Matrix. A reality that an individual experiences without modifying the real world for anybody else. Current technology simply shoves a screen right up against our eyes but the goal is obviously to plug that content straight into our very brains. Augmented Reality should be things like an audio speaker or a video display; devices that "inject" manmade media into the real world; devices which generate reproducible experiences that everybody, even animals, can see, hear, touch and smell. In AR a single device may provide content passively to multiple viewers. Like your music system or television or a hologram generator. Even your pets can see and hear whatever's playing and they certainly don't to purchase or wear anything. VR aims to interface with your neurons and you're guaranteed to experience the full content. AR projects content into the real world which may or may not bounce on to our senses. TL;DR: VR replaces reality. AR enhances reality. But that's just my opinion. :)
  - goldenkey 11y ago
    Thank you for your explanation. It seems like for any renaissance man programmer, either of these areas are ripe for indivuality and invention in terms of new experiences in the form of apps for these vr and ar devices. Thoughts? And to maybe extend the discussion abit, what about devices that plug right into the centers of consciousness. Is that just more invasive, arguably better AR or is it VR? What do better hearing aids that sample at 10 ghz and connect directly to the nerves instead of hair cells. What are they considered? What about when I pipe my FLAC uncompressed music through the hearing implant -- VR or AR? It seems like the future is a combination of the two in far more complex ratios than just one or the other or split screen. VR probably has limits of perceptiveness if it fails to take model of logical non chaotic reality. It therefore can eventually become an abstraction of an existing event or well..present stimulus. Anyhow, I think the ideas are all really profundo. Looking forward to replies. [1] https://teddybrain.wordpress.com/2013/08/28/a-brief-review-on-consciousness-from-medical-interest/ https://teddybrain.wordpress.com/2013/08/28/a-brief-review-o...
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
diskcat 11y ago
I think there are rooms for both VR and Augmented Reality to co-exist.
- tempestn 11y ago
  Absolutely, AR can exist in all the real-life rooms, and VR can still make plenty of rooms of its own.
imtringued 11y ago
VR is for the living room. AR is for everything else.

moron4hire 11y ago

I don't see why VR should be isolating. Just because you're not immediately available to the people immediately around you doesn't mean you aren't available in a very personal way to many, many more people. VR is going to enable "face to face" communication across continents. It already has, it's just a matter if penetration now. And VR doesn't cause nausea. Bad applications cause nausea.

RangerScience 11y ago

You're only getting half the equation. Remember that the other half - the half that's not about the human - is the computer /understanding the space you're in/. This is software that understands there's a wall thing there, for whatever understanding of "wall" it has.

YZF 11y ago

I think these are two fundamentally different things: AR, as would suggest, augments reality. VR however allows for creation of a completely synthetic reality. Reality can then be anything and you're liberated from reality. So fundamentally VR has more potential than AR. Things like nausea may take some time to work out but they're not unsolvable. For example, if the issue is the disconnect between the acceleration/orientation sensors in your ears and the virtual reality we can just bypass those sensors and inject a signal directly into the relevant nerves. It might even be possible to do this through the skin in combination with training. The frame rate/resolution issues will also improve until eventually virtual reality will be indistinguishable from reality (ignoring tactile input for a sec). Sure physical movement in this environment is another problem. But the end game is something that is simply incredible/unimaginable. With AR- sure you can add more synthetic information over reality. You still have tactile challenges (you can't touch it or interact with it). It is very difficult to combine seamlessly with the outside environment to make it more than just a fancy heads-up-display. Not saying AR isn't cool and full of potential but I don't think we can compare its potential with VR. VR is the holodeck... AR is ... a heads-up display? Not to mention the need to carry AR with you wherever you go if you want to use it in the "real world", power it, compute, etc. EDIT: One more thought while I'm at it. You can always inject the real reality into VR and thus make it AR but you can't remove reality from AR... Or if you could the two would basically merge. So AR can be seen as VR with "transparency" ... And VR is a superset of all ARs where you can't completely remove reality.

Razengan 11y ago
> So fundamentally VR has more potential than AR. Fundamentally, VR just has a different potential than AR. > Not to mention the need to carry AR with you wherever you go if you want to use it in the "real world", power it, compute, etc. You need to carry the VR headsets and their host-devices with you too. I believe we should clearly delineate the definitions of VR vs AR first. Virtual Reality should be things like The Matrix. A reality that an individual experiences without modifying the real world for anybody else. Current technology simply shoves a screen right up against our eyes but the goal is obviously to plug that content straight into our very brains. Augmented Reality should be things like an audio speaker or a video display; devices that "inject" manmade media into the real world; devices which generate reproducible experiences that everybody, even animals, can see, hear, touch and smell. In AR a single device may provide content passively to multiple viewers. Like your music system or television or a hologram generator. Even your pets can see and hear whatever's playing and they certainly don't to purchase or wear anything. VR aims to interface with your neurons and you're guaranteed to experience the full content. AR projects content into the real world which may or may not bounce on to our senses. TL;DR: VR replaces reality. AR enhances reality. But that's just my opinion. :)
- goldenkey 11y ago
  Thank you for your explanation. It seems like for any renaissance man programmer, either of these areas are ripe for indivuality and invention in terms of new experiences in the form of apps for these vr and ar devices. Thoughts? And to maybe extend the discussion abit, what about devices that plug right into the centers of consciousness. Is that just more invasive, arguably better AR or is it VR? What do better hearing aids that sample at 10 ghz and connect directly to the nerves instead of hair cells. What are they considered? What about when I pipe my FLAC uncompressed music through the hearing implant -- VR or AR? It seems like the future is a combination of the two in far more complex ratios than just one or the other or split screen. VR probably has limits of perceptiveness if it fails to take model of logical non chaotic reality. It therefore can eventually become an abstraction of an existing event or well..present stimulus. Anyhow, I think the ideas are all really profundo. Looking forward to replies. [1] https://teddybrain.wordpress.com/2013/08/28/a-brief-review-on-consciousness-from-medical-interest/ https://teddybrain.wordpress.com/2013/08/28/a-brief-review-o...

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

diskcat 11y ago

I think there are rooms for both VR and Augmented Reality to co-exist.

tempestn 11y ago
Absolutely, AR can exist in all the real-life rooms, and VR can still make plenty of rooms of its own.

imtringued 11y ago

VR is for the living room. AR is for everything else.