5 ms·
I think these are two fundamentally different things: AR, as would suggest, augments reality. VR however allows for creation of a completely synthetic reality
by 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 agoThank 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...
- Razengan 11y agoMy reply to daveguy might apply to some of your questions, not sure if you saw it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11412809 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11412809
- daveguy 11y agoI like this distinction. By this definition something like Amazon Echo would be augmented reality, but the hololens would be virtual reality -- unless everyone is wearing a hololens? Since you mentioned television as an example I guess I understand what you are trying to say. Although I do think that definition adjustment would be a tough sell (TV as AR). That definition certainly works for the most extreme cases of VR and AR -- where VR is jacked into your spinal cord and AR is a true hologram with 3D tactile feedback, but both of those are still science fiction. If you had the star trek holodeck. Would that be VR or AR?
- Razengan 11y ago
- bijection 11y agoIf AR is VR with transparency, wouldn't that mean that AR is a superset of VR, in the same way that RGBA images are a superset of RGB images? Or looking at it another way, isn't VR just AR with the lights off?
- yazaddaruvala 11y agoIsn't AR just VR with a re-projection of real-time video stream from front mounted cameras?
- sp332 11y agoI think you're being funny, but the Vive's AR is literally this.
- goldfeld 11y agoNo, my wetware vision apparatus captures more information than any camera in existence, thus it would be a lossy filter.
- Natanael_L 11y agoIsn't VR just AR with a cover over the glass? See, that definition is much much technically simpler.
- nl 11y agoSo fundamentally VR has more potential than AR I couldn't agree more completely. I live in a physical world, and my god I wish I could connect it better to the information world. I don't care at all about VR. I'll try it because it's new, but I have close to zero interest in gaming and beyond that there a very few use cases where it is interesting. Design maybe, but a lot of these uses cases actually work better as AR anyway. You argue that we can bypass the orientation senses by injecting signal into nerves, but that the tactile challenge in VR is impossible? Yes, you have to wear it. But glasses aren't a big deal - and will keep getting better - and AFAIK you have to wear VR gear too.
- jameshart 11y agoYou can't remove reality just by replacing the visual and auditory inputs. Your body still has to exist in the space it's in. AR acknowledges that that reality is still there; VR denies it.
- daveguy 11y agoI think YZF's edit is a very good point. VR does not have to deny the reality that is still there. You could include an image of reality within the VR environment. If you stick two video cameras and have a realtime feed to an oculus rift then you would essentially have AR in a VR headset (assuming the video feed is not perceptibly delayed 60-120 Hz refresh or less than 10ms frame-to-frame delay). Then again with AR apparently you can make the image bright enough to occlude reality (however you couldn't have a dark room as the augmented reality). With the inclusion of reality in VR I think you could essentially emulate the hololens and what you could or couldn't do between the two would be blurred.
- Natanael_L 11y agoBright enough? Just add a plastic cover.
- Natanael_L 11y agoAR plus opacity to remove the real world world... is to add a plastic cover. You can't add the real world to VR without a camera and latency. So AR is the superset of VR, where a physical cover makes them identical when it is on.