4 ms·

>>> Call me a skeptic but as if they had lower latency and higher resolution. $80k is a tiny budget for the military, and consumer displays and graphics hardwar

by gedrap 10y ago

>>> Call me a skeptic but as if they had lower latency and higher resolution. $80k is a tiny budget for the military, and consumer displays and graphics hardware are the state-of-the-art, not military ones. Any argument for this statement, or just 'I tried Vive and it was great'? It doesn't say anywhere that $80k was a budget but it's rather clear that it was cost of the unit. Sorry, but you just make loads of big claims and all with nothing backing them.

IshKebab 10y ago
Yeah I meant budget as in 'budget to make one of them'. The argument is obvious - consumers are the biggest market for displays by a huge margin. The military don't have super-advanced displays that LG and Sony can't match. The military didn't make a 4K 5.5" screen before Sony. They don't have huge display research divisions. I feel like the original author should have to show this $80k low latency, high res VR system before I can disprove it. All I could find was this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fT-rFLlvdD4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fT-rFLlvdD4 It looks shit compared to the Vive. Look at how bad the field of view is! No numbers on latency or resolution but come on. There's almost no chance they're as good. Hell, the technology to get really low latency, like G-Sync and OLED displays didn't even exist until really recently. Just because it's 'military' doesn't mean it is the best.
- jobigoud 10y ago
  I'm also very skeptical that the military units are as good as the consumer versions we have now. We have predictive tracking and timewarp to reduce the felt latency to virtually zero, does the military unit have that? Full positional audio? I'm sure the military have fine engineers, but do they have John Carmacks, Mike Abrashes, JMP van Waverens, Cass Everitts, etc.?

4 ms·

>>> Call me a skeptic but as if they had lower latency and higher resolution. $80k is a tiny budget for the military, and consumer displays and graphics hardwar

by gedrap 10y ago

IshKebab 10y ago
Yeah I meant budget as in 'budget to make one of them'. The argument is obvious - consumers are the biggest market for displays by a huge margin. The military don't have super-advanced displays that LG and Sony can't match. The military didn't make a 4K 5.5" screen before Sony. They don't have huge display research divisions. I feel like the original author should have to show this $80k low latency, high res VR system before I can disprove it. All I could find was this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fT-rFLlvdD4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fT-rFLlvdD4 It looks shit compared to the Vive. Look at how bad the field of view is! No numbers on latency or resolution but come on. There's almost no chance they're as good. Hell, the technology to get really low latency, like G-Sync and OLED displays didn't even exist until really recently. Just because it's 'military' doesn't mean it is the best.
- jobigoud 10y ago
  I'm also very skeptical that the military units are as good as the consumer versions we have now. We have predictive tracking and timewarp to reduce the felt latency to virtually zero, does the military unit have that? Full positional audio? I'm sure the military have fine engineers, but do they have John Carmacks, Mike Abrashes, JMP van Waverens, Cass Everitts, etc.?