4 ms·

Nothing to do with "multitasking" - instead of putting real, cost-$, monitors around you, just put virtual, free, monitors around - as many as you wish! Sounds

by Artlav 10y ago

Nothing to do with "multitasking" - instead of putting real, cost-$, monitors around you, just put virtual, free, monitors around - as many as you wish! Sounds like something awesome, but kinda impractical for now - at least not until the Oculus-grade headsets become the size of eyeglasses. I guess that should work great with AR headsets, since these won't constrain your situational awareness.

k__ 10y ago
How about Google Cardboard and the EEE Keyboard? They are both pretty light-weight. Finally we could look like the keyboard cowboys from Neuromancer ;)
- dzhiurgis 10y ago
  I think portable VR + something like this [0] has massive potential. 0: http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/8/10738792/harman-touchless-ultrasonic-haptic-feedback-ces-2016 http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/8/10738792/harman-touchless-u...
phire 10y ago
The bigger problem is pixel density. I've tried both the DK1 and the vive, and the vive is basically at the point where games are very playable. Some people complain about the "screen-door" effect, which basically translates to the pixels are so large that it's like you are looking a screen door. But in my experience that's not a problem. If you stop and concentrate you can see the pixels, and they are quite large, but with game-like graphics your brain is more than happy to fill in the gaps between pixels. This doesn't translate to text. Text needs to be massive before you can read it. There is no way you can have multiple monitors at desktop distances. Best case is a single, low resolution monitor (about 720p resolution) so close to your face (or far away and massive) that it takes up your entire field of view. To see any extra monitors, you would have to rotate your entire head.
- noir_lord 10y ago
  Resolution is the reason I haven't bought one yet. When the 'in-world' resolution can match 1920x1200 at 2ft then it will replace my 3 monitors otherwise it's a headache inducing experience. If the technology takes off and follows the usual S-curve I think we'll have that inside 5 years.
  - stcredzero 10y ago
    When the 'in-world' resolution can match 1920x1200 at 2ft Sitting about 2 ft from my 24" monitor at work, I'd estimate that it would take 9 such monitors to get to around the same field of view in my HTC Vive. So you're talking about 5760x3600 pixels there. Maybe we're going to need iris tracking as an optimization? That's a lot of pixels to push at 90 Hz.
    - noir_lord 10y ago
      > That's a lot of pixels to push at 90 Hz. It is but considering the current pace of GPU development it's what 5-6 years away on the really high end and maybe 7-8 on the midrange $200 cards. VR has already re-invigorated the competition between AMD/nVidia as they both want to get a foothold in the potential new market, interesting times.
- Artlav 10y ago
  Hm, i was expecting the "rotate head" to be the way it works - most headsets support that, and it feels natural that way. I'm not really sure how big the text should be - in the games it looks natural, but there is no sense of scale.
  - joncrocks 10y ago
    That probably is the way it works. But the problem is that the resolution of the VR devices at the moment is 2160 x 1200, i.e. the equivalent of a single monitor. This monitor is responsible for filling your entire field of view, therefore the pixel density of any 'virtual monitor' must be quite low, therefore it'll not work 'like you're sitting at a desk of monitors'. Imagine the inverse. Imagine you've got a single curved monitor at your desk that fills your entire field of view. Sounds great right? Now imagine that monitor is 2160 x 1200. Not so great.
aab0 10y ago
Or if they get eyetracking+foveated rendering. Then you get super effective navigation between 'monitors' (just look at one) and the rendering isn't so demanding, enabling either more sampling or higher-resolution displays.

by Artlav 10y ago

k__ 10y ago

How about Google Cardboard and the EEE Keyboard? They are both pretty light-weight. Finally we could look like the keyboard cowboys from Neuromancer ;)

dzhiurgis 10y ago
I think portable VR + something like this [0] has massive potential. 0: http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/8/10738792/harman-touchless-ultrasonic-haptic-feedback-ces-2016 http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/8/10738792/harman-touchless-u...

phire 10y ago

The bigger problem is pixel density. I've tried both the DK1 and the vive, and the vive is basically at the point where games are very playable. Some people complain about the "screen-door" effect, which basically translates to the pixels are so large that it's like you are looking a screen door. But in my experience that's not a problem. If you stop and concentrate you can see the pixels, and they are quite large, but with game-like graphics your brain is more than happy to fill in the gaps between pixels. This doesn't translate to text. Text needs to be massive before you can read it. There is no way you can have multiple monitors at desktop distances. Best case is a single, low resolution monitor (about 720p resolution) so close to your face (or far away and massive) that it takes up your entire field of view. To see any extra monitors, you would have to rotate your entire head.

noir_lord 10y ago
Resolution is the reason I haven't bought one yet. When the 'in-world' resolution can match 1920x1200 at 2ft then it will replace my 3 monitors otherwise it's a headache inducing experience. If the technology takes off and follows the usual S-curve I think we'll have that inside 5 years.
- stcredzero 10y ago
  When the 'in-world' resolution can match 1920x1200 at 2ft Sitting about 2 ft from my 24" monitor at work, I'd estimate that it would take 9 such monitors to get to around the same field of view in my HTC Vive. So you're talking about 5760x3600 pixels there. Maybe we're going to need iris tracking as an optimization? That's a lot of pixels to push at 90 Hz.
  - noir_lord 10y ago
    > That's a lot of pixels to push at 90 Hz. It is but considering the current pace of GPU development it's what 5-6 years away on the really high end and maybe 7-8 on the midrange $200 cards. VR has already re-invigorated the competition between AMD/nVidia as they both want to get a foothold in the potential new market, interesting times.
Artlav 10y ago
Hm, i was expecting the "rotate head" to be the way it works - most headsets support that, and it feels natural that way. I'm not really sure how big the text should be - in the games it looks natural, but there is no sense of scale.
- joncrocks 10y ago
  That probably is the way it works. But the problem is that the resolution of the VR devices at the moment is 2160 x 1200, i.e. the equivalent of a single monitor. This monitor is responsible for filling your entire field of view, therefore the pixel density of any 'virtual monitor' must be quite low, therefore it'll not work 'like you're sitting at a desk of monitors'. Imagine the inverse. Imagine you've got a single curved monitor at your desk that fills your entire field of view. Sounds great right? Now imagine that monitor is 2160 x 1200. Not so great.

aab0 10y ago

Or if they get eyetracking+foveated rendering. Then you get super effective navigation between 'monitors' (just look at one) and the rendering isn't so demanding, enabling either more sampling or higher-resolution displays.