3 ms·

>I work in VR now and honestly nothing comes close to the experience we built. This is an interesting statement, because in all the wide sphere of points where

>I work in VR now and honestly nothing comes close to the experience we built. This is an interesting statement, because in all the wide sphere of points where VR can be applied, it seems to me that the only place of any 'validity' or .. true social value .. (i.e. not gaming/entertainment) .. is in the realm of training for high-performance/life-critical operator scenarios. Which is not to say that these things can/can not be gamified - but perhaps that the end result of such a stringent effort by society to apply VR technology to training and simulation of otherwise-life-threatening roles/responsibilities/duties is that it all becomes a bit of a game. What I mean to say is, why is there such a gap between "work in VR" and "built serious simulator system", in your opinion?

dleslie 10y ago
You don't think that entertainment holds "true social value?" We are playing game at this moment, with points, turns and rules. To answer your question, the difference is in fidelity. HMDs are slow, low resolution, heavy and uncomfortable compared to a properly built cave.
jdietrich 10y ago
> in all the wide sphere of points where VR can be applied, it seems to me that the only place of any 'validity'... is in the realm of training for high-performance/life-critical operator scenarios. We're already seeing socially important applications outside of training. VR is being used as part of treatment for PTSD and phobia; it can provide a very believable experience of a traumatic stimulus in a safe environment. VR may prove to be a powerful tool for psychotherapists. More broadly, I think we have underestimated the psychological significance of presence. Users respond to convincing VR experiences in a totally different way to other media. This difference seems to be relatively durable and does not fully diminish when the novelty wears off. Pilots in simulators experience real physiological stress, even when they are experienced simulator users. How would the world change if most of us got our news through VR - if we felt that we were stood in Mosul or Aleppo, flinching at every bang, reflexively crouching down for safety? >What I mean to say is, why is there such a gap between "work in VR" and "built serious simulator system", in your opinion? There's a vast difference between a $2000 consumer system and a $2,000,000 simulator. A headset can't approach the fidelity of a real cockpit with real controls and instruments, mounted on a huge hydraulic motion rig. VR technology is constantly advancing, but there will always be a gap between an expensive single-purpose system and a cheap general-purpose system.

dleslie 10y ago

You don't think that entertainment holds "true social value?" We are playing game at this moment, with points, turns and rules. To answer your question, the difference is in fidelity. HMDs are slow, low resolution, heavy and uncomfortable compared to a properly built cave.

jdietrich 10y ago

> in all the wide sphere of points where VR can be applied, it seems to me that the only place of any 'validity'... is in the realm of training for high-performance/life-critical operator scenarios. We're already seeing socially important applications outside of training. VR is being used as part of treatment for PTSD and phobia; it can provide a very believable experience of a traumatic stimulus in a safe environment. VR may prove to be a powerful tool for psychotherapists. More broadly, I think we have underestimated the psychological significance of presence. Users respond to convincing VR experiences in a totally different way to other media. This difference seems to be relatively durable and does not fully diminish when the novelty wears off. Pilots in simulators experience real physiological stress, even when they are experienced simulator users. How would the world change if most of us got our news through VR - if we felt that we were stood in Mosul or Aleppo, flinching at every bang, reflexively crouching down for safety? >What I mean to say is, why is there such a gap between "work in VR" and "built serious simulator system", in your opinion? There's a vast difference between a $2000 consumer system and a $2,000,000 simulator. A headset can't approach the fidelity of a real cockpit with real controls and instruments, mounted on a huge hydraulic motion rig. VR technology is constantly advancing, but there will always be a gap between an expensive single-purpose system and a cheap general-purpose system.