6 ms·

I think it's safe to say we won't be seeing truly immersive VR any time soon either. At least any that doesn't make you want to blow chunks, or has a compelli

by socmag 10y ago

I think it's safe to say we won't be seeing truly immersive VR any time soon either. At least any that doesn't make you want to blow chunks, or has a compelling and broad raisondetre. It's interesting to me since I've followed VR/AR for 40 years myself, and what I can say is if you look at the money and hype that have surrounded HMD's (especially in the last couple of years), the technology is still just not there, and neither are the applications. That said, a lot of very bright people are doing very cool things with technology in the name of VR/AR. That can only be a good thing. So keep at it... Nice article, thanks for resurfacing it.

zamalek 10y ago
> won't be seeing truly immersive VR any time soon either. Have you demoed VR on a PC, or at least PSVR? I've heard this far too often from people who have only seen a phone HMD, which are complete and utter crap (apart from the mobility aspects - which has recently been solved for Vive).
- socmag 10y ago
  Rift and Hololens. I get that there is an immediate "Wow" factor, but then I wander off and look at the real world, and think "Holy crap!". They are good, I get that... Not great but something. I don't understand the purpose though. The best virtual reality experiences I've ever had have been between the pages of a book, or induced by psychotropic substances. If they can fix the latency, resolution and FOV issues, reduce the size of the headsets and make them cost $150, I can see that a certain sector of people might sit at home on the couch and do whatever they do. But moving around with those things on seems like an accident waiting to happen, even more so if they get the display technology right. For AR, I can see it as a technology used in business a lot more than for the consumer. That said, as one of the comments in the article mentioned... would be great to ditch my monitors and have an ultra wide panoramic coding experience. But again, that is more of a business application. I really struggle with the fatigue aspects. And yes you are right, the phone stuff is abysmal.
  - zamalek 10y ago
    > For AR, I can see it as a technology used in business a lot more than for the consumer. I'll be the first to criticize VR for being expensive, but the Hololens is absurd - you'd think that Microsoft would have paid attention to the Glass stillbirth. Oculus pulled off $600 devkits, which gave VR a fighting chance. AR has no fighting chance right now, not at that price, not with so few devs making apps (and many of the issues in the article still apply).
    - iLoch 10y ago
      It's hardly fair to compare the technology in the Oculus to what's in HoloLens. The HoloLens is an x86 PC that fits on your head and has 5 cameras, 4 microphones and a depth sensor and lasts several hours on a single charge (which is important because it doesn't need to be plugged into a $2000 PC.) I also haven't seen anyone get sick from HoloLens or trip over anything while using one. I wouldn't be surprised if the price point of HoloLens is absurdly high for a very specific reason: to stop people from thinking it's consumer technology - it isn't - not yet. And if that's Microsoft's strategy then I'd say it's a smart move. As a HoloLens developer you have to focus your efforts on enterprise and practical applications. Not gimmicks, because there's no money in that.
    - fsloth 10y ago
      Hololens is not for consumers. It's for businesses which benefit from any off-the-shelf AR, e.g. construction, and Hololens is very much appreciated in that field. From my POV in providing software for construction industry Hololens has huge potential. Will it become a just a fad, or an irreplaceable tool, remains to be seen.
    - cr0sh 10y ago
      Personally, I don't look at current consumer VR as expensive. But this is because I have the perspective of having played around with DIY VR back in the mid-1990s. Back then, the only way you could have gotten anything -close- to what we have now, would have been to drop about $50k on hardware. Even then, it still would have been lacking. Today, you can get a much better experience in your home for under $5k. To me, that's astounding. Sadly, we still don't know what to do with it - beyond games and a few other gimmicky things. There has yet to be that "must have" application for VR - we don't have a "photoshop" or "desktop publishing" or whatever you want to call it application yet - at least for the consumer. For the consumer, it's mainly about video games, and maybe some kind of "social VR" - but that's about it, for now. Those applications (except for the "hardcore") don't justify the price. I'm not sure there is an app that could.
illumin8 10y ago
"If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; but if he says that it is impossible, he is very probably wrong." - Arthur C. Clarke Please, keep this in mind... ;-)
- samdoidge 10y ago
  What relevance does this quote have? OP did not say anything is impossible, just that it is not there yet.
- RandomOpinion 10y ago
  "A witty saying proves nothing." --Voltaire
Findeton 10y ago
We'll see about that. I'm working on something you might find interesting :)
- socmag 10y ago
  Eager to here more!
staticelf 10y ago
> truly immersive VR A statement like that is so subjective. What is "truly immersive"? I believe it is soon here, at least from my definition of truly immersive.
- danielbln 10y ago
  It's similar to the moving AI goalpost. At the end of the road, it's Matrix level wetware, though I'm sure at that point there will still be people waiting for "really, actually truly immersive".
  - jessaustin 10y ago
    Actually the two senses of "goalpost moving" are opposite. The first AI researchers imagined we'd be having pleasant philosophical debates with our robot butlers by now. Instead we have a network of big iron that can simulate ten chess moves more quickly than well-practiced humans can.
- agildehaus 10y ago
  I think my Vive is immersive, with the definition that it tricks my brain into believing I'm somewhere else to the extent any technology short of a direct neural interface could. You're never going to "truly" be immersed. You feel your carpet under your feet. You feel the weight of the headset. You don't smell anything. Nothing you pick up weighs anything. The list goes on. Every item breaks "true" immersion to a certain extent. But your brain really loves to be tricked, and the visual does this rather easily. When I'm playing Valve's Xortex 26xxx, I'm in a futuristic room fighting orbs that are shooting at me. My hand is that spaceship. I don't even really care that my FOV is smaller than normal, or that it's a little blurry due to the low resolution. It's good enough that my brain is fooled. When I take off the headset, I generally have NO CLUE where I am in my room because for the entire time my brain didn't know or care. And does it need to be "truly immersive"? No. It just needs to offer experiences that you can't find elsewhere. Try coming even close to the awesomeness of Google Earth VR, for instance.
  - 10y ago

by socmag 10y ago

zamalek 10y ago

> won't be seeing truly immersive VR any time soon either. Have you demoed VR on a PC, or at least PSVR? I've heard this far too often from people who have only seen a phone HMD, which are complete and utter crap (apart from the mobility aspects - which has recently been solved for Vive).

socmag 10y ago
Rift and Hololens. I get that there is an immediate "Wow" factor, but then I wander off and look at the real world, and think "Holy crap!". They are good, I get that... Not great but something. I don't understand the purpose though. The best virtual reality experiences I've ever had have been between the pages of a book, or induced by psychotropic substances. If they can fix the latency, resolution and FOV issues, reduce the size of the headsets and make them cost $150, I can see that a certain sector of people might sit at home on the couch and do whatever they do. But moving around with those things on seems like an accident waiting to happen, even more so if they get the display technology right. For AR, I can see it as a technology used in business a lot more than for the consumer. That said, as one of the comments in the article mentioned... would be great to ditch my monitors and have an ultra wide panoramic coding experience. But again, that is more of a business application. I really struggle with the fatigue aspects. And yes you are right, the phone stuff is abysmal.
- zamalek 10y ago
  > For AR, I can see it as a technology used in business a lot more than for the consumer. I'll be the first to criticize VR for being expensive, but the Hololens is absurd - you'd think that Microsoft would have paid attention to the Glass stillbirth. Oculus pulled off $600 devkits, which gave VR a fighting chance. AR has no fighting chance right now, not at that price, not with so few devs making apps (and many of the issues in the article still apply).
  - iLoch 10y ago
    It's hardly fair to compare the technology in the Oculus to what's in HoloLens. The HoloLens is an x86 PC that fits on your head and has 5 cameras, 4 microphones and a depth sensor and lasts several hours on a single charge (which is important because it doesn't need to be plugged into a $2000 PC.) I also haven't seen anyone get sick from HoloLens or trip over anything while using one. I wouldn't be surprised if the price point of HoloLens is absurdly high for a very specific reason: to stop people from thinking it's consumer technology - it isn't - not yet. And if that's Microsoft's strategy then I'd say it's a smart move. As a HoloLens developer you have to focus your efforts on enterprise and practical applications. Not gimmicks, because there's no money in that.
  - fsloth 10y ago
    Hololens is not for consumers. It's for businesses which benefit from any off-the-shelf AR, e.g. construction, and Hololens is very much appreciated in that field. From my POV in providing software for construction industry Hololens has huge potential. Will it become a just a fad, or an irreplaceable tool, remains to be seen.
  - cr0sh 10y ago
    Personally, I don't look at current consumer VR as expensive. But this is because I have the perspective of having played around with DIY VR back in the mid-1990s. Back then, the only way you could have gotten anything -close- to what we have now, would have been to drop about $50k on hardware. Even then, it still would have been lacking. Today, you can get a much better experience in your home for under $5k. To me, that's astounding. Sadly, we still don't know what to do with it - beyond games and a few other gimmicky things. There has yet to be that "must have" application for VR - we don't have a "photoshop" or "desktop publishing" or whatever you want to call it application yet - at least for the consumer. For the consumer, it's mainly about video games, and maybe some kind of "social VR" - but that's about it, for now. Those applications (except for the "hardcore") don't justify the price. I'm not sure there is an app that could.

illumin8 10y ago

"If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; but if he says that it is impossible, he is very probably wrong." - Arthur C. Clarke Please, keep this in mind... ;-)

samdoidge 10y ago
What relevance does this quote have? OP did not say anything is impossible, just that it is not there yet.
RandomOpinion 10y ago
"A witty saying proves nothing." --Voltaire

Findeton 10y ago

We'll see about that. I'm working on something you might find interesting :)

socmag 10y ago
Eager to here more!

staticelf 10y ago

> truly immersive VR A statement like that is so subjective. What is "truly immersive"? I believe it is soon here, at least from my definition of truly immersive.

danielbln 10y ago
It's similar to the moving AI goalpost. At the end of the road, it's Matrix level wetware, though I'm sure at that point there will still be people waiting for "really, actually truly immersive".
- jessaustin 10y ago
  Actually the two senses of "goalpost moving" are opposite. The first AI researchers imagined we'd be having pleasant philosophical debates with our robot butlers by now. Instead we have a network of big iron that can simulate ten chess moves more quickly than well-practiced humans can.
agildehaus 10y ago
I think my Vive is immersive, with the definition that it tricks my brain into believing I'm somewhere else to the extent any technology short of a direct neural interface could. You're never going to "truly" be immersed. You feel your carpet under your feet. You feel the weight of the headset. You don't smell anything. Nothing you pick up weighs anything. The list goes on. Every item breaks "true" immersion to a certain extent. But your brain really loves to be tricked, and the visual does this rather easily. When I'm playing Valve's Xortex 26xxx, I'm in a futuristic room fighting orbs that are shooting at me. My hand is that spaceship. I don't even really care that my FOV is smaller than normal, or that it's a little blurry due to the low resolution. It's good enough that my brain is fooled. When I take off the headset, I generally have NO CLUE where I am in my room because for the entire time my brain didn't know or care. And does it need to be "truly immersive"? No. It just needs to offer experiences that you can't find elsewhere. Try coming even close to the awesomeness of Google Earth VR, for instance.
- 10y ago