4 ms·

Seeing as this is an appropriate thread to shit on VR, why does nobody seem to care about the extreme lack of Field of View on these devices? Most Oculus Rift m

Seeing as this is an appropriate thread to shit on VR, why does nobody seem to care about the extreme lack of Field of View on these devices? Most Oculus Rift models are around 90 degrees, while humans have more than 180, probably closer to 200. Last time I tried VR, the huge black bars stopped me from thinking it was immersive. If the optics are a hurdle to cross, why not at least light up the edges with something reminiscent of Ambilight?

robert_tweed 10y ago
People were prototyping ambilight type stuff back in the DK1 days. Trouble is, it doesn't improve immersion because objects disappearing out of view is still jarring. At least with a black edge you can imagine you're wearing a dive mask. If you want to know what developments are or aren't going to find their way into future VR, track down Michael Abrash's talks from Oculus Connect and other conferences. Realistically much of it is over a 5-10 year timescale, but a lot of research has been done in the last 5 years. Many things that seemed like good ideas in 2012 turned out to be dead ends, and some surprisingly simple things have been discovered (like a "virtual nose" reduces VR-sickness, which nobody anticipated).
moron4hire 10y ago
I don't know why you think nobody cares. It's pretty obvious it will get better as display tech improves, and there are already plenty of prototypes showing that is the case. We just don't think it's important enough of an issue to wait and stay out of the field until it gets better.
jp555 10y ago
Remember PocketPC smartphones? That's about where we are in the VR tech S-curve. They were horrible devices when compared to today's smartphones, just as the VR/AR 5 years from now will make today's tech seem. But we probably still needed the PocketPC to pave the way for the iPhone.
- falcolas 10y ago
  It's worth remembering that we have had VR for well over 20 years now, in one form or another. 5 years seems optimistic given that.
  - whicks 10y ago
    We've had affordable, consumer-grade VR for 20 years? VR that, you know, actually feels like VR? This is coming off a bit snarky, I know, but I've seen this written all over the place and I have to say, the VR we have today is nothing like the VR of twenty or even ten years ago. Not from a consumer standpoint, anyways. I'm not an expert by any means, just some guy on the internet who is excited about the future of VR and has done a bit of reading on this topic.
    - falcolas 10y ago
      Just like the Pocket PC "feels like an iPhone"? It's worth keeping the context of the conversation in mind. The tech behind VR has been available for quite some time, the fact that it's still so limited (and has shown so little growth beyond the existing headsets) doesn't encourage "full surround with high resolutions in 5 years" mentalities.
      - jp555 10y ago
        The machine that makes the machine is what hints rapid developments are coming. That machine is the global smartphone component supply chain. It's a very different environment than when VR was build upon the desktop PC component supply chain, which brought things like the automated bank machine and interactive kiosks.
        falcolas 10y ago
        But that "machine" isn't currently putting a lot of additional effort into moving from 200 DPI displays to 400 DPI displays (most have hit their local maxima of resolution for size); the thing that's sorely needed for a better VR experience. Without that R&D being done by the phone industry, the VR industry will once again stagnate.
GuB-42 10y ago
It is a tradeoff. The wider the FOV, the lower the amount of detail and the more visible screen-door effect is, assuming the same display tech. Higher resolution displays require more computing power. And that power could be invested into more convincing graphics and lower latency. Comfort matters too and better displays and optics can be bulkier and heavier. The final tradeoff is, of course, price. I know there are plans for high FOV headsets. Both cheap and expensive, so wait and see. VR tech is too early for me to invest more than a cardboard.
- drspacemonkey 10y ago
  >And that power could be invested into more convincing graphics and lower latency. Fortunately, that problem is pretty close to being solved on a consumer level. A foveated rendering addon module for the Vive is expected to be shipping soon in China, by Q3 in North America [0]. For anyone unfamiliar with the term, foveated rendering means only rendering high-resolution images in your field of view. Basically, you don't see full detail across your entire field of view - only at the point where your eyes are focused. Everything outside that point can be rendered in lower resolution and you'd never notice the difference. It requires high-speed eye tracking to pull off, but it can greatly reduce the required horsepower to render a convincing VR environment [1]. [0] - https://uploadvr.com/7invensun-eye-tracker-for-vive/ https://uploadvr.com/7invensun-eye-tracker-for-vive/ [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNX0wCdD2LA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNX0wCdD2LA

robert_tweed 10y ago

People were prototyping ambilight type stuff back in the DK1 days. Trouble is, it doesn't improve immersion because objects disappearing out of view is still jarring. At least with a black edge you can imagine you're wearing a dive mask. If you want to know what developments are or aren't going to find their way into future VR, track down Michael Abrash's talks from Oculus Connect and other conferences. Realistically much of it is over a 5-10 year timescale, but a lot of research has been done in the last 5 years. Many things that seemed like good ideas in 2012 turned out to be dead ends, and some surprisingly simple things have been discovered (like a "virtual nose" reduces VR-sickness, which nobody anticipated).

moron4hire 10y ago

I don't know why you think nobody cares. It's pretty obvious it will get better as display tech improves, and there are already plenty of prototypes showing that is the case. We just don't think it's important enough of an issue to wait and stay out of the field until it gets better.

jp555 10y ago

Remember PocketPC smartphones? That's about where we are in the VR tech S-curve. They were horrible devices when compared to today's smartphones, just as the VR/AR 5 years from now will make today's tech seem. But we probably still needed the PocketPC to pave the way for the iPhone.

falcolas 10y ago
It's worth remembering that we have had VR for well over 20 years now, in one form or another. 5 years seems optimistic given that.
- whicks 10y ago
  We've had affordable, consumer-grade VR for 20 years? VR that, you know, actually feels like VR? This is coming off a bit snarky, I know, but I've seen this written all over the place and I have to say, the VR we have today is nothing like the VR of twenty or even ten years ago. Not from a consumer standpoint, anyways. I'm not an expert by any means, just some guy on the internet who is excited about the future of VR and has done a bit of reading on this topic.
  - falcolas 10y ago
    Just like the Pocket PC "feels like an iPhone"? It's worth keeping the context of the conversation in mind. The tech behind VR has been available for quite some time, the fact that it's still so limited (and has shown so little growth beyond the existing headsets) doesn't encourage "full surround with high resolutions in 5 years" mentalities.
    - jp555 10y ago
      The machine that makes the machine is what hints rapid developments are coming. That machine is the global smartphone component supply chain. It's a very different environment than when VR was build upon the desktop PC component supply chain, which brought things like the automated bank machine and interactive kiosks.
      - falcolas 10y ago
        But that "machine" isn't currently putting a lot of additional effort into moving from 200 DPI displays to 400 DPI displays (most have hit their local maxima of resolution for size); the thing that's sorely needed for a better VR experience. Without that R&D being done by the phone industry, the VR industry will once again stagnate.

GuB-42 10y ago

It is a tradeoff. The wider the FOV, the lower the amount of detail and the more visible screen-door effect is, assuming the same display tech. Higher resolution displays require more computing power. And that power could be invested into more convincing graphics and lower latency. Comfort matters too and better displays and optics can be bulkier and heavier. The final tradeoff is, of course, price. I know there are plans for high FOV headsets. Both cheap and expensive, so wait and see. VR tech is too early for me to invest more than a cardboard.

drspacemonkey 10y ago
>And that power could be invested into more convincing graphics and lower latency. Fortunately, that problem is pretty close to being solved on a consumer level. A foveated rendering addon module for the Vive is expected to be shipping soon in China, by Q3 in North America [0]. For anyone unfamiliar with the term, foveated rendering means only rendering high-resolution images in your field of view. Basically, you don't see full detail across your entire field of view - only at the point where your eyes are focused. Everything outside that point can be rendered in lower resolution and you'd never notice the difference. It requires high-speed eye tracking to pull off, but it can greatly reduce the required horsepower to render a convincing VR environment [1]. [0] - https://uploadvr.com/7invensun-eye-tracker-for-vive/ https://uploadvr.com/7invensun-eye-tracker-for-vive/ [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNX0wCdD2LA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNX0wCdD2LA