4 ms·
Hmm i have to think about this some more but my initial thinking is that they are approaching VR research the wrong way.
by ThomPete 9y ago
Hmm i have to think about this some more but my initial thinking is that they are approaching VR research the wrong way.
- sp332 9y agoI'm really curious why you would make the first comment here so negative if you don't really know what they're doing and don't have anything to add.
- jacquesm 9y ago5+ years on HN and you are still wondering about this?
- ThomPete 9y agoI wasn't trying to be negative. I am not talking about the technical side but about the philosophical. And there I do know what they are doing as they explained this themselves. What stood out for me was this. "We don’t think VR’s power is in simulating reality." This literally flies in the phase of said reality, case in point flight simulation. Furthermore so many upcoming uses for remote controlling robots in space, large machinery in toxic places, the ability to help children with autism. I could go on. There are an extremely large amount of real value and real power in simulating reality exactly because it allow us to test hypotheses, train and remote control, furthermore any robot worth it's salt need to be able to simulate reality. In other words. The very basic premise IMO is flawed if they don't think the power is in that. Anyway I certainly didn't want to claim they don't know how to do their research, just think that their premise is rather flawed if they really believe there is no power in simulating reality.