Thanks, no apologies needed. I didn't mean to come off snarky either. And I obviously am not averse to unnecessarily long messages. As an aside, Valve's tracki

Thanks, no apologies needed. I didn't mean to come off snarky either. And I obviously am not averse to unnecessarily long messages. As an aside, Valve's tracking solution is much less USB-intensive than Oculus's. In Valve's Lighthouse system, sensors on the HMD and controllers use the angle of a laser sweep to calculate their absolute position in a room and provide the dead reckoning needed to correct IMU drift. As a result, the only data being sent over USB is the stream of sensor data and position (I believe sensor fusion still occurs in the SDK, not on device). Oculus's Constellation system uses IR cameras, synchronized to an IR LED array on the HMD and controllers. The entire 1080p (or 720p, if used over USB2) video images (from 2 through 4 cameras, depending on configuration) are sent via USB to the PC. This is in addition to the IMU data coming from the controllers. The SDK performs image processing to recognize the position of the LEDs in the images, triangulate their position, perform sensor fusion, and produce an absolute position. The net result is roughly equivalent tracking between the two systems, but the USB and CPU overhead for Rift is greater (it's estimated that 1%-2% of CPU is used for image processing per sensor, but the Oculus SDK appears to have some performance advantages that allow equivalent performance on apps despite this overhead). There is great debate over which is the more "advanced" solution. Lighthouse is wickedly clever, allowing a performant solution over larger tracking volumes with fewer cables and sensors. Constellation is pretty brute-force, but requires highly accurate image recognition algorithms that (some say) give Oculus a leg-up in next generation tracking with no external sensors (see the Santa Cruz prototype[1] which is a PC-free device that uses 4 cameras on the HMD and on-board image processing to determine absolute position using only real-world cues). It also opens the door to full-body tracking using similar outside-in sensors. But overall, the Valve solution definitely lends itself to a Linux implementation better than Oculus's, simply due to the lower I/O requirements. It also helps that Valve has published the Lighthouse calculations (which is just basic math), while Oculus has kept its image recognition algorithms as trade secrets. [1] https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/10/wireless-oculus-vr-grows-up-with-new-incredible-santa-cruz-demos/ https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/10/wireless-oculus-vr-gr...