2 ms·

> The HoloLens has been underwhelming for a lot of people, but I think even today at basically 5 years old, it still has a lot of untapped potential. I was abl

> The HoloLens has been underwhelming for a lot of people, but I think even today at basically 5 years old, it still has a lot of untapped potential. I was able to play with a Hololens a few years back and although very impressive, the field of view was the showstopper. On the plus side, its spatial tracking is impressive. The Hololens viewport is equivalent to a 27 inch monitor held at arm's length whose position is locked to your head and not your eyes which move far more than your head. So you wind up moving your head around a bunch with this heavy headset. Talk about fatigue. Then add to that you can't walk up to something to get in close for a look because the viewport is at arm's length, anything in virtual space between your eyes and the viewport is out of frame and invisible. So you can't lean in for a closer look. After a while of wandering about while gyrating your weighted head around, you quickly tire of it. AR devices like these are pretty damn impressive and quite useful beyond entertainment. But they need to shed some weight, increase the viewport and therefore the immersiveness. Though, the holy grail and killer feature they really need is eye tracking. The key is to eliminate that awkward disconnect between the virtual world and reality by keeping things in line with your eyes and not your head.

moron4hire 8y ago
> The Hololens viewport is equivalent to a 27 inch monitor held at arm's length You must have really long arms. It's a lot worse than that. But that's why I said it's best when you augment real world objects. The focus becomes the object, it maintains the object-permanency on its own, the graphics come along for the ride. > Then add to that you can't walk up to something to get in close for a look because the viewport is at arm's length That is a per-application choice, though Microsoft does officially recommend a near-plane of no less than 1m. I've personally been able to make experiences that were comfortable at 0.5m, if the graphics were small, and again, anchored to some real-world object. Yes, better devices will make better experiences. But we have the HoloLens (and Magic Leap) right now. And clients are paying now. There is work that can be done.
- MisterTea 8y ago
  This was about three years back I think. The measurement was a rough estimate made by walking up to a 27 inch imac until the view port disappeared which was roughly the size of the 27 screen. Perhaps I was being generous.

moron4hire 8y ago

> The Hololens viewport is equivalent to a 27 inch monitor held at arm's length You must have really long arms. It's a lot worse than that. But that's why I said it's best when you augment real world objects. The focus becomes the object, it maintains the object-permanency on its own, the graphics come along for the ride. > Then add to that you can't walk up to something to get in close for a look because the viewport is at arm's length That is a per-application choice, though Microsoft does officially recommend a near-plane of no less than 1m. I've personally been able to make experiences that were comfortable at 0.5m, if the graphics were small, and again, anchored to some real-world object. Yes, better devices will make better experiences. But we have the HoloLens (and Magic Leap) right now. And clients are paying now. There is work that can be done.

MisterTea 8y ago
This was about three years back I think. The measurement was a rough estimate made by walking up to a 27 inch imac until the view port disappeared which was roughly the size of the 27 screen. Perhaps I was being generous.