5 ms·
I always figured that AR had much less of a latency problem. Because you still retain the actual world as a visual the mismatch between inertial and visual move
by rocqua 7y ago
I always figured that AR had much less of a latency problem. Because you still retain the actual world as a visual the mismatch between inertial and visual movements is less bad.
This means less nausea, better balance for users, and a much less visceral impact of glitches.
- Retric 7y agoI think it’s the other way, with AR your virtual objects that interact with the environment are going to float around independent of the background unless you have extremely low latency rendering. At a guess people would find this both distracting and quickly get sick. It’s only safe if all your doing is displaying a virtual clock floating around or whatever.
- im3w1l 7y agoGive me a floating HUD please! And I don't just want a clock, I want a calendar and a map please. And that's just the lowest common denominator stuff. I imagine different groups could use other stuff. Maybe blood sugar for diabetes sufferers? Maybe some stuff that integrates with sports/games?
- SomeOldThrow 7y agoI want ad block for billboards and street ads.
- keenmaster 7y agoOr propaganda block for countries with dictators. Usually their face is plastered everywhere to remind everyone of their benevolent master.
- monsieurbanana 7y agoBut... on what? Something a la google glasses?
- meheleventyone 7y agoThe latency problem for AR is way more about objects feeling grounded. As soon as you get any float as the registration fails so does the illusion. Latency also makes precise placement in the real world really hard so limits applications AR will work within.
- rocqua 7y agoBut the failure mode is different. Float breaks the illusion, but an overlay showing e.g. tagged objects, or dimensions of a box, remains intelligible even with some 'float'. Meanwhile, latency in VR gives the feeling that 'the entire world is slightly wrong'. I imagine working despite the first problem is a lot easier than working despite the second one.
- jandrewrogers 7y agoThe interesting challenge AR has that VR does not is the backend infrastructure requirements. For most AR applications you are synthesizing content from relationships in myriad external sensor systems continuously in real-time. VR requires a glorified game engine to a first approximation, a well-behaved Newtonian universe. There is a strong implication in AR applications that there exists a single logical model of physical reality behind the scenes, continuously updated from multimodal sensor and other data sources. Not only does this enable strong interoperability of individual user contexts in real-time, but giving everyone their own narrow model of physical reality will not scale in any case, the infrastructure needs to be shared. Any single user is seeing a contextually relevant and very tiny slice of that backend spatial data model. Companies cannot handle offline spatial processing of complex multimodal sensor data models at the required scales today, platforms don't exist with the necessary capabilities and architecture. AR is trying to do it on sensor feeds in real-time in a shared, event-driven environment at the same scales. The design and implementation of any such platform will be an extremely impressive engineering feat. Autonomous systems have a similar platform engineering problem. Think of it as machines requiring a real-time contextual view of their local physical reality synthesized from diverse sensor feeds, many of which are external. Very similar to the AR problem at a computer science level.