5 ms·

Unfortunately VR turned out to be an intensely nauseating puke fest for a lot of people.

thrower123 7y ago
Same as the last go round. In ten years, a new generation will think that this time, they know how to do it right. Maybe the hardware will even. have caught up.
- K0SM0S 7y ago
  I'm still convinced we'll have "good enough" barebones yet spatially aware AR first. It's just less intensive on the front end side, which is the limiting factor now as I understand it. VR is a whole other thing, and I think the "uncanny valley" stretches quite far; ie you need quality really close to what we see in movies to pass the acceptable threshold beyond a few hours of novelty.
  - randomidiot666 7y ago
    VR sickness still applies, even if you have perfectly realistic rendering, infinite frame rate, infinite resolution, perfect tracking, and zero latency. It's caused by a discrepancy between the visual and vestibular systems. That problem cannot be solved by higher quality rendering.
    - jobigoud 7y ago
      It's only a problem if you are moving in the virtual world using a different method than what your body is using in the real world. If the VR world is a simple 1:1 mapping and you can walk around in it as you do in the physical space, there is no vection.
      - randomidiot666 7y ago
        Yes that's right. But that's a limited scenario. Not the true unbounded VR experience that we really wanted.
        K0SM0S 7y ago
        I was thinking more along the lines of neural connections, and you probably sitting in some comfy chair physically while roaming in your mind. You know, however sci-fi "solves" VR. I agree with your sentiment, current "let's put displays on a headset" approach seems way too old school to me. A 20th century (flawed) solution to a true 21st century problem (much more than elec. tech it's bio-extension, very rich cognitive interface).
swalsh 7y ago
To some people it's the only way they play any games (that's me)

Same as the last go round. In ten years, a new generation will think that this time, they know how to do it right. Maybe the hardware will even. have caught up.

K0SM0S 7y ago
I'm still convinced we'll have "good enough" barebones yet spatially aware AR first. It's just less intensive on the front end side, which is the limiting factor now as I understand it. VR is a whole other thing, and I think the "uncanny valley" stretches quite far; ie you need quality really close to what we see in movies to pass the acceptable threshold beyond a few hours of novelty.
- randomidiot666 7y ago
  VR sickness still applies, even if you have perfectly realistic rendering, infinite frame rate, infinite resolution, perfect tracking, and zero latency. It's caused by a discrepancy between the visual and vestibular systems. That problem cannot be solved by higher quality rendering.
  - jobigoud 7y ago
    It's only a problem if you are moving in the virtual world using a different method than what your body is using in the real world. If the VR world is a simple 1:1 mapping and you can walk around in it as you do in the physical space, there is no vection.
    - randomidiot666 7y ago
      Yes that's right. But that's a limited scenario. Not the true unbounded VR experience that we really wanted.
      - K0SM0S 7y ago
        I was thinking more along the lines of neural connections, and you probably sitting in some comfy chair physically while roaming in your mind. You know, however sci-fi "solves" VR. I agree with your sentiment, current "let's put displays on a headset" approach seems way too old school to me. A 20th century (flawed) solution to a true 21st century problem (much more than elec. tech it's bio-extension, very rich cognitive interface).

swalsh 7y ago

To some people it's the only way they play any games (that's me)