4 ms·
I could make the same argument that lack of eye tracking, native speech inference, better locomotion strategies, and higher resolution mean that today's cutting
by soulofmischief 7y ago
I could make the same argument that lack of eye tracking, native speech inference, better locomotion strategies, and higher resolution mean that today's cutting-edge VR headsets will be subject to the same misplaced scrutiny that you're currently giving the cheap, commoditized headsets. It's still Virtual Reality.
- gfodor 7y agoNot really. It’s subjective, but full head and hand tracking is a radically different experience then all sub-options, and the things you mention do not seem to be as radical an improvement in comparison.
- soulofmischief 7y agoThe things I mentioned are critical for increased rendering efficiency and full immersion. One day they will be deemed as essential to the experience, and people will lament current tech as not VR.
- gfodor 7y agoAgree to disagree. I think that 10 years from now, 6dof hand and head tracking will continue to be remembered as the core boundary between VR and not-VR, with the vive and rift being the 1st gen consumer VR devices.
- jdietrich 7y ago>It's still Virtual Reality. It really isn't. 6DoF with hand presence is profoundly, fundamentally different to 3DoF. It's the difference between someone taking off the headset after a brief demo and saying "that was cool" versus someone taking off the headset and needing a moment to recalibrate their sense of reality. 3DoF is a panoramic monitor, 6DoF is being there.
- soulofmischief 7y agoIt's just a better version of Virtual Reality. You don't get to redefine the term we've been using since the 80's. I have an Oculus Rift, I am aware how much better 6DoF is, you don't have to tell me. That doesn't mean 6DoF is a requirement of VR. One day people like you will be saying that VR without eye-tracking and modern locomotion isn't really VR, because it's not as immersive.