4 ms·

I have always been a VR skeptic. I interned at NASA Ames in the 90s. My sponsor was working on VR. They had two devices, a (very expensive) commercial headse

I have always been a VR skeptic. I interned at NASA Ames in the 90s. My sponsor was working on VR. They had two devices, a (very expensive) commercial headset with 256x256 stereo resolution, and a homemade augmented reality (AR) device using 50% silvered lenses and wireframe. The system was driven by an SGI Onyx, and before that a Skywriter, using custom serial port drivers[0]. The goal was to research people's ability to complete VR tasks under differing circumstances: latency, frame rate, and so forth. One of the most common tasks was a VR variant of the buzz ring game[1]. It was exciting, and the wonders of VR when it's working and you're not sick really can't be overstated. Even that old primitive system had magic, and I always enjoyed imagining the games of the future. We had a bunch of people in and out of the lab to be experiment subjects. And as lab techs, we were always "volunteered" as well. What I observed from watching this for a few years was that some people just can't use VR. There was one person, I think a grad student, who had poor balance and underperformed at most tasks relative to the mean. Nobody cared, as it was only data collection, and he was still a data point. Until one day he came in with a cold and congested sinuses. I'll never forget: the moment he put on the VR headset, he toppled backward like a chopped tree. First slowly, then all at once. No reflex or anything! He just started leaning over at the heels. He would have come crashing down onto thinly-carpeted concrete at full speed had my (neither young nor large) boss jumped up and caught him. That was his last time in the helmet. We had a few more subjects through who performed similarly poorly. My guess—empirical, but still a guess— would be 15-20% of the population lacks some kind of proprioception that makes them vulnerable to falls and injury using VR. Obviously VR is fun, and extremely engaging. I'm sure it won't be going away as the tech gets smaller and cheaper. But I don't think it will ever become a primary interface; how can it when 1/5 of the population can't use it safely? [0] The custom drivers, used for the positioning sensors, reduced input latency by 40ms to 10. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KZgD053xXI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KZgD053xXI

paperwasp42 6y ago
I fall into that 15-20%. I'm quite tech savvy and spend a lot of time in front of screens, so it's odd that I react so poorly to VR. But I simply can't balance while using a VR headset. Interestingly, I have a neuromuscular disease. I would guess this is part of the issue, even though I don't experience dizziness/lack of balance as a day-to-day issue. A friend of mine has similar issues. She has chronic sinusitis, so I wonder if that is the cause. Anyway, I have to agree with you here. It's going to be a bit difficult for VR to catch on if 1/5 of your friend group can't play/participate without injuring themselves. The question is, how common is this really? And if it is common, would growing up with VR make the next generation less likely to have these issues? Or is it an immutable problem for people with certain brain structures or health issues?
viklove 6y ago
I think back in the 90s the tech just wasn't there yet. Reducing latency, increasing framerate, and increasing resolution makes a huge difference to the VR experience. The difference between 256x256 and QHD+ is huge. Valve has a lot of data on user comfort while in VR, you should look it up if you're interested. Their figures put it around 20% of the population being uncomfortable with VR (at first), and continued usage can make things better for them. Definitely not just "locked out" of using VR entirely, as you suggest.
- ericbarrett 6y ago
  Disagree—we had the input-to-view-update latency down to 16ms; in other words, a 60 FPS frame reflected the position and orientation of the user on the immediately previous frame. This is lower latency than achievable nowadays with consumer hardware. Subject mis-performance and discomfort was still trending downward at this very low level, and several people still reported discomfort and nausea, albeit at a slightly lower rate than, say, 100ms.
  - viklove 6y ago
    Regardless, it's disingenuous to say that the experience offered by HL Alyx on a Valve Index is comparable to what you're describing. Valve was pretty firm on their requirement for 90 FPS, for example, because they insisted that anything lower left users feeling nauseous. Not to mention the rendering of virtual words is far better than what you could have offered in the 90s. Speaking from experience, even 90fps is too low. I get a lot more with my current setup, so consumer electronics are better than you think. VR has come a long way, and has a long way to go. These problems will be overcome as the tech gets better.

paperwasp42 6y ago

I fall into that 15-20%. I'm quite tech savvy and spend a lot of time in front of screens, so it's odd that I react so poorly to VR. But I simply can't balance while using a VR headset. Interestingly, I have a neuromuscular disease. I would guess this is part of the issue, even though I don't experience dizziness/lack of balance as a day-to-day issue. A friend of mine has similar issues. She has chronic sinusitis, so I wonder if that is the cause. Anyway, I have to agree with you here. It's going to be a bit difficult for VR to catch on if 1/5 of your friend group can't play/participate without injuring themselves. The question is, how common is this really? And if it is common, would growing up with VR make the next generation less likely to have these issues? Or is it an immutable problem for people with certain brain structures or health issues?

viklove 6y ago

I think back in the 90s the tech just wasn't there yet. Reducing latency, increasing framerate, and increasing resolution makes a huge difference to the VR experience. The difference between 256x256 and QHD+ is huge. Valve has a lot of data on user comfort while in VR, you should look it up if you're interested. Their figures put it around 20% of the population being uncomfortable with VR (at first), and continued usage can make things better for them. Definitely not just "locked out" of using VR entirely, as you suggest.

ericbarrett 6y ago
Disagree—we had the input-to-view-update latency down to 16ms; in other words, a 60 FPS frame reflected the position and orientation of the user on the immediately previous frame. This is lower latency than achievable nowadays with consumer hardware. Subject mis-performance and discomfort was still trending downward at this very low level, and several people still reported discomfort and nausea, albeit at a slightly lower rate than, say, 100ms.
- viklove 6y ago
  Regardless, it's disingenuous to say that the experience offered by HL Alyx on a Valve Index is comparable to what you're describing. Valve was pretty firm on their requirement for 90 FPS, for example, because they insisted that anything lower left users feeling nauseous. Not to mention the rendering of virtual words is far better than what you could have offered in the 90s. Speaking from experience, even 90fps is too low. I get a lot more with my current setup, so consumer electronics are better than you think. VR has come a long way, and has a long way to go. These problems will be overcome as the tech gets better.