3 ms·

> This is because sub-par VR technology (e.g. the Quest 2) Calling horseshit on that, I have a Quest 2 and it is a brilliant bit of kit for 1/10th the price.

> This is because sub-par VR technology (e.g. the Quest 2) Calling horseshit on that, I have a Quest 2 and it is a brilliant bit of kit for 1/10th the price. Is it a VRPC or whatever they are on about, no - it was clearly not intended to be, is it the sweetspot for VR right now, yep and it works fantastically when connected to a PC or standalone, the boy loves it.

georgewsinger 5y ago
I should rephrase that sentence. Agreed the Quest 2 is a great device for its price. What I mean to say is that the Quest 2 isn't pushing the current limits for VR pixel density (by having a high Pixels-Per-Degree aka PPD). High PPD is important for gaming but extremely important for VR computing/office, since it heavily impacts how high quality text and other fine details (icons, etc) show up for you. This is one of the main drivers of our high price. Since we're trying to get people to work in a VR headset for 8+ hours in a day (replacing their PCs/laptops as their primary computing device), we needed to offer as high a PPD as we possibly can. This requires state of the art displays and a compute unit powerful enough to power the rendering. We also have a special text filter in Simula which is optimized specifically for text rendering. There are other problems with the Quest 2 as well, but low PPD is the most important one. Price is definitely not one of its problems (though its low price is being subsidized by its bringing people into the Facebook ecosystem, etc). The Quest 2 is primarily a gaming/entertainment device, and it does a pretty good job at that. The Simula One is primarily a VRC (though it can be used for gaming in Tethered mode).
- gs17 5y ago
  The Quest also isn't pushing the limits for FOV either, compared to my usual headset it feels like goggles. I'm impressed if the Simula really beats it on both of these.
  - kanetw 5y ago
    We put in a lot of effort into the optics and we use variable magnification tech to get the most out of our displays (i.e. there's more pixels per degree in the foveal region, and less in the periphery where you can't see them anyways). The drawback is that the optical train is long and there's 3 complex lenses as opposed to 1 glued assembly (not sure if it's 1 or 2 lenses). Adds per-unit cost and assembly labor, and at a $300 ($800 realistically) price point that's a lot.
a7b3fa 5y ago
The full quote is: > This is because sub-par VR technology (e.g. the Quest 2) is simply not good enough for someone wanting to work several hours per day in a VR Computer instead of their laptop -- even if most people don't realize this yet. Do you mean that the Quest 2 is good enough to do, say, programming work on for several hours a day, or just that it's a decently good gaming headset? The last VR headset I tried was the Oculus Rift, and that was nowhere near being usable for work. I'm really curious about the SimulaVR, but it's a bit outside my price range. So if you use the Quest 2 for work, I'd love to hear about your experience with it -- what software do you use, is the resolution good enough for working with text for hours at a time, etc.
- ptom 5y ago
  I use the Quest 2 almost exclusively for my day job as a programmer (any time I don't have to be on camera in meetings), and have been using VR to do this for years - I'm the guy behind this article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28678041 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28678041 The Quest 2 is remarkably capable for its form factor, but has some significant limitations and requires a lot of babysitting to get it tuned "just so" to make it that productive. Reaching that flow state, or even making it more productive than a traditional physical screen layout, isn't particularly accessible, certainly not yet on a mass appeal level. So yeah, it can work, but there's a LOT of room for improvement.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- psyc 5y ago
  I used a Quest 2 for work for a few weeks while my monitor was being repaired. My biggest problem was not being able to see the keyboard. The display was not a problem for me. I was quite glad to have my monitor back anyway. For that matter, for all of the PCVR games I was so excited to play, I've gone back to playing them mostly on the monitor. I'm quite happy with the Quest 2 visuals, but the comfort (for longer periods) and controls are inferior for anything more complex than beat saber and golf.
- caitlinface 5y ago

georgewsinger 5y ago

I should rephrase that sentence. Agreed the Quest 2 is a great device for its price. What I mean to say is that the Quest 2 isn't pushing the current limits for VR pixel density (by having a high Pixels-Per-Degree aka PPD). High PPD is important for gaming but extremely important for VR computing/office, since it heavily impacts how high quality text and other fine details (icons, etc) show up for you. This is one of the main drivers of our high price. Since we're trying to get people to work in a VR headset for 8+ hours in a day (replacing their PCs/laptops as their primary computing device), we needed to offer as high a PPD as we possibly can. This requires state of the art displays and a compute unit powerful enough to power the rendering. We also have a special text filter in Simula which is optimized specifically for text rendering. There are other problems with the Quest 2 as well, but low PPD is the most important one. Price is definitely not one of its problems (though its low price is being subsidized by its bringing people into the Facebook ecosystem, etc). The Quest 2 is primarily a gaming/entertainment device, and it does a pretty good job at that. The Simula One is primarily a VRC (though it can be used for gaming in Tethered mode).

gs17 5y ago
The Quest also isn't pushing the limits for FOV either, compared to my usual headset it feels like goggles. I'm impressed if the Simula really beats it on both of these.
- kanetw 5y ago
  We put in a lot of effort into the optics and we use variable magnification tech to get the most out of our displays (i.e. there's more pixels per degree in the foveal region, and less in the periphery where you can't see them anyways). The drawback is that the optical train is long and there's 3 complex lenses as opposed to 1 glued assembly (not sure if it's 1 or 2 lenses). Adds per-unit cost and assembly labor, and at a $300 ($800 realistically) price point that's a lot.

a7b3fa 5y ago

The full quote is: > This is because sub-par VR technology (e.g. the Quest 2) is simply not good enough for someone wanting to work several hours per day in a VR Computer instead of their laptop -- even if most people don't realize this yet. Do you mean that the Quest 2 is good enough to do, say, programming work on for several hours a day, or just that it's a decently good gaming headset? The last VR headset I tried was the Oculus Rift, and that was nowhere near being usable for work. I'm really curious about the SimulaVR, but it's a bit outside my price range. So if you use the Quest 2 for work, I'd love to hear about your experience with it -- what software do you use, is the resolution good enough for working with text for hours at a time, etc.

ptom 5y ago
I use the Quest 2 almost exclusively for my day job as a programmer (any time I don't have to be on camera in meetings), and have been using VR to do this for years - I'm the guy behind this article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28678041 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28678041 The Quest 2 is remarkably capable for its form factor, but has some significant limitations and requires a lot of babysitting to get it tuned "just so" to make it that productive. Reaching that flow state, or even making it more productive than a traditional physical screen layout, isn't particularly accessible, certainly not yet on a mass appeal level. So yeah, it can work, but there's a LOT of room for improvement.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
psyc 5y ago
I used a Quest 2 for work for a few weeks while my monitor was being repaired. My biggest problem was not being able to see the keyboard. The display was not a problem for me. I was quite glad to have my monitor back anyway. For that matter, for all of the PCVR games I was so excited to play, I've gone back to playing them mostly on the monitor. I'm quite happy with the Quest 2 visuals, but the comfort (for longer periods) and controls are inferior for anything more complex than beat saber and golf.
caitlinface 5y ago