3 ms·

The passthrough isn't supposed to be able to read an eye chart. The actual displayed screens look very good though.

by 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago

batch12 4y ago
You're not supposed to be able to see well through the device?
- jayd16 4y ago
  It's not promising to be able to drive with it. You can have the device on and see other people and the space around you while still interacting with virtual objects. You can safely operate the device in a cluttered space without clearing a 3x3 meter space.
- vineyardmike 4y ago
  It’s meant to be good enough to see someone walk up to you or not hit something like a dog underfoot. Maybe find a keyboard key instead of only touch type. It’s not meant to be as clear as your glasses so you can drive or take a vision test.
- gkoberger 4y ago
  Well, I'm sure in future versions it will be a lot better. But my experience with my Meta Quest Pro is that it's more for getting a vague idea of your surroundings than just interacting with them. For me, the only time I've seen it pop up is when I step out of my "zone". Rather than just flashing red, I get a vague understanding of where I'm standing and who's nearby. I've never had a problem with it at all, even though I acknowledge the picture isn't particularly great.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - Shank 4y ago
    > But my experience with my Meta Quest Pro is that it's more for getting a vague idea of your surroundings than just interacting with them. The point of the article is that this experience, while good, is juxtaposed with Meta's marketing claim that it's a mixed reality device. You're saying the device is good at the thing the author says it was probably built for. Mixed reality implies that you're seamlessly switching between environments, as if there wasn't a distinction.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  I thought the purpose was to maintain awareness of surroundings while using the headset which it accomplishes. Not pass an eye test. It's bad at doing a thing that's window dressing.
MBCook 4y ago
Do you have a citation for Meta saying something like that? The article implies they’ve been hyping up AR (which matches my tiny knowledge of the product) and that seems useless if the Reality part of AR is blurry.
- zmmmmm 4y ago
  > The article implies they’ve been hyping up AR The article is effectively lying. Try searching their page [0] for augmented reality. It's not there. They refer to "mixed reality" specifically because that is actually different to AR, specifically in the sense that "reality" is not the primary focus of the experience. [0] https://www.meta.com/au/quest/quest-pro/ https://www.meta.com/au/quest/quest-pro/
judge2020 4y ago
Right under the price on this page https://www.meta.com/quest/quest-pro/ https://www.meta.com/quest/quest-pro/ the first feature is AR / passthrough. In fact, most of the page is dedicated to things other than gaming. > With breakthrough high resolution mixed reality you can engage effortlessly with the virtual world while maintaining presence in your physical space in hi-def color.
- sroussey 4y ago
  Hi-def when compared to their previous product only.
- zmmmmm 4y ago
  It literally never says AR. It says "mixed reality". In mixed reality, the pass through (real world) quality is secondary to the virtual objects that are rendered within it. These virtual are rendered at high resolution, hence we have "high resolution" mixed reality. People seem to just not understand that mixed reality is different to augmented reality?
  - randallsquared 4y ago
    I promise you that "Well, technically..." is a losing marketing proposition. MR just comes off as "AR, but not very good at it".
  - kibwen 4y ago
    > People seem to just not understand that mixed reality is different to augmented reality? I can't help but feel that this is a distinction without merit. It appears to be jargon designed to muddy the waters and deflect criticism.

The passthrough isn't supposed to be able to read an eye chart. The actual displayed screens look very good though.

batch12 4y ago

You're not supposed to be able to see well through the device?

jayd16 4y ago
It's not promising to be able to drive with it. You can have the device on and see other people and the space around you while still interacting with virtual objects. You can safely operate the device in a cluttered space without clearing a 3x3 meter space.
vineyardmike 4y ago
It’s meant to be good enough to see someone walk up to you or not hit something like a dog underfoot. Maybe find a keyboard key instead of only touch type. It’s not meant to be as clear as your glasses so you can drive or take a vision test.
gkoberger 4y ago
Well, I'm sure in future versions it will be a lot better. But my experience with my Meta Quest Pro is that it's more for getting a vague idea of your surroundings than just interacting with them. For me, the only time I've seen it pop up is when I step out of my "zone". Rather than just flashing red, I get a vague understanding of where I'm standing and who's nearby. I've never had a problem with it at all, even though I acknowledge the picture isn't particularly great.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Shank 4y ago
  > But my experience with my Meta Quest Pro is that it's more for getting a vague idea of your surroundings than just interacting with them. The point of the article is that this experience, while good, is juxtaposed with Meta's marketing claim that it's a mixed reality device. You're saying the device is good at the thing the author says it was probably built for. Mixed reality implies that you're seamlessly switching between environments, as if there wasn't a distinction.
2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
I thought the purpose was to maintain awareness of surroundings while using the headset which it accomplishes. Not pass an eye test. It's bad at doing a thing that's window dressing.

MBCook 4y ago

Do you have a citation for Meta saying something like that? The article implies they’ve been hyping up AR (which matches my tiny knowledge of the product) and that seems useless if the Reality part of AR is blurry.

zmmmmm 4y ago
> The article implies they’ve been hyping up AR The article is effectively lying. Try searching their page [0] for augmented reality. It's not there. They refer to "mixed reality" specifically because that is actually different to AR, specifically in the sense that "reality" is not the primary focus of the experience. [0] https://www.meta.com/au/quest/quest-pro/ https://www.meta.com/au/quest/quest-pro/

judge2020 4y ago

Right under the price on this page https://www.meta.com/quest/quest-pro/ https://www.meta.com/quest/quest-pro/ the first feature is AR / passthrough. In fact, most of the page is dedicated to things other than gaming. > With breakthrough high resolution mixed reality you can engage effortlessly with the virtual world while maintaining presence in your physical space in hi-def color.

sroussey 4y ago
Hi-def when compared to their previous product only.
zmmmmm 4y ago
It literally never says AR. It says "mixed reality". In mixed reality, the pass through (real world) quality is secondary to the virtual objects that are rendered within it. These virtual are rendered at high resolution, hence we have "high resolution" mixed reality. People seem to just not understand that mixed reality is different to augmented reality?
- randallsquared 4y ago
  I promise you that "Well, technically..." is a losing marketing proposition. MR just comes off as "AR, but not very good at it".
- kibwen 4y ago
  > People seem to just not understand that mixed reality is different to augmented reality? I can't help but feel that this is a distinction without merit. It appears to be jargon designed to muddy the waters and deflect criticism.