4 ms·

How is it that there's any actual science left to be done here; when the "VR world" has been spending money in occasional waves since the 90s? Shouldn't all th

How is it that there's any actual science left to be done here; when the "VR world" has been spending money in occasional waves since the 90s? Shouldn't all this research have been done, and published, already? And re-verified, folded, spindled, mutilated, then recycled as firelighters. It's been 30 years and should mostly be adapting numbers optometrists know already.

teddyh 3y ago
The first big VR wave was so early it was almost pre-Internet, so I assume most research was done in corporate silos, like Disney. Those silos are black holes from which no information can escape, so everybody has to re-invent everything.
- h2odragon 3y ago
  1991; I spent a week manning a booth at a construction trade show. We were beside the Autodesk booth, where they had a big show of "VR walk through of the Denver Airport". Several times every day, all week, people would stagger out of the demo and yak into the trash can provided for the purpose... which was just behind us. I think that really showed me the potential of the VR business and the spirit with which it would be pursued.
  - LegitShady 3y ago
    [flagged]
- addaon 3y ago
  1968 was significantly pre-internet [1], even beating out the first of ARPAnet by a few months. [1] https://www.historyofinformation.com/detail.php?id=861 https://www.historyofinformation.com/detail.php?id=861
thebigwinning 3y ago
Since we have a lot of theoretical science, it's easy to imagine everything is solved in engineering. But when you dig into a new application you learn there are tons of gaps in knowledge. There is theory to draw on, but you need to combine and resynthesize to make it into something that works. I have had experiences translating a professional model (similar to optometry prescriptions) and learn the model isn't described well enough to write in software.
jayd16 3y ago
Do you expect everything that existed in the 90s to be "complete" or just VR?
- krisoft 3y ago
  Good question. As a comparison we have been piling up dirt significantly longer than VR has been around and yet the physics of granular materials is still actively researched.
  - h2odragon 3y ago
    the software I was selling at the construction show in 1991 was essentially about piling up dirt. The reason I was there to sell it was that my software had a round up / "fudge factor" applied to the models, based on real world experience; where as the competition consistently under estimated things because they used the nice clean textbook formulas. Just because a machine has a 2.6 yd^2 capacity doesn't mean it will move that much dirt per load. And so on. Applying back to the original discussion of VR; I expect there's been enough time and enough experience with the things like head mounted displays that there shouldn't need to be much original research into "how to do the optics" of same. I'm ignorant of optics generally (and much else) but there should be textbooks and people arguing over where those are wrong and such; by now. For this specialized purpose even. See the amount of literature on LCD displays by comparison; the basic optics there are known, right?
    - moron4hire 3y ago
      We did just have a major breakthrough in HMD optics not more than 10 years ago with "pancake optics" that have only started making it into devices you can actually buy within the last year or two.
washadjeffmad 3y ago
Translation into products requires a study of humans that most companies are ill-equipped to apply. For example, the Oculus/Meta Quest 2 headset only has 3 "IPD" settings, and the face plate was designed to fit a somewhat particular skeletal structure. Notably, while it fits comfortably on my Western friends' faces, none of my East Asian friends or family, including any women, found it bearable (too tight on forehead, tilted downward, light leaking from around nose) or were able to focus it cleanly and assumed "VR was not for them". However, a Japanese headset, often reviewed in English as being too small or uncomfortable, fit me perfectly, and the optics were clearer despite having lower technical specs. How illuminating! I do wish that companies that designed wearables would either disclose the dimensions of their testers or provide what dimensions matter. I'm larger than 50% of the people on the planet, and I fall within a standard deviation of the mean in the United States. However, no product designed by a US tech company has ever fit me. The real answer is probably the same as the Alf Landon election prediction by Literary Digest in 1936. Because they only sent out ballots to addresses of registered car owners and people listed in the relatively new telephone directory, the poll results skewed wealthy, urban, and conservative - class bias in action. Are tech companies in the US making the same mistake?
- reaperman 3y ago
  > Are tech companies in the US making the same mistake? Yes, but slightly different, because they're missing less of their "addressable market" than the Landon prediction was. Their addressable market generally being people outside of Asia who have lots of disposable income. People in Asia tend to buy homegrown products which approach or exceed the quality, are easier to get, and cheaper. People with disposable income outside of Asia still trend toward the Westerner morphology. Still it's amazing with all the East Asians in big tech companies, that so many domestic products seem ill-designed to fit them. Meanwhile tons of my furniture and other items that are designed and manufactured in Asia and then shipped to the USA seem to be shrinking and I don't fit in so many of them anymore. Not sure if that's just selling cheap things that have less material/shipping cost, or if it's matching the optimal sizes for East Asians.
  - washadjeffmad 3y ago
thendrill 3y ago
VR AR researcher here. It is scary once you see what the actual VR research landscape looks like..... There is a clear disconnect between users of vr and vr researchers. I don't know even where to begin. Too much incompetence. Too much disinterest. Too much bullshit just to get grant money. And nobody has any clear idea of what VRs application should be. So far even for me there are very few applications where vr gives an actual advantage for anything. Take it situational awareness, overview, ux, visual quality etc. Most of the vr apps I have seen have no reason to be in vr.
- Darkphibre 3y ago
  I hear ya! One of my hobbies is to be a somewhat known stage & exotic dancer / dance instructor in VR using 5-11pt tracking (depending on my mood and production quality). The number of "features" that get in the way, and lack of representation for VR dancers and performers has been frustrating, especially as the world moves more and more towards 3-point robot avatars. Actually had a chance to provide my perspective to a FAANG Research Group, but I was laid off (and they were disbanded).
- Sohcahtoa82 3y ago
  I can't see VR becoming useful at all for general productivity. AR? Maybe. It'd be cool to have more monitors without taking up space. But even in that use-case, the resolution of current AR/VR tech isn't enough. Even if you did find a way to make VR work for you at work, current headsets are just too heavy to want to wear them 8 hours/day. They're still incredible for gaming, though.
burnte 3y ago
Replace "VR with "cars", and say all this in 1923. Same thing. There's a lot to be done, few domains of knowledge are completely mined in 30 years.
- h2odragon 3y ago
  1923 cars had about the same wheelbase, and steering gear variety, and differentials... the basics were all worked out and agreed on.

teddyh 3y ago

The first big VR wave was so early it was almost pre-Internet, so I assume most research was done in corporate silos, like Disney. Those silos are black holes from which no information can escape, so everybody has to re-invent everything.

h2odragon 3y ago
1991; I spent a week manning a booth at a construction trade show. We were beside the Autodesk booth, where they had a big show of "VR walk through of the Denver Airport". Several times every day, all week, people would stagger out of the demo and yak into the trash can provided for the purpose... which was just behind us. I think that really showed me the potential of the VR business and the spirit with which it would be pursued.
- LegitShady 3y ago
  [flagged]
addaon 3y ago
1968 was significantly pre-internet [1], even beating out the first of ARPAnet by a few months. [1] https://www.historyofinformation.com/detail.php?id=861 https://www.historyofinformation.com/detail.php?id=861

thebigwinning 3y ago

Since we have a lot of theoretical science, it's easy to imagine everything is solved in engineering. But when you dig into a new application you learn there are tons of gaps in knowledge. There is theory to draw on, but you need to combine and resynthesize to make it into something that works. I have had experiences translating a professional model (similar to optometry prescriptions) and learn the model isn't described well enough to write in software.

jayd16 3y ago

Do you expect everything that existed in the 90s to be "complete" or just VR?

krisoft 3y ago
Good question. As a comparison we have been piling up dirt significantly longer than VR has been around and yet the physics of granular materials is still actively researched.
- h2odragon 3y ago
  the software I was selling at the construction show in 1991 was essentially about piling up dirt. The reason I was there to sell it was that my software had a round up / "fudge factor" applied to the models, based on real world experience; where as the competition consistently under estimated things because they used the nice clean textbook formulas. Just because a machine has a 2.6 yd^2 capacity doesn't mean it will move that much dirt per load. And so on. Applying back to the original discussion of VR; I expect there's been enough time and enough experience with the things like head mounted displays that there shouldn't need to be much original research into "how to do the optics" of same. I'm ignorant of optics generally (and much else) but there should be textbooks and people arguing over where those are wrong and such; by now. For this specialized purpose even. See the amount of literature on LCD displays by comparison; the basic optics there are known, right?
  - moron4hire 3y ago
    We did just have a major breakthrough in HMD optics not more than 10 years ago with "pancake optics" that have only started making it into devices you can actually buy within the last year or two.

washadjeffmad 3y ago

Translation into products requires a study of humans that most companies are ill-equipped to apply. For example, the Oculus/Meta Quest 2 headset only has 3 "IPD" settings, and the face plate was designed to fit a somewhat particular skeletal structure. Notably, while it fits comfortably on my Western friends' faces, none of my East Asian friends or family, including any women, found it bearable (too tight on forehead, tilted downward, light leaking from around nose) or were able to focus it cleanly and assumed "VR was not for them". However, a Japanese headset, often reviewed in English as being too small or uncomfortable, fit me perfectly, and the optics were clearer despite having lower technical specs. How illuminating! I do wish that companies that designed wearables would either disclose the dimensions of their testers or provide what dimensions matter. I'm larger than 50% of the people on the planet, and I fall within a standard deviation of the mean in the United States. However, no product designed by a US tech company has ever fit me. The real answer is probably the same as the Alf Landon election prediction by Literary Digest in 1936. Because they only sent out ballots to addresses of registered car owners and people listed in the relatively new telephone directory, the poll results skewed wealthy, urban, and conservative - class bias in action. Are tech companies in the US making the same mistake?

reaperman 3y ago
> Are tech companies in the US making the same mistake? Yes, but slightly different, because they're missing less of their "addressable market" than the Landon prediction was. Their addressable market generally being people outside of Asia who have lots of disposable income. People in Asia tend to buy homegrown products which approach or exceed the quality, are easier to get, and cheaper. People with disposable income outside of Asia still trend toward the Westerner morphology. Still it's amazing with all the East Asians in big tech companies, that so many domestic products seem ill-designed to fit them. Meanwhile tons of my furniture and other items that are designed and manufactured in Asia and then shipped to the USA seem to be shrinking and I don't fit in so many of them anymore. Not sure if that's just selling cheap things that have less material/shipping cost, or if it's matching the optimal sizes for East Asians.
- washadjeffmad 3y ago

thendrill 3y ago

VR AR researcher here. It is scary once you see what the actual VR research landscape looks like..... There is a clear disconnect between users of vr and vr researchers. I don't know even where to begin. Too much incompetence. Too much disinterest. Too much bullshit just to get grant money. And nobody has any clear idea of what VRs application should be. So far even for me there are very few applications where vr gives an actual advantage for anything. Take it situational awareness, overview, ux, visual quality etc. Most of the vr apps I have seen have no reason to be in vr.

Darkphibre 3y ago
I hear ya! One of my hobbies is to be a somewhat known stage & exotic dancer / dance instructor in VR using 5-11pt tracking (depending on my mood and production quality). The number of "features" that get in the way, and lack of representation for VR dancers and performers has been frustrating, especially as the world moves more and more towards 3-point robot avatars. Actually had a chance to provide my perspective to a FAANG Research Group, but I was laid off (and they were disbanded).
Sohcahtoa82 3y ago
I can't see VR becoming useful at all for general productivity. AR? Maybe. It'd be cool to have more monitors without taking up space. But even in that use-case, the resolution of current AR/VR tech isn't enough. Even if you did find a way to make VR work for you at work, current headsets are just too heavy to want to wear them 8 hours/day. They're still incredible for gaming, though.

burnte 3y ago

Replace "VR with "cars", and say all this in 1923. Same thing. There's a lot to be done, few domains of knowledge are completely mined in 30 years.

h2odragon 3y ago
1923 cars had about the same wheelbase, and steering gear variety, and differentials... the basics were all worked out and agreed on.