4 ms·

I find it extremely disappointing, when a group is attempting to innovate on a problem that is very clearly difficult, and someone comes along to say "I'm sorry

I find it extremely disappointing, when a group is attempting to innovate on a problem that is very clearly difficult, and someone comes along to say "I'm sorry, but this can't work." The researchers are obviously aware of the challenges and working to overcome them. No one is confused to think that an omnidirectional-treadmill can capture the true physics of walking. The researchers are working to get it as close as possible. Naysaying, in cases like this, is not a virtuous skill.

forrestthewoods 3y ago
Strong agree. It’s boring, lazy, and wrong. The Apollo program is notorious for inventing all kinds of technologies as part of the effort. We should celebrate ambitious “moon shot” (or loon shot) efforts. It’s awesome when companies support ambitious and crazy efforts. These projects often pay all kinds of unexpected dividends. In both technological development and people development. Was landing on the moon useful? Not really, no. Was the effort to land on the moon useful? Hell yeah it was. Kudos to all the companies that fund bonafide research.
jackcosgrove 3y ago
I don't even think this is the biggest problem in VR, and it's mostly solved. I used a Quest 2 for the first time the other day. It was a very simple environment, a single room you could walk around in. There was a desk in the middle. I tried to lean my elbow on the desk and almost fell over :/ So kudos to the Disney team.
mft_ 3y ago
One could construct a spectrum, from outright pessimism through 'naysaying' and 'reasonable skepticism', ending up somewhere in the region of constructive challenge and helpful pressure-testing discussion. Would all stations on this spectrum be disappointing to you, or is there a line to be drawn? And if so, how would you explain your reasoning? --- (I ask this not to be awkward, but because I've often mused over something similar myself, when frustrated by the knee-jerk challenge offered by some folks to new or positive ideas.)
- khazhoux 3y ago
  I agree, it's certainly a spectrum. Theranos comes to mind as one end of that spectrum. But in that case, the naysaying was around the physical impossibility of their core proposition. And, that was not a case where "good enough" was fine. The fact that they kept their supposed invention secret was another good reason to naysay. Here, Disney is demonstrating their result and progress. I didn't see if there was a research paper attached, but I would fully expect it to openly discuss the limitations.
bee_rider 3y ago
I think they are talking not to Disney Research, but to the people excited by Disney Research. I’m of the opinion that we should just let people be excited about things, but I can see the mindset that doesn’t want people to be set up for disappointment.
skybrian 3y ago
It could have hedged a bit, but the article is a pretty detailed explanation of the challenge from someone who has used one before. It's useful information to people who haven't thought it through. So yes, I'm sure the Disney researchers are aware of the problems, which makes me wonder what they're really up to. Is it just another rigged demo? Will they ever ship?
Karellen 3y ago
People Who Say It Cannot Be Done Should Not Interrupt Those Who Are Doing It https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/01/26/doing/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/01/26/doing/
Invictus0 3y ago
This is the "stick my head in the sand" techno-optimist take. The physics of our world defines what is possible, and no amount of "trying to innovate" can overcome, for instance, the poor economics of the Hyperloop or flying cars. This author makes a compelling argument that the physics underlying the human vestibular system is unable to handle the Omni treadmill, even with a technically perfect implementation. You can't just "innovate" past physics.
- CBarkleyU 3y ago
  Don't use poor economics with physical impossibilities interchangeably. It's something that my late ICE professor did all the time about EVs in the mid 2000s up until his death in the mid 2010s. He was extremely bright, very knowledgeable and pretty much "the" in his little ICE niche and yet he was always talking about how EVs wouldn't be teh future because [physically possible but outlandish thing]. Energy density, price per kwh, weight, battery management, charging infrastructure. All things that he was all to happy with going on national TV to declare that EVs were a pipe dream. Unfortunately he died at a young age and didn't get to see the EV revolution and the Tesla Model Y selling more units than his beloved Golf in Europe. The thing is, and that's my actual point, you can't innovate past physics, but you sure can innovate past poor economics.
lispisok 3y ago
That's what Theranos said
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
nerdjon 3y ago
I have to agree. For me it’s the headline that particularly bothers me. It’s clickbait and cheapens the real points they are making. The real problem here is how the media has latched onto it. When Disney showed it, it felt like they showed and talked about it in an intentional way. People took it and severely exaggerated what it can do. Until we see this technology implemented in something we don’t know what they are really intending to simulate here.
janoc 3y ago
I find it extremely disappointing when someone who clearly knows what they are talking about tries to do a bit of a reality check on something that is clearly being uncritically hyped by the press - and then instead of someone actually refuting their arguments they get accused of "naysaying". Yay. As if laws of physics or biology cared about our attempts to circumvent them or trying really really hard/throwing money at the problem. All that it takes is to work hard and sufficient media hype, right? That's not how things work. E.g. people are trying to build "free energy machines" and perpetuum mobiles since centuries ago - so schools teaching that it is not possible are also "naysayers"? I happen to agree with the author of that blog. I have worked in that field for over 20 years, have tried several of those treadmills (probably most of the ones that made rounds in recent years) - and no, they really don't work outside of very niche applications. Sure, one can make them physically work (aka it somewhat lets you move around) - but the movement is very clearly unnatural to the user, you have to "learn" how to walk on them (and get on and off safely!). Without a restraint of some sort (harness, frame, railing, etc.) they are at a major risk of injury too. Running or jumping on these devices is usually a quick way to the hospital. It is simply not at all a practical solution to locomotion in virtual reality. The funny thing is that the Disney project has zero to do with VR and has not even been mentioned in such context in the original article. It is from the "Disney Imagineers" - the folks developing their amusement park rides. There such device has a clear application potential and is certainly a cool piece of engineering.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

forrestthewoods 3y ago

Strong agree. It’s boring, lazy, and wrong. The Apollo program is notorious for inventing all kinds of technologies as part of the effort. We should celebrate ambitious “moon shot” (or loon shot) efforts. It’s awesome when companies support ambitious and crazy efforts. These projects often pay all kinds of unexpected dividends. In both technological development and people development. Was landing on the moon useful? Not really, no. Was the effort to land on the moon useful? Hell yeah it was. Kudos to all the companies that fund bonafide research.

jackcosgrove 3y ago

I don't even think this is the biggest problem in VR, and it's mostly solved. I used a Quest 2 for the first time the other day. It was a very simple environment, a single room you could walk around in. There was a desk in the middle. I tried to lean my elbow on the desk and almost fell over :/ So kudos to the Disney team.

mft_ 3y ago

One could construct a spectrum, from outright pessimism through 'naysaying' and 'reasonable skepticism', ending up somewhere in the region of constructive challenge and helpful pressure-testing discussion. Would all stations on this spectrum be disappointing to you, or is there a line to be drawn? And if so, how would you explain your reasoning? --- (I ask this not to be awkward, but because I've often mused over something similar myself, when frustrated by the knee-jerk challenge offered by some folks to new or positive ideas.)

khazhoux 3y ago
I agree, it's certainly a spectrum. Theranos comes to mind as one end of that spectrum. But in that case, the naysaying was around the physical impossibility of their core proposition. And, that was not a case where "good enough" was fine. The fact that they kept their supposed invention secret was another good reason to naysay. Here, Disney is demonstrating their result and progress. I didn't see if there was a research paper attached, but I would fully expect it to openly discuss the limitations.

bee_rider 3y ago

I think they are talking not to Disney Research, but to the people excited by Disney Research. I’m of the opinion that we should just let people be excited about things, but I can see the mindset that doesn’t want people to be set up for disappointment.

skybrian 3y ago

It could have hedged a bit, but the article is a pretty detailed explanation of the challenge from someone who has used one before. It's useful information to people who haven't thought it through. So yes, I'm sure the Disney researchers are aware of the problems, which makes me wonder what they're really up to. Is it just another rigged demo? Will they ever ship?

Karellen 3y ago

People Who Say It Cannot Be Done Should Not Interrupt Those Who Are Doing It https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/01/26/doing/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/01/26/doing/

Invictus0 3y ago

This is the "stick my head in the sand" techno-optimist take. The physics of our world defines what is possible, and no amount of "trying to innovate" can overcome, for instance, the poor economics of the Hyperloop or flying cars. This author makes a compelling argument that the physics underlying the human vestibular system is unable to handle the Omni treadmill, even with a technically perfect implementation. You can't just "innovate" past physics.

CBarkleyU 3y ago
Don't use poor economics with physical impossibilities interchangeably. It's something that my late ICE professor did all the time about EVs in the mid 2000s up until his death in the mid 2010s. He was extremely bright, very knowledgeable and pretty much "the" in his little ICE niche and yet he was always talking about how EVs wouldn't be teh future because [physically possible but outlandish thing]. Energy density, price per kwh, weight, battery management, charging infrastructure. All things that he was all to happy with going on national TV to declare that EVs were a pipe dream. Unfortunately he died at a young age and didn't get to see the EV revolution and the Tesla Model Y selling more units than his beloved Golf in Europe. The thing is, and that's my actual point, you can't innovate past physics, but you sure can innovate past poor economics.

lispisok 3y ago

That's what Theranos said

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

nerdjon 3y ago

I have to agree. For me it’s the headline that particularly bothers me. It’s clickbait and cheapens the real points they are making. The real problem here is how the media has latched onto it. When Disney showed it, it felt like they showed and talked about it in an intentional way. People took it and severely exaggerated what it can do. Until we see this technology implemented in something we don’t know what they are really intending to simulate here.

janoc 3y ago

I find it extremely disappointing when someone who clearly knows what they are talking about tries to do a bit of a reality check on something that is clearly being uncritically hyped by the press - and then instead of someone actually refuting their arguments they get accused of "naysaying". Yay. As if laws of physics or biology cared about our attempts to circumvent them or trying really really hard/throwing money at the problem. All that it takes is to work hard and sufficient media hype, right? That's not how things work. E.g. people are trying to build "free energy machines" and perpetuum mobiles since centuries ago - so schools teaching that it is not possible are also "naysayers"? I happen to agree with the author of that blog. I have worked in that field for over 20 years, have tried several of those treadmills (probably most of the ones that made rounds in recent years) - and no, they really don't work outside of very niche applications. Sure, one can make them physically work (aka it somewhat lets you move around) - but the movement is very clearly unnatural to the user, you have to "learn" how to walk on them (and get on and off safely!). Without a restraint of some sort (harness, frame, railing, etc.) they are at a major risk of injury too. Running or jumping on these devices is usually a quick way to the hospital. It is simply not at all a practical solution to locomotion in virtual reality. The funny thing is that the Disney project has zero to do with VR and has not even been mentioned in such context in the original article. It is from the "Disney Imagineers" - the folks developing their amusement park rides. There such device has a clear application potential and is certainly a cool piece of engineering.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]