4 ms·

Well, you can use your mac's screen inside the vision pro, but I've read the resolution for that is weirdly low, QHD. Meta isn't really opening up their headse

Well, you can use your mac's screen inside the vision pro, but I've read the resolution for that is weirdly low, QHD. Meta isn't really opening up their headset, since the whole point of that adventure for them was to have their 'iphone' type kingdom. Our best bet might just be Microsoft but they gave up on mixed reality windows, and Idk if they're really gearing up to jump into this product space. I'm fascinated in the idea of Vision pro, not sure I'm ready to shell out for what is basically just a really great movie watching experience. I can see the movie pretty well on my 4k tv, and I'm not sure the improvement is worth the cash.

ipsum2 3y ago
Side loading apps on the quest is pretty simple using the aptly named SideQuest, it only requires a one time 15 minute set up. Definitely a lot easier than trying to do this on an iPhone/iPad/iQuest.
- PaulHoule 3y ago
  Meta Quest also has full support for WebXR which lets you bypass all the app store BS. You can use this framework to make worlds visible on most XR headsets as well as desktop and mobile https://aframe.io/ https://aframe.io/ My understanding is that Apple is making excuses about being slow to support WebXR. As much as the media has benn fixated about the failed Horizon Worlds (which is a very interesting story that I've never seen elaborated from a software dev's perspective) you might not know that the successful model for Quest is the same as publishing on other game consoles. The market for single-player games for MQ is really healthy but multiplayer games are really thin on the ground which makes the "metaverse" idea look pretty dodgy. I mean, there is the multiplayer VRChat but you're going to have to rub shoulders with weaboos and furries which keeps other obnoxious people away.
  - Jcowell 3y ago
    The VisionPro supports WebXR is safari https://www.roadtovr.com/apple-vision-pro-webxr-support-safari-model/amp/ https://www.roadtovr.com/apple-vision-pro-webxr-support-safa...
  - filoleg 3y ago
    > My understanding is that Apple is making excuses about being slow to support WebXR. While this is true for the desktop and iOS/iPadOS Safari, their VisionOS version of Safari comes with full WebXR support. Which was confirmed explicitly in this Apple’s tech talk[0] and by the fact that it is indeed supported in the VisionOS simulator (which has been available for quite a while already). 0. https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2023/10279/ https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2023/10279/ (ctrl+f “webxr”on the transcript, as I don’t know the exact timestamps, but I confirmed by doing ctrl+f myself)
deergomoo 3y ago
> I've read the resolution for that is weirdly low, QHD This is something I've been wondering about. The Vision Pro's displays are 4K per eye, for the entire field of view. The monitor I'm sitting in front of is 5K, and takes up quite a bit less than my full field of view. Surely the virtual Mac screen (and everything, I guess) is gonna be substantially lower resolution than traditional high-DPI screens at normal viewing distances?
- Synaesthesia 3y ago
  It’s going to be presented as a 5k Retina display to your Mac, with a 2550x1600 at 2x rendering, downscaled somewhat to a bit over 4k of so. Therefore it will appear kinda like a retina imac. 27 display but not quite as sharp.
  - SirMaster 3y ago
    Seems like it would be less than that though? Depends on your typical FOV to your monitor. If the headset manages to be 4000 pixels wide, but that is filling say 110 degree FOV, then if your virtual display is 44 degree FOV, it's only going to be represented by about 1600 pixels wide. 4000/(110/44) = 1600. I wish we knew what the actual resolution of this headset is and what the FOV is. They say it's 23 MP total, so if the screens were square that would be 3391x3391. If the FOV is 100 and our virtual screen was 50, then the screen would be 1695 pixels across. And finally you lose some effective resolution because of the nature of the virtual screen being not aligned perfectly with the headset's panel. Since your head would be slightly askew in relation to the virtual monitor due to head tracking. https://kguttag.com/2023/08/05/apple-vision-pro-part-5a-why-monitor-replacement-is-ridiculous/ https://kguttag.com/2023/08/05/apple-vision-pro-part-5a-why-...
    - harpastum 3y ago
      I think your math is correct, and it will be very limited compared to a real-life retina screen, but I think there's also a perceived resolution increase from having binocular vision and moving. If you hold your head steady while looking through a window with a plastic screen on it, things outside are obstructed. If you move your head slightly back and forth and focus in the distance, the screen pretty much disappears. Your brain can do some motion smoothing to determine the "actual" content, even if it's sampled. I'm not sure how you could quantify it, and it only helps a relatively small amount, but it's there.

ipsum2 3y ago

Side loading apps on the quest is pretty simple using the aptly named SideQuest, it only requires a one time 15 minute set up. Definitely a lot easier than trying to do this on an iPhone/iPad/iQuest.

PaulHoule 3y ago
Meta Quest also has full support for WebXR which lets you bypass all the app store BS. You can use this framework to make worlds visible on most XR headsets as well as desktop and mobile https://aframe.io/ https://aframe.io/ My understanding is that Apple is making excuses about being slow to support WebXR. As much as the media has benn fixated about the failed Horizon Worlds (which is a very interesting story that I've never seen elaborated from a software dev's perspective) you might not know that the successful model for Quest is the same as publishing on other game consoles. The market for single-player games for MQ is really healthy but multiplayer games are really thin on the ground which makes the "metaverse" idea look pretty dodgy. I mean, there is the multiplayer VRChat but you're going to have to rub shoulders with weaboos and furries which keeps other obnoxious people away.
- Jcowell 3y ago
  The VisionPro supports WebXR is safari https://www.roadtovr.com/apple-vision-pro-webxr-support-safari-model/amp/ https://www.roadtovr.com/apple-vision-pro-webxr-support-safa...
- filoleg 3y ago
  > My understanding is that Apple is making excuses about being slow to support WebXR. While this is true for the desktop and iOS/iPadOS Safari, their VisionOS version of Safari comes with full WebXR support. Which was confirmed explicitly in this Apple’s tech talk[0] and by the fact that it is indeed supported in the VisionOS simulator (which has been available for quite a while already). 0. https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2023/10279/ https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2023/10279/ (ctrl+f “webxr”on the transcript, as I don’t know the exact timestamps, but I confirmed by doing ctrl+f myself)

deergomoo 3y ago

> I've read the resolution for that is weirdly low, QHD This is something I've been wondering about. The Vision Pro's displays are 4K per eye, for the entire field of view. The monitor I'm sitting in front of is 5K, and takes up quite a bit less than my full field of view. Surely the virtual Mac screen (and everything, I guess) is gonna be substantially lower resolution than traditional high-DPI screens at normal viewing distances?

Synaesthesia 3y ago
It’s going to be presented as a 5k Retina display to your Mac, with a 2550x1600 at 2x rendering, downscaled somewhat to a bit over 4k of so. Therefore it will appear kinda like a retina imac. 27 display but not quite as sharp.
- SirMaster 3y ago
  Seems like it would be less than that though? Depends on your typical FOV to your monitor. If the headset manages to be 4000 pixels wide, but that is filling say 110 degree FOV, then if your virtual display is 44 degree FOV, it's only going to be represented by about 1600 pixels wide. 4000/(110/44) = 1600. I wish we knew what the actual resolution of this headset is and what the FOV is. They say it's 23 MP total, so if the screens were square that would be 3391x3391. If the FOV is 100 and our virtual screen was 50, then the screen would be 1695 pixels across. And finally you lose some effective resolution because of the nature of the virtual screen being not aligned perfectly with the headset's panel. Since your head would be slightly askew in relation to the virtual monitor due to head tracking. https://kguttag.com/2023/08/05/apple-vision-pro-part-5a-why-monitor-replacement-is-ridiculous/ https://kguttag.com/2023/08/05/apple-vision-pro-part-5a-why-...
  - harpastum 3y ago
    I think your math is correct, and it will be very limited compared to a real-life retina screen, but I think there's also a perceived resolution increase from having binocular vision and moving. If you hold your head steady while looking through a window with a plastic screen on it, things outside are obstructed. If you move your head slightly back and forth and focus in the distance, the screen pretty much disappears. Your brain can do some motion smoothing to determine the "actual" content, even if it's sampled. I'm not sure how you could quantify it, and it only helps a relatively small amount, but it's there.