4 ms·

There's a real chicken-and-egg recursion there: VR headsets are only good for VR games because the only thing made for VR headsets is VR games because VR headse

There's a real chicken-and-egg recursion there: VR headsets are only good for VR games because the only thing made for VR headsets is VR games because VR headsets are only good for VR games because...

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
numpad0 3y ago
But VR only needed DK1 to take off.
zarzavat 3y ago
It’s not chicken and egg, it’s simply the reality about the hardware. Even Apple, with all their resources and a $3500 price tag, could only make a mediocre passthrough on a very heavy headset. The hardware isn’t ready for AR yet. Games are where it’s at for the foreseeable future. Games don’t need passthrough and they don’t need especially high resolution. Look at how much of the vision pro is about giving people a connection to the real world while they are using the device. Games don’t need that, people want to be immersed while they are playing a game.
- GeekyBear 3y ago
  > Even Apple, with all their resources and a $3500 price tag, could only make a mediocre passthrough on a very heavy headset. The hardware isn’t ready for AR yet. Hugo disagrees: > thanks to a high-fidelity passthrough (“mixed reality”) experience with very low latency, excellent distortion correction (much better than Quest 3), and sufficiently high resolution that allows you to even see your phone/computer screen through the passthrough cameras (i.e. without taking your headset off). Even though there are major gaps left to be filled in future versions of the Vision Pro hardware (which I’ll get into later), this level of connection with the real world — or “presence” as VR folks like to call it — is something that no other VR headset has ever come even close to delivering and so far was only remotely possible with AR headsets (ex: HoloLens and Magic Leap) which feature physically transparent displays but have their own significant limitations in many other areas.
  - zarzavat 3y ago
    I admit I don’t own one of these things but reviewers seem to be unanimous that the passthrough on the Vision Pro is both the best of any headset on the market, yet also very mediocre compared to seeing things through your own eyes, especially in low light. Given that it’s designed to be used indoors, poor low light performance is a big problem. There’s a latency/acuity tradeoff whereby the more post-processing Apple applies to improve acuity, the worse the latency and more nausea they create. It’s going to require a lot more research into hardware post-processing.
    - jandrese 3y ago
      Seems like the best passthrough was a fairly easy goal to achieve since nobody else was even really trying. Heck, the Quest applies quality degrading filters to passthrough video (add noise, remove chroma) to discourage using it.
      - dTal 3y ago
        Filters to discourage use? Do you have a source for this? Surely they are just low-res, infrared cameras.
        wkat4242 3y ago
        They probably mean the quest 3 which has RGB cams unlike the prior quests 1 and 2. I also disagree it would have been artificially muddled to discourage usage. If that were the case they'd not have presented it so proudly. It's just the kind of cam setup that $500 buys (in fact it probably is a bit subsidised)

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

numpad0 3y ago

But VR only needed DK1 to take off.

zarzavat 3y ago

It’s not chicken and egg, it’s simply the reality about the hardware. Even Apple, with all their resources and a $3500 price tag, could only make a mediocre passthrough on a very heavy headset. The hardware isn’t ready for AR yet. Games are where it’s at for the foreseeable future. Games don’t need passthrough and they don’t need especially high resolution. Look at how much of the vision pro is about giving people a connection to the real world while they are using the device. Games don’t need that, people want to be immersed while they are playing a game.

GeekyBear 3y ago
> Even Apple, with all their resources and a $3500 price tag, could only make a mediocre passthrough on a very heavy headset. The hardware isn’t ready for AR yet. Hugo disagrees: > thanks to a high-fidelity passthrough (“mixed reality”) experience with very low latency, excellent distortion correction (much better than Quest 3), and sufficiently high resolution that allows you to even see your phone/computer screen through the passthrough cameras (i.e. without taking your headset off). Even though there are major gaps left to be filled in future versions of the Vision Pro hardware (which I’ll get into later), this level of connection with the real world — or “presence” as VR folks like to call it — is something that no other VR headset has ever come even close to delivering and so far was only remotely possible with AR headsets (ex: HoloLens and Magic Leap) which feature physically transparent displays but have their own significant limitations in many other areas.
- zarzavat 3y ago
  I admit I don’t own one of these things but reviewers seem to be unanimous that the passthrough on the Vision Pro is both the best of any headset on the market, yet also very mediocre compared to seeing things through your own eyes, especially in low light. Given that it’s designed to be used indoors, poor low light performance is a big problem. There’s a latency/acuity tradeoff whereby the more post-processing Apple applies to improve acuity, the worse the latency and more nausea they create. It’s going to require a lot more research into hardware post-processing.
  - jandrese 3y ago
    Seems like the best passthrough was a fairly easy goal to achieve since nobody else was even really trying. Heck, the Quest applies quality degrading filters to passthrough video (add noise, remove chroma) to discourage using it.
    - dTal 3y ago
      Filters to discourage use? Do you have a source for this? Surely they are just low-res, infrared cameras.
      - wkat4242 3y ago
        They probably mean the quest 3 which has RGB cams unlike the prior quests 1 and 2. I also disagree it would have been artificially muddled to discourage usage. If that were the case they'd not have presented it so proudly. It's just the kind of cam setup that $500 buys (in fact it probably is a bit subsidised)