3 ms·

we are decades away. its why carmack quit to pursue other avenues. the chasm between the state of the art (gaming) and where VR currently is (essentially, mobil

we are decades away. its why carmack quit to pursue other avenues. the chasm between the state of the art (gaming) and where VR currently is (essentially, mobile) is too big not seem shitty in comparison. The then-recent proliferation of Arm and SoC made the industry think it was possible, they even convinced Carmack, but the bandwidth just isnt there. The innovation required on the software side is massive - so theyll just wait for hardware to get better.

acka 1y ago
Would you care to explain what you mean by "the bandwidth just isn't there"? VR is more than just mobile devices; all currently available VR headsets can also do PC VR, whether via a wired DisplayPort link or a wired or wireless network connection. As I see it, the only absolute upper limit for VR is the resolution and frame rate of the VR headset displays, as well as the quality of the optical stack. Rendering of the graphics can be done by anything from a single high-end GPU in a PC up to a beefy server in the cloud—although in that case, of course, network latency and video compression will impact the experience.
- dijit 1y ago
  realistically speaking; wired VR is much too much faff. unless it’s a niche thing (simulation, high end gaming), the future is undoubtedly free headsets like the Quest 3 and Apple Vision- for convenience in handling and setup, conformity and freedom of use.
- skeezyjefferson 1y ago
  > Would you care to explain what you mean by "the bandwidth just isn't there" VR needs to at least match the bleeding edge in graphics, which is desktop GPUs. Those desktop GPUs have large wattage and cooling demands. Therefore wireless VR headsets must use the mobile or laptop versions of those GPUs, which perform worse than the desktop equivalent. On top of this VR needs to draw the same scene twice (one for each eyeball). I cannot see how VR will ever overcome this with current hardware. They need to be able to put a desktop GPU in the wireless headset without needing to power it from AC, and thats just for starters because didnt Carmack say we need something like 240hz and 4k+ (for each eyeball) for indiscernible photo realism? Id say were maybe 10-20 years away from just having the GPU power to do this, let alone making software for it
jayd16 1y ago
The tech is 100% there for a fancy video call. The major issue is, beyond that, the tech is quite expensive to run and build and despite enabling novel experiences they aren't compelling enough to reach critical mass and justify the cost. The work to make or even use a proper VR app or game is so so much more than the flat equivalent and there are only some added utility for spatial input. Tech can certainly improve some of that... But a VR video call is solved... You can do it mostly out of the box with an AVP but who is going to buy a $3k device for yourself and anyone you want to call and then have a couple calls and never use it because its not worth the hassle to strap it on.
- dylan604 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - jayd16 1y ago
    This comment feels pretty high emotion for how much it didn't seem to actually read what was written.

acka 1y ago

Would you care to explain what you mean by "the bandwidth just isn't there"? VR is more than just mobile devices; all currently available VR headsets can also do PC VR, whether via a wired DisplayPort link or a wired or wireless network connection. As I see it, the only absolute upper limit for VR is the resolution and frame rate of the VR headset displays, as well as the quality of the optical stack. Rendering of the graphics can be done by anything from a single high-end GPU in a PC up to a beefy server in the cloud—although in that case, of course, network latency and video compression will impact the experience.

dijit 1y ago
realistically speaking; wired VR is much too much faff. unless it’s a niche thing (simulation, high end gaming), the future is undoubtedly free headsets like the Quest 3 and Apple Vision- for convenience in handling and setup, conformity and freedom of use.
skeezyjefferson 1y ago
> Would you care to explain what you mean by "the bandwidth just isn't there" VR needs to at least match the bleeding edge in graphics, which is desktop GPUs. Those desktop GPUs have large wattage and cooling demands. Therefore wireless VR headsets must use the mobile or laptop versions of those GPUs, which perform worse than the desktop equivalent. On top of this VR needs to draw the same scene twice (one for each eyeball). I cannot see how VR will ever overcome this with current hardware. They need to be able to put a desktop GPU in the wireless headset without needing to power it from AC, and thats just for starters because didnt Carmack say we need something like 240hz and 4k+ (for each eyeball) for indiscernible photo realism? Id say were maybe 10-20 years away from just having the GPU power to do this, let alone making software for it

jayd16 1y ago

The tech is 100% there for a fancy video call. The major issue is, beyond that, the tech is quite expensive to run and build and despite enabling novel experiences they aren't compelling enough to reach critical mass and justify the cost. The work to make or even use a proper VR app or game is so so much more than the flat equivalent and there are only some added utility for spatial input. Tech can certainly improve some of that... But a VR video call is solved... You can do it mostly out of the box with an AVP but who is going to buy a $3k device for yourself and anyone you want to call and then have a couple calls and never use it because its not worth the hassle to strap it on.

dylan604 1y ago
[flagged]
- jayd16 1y ago
  This comment feels pretty high emotion for how much it didn't seem to actually read what was written.